Saturday, January 05, 2008

Hillary Clinton: Agent For Change or More of the Same?

I know. There are lots of us out there who like Hillary Clinton because of Bill; that in getting Hillary to the White House we have a two-fer.

And there is something to that.

But when I think of how my guy, John Edwards, has stood up to the lobbyists and told them that their money is no good in his campaign, and I see how he has been attacked, subliminally, but attacked nonetheless, by those same interests, I want to ask myself – do I want more of the same? Do I want my country to advance itself further down the path of government by the corporate interests?

I commented to a friend the other night that Hillary Clinton has the best of both worlds. That she can on the one hand, bill herself as the agent of change in this election, and then for those who are disturbed by change, to bill herself as the person who can hit the ground running on Day One because she has been there before. That is, a candy-coated pill for business as usual. I am not so sure anymore.

I am not so sure that Hillary Clinton can, out of one side of her mouth, express herself as the progressive candidate for change, and out of the other side, tout her experience as the First Lady as enticement back to the good old days. Those old days, as I recall, weren’t all that good.

Here is what I mean. Take a look at this YouTube embed and tell me whether this is the agent of change we are all looking for.

What I see in this video is an allusion to fear. That the presidency in 2008 is the Democrats to lose if we don’t nominate the right person. The person who can fight off the evil Republican juggernaut.

I don’t really care who the Republicans throw up against us in November. I am pretty sure that, even with all of the machinations that they come up with to steal the election, they won’t be able to overcome the sheer numbers who have had enough with Republican autocratic rule.

And that’s me talking: pessimist me.


Anonymous said...

I understand and appreciate your views on the current trend towards corporatism and away from democracy. Not sure anyone is really running though to change this direction, only to conquer the "gold" in this massive pay-to-play system.

Anonymous said...

Didn't Edwards (D) and Paul (R) make this an issue in their races?

Hal said...

Yes, I believe both did. Edwards' point is that corporations are ruling our lives and getting rich in the doing.

Paul's point is that if we were all Libertarians life would be so much better.