Friday, September 16, 2011

Hillary Gets Last Laugh: Shame On All The Rest!

And now this, from Bloomberg:
The most popular national political figure in America today is one who was rejected by her own party three years ago: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans hold a favorable view of her and one-third are suffering a form of buyer’s remorse, saying the U.S. would be better off now if she had become president in 2008 instead of Barack Obama.
Is anybody -- anybody! -- surprised by this?
I'm certainly not.
It was clear to me right from the start that Hillary Clinton was far, far more qualified to lead our nation than Barack Obama. But leave it to Democrats to blow it all on what they perceived as a perfect political romance -- themselves and a totally ill-equipped upstart who knew how to talk his way (with a TelePrompter, no less) into office.
The old adage remains true: Democrats fall in love; Republicans fall in line.
And in 2008, the Democrats ditched solid, experienced, sensible, loyal Hillary for their new love. Yeah -- romance really did trump reason.
These are the people who gave you Barack Obama -- fickle, trendy, often vacuous and way, way too easy to impress. This is the wine 'n cheese and Hollywood crowd (along with cadres from the Birkenstock Brigade) who handed the Democrat Party -- and America! -- over to Barry Otero Hussein Obama (or whoever he was or is), These devotees pretend they're oh soooo intelligent but once again showed themselves to be just plain dumb.
Now, a lot of them are apparently having buyers' remorse, Awwwww, whata shame.
Nah, I don't feel sorry for them. Instead, I have a message for them: Deal with it. You picked your mate, now live with him.
Of course I do feel sorry for America.
So, for all of the rest of us -- those of us who knew better, right from the beginning -- I say this: We now know what we have to do for ourselves, our families and our country. And we're ready to do it. Avanti!


Tom said...

Ah, the tired old “mock the name” bit, with an ever-so-slight wink to the birthers. Typical Limbaugh/Hannity-esque ad-hominem attack tactics.


But that aside, the notion of an attack on the Democrats for not selecting the “most reasonable” (or qualified, or whatever adjective you choose to insert) coming from the side of the aisle that is giving no consideration to someone like John Huntsman in favor of the reincarnation of George W. Bush in the form of Rick Perry takes the pot-kettle analogy to a remarkable new low. But of course Huntsman will go nowhere—he’s not staging prayer rallies, attacking well-established scientific principles, flat-out lying about his so-called record or trying to deny basic rights to those who don’t fit the evangelical’s desired profile.


I was a Hillary voter. And proud of it. But the process worked the way it has worked, in both parties. I don’t believe the country would be in fundamentally different shape were she to have ultimately won, as the steaming pile of cow manure left behind by the last administration wasn’t going to change regardless of who took over on that cold January day.  I would have voted for her had she won the primary, but she didn’t. So I have zero, not an ounce, of remorse, about not voting for John McCain, nor will I have an ounce of remorse about voting for Obama again, and not whichever tea party crackpot the GOP puts up this time. 


Call it a lesser of two evils approach, call it the best available option approach, call it being resigned to pragmatism.  There is no candidate in either party who matches my views across the board. Frankly, I doubt there’s anyone who’s NOT a candidate who does. So I have to go down the list and decide which of the two candidates matches most views.


Given the GOP’s opposition to equal rights, and insistence on injecting itself into the private lives of citizens—the very antithesis of so-called conservatism—there is no question which party I will cast a ballot for. Show me a GOP-er who will respect privacy and equality, who will not dismantle basic social protections, and who is capable of spouting something other than the long-disproved notion that just cutting taxes on higher incomes will make everything peachy, and I’ll listen. Instead, we get amateur hour with platitudes that make the slogans of the Obama campaign look like Nobel-winning physics by comparison. (Had any of the pabulum the current crop spouts been remotely true, we wouldn’t be in the ditch we find ourselves in the first place). Not a one of them will actually make the bad situation better.  Different is hardly a synonym for better.

Dan Cirucci said...

Thanks for your comments, "Tom."
You certainly can't be accused of not having a strong view on the subject.
Though, I must say this is the first time I've ever heard the mutterings of the Obama campaign compared to "Nobel-winning physics." As I recall, Obama's entire platform consisted of "Hope" and "Change." Now, we're hoping for little more than a few pieces of change in out pockets after Obamanomics (such as it is) is finished with us.
But, go ahead: Hold fast to your views and keep bashing those who have been out of office for 32 months now.
We won't try to dissuade you -- not only because you're amply entitled to your views but also because we're not likely to waste time on anyone who does not appear to be persuadable.

Tom said...

It would appear neither of us would be persuadable, would it not? For that matter, much of the country is not persuadable, being deeply entrenched in views seldom casting votes for "the other" side. Would you really give serious consideration to voting for a democrat for a national office?

No, the current front runners cannot persuade me. John Huntsman could, if he didn't capitulate to the religious crowd, but he seems to be less likely to succeed than the barista at Starbucks down the street.

Dan Cirucci said...

Actually, I remain quite persuadable.
And I've voted for quite a few Democrats -- including recently.
I was always open to the possibility of voting for Hillary.
You see, I'm not a purist.
I'm pro life but I've voted for pro-choice candidates. I crossed party lines (at that time) to vote for Reagan. Giuliani is a moderate (actually quite liberal in the GOP) and I supported him for president. I don't hold anyone to a litmus test.
I measure the person, the issues and the policy and needs of the country against the times.
The most important thing to me is leadership. I look for strong, distinctive personalities who know who they are and are comfortable in their own skin -- people who can inspire others, make decisions and lead; people who also have good instincts and sound judgement.
And yes, I do have remorse about voting for certain people at certain times. I should have never voted for Carter the first time. And I should have forgiven Ford the pardon of Nixon.
But I don't wallow in regret, though it IS important to admit a mistake.
And vitriol and bitterness do not appeal to me.
One other thing: I find smugness to be very, very distasteful.