Why all the Hillary bashing?
Every now and then I like to tune into one of the many right wing radio personalities just to see where the right is coming from. Lately when I tune in, they are all talking about the same thing....Hillary. And their not just talking, they are taking her apart limb by limb. I'm trying to figure out the rationale here. She's only a front runner, why can't they wait until the primaries are over? Are they really that afraid of her? Do they want her to run because they feel she would be the weakest candidate against their guy? I honestly do not know, but what is apparent in all of this is the fact that they seem to be operating from some higher authority. Who tells these guys what to talk about? Who gives them their talking points? For years I have noticed that they all seem to use the same arguments everyday and pound on the same issues, using the same spin. Coincidence? Maybe.
So I'm curious....what is so evil about Hillary? I can understand the right disagreeing with her positions, after all, she is a liberal. But what terrible thing has she done to this country? Why can't the fear mongers just back off and let the primaries run their course? Personally, I would rather see Edwards or Obama win the democratic nomination, but really, anybody, democrat or republican, will do a better job than Bush has done.
Comments
i'm an Obama fan myself - but i don't know if anyone could do a better job than bush - giulani is a bit scarry!
Posted by: meagan dixon | October 31, 2007 12:12 PM
Most presidential candidate criticism is premature and based in fear, I would guess. Hillary Clinton appears to be the front-runner and therefore the biggest threat to those on the other side of the fence. Meagan's comment reflects this perfectly in her dislike of Giullianni, the republican front-runner. We don't know them so we fear them.
With Clinton and Giullianni, we do have some reference to know what they will do in office. One has served a term in the US Senate while the other has served as Mayor of New York City. Both are leadership posts of great significance and give us some insight.
Candidates like Obama or Romney we seem less sure of. Who are they? What are their real intentions? Obama especially has received a lot of "johnny come lately" popularity (everyone loves the new guy in town) but that has not given him enough of a boost to overcome the Clinton machine yet.
It is curious though, that every democrat I know claims to prefer Obama over Hillary, yet she is way ahead in the polls. It makes one wonder if democratic voters have a real voice in their own party, or if candidates are picked for them by some sort of old-style political machine?
Posted by: Dane Langston | November 1, 2007 05:00 PM
Dane,
I think it's interesting you assumed I don't know anything about Giuliani. What made you think my comment was about fear on an unknown, and not about knowledge of his politics and fear of what he could potentially do in office?
And this "Johnny come lately" what dose that mean? Obama has served just as much time in the senate as Clinton. He is not new to the scene. But he doesn't have the political experience that Hillary has - or the political backing. She simply has more experience playing the game. And she's not a bad candidate - I just agree with Obama on more issues than I do Hillary. And in the end, isn't that what voting is about?
It would be offensive, if it wasn't so funny, that you suggest some sort of old-style political machine as the culprit of our political front-runners. I am quite sure an old-style anything would pick a strong white man - not a woman or black man.
Posted by: meagan dixon | November 6, 2007 02:09 PM