Monday, September 25, 2006

Enough Bill Clinton already

Look,I know alot of people are nostalgic for Bill, and considering what we're stuck with at the moment I can see why.

I don't know about anyone else,but I find it rather alarming that there's even a push to get another Clinton elected. How much of America's history do we really want claimed by two political dynasties? I personally would find it remarkably refreshing to have someone in the White House without the last name Bush or Clinton. Both families had their shots at this,and look where we are. Stop it.

If Hillary gets the Democratic Presidential nomination we will lose. Why? Because America is a bunch of babies who are not ready for a female President,that's why. And can you honestly stomach at least 4 yrs of yet another Mellon Scaife funded 24/7 round of mud and shit slinging(were she to happen to win)? Baggage people, Baggage. Don't we have enough of that now?

Bill Clinton IS NOT A PROGRESSIVE. That word is being attached to the Clinton name and it's bullshit. In fact,if one were to be accurate,he's probably more of a moderate conservative with some liberal leanings. The man is trying to do some good work with his Global Initiative, but he's WAY too close to the Bush family for my comfort level. Let him stick to humanitarian work,it suits him. Hillary is a decent Senator I suppose,but again, she's not a liberal and she's not even close to Progressive. Moneyed interests seem to win out with the Clintons,and the sooner people quit pining away for the glory days of the Clinton White House,the better off we'll all be in the end. Bill was a decent president,not our best,but not our worst either. He definitely left the place in better shape than it was when he got there, which should be the goal of any President. I give him props for that much. And BTW people,the Global Initiative is why his face is all over the TeeVee these days, he's not there to do us any favors. There's nothing wrong with that,this initiative has some admirable goals,but could we stop with tying hopes and dreams to the guy? Please?

I'd love to see this time and energy devoted to more truly Progressive candidates. And with all due respect to Senator Clinton, if she gets the party nomination, our chances of taking back the White House will drop like a rock off a cliff. Unless the GOP runs such a stinker of a candidate people turn out in droves to vote against them. Ok,at this point any GOP member is a stinker,but some would be far worse than others. America is too confused and immature to accept a candidate that's not a white guy right now. Does that bring me any comfort or joy? Nope. It's 2006 for gods sake,we should be over that crap by now. But the fact is,the country is not over it,and it will probably take at least a decade or more before we're even close.

I have no doubt that the Clintons have alot of political experience and wisdom to share, they're both smart,fairly savvy,and Bill,when speaking on behalf of the CGI and it's mission has become quite the Statesman. He also seems to have a fairly extensive knowledge of American history, which puts him WAY ahead of most right wingers these days. Hillary is no dummy either,but kids,she's not a Liberal,she is a moderate conservative with liberal leanings like her hubby. I'm not against that political stance ,but too often that stance capitulates to right wing agendas. That is something I have a problem with.

And let's be honest about something else too. Our voices are not being heard inside the Beltway. And they won't be until there's a push to remove the big money from the political process. That push has to come from OUTSIDE,it will NEVER happen from the inside out,NEVER. Think about it,Congress is who votes for campaign finance reform,they vote their own pay raises, and every one of them benefits from keeping things the way they are. Money is a powerful motivator. Once people get a taste of that,it's hard to pull back from it. Along with this system being money driven,we're now seeing a huge transfer of wealth, and no one is doing a damned thing about it. Why? Think about it,who passes the laws that allow that to happen?

Progressive politics,in the true sense of the word is The Voice of the People,you and me. Grassroots,netroots,whatever the hell you wanna call it,it is what it is. Anyone who cannot or will not embrace that and listen to us and then ACT on that is NOT a Progressive. Politicians listen to consultants and advisors and focus groups and marketers,not us. That's the problem,and until it's addressed,America will continue to decline. It's time for something new,someone new.

Of course this is just my opinion,I could be wrong.

Updated to Add: If you have never read Paul Wellstone's Conscience of a Liberal,find a copy and spend an hour or three reading it,it's not a thick book. One part that grabbed me was when Paul talked about money and what happens for the love of money on Capitol Hill. He found it humiliating and disgusting to have to pander for funding, and proposed making campaign finance reform a state level issue first. What Senators do to protect their perks is disgusting, the book gives you a peek into what goes on when the subject of gifts,contributions,and campaign reforms is discussed amongst our nation's Senators. If states could pass laws(easier for regular folks to get involved and raise hell too on the state/local level)with clear and strict guidelines,you can impose those same laws on your federal level elected officials,at least while they're pandering to get elected in your State. We vote them in or out based on lots of dumb criteria,why not look at their ethics;what they DO to get elected and stay there? Clever people could make an issue of that,especially if you frame it as an issue of cleaning up corruption and giving the people more of a voice. Any elected official against that is going to have a rough time justifiying that to people who work for a living. I'm just sayin'......

No comments: