by Damozel | The endorsement, so-called, which you can read here, can be summed up as follows: If you must vote for a Democrat, vote for Obama! He's not "Team Clinton!" I imagine this "endorsement" will be quite welcome to Hillary. Their approval wouldn't have done her any favors. It's really not fair on Obama, though.
Dismayingly, some of what The New York Post says about Bill Clinton's detrimental effect on Hillary's campaign, though naturally very nastily framed, isn't so different from what I've been saying myself. Fond as I am of Bill Clinton, his "antics" (their word) certainly tarnished my excitement over the prospect of a woman in charge. Though I'm relieved that he is now going to back off, he's done plenty of damage.
The New York Post says:
[Obama's] opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.
After eight years of Bush, the above strikes me as risible. But there is a grain of truth in it.
What I remember is the endless attempts of the Republicans to bring Clinton down, the polarization and ongoing nastiness, and the embittered state of political debate. There was plenty of moral muddling on the part of the very Republicans who were instrumental in Clinton's impeachment. I'm not going to name names and you can look them up yourself if you want to see how many of those who helped to bring him down have subsequently been revealed as at least as "morally muddled" as Bill Clinton. Since the Clinton years, we've seen scandal after scandal among Republicans.
But the question I ask myself is: can I stand another eight years of the sort of self-serving hypocritical nonsense we had to put up with from Republicans during the first Clinton Administration?
Does America really want to go through all that once again?
It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.
That much has become painfully apparent. (New York Post).
Possibly this is true, and it's certainly something to consider. I even agree with this:
Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin....
Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like. (New York Post)
This has nearly broken my heart. Once it became clear that Edwards wasn't going to be the nominee, I really wanted to get behind Hillary. Nothing against Obama, but I don't feel I really know him yet. I'd have loved a Clinton/Obama ticket. I was looking forward to a civilized contest between two great candidates.
I don't agree that the Clintons "injected race into the debate"----I think that came from the Obama camp. (This is my opinion after looking at all the evidence, so don't waste your energy trying to prove me wrong). But Bill Clinton's angry advocacy certainly changed the tone of the debate. The upshot is that I like both candidates less. I almost walked away without voting at all.
I'm glad he's backing off, and I'm just praying that the damage can be undone. I'm not all that sanguine about it. The biggest argument in favor of Obama now is Bill Clinton's demonstration of just how divisive he can be.
Anyway, so for once I agree (partly) with The New York Post. But the "endorsement" itself is beyond hilarious. Talk about your back-handed "slaps." Look:
Now, Obama is not without flaws.
For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.
His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.
And, again, he is not Team Clinton.
That counts for a very great deal. (New York Post)
I'm sure he's really grateful to have the approval of the Great Mind[s] who penned this ringing profession of faith.
RELATED POSTS
Kennedy Family Divided over Hillary and Barack (update)
Watching Hillary and Obama Watch the State of the Union Address
A One-Minute Primary Primer for Dummies
To Obama Supporters Accusing the Clintons of Blasphemy: A Counterblast
The only candidate worth voting for is Ron Paul....otherwise America will join the North American Union and loose everything.
Posted by: Rockne | January 31, 2008 at 06:20 PM
Ron Paul is the only candidate who believes in health freedom. All the other candidates would support the status quo in health care today: Big Pharma dominance, FDA censorship, monopoly prices in medicine and the assault and imprisonment of individuals who dare to tell the truth about the healing properties of the superfoods and nutritional supplements they sell. The other candidates may talk about "reforms," but all they're really talking about is a shell game of shifting who pays for all disease in this country.
Only Ron Paul believes in genuine health freedom. He's the creator of the Health Freedom Protection Act, a bill that would reestablish Free Speech provisions for makers of superfoods, herbs, nutritional supplements and other natural remedies. Under the HFPA, those individuals would be able to state scientifically-validated facts about the health benefits of their products right on the bottle! Today, the FDA doesn't allow that. All truthful statements about nutritional supplements are presently censored! (It's a way to protect Big Pharma and keep the American people ignorant about how plant-based medicines can prevent and even cure degenerative disease.)
Posted by: Rockne White | February 01, 2008 at 09:22 AM