Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sorry, bill_bill, you've seen this before, but I thought it needed to spread a little further. Today's Molly Ivins column is titled "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president". She lays out her reasons, which I agree with one hundred percent. Set aside her waffling on the issues; she has such a huge target on her that you can hear the drool hitting the pavement from the Republicans who can't wait to line her up in their sights. Mind you, all those Arkansas scandals from Bill Clinton's presidency still aren't quite resolved, and they'll come back. I mean, of course the Republicans will dig up or invent Democratic scandals, that's just what they do; why make it easy for them?



( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
Feb. 13th, 2006 10:49 pm (UTC)
On the upside, the GOP folks don't currently have any name candidates.... yet.

(So help me, the first one of my neighbors with a "Draft Jeb" sign or sticker gets a lawn job with my truck.....)
Feb. 15th, 2006 02:37 am (UTC)
The Republicans are being a little slow in rushing to the front, but maybe it would be unseemly for them to start campaigning now. I keep hearing Mitt Romney's name (governor of Massachusetts); he's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.

Fortunately, so far Jeb Bush says he doesn't want to be president. Of course, Hillary says she doesn't want to run, either. I don't know if you can believe that from anyone at the moment.

(Well, ok, *I* don't want to be president, and you can take that to the bank.)
Feb. 14th, 2006 01:14 am (UTC)
The "I hate Hillary" club is just too powerful for anyone to risk it. We need to get the current jerks out of office, not make it easier for them to stay in.
Feb. 15th, 2006 02:41 am (UTC)
Absolutely. Even if she had good, firm stands on the issues, she'll draw a whole lot of cannon fire just for being who she is as a person. It's unfortunate, but then I think the Clintons have partly brought that on themselves, anyway.

Trouble is, I don't know if the Democrats have any names that big at the moment, aside from Gore and Kerry. Even though both almost won (Gore won the popular vote, of course), they're not exactly inspiring choices.

Oh, for the resurrection of Harry Truman.....
(Deleted comment)
Feb. 15th, 2006 02:56 am (UTC)
A complete moderate with a tiny bit of liberalism would still be considerably to the left of the Republicans, who seem to have (at least) partly sold their party's soul to a very reactionary segment of the party. When I reflect on how, 26 or 27 years ago, I was nervous about how devout Jimmy Carter is... now I wish he was running again. At least his brand of religion is focused on doing the right thing for people. The Republicans, on the other hand, are either pandering to the religious Right in order to retain power, or else they're serious about a theocracy that I really don't want to see. Either way, it's not good.

As for the Democrats, you're absolutely right, they need to decide on a direction and then all go in that direction -- almost any direction will do, frankly. Dithering like they are just leaves them incapable of inspiring trust or a following. Americans may disagree on what we should do, but everyone here wants something done, not just thought about and waffled on.

Thing is, it's more important to the world who we elect than we in America realise. That's not puffed-up self-importance, unfortunately. I wish the U.S. was a bit more laid-back and less hands-on with other countries (to put it mildly), but until we are, who leads us is more important than who leads almost any other nation. For the good of the planet, we need to change course. But I'm pessimistic that anyone will be found, either red or blue, who will lead us to that in the next few years.
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2017

Page Summary


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner