Wednesday, May 07, 2008

The End is Near

I am is voting for John McCain. No not really. I like him a lot. Hes a stand up dude. He came in 5th place on my list ranking presidential hopefuls last April behind Al Gore, Hillary, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards, respectfully. Only problem, hes a Republican and I just can't force myself to yank the level in their direction. I made that comment to express my disdain for the Democratic Electorate. You guys are comparable to the people who have been voting for Jason Castro week after week on American Idol. Complete imbeciles. Lets vote for the guy because hes so handsome and has such a nice smile (read: Obama). But not the chick who has the lung capacity to get the job done (read: Hillary, oh, and Carly Smithson for that matter). My Fellow Democrats, as we watch Hillary Clinton's campaign come to a complete stop, I'd like to take this time to admonish you. You suck.

My friend ES who happens to be more obsessed with Hillary than I commented this morning that he'd rather move to Mexico than vote for McCain or Obama. I corrected him and said "Dude, didn't you get the memo. We don't threaten to move to Mexico. Only Canada. I'll meet you in Montreal in November." Doesn't everyone read Stuff White People Like? Cuz they hit the nail on the head.

Anyhoo, as always, I hate being the buzzkill, but I am a realist. And in my mind, last night was my last hope of seeing Hillary take the presidency. So lets sit back and see where this journey now takes us.

5 comments:

Drew_Kaplan said...

I've not previously heard of that White People blog - it seems pretty funny (and I look forward to more of their stuff)

Anonymous said...

Susanne,
I found your blog after Googling "David Archuleta Sucks" and enjoyed reading your post and the several comments that followed, I even posted myself. I began to read some of your other posts, and I have a question for you.

Why Hillary Clinton???? Your politics are left of center, and two of the issues that dominate that landscape are the economic demise of the middle class and the war in Iraq.
Hillary voted for NAFTA and for the war. NAFTA, more than any other thing, has contributed to the loss of middle-class jobs in the manufacturing sector and Hillary, along with her Husband, campaigned heavily and ultimately enacted it.
Her vote for the war is undeniable, she has since changed her mind, something I find repulsive about her character. She is on the wrong side of these defining left-wing issues.
Meanwhile Obama's record has no such blemishes on these issues and beyond that, both candidates are almost indistinguishable on other high profile issues that are important to the party's base.

I'm just wondering, why Hillary? It's a serious question, and of course I mean no ill will, just interested.

Anonymous said...

My mistake, just a little edit to the above post. Where I said Hillary "voted" for NAFTA, I should have said Hillary "supported" NAFTA. Since as First Lady, she obviously had no vote, sorry!

SusQHB said...

Hi Anonymous,
I'm glad you're enjoying the blog. Obviously, some of the topics are more light hearted than others.

Firstly, as I wrote, I have had personal contact with Senator Clinton and have been immensely impressed by both her intellect and compassion. That is I'd say about 80% of the reason I support her.

As for your questions, I have this to say. Theres a concept in Judaism (and likely other religions) that to judge people fairly you must look at "where they are" when they made their decisions. To apply to this situation, we must remember the information we had back then when the decision to support or not was originally made, not look today and say these things have gotten out of hand, it was a bad decision to support from the start. In the early stages of both NAFTA and the war, popular opinion supported both. The multi-lateral trade that NAFTA brought was thought to help the US economy and the American worker. Many Dems agreed. When the war began, remember that President Bush claimed he had evidence that Saddam had nuclear weapons. Any politician that held back against the vote to move forward with the war was considered weak on terrorism. And remember, back then, every American was like "Lets bomb those assholes". Admittingly, NAFTA proved to work counter to the optimistic beliefs of the Clinton White House, and of course, Bush lied was found to have lied about the nuclear weapons to turn his inability of tracking down Osama bin Laden into a hunt for Saddam Hussein. We were hoodwinked by the Bush puppetmasters into a senseless war. So I can forgive a politician for supporting those two issues. Hindsight is always 20/20 and if Senator Obama was in office for either of those votes, and was up for reelection, according to usual practice, he likely would have voted the same way as Senator Clinton. Like it or not, its the truth. Freshman Senators do not have the kind of latitude that the old dogs have. Vote along the party lines or pack your bags.

Feel free to respond if you'd like. Take care!

Anonymous said...

Fair enough, I appreciate your honesty in admitting that personal sentiment is the main reason for your support for Senator Clinton. I get the idea of your concept of judging people on their decisions based on where they are at the time they made them, however I believe that allows you to give the Senator an endless area to manuever without having to face any criticism for mistakes or impropiety.
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree, especially with the idea that she could not have broken from party lines as a freshman Senator. She was hardly the typical Senate rookie and she, more than any other Senator, knew the intelligence, weather cooked or not, because of her backround in the previous administration.
And, as far as NAFTA, the party line was most definitely AGAINST ratification. Democrats and Independents alike, foresaw the implications and loudly proclaimed them but the Clinton White House ratified it anyway and now as those negetive forces that are strongly responsible for today's economic downturn are coming to fruition, the Clinton's need to pay the political price.
This is my problem with Hillary. I don't see her as principled, but as a harshly political animal. I believe that she makes decisions, based on what it will do for her future political considerations and not on her sense of right and wrong. Furthermore, when she makes mistakes in her judgement, such as with NAFTA and her vote for the war, she needs to be criticised for them, not allowed to quietly sweep them under the table.
Susanne, no hostility intended, just happy to have an intelligent conversation about current events.
This is what makes the US great, you vote for reasons that are yours and yours only, and no one can take that from you, but everyone is allowed their opinion.
You take care as well.
AWB