Why are Hillary and Obama the Democratic voters’ leading presidential candidates — 65% of likely primary voters choose them –when they’re so obviously bipartisan police-state corporate-whore imperialist Republicans?
My sane way of choosing a candidate or deciding to say fuk `em all is to look at their positions on the major issues of the day. I don’t ask much anymore, I just ask, “Hey, if she/he would do the right thing on even ONE of the big issues, maybe I could see myself giving her/him my vote.” So here are my six major issues and best guesses on what Obama/Hillary’s real positions are (I know Hillary & Obama don’t actually say the following, but their money has the following `bipartisan’ & `responsible’ positions, and neither has taken a strong and (especially) clear enough position contrariwise to make me think they will disobey their money):
I could go on (for example, under either Obama or Hillary the Pentagon would get its regular budget boosts, the rest of the budget would be subject to `responsible’ drastic budget cuts, and the Bush police state measures would continue on), but you get the idea.
So, Obama and Hillary (pre-1980s thinking alert) simply are not Democrats the way I used to understand what that word meant. They will mightily screw over the bottom 80% of the population and do their best for the top 10%, even as the economy slides deeper into decline and the suffering of everyone (except upper-middle class and rich assholes) worsens. And, Hillary and Obama will continue the worldwide imperial war for oil, Israel, and corporate globalization — whether it requires hot or cold wars or coups in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, or who knows where — and no matter that it `requires’ throwing ever more money at the military when we need instead to drastically redirect government spending toward rebuilding our real economy, giving everyone health care, and saving the safety net.
I don’t get it! How is it that these two turkeys get away with offering real Democrats nothing except wordy fluff while their substance is `bipartisan’ aggressive corporate globalist Republicanism? In other words the same old same old that is driving the people down and the economy off a cliff.
Instead of 65% of Democrats choosing Hillary or Obama, why don’t most Democrats answer `none of the above’ or, maybe, Kucinich or Gravel? Are the Democrats polled — `likely primary voters’ — not really Democrats anymore?
Anyway, if next November all we’re left with is two of Obama/Hillary/Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney, all real Democrats must piss or poop on such a ‘choice’. But maybe we should start the pissing & pooping early when and if the Democratic race boils down to Obama and Hillary. Like now.
Also at http://politicalfleshfeast.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1239
I’d say part of the answer is simply name recognition…the media has shoved the Obama/Hillary ‘horserace’ down the public’s throat and most probably are barely aware of anyone else or only know one got a 400 dollar haircut(and has a sick wife) and one see’s UFO’s and that’s it.
that America’s favorite billionaire, Oprah Winfrey, backs Obama.
Yeah, that too…I’d certainly be inclined to like her a whole lot better if she used her supposed status as ‘our national treasure’ to do continuing weekly show from New Orleans to try and help get things accomplished there.
Are you starting a campaign to make us realize that the “fair” part of your handle is “balanced” too?
Don’t insult people for exercising their Democratic right to have an opinion and don’t muddy the waters with false statements about our candidates. I know I support my candidate because I think he is the best one out there for America.
There is no way you can rationally conclude that Obama wants to Bomb Iran or cut Social Security. Obama opposed Iraq from the start and still opposes it, he wants to extract our troops. He wants to make health care more affordable for average Americans by reducing the cost.
In the case of Iraq and Social Security you’re simply wrong. Like Hillary, he supports tens of thousands of ‘non-combat’ troops in Iraq indefinitely. ‘Everything is on the table’ as far as Social Security is concerned, he said. Hillary’s approach, a needless and dastardly ‘bipartisan’ commission to ‘solve’ Social Security’s minor problems, I think we can imagine where that is going.
Both will propose some needlessly expensive (in its efforts to please pharmo-medical campaign donors) Hillary1993-esque health care reforms that Congress will not pass. Or some ‘budget crisis’ will be magically discovered and everything except budget cuts (for everyone but the Pentagon) will be off the table.
I’m making these predictions based on who is donating to and therefore controlling the Hillary/Obama’s real agendas should she/he be elected President. For example, here are the three leaders in receipts from the Pharmaceuticals/Health Products industries:
Hillary Clinton (D): $269,436
Barack Obama (D): $261,784
Mitt Romney (R): $260,535
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04
I suppose you still think Hillary and Barack would be the 2009 health care good guys and Mitt the bad guy. Very naive.
I don’t actually think that $300,000 is enough to buy someone who is getting millions in donations it just isn’t a large enough percentage of their donations. I think they are getting those donations because they have a good chance to win, and possibly to agree with your point because people in those industries like their plans.
Is there an easy way to see whether those industry donations are big dollar from the owners of companies or small dollar from the employees?
I think there is a lot of money that can’t be defined and categorized very well, but that site is the best I can do. But I really haven’t investigated thoroughly enough everything the site has to offer.