Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


TerenceDC posted an article today simply titled Hillary.

In it, he wrote:

In the first two sentences, she unequivocally supported Barack Obama. Then she talked about her campaign — about the people she was in it for — and then she laid it on the line with one question: “Were you in it for me? Or were you in it for them?”

The answer was clear: You’ve got to be in it for them, and if you’re in it for them, you’ve got to elect Barack Obama.

But you saw the same speech. What do you think?

On the basis of what I heard last night from the pundit brigade…GOD how I loathe most of them!!!…and a quick morning survey of the media/blog reactions, her motives are still being deeply mistrusted by a large portion of the so-called “Democratic” segments of this society.

So I started to write a reply to TerenceDC’s post.

It grew.

Read on for my own views if you are so inclined.
I think that after 35 years of consistent effort in the name of the best parts of the American dream…political effort, the prime component of which game is compromise if one is to succeed…Hillary Rodham Clinton ought to be given the benefit of the doubt about her motives.

And she is not. Not in Lower Leftiness Blogovia and not in its big brother, the mass media. (A big brother that the leftiness blogoshpere is increasingly coming to resemble in its hunger for “stories”, its delight in controversy for its own sake. As above, so below. Little meta on the blogs, big meta in the media. “She said what!!! About WHOM!!! We are OUTRAGED!!!” Etc. Whether that sort of thing is about some slob couch potato blogging from a trailer park in Iowa or about HRC…same same.  It brings attention. It sells.)

What if…what if Hillary Clinton was simply telling the truth up there last night?

Were you in it for me? Or were you in it for them?

What if that is the whole truth of the matter when reduced to its essential base?

Is that an impossibility, O you Hillary haters, doubters and parsers?

What do I think?

I think that she would have been a great President.

I think that she would have been a great Vice-President.,

I think that either a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would have cold cocked the Ratpublican machine and that the Dems would have won big in November.

I think that the unrestrained daily input of two people who have already dealt with the BIG DC dogs…intel, the military establishment and the rest of the massive PermaGov bureaucracy…would have smoothed Obama’s way once he is elected, and that such a possibility is now probably lost because he tried to isolate her.

I think that the Dems traded a sure 16 years in power and a real mandate for change…8 for HRC, the 8 for Obama…for an iffy election and (if successful in said election) a rough first term presidency that may well resemble Jimmy Carter’s tenure in the White House more than say FDR’s.

That’s what I think.

Your results may differ.

We shall see.

Soon.

Very, very soon.

Bet on it.

AG

0 0 votes
Article Rating