Clinton says Bush governs 'for the few'

Source: ap




Clinton says Bush governs 'for the few'

By JULIE CARR SMYTH, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 1 minute ago


COLUMBUS, Ohio - Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized President Bush on Saturday as running a "government of the few, for the few and by the few."


"For six long years our hardworking middle class families have been invisible to this president," she said, promising to be a president who again sets goals for the country.

Democrats attending the Ohio state party's annual dinner gave a rousing cheer when the senator from New York asked, "Are you ready to end the war in Iraq and restore America's reputation around the world?"

Only two Democrats since 1900 have won the presidency without carrying Ohio and no Republican has done so.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070513/ap_on_go_pr_wh/clinton2008;_ylt=AoJxRpUiKEz06ObQnm0ZaFKs0NUE

It could be either way, of course, but...

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'd be VERY doubtful Hillary Clinton could take that state.

for the working class or progressive's aspirations in/for the US of America. She represents capital and also many of the same corporate interests that the Rethugs represent so well.

She is complicit in abetting the continuing WAR CRIMES in the Middle East. She has been hesitant to admit her willful gullibility and her errors of judgment in supporting the ongoing WAR CRIME of foreign aggression and occupation.

She will not consider single-payer universal health care because it doesn't include the Insurance Industry, one of her true constituencies.

She is not a leader, she is a political animal who is, and always has been, true only to her own (and Bill's) ambitions.

Her unwillingness to take a principled stand against the Iraqi WAR CRIMES makes her a very poor choice to restore the current negative reputation of the USA's leaders internationally.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And the 'she-Clinton' is going to be different how??? Words are cheap. Hillary voted for the IWR. Didn't she recently vow to stay in Iraq...like FOREVER?

So, Hillary may criticize the whole d*mn day long, but she will be no different than the shrub (and she will 'report' to the same cretins who control their ilk ~ which is NOT *US*, We the People).

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sexist? Come on. There was nothing maliciously sexist intended in that statement.

I agree with what you're saying. We need new blood if we ever hope to have real change in this country. As I see it (only an opinion), Clinton was good at running an organized, efficient government, and he was good for (superficial) deficit reduction. The Clinton administration was an better organized, less abrasive, and less stupid version of the Reagen and Bush administrations. We had 10 years (2 with Bush 1 and 8 with Clinton) of relative peace to take the country in a new direction and tackle long-term issues that are now going to be the death of all of us (energy, climate change, the military budget - yes, i realize there budget cuts at the end of the cold war, but not the paradigmatic shift away from imperialism that is necessary...which is making the inevitable economic icebergs of mandatory spending even more devastating).


Serious changes have to be made if we hope to survive this century with our standard of living and our lives in tact. The Clintons are not the people to do it, judging from the past. They apparently lack ambition. I guess, like the Bush family, when you have enough money to just move away when this country crumbles and buy an isolated palace in Saudi Arabia (or Uruguay, as Bush did) when the shit hits the fan, it's hard to approach things with urgency.

Of course, he's right: Bush governs for a very select few.

By the way, I'm not comparing Bush favorably to Clinton. Bush isn't even worth talking about because it's just a foregone conclusion that he's trying to make his super rich friends and wealthy campaign contributors richer in the last big gulp before life as we know it is destroyed and they head off to their isolated island in the sun and we all starve or die from the consequences of climate change. There is no hope for Republicans to change or govern for the majority because their worldview is driven by the same cynical, last big-gulp economic royalism as Bush's is. There is at least hope with Democrats, no matter how small it is.

We once took pride in the fact that America was the best nation on earth. No longer. Our education is falling behind as is our health care.

America has reverted to what Old England was. The country who served the rich at the expense of the poor.

Or the chaos from the Medicare deficit. The domestic economic warfare of the Reagen and Bush years will look like nothing.

And, about criticizing Democrats, there are some legitimate criticisms about Clinton. We're all left-leaning here. I don't think anyone here criticizes Democrats out of spite or hate.

Though some have tried to make it that way. Especially against Hillary and John Edwards. Enough is Enough.

a elite few govern all?

says they are his base. See what they have brought us at www.icasualties.org

interview on the Daily Show?

Just say no...

same old, same old. What we need is some fresh blood to lead us.

Good line. I think she can win a lot of votes with this one. Good article today in the NYT about Bill, Hillary and the strategies/marketing behind her candidacy