For (hopefully) the last time

It's completely disingenuous for people to accuse those who oppose Clinton as our primary candidate as simply being misognyistic. It's shallow, inflammatory, and, in the end, completely deceitful. As I, and others, have CLEARLY stated on more than one occasion, it has nothing to do with her gender.

Frankly, I think she'd make a decent President. D-E-C-E-N-T. But we don't need "decent" or "good enough" right now. We need someone truly REMARKABLE.

We need someone who's willing and able to take on the entrenched corporate interests that are running our economy, our environment, and our political process into the ground. Not someone who's FRIENDLY to them, who doesn't seem to realize that THEY are the real problem, and that neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism are deadly not only to US, but to all the future generations that will come after us. Not only to the United States, but to all the third world countries currently being exploited for the profits of the multi-nationals.

We cannot simply ignore the fact that the lobbyists are enveloping the capital like swarms of locusts, throwing blood money at our candidates, our senators, and our representatives, and, meanwhile, trying to turn the tide against populist and conservationist citizens who are ALSO lobbying D.C. Hillary's right in saying that all lobbyists are not evil, but she's not drawing a line between those who represent the interests of mainstream and main street Americans and those who represent the interests of the top tier 01% who suck the life's blood from us all.

When Bill Clinton took office, he decided not to pursue investigations into the actions of George HW Bush and Reagan, and those who worked for them, in the interest of "protecting America." But it DIDN'T protect America. It allowed those bastards to come back around yet again and take control of the country once more and put us STRAIGHT into the situation in which we now find ourselves.

And we have no reason to believe Hillary wouldn't do the same thing. So they get off the hook once again, continue their dirty backroom dealing ways, and we'll have to go through it all again in 5 or 9 years when another Repug comes up to the fore who can talk the bullshit talk and those who were weaned at the teat of the Republican Monster during THIS administration play the same fool's game with the American People to get their monkey puppet elected.

UNLESS we change the way all this works, we're going to have to repeat this crap over and over again. And Hillary is NOT a vehicle for serious change. She's a vehicle for "go along to get along." And anyone who thinks differently is either deluding themselves, or trying to deceive US.

This has NOTHING to do with her being a woman. And I'm damn tired of hearing people say it. It's bullshit.



edited for grammar

He's the only candidate that fits your description of "remarkable". I'm just saying.....

I think Kucinich has a few SERIOUS vulnerabilities that have come up even here...the RW media would play on them with great ease.

But politically he's the closest to my views of any candidate. I just know Edwards has the best chance of pulling over Republican voters. Populism works where liberalism doesn't, even though there's only a hair's width of difference between the two concepts.

It seems some regard a 'fallacy' as nothing but a triviality. Bizarre. :eyes:

The issue is not corporate influence, per se, but the roll back of federal regulatory standards initiated in the Reagan years and picked up dramatically in the current (R) administration.

There's an ideological basis for that agenda, based in the old, standard Republican mantra of a limited government role and an aversion to regulation.

Democrats have a long tradition of reasonable federal oversight and regulation on corporate activity, as well as support for negotiated labor agreements in the workplace.

There *is* a difference.

The Repubs used to be a little more reasonable about it all, but this administration has taken it to another level.

Do corporations have a voice in government decisions based on donations or lobbying efforts? Of course. Do the AARP, Sierra Club and AFL-CIO as well? Of course.

That said, I favor a publicly funded election format, across the board.

Yet, if we limit the discussion to a talking point, we limit the possible results.

But this has all gone too far and needs to be rolled back. The first step, as far as I'm concerned, is when corporations were given the right to be seen as "persons." They aren't, and they shouldn't be treated as such.

Conflating the two, as happens, is what I mean about muddying political discussion.

*Politically*, I favor a level playing field. To me, simply, that means removing both non-profit corporations and for-profit corporations from the equation. i.e. Public federally-funded elections.

The other issues about corporate person hood are another matter.

Thanks for your response.

Pretending they don't influence one another to a massive extent is a mistake, IMHO.

just sayin :evilgrin:

& feel free to say anything about Hillary without being accused of misogyny. These times are too critical to be worried about that stuff, and I wouldn't react to anyone who makes the accusation of misogyny. Too trivial.

However out there in middle America the issues of gender may come into play...esp prompted by the media. They're saving the woman thing for if she gets the nomination. It's volatile and unpredictable how that will play.

Don't worry about it. Speak your mind. Treat her exactly like you would a male candidate. Rip her all to hell if you want as long as it's the same as you'd do to a man. That's really the highest respect you can pay her.

:kick:

I mean I can see why some people would support Clinton, although I can't. But to say that failure to support Clinton is a sign of misogony is a typical right wing smear. A right winger looks at a black person or a woman or a hispanic and the only thing they can see is their skin color or breasts. They don't see them as individuals. So it's baffling to them that Liberals haven't embraced Armstrong Williams or Colin Powell or Ann Coulter. It's a little sad really, reading them complaining that "Hey Armstrong Willians is a right wing extremist, but he's black. Why don't you Liberals support him?"

While it's sad to see Republicans acting this way, it's intolerable for DUers to be acting similarly - at least in my mind.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com