Clintonism Deemed Harmful
Jan. 26th, 2008 10:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drscottThe Democratic race is interesting now that the "machine" candidate (Hillary Clinton) has gone negative on the "JFK-like" candidate, Obama. Seeing one of their own subjected to the kind of dirty tricks the Clintons have always used to gain power is sobering for many Democrats.
My mother is a typical older voter. She thinks of the Clinton years as a golden age of peace and prosperity, which is the same kind of mythological aura based on ignorance she surrounds FDR with. This base of support among the ignorant (let's call them "faith-based voters," since this tendency to sanctify politicians who purport to be for the Little People is based on faith over knowledge) is large and very visible in poll numbers, where Mrs. Clinton is much stronger among the uneducated and elderly.
Most thoughtful Democratic party insiders are aware that Mrs. Clinton will be the weaker candidate in the general election - she already loses to McCain in the polls, and this is before the Republican attack machine reminds voters of all of the incidents which show the Clintons to be willing to fake any emotion and tell any lie to be elected. I don't want to hear again about her taking bribes (in the form of prearranged winning commodities trades), firing and unjustly besmirching the reputations of White House travel office employees to favor friends, or handing out pardons for cash and favors, or covering up for Bill's predatory sex habits. Having all this come up again is just too tiresome for words, and it is surely better to go with a candidate who, while he may not have the experience of the Clintons, appears to have retained some personal integrity.
My mother is a typical older voter. She thinks of the Clinton years as a golden age of peace and prosperity, which is the same kind of mythological aura based on ignorance she surrounds FDR with. This base of support among the ignorant (let's call them "faith-based voters," since this tendency to sanctify politicians who purport to be for the Little People is based on faith over knowledge) is large and very visible in poll numbers, where Mrs. Clinton is much stronger among the uneducated and elderly.
Most thoughtful Democratic party insiders are aware that Mrs. Clinton will be the weaker candidate in the general election - she already loses to McCain in the polls, and this is before the Republican attack machine reminds voters of all of the incidents which show the Clintons to be willing to fake any emotion and tell any lie to be elected. I don't want to hear again about her taking bribes (in the form of prearranged winning commodities trades), firing and unjustly besmirching the reputations of White House travel office employees to favor friends, or handing out pardons for cash and favors, or covering up for Bill's predatory sex habits. Having all this come up again is just too tiresome for words, and it is surely better to go with a candidate who, while he may not have the experience of the Clintons, appears to have retained some personal integrity.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-26 10:09 pm (UTC)Being for Hillary does not imply you are old or uneducated; I am just pointing out that her relative strength is much larger among those groups, or to say it in a different way, that Obama is relatively more favored by the educated and the young.
PS
Date: 2008-01-27 08:08 am (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2008-01-27 05:11 pm (UTC)Re: PS
Date: 2008-01-30 03:05 am (UTC)