So, go ahead call me anti-Hillary. There are arguments to be
made for Hillary, but here is the essence of the two pro-Hillary arguments,
given the odds-on eventuality of her winning the 2016 Democratic nomination:
A vote against Hillary is a vote for the Republicans (read
Bill O’Reilly and his two running mates). Besides, it’s time for a woman to be
president.
Does the single name Hillary – think Beyonce, Rihanna, Madonna
– imply talent and gravitas? Or showmanship? Talent in Hillary’s case is a
cynical attempt to distance herself from the legacy and policies of her husband.
That’s just not okay, or so say the members of the emerging iPAC, Liberals Dead
Tired of Hillary.
We in the growing segment of Americans who are tired of
Hillary would like to exercise our votes, not stay away from the polls because
we can’t find it in our hearts, minds or souls to vote for a Clinton, or God
forbid, a third Bush.
It is past the time for liberals to beat the drum in support
of candidates who are not Hillary (i.e.) Bernie Sanders http://bit.ly/1B7I6Ob or, even, Jim Webb http://bit.ly/1Gl9GMb.
Maybe we need a shrewd Nixon-like leader for the next eight
years. Not Nixon? Who do you think Hillary was learning from by not allowing
her official Secretary of State emails to become an embarrassment to her
presidency. Look at what the official tapes did for Nixon’s. Watergate, oh, and
read the Blood Telegram http://nyti.ms/1Gl9Sei
and tell me that Hillary wasn’t trickier than Dick to NOT take the risk of
having her SOS emails unearthed.
Domestic politics under Hillary? Here’s a quote for you:
When most of the population either does not know or does not care that the
lowest socioeconomic classes live in something akin to a police state, we
should be greatly concerned for the moral health of our society.”
Where did that come from? That bulwark of economic social
justice: The Wall Street Journal, in a review of The Divide by Matt Taibbi http http://nyti.ms/1gwlOwv, a must-read treatise on the injustice in the age of the wealth gap in the
United States.
And how did the Clintons (yes, a vote for Hillary is a vote
for Bill) figure in this. It was the Clintons who re-demonized blacks in a
nakedly cynical grab for the southern vote by promising to “end welfare as we
know it.” What’s more, while pandering the stain of black economic dependency
to prejudiced white voters, they were overseeing the deregulation of financial
markets so that the rich would get richer. Reagan may have been responsible for
the evil of trickle-down economics, but it was Clintonian policy that did the
major damage, that accelerated the wealth gap to the point that eventually led
to the protesters of …..
While the Clintons ended welfare as we know it, they built
welfare-fraud police into something reminiscent of the Soviet system. Taibbi
writes:
“Welfare fraud was prosecuted [under the Clintons] like
never before, and welfare fraud investigators multiplied like rats in every
state in the country, forming unions and lobbying agencies.”
Taibbi goes on: “ [The Clintons’] political formula for
seizing the presidency was simple. [The Clintons] made money tight in the
ghettos and let it flow freely on Wall Street. [The Clintons] showered the
projects with cops and bean counters and pulled the cops off the beat in the
financial services sector. And in one place [the Clintons] created vast new
mountain ranges of paperwork, while in another, paperwork simply vanished.”
It may be time for a woman. But Liberals Dead Tired of
Hillary sure don’t think this is the one.
Next: Running for Your Life: What If The Greats Were With
Us!
