MyDD :: Cynicism

Cynicism

by TL, Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:13:53 AM EST

First came the gas tax proposal that didn't make any sense. But it sounded good, so what the heck, say it.

Then when economists had the temerity to point out that oil companies would raise the price to maximize profit (which is kind of what companies do in a capitalist economy), and that that would mean minimal declines in price at the pump, we saw Hillary Clinton - who brags of being a policy wonk, and if I remember correctly was educated at Wellesley and Yale! - telling the people that they could have a cut in gas prices as easily as she promised. It was only a conspiracy of "elite economists" who never want what the people want who denied it.

We heard her rattle the saber - she is prepared to "obliterate" Iraq. And now we have her promising pure wish-fulfillment: she is going to break up OPEC!! Because we have so much leverage over OPEC right now.

I find it impossible to believe that Clinton believes any of this. This is just a stunningly cynical performance.

Tags: election 2008 (all tags)

Permalink :: 11 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Cynicism (none / 0)

Of course she knows this is why Obama is winning?

by Politicalslave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:21:50 AM EST

Re: Love of Country or Party ? (none / 0)

I also find it stunning that Obama supporters actually believe that Obama is qualified to be President of the US of A.

The same liberals who yelled, screamed & called Bush Jr. in 2000 as not qualified are now the same people who are pretending to ignore Obama's lack of qualification.

There are literally dozens of both Republican & Democratic politicians as we speak who are much more qualified than Obama. All these men & women just happen to be white.

There would be no "1st Black President" celebration. No Media cinderella story to report.

And you want the 52% of registered Democrats who have NOT voted for Obama in this primary to somehow vote for him in November?

Is it love for country or love of party that comes first ?????1

If its purely love of country, millions of democrats who are currently supporting Clinton will have a Very Very Difficult time voting for a Person who is Very Clearly NOT qualified to be President.

That's the Biggest Question here.

by latinfighter on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:26:47 AM EST

Re: Love of Country or Party ? (none / 0)

So should we change the rules? He is winning fair and square meanwhile his opponent with all the "experience" is playing "old politics" according to John Edwards in a recent People magazine interview.

by Politicalslave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:34:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Why bring race into this? (2.00 / 1)

Seriously, this is a diary about cynicism about pushing policy one doesn't believe in, and you had to go point at media bias due to race? Didn't we finish this ridiculous theme when your candidate asked Gerry Ferraro to kindly shut her trap?

Is it love for country or love of party that comes first ?????1

If its purely love of country, millions of democrats who are currently supporting Clinton will have a Very Very Difficult time voting for a Person who is Very Clearly NOT qualified to be President.

This sort of thinking is abominable, and I don't know how you get away with it on a politics site.

Before we're Democrats or Republicans, before we support Clinton or Obama or McCain, we're first Americans.

Your "52% of registered Democrats" might prefer Senator Clinton over Senator Obama, but at least 75% of that 52% (and probably more) will vote for Obama in the fall because THEY are loyal Democrats AND Americans and respect the results of their nomination process by the rules that the party laid out. Even more will come around when they realize that Obama is still better than McCain, who will steal women's right to choose, keep us in war indefinitely, and let the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.

And for the record, my problem with George W. Bush wasn't that he wasn't qualified for the job: the only qualifications are that they're over 35, were born in the US, and get the most electoral votes. My personal preference is that the president have held any elected office before (to prevent idiots like Nader or Perot from screwing with things). No, my problem with Bush was that he was an idiot and a shoddy legacy candidate of a lackluster-but-evil presidential father's legacy.

Obama will be qualified for the job when he wins in November. YOU need to look at your priorities and decide whether you're a partisan or an American first.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:39:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love of Country or Party ? (none / 0)

dozens more qualified than clinton too. (dodd, biden, edwards, kucinich....just to name a few)

by citizendave on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:05:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Love of Country or Party ? (none / 0)

This is not a race for the President of the Democrats, at least last time I checked. The victor is to compete for the Presidency of these United States.

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:08:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obam was for it before he was against it (none / 0)

then he lied about why. The gas tax DID benefit the people of IL, but Obama doesn't want you to know that because he is stuck with his position.

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:30:50 AM EST

[citation needed] (none / 0)

Could you please give me a cite on that? I've never heard any evidence that it is correct.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:40:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obam was for it before he was against it (2.00 / 1)

Yes, somebody that goes on MTP and says "Yeah.. I've been wrong. Learned from my mistake". That's the guy who's stuck with his position?

Speaking of "for it before... against it", does the AUMF ring a bell?

_____________
changiness

by lizardbox on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:11:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Luckily for us (none / 0)

Clinton is burning all her remaining favors in pushing this. It's the only explanation for getting Senator Menendez on Morning Joe pushing the plan... even Joe Scarborough tore into him on how unfeasable it is, and he's both a Republican and a shameless panderer.

In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

by Dracomicron on Tue May 06, 2008 at 09:42:56 AM EST

No more Republicans in Democrat Clothing PLEASE (none / 0)

Yes it is great to win an election. But sometimes selling your soul for power has unintended consequences. The republicains sold there soul to Bush and look what America got. Hillary is selling the Democrat soul to the RIGHT by moving to the right more aggresivly than any Democratic presidential canindate since Bill Clinton. Republicans are beating the democrats when the democrats just want to be conservatives. We cant get real change done in America and compete in the world with politicians playing games and pandering. We have to have a larger political movment sot restore sanity honesty and common sense to the process. The SPIN FEST that is the Hillary Campaign WONT GET IT DONE. It will perpetuate a bad problem that will cover its failings in SPIN despite the harm to the people. Can you really trust her to tell you whats going on? HELL NO!

by edtastic on Tue May 06, 2008 at 10:43:05 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.