Reply #30: I didn't claim any such thing. [View All]

[HughBeaumont]

My last line meant I'm sick of Americans who are willing to be led around by the nose-ring by whatever the media TELLS them is good rather than examining positions and statements themselves. They go off of name recognition and force-feeding while there are far better candidates like Kucinich or Obama . . . just like they did for the Failure Fuhrer in 2000. He had the shittiest governing record of any candidate running, Texas constantly ranked at the bottom of nearly every human condition category measured, he failed at just about anything he did in life, but two things happened:

1. Bewsh was forced down the throats of America by a complicit and newly-purchased-by-wealthy-Reagan-sympathizers media. All of a sudden, they completely forgot about his past. He was packaged as "a return to morals", "honest" (even though he was anything BUT), "a name you can trust" (there's that word again: NAME) and packaged as a moderate (a WHOPPER of a lie, again). America, much as they don't want to admit it, LOVE the familiar. They LOVE brands. They DON'T like or WANT change. Bewsh was a brand the wealthy and their stations could easily sell to the rubes: an heir to the Reagan mantle sold to a public that hadn't yet been nudged out of their sleep as to what a fucking rotten bastard Reagan and his administration really were.

2. Rather than work off of the positives of the Clinton Administration, Gore tried to distance himself from it (on the advice of Bob Shrum), made the unbelievably STUPID move of selecting Joementum as his VP and alienated left-leaning Dems in the process, driving many to a third party vote or no vote at all. The media paint Gore as a bore and long winded didn't help matters much either.

Both of these factors and many others made the theft of 2000 possible - that election should have never been close enough to steal in the first place . . . EITHER time. But never underestimate America's love of the familiar.

The corporations know that they win with Hillary. Businesses love her. Their owned-media is pushing her, even the fascist Fox network can't stop talking about her. She's going to be a corporate bridge builder rather than call them on their environment-destroying, middle-class-killing, predatory, illegal and unethical means of conducting business. She isn't going to stand up to unbridled corporatism that thrived in the Bewsh era. She isn't going to stop the gravy train. She'll also do nothing to stop their wars.

Look at her health plan and her "workers need to prove they have health insurance before getting a job" meme.

Also, they know that while the Repukes agree with most of their positions, let's face it: this is the WEAKEST GOP field since 1996, and the likelihood of ANY of these schmucks winning office is slim to none. The margin simply isn't going to be that slim again, thanks to Bewsh and his bullshit.

So why not have the NEXT best thing: Rather than get a candidate who addresses job offshoring, the war and health care and the need to improve America's one-sided positions on all three, push a candidate who is going to be business as usual; war-continuing, corporate-line-towing and job-offshoring . . . on the OTHER side. And if she fails at cleaning up the Bewsh mess, which she most likely will because things are beyond repair at this point, it's a WIN-WIN. She leaves, another annointed Puke is selected (most likely Jeb), and the profits continue while the middle class, poor and soldiers get lead-piped.

I think myself, OhioChick and others have proven countless times about her stance on free trade, her position on outsourcing, her buddy/buddyness with Tata Consulting, her speeches to Indian nationals (who favor her immensely thanks to her positions on corporate offshoring) in 2005 and her desire to INCREASE H1-b and L1 Visas to foreign nationals. We have enough underemployed degreed professionals already HERE that can use the work. There are several on this board, and several on this board that are married to people in this unfortunate situation. If one doesn't think the needs and welfare of the middle class is important, I have no hope for them.

Don't tell me you haven't seen or heard her speeches and votes regarding the Middle East. There isn't any diplomacy on the table, obviously. Don't tell me you haven't seen the friendship with Rupert Murdoch, one of the most loathsome Reaganites going today.

So maybe when a voter has no choice but to go with "who sucks LESS", is it really the VOTER'S fault that the candidate didn't convince enough people that he/she would represent a CHANGE from "business as usual", or is it the politicians themselves?

Also: (which is what happens when you don't vote for Hillary)

It bears repeating over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . and over . . . again.

HAS SHE WON THE NOMINATION YET???

DAMN.