|
by fairleft
Why are Hillary and Obama the Democratic voters' leading presidential candidates -- 65% of likely primary voters choose them --when they're so obviously bipartisan police-state corporate-whore imperialist Republicans?
My sane way of choosing a candidate or deciding to say fuk `em all is to look at their positions on the major issues of the day. I don't ask much anymore, I just ask, "Hey, if she/he would do the right thing on even ONE of the big issues, maybe I could see myself giving her/him my vote." So here are my six major issues and best guesses on what Obama/Hillary's real positions are (I know Hillary & Obama don't actually say the following, but their money has the following `bipartisan' & `responsible' positions, and neither has taken a strong and (especially) clear enough position contrariwise to make me think they will disobey their money):
I could go on (for example, under either Obama or Hillary the Pentagon would get its regular budget boosts, the rest of the budget would be subject to `responsible' drastic budget cuts, and the Bush police state measures would continue on), but you get the idea.
So, Obama and Hillary (pre-1980s thinking alert) simply are not Democrats the way I used to understand what that word meant. They will mightily screw over the bottom 80% of the population and do their best for the top 10%, even as the economy slides deeper into decline and the suffering of everyone (except upper-middle class and rich assholes) worsens. And, Hillary and Obama will continue the worldwide imperial war for oil, Israel, and corporate globalization -- whether it requires hot or cold wars or coups in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia, Sudan, or who knows where -- and no matter that it `requires' throwing ever more money at the military when we need instead to drastically redirect government spending toward rebuilding our real economy, giving everyone health care, and saving the safety net. I don't get it! How is it that these two turkeys get away with offering real Democrats nothing except wordy fluff while their substance is `bipartisan' aggressive corporate globalist Republicanism? In other words the same old same old that is driving the people down and the economy off a cliff. Instead of 65% of Democrats choosing Hillary or Obama, why don't most Democrats answer `none of the above' or, maybe, Kucinich or Gravel? Are the Democrats polled -- `likely primary voters' -- not really Democrats anymore? Anyway, if next November all we're left with is two of Obama/Hillary/Giuliani/Huckabee/Romney, all real Democrats must piss or poop on such a 'choice'. But maybe we should start the pissing & pooping early when and if the Democratic race boils down to Obama and Hillary. Like now. Also at http://politicalfleshfeast.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1239
65% of Democrats Back Hillary/Obama? R They Crazy? | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
65% of Democrats Back Hillary/Obama? R They Crazy? | 7 comments (7 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
|
Login
We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris
Booman Tribune Homepage admin@boomantribune.com powered by Scoop 
More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.
© 2010 Booman Tribune
| |||||||||||
