My, it's tough to write something against Hillary in Arkansas, the state where she apparently had her highest winning margin against Barack Obama.

After all, she was this state's most famous first lady, and married to Bill. Ah, the good old days,yes? We sure can't back a black man, and even the state's most liberal website, the ArkTimes, for whom we have the highest respect, can't seem to bring itself to accept that Hill has all but lost the nomination. That site has gone so far as to publish what amounts to a "swift-boat" style condemnation of Obama's oration put together by someone we can only deduce is a paid hack for Hill or a member of the "newsmax" set. However, why not let you in on why we can't buy Hillary this year?

First, she sold out to the same "vast right-wing conspiracy" that tried to go after her husband. Her campaign (and we use that term loosely here) leaked material to the right wing Drudge Report. She kissed Rupert Murdoch's ass, and had her husband do the same. Murdoch even hosted a fundraiser for her.

She voted to enable Bush to get us into a war based on outright lies, a war that has costs the lives of thousands of Americans, and a war that is extremely unpopular with voters. She still hasn't decided if that was a wrong decision, and she's flip-flopped about bringing home the troops. She screams and yells about Obama being an empty suit, but if you listen to her speeches, she really doesn't say anything more than he does about policy. One might conclude they even try to sell the same programs and promises to Americans, but that he does it in a more convincing way.

One shouldn't take that as any indication he's leading a "cult" of any kind.

Also, to diminish the desire for change and hope expressed by those 20-thousand plus crowds at Obama events is to insult the voters, and adds up to telling them they don't know what's best for them. As for experience, we don't see where her "experience" adds up to much more than his. If anything, her vaunted 35 years in public life has just made voters aware she's been part of the problem. And also, who, if anyone, wants to continue the American Dynastic Clinton-Bush tradition that's helped bring us to where we are now...in an unending war and on the verge of a major enconomic collapse? Who wouldn't want change - any change - at that point?

We don't think the voters who support Senator Obama have any illusions about what he'll deliver when he takes the oath of office. Those who do are making a fatal mistake we hope they'll continue making through November. To make that mistake is to buy into Hillary's sales pitch. We're not convinced Obama is the "messiah" as some critics have said he'd like to be portrayed, but he does bring the chance for change with him, just like JFK did. Hillary can't bring that with her, and we're convinced that's what a majority of voting Americans truly hunger for, and that includes many Republicans and Independents.

Some have tried to compare Obama's campaign with that of Eugene McCarthy. We think the appeal is much more along the lines of Ronald Reagan's promise of "morning in America" in the late 70s, if not stronger. President Carter lost because of malaise, high energy prices and a lack of respect for America worldwide. President Bush has brought us that and more, including a deadly war and an all-out assault on the constitution.

Is it any wonder Americans don't want more of the same? If so-called "experience" divided this country into red and blue states and intensified the partisan and religious conflicts among Americans, why would we want more of the same? And that's just for older voters. Can you imagine how pathetic all that looks to voters who've just earned the ballot, who will vote for the first time? We know more that one person under the age of 30 who've expressed deep misgivings about the "Vietnam" generation and what it's done to our country. More than one of those people has expressed a deep, non-partisan desire to see that generation get the hell out of Washington for awhile so we can forget Vietnam. We have our own failed war to deal with, our own Richard Nixon to get rid of, and Hillary doesn't have the key to getting any of that done.

Our apologies to the native sons and daughters of this state who remain loyal to the Clintons this year. We understand that loyalty, but that's also the same kind of thing King Bush has done with Rumsfeld, Meirs, etc., etc., and so on.

We disagree with the New York Times and think the time has come for a change and for Mr. Obama to take the helm and show us a different way of doing business.

Rather than showing nitwit videos of Obama that are specious and make not a bit of difference to the voters, we think the more enlightened partisan media should get behind this change, as they were behind change in the state house, rather than more of the same in the form of a Republican governor. As an old-timer up here likes to say, it's time to fish or cut bait.

However, remember -- as progressives, we reserve the right to change our minds at any time and admit the error of our ways. But it won't happen this time...

VIA

If you enjoyed this post please use the "social bookmark" link below to add it to Digg, StumbleUpon, Delicious or Reddit to help us spread the word.

HOMEPAGE

1 Comments:

Add a comment