"Progressives" Whine About Hillary Bashing
Once again boiling it down to arguments about gender and the false left-right paradigm

Steve Watson
Monday, January 22, 2007

The announcement that Hillary Clinton is to run for President has rightfully worried many into debating the problems of political dynasties in America. Commentators have pointed out that should Hillary be elected it would mean America being under the control of either a Bush or a Clinton for a total of at least 32 years.

Some "progressives" out there, however, seem to believe that such a move would be...well, progressive.

In response to an LA Times opinion piece entitled Anyone but a Bush or a Clinton, Lefty website, the Daily Kos today hit back with a Sacchariney blurb about how it is "unfair" to suggest the people should not vote for Hillary because her last name is Clinton.

It goes on:

Hillary Clinton was on her own a capable, high-powered lawyer with nearly unlimited potential. She chose to partner herself with her husband, and worked with him to raise his profile and possibilities. Would those "she wouldn't be senator" folks be as comfortable if this was turned on its head: Bill Clinton would never have been president without a wife named Hillary. Would someone else have been so competent and supportive in fighting back against the scandals that plagued Bill's career long before he reached the White House? Would someone else have made the connections, raised the money, and been as effective in forging the coalitions that brought Bill up the political ladder?

Once again the crux of the issue is being woefully missed by the "progressives" who seem to become completely detached from any practical debate when the possibility of having a Democrat in office is raised, especially if that Democrat is a woman.

Yes, the Daily Kos is right, Hillary was complicit in everything Bill Clinton did to grease his way up the ladder, and that is just one reason why she shouldn't become President.

The piece then goes on to make a bizarre reference to Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of 2004 candidate John Edwards, and suggests he would never have run if it were not for her support for her man, thus revealing itself as a thinly veiled "Hillary's critics are just sexists" rant. The fact that it was reported that Edwards was picked by the elites in the Bilderberg group, seems to matter not.

If the Daily Kos really wants to be "progressive" it should stop continuously raising the gender issue and telling everyone that women are less powerful than men. Anyone in the right mind knows that some of the most powerful people on this planet are women.

One commenter throws in the opinion the Kos was searching to shape further down the page:

...It's sexist and whether she is your candidate or not, it sounds moronic to pretend she would not have been a senator if she had not married Bill Clinton. Indeed she may have gone further faster without him.

Indeed a cursory look at more comments from the piece shows just how a rational debate about the domination of the "chosen few" in politics can veer off course into a wildly irrelevant, sexism, left vs right or even rich vs poor argument:

... I think this posturing is a result of years of rightwing radio and TV assault on the Clintons. People are prepared to not vote Dem if she wins? This reminds of the same bullshit that was happening with Nader before the 2000 election. It's the same tired right wing "Clinton fatigue" & "everyone hates the Clintons" garbage.
...This has been paraded out ad nauseam for months now, and is a comment in almost every diary that has anything to do with Hillary.
Its wrong.
Just because there were two GOP Presidents in the past two decades who are from the same family is no reason to "decide" upfront that a Democratic candidate is not worthy of the office because she is related to a past President.
...that's just a ridiculous comparison. Bill Clinton came from a poor (maybe not dirt poor but compared to the Bush's, poor for sure!) family and worked hard for everything he achieved. He knows what it's like to be middle-class, working-class. Nothing guaranteed him the presidency except his own hard-work and political talent. And odds are, he would not have become president were it not for Hillary. I would also suggest that it is very likely that Hillary would have been able to run and win for Senate if she were just Hillary Rodham.

Clinton and the Bushes personally worked together to profit from massive drug smuggling operations through Mena, while Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. His "hard work" consisted of proving to the elite that he could lick boots and roll over as good as anyone else. This is not about rich vs poor and any notion that Bill Clinton represents the working classes is laughable. He passed virtually all the Republican globalist agenda in the early nineties signing onto NAFTA and the WTO.

Want to start your own blog or website, get the word out and support Alex Jones? Infowars.net offers
high-quality webhosting services at very competitive prices, and most importantly, with
infowars.net, privacy is paramount! We don't sell the names of our customers to marketing
firms or the government. Click here for more info.

What has Clinton ever done for the poorer people of America? He signed the welfare reform Personal Responsibility Act, which forced millions of working class people off welfare. Not so bad in itself, but when you consider that the jobs available to them were purely extremely low wage and slave labor work, it becomes a different matter. It was EARLY into Clinton's second term in office that the manufacturing jobs decline started. Manufacturing employment alone has fallen 3.3 million (19 percent) from its March 1998 peak under Clinton. This trend is simply continuing under Bush as more and more jobs are being exported.

...I reject the idea that two Clinton presidencies make a monarchy and I severely reject ANY comparison of Hillary to G-Dub.
...Although she can be seen as "friendly" to big business, she is not a corporatist and does not have a record of favoring the wealthy over the working person. That is simply not her record in the Senate.

Hillary is the ultimate elitist and represents the Democrats supposed base, the poor and downtrodden, about as much as Lindsay Lohan represents grace and dignity. She was sure to inform the likes of David Rockefeller and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands as to her presidential aspirations during her visit to last year's Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada.

...I suspect Hillary is why you want the law [to bar consecutive family members as Presidents]. To bar a scary smart, effective liberal from running for president.
Talk about abuse of power.

And it makes no sense, though the republicans would love you for it. Also anti-american...in the america where we're valued for our individuality and have the (theoretical) freedom to run for office as we wish to. Barring anyone from trying to gain public office based on arbitrary characteristics is patenly offensive.

How is it valuing individuality to have the same two families in office for three decades? Freedom can never be "theoretical" as this "progressive" states.

These two families are desperate attention loving power mad elitists and want to retain control of their respective political parties. They are using each other to ‘soften' their disapproval in the opposite party. We have two simultaneous dynasties - the Bushes and the Clintons. The Bushes are the hand of the Republican arm and the Clintons the hand of the Democratic arm. The body is of course controlled by one mind that outranks them all, the corporate fascist elite.

It is time to stop missing the point of this debate. Though we are hardly likely to see a rational debate about Hillary from supposedly "anti-war" websites such as the Daily Kos, Crooks and Liars and Raw Story, who are all now running Hillary ads, paid for by her campaign.

The Clintons and the Bushes (or the Bushtons as I shall call them from now on) are comparable to the Lucchese and Genovese families: they have their little spats, but at the end of the day they eat their gnocchi from the same table. The Democans and the Republicrats are the left and right hands of a single body. The mind of this body is intent on bare handedly tearing apart freedom and ripping to shreds the constitutional form of governance that was created to bring down this elitist rabble.




INFOWARS.net          Copyright 2001-2007 Alex Jones          All rights reserved.