As I write this, I am sitting in the vortex that is fast becoming Colorado's second most "liberal" city. This may be due to the fact that the city planners, and city council, actually use tax money for it's intended purposes:1)make the city a better place to live for all 2)use the money to fund infrastructure, among a laundry list of other reasons. However, this is all for another post.
My real intention is to ask my fellow bloggers a pressing question. Why is the debt of Hillary Clinton become a national problem for 1)Barack Obama and his supporters and 2)the rest of the democrat party, along with democrat leaning independents? I find it fascinating that the idea of party unity, come November, rests on the shoulders of Obama and his supporters. Isn't that the job of Hillary Clinton to bring party unity? Obama was gracious and magnanimous throughout her entire campaign, only to be ridiculed as condescending and sexist. It isn't the fault of Obama that she lost, this was hers to lose.
She walked into this campaign season assured a lightning quick victory to the presidential nomination only to find out that what she was really holding was a 500 pound greased pig ready for change. This is not the fault of the electorate, or Obama, it is her's and Bill's burden to bare alone. And only at a time when gas is at, or near, $4 a gallon, groceries prices are going up and a 4 year degree might qualify you to run the fucking Tilt-o-Whirl, would people worth upwards of $100 million dollars ask the people of America to bail THEM out. What the hell is happening here? Bubba have to start paying for those blow jobs? These people have been put into a position of phenomenal wealth, and earning power, by the people of America. And I'm going to say it, we owe them nothing now. She stayed in too long and over extended her budget. Not my fault, hers!
Let's look at this from a football perspective. It was relatively obvious after Texas and Ohio that she stood a snowballs chance in hell of coming away with a big enough margin of victory in the following contests to win the nomination and she stayed in anyways. Not only did she stay in, but she continued to spend money, that we now know, she didn't have to begin with. When a football team is getting it handed to them in the 3rd or 4th quarter, what does any coach worth his whistle do? He puts in his back ups and gives "lesser" players the opportunity to play ball because he knows that risking his starters only hurts him, and his team, in the long run.
So why did she not stop spending? Hubris? I refuse the notion that she didn't know, or refused to believe, what was seemingly inevitable. So, that leaves ego and I believe that the 90's gave both Bill and Hill plenty of that. Not the electorate as a whole, not her want to be a good public servant, but the chance to stay in the spotlight a little longer was her driving factor, and that I WILL NOT PAY FOR!
Thank you Hillary and Bill for your public service, but as for me, my money is staying right where it belongs...the gas station.
-Via con Dios,
HCP
1 comment:
I can't say I disagree with any of the points you make, and I definitely agree on the 'ego' aspect of her campaign. All politicians have egos ... it's what drives them in the first place. But most would've recognized it was over a lot sooner. And since she only suspended her campaign, it's not even over right now. Her delegates still hang in the proverbial balance.
Post a Comment