Too correct, no charisma, no mainstream knowledge, too righteous - that's Hillary's profile. Her husband on the other hand had charisma, was intelligent and had a "suck me baby" presence. Under his reign the US actually ended up with a surplus in their coffers - now we are spending trillions (how many zeros is that) on forlorn dreams in the Middle East paining the back of taxpayers with no end in sight and diving into a vortex of national debt like never before. The US economy is in shambles, to state otherwise would be an utter stinking lie. The dollar has lost all its luster. Bush and his administration killed the US - thoroughly, the economy, national prestige and also hope for the future.
But Hillary, or any other following new president, will have a hard time fixing this mess. It will take generations.
Hillary is not my girl, she will never win my heart, maybe she could have in the 60's - but not now. So what are we left with - Obama, Ruckabee, sorry Huckabee and Romney. And there is still Edwards, I would certainly vote for him. But he will not win the Democratic party's nomination, therefore not electable. Obama, if he actually wins, will have no chance. He probably will get shot and killed like the other Kennedy's before him and any of his youthful wisdom wasted on the pavement before it even could have splattered to the masses. That's what we call "the American way". Kill first, ask later! So what does that leave us with? Huckabee, an evangelist wannabe with humor on his side?
Back to my train of thought. The Democrats will not (again not) win this coming election, 'cause their nominees are either useless or unelectable. So the Repubs will win this despite their internal confusion. An other moron is on the horizon. If McCaine could win, I wouldn't mind at all, but all the others?...
I might have eyeballed Hillary differently when she still was a hippie - but for now, in this millennium, she has estranged herself to my taste. If I shall vote at all, I'll go for Edwards.
It is really too bad that the US has only a two party system. It's like watching a ping-pong game waiting for the ball(s) to drop from the table. And this very game here they call - democracy.
Sunday, January 6
Why the Democrats will loose again
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Hi Zee ~it’s interesting for me to try and understand your political system and why the process takes as long from the selection of candidates in the primaries until final elections. I gather the founding fathers excluded any mention of political parties in your constitution, and were opposed to them. So they presumably operate according to basic freedoms, which means you could theoretically start a new party?
But in essence I guess that’s practically impossible because of the huge funding involved? I also noted the controversy over voting, which would be more democratic if controlled through a national electoral office? However by far the greatest bar to democracy seems to lie in the province of the ginormous funding necessary. What do you think?
In Australia we also only have two major parties—the Liberal Party of Australia (LPA) and the Australian Labour Party (ALP) but currently there are also four minor parties—the Nationals (the NATS), the Australian Democrats (AD), the Australian Greens (AG) and the Family First Party. We also have somewhat archaic constitution which makes no mention of political parties.
Best wishes
I ams sooooo tired Lindsay, put up roof rafters today - so any answer would not give justice to your fine comment.
Yes, you can theoretically start third or fourth parties in the US. It was formally tried by Nader and Perot.
But for now we will remain a "duocracy".
Post a Comment