When I prepare to write this blog I take pride in researching the issues and where the candidates stand on them. It scared me when I wasn't able to get any substantive information on Barack Obama concerning the issues. So I visited his website, where I thought I would get detailed positions on the issues that matter to him. Instead, I found that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had more depth on the first page of his blog than the entire Barack Obama site. It sent chills down my spine to see that a dictator gave more information, on a blog no less, than Barack Obama has throughout his entire run for the Presidency.
Then I got mad. It pissed me off to see that a dictator that considers me the enemy feels that it is necessary to engage me, while a fellow American running for President could care less. How can this be possible in a free nation? Is this the change that Obama claims to want to bring to America?
The only thing I can glean from Obama is that he considers change more important than taking a stand on anything. What change is he advocating? He is essentially saying that he wants to be more of a referee in Washington, rather than a leader. He wants to also be the world's referee, acting as a neutral party for positive change, rather than acting as a leader. This stance places him above scrutiny. It gives him the ability to say that while the others spend time fighting over the issues he spends his time above that looking for consensus on the issues. He won't allow the issues to sully his boots. Referees don't take part in the fight, they judge it from a distance. Dictators do this very well. Dictators are always above the issues never getting their turbans dirty. At least Ahmadinejad tries to face the opposition, which is more than I can say about Obama.
Then I got mad. It pissed me off to see that a dictator that considers me the enemy feels that it is necessary to engage me, while a fellow American running for President could care less. How can this be possible in a free nation? Is this the change that Obama claims to want to bring to America?
The only thing I can glean from Obama is that he considers change more important than taking a stand on anything. What change is he advocating? He is essentially saying that he wants to be more of a referee in Washington, rather than a leader. He wants to also be the world's referee, acting as a neutral party for positive change, rather than acting as a leader. This stance places him above scrutiny. It gives him the ability to say that while the others spend time fighting over the issues he spends his time above that looking for consensus on the issues. He won't allow the issues to sully his boots. Referees don't take part in the fight, they judge it from a distance. Dictators do this very well. Dictators are always above the issues never getting their turbans dirty. At least Ahmadinejad tries to face the opposition, which is more than I can say about Obama.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Hillary's Strategy: An Insult to America
Attention Hillary: American voters may be misinformed and lacking in political astuteness, but they aren't DUMB.Hillary and her campaign are stuck on stupid. Their strategy to skirt the issues without taking a definitive stand is losing because voters don't think inevitability and name recognition is enough. She's unwittingly fighting a personality battle with a man that can't lose based on personality. And it's insulting to the American people to continue to do this.
Why won't she change? It's simple: she doesn't want to lock herself into positions that will hurt her when she runs against the Republican candidate. She wants to be able to go into the general election with as much wiggle room and freedom as possible on the issues. It's a sign that she doesn't believe that a majority of the American people want a far left leaning candidate. So she would rather take the risk of running on personality instead of substance in the primaries.
Barak Obama is too strong a candidate for Hillary to win this way. Our nation needs to know what our Presidential candidates stand for. Hillary's weak strategy has only revealed one thing: Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton believe in change. That's it. Hillary allows Obama to get away with saying that the change he believes in consists of listening to the American people. But on issue after issue Obama sides with the minority fringe left on the issues. He doesn't intend to listen to the American people if he becomes President, yet Hillary's strategy allows him to get away this notion that he will. She needs to call him out on illegal immigration, taxes, and the economy. He says the American people only care about health care, the war in Iraq, and domestic economy issues. He'll throw in the environment and some other issues every once and a while, but that's the crux of his argument. Hillary refuses to challenge his assumption because she fears taking a stand on the "real issues", like illegal immigration.
Hillary's strategy is going to end with her losing, and the Democrat Party being stuck with a candidate that isn't electable.
Her unwillingness to take on the issues is ultimately reflective of a self absorbed, insatiable desire to win the Presidency. Even at the cost of her own Party. It is the ultimate insult to the electorate, and the American people aren't dumb enough to stand for it.
