Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Clinton vs. Obama

I would love to see a woman president. But not Clinton. She is the second most conservative Democrat in the Senate. Diane Feinstein is first; she has replaced Joe Lieberman as the swing vote. Neither Clinton nor Feinstein make good Democratic leaders. If we want to end the endless wars, get the big corporations out of bed with the politicians, withdraw from Iraq, restore our civil rights, rebuild our infrastructure, and bring in an era of Peace and growing prosperity, while balancing the budget, Clinton is not the candidate. She sold-out to the big corporations long ago.

In 2001, Madeleine Albright's name appeared on the PNAC website as a signer. By late 2003, all those signatures had been removed. Some people say that Madeleine Albright was as ruthless as Henry Kissinger. Yet, there she was standing right next to Clinton in Iowa in 2008. Bush came in with the old guard; so will Clinton. The destruction of Democracy will continue unhindered if Clinton wins the White House in 2008.

I believe Obama has sold-out to the big corporations also. The media seems to measure the candidates by the amount of money they raise rather than by their platforms. Anyone who wants peace and democracy won't even be included in the debates.

In 2004, we had a choice of one rich white male graduate of Yale member of Skull and Bones in favor of the Iraq war, or another rich white male graduate of Yale member of Skull and Bones in favor of the Iraq war. Where was the choice?

Now the media portrays the choice between a black man, a woman, a Mormon, a Baptist preacher, or Nostradamus. Yet the Constitution states that there be no religious test for president. Should there be a racial test or a gender test for president? Are we voting for a religious leader or a president? What are their platforms? The media doesn't exactly answer that.

Change? George Bush brought about a lot of change. In fact, George Bush brought so much change, we would like to reverse a lot of his changes in order to rescue Democracy. "Change" is a very flimsy platform.

Those who have clear platforms, like Kucinich, Ravel, and Paul, are excluded from the debate. I guess change means to keep trouble-makers who talk about real issues away from the leading candidates in order not to embarrass them. Any candidate worth their pluck would have boycotted the debates in which the more forthright candidates were excluded. They should have said it was anti-Democratic to exclude some candidates, and they should have refused to talk. But, in fact, the "change" touters were GLAD not to have Kucinich, Ravel and Paul on the stage with them. The leading contenders are all cowards.

Once again, the corporate media are choosing our presidential candidates for us. And we are letting them do so. I am so sick of talk about black man, woman, preacher, Mormon, corporate campaign contributions, etc. It is only a cut above the latest front-page slut gossip. Maybe Britney should run for president; no one would expect a platform from her.