Does it not seem that Hillary has shown disdain for the will of the majority of democractic primary voters ?
Does it not seem that she looks at anyone that votes for Barack Obama is some sort of turncoat ?
Didn't it seem that after February 5th, when she deferred to congratulate senator Obama or did not thank any of the voters that cast votes for her, that we would she Hillary's version of political "shock and awe" ?
Before the primary process began, I was and still am a Joh Edwards supporter. As I watched the primary process, I began to see Hillary thought that it had been ordained that she should be the Dem. nominee.
The current Republican administration and its defenders are Straussian as in Leo Strauss subscribers to gov't. and the way they see society as a whole. There are 3 main doctrines of Straussians. Deception, Power Of Religion, and Agressive Nationalism. I just want to focus on deception for now with Hillary.
Deception :
It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical – divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow.
Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).
Hillary shows all the signs of being a slight Straussian with a strong authoritarian governing style. Why would we want this again after 8 yrs. of W ? Her lack of transparency, her secrecy and not revealing her tax returns after her campaign saying numerous times that they would. How are we to trust that she will be any different than W when she/if she gets the privilige to lead this nation.
Will she be working for us or a Clinton legacy that she has already tarnished ?
How about when she basically endorsed John McCain recently by saying :
"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."
Basically giving the Republicans talking points for the general election.
"Party and voters be damned, for I am Queen Hillary and no one and nothing will stand in my way." She has not said this, but this is the "vibe" I pick up when each state comes in for Obama.
What does her campaign say about states that Barack Obama has won ?
"Obama has won the small caucus states with the latte-sipping crowd. They don’t need a president, they need a feeling."
Actually, the Clinton folks are dissing all of Obama's states. Not only are the caucus states "boutique" (wonder what that means), but none of his victories were in the "hardscrabble terrain." I guess that means that Obama never won any manly-man states. So which sissy Obama states are we talking about? His primary victories in: Missouri? Illinois? Maryland? Georgia? Alabama? Wisconsin? Virginia? Louisiana? Utah? South Carolina? Or the caucus states of: Nebraska? Alaska? Idaho? Kansas? North Dakota? Iowa? And Texas ? (He did win the caucases which gave him the delegate win in Texas)
As a staunch democrat and a voter that wants to see this party take back the White House, I cannot see giving someone the power whom derides voters, shows a strong authoritarian side and is willing to decieve i.e. Barack Obama is not a "Muslim" as far as I know and whom has apparently been under attack by a vast "right-wing conspiracy so long that she is using their own tactics to try to mame a candidate in our own party. The "Clintonistas" wonder why those of us that support Barack Obama have disdain for Hillary. Real quick, IT IS NOT BECAUSE SHE IS A WOMAN OR BECAUSE BARACK IS AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN, it is her TACTICS and her UNWILLINGNESS to disavow her surrogates. She reminds me of Bush in 2000 when his surrogates dragged John McCain through the mud in South Carolina.
What a surprise, didn't the attempt to maim Barack Obama also start in South Carolina ? Barack has been a gentleman this whole time, only reacting to the attacks of Hillary while the media says that it is both campaigns.
What a surprise that she wanted the delegates to count from Florida and Michigan, where Barack Obama's name was not even on the ballot. To see her that night making speeches about her great victories speaks volumes about her character and her personality.
Hillary wrote a book called, "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child". Her new book should be called, "The Rise Of Hillary While She Buries The Village".