Under Bill Clinton the US was somewhat divided. It seemed half the country hated him, and half the country loved him and was willing to forgive him of his transgressions. Under George W. Bush that divide has only grown...
By the time Bush leaves office we will have had a Bush or Clinton in Office since 1989-- 20 years. 20 years of increasing division, a general lack of compromise, and a largely divided government full of politicians far more concerned in finger-pointing and placing blame for the faults of the country than acting to correct them.
Do we really want to elect another Clinton? I have nothing against Hillary personally. But doesn't she bring with her at least some of the baggage of divisiveness that existed under her husband's administration? Is it in the best interests of this country to elect someone who is far more likely to widen than close the division in this country? The division between the red conservative right and the blue liberal left? I'm asking legitimately, would Hillary be able to overcome the division caused by her predecessors (both Bush and her husband) and bring this country together? Or would a Hillary Clinton presidency only further widen that division?
I love this country, it's a country that exists largely of a rather moderate population, a population that is feeling increasingly marginalized by those special interests on the fringe who have stolen our voices from us and used our government as a means to their own selfish ends.
As I repeatedly stated during the 2004 election where I felt so disillusioned by both major parties that I voted for a 3rd party candidate for the first time in my life... Maybe Stealer's Wheel put it best: "Clowns to the left, Jokers to the right, and here I am stuck in the middle with you."
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Grrr. Blogger ate my comment.
I don't think the problems y'all are facing will change much because of the leader you choose. I believe real change can only happen with genuine lobby reform, campaign finance reform, and a rejection of the ridiculous notion that money IS speech. That's a more eefective way of neutralizing extremes (which are so very often driven by greed and self-interest).
The federal (and state and local) government need to be given the tools requited actually govern, without the interference and influence of special interests.
Happy New Year to you and yours, mate!
I personally don't care for Hillary Clinton, but for the reasons you state, I especially think she is not the correct choice for the upcoming election.
I'm excited to watch the who process play out, and am most interested in John Edwards.
However, I wholeheartedly agree with dantallion...reform with respect to lobbying and finances are much needed for change to occur. And may I add the need to kick out the apathy?? What are the percentages with respect to voting? It's amazingly low.....shocking really. I don't know how one gets out the vote....how one engages the voter to take part and to believe that their vote makes a difference. I think it happens at a very young age and nutured until they are at a voting age.
I have been listening to all the coverage lately. They keep using the catch phrase "change" as you did in your post. I think what is most lost in our country is critical thinking. The word change sounds good on the surface but it could mean anything. Change what? For the better? Worse? I am tired of the rhetoric and I gather you are from your thoughtful post. I think people forget to think about what they cannot see and how that could affect us as well. Thanks for such an important topic!
Post a Comment