SOS Clinton is better qualified to be president than anyone, including current, former, and now-serving politicians. Period. Her values more closely tune to the great unserved Middle than anyone else, though both Sanders and Warren warm the cockles of my old heart. Mitt is a moderately crazy Republican in-service to the 1%. Obama is a lame DINO in service to the 1%. So unless the ghost of LBJ possesses Obama, our Middle options are severely limited.
I'd love to be able to support a reasonable third party-- one that puts winning elections,and therefore ultimately obtaining the results you wanted to begin with, first, not taking immovable principled stands on every issue coming and going. Yes, take immovable positions on some things, like social security, the public option, equal pay and opportunity for all, and tax fairness. Do not take hard positions on every detail of every issue-- that leaves no room for compromise, which is the art of governing. I generally like The Coffee Party, though they seem more inclined to work within the Democratic Party (sidebar-- never let the GOP rename anything, especially your own political party) rather than running their own third party candidates.
The bottom line appears to be either to "Tea Party" the Democrats or support a third party, but is it possible to both at the same time? I think so, and that's the way I'll direct my energy. (For more discussion on this issue, see the comments in this post.
7 comments:
I almost cried when I saw this title. I literally just responded to an "accusation" on Hillary is 44 just 5 minutes ago.... Here it is below....
I don't appreciate accusations that someone is manipulating DailyPUMA.
All that DailyPUMA did was better organize blogs that used to support Hillary Clinton in 2008.
If your blog NEVER comes out with a title that says, we want Hillary Clinton for president in 2008, OR, revisits the bile that the head of the democratic party instilled on it's own voters in 2008, but your blog regularly attacks Barack Obama, than the odds are that your blog is a neo conservative blog that used to support Hillary Clinton.
If your blog is a progressive blog that supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, but lately just attacks conservatives with every topic post, then the odds are your blog has become a progressive blog that used to support Hillary Clinton.
IF HOWEVER, your blog does not automatically disagree with one side or the other all the time, your blog supported Hillary Clinton in 2008, and you are not embarrassed to say it NOW, even once month, in a blog title, HILLARY CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT, OR, simply review a horrible moment from 2008 that has clearly been swept under the rug by the hyper kinetic world we live in, than odds are you are a moderate blog that still supports Hillary Clinton, and your blog would be in the middle column.
No controversy. DailyPUMA is a lot more fun to view now because of the tidying up that has been done. And for feminists who are not men hating militant feminists, there are some truly wonderful feminist blogs, of course, in the middle section.
-Alessandro Machi
I Should have written We want Hillary Clinton for President in 2012, just like your title.
Jeez.I've gotta go look at that-- you've always been a voice of consistency & clarity as far as I'm concerned.
Thanks Bob. I did find a group on facebook called common sense politics. I think they are attempting to either be neutral but proactive, or moderate democrat. Might be worth checking out.
I'll give them a look asap.
So I did a google search..."Clinton for POTUS" with quotes around the phrase so that the exact phrase is sought out. TWO BLOGS have posted those three words since the beginning of 2012, you, and Anglachel's Journal.
I did not count DailyPUMA because it was listed because of the RSS link to your article.
However, Daily PUMA was listed under the google search "Hillary Clinton for President".
Here is the search link. Something is up with many of the alleged Pro Hillary Clinton blogs, or so it would seem, no?
"Clinton for POTUS"
Damn good point.
Post a Comment