Friday, February 01, 2008

Cal's Straight Talk -- Anyone But McCain

Actually if you really study the positions of Hillary and Obama they are not that different. Obama makes much of his objection to the Iraq war, so that is in his favor. However, we have to take him at his word because he wasn't even in the Senate at the time and couldn't vote. "If" he had been in the Senate and had the "same access" to the information as Hillary, who knows how he would have voted?

As for Hillary I thinks she knows she screwed up, but won't admit it, preferring to take a tough stance for her campigning purposes. Not a good sign.

They are both "pandering" to the zionists on Iran. Hillary is forceful on that all the time; Obama is just as forceful, but only when he is addressing a strictly Jewish audience -- other times he taps it down a bit.

My main objections to Hillary are the Clintonian thing and Israel pandering. My main objection to Obama is the Israel thing and the "hope" thing because "hope" and "getting along" is not a good weapon against special interests, and he seems too light in the economics and financial departments to me.

All of the candidates are nothing but "franchises" of the money behind them. In Obama's case, we still don't have a complete picture of his franchise except for some big-time Jews in Illinois. In Hillary's case, her franchise is strictly the same Clintonian franchise that Bubba had in the ninties -- a mixture of shady and non-shady interests.

Oddly enough, Obama's "hope is on the way" campaign is a lot like Clinton's 1992 "help is on the way" campaign from Hope Ark.

The least corrupt candidate, John Edwards, is out.

So what is our choice now? Should we go with what we know about Hillary, since the Clinton years, despite their personal lives and shady character associations, did produce the best years we've had in a long time -- or go with Obama who has less experience, BUT is not much different than Hillary in his positions?

Here is the bottom line -- they are both "establishment" politicans, but the dem establishment is turning against the Clintons and bringing in a "new" establishment guy in Obama. The fact that Obama voted "present" 140 times during his time as a state legislator puts me off. Doesn't he have an opinion, or does he always play it safe and not rock the boat? I just think the dems and the repubs could both "have their way" with Obama easier than they could with a Clinton who has an axe to grind with both parties..

So, shall we go with the Clinton establishment or the Dem establishment? In thinking about that question I am somewhat drawn to having a Hillary who is pissed off at both, rather than a new member who will be eager to please the dem establishment that has done nothing for us since we put them in the majority but whine they can't get anything passed. They whine for everyone to be "bipartisan" -- bipartisan meaning saving their own asses since the public has given congress as a whole a 25% approval rating.

Beats the hell out of me....but I will be voting for anyone but McCain.
Cal 45


At 7:18 PM, Blogger Claudia said...

Your reasoning is persuasive (they're all on the payroll) ....tho I might consider Hillary if she'd file for divorce....


Post a Comment

<< Home