while I'm posting about everything...
Aug. 31st, 2007 03:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chhotiiI am not rooting for Hillary, btw. Really not rooting for Hillary.
I went from being indifferent to somewhat anti-Hillary when I heard her reply when asked "Are you going to continue to keep accepting money from lobbyists?" She said something like "Yes! Lobbyists can be good people. I take money from ones who represent real Americans, such as nurses." (A terrible paraphrase of her wording, but true to the gist, I think.) In other words, "Yes! I take their money and listen seriously to what they say!" Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! I could believe and respect a politician who answered "Yes"-- if they followed it with something like "--because I just could not compete with other politicians who take their money if I didn't. But I try not to listen to what they say, except for the ones I already agree with, of course." But this lobbyists represent real Americans crap... Sure, they represent real Americans: but any one lobbyist represents a small fraction of all Americans, a faction that has banded together to lobby Washington to set things up in their favor, possibly in their favor at the expense of everyone else. Not to say that all lobbyists are evil-- there are lobbyists on the side of causes I agree with-- but lobbyists cost money, so lobbying power must be proportional to financial power, which is not always proportional to the greater good. Really, so, so not. Duh!
Of course, this came after her not expressing any regret for voting in favor of the Iraq resolution, or for not reading the report before the vote. My kind of candidate... well, of course, my ideal kind of candidate would have been too smart to vote for the Iraq resolution in the first place. But I would settle for one who could say "I was wrong. I was wrong to trust our so-called Commander in Chief. I should have realized that slime-bag would abuse any privileges the Congress granted him. I was wrong to not see that he could blatantly misread this as giving him the right to do any crazy thing he wanted in Iraq."
After all these years of GWB, it would be refreshing to have a leader who could admit to making a mistake, yes?
I have never been impressed with Hillary just because she's a woman.
(Of course, in spite of everything and anything, when it comes down to Mitt vs. Hillary, or any other such match-up, I'm totally with the non-Republican 100% of the way... I mean, where does one even start making fun of Mitt Romney?)
I went from being indifferent to somewhat anti-Hillary when I heard her reply when asked "Are you going to continue to keep accepting money from lobbyists?" She said something like "Yes! Lobbyists can be good people. I take money from ones who represent real Americans, such as nurses." (A terrible paraphrase of her wording, but true to the gist, I think.) In other words, "Yes! I take their money and listen seriously to what they say!" Bzzzzt! Wrong answer! I could believe and respect a politician who answered "Yes"-- if they followed it with something like "--because I just could not compete with other politicians who take their money if I didn't. But I try not to listen to what they say, except for the ones I already agree with, of course." But this lobbyists represent real Americans crap... Sure, they represent real Americans: but any one lobbyist represents a small fraction of all Americans, a faction that has banded together to lobby Washington to set things up in their favor, possibly in their favor at the expense of everyone else. Not to say that all lobbyists are evil-- there are lobbyists on the side of causes I agree with-- but lobbyists cost money, so lobbying power must be proportional to financial power, which is not always proportional to the greater good. Really, so, so not. Duh!
Of course, this came after her not expressing any regret for voting in favor of the Iraq resolution, or for not reading the report before the vote. My kind of candidate... well, of course, my ideal kind of candidate would have been too smart to vote for the Iraq resolution in the first place. But I would settle for one who could say "I was wrong. I was wrong to trust our so-called Commander in Chief. I should have realized that slime-bag would abuse any privileges the Congress granted him. I was wrong to not see that he could blatantly misread this as giving him the right to do any crazy thing he wanted in Iraq."
After all these years of GWB, it would be refreshing to have a leader who could admit to making a mistake, yes?
I have never been impressed with Hillary just because she's a woman.
(Of course, in spite of everything and anything, when it comes down to Mitt vs. Hillary, or any other such match-up, I'm totally with the non-Republican 100% of the way... I mean, where does one even start making fun of Mitt Romney?)
