In a nail biting turn of events, Hillary Clinton was able to capture the New Hampshire Primaries yesterday, beating Barack Obama by three percent. Clinton tearing up was said to bring some votes in for her. I'm not going to waste my time on speculating on whether Clinton meant it or not, but I am going to speak on what she said.
"Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream, and it was a great dream, and it was a great speech. But it took a president to realize that dream," Clinton said. How can the she take credit for that? It took a president to sign the papers. However, it did not take a president to realize the dream. We all realized it. I hate it when people use Dr. King's name for political and financial gain. That's why you see people saying "Come on down to the Martin Luther King sale!"
Obama may have won Iowa, but he faces an uphill battle to get the nomination. The current national polls show Clinton at 37% and Obama at 29%. It has been several months and Obama has not yet caught up to Hillary yet, despite that he won the Iowa Caucuses and that he is the most talked-about candidate. People ought to ask themselves, "Why can't Obama beat Hillary Clinton when he's the better choice?" Clinton has her own personal gain at stake here.
Ron Paul currently stands at 3%. Ron Paul is more talked-about and has raised more money than McCain, Romney, Giuliani, and any other person that is a Republican. In spite of all that, Paul stands at a mere 3%. As I said, people need to ask themselves why this is happening.
Can you not see this? The media is choreographing this themselves. The media has always been unfair and appears to appreciate more centrist views. Although a lot of Republicans believe that Hillary Clinton personifies the Democratic Party because her husband was in the White House for eight years, she is more conservative than Obama. Why do you think she supported the War? Why do you think she voted for the Iranian resolution that is essentially a fig leaf for George Bush to invade another country on a fraudulent basis?
Hillary Clinton is not interested in what Dr. King did, only money and votes. It's just like when Bill Clinton was playing the saxophone with some jazz players just so he could get some Black votes. I'd rather Hillary be like George Bush and say, "Forget Black people." And George Bush did say that, when he couldn't move fast enough for Louisiana when the levees broke. He has money to help people in Minnesota when the bridge collapsed, but he doesn't have money to help people in Louisiana.
I guess the media is as much to blame for my rage as Hillary Clinton is. Clinton has a comfortable lead in the race to be the next President of the United States. Everyone sees how this is going to turn out. Stop saying "Oh, that's messed up," and move on and eat your dinner. Stand up, stand united, and do something.
2 comments:
Unfortunately, Diego, I disagree with you completely. If anyone has received media scrutiny, it has been Barack Obama. Post-Iowa, he was being used in the same sentences as "historic" and "breathtaking". The media should not take opinionated roles in it. They talked about a Hillary breakdown.
And on this entire War in Iraq situation, Barack Obama was NOT in the US Senate at the time of the decision. Saying that you didn't support the War seems more like a conveninent fall-back now than the actual truth. I'm not saying that he would have voted for the war. I'm rather questioning the American voters ability to know that especially considering that most Democrats made their decisions to save their asses in the upcoming elections--would Barack Obama have done the same had he been in office at the time? And he still supports the war-funding bills (not to say HRC doesn't, but both of them have not taken any strides to end the war besides talking).
When it comes to a candidate who I would like, I feel experience and electability comes to mind. HRC is the candidate who I feel will take the Democratic party to the top.
As for him being African-American (I am an African-American myself), that is no reason to vote for him. Unlike Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, he's not running on a race-platform (aka "I will end racism"); he's hinted at it, but he's running on a different, more general platform (which is the reason why he appeals to so many Caucasian voters).
Shane I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.
Obama was not in Senate when the decision was made to invade Iraq. However, I saw Obama give a speech once. He said he went to an anti-war rally just prior to the invasion. If you want proof, here it is: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2966537&page=1
Obama is not my ideal candidate. I would have much more respect for him if he filibustered funding for the War or did other things that fought for what he believed in. Nonetheless, I would prefer Barack over Clinton.
I feel as though Clinton saying that her experience will help her "lead America on day one" is very asinine of her. Every candidate out there has a plan that they have in place. Do you think that if Barack is elected, on Day 1, He'll say "Hold on, time out"? Like I said, every single candidate has a plan that they are going to follow if elected.
Post a Comment