About This Blog
Every time an election rolls around, we hear about 'change'; how this candidate or that candidate respresents change. It's the perpetual cry of the politician. The prospective electee never wants to be considered a Washington insider or a member of the status quo, because everyone in america, even those who don't follow politics at all, knows one thing for sure about the government: it's all fouled up. Yet somehow, with a sea of new candidates representing 'change' being elected to political office year after year, nothing ever seems to change very much. For my entire life, all the government has done is get bigger and bigger, and thus, worse and worse. The bigger the bureaucracy gets, the worse it gets. It's axiomatic and certain.
Cue tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate, with a slate full of candidates all vowing to make government bigger and bigger, and thus, worse and worse. They won't tell YOU that, but it is what it is. The Dems are always looking to increase government in order to fix the things that went wrong with the last increase of government. It's like Murphy's Law.
This year's 'agent of change' frontrunners include Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, two senators and a former senator. That's a pretty funny notion right there - senators as 'outsiders'. Oh well, whatever fools the rubes. As the debate started, I noticed something new right away. The other Democratic candidates, and even moderator Tim Russert (also a Democrat, in case you don't know), were attacking and challenging Hillary. This was a direct violation of the unwritten rule of the Democratic party and their pet media:
THOU SHALT NOT ASK A CLINTON TOUGH QUESTIONS.
The last media guy who asked a Clinton a tough question, Chris Wallace of Fox News, who asked Bill why he didn't get Bin Laden when he had the chance, nearly got his head bitten off. Clinton was very indignant that this arrogant little peon dared to question HIM, the once and future king (okay, co-king).
So you can understand why Hillary was caught off-guard. Democrats attacking Clintons just isn't done in polite liberal society. No longer was Hillary getting 'hardball' questions that were thinly disguised variations of the following:
Moderator: "Mrs Clinton, being the smartest woman on the planet, and the wife of the greatest president of the 20th century, what steps would you take to reverse the Bush regime's tragic path toward america's destruction ?"
Hillary: "Well, I'm glad you asked. I've always been firmly against america's destruction".
Nope, no more questions like that. Hillary got so frustrated that she even had to go off-script a few times, as she was called out on her myriad political positions, and you know what happens when a Clinton has to actually answer questions: They lie, lie, lie. It isn't pretty, and Hillary isn't as good at it as Bill, who I have to admit is a master. Hillary ended up saying she wasn't in favor of driver's licenses for illegals after she said it was a good idea two minutes earlier. Russert highlighted her contradictory statements about raising the payroll tax on Social Security, to which Hillary basically said she didn't do it (she did) and "this is where everybody plays gotcha" (translation: 'Yeah, Hillary, he got you !'). Obama and Edwards dunned her for not releasing her National Archives info, to which Hillary obfuscated, and they accused her of cozying up to the Republicans with her vote to categorize Iran's Republican Guard as a terrorist organization ( as if there's another possible category ? I thought that was settled in 1979), prompting Hillary to equivocate and mouth the equivalent of 'bu-but, I hate Bush !' about 150 times. Somebody should tell Hillary that Bush isn't running in 2008, she seems unaware of the fact. She barely uttered a sentence without invoking his name. Hillary gave a number of answers that made you roll your eyes.
The question I have about all this is, why did the Dems turn on Hillary like that ? This was no accident. It wasn't just Obama doing it. It was all of them, a conscious effort, with the exception of Richardson, who must be Hillary's VP choice. Is it because the polls say 50% of america won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances ? Or have the Dems realized the Republicans are salivating at the thought of Hillary as the nominee, because the Right has an arsenal of weapons to use against her in the general election ? Or is it something we don't know about yet ? Could a new Clinton scandal be about to break ? Will Britney get her kids back ?
Enquiring minds want to know.