Remember way back in January when Bill Clinton said Sen. Obama was the establishment candidate? Well, Sen. Clinton has picked up the refrain. You know Sen. Clinton…with her alleged 35 years of experience? Yes, they’re trying to paint Sen. Obama as the establishment candidate. Again.
So…how does that work with their claims that he isn’t “waiting his turn” or that he’s too young (ignoring the fact that he’s the same damn age Bill Clinton was when he took office)? We hear Sen. Clinton touting her friendships she’s made through the years, we hear those friends touting that Sen. Clinton has “the experience”, but somehow, in some convoluted, head-exploding way, the candidate they say who doesn’t have “the experience” is establishment. And she has “35 years of experience”.
But today, Clinton is trying to turn the tables on Obama saying that he has “increasingly run an establishment race and he has increasingly relied on big endorsements and celebrities to sort of attach himself to to get the kind of validation that comes from that sort of endorsement.”
At a news conference at the University of Maine, Clinton added that Obama’s positions have shifted with outside pressures.
“And he has increasingly, in my view, really tailored his positions so that they are more establishment-oriented like giving up on universal health care, so I think there is an argument to be made there. If we want a Democrat to be the Democratic standard bearer, who stands for the positive, progressive agenda of the Democratic party as opposed to more of the same or a little less than more of the same, then I think I’m the best candidate to carry that message.”
Said the person using poll-tested buzzwords. I’m sorry, but there isn’t a progressive out there who is deluded enough to think that Sen. Clinton is actually ‘progressive’. Just looking at her votes in Congress, there isn’t a progressive out there who’s deluded enough to believe that another Clinton presidency would bring about a progressive agenda. Hell, I don’t even think there are progressive who think that Obama will do it, but at least with him there’s a chance since he has a record of working with people, not telling it like it’s going to be due to some poll.
But does Clinton really want to get into “retailored views”? The stuff she’s saying this month bears almost no relationship to what she was saying over the summer, it’s only distantly related to what she was saying in Nov. and Dec. While Clinton has done a good job of completely flipping her positions, though they don’t exactly mirror what’s on her website still, I see that not only has Sen. Obama refined his positions but even in the ones where he has changed his mind, he explains why. The driver license for undocumented workers is a fine example for both of them.
And while Clinton may push her so-called universal “healthcare”, with a deficit as big as what we have, is that really the most important thing right now? We know that she allows her donors, the health insurance and phramacuetical companies to shape her policy on this. Her “healthcare” solution is just as bad as the Schwarzenegger-Nunez health proposal recently (thankfully) killed in the CA legislature. How does she plan on paying for this? I don’t know. I do know that she has considered garnishing wages. Think about that for a minute or rather, put yourself in my shoes: I need to take both kids to the doctor, I need to go to the doctor. I can not afford to go because I ain’t got no money. With Clinton’s healthcare plan, she’ll just garnish my wages so that I can go to the doctor. Great. So, even though Alton has his shots, Ilia’s eye is taken care of and I get my checkup, I can’t feed my kids, or keep the lights on. Real progressive of you Sen. Clinton. Is that what her “movement” is about?
Is her “movement” anti-establishment? Because when I look at Super Tuesday, I see that Clinton won only the typical liberal areas. Those places where it counts, where it’s decidedly not establishment, is where Obama won. Soundly, in most cases. You know, North Dakota, Utah, Idaho…are those establishment states? Or would that be New York and California? Does this now mean that her alleged 35 year of experience mean nothing, since that was when she was establishment and now she’s not?
I got a lot of questions