Over the past 6-8 months, very few days have passed where I haven't commented to someone about the liberals' new plan of vilification, and how they believe it will get them back into the White House. It might be just coincidence that the two front runners are either black or a woman, but it also is politically advantageous to the liberal attack dogs, and something that they are not above exploiting. Don't like something Obama stands for... you're a racist. Ask Hillary hard questions or don't trust her to become Commander-in-Chief... you're sexist.
If you haven't seen it happen yet... just open your eyes and wait.
And if you don't think it will affect the voters, then you don't know too many white males or guilt-driven liberals. This country is so full of apologists, political-correctness, and what some have called "white guilt". Its hard to quantify, but from college campuses, to pop culture, to church bake sales... listen long enough and you'll see it. People are so afraid of being labeled a racist or a sexist that they will go out of their way to prove the contrary. Ever heard the "but some of my best friends are black" defense?
If you think the Democrats aren't counting on people swaying their opinion towards the minority candidate because they don't want to appear to be a bigot... you are fooling yourself. In today's society, appearances really are all that often matters.
Just ask President Bush. When he put forth a solid plan to fix Social Security and privatize accounts for young Americans while leaving plans for upcoming retirees in place... the attack dogs were in full force. The truth didn't matter... people were intimidated and frightened. Bush was going to stop paying Seniors their retirement checks, and if you supported him you wanted to do the same. Of course none of it was true... but that didn't matter.
And look at the debate on illegal immigration. Has a single debate about this real issue regarding our sovereignty and security ever occurred where someone's legitimate opinion about enforcing our borders hasn't been diminished to racism?
There are analysts banking on the same politics of fear and over political correctness for the Presidential election, and it has already started. And even former President Bill Clinton is in on it. Last week, when speaking in Iowa, President Clinton talked about women in politics and the recent election of Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner and pondered “It’s hard to believe that America is more sexist than Argentina.”
On MSNBC last week, some "expert" was on Chris Matthews' show talking about the gender gap in the support of Hillary. According to her a much larger percentage of women than men support Hillary. Her conclusion, "obviously" sexism explains why she has fewer men supporters. Could there be another cause? Like maybe more women in the survey wanted to support another woman's advancement into a new area and overlooked Hillary's numerous flaws? Could it be that by our very nature men and woman are concerned about different issues and thus the gravitate to different candidates? I think its possible, but the "expert" surely didn't. To her, clearly it was gender discrimination.
And so it begins.
Why can't we choose someone based on their qualifications, experience, values, opinion and character? Until we're all colorblind I guess its inevitable. But its not because of his color that I don't like Barack Obama, and its certainly not because of Hillary's gender. If you want to believe otherwise, so be it. Dismiss me. Dismiss us. All of us conservatives are just sexist, racists anyway.
But remember, I don't like Al Gore either, and he's about as white as they come.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm a woman, and I'll be damned if I'm going to support Hillary in 2008. Oh, I know I'm a Republican and wouldn't support her even if she were a man, but I think both men and women see right through her. She's just as slick as her husband, and I get a nagging feeling of distrust everytime I see her on TV. The American people are smart, smarter than most liberals care to acknowledge. I think in 2008, the right candidate will win. And if the wrong one does, we can only hope that 2012 comes quickly
Good point, Melanie. That's one thing I think we can all agree on. For me, Hillary has some great progressive ideas but she is just too much on the inside of Washington politics for my taste. I don't trust/like her either, so much so that I would vote for Giuliani before her in the general election.
So strategically, your side may actually want her as the Democratic nominee because I think either McCain or Giuliani could beat her next year. Although she would have to have a few missteps, which isn't likely from her, shall we say, "well run" campaign.
Missteps from Hillary? Her campaign is a well-oiled machine just as you mentioned. I do agree with your point about Hillary being the nominee as a good Republican strategic plan. I think that while now she has a lot of attention and support, I honestly don't think our country is ready for a woman to be president. I just don't see it happening. I think right now it looks like a possibility, but come next November, when the American people are going out to vote, I think the average middle class, mid-western American is not going to vote for her. Time will only tell. One thing is for certain, it will be a very interesting and lively race next year.
It's not about whether or not we are ready for a woman President... its are we ready for *THIS WOMAN* to be President. The answer I believe will be a resounding NO.
Hillary's ideas aren't progressive. Why did liberals get to steal that word? Hillary's ideas by and large are Socialist. Redistributing wealth, government programs to take care of every little need, government health care... its socialism. Socialism certainly isn't "progressive" by anyone's definition.
Post a Comment