The Clinton Years Are Over!

In a Washington Post article this morning announcing Karl Rove’s resignation it read, ” In the interview with the Journal, Rove painted a typically upbeat picture of what the future holds for Bush and the Republican Party. He predicted that conditions in Iraq would improve in coming months as the effect of the surge is felt, and that Democrats will split over issues like wiretaps in the name of national security. He said he believes the Democrats are likely to nominate New York Sen. Hillary Clinton for president in 2008, and speculated that Republicans would have "a very good chance" of holding onto the White House for a third consecutive term.”

I doubt he will be right about the first prediction although the Bush administration has a success record of convincing the predominately ignorant American people that things are other than reality. After all they twice have cast enough votes for Bush to allow the Republican Mafia to easily steal the election, 2000 in Florida, and 2004 in Ohio. American voters are reality adverse. Bush is not a rational human being. He is an insecure, delusional human being lacking in intelligence and exhibits sociopathic behavior patterns. This man is an embarassment to our country, a threat to world order and to our democracy.

And in the case of the second prediction, Rove is not all that prescient in predicting the Democrats will split over issues like infringement on individual rights and freedoms in the guise of being absolutely essential to national security. Just look at the history of the last ten years or more. Most elected Democrats in congress are spineless prostitutes of the worst kind.

But Rove is most certainly right about prediction number three if Hillary were to become the Democratic Party’s nominee. Rove predicts that with Hillary as the candidate to run against, the Republicans can win, or more correctly, will once again be in a position to steal yet another election. I reluctantly agree.

I think the Democrats just might nominate Hillary and that just could be the kiss of death for the party in 2008. Many progressive Democrat's feel she’s just too controversial, her negatives are too high, and her lightening rod quotient is off the charts. A recent analysis of her campaign pointed out that she carefully avoids being pinned down on her positions on the issues and speaks in generalities and political double-speak. This is typical of politicians who have mastered the game. A Hillary nomination would likely assure a big anti-Hillary turnout of Republican and Cristian right-wing voters, a lukewarm, hold-your-nose-and-vote turnout for many Democrats, and a no-show by disaffected Greens and independents. Maybe not - but it's very possible.

Progressive Democrats realize that a Hillary presidency would result in acquiescence to corporate power, capitulation to Republican hoodlums, triangulation and a centrist approach that almost guarantees no change in the direction of this country or the problems we face. Under Hillary we will likely stay in Iraq for many more years, our borders will remain open, corruption in government and the trade deals will hold fast or will increase assuring a continuation of obscene corporate profits, a bleeding of good paying American jobs, an ineffective attempt at healthcare system reform, continued deterioration of infrastructure, etc. Despite the popularity of Bill Clinton he was a free trader and a corporate mistress who helped get us in the mess we are now in. If she is elected, Hillary will continue to coddle and defer to the corporate powers.

It’s plain and simple – we need change. The Clinton years are over. There are too many Democrats who held their nose and voted for Kerry who don’t want to have to do it again for Hillary. We need a candidate who is not just charismatic and politically savvy but one that offers a dramatic change from the culture of corruption, wealth and corporate power that DC insiders, the DLC and K-Street lobbyists are scrambling to protect. We need someone who can be honest regardless of the potential fallout and who instills a real feeling of confidence in their leadership ability by virtue of their courage to take on the obscenely corrupt corporate-political hierarchy and return the power to the people. In 2004 that candidate was Howard Dean. Instead we were force fed DLC puppet and political hack, John Kerry, by the Democratic Party.

In 2008 there are a couple of developing Democratic candidates that might possibly have the courage and ability to foster the hard-choice changes this country needs to make that will help steer us back in the direction that made this country great in the beginning. These two candidates are the only ones in the field that also have a strong potential to be elected if nominated. That would be Barack Obama and John Edwards.

But there is one leader amongst us that has the vision and proven courage to effect change, and who more than qualifies to lead this nation, and who would likely win with a sizable swell of support from the ranks of all political factions including a good number of Republicans. This is the only potential candidate that would attract the support of almost every Green Party member, the biggest percentage of independents, an overwhelming majority of Democrats and this time I would wager, even the full support of the rebel populist Ralph Nader.

That would be Al Gore.

If only he will run.

Is Gore Too Good for the US?

I got this comment from Dick Pohlman's American Debate blog. I think it sums up what a lot of people who voted for Bush and Nader are feeling, makes the point that We the People are what's really wrong with this country, and nails the Republicans and the Democrats for what they really are.

I hated Gore in 2000, and voted for Nader. (I live in NY; it didn't matter as to the scoreboard, under our dumbassed system. But there are still very few things in my life I regret more.)

But I now feel that Gore is, frankly, too good for this country. He sees the myriad and deeply rooted systemic obstacles to any kind of positive change, and he puts the blame where it belongs--on We the People, who have allowed all the greatness of our country to leech away over the last 40 years or so. Gore's a better man than I am, because he still seems to think there's hope of reversing the trend. I do not. I just see:

--a cadre of deranged nuts on the right who aren't even smart enough to realize that, in their fetishization of brute force and utter hatred of those with whom they disagree, they're essentially fascists;

--a bunch of "Democrats," so-called, who are far more obsessed with retaining their illusory power than actually using it for any constructive purpose;

--and hundreds of millions of us in the left, right, and middle who don't really care if our nation goes down the crapper, so long as we personally get fed and entertained.

Frankly, I'm as guilty of this as anyone else. What we don't realize is that as our democracy goes, our material prosperity is very likely to follow sooner or later.

I'd like to point out that I'm not as guilty as the poster or as many of the rest of you. I've realized this all along.