See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: President Hillary: The Era of Dynastic Politics, Where Nothing Really Changes
Source:
CounterPunch
URL Source: http://counterpunch.com/roberts01242008.html
Published: Jan 24, 2008
Author: Paul Craig Roberts
Post Date: 2008-01-24 14:43:42 by aristeides
Keywords: None
Views: 116
Comments: 4
President Hillary The Era of Dynastic Politics, Where Nothing Really Changes By Paul Craig Roberts If polls are reliable, Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. The Democratic groups that prefer Obama are not sufficiently numerous to give him the nomination. Of course, anything can happen in a political campaign, but the latest Field Poll of likely California Democrats and independent voters gives Hillary a 39 to 27 percent lead over Obama. This is bad news for Obama, because California is a progressive state where race is less likely to be a handicap. Obama is favored by those who rank the Iraq war and foreign policy as the most important issues, by blacks, college graduates, and those with higher incomes. Hillary is favored two to one by women, two to one by lower income groups and three to one among Latinos. Hillary has a further advantage. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention approximately 50 per cent of the delegates were women. As Democratic delegates are invariably feminists, they are not going to miss the chance of putting a woman in the presidency. Are the Democrats choosing Hillary because she has the moral integrity to stop an unjust war and to hold war criminals responsible for leading America into war based on lies and deception? Are they choosing Hillary because she defends the US Constitution from usurpation by executive power? Are they choosing her because she is public-spirited instead of personally ambitious? No. The Democrats are choosing Hillary because of gender and race. Despite all the efforts of Democratic activist groups, the majority of Democratic voters are more concerned with race and gender issues than with their country's reputation and their civil liberties. If elected president, Hillary will bring no more change than did the Democratic congressional majority elected in 2006. Obama might not bring any change either. But he is the only candidate in the running who has expressed concern over Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians and who voted against the Iraq invasion. Clearly, he is a better bet for change than Hillary. However, Democrats are more attuned to race and gender issues than to war crimes and loss of civil liberties. This is not to argue that Republicans are an improvement. Their likely nominee is McCain, who has recently said that he is OK with a hundred-year war in Iraq. McCain is as willing to attack Iran as Bush and Cheney, and he would not be adverse to conspiring with Israel and the neoconservatives to pull off an attack. Republicans don't even have a "change" candidate in the running. They have worked to marginalize Ron Paul precisely because he would be an instrument of change. Even if Obama were elected and was sincere about change, what could he do? Probably very little. The pool of candidates from which he could staff an administration is not that much different from that of any other candidate. He can pass over a neocon architect of the Iraq invasion and settle on an architect of President Clinton's bombing of Serbia. Moreover, Congress will still be controlled by the same interest groups. If Obama were to appoint people opposed by the military-security lobby, the Israel Lobby or the offshoring lobby, the Senate would be unlikely to confirm them. No president wants to nominate people who cannot be confirmed. Presidents have to staff their administrations according to who can get the approval of powerful interest groups. This makes if difficult to change the status quo. It only takes one senator to put a hold on an appointment. Change in Washington requires breaking many iron grips. In the presidential race, Hillary would defeat McCain, who without any doubt is the war candidate. Hillary will get the women's vote, the minorities' vote, and the anti-war vote. McCain will get the vote of angry macho white males. What Hillary has to worry about is a major terrorist attack, whether real or orchestrated, that would revive the 9/11 fears and send voters scurrying to put the presidency into the hands of a war hero. As Hillary is not regarded as a threat to Israel's territorial expansion or to the interests of the military-security complex, the only wild card is some terrorist action that would require the failure of US security in order to succeed. Of course, all of this ignores the salient fact: No one knows how the Diebold electronic voting machines programmed by Republican operatives with proprietary software will count the votes. If it hasn't become a stolen affair, the American presidency has become a family affair, one that is passed from a Bush to a Clinton to a Bush and back to a Clinton. The interest groups are satisfied, and nothing of importance changes. After Hillary will we have Jeb? Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: aristeides (#0)
Great choices there. I choose Ron Paul or REVOLUTION!! "There is a Providence that protects idiots, drunkards, children and the United States of America." - Otto von Bismarck
Of course she will. That was a given from Day 1 of the George Bush term. And this has always been why Obama was picked, hyped and financed by the power brokers to offer the only counterpoint to her; it is not possible to elect a black candidate to the presidency of the United States; it ain't gonna happen.... just as it would not happen that a woman could be elected (and esp. a harpy such as this one!) UNLESS she was running against a particularly nasty piece of work. To fill that spot, i.e., 'a particularly nasty piece of work,' I give you McCain, who, if he actually shows signs of life and is a threat to the harpy, there is so much that she can bring out, and will, that the result is a forgone conclusion. Welcome to the Second Coming of Clinton Hell, which follows the Second Coming of Bush Hell, which followed closely the First Installment of Clinton Hell, which followed closely the First Installment of Bush Hell. And da man know of what he do speak; After Hillary will we have Jeb? Makes one wonder just what it takes to wake people up; it is 'their' system, and 'their' government, and no matter who gets elected, nothing will change. Reality is a bitch, and her name is.......
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
I have commented on this before, a number of times; control of the nation is a LOCAL affair, and if the people do not have control of their local power bases; i.e., cities, towns, counties and states, then anything/time spent on the federal elections/Washington, DC, is time, and money, wasted. The perfect example of this is the election of federal Senators by popular vote, when the Constitution clearly states that no state can be deprived of their representation in the Senate without their approval. But it continues, and people still do not 'get it.'
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
#2. To: aristeides (#0)
Hillary will get the women's vote, the minorities' vote, and the anti-war vote. McCain will get the vote of angry macho white males.
#3. To: aristeides (#0)
If polls are reliable, Hillary will win the Democratic nomination.
#4. To: aristeides (#0)
This makes if difficult to change the status quo. It only takes one senator to put a hold on an appointment. Change in Washington requires breaking many iron grips.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest