The 2008 US Presidential Race is Between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
November 23rd 2007 10:15
President Bush has made it clear for us, 24% of Americans will vote Republican no matter what while the rest will vote based on the Iraq war, withdrawal or policy in handling it. Victory will be assured to the party that produces the most anti-war Candidate yet neither side dare go that way.
The Democrats try to make themselves look different to the Republicans, yet all they can really do is criticize the Bush Administration - they have shown an extreme reluctance to act as they had promised. Or had they? Have they promised anything? Do we have a solid promise that if a Democrat wins the presidency the mess in Iraq will be sorted, the numerous laws giving the president previously unknown powers be taken away?
There is no garantee, but a Democrat will win but not because of his or her policices or views. Americans want to see an end to the bloodshed but they are unwilling to vote on a radically different President who really wants to change US foreign policy. In fact this reluctance comes from a fear induced by the very people who fund the elections of these politicians.
Such candidates as Dennis Kuccinich and Mike Gravel will never be given a running chance and lets face it, there are only two candidates amongst the Democrats who may be nominated for presidency. It's either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, neither have stated clearly they are willing to reverse the powers George Bush has given himself and neither have laid out any solid plans for the Iraq war. In fact Hillary Clinton sounds like the biggest hypocrit of the two when she says President Bush is not handling the war properly then vaguely says she still supports it.
Whoever is nominated amongst the Democrats will be the president of the United States not because of policy or ideals but because of face. The various lobbyists will not have someone with a more radical agenda getting nominated, especially amongst the Democrats. Ultimately the elections are a carefully elaborated stage play. The agendas are already set, the policies are set and all that matters now is the sugar coated wrapping, whoever it may be.
The Democrats try to make themselves look different to the Republicans, yet all they can really do is criticize the Bush Administration - they have shown an extreme reluctance to act as they had promised. Or had they? Have they promised anything? Do we have a solid promise that if a Democrat wins the presidency the mess in Iraq will be sorted, the numerous laws giving the president previously unknown powers be taken away?
There is no garantee, but a Democrat will win but not because of his or her policices or views. Americans want to see an end to the bloodshed but they are unwilling to vote on a radically different President who really wants to change US foreign policy. In fact this reluctance comes from a fear induced by the very people who fund the elections of these politicians.
Such candidates as Dennis Kuccinich and Mike Gravel will never be given a running chance and lets face it, there are only two candidates amongst the Democrats who may be nominated for presidency. It's either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, neither have stated clearly they are willing to reverse the powers George Bush has given himself and neither have laid out any solid plans for the Iraq war. In fact Hillary Clinton sounds like the biggest hypocrit of the two when she says President Bush is not handling the war properly then vaguely says she still supports it.
Whoever is nominated amongst the Democrats will be the president of the United States not because of policy or ideals but because of face. The various lobbyists will not have someone with a more radical agenda getting nominated, especially amongst the Democrats. Ultimately the elections are a carefully elaborated stage play. The agendas are already set, the policies are set and all that matters now is the sugar coated wrapping, whoever it may be.
| 71 |
| Vote |
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
And on an unrelated note...what's this ?
(Whirlwind news, AUS):"The Coalition earlier this year launched its own internet filter. The software, placed on PCs in children's homes, was infamously cracked just 30 minutes after it was released by the government."
Ahhhhmeddddd??????
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
The above comment is a form of humour. It is called "breaking balls". It's a sophisticated form of humour and should not be attempted by those who have no grasp of such. It does not in any way implicate the author of this blog in any wrongdoing.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.