Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Hillary Gets Staked Out
More than 20% of Democrats said no to Hillary (36% said they would vote for her, 11% undecided)
45% of women said no to Hillary
48% of Independents said no to Hillary
56% of men said no to Hillary
69% of those 62 and older said no to Hillary.
Most especially it does not surprise me that the 62 and older crowd are the most negative contingent. After all, this is the lady whose proposal for health-care reform basically advocated outlawing treating the medical conditions of old people. Oh sure, it came under the rubric of only palliative care in the last six months of life, but that is hardly a comforting proposal when one realizes that, for example, an untreated diabetic is always in his or her last six months of life. The "last six months of life" has no medical meaning in most cases. You can't accurately project treated lifespans for patients that way, according to several doctors I asked.
The thing about medical treatment is that it vastly extends life, which is why we bother with it. HillaryCare stopped just short of recommending that the elderly and disabled be turned into dog food. The proposal didn't just advocate that the taxpayers shouldn't pay for treatment - it wanted to make it illegal for all physicians to provide "non-approved" care. By the time you reach your 60s, you realize that means you.
Hillary is not electable. Years of nothing but fawning press haven't made her electable, and if she ever gets to the point of a down-and-dirty electoral fight, those jokes about presidential shorts and futures trading are going to overwhelm her prospects. The lady stares at us with cobra eyes, and we stare back in doubt. Only the media carries hod for her.
I want to know what happened to the other viable Democratic prospects. Why is Vilsack out? Why did Warner never get in? It's not that there are not good prospects out there - why aren't they running? Why has Hillary been dubbed the presumptive heir by the press? I think it is the worst disservice to the Democratic party in a generation.
I do vote across party lines, and I want a viable Democratic candidate. Is that too much to ask?
Rest assured that under HillaryCare, Comrade Hillary, her Court Favorites (of the week), and Loyal Inner Party Comrades WILL get the best of care. Money-is-no-object...
Only the media carries hod for her.
Because Gods Can Do No Wrong. And She *is* Mother Gaia Come In The Flesh, you know.
I want to know what happened to the other viable Democratic prospects.
They could not be allowed to stand in the way of Hillary, that's what. Ever wonder what all those secret FBI files (that vanished and surfaced on Her desk) are used for?
Why is Vilsack out? Why did Warner never get in? It's not that there are not good prospects out there - why aren't they running?
Because they know what's good for them.
Why has Hillary been dubbed the presumptive heir by the press?
Ees Party Line, Comrade.
I think it is the worst disservice to the Democratic party in a generation.
Ees Party Line, Comrade.
My nightmare scenario - Hillary against McCain. Shudder.
Did I leave someone out? I voted for each and every one. Then one day it dawned on me that I was hearing the same stuff over and over about the opposition. The Republican is always "dumb". They are always hated with an irrational fevor. The Democrat in power can do something far worse and it is always brushed off. Democrats especially like candidates that cheat on their spouse.
There are magazines that have spent a lot of time trying to tell you how noble and wise Hillary is. Some folks continue to drink the Kool-Aide. She's likely got a lock on the nomination whether she can win or not. God help us if she did win.
OK, I've come to believe that Jimmy Carter has a malign side to his character - it's almost as if he is having a late-life mid-life crisis leading him to clutch lovingly at every dictator he can find. But it wasn't evident when he was elected.
Do they claim that rainbows shone all over the world and new stars erupt in the skies at the moment of Her birth, just as they did at the birth of Dear Leader Kim Jong-Il?
And remember 1996, when Dole -- the only Republican who Clinton could beat -- sewed up the nomination early?
And 2000? Where the Florida Dems kept trying to recount the ballots (and changing the rules on "hanging chads" out of divination of "the voters' original intent")?
"Who casts the votes decides nothing. Who counts the votes decides everything."
-- Comrade Stalin
Links to this post: