The aristocracy
has landed in America. Are we buying in again?
—————————
Is
a Vote for Clinton a Vote for Bush? November 05, 2007
by Hal Clarke
Is a vote for Clinton a vote
for Bush? It may seem odd to ponder but the more this question
flutters through my mind the more certain I am that it is not
only a fair question but an affirmative answer. Yes, a vote for
Hillary Clinton is a vote for George W. Bush, from a
certain point of view. Before the spite begins to flow and you
dismiss my observation with a biased hand I beg you hear me out.
What I am about to reveal may skirt the typical notion of politics
in America but in its bigger picture mentality I hope my words
display a larger sense of the political story than the television
sounds bytes and biased newspaper editorials that currently give
us pause.
The politics of Hillary Clinton and George
W. Bush are certainly very different from one another, at least
in theory if not practice as well. The two pulpit bullies seem
to have different ideas about almost everything from the way our
country should be run to the state of the environment, from moral
and ethical values to the war in Iraq, and everything in between.
So how can a vote for Clinton equate to a vote for Bush when on
the surface they seem so diametrically opposed? It is all a matter
of perspective.
Where others might only hear their rhetoric
I see Hillary and George as segments of the same hypocrisy and
aristocracy. In their self-serving way both have sworn loyalty
to organizations more powerful and with more clout than the average
American man and woman even as serving the general populous is
supposed to come first on their agenda. The two blowhards have
likewise sworn allegiance to political party, big business, political
legacy, and career politicianing over doing what is right, just,
and inevitably best for The United States of America and shown
such in everything they do. The façade of political correctness
is but a means by both to secure their wealth and political clout,
all part of the corporate palm-greasing, two-faced big business
shiftiness that has come to symbolize George W. Bush during his
eight year tenure as President and which ironically, are the same
qualities which define Hillary Clinton and make her Bush’s
equal. Though she travels by donkey instead of elephant to get
where she is going it doesn’t change the fact that Hillary
will travel wherever her corporately funded steed demands just
as her hypocritical husband and that loudmouthed cowboy who can’t
pronounce the word “nuclear” have done before her.
Make no mistake about it, I have no love for
the Republican party nor do I favor the Democrats. Fueled by America’s
“two party system or bust” mentality, as far as I’m
concerned both parties are a pile of shit and filled with more
self-serving frauds and phonies than just about any organization
in the country. Sure, there is unquestionably some good on both
sides, but the longer one remains in the club the more indoctrinated
to the “us first” philosophy he or she becomes and
inevitably, the less likely one is to choose the people over her
affiliation.
Look upon the parties differently if you choose,
this is a free country, and surely there are many differences,
but when push comes to shove know that a vote for Hillary, like
a vote for Bush, means much more than getting the troops out of
Iraq or posturing for more secure medical benefits. A vote for
either represents a nod of approval for career politicians, political
legacy, the aristocracy, and the sad fact that a person can break
any rule he or she deems outside their need to follow so long
as that person and their family are rich and powerful enough to
keep the entire country in their back pocket for as long as they
can. Bill Clinton lied under oath, was impeached, shot warheads
at numerous countries, and can now potentially find his way back
into The White House as a new kind of First Lady. Similarly, George
H.W. Bush was voted out of The White House after one term and
subsequently found a second wind as confidant to his son who took
his place less than a decade later.
Funny, we look down on England for keeping
its monarchy as mere figureheads while we do one worse by actually
voting ours in as the political leaders of the free world. Or
perhaps, not so funny after all.
So for whom can one cast their vote when the
choices are legacies, lawyers, and multi-millionaires? I can’t
say for certain but when given the option of an outsider over
the status quo I suggest we take the former. Rather than grin,
bear it, and support the established monarchy it is about time
we made some real choices and prove that this age of democracy
is more than a mere slogan but instead a great system of the people,
eh comrades?
Check out what Hillary has to say about
a very similar question raised at a recent debate:
—————————————————————————
Think Hal Clarke has a blurry and misguided view
of "the bigger picture?" Or maybe you agree. Email him
at halclarke@undependentmedia.com
