By now it's clear that the Bush administration has continually engaged in illegal practices, including lying about Iraq's WMD, invading a soverign nation, awarding no bid secret contracts, ENRON, outing Valerie Plame, the FEMA failure after Katrina, letting bin Laden slip away, etc. etc. etc.
Our current Congress, with just a sliver of a Democratic majority, had their hands tied, lest they face an entire session of Republican filibustering against any plans to bring the Bush criminals to justice.
Now, I'm not going to try to influence your answer to my poll beyond this one observation:
Which candidate for president had to endure ceaseless investigations that led to nowhere? Clue: Whitewater, commodities trading, Vince Foster, spousal impeachment, as nauseam.
So, here's the question.
Which candidate for President of the United States of America would be most likely to call for Senate investigations into all that was malfiesant in the Bush administration's eight years in office?
A. Sen. Hillary Clinton
B. Sen. Barack Obama
C. Sen. John McCain
18 comments:
My answer would have to be D-None of the above.
I do not trust any of them to do anything about the bullshit put upon us by BushCo.
Yes, I am that pessimistic.
I will link to this on my blog :)
"D: None of the above" was not an option. :P
the question reads "most likely"
B. Sen. Barack Obama
He will not be able to do anything but I think he would be the most inclined to want to..
Clinton is too establishment. Other side, same coin. Not even other side on a lot of issues: see Iraq.
Obama is a lightweight for all the reasons put forth on this blog already.
McCain is a nutjob who sold his soul to the devil.
Ron Paul is still running. He's got my write-in vote when someone tries to force me to vote for one of the others.
I'm not willing to give the Dems in Congress a pass. Filibusters and vetos are not impenetrable. The Dems could have decided to play hard ball too. "Guess what? We have the majority and we decide what legislation comes up for a vote. If you don't like it, you can lump it." They've never even tried it. The Repubs were not afraid to shut down the federal government during Clinton I. Why are the Dems so afraid? Unlike the Repubs back in the 90s, the Dems have the public on their side. America is crying for a real opposition party. Where are they? 2008 should be such a cake walk for the Dems, but weakness is a hard sell. If they don't buck up soon, the Dems deserve to lose.
B.
Barack Obama would be the only one where there would be the slightest chance of calling for investigations or allowing the Justice Dept. to do its job. There is no guarantee that Obama would do the correct thing, but there is no way that Hillary McCain or John Clinton would do anything but go along with their far-right GOP ideology.
Karen - I would have to say Obama would be most likely to do something, although I would have to agree with pagan sphinx that he might not be able to do too much.
WOW!
So you guys think after we gain more than a simple majority in both houses and Hillary is in office, she wouldn't want a little retribution for what the GOP did to the Clintons when Bill was in office?
I am more than a little surprised.
But thank you for voting.
That's my cybergirl.
xox
A. Definitely. I can't see any of the other choices considering it. Obama reaches across the aisle too much and of course, McCain is part of the problem that needs correctin'.
Ron Paul is a nutbag. Geez.
A. Because she's the most political animal in the bunch, and by the start of a 2nd term she'd have nothing to lose by digging in. Unless Chelsea is planning a political career, which I highly doubt.
FWIWIMHOZOMGBBQ - as much as Cheney, Bush & Co. have earned a decade of legal skewering, it shouldn't happen unless the Republican party is also behind it. This is why I say Barack won't do it (unless he is able to rico suave GOP leadership into wanting to pursue it). If the country & the big parties can unite behind a strong repudiation of the bullshit that has dominated policy-making over the past 8 years, it would be the best thing we could do for the future. If we can't we need to leave it alone and wait for the next fascist regime to implode, and hope an America Against Fascism movement can happen then.
KZ, off topic..but very interesting and something I have noticed for a while now:
http://tinyurl.com/2vkuws
DKos, who's site I haven't read in a couple of years has bit of a writers strike going. Seems the Obamanistas are attacking the Hillary-ites with a zeal that is pretty pathetic.
Dusty, I've been mentioning for months now that Obama's supporters are often more about supporting him than being true, open-minded Democrats.
If they continue to see him as the only choice, they will be blinding themselves to his downside(s) that could end up losing us the election in November.
His Rezko dealings, his wife's inflammatory comments about her pride in America, and his crazy reverend have combined to give GOP and moderate independent voters a lot of fucking ammo against him.
Frankly, it worries me.
I see so much vitriol on Obama supporters blogs against Hillary that I no longer read some of those blogs.
When I voted in Cali..I voted for Kucinich simply because I wasn't sure if I wanted to support either Obama or Hillary.
P.S. I too have read countless vitriolic rants about Hillary from so-called Democrats over on HuffPo.
If any side of the D race bears more responsibility for this divisiveness in the party, it's those rookie acolytes of his.
Comparing Hillary to the neo-cons demonstrates an utter lack of political savvy or sense of history. But then, many of them were junior high kids when Bill Clinton was president, and they think the world only started when they sprouted their first pube.
I think both sides are guilty KZ. Hillary demanded the firing of an Obama advisor for words she used that were not supposed to be printed..aka off the record. But by the same token, when Ferraro got her panties in a wad Clinton ignored the flap until it became a huge liability.
That is why I do not support either candidate at this point..and can not see myself voting for either in the general election.
I have had to catch/edit myself from being part of the problem as well. Bashing is just too easy.
Both sides have some culpability, sure, but you don't see Daily Kos writers walking out because of too many hateful Hillary supporters' comments, and if you'll just read one day's worth of comments on HuffPo, you'll see which side makes the most divisive, innacurate and hateful comments.
Find me one existing pro-Obama comment that includes the phrase, "I'll support whichever candidate wins" and I'll show you 500 pro Hillary posts that say just that.
Actually there are quite a few bloggers which say they will support whomever is the candidate.
Most of those however are folks that supported Kucinich or Edwards in the beginning, like me they do not have a dog in this fight.
Did it occur to anyone else that prior to this personal revelation by Barak Obama regarding his minister and his need to speak to the race issue..40% of Americans felt Barak Obama's religious affiliation was Muslim? Now they know. He belongs to the Wright church which spews this nonsensicle hatred of everything. That knowledge is more assuring to voters than the Muslim angle. Plouffe and Axelrod outdid themselves.Focus on Wright and forget Muslim. This appears to me as a perfect orchestration of political prowess by the Obama team.
Release the Rezko update, address the screaming 'racist' all on a Friday afternoon. Then, let it fester for the weekend with an announcement of a major speech on 'race' on Tuesday.
This tactic negated the admission by the Obama campaign that once again, a new set of circumstances regarding the Rezko growing donor list and trial.
Interestingly, the speech once again enflamed the racist angle by comparing Mrs Ferraro to Reverend Wright. How can African Americans as a core group not feel like a lost 'race' in the United States when the 'race' is pushed out and roped in at the whim of Barak Obama when he first needs a launching base to make a name for himself..second disavows the 'race' while he says he transcends 'race' and ignores the plight of the Jenna 6. Once again he reaches for the 'race' to propel him forward in a caucus..giving his stump speech in 'black speak' accent on ya'all..throws the 'race' back in the closet as he denies his faith and once again open the wounds by declaring himself the 'uniter'.
Uniter of what? A country that has long lived, since the late 60's in relative comfort with all races and religions. My street is a great mix..we have black, white, christians, jews, homosexuals and a lot of pets. It is my choice as a free citizen to attend any function, church, lecture or movie, I choose. If I ever get the inclination to go to South Central, Los Angeles, I am as uncomfortable in that neighborhood, as someone from South Central, would feel in my neighborhood. The same goes for Koreatown and Chinatown. The cultures are different, the food is different, the languages are different, the people are different shapes, sizes and colors...sometimes what we percieve to be 'different' is frightening..sometimes it is not. That is the beauty and the beast we describe as our country.
Our choice-not Obamas business or political ploy used as chicanery to influence an election. The greatest speech ever given on the subject of 'race' began when our forefathers landed on this soil and wrote the rest of the story they called the Constitution. It describes what I believe most thinking Americans long for..a place to call home.
All the while his campaign saying a redo was OK in MI and FL but working to destroy the redo by running the clock.
I have to hand to to BO as this is as low as it gets. To stir the racial pot to subjugate impropriety on the state level and gain enough media attention to disenfranchise millions of 'folks' by not addressing their voting concerns in two populace states.
Unbelievable-and CNN focuses on the dates of liaisons with Monica Lewinsky as the sole information worth garnering from 11,000 pages of documentation of data 'everyone' was salivating over that are obviously very public thanks to the Ken Starr authority.
Is there reality reporting going on?
Post a Comment