Hillary-Wins contains detailed, DOCUMENTED
accounts of various 2008 media attacks
against Hillary Clinton.

Starting with George Soros, MoveOn.org, Media Matters,
branching out to Arianna Huffington & Huffington Post,
then News outlets MSNBC, Newsweek, CNN and
beyond, the news media influenced
who would become the 2008
Democratic Nominee before
all democratic voters
had voted.

Sunday, January 31, 2010

Can you be a ground zero PUMA if you don't still support Hillary Clinton? Part II.

So why did the Democratic Party Higher ups secretly plot against Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election? They believed their chances of retaining their own position in Congress would be strengthened if Barack Obama was elected instead of Hillary Clinton.

The problem with this type of me first, the country second position is two fold. First, it is really selfish to care about one's own political career to the point where you only support a presidential candidate based on a mythical belief that one presidential candidate's speech making ability will help keep you in your office.

Just because a politician may like one candidate's "charisma" more than another, is that enough? "I like this candidate, therefore he will help me keep my seat in Congress?" The answer is a resounding, of course not.

Reason number two on why it is an unknown as to which candidate can help keep any politician in their position. There will usually be an inevitable "push back" two years after a new political party gains control of the white house. In recent times, 2 years into the new presidents term the side that lost seats during the presidential election actually will gain some back.

Ironically, what Pelosi and Reid did may actually backfire on them because they may not have supported the best candidate and are more likely to lose their seat, not less likely as a result.

I'm all for that, that's for sure.

As for the PUMA movement, I would love to see PUMA's who don't necessarily agree with each other to at least consider supporting the idea that anyone who deceived Hillary Clinton in 2008 SHOULD NOT be re-elected, even if it means voting republican in those particular instances.

3 comments:

Becky said...

you know, I don't know why the higher ups turned against Hillary and didn't want her to be the nominee. I have pondered that for a long time. That they were out to stop her is evident. I'm not sure that I agree with the reason you give ~ they thought their own jobs would be more secure. I think it goes well beyond that. It was plotting for sure, on the part of Reid and Pelosi and Dean, but why? Afraid of Hillary's independence, intelligence, savvy? Or...perhaps they were bought off by Obama's money backers. don't know, perhaps never will. I do agree with you that anyone who deceived her should be fired by the people. YES.

Alessandro Machi said...

Hi Becky. It can be more than one reason. It could be that the democrats were worried about the unending hate that some republicans have for the Clintons.

However, as I have written about recently, Bill Clinton has the highest popularity of any president on their final day in office, and Bill Clinton is the only president to have a higher popularity rating on their final day then their first day.

Plus, Bill Clinton may also be the only president to actually reduce the deficit each and every year he was in office, until he was actually running yearly surpluses.

Why spit on that kind of success? Imagine Hillary Clinton being able to use that as a foundation and that build upon that success with her own vision.

Sophie said...

Personally, I thin TPTB wanted a front man in a suit. BO excels at that and neither Clinton does. The Clintons actually want to DO things that improve life for ordinary Americans. TPTB want to loot ordinary Americans. I thought they had their fill during Bush's terms but evidently, there was more to get. TPTB capitalized on the CDS and managed to distort and grow it. Still, people of intelligence saw right through that and to this day, remain steadfast Clinton supporters.