Roviating Hillary

Let the roviating begin (actally, it already has). Republicans are planning an all-out campaign to demonize Hillary. But as in the past they have already accused her of everything under the sun, including murder, I don't know what new lies they will concoct. It's interesting in a way as there seems to be three (at least) different Republican attitudes towards fair Hillary; (l) there are, of course, those who hate everything about the Clintons and would never accept Hillary no matter what. Then (2) there seems to be a bunch that think Conservatives could do worse than having Hillary and might actually support her. Finally (3) there are those Republicans that want Hillary as the Democratic candidate because they think she will be the easiest to defeat. Those in the first category (which, I believe, includes Rove) will do anything and everything to try to stop her. No lie will be too filthy to be employed, no cheap shot will be left behind, no slime will be avoided. That's the very nature of roviation. Now that he will not be in the White House (but nearby with his kit of dishonest tools) there is no telling where he might go in this attempt. So far he seems content with just repeating that she is a "fatally flawed" candidate. I don't know if this merely refers to her 42% negative rating or if Rove has some other flaw he believes in that hasn't yet emerged. Of course the White House is upset because Hillary told the truth about them. That is, for them the poor, the middle class, and the troops are simply invisible. She says it is true. I believe it is true. The little blond who doubles for the unfortunate Tony Snow said Hillary's claims were outrageous, apparently because she thinks Bush made drugs more affordable (which is very questionable and irrelevant in any case). They don't appear to have any better defense. The truth hurts.

Now it turns out that the long awaited report in September from General Petraeus will actually be written by the White House. Does anyone even wonder what it is going to say? Things are working, stay the course, shift some troops around, give the Iraqis more time, etc., etc. What a complete and utter farce. Bush will demand more time. The Democrats will doubtless give it to him, gutless wonders that they are.

Now Obama is saying that Hillary is too divisive and that he can bring the country together better than she can. There is little doubt that Hillary is divisive. Whether than means Obama can do better may or may not follow from that. Obama says he wants to reach out to Republicans, to bring the country together. What I want to know is why should anyone want to reach out to a bunch of greedy, murderous war criminals? That is exactly what the Republican Party has become in the past few years and they continue to stick with this murderous bunch no matter what. Who needs them? Get rid of them. Put them on trial and in jail where disgusting war criminals belong. I for one do not want to see bipartisanship with the current Republican Party. I want them to be held accountable for their crimes. It may turn out that divisiveness is precisely what the American Public desires, no more cuddling up with Bush/Cheney's insane schemes, wiping the slate clean and beginning again with a real democratic administration. I can't see that Obama understands or wants to understand the true depths of depravity into which the Republicans have fallen. If he did he would not want to make nice with them. I am not a big fan of Hillary's but I admire her willingness to stand up and expose the Republicans for what they are: greedy, capitalistic warmongers, getting rich off the taxpayers who are constantly becoming poorer, and ignoring everyone else.

LKBIQ:
"They were nothing better than dogs, and...it was no more harm to shoot them than it would be to shoot a dog when he barked at you."
Reverend William Yate, 1835, Australia, quoted in Blood on the Wattle by Bruce Elder (1988)