Democrats’ idea of change

I have to laugh when I read about the Democrats’ presidential debates. It reminds me of a buncha Dungeon and Dragons players arguing over what women want from men. In the Washington Times this morning Christina Bellatoni writes about just such a debate last night in New Hampshire.

Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama sparred in a debate here last night over the two themes that have defined the Democratic presidential battle — experience and change.

Mrs. Clinton aimed to pull off a win here that would halt the momentum Mr. Obama gained after winning the Iowa caucuses Thursday, so she slammed him on his health care plan, past votes where he shifted position and suggested he was all talk and no results.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said Mrs. Clinton of New York wasn’t being truthful and defended himself.

“What I think is important that we don’t do is to try to distort each other’s records as election day approaches here in New Hampshire,” he said. “Because what I think the people of America are looking for are folks who are going to be straight about the issues and are going to be interested in solving problems and bringing people together.”

Being the wife of the only Democrat President in the last 27 years doesn’t mean that Clinton has any experience – she understands that making empty promises to the inattentive masses gets her some votes, but that’s the extent of her experience.

Obama has made enough foreign policy mistakes during the campaign, angered enough of our traditional allies in doing so, and attracted enough of our enemies to support his candidacy to prove he doesn’t understand the job. Not to mention that he doesn’t even understand events in Iraq that have happened while he was campaigning for president (as reported by Crotchety Old Bastard).

Edwards is no better than Clinton – he makes lots of popular promises, beats the class warfare drum like he invented socialism – but his experience is limited to the courtroom where he’s accustomed to lying for his own monetary benefit.

Gateway Pundit has the video of Charles Gibson trying to get the Democrats to admit that the surge in Iraq worked – they don’t want to own their failures, and that even includes their failures over the last fifty years – including standing against the the Civil Rights movement.

Democrats are real good at understanding the process that gets them elected, but when it comes to producing results, that part escapes them. Name one policy that Bill Clinton promised in either of his presidential campaigns that he actually followed through upon. Out of everything that Congressional Democrats promised the voters in last year’s midterm election, the only promise they kept was for a minimum wage hike.

The only “change” that Clinton and Obama offer is a vote for them for WHAT they are rather than WHO they are. Clinton even wants us to believe she’s more qualified than the rest of the candidates because Mrs. Bhutto was assassinated – I don’t know how her twisted logic gave birth to that stillborn idea.
The Democrats’ concept of change is a return to the failed social policies of the 1960s and the failed foreign policies of the Carter era. I guess that makes Democrats less “liberal” and more “reactionary” than they’d like to think. A rational person would think that’s the reason Democrats haven’t had more than 49% of the popular vote since 1976 – 32 years.

Category: Politics