Blog @ MoreWhat.com

OMG, say it isn’t so. Can it be? Maybe equally telling in the article excerpt below it that no matter what side of politics you are on it is all to likely you feel used. But that has been the sad situation in American politics for many years with few moments in between to feel good about government, politics and most public issues. The other point in this article helps with this blog’s complaint department even though there isn’t one beyond the comments section.

The voters below who are rejecting Hillary Rodham Clinton in favor of Barack Obama are, go figure, Democrats. Are their comments fair game for the Hillary hater moniker with which those who reject Clinton are often painted?

Among Democrats in Iowa, negatives add up for Clinton
By Larry Eichel
Inquirer Senior Writer

DES MOINES, Iowa - A lot of Democrats in this state agree with Jana Linderman and Yvonne Weber.

With Iowa’s first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses less than four weeks away, they’ve made a conscious choice not to support Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

And their rejection of the national Democratic front-runner is carefully reasoned and deeply felt.

“I think her politics and her style are very much the same as the Bush White House and the Karl Rove political playbook,” said Linderman, a young lawyer from Cedar Rapids, who’s supporting Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. “As a Democrat, I’m tired of that, of people talking down to me, using political tactics that have been focus-grouped.”

Is it legal for a Democrat to put Hillary Rodham Clinton at the ‘bottom of my list?’ If not voting for Clinton in the primary due to the bottom of the list thing, liberals can take heart that this one voter may share a sentiment that while not voting for Clinton in the primary, if she does get nominated the voter would comply with Dems party wishes. But does that apply to all Dems voting for another candidate? Conservatives can be satisfied there is chance that thinking will result in Hillary Rodham Clinton losing the nomination unless they hold the opinion that HRC would be the best opponent for a GOP nominee.

State Democratic party officials are concerned about a Clinton backlash in local and regional politics, Clinton’s lead is down in Iowa while her gaffes are up. More donors are being investigated. The biggest criminal donor to date is currently preparing for trial. Hillary Rodham Clinton still is keeping her White House docs under lock and key until after the 2008 election. The far left is upset with her Iraq war vote, her other votes viewed as siding with President Bush and maybe just because they’re always mad.

Even though this blog openly supports the Anti-PC League and is opposed to the politically correct doctrine of some, this is the Christmas season and the following point is not intended to appease but merely extend a sentiment to the liberals among us. If you object or OMG, feel offended by posts not flattering to HRC and feel compelled to share your displeasure, feel free. But you may want to consider borrowing an approach from a practice used in personnel matters. When narrowing the accepted candidates for an open position or job vacancy, it is not uncommon when making these decisions to reject a candidate not because they have no skills or are not adequately competitive with history, experience or education, etc. Some of the candidates that are dismissed fall victim not based on their resume or their skills but because of risk. If there are plenty of candidates and no need to be relax criteria to fill the void and the skill levels of the candidates are essentially a draw, those candidates with questionable items on their record are rejected even though no conclusions can be drawn. If skills are equal why take the risk with a candidate that has some red flags in their past. That is not hateful or personal but rather a form of risk management. Why take a risk if you don’t have to.

The same applies with Hillary Rodham Clinton. If the baggage did not result in something like civil or criminal judgments yet all the questions remain about her past, why take the risk when you have plenty of other options. In addition to that, based on the personnel decision analogy, she does not have the distinguished resume’. In the best light her employment history mirrors the old complaint about seniority. Just because she was there for a long time does not mean she did anything remarkable. Her time as First Lady was merely a result of a marriage. Her time in the state house in Arkansas is the same deal. Her time in the Senate contains no accomplishments that can be verified. These are issues that do not pass muster with most employers so why do voters even consider her. If it is because of her husband, the ‘rock star’ is no poster boy for ethics and simply drawing comparisons to the record of President Bush proves nothing.

Even Hillary Rodham Clinton admits what was her only real task in politics was a total failure. That’s right, her nineties attempt to browbeat Washington into a government sponsored health care plan. Perhaps the only reason she admits the failure centers on the problem of finding a suitable lie. That ends this installment of another Hillary Rodham Clinton post.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 11th, 2007 at 1:25 pm and is filed under Public Affairs, wordpress, Politics, campaign, election, Democrats, Clinton, hillary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.