Quote:
Originally Posted by Moshineko
Hmmm. Chuckles for any member of the Democratic party making "big changes". Big government isn't really a big change, it's just more of the same, really. And a majority of Republicans have started to play the Big Govt. game as well, to the shame of their political ancestors, I'm sure.
So far, I see that big change means: troops out of Iraq (eventually), health care reform (haha, yeah, right, just like all the other ones? Medicare makes me say, no thank you), ummmm... other stuff too. Oh, and minority presidents!(hurray, if that's what you're looking for, and not someone who'll veto insane, unconstitutional laws, or run an effective foreign relations campaign. But, wth, Obama's pretty cute, and Hillary was practically president anyway)
Probably the biggest candidate for change in the whole race was either Ron Paul or Huckabee. Ron at least wanted to change back to something resembling the government set up by the Constitution. Huckabee? Well, I'm glad we won't be getting those changes.
Anyone ever see the Halloween episode of the Simpsons with Kodos and Kang posing as Dole and Clinton? It was funny because it was oh, so true. Vote for whichever one you want, so far it seems you'll be getting a minority president that has little practical experience, talks up a big storm, and lies out the arse whenever necessary.
|
I hate agreeing with a Libertarian . . . but on this one I have to.
The idea of any candidate being able to enact large scale change is daydreaming.
More specific to the topic.
Hillary and Obama are both far more liberal than my beliefs. And Obama is admittedly more liberal than Hillary. That said, I get the distinct impression that Obama's reasons for running for office are far more honest than Hillary's. Everything I have seen out of Hillary over the last 16 years is pure self-glorification. At the very least, with Obama I get the sense that he honestly wants to help the country. With Hillary I get nothing other than the same old desire to be in charge.