proves himself to be not a Judas but a Thomas.
Andrew was head of the DNC under Bill Clinton and has announced that he's changed his superdelegate endorsement from Hillary to Barack Obama. His explanation of his switcheroo is so full of bloviated, meaningless rhetoric reminiscent of his new favorite that I could hardly read it without tossing my cookies. There's no THERE there, just lots of unity ponies.Hoosiers should grab that power and do what in their heart they know is right. They should reject the old negative politics and vote for true change. Don't settle for the tried and true and the simplistic slogans, but listen to your heart and dare to be inspired. Only a cynic would be critical of Barack Obama inspiring millions. Only the uninformed could forget that the candidate that wins in November is always the candidate that inspires millions.
Is he kidding? When it comes to simplistic slogans, "yes, we can," "hope," "unity," and "change" would have to top the list. And that last assertion, that the candidate that wins is always the one who inspires millions -- who in their right minds would suggest that winners such as Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush (both of them) "inspired" much of anyone?
I'll tell you what inspires ME -- solid solutions for the problems of the nation and its citizenry, and the experience and knowledge to execute them. And "in my heart," I know what is right (I assume he means what is "best" unless he's suggesting that Hillary is wrong for America) -- electing Hillary Clinton as POTUS. What is best for our Party and our country is not blind loyalty, but passionate support for the candidate who can best correct the misguided policies of the last eight years.
We need a candidate who will re-invigorate the economy and keep good jobs here in America. We need a candidate who will end the war in Iraq. We need a candidate who will provide health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors. We need a candidate who will end our addiction to high-priced foreign oil by investing in renewable energy here at home.
That candidate is Barack Obama.
What would lead Andrew to believe that Barack Obama will provide "health coverage for our 45 million uninsured neighbors" when BO's healthcare proposal only truly covers children and ensures that millions of Americans will go uninsured? What does BO know about creating new jobs? What would lead him to think that a Democrat (Obama) who supported Dick Cheney's energy policy would end our addiction to foreign oil?The polls already show the supporters for both candidates becoming more strident in their positions and more locked into their support. Continuing on this path would be a catastrophe, as we would inadvertently end up doing Republicans work for them.
And you think that by ending the primary now and disenfranchising states like Michigan and Florida, Kentucky and West Virginia et al will unlock the support of Hillary's voters? You actually believe, you cretin, that calling for her to be forced out of the race by superdelegates at such a time, when she has momentum and voters are clearly taking a second look at Obama, is going to bond us to Barack? Get a grip.Innuendo is easy. The truth is hard.
Sound bites are easy. Solutions are hard.
Okay, buddy, put your facts where your mouth is. Spell out what Hillary has done to make you question her "character" and "vision" as opposed to Obama's. Detail what solutions Obama offers that have not been cadged off HRC's own proposals (and in many cases, diluted of their progressive impact). You don't SERIOUSLY expect any informed citizen to believe he has a greater mastery of policy than Hillary, do you?
This is specious nonsense. Andrew appears to have bought into the Obama inevitability argument, and he's placing his bet on the supposed winner. Too bad he didn't have more faith in HRC. Maybe if she'd been able to offer him a look at the nailholes in her palms, he would have continued to believe.
Labels: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Andrew