Search

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has long run on the message that her many years in Washington, including the time when she served as First Lady, leave her better equipped to be President herself. Using the spouse to campaign and offer a step up is nothing new in the Clinton family—when Mr. Clinton ran for President in 1992 he campaigned with the message that America would get “two for one,” in other words that Ms. Clinton would be an influential force in the White House. Isn’t it time, however, that Ms. Clinton gave another family a chance? There are over 140 million people over the age of 35 living in the United States today; shouldn’t the pool for our President be widened a bit?

Legacies are not unfamiliar to U.S. Politics. Unfortunately, the second of a dynasty rarely acts as well as the first. John Adams was an important statesman, a driving force for the independence of the Colonies, and an important architect of the Constitution. His son, John Quincy Adams, although respected as a statesman before his presidency and a designer of the Monroe Doctrine, as president failed to accomplish much in the way of foreign policy and enacted high protective tariffs that damaged the importation business and as a result damaged exports as well. He was defeated after only one term by Andrew Jackson. Although George H.W. Bush’s presidency was hardly flawless, it was certainly much better than the current presidency of his son, George W. Bush, who has sought to continue failed policies of his father with devastating results. Our country fought for independence to free ourselves from dynasties, and the United States can not fall prey to the idea that just because someone is a legacy means that they have the skills and intellect to run one of the most powerful countries in the world. Ms. Clinton should step aside and let in those who are running because they believe they can make change, not because they believe it is their turn.

2 Comments

by Jake @ 16 Apr 2008 04:55 am

OBAMA IS A FRAUD.
BACKGROUND ON SEN. OBAMA'S DAY IN NEW YORK:
Last Monday, the Obama campaign responded to Hillary unveiling a comprehensive plan to deal with the housing crisis by attacking her for taking contributions connected to subprime lenders. Campaign manager David Plouffe said: "If we're really going to crack down on the practices that caused the credit and housing crises, we're going to need a leader who doesn't owe those industries any favors."
As it turns out, those were just words... Today, Senator Obama gives an economy speech followed by a fundraiser at - you guessed it - one of the top 10 issuers of subprime loans in America, Credit Suisse. In fact, Senator Obama has taken more money from the top 10 issuers of subprime loans than BOTH Senator Clinton and Senator McCain [cq.com].
- Obama has taken $1,180,103 from the top issuers of subprime loans. [cq.com]
- Obama received $266,907 from Lehman. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $5395 from GMAC. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $150,850 from Credit Suisse First Boston. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $11,250 from Countrywide. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $9052 from Washington Mutual. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $161,850 from Citigroup. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $4600 from CBASS. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $170,050 from Morgan Stanley. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $1150 from Centex. [Cq.com]
- Obama received $351,900 from Goldman Sachs. [Cq.com]

by Dave @ 16 Apr 2008 05:33 am

Your information is very misleading, and, furthermore, your comment does not address the article. Obama has received more than Clinton from commercial banks by less than $10,000, and Clinton is far ahead of donations from special interest groups in many categories, including insurance, law firms, oil and gas, real estate, tobacco, the gaming industry, and HMO's. Clinton has also received over $1 million from PACs, while Obama has received all of $250, and Hillary Clinton has a disclosure rate of less than 90%. To cap it all off, Hillary Clinton has been financed by industry contributions (bundling, etc) 10% more than Barack Obama has, meaning while Obama has been financed 60% by industry, Clinton has been financed 70%. He's received less money from industry total, not even a percentage, then Clinton has even though he's raised over 24.6 million more dollars than she has. So if you want to know who's really financed by the people, you'll see it's Barack Obama over Clinton by a wide margin.