The Clinton's are a sleazy couple, as nearly everyone now acknowledges. For more than eight years it was the job of Republicans to point this out, while Democrats closed ranks to protect Mr. Bill from the consequences of his misbehavior. The Clintons seem finally to have worn out their welcome, at least among the activist core of the elder party, due in large part to the sleaziness of their campaign in South Carolina. This looks a little bit like justice, and that is almost always a beautiful affair to anyone but the guest of honor.
"Nearly everyone" thinks the Clintons as a pair are sleazy? Clearly that's not the case, since Hillary Clinton has garnered about half of the Democratic primary vote so far this year, and is, in particular, wildly popular among some groups of Democratic voters (so far, apparently, older white women, lower income voters, Latinos, and Asians). It seems that Ken is actually suggesting that Bill Clinton is 'sleazy,' which might be an easier sell, but still doesn't explain why people shouldn't vote for Hillary Clinton. Who, p.s., is the person actually running for elected office.
Ken, if John McCain is the better candidate for president, which is what you seem to think, why not make a case for him? On the front page of South Dakota Politics, I see about half a dozen posts on the Clintons, four or five on Obama, and really nothing other than reporting on election results for the Republican candidate. Why is that?
0 comments:
Post a Comment