My Quick Thoughts On The Election: Rinse, Repeat
| ← previous: Another Update On The House (Pics) | My Quick Thoughts On The Automotive Bailout :next → |
most recent
rss feed
about me
archives
calendar
search
friends' blogs
life outside the box
the murky depths
more or less
faith and mika's mommy
all over the place
other blogs
systemic
centauri dreams
pictures
london
hungary
italy
holland
thailand
vietnam '05
hawaii '05
hawaii '06
vietnam '08
korea
mexico
mom's recipes
white cake
oatmeal raisin cookies
molasses cookies
texas bread sticks
caramel corn
news
ny times
la times
open source
cygwin
sourceforge
debian
suse
openoffice
wikipedia
winregsh
space
mars rovers
mars recon orbiter
mars express
cassini
phoenix
government
volunteer match
Topic(s): me,politics
2008-11-04 23:37:25 US/Pacific
I must have heard the word "change" about a million times tonight. I really have to wonder what's being changed. What do we have?What am I describing? The 2000 election. Yes, the 2000 election. Bill Clinton was the lame duck, the dot-com bubble was bursting, and the energetic outsider was Bush.
- An unpopular lame-duck president.
- A president who bombed an Iraqi baby milk factory.
- A president who fostered a bubble that popped just before the election.
- A declining political party given up for dead.
- A energetic outsider promising change favored to win the presidential election.
In 2008, things aren't much different. And if things are different, you'd be hard pressed to say things are different in a better way.
I'm hopeful that Obama is somehow different. But I've been (we've all been) burned so many times that I've become callous and doubtful.
Most likely, in 2016 we'll all have forgotten that Obama promised change. He'll be an unpopular lame-duck president. Some new presidential upstart will promise change. And we'll all buy in to in yet again.
Rinse, repeat.
If you really want change, you'll find it only somewhere other than Democrat and Republican on your ballot.
Pulled eFingers: |
Eric — 2008-11-04 23:48:43 US/Pacific —Some reader, I won't say who, I'll call her "Kaitlin", argues that Bill Clinton was not unpopular. |
steve — 2008-11-05 10:15:57 US/Pacific —Yes, Clinton never really recovered from Monica, and impeachment. That will be his legacy. |
ngan — 2008-11-05 12:36:31 US/Pacific —Wikipedia "Clinton left office with an approval rating at 65%, the highest end of office rating of any President since World War II" |
Mom — 2008-11-07 10:45:50 US/Pacific —My friend Pam and I attended a Democratic rally that was held in front of the Alamo when Clinton was running for re-election. It was my experience then that all of the women loved him (he is much better looking in person) and that some of the men in attendance also felt the same way about him, which may account for a bit of the 65% approval rating. I am a Republican, and even I liked him in person. Hillary was also much better looking in person. The last independent that I recall that even had a ghost of a chance at the Presidency was Ralph Nader in the '60s. I think that the independents during this election probably cost Johm McCain enough votes to lose the election. What do you think? |
Stacey — 2008-11-12 06:17:21 US/Pacific —Great post! It got me thinking... |
Mom — 2008-11-21 18:19:55 US/Pacific —Obama meant 'different' to mean something other than what the Hopeful Ones believed to be true. I fear that it is merely more of the same, only the zippy "Back To The Future" version of the Same, featuring the Clinton White House Staff, complete with Hillary and Bill; I can only wonder is Chelsea joining them? Oh, wait a minute, I know what the 'different' is referring to, it will be the Clinton policies and people, only this time the people (meaning all of us) will have no money, because the politicians already took it all; 'different' is the new synonym for 'poor.' |
Exercise Your eFinger: |
| ← November 2008 → |
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 |