|
But THIS is in reaction to your last post, GD, now that I've read further:
Yeah, I agree Clinton might have had revenge in mind. If she's appointed to Justice, she'll have an even better shot at it than if she were elected president.
But just because many red-meat Democrats might want revenge or repudiation, that doesn't mean the people they elect on that basis will deliver it. Witness the current Congress and Nancy Pelosi. Voted in, I daresay, to at least move decisively to end the war in Iraq, and they've pretty much thumbed their noses in their voters' faces. I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton to be any more beholden, and I don't think revenge for its own sake is particularly important to her. She's never been one of the bigger Bush opponents as a Senator, only as a candidate.
That said, I DO expect and want a repudiation of Bush policies, whether or not that's considered reactionary to the Bush Administration. I'd like an end to the war in Iraq, and an end to the shredding of encroachments on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. There are many other progressive things I'd like achieved ... and to the extent they are the opposite of the Bush Administration philosophy, those could be seen as a repudiation of the last 8 years.
Frankly, I don't expect Barack Obama to be much less in the pocket of corporations and financial interests, but we'll see. But anything done to restore our civil rights and increase the well-being of the middle and lower classes will be a defacto repudication of and reaction to the Bush years.
It might be the easy way out, but if any new administration would simply be guided by doing the exact opposite of what George Bush might have done, and spend 8 years undoing all of his misdeeds, I would consider that a damn successful presidency.
|