Here's an opinion piece I wrote for my college paper. Let me know what you guys think!
Thanks.
As we enter the fifth arduous month of the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination, it frequently seems like one big circus, complete with ridiculous theatrics and a clear-cut ringmaster. Ladies and gentlemen, Washington proudly presents - in all her hypocritical glory - senator extraordinaire Hillary Clinton. She is one of America's great contradictions. A prototypical member of the political elite - masters of doublespeak that are always winking and never met a situation they didn't think they were perfect for. If asked to find an example more fitting than Clinton, Sherlock Holmes himself would shudder. Witness a woman who, with her husband, made $109 million in the last eight years, yet claims to epitomize and relate to the struggle of middle-class America. A woman who says she despises free trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, now that she wants working-class votes, yet participated in meetings securing its passage during her time as first lady and later repeatedly praised it. "People don't need a president who looks down on them," Clinton recently said. "They need a president who stands up for them. And that is exactly what I will do." Shipping millions of U.S. jobs overseas was apparently her idea of lifting people up. Her unique approach to standing up for Americans doesn't stop there. She recently denounced a free trade deal with Colombia, yet her husband was paid $800,000 to give speeches supporting it. If that wasn't enough, her campaign's top political strategist was hired by Colombia to lobby Congress for its passage. For all her touted experience, she seemingly never learned that blatant conflicts of interest might raise a few red flags. One of her most notable two-faced moments involves her saying she's against special interests and will end the run of the "wealthy and well-connected." It sounds noble, but is empty rhetoric since her campaign has taken more lobbyist money than any other candidate. Her other problem is that she's a gold star member of the wealthy and well connected. She would be hard-pressed to follow through with that promise unless she plans on committing political suicide, which thanks to the unforgiving grasp of irony, she most likely already has. Clinton represents everything that's wrong with politics. Candidates like her are the reason widespread voter apathy leaves millions distrustful of the government. People are tired of politicians who say one thing and do another, who don't apologize for their lies and mistakes, but prefer to deflect blame or change the subject altogether. In years past, her battle-tested political strategy would have worked like a charm. This is the time reserved every four years for each party to attack the other with the old bag of Washington tricks until only one person is left standing, the dust settles and it's back to business as usual. When it comes to playing that dirty game, few are as adept as Clinton, so it's no wonder she felt she was the inevitable choice. Unfortunately, Clinton ran into two roadblocks on her yellow brick road to the White House; a new type of opponent and a pesky set of elections that have left her trailing in nearly every category. It's clear that the notion of not simply being handed the presidency is an idea as foreign to Clinton as the difference between sniper fire and poems. Whether she was assuring Katie Couric back in Nov. 2007 that she would undoubtedly be the nominee and hadn't even considered losing, to her latest unwillingness to accept defeat, it's evident that bowing out gracefully is not an option. Given the fact that there's an elephant in the room that only she refuses to see, it's appropriate that she seems so at home in the circus she created.
Comments are closed for this post.
