Wednesday, March 12, 2008

the world needs both hillary and hussein

one good sign about america's upcoming polls is that the republican plague will probably end. even the most die hard urban middle class voters seem to have had enough, after eight years of dubya.

however, this makes the democratic caucuses still more crucial, for a definitive win by barrack hussein obama may mean that the same mental disease that globalized the bush havoc, namely an ignorance of world affairs is going to persevere. in seven years of the dubya regime, america paid scant heed to the outer world. not just reaping but raping the opportunities of overseas profit was the sole goal of u.s. world politics. a win by obama may continue the situation not at all because that is hussein's policy -actualy, hillary may be more prone to that- but because those universal rapists are far savvier than the guy from hawaii. i never take campaign speeches seriously but nevertheless, obama's stance seems to over-favor (so called) isolationist policies for my taste.

americans should keep in mind, just because dubya is already a sitting duck does not mean that the colossal wave of anti-american sentiment he amassed in seven years is going to flatten away, before hitting some sad shore.

why hillary then? obviously, she is a seasoned first lady, rather than a good world class politician. yet, she is probably more sympathetic toward the universal public. she probably is more popular among europeans and africans than for many folks in the midlands and meadowlands of rural america. she is not only cognitively disposed to but also has a political crop to harvest from the development of an efficient and effective global capitalist network, i.e., one that also benefits, even on a wee small scale, the society it invests in (exploits, if you are marxist oriented) as well as the financial center it originates from. that is why she has carried all the globally active states and almost none of the rural-local ones. that is why the texas draw is tilting toward hussein already. ohio, her last win, for instance, thrives on high tech exports!

hillary's supporting corps are also experienced, knowledgeable experts who are aware that war is costly and there are cheaper and mutually beneficial alleys leading to solutions in peaceful methods. after all, capitalism is about profit rather than conquest.

whom would you have paying an official visit to your country in the name of america's president in today's world? dick cheney, condi rice or madeline allbright?

and imagine that instead of that blood stained ambulatory $ sign, dick cheney, it is the cute, sympathetic, ernest new generation, outgoing next president of the u.s., barrack hussein, who climbs down the stairs of u.s. air force 2...

obama is a man who only stands to gain from playing second fiddle for one or two terms to hillary; while learning to become an even better president, not from her but her husband, who happens to be brightest light in recent american political history, possibly, even brighter than jack kennedy.

that is why the world needs both hillary and hussein.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I think it is much better if you write an essay with title "The world needs both G.W.Bush and Cheney". Who else had claimed that he talked to God and received guidance from God. It must be God who trick him to start the Iraq war, and it must also be God who adviced him to spend into debt. Yes siree, Bush and his Republican represented the "best" about the "Christian conservative values". And yup, it is all about "freedom". I have a great idea, let's draft ALL men into ther service (spare NO one: either conservative nor liberal, young nor old, rich nor poor, Christians nor atheists, especially the flag waveing, tough talking fools) and start a new world war to spread our "freedom" to the rest of the world.