Ohioans vote Clinton...What were they thinking?

Exit polls show that the number one issue for voters in Ohio was the economy. And by 'economy,' they mean, who is going to bring my manufacturing job back? This begs the question, if you are concerned about bringing industry back to Ohio, why would you vote for Hillary? Hillary has stated that she is opposed to NAFTA, even though her husband pushed it through Congress back in 1993. So like Kerry on Iraq, she supported NAFTA before she was against it? Hillary likes to say that she has 35 years of experience, with 8 years of this derived from being First Lady, where she insists she played an integral role in advising her husband on policy. Apparently, Hillary would have us believe that she only advised the President on those policies favorable to Democratic primary voters. If one examines Clinton's record on free trade, it becomes clear that she does not have the interests of Ohioans in mind. According to ontheissues.org, She voted YES on a free trade agreement with Oman, on establishing free trade between the US and Chile, on establishing free trade between the US and Singapore, and gave China and Vietnam "most favored nation" status. In 1998, she praised business leaders for their championing of NAFTA in the U.S. She only started opposing free trade in 2005, when she voted against CAFTA, undoubtedly with plans of a presidential run in 2008. So where does Hillary stand on free trade, like all issues? Wherever the political winds take her. If Clinton manages to become the next President, NAFTA will not be repealed. Someone who is so indebted to contributions from corpracrats like Rupert Murdoch, Warren Buffet, and Pfizer CEO Jeff Kindler will NEVER repeal NAFTA (Yes, the 'original' champion of universal health care is VERY CLOSE to the Pfizer CEO). This is the modus operandi in American politics, and it's a shame that Clinton's presidential bid was saved by a new position that she will never follow through on.

What now?

It's only fitting that we begin this blog on a cynical note.  Tuesday, March 4, 2008 was not a very promising day.  To begin with, John McCain formally locked up the Republican nomination after soundly beating Mike Huckabee in the Ohio primary.  While anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past two months knew that the Republican nomination has effectively been locked up since before Super Tuesday, tonight's formality did remind us of the maintenance of the status quo and other such dreary possibilities that a potential McCain presidency promises to bring.  What is strange to me is that despite George W. Bush's ridiculously low (and continually dropping) approval rate, the American people inexplicably seem to want another four years of his policies judging by their overwhelming support for Senator McCain.  On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton's resounding success in the Ohio primary and her nail-biting victory in Texas came as a bit of a surprise to many, myself included.  If the saying "as goes Ohio, so goes the nation" really holds any water, then I am truly frightened as to what direction the nation is headed in.  In the past few months since I have been studying at Notre Dame in Indiana, I have become quite familiar with our neighboring state of Ohio, and have learned the Ohioans are quick to label their state as progressive.  Tonight, their state did little to live up to that description, and instead chose to nominate a candidate whom we can fully expect to engage in the same backhanded politics that have become the norm in Washington these days.  That's hardly progressive, at least in terms of the widely accepted definition of the word.  Senator Clinton's triumphs on Tuesday essentially ended the Barack Obama honeymoon, which raises the question:  what comes next?  Senator Clinton certainly finds herself with a "math problem," as so aptly stated by Jonathan Alter on newsweek.com yesterday.  However, it is an undeniable fact that the Clintons are dangerous in a close race, particularly since they seem to have the superdelegates in their collective pocket.  As I overheard on "The Situation Room" before, you don't want to get in a knife fight with the Clintons behind closed doors (such as those of the Democratic National Convention).  I will admit that this possibility scares me, since as long as Clintons keep sending Chelsea to breakfast with superdelegates, they will always have their support.  America's mystique with the Clintons is puzzling and counterproductive.  For a nation that badly wants change, we seem to fear it at the same time.  We see the possible opportunity for change and yet discard it and accept what we already have.  Between the reluctance of the American people-which was accurately displayed in Ohio and Texas tonight-and the overwhelmingly pro-Clinton nature of the superdelegates, things could get difficult for Senator Obama in a prolonged race.  He must remain confident, because, speaking strictly in terms of number of delegates won, he still holds a clear and insurmountable advantage.  However, tonight certainly made things interesting.