Equal Opportunity Equivocator

There's not a dime's worth of difference
between the republicans and Democrats
--George Wallace

Then with the boiler about to explode
from eight years of blather and neglect,
Humphrey's cold-war liberals could have fled
down the ratlines and left the disaster
to whoever inherited it
--The Great Shark Hunt,
Hunter Thompson

Too real is this feeling of make believe
Too real when I feel what my heart
can't conceal
--The Great Pretender, The Platters

Although the villagers had forgotten the ritual
and lost the original black box
they still remembered to use the stones
--The Lottery, Shirley Jackson
___________________

On this not politically-correct Wednesday, Ranger extends his assertion that Obama is George W. Bush in black face to his white bread sidekick, Hillary Rodham Clinton, but in obverse: Ms. Clinton is Condoleeza Rice in white face. As she is the most likely person to replace Joe Biden for term two of Obama's administration, it is a worthy consideration.

Much as Obama emulates the white king, so Clinton channels the black Queen of Mean. Yup, Ranger really said that. What did we get in the 2008 election that met the bar for HOPE or even CHANGE?

Secretary of State Clinton is in fact more hawkish than was her predecessor in America's leading Equal Opportunity slot. Being a dove her entire life, she must fight harder to play a hawk, which is hard to do when she cannot rock the Neo Matrix coat and boots of the ironically-named Ms. Rice (remember the Kennedy-Lincoln naming coincidences?)

How can we pretend that we have a two-party system when there is not an RCH's difference between the contenders? More precisely, there isn't much difference after they assume the Office; moving in changes everything. Why have elections -- why not just lotteries?

Yesterday, the Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi gave a chart showing big machers like Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and JPMorgan et. al contributed to George Bush's campaign as well as Barack Obama's, as well as Romney's . . .

It looks like we have choices, but they are all front men for their handlers. Color and shape may differ, but your mileage won't vary; they are all the same under the hood. How can one feel anything but discouraged when an ostensibly liberal Democratic administration has a Secretary of State to the right of a Republican right-wing conservative Christian sabre rattler?

What do you think -- are there simply no options in this plutonomy, or do the people get what they want (and hence, deserve)? Is there better out there?

Or are we destined to live in the Twilight Zone and call it a day?