Archive for the 'Clintonitis' Category
Jul 16, 2008 in Clintonitis, Clueless Conservatives, Politics, Stupidity, War on Terra
Atrios reviews the facts:
Jan 20, 2001 Bush Inaugurated
Jan 25, 2001 Richard Clarke sends Condi Rice memo, warning about al Qaeda. Rice does nothing.
August 6, 2001 Bush gets memo titled “Bin Laden Determined to strike in US.” Bush responds by telling the briefer, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” Then does nothing.
September 11, 2001 Bin Laden strikes in US.
I’m going to sit here now and wait for the next winger to tell us how it was Clinton’s fault. I wonder if they’ll agree that Obama gets his first year off without having to bother defending the country…
May 24, 2008 in Clintonitis, Disappointing Dems, Election crap, Women
We sure would like to move on with the election to Obama smacking McCain around, but somebody keeps insisting it isn’t over yet…though we’ll be blamed and attacked for listening to her, the question must eventually be answered: When is Hillary Clinton responsible for her own actions?
Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.
Instead, she’s throwing tantrums, making demands that she has no right to make, and threatening civil war.
I can’t imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.
Feminists should document and take note where Hillary Clinton was subjected to sexism, but this woman is not a victim. She lost on the merits and plenty of women know it too. To be judged on one’s merits rather than one’s sex…what more could one ask for? Hillary’s work for female equality has been done, and if she doesn’t exit quickly and reasonably and unite behind Obama, she risks doing more harm than good for the cause.
May 14, 2008 in Clintonitis, Election crap
She makes me yell at the TV like she’s George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV – until now. I actually can’t stand her or her husband any more. I defended her. I defended her husband. And now I’m actually wondering if the Republicans weren’t right about them. That’s how bad she has damaged her reputation. People who actually liked you, who actually helped you, who actually defended you, LOATHE you now. Call me a Clinton-hater all you like, but people like me were the ones who had your back. And we never will again.
I will disagree with the last statement. I would again, perhaps. If Hillary Clinton were being attacked unfairly, I would defend her. But she is not being attacked unfairly. She is having the truth told to her, repeatedly.
It saddens me to think of her and Bill Clinton now, and what the future holds for them. I guess I was always neutral towards Hillary, admiring her at her best but never being particularly excited about her. But Bill, whoo boy. That one stings. I still remember the excitement I felt in 1992 when he ran against Bush I. I loved the man. I loved the way he ran the country, although I came to understand later that many of his policy decisions were heavily flawed and sacrificial of what made Democrats different from Republicans. But on the whole, it was good government that looked out for those trying to get ahead, balanced our books with long term prosperity in mind, and didn’t get us into an endless clusterfuck of a war. Bill’s intelligence was dazzling, and the nation was infused with a sense of well-being in no small part due to his skill behind the wheel. Flaws were there to be seen, no doubt, but in the end it was the first Presidency in my lifetime that I felt good about.
I don’t feel that anymore when I look at Bill today. Today he seems irrelevant and obsolete, a gas-station attendant trying to get everybody to remember when he was the Homecoming King who fucked the Prom Queen. And Hillary, who started out passionate and strong, has fulfilled her years-long mission of erasing the scars caused by her honesty and turning into the ultimate robo-candidate, a plastic automaton devoid of integrity, sensibility, or principle, existing only to pursue and accumulate power. While every once in awhile you sense her saying, “But it had to be done so I could get the things accomplished I cared about…” she revealed the damage done once she was cornered and saw defeat approaching. She had made the sacrifices necessary to be comfortable saying whatever it took to get elected, and so it became the path of least resistance.
I want to feel sympathy for Hillary and Bill now, as they look to the future and see their hopes die. I want to think of them possessed of their old humanity, and feel their frustration as they say to themselves, as I’ve often said to myself, “But I did my best…” But they sacrificed that humanity to attempt destroying a candidate who still possesses that quality.
Hillary voters, I do not know how you can continue maintaining any sense of idealism or affection for the Clintons after the past couple months. I do not know how you cannot see how she has offended the majority of Democrats and lost the race. I do not know how you can act indignant about perceived insults from Barack Obama when he has been as gracious and restrained as possible in dealing with her scorched earth campaigning. I do not know how you could let her Republican tactics turn you off on Barack so much that so many of you claim you’ll vote for McCain instead, although that is rather improbable. You people have not explained yourselves well.
But this is the time to put these things behind us. The Clintons can earn some respect back, depending on how they act over the next six months, although Hillary is clearly not ready to rehabilitate herself yet. But Barack Obama has done plenty enough to earn your respect and cooperation to put an end to the ways of George Bush and his adoring GOP. And, having defeated Hillary Clinton while polling consistently ahead of John McCain, he’s done more than enough to assuage your fears that he won’t get the job done. The time to fear and fret is over. If you make the decision to support the Democratic nominee all the way til November, it will happen. Hillary’s claims are self-fulfilling prophecies borne of no rhyme or reason. We must all put at the forefront the mission of getting a Democrat in the White House, so that we can pursue the vital work of remaining vigilant and staying on top of that Democrat to stick by us all until the last day of office.
May 06, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap
Empty crap like this:
Clinton retorted, “Instead of attacking the problem, he’s attacking my solutions,” and ran an ad in the campaign’s final hours that said she “gets it.”
It’s called pointing out that your “solutions” are no such thing. That’s logic, Hillary. You do the same thing every chance you get.
As for what Hillary “gets,” it seems to be only that she can say whatever she wants without paying too many penalties from voters. What she doesn’t get is that it hasn’t been good enough to win, and that the high road was the one to take against Obama. She didn’t get that, and right now Obama is closing in on the nomination and pulling in superdelegates left and right.
Obama only needs a minority of the remaining superdelegates to clinch the victory, and throughout these past few “rough” weeks he’s still been getting the majority. This means Hillary’s hopes are resting upon something so terrible happening that virtually all the remaining superdelegates swing for her.
This isn’t going to happen, and she doesn’t get that either. All the negativity, the slime, the Republican race she’s been running, has been for naught, except to battle-test Obama and see he’s doing just fine. Hillary had her argument, briefly and tenuously, and now it rests punctured and bleeding.
The only question is, when will she get it?
Apr 24, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics, Racism
What’s really going on here? Andrew Sullivan says that we’re seeing a subtle weighing of the scales, where the old-timey dynamics come into play: White women trump black men in the pecking order.
I don’t believe that racism explains all of it at all. To my mind, the kind of tactics deployed against someone like Obama were deployed against Kerry and Gore and Clinton. Class and gender and age also weighed in the balance. And the fear of another Carter has motivated some. But the insane hysteria over Wright, the racist incidents in Pennsylvania that are only now being aired fully, the “Hussein” and “Muslim” memes, the sense of white entitlement that is so embedded in the Clintons that they don’t even fully see it: you have to be blind not to see the impact of race. Imagine if John Edwards had achieved what Obama has achieved. Imagine if he had won more delegates, votes and states than Clinton. Would Clinton have ever offered him the veep slot? Of course, race has affected this campaign, if only because the white entitlement that infuses the Clintons is invisible to most.
A reader of his pipes in:
The greatest dogwhistle of the Obama campaign so far is his ability to lay out this urgency to our generation. Viewed in this light, the only thing Obama has to tell me about yesterday’s election is that Pennsylanvia has the second oldest population in the country. After hearing that fact, I get it. He was never going to win.
A lot of statistical games are going on, but the striking differences between the voters over 40 versus the under-40 crowd encompasses a lot of subdivisions. Hillary isn’t just a woman, she’s a boomer, so she gets not only the older more racist voters, but the narcissistic boomers who can’t yet imagine they aren’t the center of the universe. In most states that hasn’t saved her, but it’s frequently created a demographic lump that won’t budge for Obama, and Pennsylvania was just one of them (Iowa, proudly, was not. When will the rest of the nation learn to listen to Iowans who aren’t named Steve King?) Had it been a Super Tuesday state, it would have gotten lost in the mix. Hillary’s had much bigger wins, and Obama’s had many more bigger wins. It’s a strange symptom of our news cycle that every new race is SO IMPORTANT because Hillary’s camp says it is. Is North Carolina important? Unlikely. And with Obama highly favored to win Indiana, Indiana isn’t so important either. Unless Hillary wins it, then it’s tha most important state EVAH!
I guess one could derive all sorts of lessons from Pennsylvania, it’s such a muddled mix…a 9.2 point lead, straddling the line between underwhelming win and double-digit victory…an interminable and stupid length of time until the next primary, when this one will be forgotten except that it gave Hillary license to keep torturing us with her slow loss, hoping somebody’ll just give her the nomination to shut her up…Obama’s need to step up his game fighting gossipy tabloidish junk that has nothing to do with the presidency…
…I mean, honestly. What is crap like Jeremiah Wright and whoever Obama shook hands with? Some image deal? And we’re listening to this after 8 years displaying to the world a President who’d be the loudmouthed guy at the end of the bar sloshed on Budweiser working at the chicken feed plant if it weren’t for his rich daddy? Apparently having a retard as President is okay, but we can’t tolerate one who doesn’t wear his flag pin because he thinks patriotism is something that deserves more than being worn on one’s sleeve!
America has from now until November to grow the hell up, consolidate support behind Obama and give him a nice 5-10 point lead over John McCain. While Republican hacktaculars like Sharon, Dana Pico, and Brian Pickrell are quaking in their boots (and let us not forget the Republican arm-wringing that went on before Bill Clinton won in 1992), in 2012 Barack Obama can run for re-election and we can simply say, “See? He didn’t enslave the white race!”
In the meantime, I’m considering taking up a new hobby, preferably something that involves gin or vodka every night.
Apr 23, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Hillary Clinton
Delegate count from the PA primary:
Total delegates for each so far:
And it’s not just the delegate count that clearly spells Hillary’s fate. The popular vote tells the exact same story. It is to be expected that regardless of the margin, the Clinton camp will trumpet tonights win of Hillary’s home state as a devastating defeat. The cable news outlets will play along because the continuation of the Democratic Party candidate selection process affords them a few more weeks of lazy horse-race narration. But at what cost?
Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.
On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad â€” torn right from Karl Roveâ€™s playbook â€” evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. â€œIf you canâ€™t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,â€ the narrator intoned.
The pattern has become all too familiar. Clinton is the presumed winner in the upcoming caucus/primary because of wide early margins amongst all demographics. The Obama campaign moves in, organizes, and the gap rapidly narrows leading to either a win or a close second despite the Clinton campaigns repeated willingness to immediately go negative. In contest after contest, Clinton has blown huge margins yet we’re supposed to believe that come November she will not repeat the same performance when facing John McCain? And after putting up with months of the type of abuse from his Democratic rival (the nature of which my eight-year-old niece would be ashamed of) we’re supposed to believe that a knock-kneed Obama, when facing a Republican slime-machine that the Clinton campaign has shown no hesitation in aping, will be too overcome by Rovian shock-and-awe to mount an effective campaign? We already know how the Republican Party is going to attack Obama because we’ve seen it from the Clinton campaign. Obama’s performance in handling Clinton’s slash-and-burn tactics should be more than enough evidence that he’s got what it takes to face a light-weight like John McCain head-on.
I do not want to see Hillary Clinton on television after the November elections explaining that regardless of the fact that she lost the delegate count and the popular vote she is still the best candidate (just like she is doing right now). I would much rather place my bets on a battle-hardened Obama candidacy with a track-record of effective campaigning and driven by a fierce work-ethic.
Apr 22, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Racism, Women
These are some unlucky times.
It’s unlucky that after 232 years of white male presidents, a political party is forced to choose between a woman or a black man for their first presidential mold-breaking nominee. In a just world we would have had many female presidents and presidents of all races by now. This is not a just world, and our nation has been afflicted with irrational prejudices since before its inception that we have long struggled to shed. Could an atheist Asian-American woman run the country? Of course, to new heights even. Could she get elected? The odds are currently impossible.
Our current female candidate has gotten to her position largely on the coattails of her husband and shamelessly crass triangulating plastic politics. Our current black candidate rose to the top through powerful virtues few presidents have been lucky enough to possess, and has faced an onslaught of racially tinged attacks from every direction (amazingly, much of it from the campaign of the female candidate). It is progress that they are here, but as prevalent are the signs that we haven’t quite gotten “there” yet.
I feel that given the choice between a female candidate and a black male candidate, one must turn the question to their merits and leave the identity politics behind. Either one would be a historic president breaking a centuries-old pattern of injustice, paving the way for future candidates. Either one benefits the other’s cause, because our nation will now recognize that things need not remain the way they were. If we can elect a female president, then we can also elect a non-white one, and vice versa.
Sadly, this idea has not caught on. Some have simply gravitated to the candidate most like them, understandably since that’s what people do. However, some have chosen to take sides and argue that gender trumps race or vice versa. This conflict was avoidable, yet we did not swerve away. (more…)
Apr 12, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, The senility of John McCain
You decide: Politicians displaying genuine outrage on behalf of the people (who are so kind to remain silent), or willing to say anything for political advantage?
This is about the sickness of our modern political culture and its inability to be intellectually honest. Neither Clinton, McCain, nor-Quist believe what they’re saying. Three intelligent Washington veterans? Please. They simply recognize Obama’s words as something that can be easily misconstrued, so they leap to be the loudest one to do so. Via said action, they reveal their own contempt for the intelligence of the electorate, trying to punish Obama for, once again, talking to the public like they’re adults. And, in another indefensible move that should surprise nobody at this point, Hillary Clinton is actually sending out e-mails with soundbites from Republicans attacking Obama.
Obama’s strength, however, is that he doesn’t easily play this game, and keeps sticking to the truth:
So I made this statement– so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’
“Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain–it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch? No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania. I know what’s going on in Indiana. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed-up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.”
Jack Cafferty, displaying his usual common sense, notes a hint of self-defensiveness in the motives of Clinton and McCain:
And what Barack Obama was suggesting is not that the people of Pennsylvania are to blame for any of it. It’s that the jerks in Washington, D.C., as represented by the ten years of the Bushes and the Clintons and the McCains who have lied to and misled these people for all of this time while they shipped the jobs over seas and signed phony trade deals like NAFTA are to blame for the deteriorating economic conditions among America’s middle class. I mean, I’m a college dropout and I can read the damn thing and figure it out.
This is the kind of rotten bullshit that does turn people bitter about D.C. And when threatened, it coordinates its own defense with stunning rapidity and collaboration. Trust Clinton, McCain, and co. on this and you’ll deserve the knife you find jutting out of your back.
UPDATE: This sounds to me like a more authentic reaction:
I’m a white guy. I live in upstate NY. I make like 18k a year right now. I can you right now that Obama has a lot of heads nodding along with him on this, and most of don’t belong to his elitist supporters, or the elitist bloggers who make up the A-list of the blogosphere.
What Obama said is unvarnished truth. Its a truth many of us have waited our lives to hear a real politician say. THAT is what has the media so rabid to try and cast these comments as some devil’s screed. They know damn well that people are more likely to agree with them than disagree, and they’re woring over time to make people dismiss them automatically without ever thinking on them. That isn’t going to happen. 20 years of this shit is too long already.
Apr 08, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap
Virtually anybody who considers themselves at least a mild political junkie has noted the shenanigans of the vile chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, Mark Penn. A man covered in sores and pustules filled with the pus of Beltway poison, he is a walking epitaph on the tomb of humanity in America’s public sphere. He was even hated within the Clinton camp of grade-A phonies like Harold Ickes, despite being entirely akin to them in authenticity, if kicked up a notch. Nevertheless, being chief strategist his tenure outlasted any sensible measure of accountability:
He should have been fired after Super Tuesday, and fired after the 11 contests that followed. He should have been fired before Texas and Ohio, and fired twice after. Instead, he wasn’t fired until April 6th, two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary, when no change in strategy could possibly change the outcome.
Incompetence and cronyism leading to catastrophic failure…wow, after eight years of George W., Hillary is offering a breath of fresh air, isn’t she? I’m relieved to note that the Obama campaign is pointing out the logical conclusion here:
In the days and weeks ahead, the Barack Obama campaign is going to pose a simple question to the undecided voters and undeclared superdelegates who will decide the Democratic nomination for president: If Hillary Clinton canâ€™t run a good primary campaign, how is she ever going to run a good campaign against the Republicans?
And while she says she is ready from Day One to be president, she is at something like Day 430 into being a presidential candidate and her campaign seems to be going from bad to worse to train wreck.
Is this a coincidence that Hillary is displaying some of Bush’s worst qualities, blundering forward at the urging of a tight circle of yes-men despite all sense or consequence? Of course, not. A clumsy triangulator, she has too long admired and envied the election victories of Bush and the GOP over the years, and has internalized the forces that Democrats should be opposing. It is no surprise that we see her here after grabbing onto flag-burning amendments, voting for the Iraq War, voting to rattle sabers against Iran and possibly enable further misguided adventures, applauding the surge, adopting W.’s policy on negotiating with enemies, sucking up lobbyist money, etc. Mangling Bill’s (former) political deftness, she has simply surrendered so often to Republicans that she has lost perspective of where the line is drawn. She has come to believe that Karl Rove style campaigning mixed with DLC corporatism is what can save the Democrats against the Republicans in November, but it is what threatens to destroy the party for another generation.
It is tempting to dream that Hillary might have been able to offer us something nobler had Penn been squeezed out months ago, but this is precisely what she has proven herself capable of here. No one else is to blame. And no free pass should be given for hiring such an individual up front. We should be able to expect better from such an experienced, battle-tested and vetted candidate, shouldn’t we? Or should we realize we’ve been getting snake oil poured down our throats the entire time?
UPDATE: A demotion rather than a departure. Just too much accountability to expect from the Clinton campaign, it seems.
Apr 03, 2008 in Clintonitis
While the degree to which Democratic voters have excused Hillary’s morally bankrupt campaign has depressed me, it is rewarding to see that her unscrupulousness has essentially backfired, the race all but lost. Kos of Daily Kos sees the lack of principle and, as any liberal, progressive or libertarian socialist ought to, finds no good words for it.
Clinton’s campaign has one premise — victory at all costs. If that requires sundering the Democratic Party, so be it. She doesn’t care. Therefore, there is no logic that applies. The popular vote only matters if it favors her. The pledged delegate lead only matters if it favors her. Michigan and Florida only matter if it favors her. States only matters if they vote for her. Groups and communities in this country only matters if they supports her. Super delegates only matter if they cast their lot with her.
Clinton personifies the worst of the “with us, or against us”-type thinking that has gotten us in trouble with the rest of the world.
So we have a campaign that is losing by every metric imaginable. And now that campaign says that it doesn’t care if she’s losing by every metric imaginable. Her campaign will carry on regardless.
No one can say that Clinton doesn’t play to win. In some circumstances, that is admirable.
The only problem is that she already lost. At this point, this is just pathetic.
Notice the integration of Hillary’s fundamental surrender to Bush-style thinking into an explanation of her folly. Like Bush, there is no core there, just a faint spark of the original sense that she was here to “help people.” Unfortunately, she fell into the trap of thinking that whatever was good for her was good for the people. Neither objective has been satisfied, nor could they be through her solitary and extremely unlikely path to the nomination, Obama’s complete destruction. Hillary has brought this entirely upon herself, and no amount of whining in the world will change that.
Apr 01, 2008 in Clintonitis, Election crap
From a letter to the editor in The Washington Post:
James Carville can be obnoxious on some issues, but with regard to Bill Richardson, he was right on the mark. If there really was a Judas 2,000 years ago, he could not have outdone Mr. Richardson. I previously had the highest regard for him, but he has become a world-class traitor. I would be furious if he were my state’s governor.
Bill Richardson, in supporting Barack Obama, outdid Judas, who turned in Jesus to be executed. Makes sense.
Meanwhile, Sen. Patrick J. Leahy [front page, March 29] should refrain from calls to anoint Sen. Barack Obama as the party’s savior and let those at the Democratic convention decide, if necessary, who will be the nominee.
Barack Obama wins by the number of states, delegates, and the popular vote. Hillary could only win by superdelegates going against that and choosing her. Naturally, Barack could only claim the nomination by anointment.
tr.v. aÂ·nointÂ·ed, aÂ·nointÂ·ing, aÂ·noints
1. To apply oil, ointment, or a similar substance to.
2. To put oil on during a religious ceremony as a sign of sanctification or consecration.
3. To choose by or as if by divine intervention.
Oh, and Senator Leahy shouldn’t express his opinion, because this prevents those at the Democratic convention from deciding things. Well, maybe not directly, but just think, if he speaks, he may risk influencing the opinions of others! I can only wonder if the reader agrees that Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t be expressing her opinions either, as free speech can also influence other people to develop similar opinions.
My faith in Democratic voters dies a little bit every day this madness persists. One could call this letter the work of one lone freak, but please tell me, how is this substantially different from anything coming from the Clinton camp these days? Complete gibberish with one thematic consistency: Hillary rulez, shut up!!! Is it any stupider than Carville’s comments, or anything Harold Ickes says?
Mar 16, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Iowa
Got this email from an Obama delegate in Cedar Rapids:
I just wanted to let you know that I talked to over 7 pledged Obama delegates at yesterday’s Democratic County Caucus who received robocalls from the Hillary campaign to help support her at the county caucus. This is clearly a flip-flop on the statement given by the Hillary campaign as linked above. I talked to people within the Obama campaign and it didn’t really gain any ground. Maybe you can bring this up on iowaliberal?
She recently remarked that pledged delegates can switch. Unfortunately, Iowans haven’t bought into her sales pitches over the last 3 months because Obama gained 7 yesterday. There are a number of counties that once carried Hillary that changed to Obama yesterday as well. I guess the robocalls didn’t work. Too bad.
The article that was mentioned in the email can be found here.
Mar 07, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Hillary Clinton
An admitted Clinton supporter spells out some of the reasons why the Obama faithful are such a huge turnoff to so many of us. The usual response to these charges is a neat reversal: “How can you fault a person for expressing hope?” – as if they only way to express hope were the deployment of cult-of-personality rhetoric, and as if the hope expressed weren’t mainly selling itself. Elsewhere, one of Obama’s many feminist supporters pulls out the “play with me or I’ll take my ball and go home!” trope, which fewer Clinton supporters use; it hearkens back to the Naderites with its my-way-or-the-highway spoiled child posturing, then goes the extra mile and volunteers a vote for the guy who, having been held prisoner and tortured, still thinks torture’s cool.
Election years! So filled with great sentiment and noble impulse!
Feb 28, 2008 in Clintonitis, Clueless Conservatives, Election crap
Personally, I’m not sure how anybody could have avoided pegging Bush II for an idiot the first moment they laid eyes on him…but surely if they didn’t, he’s provided endless fodder for them ever since. I can only imagine that one could fight off a sense of burning shame that this stooge was put in charge of the United States of America for eight years via great effort and excessive willingness to say things like, “You’re just afflicted with Bush hatred!”
From Republicans I’ve been taught to expect such things, but can anyone believe that a person could nearly nab the Democratic nomination for the Presidency falling for this kind of reasoning?
Warming to the subject, Bush continued: â€œSitting down at the table, having your picture taken with a tyrant such as Raul Castro, for example, lends the status of the office and the status of our country to him. He gains a lot from it by saying, ‘Look at me. I’m now recognized by the president of the United States.’â€
I’m stunned. This is our leader? The great man that Republicans look at and get misty-eyed over? The tragically misunderstood genius that only 30% of the nation can recognize?
Here’s a tip: There is not a single dictator on the planet who has had his grip on power loosened because he didn’t have the ability to strut around like a rooster crowing, “Look at me and despair, people! I’m recognized by the POTUS!” Coming at the end of Fidel Castro’s forty-nine year term, this is beyond ludicrous. It’s dangerously delusional.
Now we can expect this from the authoritarian logic-deprived rightwingers who worship Ronald Reagan but no longer remember that he sat down with the Soviets. But from one of our own?
Hillary Clinton has been given a considerable amount of slack from Democrats for somebody who has done little to differentiate her record from not just Bush’s foreign policy, but the most ill-conceived portions of it. Her vote to support the Iraq war should have been a disqualification, especially after the horrendous time John Kerry had in 2004. She was another Democrat politician fearful that the war would be over in a few months and she’d be on the wrong side come future elections. Democrats have gone too far letting her have it both ways. She ended up on the wrong side. And she still is, coming at Barack Obama for daring to follow the sound pragmatic brand of foreign policy that says keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
When people see George W. Bush trying to take a shot at Barack for the same reasons, it should remind them that his (stupid) words sound awfully familiar. We’ve been hearing this stupidity from Hillary.
The only reasonable response from Democrats is to applaud Obama. He has distinguished himself from Hillary Clinton in the most crucial areas where she has failed us, and Bush’s bellering has served to remind us where the line is drawn. Bravo, Obama.
And bravo to Bush, for coming out and saddling both Hillary and McCain with the burden of being on his side. After dispensing with Bush/Clinton policies, he merely needs to convince the public to take a pass on Bush/McCain policies.
I suspect they’ll find the choice relatively stark, and easy to make.
Feb 25, 2008 in Clintonitis, Election crap
Michigan and Florida move up their primaries when they’re not supposed to. Democrats vote not to count their primaries. Democratic candidates agree not to campaign there. Barack Obama doesn’t even put his name on the Michigan ballot. Surprise, Hillary wins, as she tends to start out ahead in most states due to name recognition and familiarity. Oh, and yeah, Barack Obama didn’t even put his friggin’ name on the Michigan ballot, did I mention that? Hillary falls behind. Hillary’s campaign suddenly believes it needs those delegates to stay competitive. Problem? They have no argument and are blatantly asking to cheat.
Ickes also called upon DNC Chairman Howard Dean to broker a compromise to seat some or all of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, states which were stripped of their delegates.
He dismissed criticism he had voted to deprive the states of their representation at a DNC meeting in 2007, saying, “As we all know in this city I have a very short memory.”
Hillary’s campaign cannot disguise its shamelessness, nor its incompetence. Did I miss something?
Feb 25, 2008 in Clintonitis, Election crap
The Huffington Post has a video of Hillary Clinton getting a bitÂ salty over the Obama campaign rhetoric.Â What demographicÂ this type of behaviorÂ is supposed to appeal to is a mystery to me.Â
Feb 18, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics
Wow, that Clinton camp proves once again that they’ll say absolutely anything to get a vote…and that they are completely unaware that people know they do this, which ends up costing them votes. While Hillary Clinton has been perfectly content to lift Barack Obama’s lines wholesale, upon discovering that Barack used a bit from his friend, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, with Patrick’s approval, she’s decided her campaign’s best move is to point the fingers and scream bloody murder:
The Clinton camp, however, jumped right on the issue arguing that the use of someone else’s language was telling for a candidate who leans so heavily on his oratory. The debate – aided, in part, by a relatively slow news day – culminated in dueling conference calls at 11 am on Monday morning.
“The issue whether or not there is approval is immaterial. The public did not know that the words had come from Gov. Patrick,” said Clinton’s spokesperson Howard Wolfson. We need a president, added Massachussetts Rep. Jim McGovern who is “not just someone who can copy someone’s homework.”
Oh, what compelling fucking logic. Just when I finished puking in my mouth over the Clinton’s camps flat out attempt to cheat their way into getting Florida and Michigan’s delegates, after signing an agreement that the states wouldn’t count, I get this oh-so-sound argument. It’s not based on logic or any guiding principle whatsoever, just a childish “This could work in my favor so it’s right!” squawking. Obama puts the charge down effortlessly:
“[Patrick] has occasionally used lines of mine. I have occasionally used some words of his. I know Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well. I don’t think that is something that workers here are concerned about.” Obama added that he should have credited Patrick, but said in the end, “I really don’t think this is too big of a deal.”
The Clintons do seem to be determined to run one of the ugliest, stupidest, chintziest, chutzpah-rific campaigns this nation has seen since…well, George W. Bush’s 2004 campaign. Time and time again, we see evidence that Bill and Hillary watched that campaign and simply took notes. They seem to be counting on the American people not remembering that falling for these kinds of stupid tricks got them a second term of one of our nation’s worst presidents.
Really…and I haven’t even gotten into the walking clusterfuck of a campaign adviser that is Mark Penn. This kind of stupid ugliness reeks of him, and it’s been emanating from this campaign ever since Barack Obama became a threat. What it tells one is that Hillary Clinton never felt she had the option of being a better candidate for the presidency than Barack Obama. She pulls these stunts to compensate for her failures. One can only hope, desperately, that if this woman ever does connive her way into the general election that she doesn’t get the same feelings of inadequacy and helplessness against John McCain.
Feb 13, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Disappointing Dems
Look everybody, Thomas Tallis is not tryin’ to make waves. He is just askin’ questions, OK? And today’s question involves civil liberties. We all already know that Senator Clinton will happily barter our civil liberties for political position; the Clintons’ thirst for political advantage knows know bounds, so we’re never surprised to learn that Senator Clinton has either skipped a vote or voted with those who’d trade our freedoms for imagined security. We wonder, though: where, exactly, was the candidate of change yesterday morning? And if the answer, as we suspect, is “too busy working on his historic campaign to vote against creeping fascism,” well, we gotta ask: what kind of priorities are those?
Feb 09, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics
Matt Taibbi names the demon, so we can fight it: The Chicken Doves. They are the Democrats who got elected promising to end the war and have instead surrendered in each and every battle.
Democrats insist that the reason they can’t cut off the money for the war, despite their majority in both houses, is purely political. “George Bush would be on TV every five minutes saying that the Democrats betrayed the troops,” says Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Then he glumly adds another reason. “Also, it just wasn’t going to happen.”
Cowardly defeatism at its finest. Democrats couldn’t do it because George Bush would say mean things about them? Because they aren’t allowed to respond by saying that George Bush is holding the troops hostage?
While the Democrats have shamed themselves with this complete failure to do what they promised, it remains a 100% certainty that Republican power will always push for extending the war indefinitely. John McCain may joke about 100 years, but rightwingers are actually fine with that logic. We’re still in Germany, they’ll say. We will always be in Iraq.
As for the election angle, it’s certain that Barack trumps Hillary easily on Iraq and the Middle East. She sounds like George Bush when she talks about foreign policy. Barack sounds like somebody who’s been doing serious thinking about Al Queda and a new direction in the Middle East. While he’s signed off on money for the Iraq War, he took some ownership of what goes on over there, and I believe he knows his responsibility for those votes. I don’t gain any sense from Hillary Clinton that she believes she should be responsible for the fiasco that is the Iraq War. She proved with Iran that she’s still ready to preemptively surrender to Republicans so they won’t say mean things about her.
Feb 08, 2008 in Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics
Clinton staffers to go without pay.
*I had to change the title to make cbmc happy.
Feb 04, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics
Uh oh, Obama has inspired a cool music video called “Yes, we can!”
So let’s come up with a slogan for Hillary that’s as good as that one. Wait, I got it! “Yes, SHE can!” That’s funny, because it rhymes!
Sullivan suggests it runs deeper:
“Yes, we can” vs. “Yes, she can.” There you have the key difference between the two campaigns.
Hillary slapped the puck into her own net on that one, fair and square. Clintonocrat Apologista, don’t even try it!
Jan 31, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap
My gosh, people are wondering where the snark is now that John Edwards has dropped out of the race for president.
As regular readers know, I looked into the future back around December before the Iowa caucuses, and saw that Edwards was toast. My opinion was that Edwards supporters had far more in common with Obama than Hillary Clinton, but my prediction was not an opinion. People fussed and fought and called me a defeatist Democrat, but they were missing a key fact: I had seen the writing on the wall and was merely reading it aloud. I said I’d eat the crow if I were wrong, but I did so with complete confidence. I would eat no ravens.
The fact that Edwards has acknowledged the inevitable changes little else. The argument remains, and now the people in 22 states on Feb. 5 who supported Edwards must decide who will best fulfill the spirit of his campaign and his character.
That answer, to me and seemingly Edwards based on his own remarks, is clearly Barack Obama.
All that is left is to thank John Edwards for, despite carrying on longer than warranted, realizing that February 5th was simply an exercise in futility and that this was, indeed, a two-person race after all. And for running a pretty positive populist campaign which was full of good ideas, despite the fact that he never had the ability to carry them out. But many say that Obama and Clinton scrambled to co-opt his policies, which was a very good thing since they were mostly nice solid bread-and-butter grassroots liberal positions. Of course, I see Obama as recognizing the intrinsic good of Edwards policies, whereas it takes little to imagine Hillary glomming onto whatever the hell anybody tells her is the popular position. Come a real challenge, Hillary will crumble quicker than Obama. Count that as another one of my factual predictions.
John Edwards was a great candidate in the beginning of 2004 who ultimately failed to beat John Kerry, stand up effectively to Dick Cheney in debate, or bring in his home state. 2008 saw him going for the Democratic red meat full steam in order to distinguish himself from the other candidates, a move which called into question how sincerely he held these positions himself. An utterly undistinguished and quite cowardly single term in the Senate was the man’s only time in office, and it provided no foundation for his platform whatsoever. If John Edwards had a fatal flaw, it was this. The idea that Barack Obama was the inexperienced one was laughable. It was John Edwards whose record in politics was a complete waste of time, who wanted us to merely trust that he’d be effective if we’d only give him the highest office in the land.
Yes, Hillary and Barack had the dazzling advantages of being a woman and a black man, but they were also stronger candidates than Edwards. Were Edwards truly the powerhouse his supporters envisioned him being, he could have easily lulled voters away from the “risky” choices. In the end, Edwards was just as much a risk if not more.
So now here we are, with the race officially down to two choices, literally rather than figuratively. Edwards has avoided making any official endorsement, a choice that troubles me. Is he thinking of his career and the prospect of becoming AG under either candidate? He was rather unequivocal after Iowa that he saw himself and Obama as the candidates of change and Hillary as the status quo.
If Edwards is turning into a self-interested waffler the second he drops out, it doesn’t attest to his character. But it may be the one thing he does that benefits most his ambition.
Jan 27, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap
From November 29th:
A new poll suggests the presidential nomination races in South Carolina are getting as tight as those in Iowa. The Clemson University Palmetto Poll finds many people are still undecided — including about a quarter of Republicans and half of Democrats. Among voters who have a favorite:
The top three Democrats are Hillary Clinton (19%), Barack Obama (17%) and John Edwards (12%). In the same poll in September, Clinton led Obama 26%-16%.
I’d wager most South Carolinians knew in September that Obama was black.
One day Bill Clinton is going to explode in front of his aides screaming, “I can’t believe this fucking Sambo is beating us!”
Jan 26, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Disappointing Dems, Election crap, Politics
Am I the only one who senses a bit of a contradiction here?
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as “the black candidate,” a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
If Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton’s racial skullduggery was “too black” for these Clinton campaign strategists, then no black person can ever be president by their math. Obama has been about as restrained and dignified during the Clintons’ brazen provocations as a human being is capable of being. What the Clintons have seen is a backlash based more on the grassroots. They tried stirring up racial shit with Obama, and people saw it for what it was: ugly. It was from a wide range of voices that the Clintons felt the heat. Honestly, to the degree that Democrats who support Hillary condone it or fail to recognize it, I am ashamed of the Democratic Party. The Clintons heard from the people in the Democratic Party who truly are different from Karl Rove. If these campaign strategists want to run around playing innocent while trumpeting their perception of their own success in calling Obama an angry black man, they’re going to make America ill. If the Clintons want this to be about race, then they load the dice in both directions: if Hillary defeats Obama using these tactics, then it’s a victory for whites over blacks. And while blacks have been used to this coming from Republicans, for them to see this happen within the Democratic party could be flat-out disastrous. Rightwinger crackpots love to try to tell blacks that the Democrat party just uses them. They’ll start to sound right.
Of course, to echo a recurring theme, people could alleviate a lot of these problems by voting for Barack Obama, who did take the high road. South Carolina backed up Iowa’s verdict (and Nevada’s, considering Obama won more delegates there) that there is simply a better, healthier way forward for America.
Jan 24, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics
The Democratic contest has become a somewhat depressing affair. The Clinton’s descent into Karl Rove’s world of scumbag politics has unfortunately proven to be either effective or not a drawback for Hillary so far, which puts Democrats in the position of saying, if she wins because of it, “Did I object to Karl Rove’s style of campaigning because I found it immoral, or because it was effective against me?”
Such immorality has its blowback:
Representative Jim Clyburn, whose neutrality in the Democratic primary has made him something of a political referee between the Obama and Clinton camps, said on Thursday that former president Bill Clinton’s campaign tactics may have long-term damage on his reputation.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the longtime South Carolina congressman would not, as a member of the Obama campaign has, go so far as to compare Clinton’s actions to that of Lee Atwater, the famed Republican dirty trickster. But he did allow the idea that the former president had sullied his image within Democratic circles.
“I think that may be true,” said Clyburn, the third ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives. “I mean, he is speaking out this way, taking hits on Obama. A lot of times these things happen. What you say may hurt the other guy but it also may hurt you.”
It is now a matter of record that a former president demoted himself to the role of shameless campaign hitman. Democrats lose no matter how this thing turns out. But make no mistake, Bill Clinton: were you to win Hillary the nomination and then blow the general election, your reputation would be instantly destroyed beyond repair. Your legacy will be shit.
Jan 14, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics, Racism
First of all, calling Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war “a fairy tale” right after Bill claimed that he himself had been opposed all along. Now this:
The interviewer, Roland Martin of WVON-AM in Chicago, played Mr. Johnson’s statement Sunday in which he praised the Clintons for having “been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood – and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the bookâ€¦” Mr. Martin sounded incredulous about Mr. Johnson’s subsequent denial, in a statement issued by the Clinton campaign, that he was referring to drug use by Mr. Obama. “When you listen to that tone and the inflection, he was not talking about community organizing. It seems to me very clear what he was implying,” Mr. Martin said.
“Ironically, this is the first time I’ve heard it, what you just said,” Mr. Clinton said. “I listened to it on the tape and I think we have to take him at his word.”
Oh, really? You think we have to take him at his word, Bill? An obvious sham of a retraction of Johnson’s crystal-clear implications should be taken seriously?
No, we don’t have to take Johnson’s crap retraction, Mr. Clinton. We can take his original statement for what it clearly suggests, and until that implication is addressed, it shall stand as another example of Hillary’s ground troops hurling slime and mud at Obama while Hillary puts on a smiley face, in clear emulation of King George II and Karl Rove’s election strategies.
Jan 13, 2008 in Clintonitis, Clueless Conservatives, Politics
I loves me some Andrew Sullivan, but anybody must admit the fella can go completely off course at times. In recent times, he has accepted a drubbing or two for his flying off the hinges regarding all things Hillary (“Nixon in a pantsuit,” he says). In a column where he points out that the overexcited enemies of the Clintons have always made them look good in comparison, Andrew says:
In a country exhausted from the toxic polarisation of the last eight years, reelecting the most divisive politician in America didnâ€™t seem so brilliant.
Andrew, wake up. You forgot about the guy who happens to occupy the White House at the moment. There can be no argument, George W. Bush campaigned as a uniter and immediately turned his White House into a slash-and-burn Republican campaign headquarters, dedicated to a permanent Republican majority and little else. Andrew forgets that the Clintons have also survived regularly because they make frequent concessions to conservatives and embrace many of their policies. Yet Hillary is the candidate that will famously unite the entire Republican party in opposition to her, even though nobody can explain why anymore. Is this really to be laid at the Clintons’ feet?
The truth is that the Clintons have not been the source of responsibility for the crazed rightwing jihad against them. They way they have governed makes them exactly the kind of Democrats Republicans like to have in office. The way they have campaigned, generally, offers more than one appeal to conservative voters. And so in his excess, Andrew Sullivan makes my Barack Obama supporting ass step up to defend Hillary Clinton. Slick!
Jan 13, 2008 in Clintonitis
What’s kinda funny about this is that if you think for just a second about how it would play out on the blogs if it were a Republican candiate’s advisor in the mugshot. First, we’d hear about how the liberal press was going overboard in reporting the incident: how we don’t know what exactly happened, how the jury’s still out on what exactly went down, and so on. The second ring of circling wagons would be a barrage of re-chewed bits about media bias: first there’d be lots of “why isn’t the media reporting this other aspect of the story?” entries, accompanied by the strewing of trivial details in the path. These details are properly called “red herrings,” and the process of handing them out is called “running interference.” Its key refrain is “imagine if this were a Republican,” the inverse of which is exactly what I’m doing here. Bundled in with this part would be the all-important verification of the arresting officer’s party affiliation, since, as we all know, nobody who ever in any way obstructs the progress of our preferred party could possibly be acting out of any interest save partisan bias. Finally, very quickly following on the second level, the Grand Conspiracy would be revealed: armchair jockeys would demonstrate beyond all possible doubt that the arrest photo had been “doctored,” and that all reports of the arrest had been a coordinated attempt at smear.
What’s fascinating about this is that the right lifted this blueprint from the radical leftism of the early seventies, when anybody who you didn’t know was “probably an informer” and all news narratives were propaganda. The right-leaning blogger is essentially a shrieking leftist radical in different clothes; anything that might make him look bad is just another example of the Man trying to keep him down. All photographs that make his candidates look bad are Photoshopped; all documentation of his party’s malfeasance are fakes; every cow pie his partyman steps in was a media frame-up. The SDS ought to be suing Republican bloggers for violation of intellectual property rights. One can only hope that the next page from the playbook that the Republicans will pilfer is the one that teaches them how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Jan 09, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap, Politics
So exciting, Hillary winning. She behaves like a human being for the first time in over a decade, something that should not really be material for positive headlines, and suddenly all is hunky dory? That sounds fairly weak, if you ask me. There are a number of factors related to Hillary’s win, including the turnout of older women. One can certainly sympathize, and having a female president would be just as much a step forward for America as Barack Obama being the first black president would be. Logically, the two novelties should cancel each out, however. Elsewise, you’re stuck trying to explain why one is necessarily important than the other, and all you’re going to do is end up pissing off another constituency. If anything, Hillary suffers because electing a woman for being a President’s wife isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement of the system. However, the leap forward has essentially been made, so the question really needs to boil down to who these candidates are and what will their term in office really mean for the US, both pragmatically and in terms of heart and soul.
These are, of course, terms in which Barack Obama simply decimates Hillary. Would America honestly choose to listen to Hillary spam talking points for 8 years or listen to Obama engage the country in a dialogue about where we really are headed?
Mike’s previous link referred to the Republican disarmament in the face of Obama:
Scarborough dismisses the notion that some conservatives are talking up Obama in the belief that he would be a weak general-election opponent. “I get e-mails from Republicans, who’ve never voted for a Democrat before, saying they were tearing up during his Iowa speech,” he says from New Hampshire. “I don’t think they’re being calculated and cynical. This is so damn great for America.”
Oh, but yay, go Hillary, or something. C’mon, folks, she’s likely to win by at least a full percentage point!
New Hampshire, Iowans tried to tell you something. And honestly, 39 to 37 shows you listened somewhat. But you could have chosen smarter. A whole hell of a lot smarter. Like another group of people.
How’s that 17 feeling, Edwards supporters?
Gonna win South Carolina or something? And then cinch it up Feb. 5th?
The numbers prove that those ready to truly change the rulebook in Washington can beat the pants off Hillary Clinton. But some of them insist on persisting in support for Edwards, even when he himself is hinting that he’d rather see the election go to Obama than Clinton. Were it not for these people, this race would not even be close.
Keep it up, John Edwards fans. I’ll have to keep remembering that I might have to be stuck arguing for a Hillary Clinton presidency in November, because of you bunch of geniuses. Good intentions need to be tempered with pragmatism, folks. So quit pulling a Nader.
Jan 08, 2008 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Election crap
If this is true it’d be suicide for the Clinton campaign:
A panicked and cash-short Clinton campaign is seriously considering giving up on the Nevada caucuses and on the South Carolina primary in order to regroup and to save resources for the massive 19-state mega-primary on February 5.
At the same time, some top independent expenditure groups supporting Clinton have been exploring the creation of an anti-Obama “527 committee” that would take unlimited contributions from a few of Clinton’s super-rich backers and from a handful of unions to finance television ads and direct mail designed to tarnish the Illinois Senator’s image.
If Hillary starts wielding a fire hose it would spell the end of her campaign.Â Not only would it reinforce whatÂ voters already suspected about her (that she’s cold, ambitious and calculating), it would hand her opponentsÂ ampleÂ ammunition to castigate her as an agent of Establishment Politics who will do or sayÂ anything to get elected.
-mgÂ Â Â
Dec 31, 2007 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Politics
The dynamics of the Iowa race have been apparent for some time. Iowans aren’t really on Hillary’s side, but John Edwards and Barack Obama are effectively competing for the progressive vote.
The three-way Democratic contest in Iowa has taken on a new shape. John Edwards and Barack Obama are fiercely battling for the mantle of populist change-agent, while Hillary Clinton is rooting for Edwards — whom she sees as a weaker candidate — although her dream scenario would be for the two men to knock each other out.
As the race comes to a close on January 3, it has become increasingly apparent that Edwards and Obama are competing for the same constituency of anti-Clinton Democrats. Most importantly, Edwards has escalated his aggressive anti-corporate attacks, which are producing small, but potentially crucial, defections from the Obama camp of men who favor a bellicose response to their weakening economic position and to their lack of traction in the job market.
As a result, Edwards’ recent gains are coming far more, if not entirely, at the expense of Obama than Clinton, according to poll data.
The Clintonites have more or less shrunk as small as they’re going to get. The people still supporting her have decided, despite all available evidence, that Hillary is the safe bet, both in terms of electability and policy. They’ve settled for mere competence and the facetious argument that she doesn’t need “on the job training,” (I guess we must now elect only incumbents…fortunately she didn’t believe this in 1992). Or they simply say, “It’s time for a woman.” Well, if you must have novelty, Barack certainly has that, but this really is about a gap in ideology, about people power vs. corporate power.
John Edwards can win in Iowa and it won’t make a sliver of difference. He’s been here four years, and has been expected in previous times to have the state already in his pocket. Yet after four years, all he has managed to do is hold onto most of his supporters and divide the progressive vote. His victory won’t impress that many more people, and is extremely unlikely to propel him to victory in other states. Come February 5, Edwards cannot beat Hillary’s operation. A Barack Obama victory in Iowa makes a February 5 victory a very tangible reality.
John Edwards is a nice guy who has disappointed me over and over again when it comes to doing more than throwing populist red meat at the masses. The man couldn’t deliver in 2004 and he still can’t deliver today. Even if you find yourself more inclined to support Edwards, it’s time for realism to kick in. Edwards supporters will accomplish nothing except making Hillary Clinton the Democratic candidate for 2008 and uniting Republicans in opposition.
Progressives and people-powered Democrats need to rally around the candidate who is actually capable of bringing their politics into the White House, Barack Obama. We don’t have time for the pipe dream of John Edwards or the middle-of-the-road yet controversial and not entirely electable Hillary.
Dec 13, 2007 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Health Care, Politics
Am I the only one who isn’t panicking that Barack Obama’s healthcare plan doesn’t have mandates…YET? Krugman has mandated mandates, Robert Reich amiably defended Obama, Gene Sperling (Bill Clinton’s National Economic Adviser and Director of the National Economic Council) tackled Reich, and I’m wondering, is this really worth eating our own over?
Hey, I’d love to see a healthy debate here. But does anybody think Barack Obama would veto a bill handed to him because it had mandates? No. So let’s remember it’s just a debate, and that Obama is still the most outstanding candidate by far. A compromise will be reached, and health care will be there for everybody soon. The problem of people who try to avoid paying while healthy is something that can and will be addressed.
I find Barack Obama to be the most inspiring candidate, to put it simply. And the qualities in him that inspire inform me that he’s a reasonable, pragmatic progressive. People largely don’t have health insurance because they can’t afford it, not because nobody’s telling them to get it. If the government can help the costs, the people will come running for health insurance and the question of mandates will be moot. Even those who are young know deep down they are not invincible.
Nov 11, 2007 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis, Clueless Conservatives, Politics
Andrew Sullivan says, “The Clintons tend to be lucky in their enemies.”
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that the anti-Clinton machine is composed of the worst of the GOP. The faux-scandals fly fast, furiously, and free of facts. Not to mention doggedly authoritarian, if one notes Kenneth Starr’s unconscionable abrogation of Susan McDougal’s Constitutional rights. It’s the very modus operandi that led directly to all things Bush.
The fact is that the only sensible case against Hillary Clinton is one that comes from the left. She’s a centrist Democrat who triangulates by making concession towards Republican policies. The fact that Republicans think they hate this woman reveals them as completely irrational. The reason why Clinton triangulation works is because sane moderates actually pay attention to how Bill Clinton governed in the ’90s and to how Hillary behaved in the Senate. It’s the left she’s been driving crazy through unbelievable betrayals like voting for Iraq. The Clintons, for all their human imperfections, have a governing philosophy America likes. Most lefties can whack them on certain policies and still rate their job performances highly.
As furious as those who hate the Clintons personally get at the thought of Bill Clinton smugly walking back into the White House, the fact simply is that it will be better for America. The rightwingjackass brigade has nothing on them. But they won’t stop. That doesn’t make the Clintons lucky. That makes all of us unlucky.
Of course, we could simply sidestep all this adieu and elect Obama instead, who only the most vile could hate. The primaries are coming, Iowa. Why not take this chance to vote for the best candidate? President Barack Obama…how exciting is that? I dare any non-rightwingjackass to tell me how that doesn’t give them a bigger woody than “President Hillary Clinton.”
UPDATE: That didn’t mean disguise yourself with a fake Hillary site, rightwingjackass! See comments.
Nov 02, 2007 in Clintonitis, Journamalism, Politics
I’m aware, as is about every organism on the planet, that it’s time for the wingers and the press to cuddle up and brew up more quasi-ethereal scandals against Hillary Clinton, but I honestly can’t figure out what the hell this article is about. It begins with a report of the Justice Department sniffing around donors, asking a Chinese woman if she was coerced to donate. Coerced? The woman said, “No,” and that was it.
Follow that up with several paragraphs about how Hillary Clinton has been playing it careful with donors, screening them and returning money to some citing “an abundance of caution.” Uh, okay.
In other words, there’s nothing new going on with Hillary whatsoever, but the Justice Department is bugging her donors asking them if they were coerced? Isn’t the thought that Bush’s “Justice” (slash Political Enforcement) Department is running around randomly investigating Clinton donors worth a “What the hell?” Wouldn’t a crack journalist trail that story further, instead of digging up anecdotes of people who weren’t citizens and didn’t get their checks returned and then titling the story, “Clinton’s Fundraiser Raises Questions”? We’re supposed to believe that IBP can’t keep track of who’s a citizen among their own workers, but Hillary Clinton is supposed to know from a check with a name on it?
Adam Goldman reported from New York and Jim Kuhnhenn reported from Washington.
Holy smokes, it took two monkeys to pull off this mess. They couldn’t have assigned a third one to cover the actual story here?
Oct 31, 2007 in Barack Obama, Clintonitis
Ross Douthat nails my beloved Andrew Sullivan (in a purely metaphorical manner, I’m sure, Andrew is a married man) on the source of his Clinton-itis.
If you followed politics religiously, as everyone who writes about politics for a living does, the Clinton years were a poisonous and depressing era in American history, and another Clinton term sounds like an enormously wearying prospect. But of course most Americans don’t follow politics religiously; they tuned out the Clinton wars then, and I’m sure they’d be happy to tune out a revival of the Clinton wars now, if putting Hillary in the White House would bring back certain other aspects of the pre-9/11 era. A “back to the Nineties” narrative sounds like a terrible idea if you care about the quality of life inside the Beltway, but I doubt that’s nearly as important to most voters as it is to us pundit types.
The Clinton years were poisonous and depressing? The only thing the public really saw of that was the ceaseless efforts of those on the right to drum up anything and everything they could against the Clintons, subpoenaing and taking to trial every single crumb they scraped up. I know the Clintons played some hardball in the Beltway, but how can that even register with Andrew after 8 years of Bush II’s reign of terror in Washington? Now if a journalist gets too lippy about Bush, the same crowd that went after the Clintons will turn on them.
Bemoaning a return to the 90’s just isn’t going to resonate with Americans outside of the rightwing cult and the Beltway press. Andrew’s had plenty of opportunity to gain some perspective outside of D.C. since those years. He’s certainly been opening up his blog to those making counterpoints against his overly emotional Hillary objections, so let’s hope he calms down soon, presuming America doesn’t wise up and get Barack Obama the nomination.