Following on Tim’s great post from last night, let me explain where I am with the Clintons: I can’t handle hearing about them anymore. I am sick of them. They suck the oxygen out of the room, they and their rabid detractors make everything about them, and despite my best efforts to be fair to Hillary, it just keeps coming back to one central fact:
I can’t take 8 more years of Clinton.
And I can not see how I am the only one.
*** Update ***
Look, folks. I am not a total moron. I am well aware that the Republican spin machine is going to attack Obama and churn up the outrage and we will spend 4-8 years hearing about Hussein Obama and so forth. I am well aware that they will do this to EVERY candidate the Democrats offer.
But that isn’t a reason to vote for Hillary. And at least it will be different.
An example:
Seriously, though: as others have noted, Hillary has no control over the actions of her rabid detractors. That is the entire fucking point. Hating Hillary because of Rush Limbaugh is like some fucked-up version of Stockholm Syndrome, and I really wish you’d get over it, John. In effect you’re saying that you won’t vote for Hillary because the biggest bunch of sanctimonious shit-eaters on the planet would throw a temper tantrum. It’s the battered wife mentality, it’s the prison bitch, it’s everyone who’s ever conned themselves into believing that the reason they’re beaten and raped is because they’re just not submissive enough.
I am not saying vote for someone else because of who hates Hillary, I am saying vote for someone else because I am sick of the damned Clintons and I am sick of the Clinton haters. Seriously, are even you loyal Clinton supporters not sick of this kind of crap? I think I have been as fair as can be to the Clintons this year, but sheesh.
dslak
I agree. I can’t see how those two can seriously believe that having them in the pilot’s seat is what would be best for this country. Maybe Obama isn’t the best alternative, but if they really believe that, they should just get behind someone else and help us all to let go of the drama.
sparky
Exactly. I’m sure HRC would not be a bad prez (given how low GWB has set the bar, if nothing else), but do we really need another round of this self-absorption? Really: it’s just the primary season and already they are exhibiting their compulsion(s) to act out in public. Please, please, just go away.
skip
Oh, you would prefer another four of Condi fatigue? The only person who can look arrogant and mousy at the same time.
Condi Rice’s ability to stay on message was given a real test in Davos when a British journalist inquired about a recent professional journal study that voted her the “Worst National Security Advisor in Modern History. ” Ms. Rice is a long-time contributor to the same journal.
The GOP’s new focus on domestic issues has me anticipating the tone of Rice’s eventual postmortem overview on Iraq:
“some harsh words were exchanged, gunfire ensued.”
bob
It isn’t Clinton fatigue. What did Clinton do that you didn’t like? All those SCANDALS?????? What scandals? I seem to recall 60 fucking MILLION being spent to get him and they got WHAT? A BLOWJOB!!!!!!!! Wow, good use of OUR money asshole republicans. So, here are the things I don’t like Clinton for: NAFTA, GATT, stepping up the war on pot, welfare “reform”. I’m sure when you were a republican, these things were cool, but they set the stage for THIS asshole to misuse them and send ALL our jobs overseas. FREEEEEEEEEEE MARKET!!!WOO HOO!!!!! Gays in the military??? Did that bother you bunky? Well, When I was in the Navy, which was about the time you learned to poop in a toilet, there were gays in the military. And LOOOONG before I learned to poop in a toilet, when my FATHER was a SEABEE, they had gays, too! Holy cow, Clinton DIDN’T put gays in the military? You mean they were always there? Huh. Who could have guessed.
What I have is FOX FATIGUE. I am sick to death of lying sacks of shit like Hannity, O’Reilly, Doocy, Hill, Blitzer, Dobbs, Carlson, McLaughlin, etc, etc, ad infinitum. THAT is who I’m sick of. Not the Clintons. If you are sick of the Clintons, what about fucking Reagan, Nixon, Bush and Bush? You were a republcan for ALL of them. Were they ok with you? I guess the only 8 years in my lifetime of peace and prosperity occurring at the same time was JUST HORRIBLE. I despise what Clinton did ACTING LIKE A FUCKING REPUBLICAN. Not just for BEING, which is what Clinton Derangement Syndrome is and was all about. BUSH Derangement Syndrome is a false equivalency, as Bush haters hate his ACTIONS and would let him alone if his ACTIONS were not reprehensible. Clinton did NOTHING approaching the asshole moves of the Bushes, sr and jr both.
No, you, just as I, hate Rush and Hannity and Noonan and Goldberg and Dowd and Blankley and all the other yammering fools who reduce our politics to shit. That they focus on Clinton is the fact that they were beaten by him. TWICE. And that galls. They feel they OWN the presidency. Eight years of Obama will be the same as eight years of Clinton. Yap,yap,yapyapyapyapyap all the time from Fox and their imitators. Don’t blame Clinton. It’s ALL the RNC. Or whoever the fuck, it’s REPUBLICANS making shit up. And democrats, which is the ONLY place to find people who care about the ENTIRE country (yes, there are bad democrats, too, so give THAT one a rest) will have to try to clean up a republican mess. Again.
gypsy howell
ummm….. yeah. what bob said.
Scotty
I just can’t fathom having a Bush or Clinton in office for possibly 28 years straight. Is that supposed to happen in a democracy?
Sensitive Pony Tailed Girly Man
HRC is a lousy speaker. Especially when she tries to act like a firebrand. There’s only one of those stumping these days and it’s not her.
That said, I’m with the last poster, and the new thread above this one. There is fatigue, but it’s with the Media’s treatment of the Clinton’s, more than the Clinton’s themselves. Yes, they are dirty campaigners, as tough as they come. But they would also put competent people into the right places and get the recovery process started.
Zifnab
I think you’re following a false dream here, John. When Obama wins the Presidency, I can guarantee the Republican Outrage O-Meter will crack the glass for some other inane and meaningless reason. They’ll investigate his church and his kindergarten/madrassa through the length of his term. Manchurian Candidate will be played on FOX by the week. “Scandals” will erupt regarding Obama’s secret racist connections to the Black Panthers. People will look through Michelle Obama’s garbage dating back to the 80s and conclude she is a slut or a lesbian or a communist or something.
It’ll be Clintons redux. There was nothing special about the Clintons in ’92 that set them apart from the Kennedys or the Daschales or the Gores of the world. Carter wasn’t treated any more kindly than Clinton. I think the last Democratic Congressmen that received something resembling respect was Johnson – and he blew that when he coozed up to scary black people.
Barak Obama will be a walking, breathing, embodiment of Democratic corruption and bad government – no less than the Clintons – simply because the Republican Noise Machine will paint him as one. He’s getting off light right now because he’s new and the “conventional wisdom” hasn’t been constructed about him yet. But that will change quickly come the general election. He’ll get pillared for shit he’s never done and smeared on his greatest achievements. Rovian politics will try to paint him as an angry, racist, Muslim-appeasing, socialist, totalitarian, fascist dictator of doom.
That the narative for Clinton is already written doesn’t mean Obama will somehow escape a similar fate.
flyrerhawk
I think John is spot on.
I cannot simply excuse their actions just because the media is mean to them. They EMBRACE that hostility. They THRIVE against that hostility.
They are not stand up fighters playing by a set of agreed upon rules. They are ground fighters who believe that anything and everything is acceptable.
Some people like that. Scorched Earth tactics aren’t my thing as I believe they contribute to a toxic political environment.
If you think pledging not to campaign or participate in a state, then submitting your name onto the ballot, then trying to get those states to count AFTER you win, is simply playing to win, that’s your choice. Personally I find it loathsome.
bdr
I wrote much the same yesterday, but since, it’s occurred to me (or rather, re-occurred), that while you and me are Clinton-whupped, in terms of a society that has just offered up for our entertainment a program in which wives are bribed to confess to cheating on their husbands, more of the Clinton Family Reality Show is just what this country deserves.
Ellison, Ellensburg, Ellers, and Lambchop
Bob should be the national spokesman for the
BDSDemocratic Party. His rational, well-considered views sum up the coherence of neo-liberal thought.In short: ideas intriguing, newsletter wanted.
myiq2xu
Piss off the media – vote for Hillary!
bob is right, even if he’s a little excitable. How many people could survive the scrutiny that the Clinton’s have endured with so little to show for it?
frankdawg81
I was going to post but see that Zifnab has already beaten me to it.
The faux outrage machine will try to crush the soul of any Democratic President. The thing I admire most about BC is that he never became petty or vindictive in 8 years of that BS.
lectric lady
Every time you Obamabots open your mouths to trash Hillary you recruit 100 undecided female voters into her camp.
Please keep it up.
OxyCon
I personally see a Clinton win as a crushing death blow to the right wing Repub movement.
Clinton’s first 8 years in office was a resounding success for our country even though he was beset by a very loud minority of fringe right wing lunatics the entire time he was in office. An entire cottage industry of right wing fanaticism media was born during this time period.
Then along comes Bush, who’s entire time in office has been a complete and embarrassing failure, even though he is the poster boy for these right wing extremists and he does everything these people want him to do.
Should Hillary become President, these right wing loons will again completely freak out with their anti-Clinton Tourette’s syndrome, except this time, instead of gaining an audience, they will lose most of it. Because people will simply laugh in their faces when America is being restored to it’s proper glory after all of the destruction Bush has done to her.
flyerhawk
good job trying to make this a gender issue.
Vote for Hillary. She’s a woman!
myiq2xu
Is it just me, or has the quality of trolls around here been deteriorating?
It must be the inbreeding.
Tara the anti-social social worker
What Zifnab said. The well-oiled right-wing faux-outrage machine will be generating “Obama fatigue” in nothing flat. Hell, they managed to create “Gore fatigue” and “Kerry fatigue,” and neither of them even served as President.
sparky
i agree that we can look forward to “Obama fatigue” too. but that’s different from the observation that we already have a psychodrama with the Clintons in primary season. it’s one thing to have the RNC machine cranked up against whoever; it’s something else to have a resident of the WH who apparently has to see everything as an ambition issue rather than a what’s best for the country issue. i repeat–there isn’t any doubt that the Clinton(s) would be better than Bush–and if it is close i will vote for them–but i do think that an examination of their record demonstrates “me firstism” at its zenith. is that better than Bush incompetent cronyism coupled with nut-think? sure. but that’s a vote against, rather than a vote for, and that reminds me a bit of 2004.
incidentally, i’m not a shill for Obama or Edwards (i prefer either, and at the moment i like Edwards’ rhetoric), but i do think voting for HRC because it’s the cautious thing to do is exactly the kind of thinking that gives us these horrible manufactured candidates over and over and over again.
scarshapedstar
Yeah, let’s have 4 more years of Bush instead! Woohoo! Vote Republican!
scarshapedstar
Seriously, though: as others have noted, Hillary has no control over the actions of her rabid detractors. That is the entire fucking point. Hating Hillary because of Rush Limbaugh is like some fucked-up version of Stockholm Syndrome, and I really wish you’d get over it, John. In effect you’re saying that you won’t vote for Hillary because the biggest bunch of sanctimonious shit-eaters on the planet would throw a temper tantrum. It’s the battered wife mentality, it’s the prison bitch, it’s everyone who’s ever conned themselves into believing that the reason they’re beaten and raped is because they’re just not submissive enough.
Wake up.
F. Frederson
‘Nuff said.
Alan
Bob,
I’m with you in your dislike of conservative punditry. As a former conservative, I feel those pundits have driven the GOP and conservatism off a cliff.
What I don’t like about Clintonism is the continuous campaign mode. Here’s an example.
Back during the ’95 government shutdown I was a CSPAN junky. I caught a live press conference where the GOP congressional leaders just got back from the White House. They claimed they finally had an agreement over the budget. One of the reporters in the crowd spoke up and said a colleague was just now at the WH listening to Al Gore say there was no agreement. And that the WH was still fighting against the GOP’s proposed cuts in Medicare, Medicaid, Education and the environment (MMEE). The GOP leaders, looking bewildered, said that can’t be; “we just shook hands.” They then stormed out of the news conference room saying they’ll find out what’s going on.
You see, the Clintons never deal with an opponent honestly. For them, it’s always about scoring political points. This is why I hope Obama gets the nomination. Honest leadership is what this country needs.
ThymeZone
My hunch is that every post so far to this thread has been written by the same person.
But hey, so could this one be written by that same person, so there you are.
But anyway:
Clinton is preferable to any of the Republican lunatics, but I don’t want to listen to her screechy voice for four or eight years, and I definitely do not want Bubba back in the White House.
However, those are not the only reasons I now support Obama. Mainly, I just like the guy. He’s light on experience, but so was Lincoln when he took the job, having been an Illinois legislator and congressman and country lawyer.
LBNL, we have to consider that the Clintons are just doing what they are going for the lulz. That thought is what keeps me from wishing for them to just go away to some little island somewhere and just leave us the fuck alone.
ThymeZone
Addendum made necessary by the continued domination of 1987 software on the blog:
“doing for the lulz”
doing, not going
Men will walk on Mars before this blog gets editable posts. You heard it here first.
bob
Alan, I wouldn’t have agreed with that steaming pile of shit that you republicans put in charge of the House of Representatives about anything. You think CLINTON was dishonest? Well fuck Newt. NEWT MADE THE MESS. Not Clinton. PERIOD. End of fucking story.
bob
TZ, Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar. BUSH is the one who ran as “Bubba, yew know, the guy y’all wanna have a brewski with”, so if Bill Clinton, you know, the guy who had 8 years of peace and prosperity, THAT Bill Clinton, is back in our government, as a cabinet member or whatever, at least the motherfucker can fucking speak ENGLISH.
Alan
Newt wasn’t one of the leaders in that conference. I don’t remember the names. But I suspect they were from the committees that actually dealt with the budget.
bob
Alan, Newt ran the show in the House. Period. And you know it.
ThymeZone
Well, aside from the fact that you are essentially restating my own point ….
We don’t have to elect HRC to have WJC in the cabinet, do we?
And, is this election about the cabinet? Really?
No, I’m convinced that 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush is enough. And I am also starting to think that this fact is the one thing that could give us another Republican president.
But anyway, all due respect, fuck the Clintons. Their act in South Carolina has convinced me that I’ve had enough of them to last for more than a lifetime.
curtadams
what scarshapedstar said. It’s fine to prefer Obama over Clinton for policy/political reasons (I do). But to yield to Limbaugh’s preferences here is battered wife syndrome. Further, unless you’re a right wingnut, Hillary is immensely superior to any of the Republicans for competence alone (she WILL run FEMA right) and to refuse to vote in the general because it’s her makes no sense.
Also remember a Republican victory means, inter alia, a packed Supreme Court for at least a decade, the inability to prosecute criminal wrongdoing under Bush, and the end of the inheritance tax (because during the year it doesn’t exist all assets will be moved into trusts and be immune to taxation afterwards). Plus lots of more reversible losses on budget deficits, warmongering, and the environment.
Delia
I will support Edwards until he drops out. I hadn’t decided who my second choice was. I’m pretty sure the goopers will run a strong swiftboat machine against whoever emerges as the dem candidate. And I had about decided Hillary was more competent than Barack’s blue sky transcendence stuff. But I’m just about fed up with the Clinton attack machine that’s been running against him. That’s low, dishonest, and worthy of the goopers.
DougJ
I’m sick of people talking about “electability”: Obama will lose in the general because he’s black, Edwards will lose because of the haircuts, Hillary will lose because she’s too “polarizing”.
I wish people would just vote for who they think would be the best president or, if they have certain issues they think are paramount, the person who will best advance these issues even in a losing cause. Voting in a primary based on how you think other people will vote in a general election is completely self-defeating.
bob
TZ, I don’t want to fight. What I’m tired of is Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush. My whole life has been ruled by conservatives who’s boogieman was first communism and now islamowhateverthefuck. We got a breath of fresh air under Carter for a minute and then again under Clinton. Other than that it has been conservatives my whole life, screaming how their white male millionaire asses were the TRULY put upon. The destruction of the New Deal began under the Republican Congress of 1948-54 and stepped back up under Reagan has turned us up to the brink of being a third world country. Their “act” in South Carolina???????? What did they do, push poll that Obama has two black children? How is what the Clinton’s have EVER done in any way equal to the Lee Atwater/Karl Rove school of personal destruction? Name three Clinton dirty tricks to equal the smearing of McGovern, Carter or Clinton. How about the smearing of Gore? Did the Clintons do that? No. Pulling out snappy comebacks that aren’t strictly true sucks, but it doesn’t even compare. The problem with the Dems has been that the REPUBLICANS are dirty tricksters and the Dems don’t fight back in kind. Show me ONE Clinton ad that is equal to the Willie Horton thing. Show me the Clinton sponsored Swift Boat liars. Where is the Clinton version of Sinclair Broadcasting? How about the Clinton version of Fox News? How does Clinton control CIA, when they have been a Bush fief since inception? All this false equivalency that the Clintons are just the other side of the Bush coin is ridiculous.
ThymeZone
Um, no, not if you put having your party win the general election is a top priority …. and if your choice is right.
Not the smartest thing you ever said, Doug. Not even the smartest among the dumb things you have ever said.
You might be thinking that the Kerry choice was a good example of what you don’t want to see happen. What you are overlooking is that while Kerry might have been an electability choice, he was the wrong choice. A wrong choice is wrong, it doesn’t matter that much why it was wrong. Nobody knew that Kerry would stay silent on the swiftboaters, or get down and fight with the nasties. Also, the Dem primary season was turned on end by The Scream, a lie basically manufactured by the news media. Who knows how that nomination would have turned out without the phony scream video?
Electability is primary, pardon the expression. Repeat after me: Bob Dole.
ThymeZone
Well, no, it has been skewed by them, but an essentially progressive government has been the rule, not the exception, in this country for about 70 years now.
You’ve seen a lot of Republican White Houses, but Reagan didn’t leave a conservative legacy behind, and neither did Bush One. Or Nixon, for that matter. They were iconic, but the general trend of government was spendy, and progressive. Liberalism dominated the Twentieth Century in the West and will continue to do so despite the thrashings of the American crazy right. Even as we speak, the country is fleeing from the so-called “conservative movement” which was never a reality in the first place.
myiq2xu
What are the Obamaniacs gonna do when they find out there really is no Magic Unity Pony?
BOTH sides have been playing hardball, but the media has been giving one side a free ride and blaming everything on the Clintons.
Quit buying into the meme put out by the Clinton Haters.
bob
No, TZ, we have NOT had a liberal government, for the most part. Reagan left the labor movement in SHAMBLES. Conservative. Nixon EXPANDED the Vietnam War after promising to end it. CONSERVATIVE. Liberalism in this country has been on the run since 1965. The Goldwater backlash has lasted nearly fifty years. Clinton governed as a conservative. What liberal? Where is labor? Nowhere. Where is the antiwar movement? Not listened to. Race relations are deteriorating back to the fifties or even earlier. I’m not voting for Hillary Clinton in the primary. I’d prefer Edwards, or ideally Gore. I’d like Obama and Clinton to BOTH remain in the Senate. Until the drug war ends, we reduce military spending, and we have universal health care, housing and wholesome food, we don’t have a liberal government. FRANCE has had a liberal government. They don’t make their citizens live outdoors in winter and ANYONE, even noncitizens can use their health care system. Homeless people with block after block of boarded up houses in our cities. Liberal? Where is this liberal government you speak of?
supertroy
Bob:
“Name three Clinton dirty tricks to equal the smearing of McGovern, Carter or Clinton. How about the smearing of Gore? Did the Clintons do that? No. Pulling out snappy comebacks that aren’t strictly true sucks, but it doesn’t even compare. The problem with the Dems has been that the REPUBLICANS are dirty tricksters and the Dems don’t fight back in kind. Show me ONE Clinton ad that is equal to the Willie Horton thing. Show me the Clinton sponsored Swift Boat liars. Where is the Clinton version of Sinclair Broadcasting? How about the Clinton version of Fox News? How does Clinton control CIA, when they have been a Bush fief since inception?”
Funny how that logic, when employed in other arenas (i.e. The Nazi’s killed 6 million Jews; QED our government’s Waterboarding is no big deal) is absofuckinglutely stupid, but here no one bats an eyelash.
I don’t particularly have any love for Hillary (Kinda feel apathetic towards her, to be honest). I won’t vote for her, but then again it’s for my own reasons and I don’t make a point of sharing those reasons to most folks. I won’t support her, but then again if she’s the nominee, I won’t do anything to stand in her way, but Jesus Christ, if that post doesn’t encapsulate every thing about the Clinton’s and their rabid supporters that makes me wish to god they lose and spend the remainder of their years in hate ridden retirement.
The response to every criticism always seems to be about how its always someone else’s fault, or how someone else was worse.
When conservatives do it, it encites white hot passion. When TEH CLINTONS do it, we get yawns.
ThymeZone
You sound like a righty, dude. You don’t have to be a Clinton Hater to not want them back in the White House, or just be tired of them. Or to think that their politics suck. Or that another candidate might be better.
Are you just doing it for the lulz, or have you actually gone over the edge and decided that a vote for Obama is about “Clinton hating?”
That’s on the same level as “criticism of Israel is anti-semitism.” Or “BDS!”
It’s perfectly rational to have preferences, it’s not seemly to paint those who disagree with you as “haters.”
And it’s not rational to talk about “hardball” and then whine when your candidate gets cockslapped. Is it?
Eh? Mister IQhalfmine?
Eh?
Eh?
Adam
Hell, it was the wrong choice even on the terms on which it was made. Kerry was nominated essentially because he was a veteran (“I’m John Kerry, reporting for duty…” oh god make it stop), but apparently no one ever really stopped to consider that, thanks to the Winter Soldier business, Kerry was pretty much universally hated by veterans and all the other people he was just assumed to be palatable to. It was such an obviously stupid, patronizing, counterproductive move from the get-go that it still makes my head spin just thinking about it.
ThymeZone
Bob, this is not a venue where you will get away with cherrypicking factoids to support your “argument.”
The fact is, the labor movement, despite most favorable law and huge power just a few decades ago, managed to run itself into the ground and fuck itself over, it didn’t need Reagan’s help. Reagan didn’t arrange the rise of Japanese automakers, did he?
Nixon’s Vietnam War Crimes are legendary, but his domestic policies were not conservative, were they?
Goldwater was crushed by Johnson, and his “movement” was all in the imaginations of pundits, it never actually happened. We have bigger, not smaller government.
Get a clue man.
Bob In Pacifica
Actually, I didn’t like all the things that Bill Clinton did/didn’t do in his eight years. It’s just that I didn’t like the things the Rethugs did worse.
Clinton, with a coalition of Gringrichers and business-friendly Dems, gave the corporatists NAFTA, GATT, etc. While there was a bubble there, it essentially laid the plans for hollowing out America’s economy. I don’t see either Clinton II or Obama I runnings things all that much differently.
Edwards would, but he won’t.
myiq2xu
Bwwaahahahahahahahahaha!
You’re funny when you’re off your meds.
bob
No, Reagan didn’t invent Japanese cars. American auto EXECUTIVES continued to make deVilles and Town Cars and New Yorkers in the face of Civics and Corollas and 510s. No, Reagan DESTROYED the labor movement with one stroke when he fired the air traffic controllers who were striking for SAFETY reasons, NOT for more money. Nixon’s domestic policies included spying on American citizens, dirty tricks on the antiwar movement and firing on children on their way to school. Or do you think Kent State was just a STATE matter? Goldwater was crushed and his phoenix led to the modern conservative movement. The movement didn’t HAPPEN? What the fuck are you talking about? Did Reagan NOT become president? Have we NOT got a media monopoly? Get a CLUE???? You get a clue. There is NO paper in this country that has a labor section. Did you know there used to be one in most papers? And that every city had a pro-labor paper in the old two newspaper days? One paper in a city has led to mostly conservative columnists in most papers. Jonah fucking GOLDBERG has a column in the LA TIMES. Are you kidding me? You think there hasn’t been a conservative COUP in this country? Please. Get a clue, indeed. I LIVED this history. It is conservatives who are trying to rewrite it. Liberal government. Right. In your dreams. Mine, too.
bob
If you don’t like my “cherry picking” maybe I’ll have to write an ENCYCLOPEDIA of all the conservative bullshit in my lifetime in this “liberal” government you think we have had in the last 70 years.
ThymeZone
Okay, so people who disagree with you on Clinton are “haters” and people who call you on it are “off their meds.”
It’s going to be a long year, amigo. You might want to elevate your game.
DougJ
Sorry, TZ, but you’re just plain wrong here. Here’s the rub: voters just aren’t that good at deciding who is electable and who isn’t.
Do you really think you have a good idea of which Democrat is the is most electable? Have you looked at all the polls in all the battleground states? Have you looked at what effect each seems to having on turn-out? Have you looked at the various candidates’ fundraising figures? I’ve done all of this and the more I look at it, the more there’s no clear favorite among the three in this regard.
Edwards polls the best but has the least money, which could be a huge problem. Hillary polls better than Obama in many battleground states (especially border states like VA and Kentucky) and has raised a ton of money. Obama seems to be driving massive turn-out and has an absolutely freakish number of small donors.
How can we easily decide who is the most electable?
I think what you write illustrates my point: Kerry was thought to be more electable than Dean. It looks like he wasn’t.
I’ll grant you that if there were some really good way of determining who was the most electable, then electability would be paramount. But we can’t. Until we do, I’m sticking with voting for the candidate who will be the best for the country.
crw
You know, this whole sorry affair reminds me a great deal of the conservative gnashing of teeth re: Bush and the immigration reform attempts this summer. I mean, the slowly dawning realization when he turned his “smear and define your opponents as unAmerican” tactics on conservative foes of amnesty. The growing realization that maybe Bush cared about his own megalomaniac ambitions more than he cared about them. And progressives got to say “told ya so.” Of course it didn’t stick…
I see the same process at work here. The slowly dawning realization as the Clintons haul out a slew of shady tactics against Obama. The realization that hey, maybe the Clintons care about their own ambition more than they care about the progressive movement. I’m willing to wager come the general, it will be all good again, and what is seen as a liability now (win at all costs, even if it means burning your own) will be seen as a strength (finally a Dem who’ll stand up to the Noise Machine and give as good as she gets).
This is basic tribalism at work. It’s far easier to see dirty tactics when they work against your group than when they work for your group. I bet the Clintons know this. They are nothing if not shrewd political operators. If they can just make it through the primaries, they know most progressives will rally anyway to defeat whoever the Republicans eventually nominate. And you know what? They’re right.
DougJ
It was such an obviously stupid, patronizing, counterproductive move from the get-go that it still makes my head spin just thinking about it.
I maintain that most decisions about electability can be similarly described. There’s one complicating factor here: much of what makes someone “electable” is whether or not they give the impression that they’d be a good president. I know voters are stupid and blah blah blah but I just don’t think being electable and seeming like a good possible president are in completely different universes.
supertroy
Clintonoids are to the Right Wing Trolls as Mirror Universe Spock is to regular Spock.
The individual “facts” are different (Its the fault of the MEXICANS or the REPUBLICANS or the ISLAMONAZIS or the NEOCONSERVATIVE CABAL) but the dedication to the same mode of “logic” remains (it always is about someone else being at fault or worse).
If this is the best we can come up with to lead us, we’re fucked.
bob
I still fail to see the “dirty tactics” of the Clintons in the face of how many fucking times my honorable discharge has been smeared by fucking conservatives. Conservatives who never have been nor ever will be in the vicinity of an honorable discharge with their name on it. Call me a traitor? FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER. Now what was that you were saying about the Clinton’s again?
ThymeZone
Go right ahead. I’m sure it will be a best seller in your trailer park.
But you might want to take a look around outside your little lagoon of spoofrants: Your world is dominated by social, political, economic and cultural liberalism, everywhere you look. The very American Experiment is probably the most dramatically, broadly liberal theme in world history, and despite some recent assaults, it is still going strong.
Goldwater was crushed. Nixon resigned. Reagan left behind a larger and more expensive government. Bush continued that trend, but got tagged with a recession and was a one-term president. Clinton was obviously not a conservative and were it not for his personal weaknesses, he’d have been the most successful president since WWII.
And then you have the current Bush.
Anyway, your argument is almost too ridiculous to even argue with. After 40 years of a “movement” grounded in anti-abortion politics and smaller government politics, we have plenty of abortions, and a much larger government, and neither of those things is going away any time soon.
bob
And I’m NOT voting for her in the primary. For OTHER reasons than somebody said a bad word.
DougJ
And one final point: all the hatred of Clinton would probably impede her ability to be an effective president. And that’s a valid reason not to support her.
You think Republicans are going to cooperate with her on immigration reform and health care? No way. They might cooperate with Obama.
I know, I know — this proves I’ve caved in to the right-wing hate machine, but I think that what I am saying is, in fact, true.
bob
Ok, TZ, I was being nice, but fuck you. Trailer park. Fuck you. I’ll not be addressing you again, nor will I be reading your comments. You just entered the left side of Dug Jay territory for me. Have a nice life.
supertroy
Dougjay: “And you know what? They’re right.”
Yeah, well Kerry did prove that when push comes to shove, the progressive movement is every bit as full of whores and power junkies as any other.
’04 sealed the deal on that. The Clinton’s are just negotiating a price.
srv
What bob and all say. John, you are a product of your environment, no matter how enlightened you think you are. You know, I used to read Sully every day, but I haven’t been back there in three weeks.
At least Hitlery will fight for whatever it is she believes in, and will mop the floor with the Republicans.
The fantasy that TranscenderMan will change the FlufferSphere is just that, a fantasy. You’re either for mortal combat or your for ponies. That’s all your country really offers.
ThymeZone
Great argument. Voters can’t decide who is electable, but they can pick the best president when faced with two choices?
Ergo, Nixon, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush.
WTF are you talking about, man?
Electability is not just everything, it’s the only thing.
A party that can’t pick electable candidates is called the Losing Party. The fact that you have seen that process fail only means that the picking has to get better, not that you have to stop doing it. Picking a potential good president who can’t get elected is about as self defeating as anything I can imagine. Picking a “good president” is all based on conjecture. Nobody knows how a person will do as president in advance. Including the candidate.
ThymeZone
OMG, that is hilarious.
You are in way over your head here, slim. Trust me.
Time to retire your failed persona and try another handle and another approach. Really. One of the earliest flameouts I ever saw here.
ThymeZone
Wow, now there’s a novel approach. You’ve reinvented blogging.
Honestly dude, you can’t be the King of Spoof and then try to be Mister Seriosity all of a sudden and just expect people to take you seriously.
And, “the people can’t pick the electable candidate, but they can pick the best president?”
You really want to hang your hat on that?
You are doing it for the lulz, aren’t you?
DougJ
TZ, you’re being more of a prick than necessary here.
I think that voters can decide who they agree with more easily than they can decide who will win some complicated 8 month multistate campaign, yes.
Yes, I’ll hang my hat on that.
For example, I know I like Edwards’ and Clinton’s health care plans better than Obama’s. I don’t know who is more electable.
Why don’t you at least give a convincing argument about who you think is the most electable? I’d like something fact-based, not “people hate Hillary too much” or “America won’t elect a black man.”
srv
That’s what you said about McCain.
DougJ
You say
A party that can’t pick electable candidates is called the Losing Party
I say a party so unsure of its own message that it has to search frantically for the right messenger is called the Losing Party.
George W. Bush’s political victory (such as it was) was won because of the Republicans’ ability to push their general message more effectively, not because Chimpy was a particularly stellar candidate. I suspect McCain would have actually beaten Gore. Though I’m not sure — as I’ve said, I think these kinds of questions are very hard to answer.
ThymeZone
Wow, are you bad at this. Everybody said it about McCain.
And, McCain doesn’t blog here. Let’s try not to compare ourselves and our obscure little personas here to people cavorting on the national political stage, shall we?
Yeah, I’m talkin to you, pipsqueak.
ThymeZone
Oh lord, love a duck.
A party sure of its message? The GOP. Alas, the gap between the message and the reality has proved, shall we say, disappointing.
The message of a party at national election time is the message of its candidate. What happens next, anybody’s guess, but the nominee sets the tone.
To make this easy for those of you without the paint by numbers version of the home game, the trick is to pick the candidate and the message that can win. That’s how you get your D in the White House. You pick a messenger and hope to hell it’s a winner. The message comes with the messenger and his or her speechwriters and strategists.
Just to tie a ribbon around it, here in AZ we are seeing a daily barrage of tv ads for Obama and Clinton. Mrs. Clinton is doing exactly what her husband did 16 years ago. Talking directly to the voter: I will take care of you. I care about you, I feel your pain.
Very persuasive. I must say, if we are still in the era of 51 percent national politics, it’s a very smart tactic.
DougJ
So your point is that Clinton is more electable, in your mind, TZ?
I stand by what I said about message. The Democratic party is in great shape this campaign season because it is focusing on issues that Americans care about — most notably health care — while the Republicans are screaming at each other about Islamofascism and “who can beat Hillary”.
We will win as a party, not because we picked the magical candidate, and the Republicans will lose as party, not because they picked the wrong guy to pitch their pathetic, stupid message.
DougJ
I want to be clear about this Losing Party stuff: the Republicans are the losing party right now.
Emma Anne
I’m the opposite of John. The wingnut attacks on the Clintons make me want to vote for Hillary more, not less.
The other thing that makes me want to vote for Hillary more is when people say she shouldn’t be president, because then a person named Clinton or Bush will have been president for a long time. The reason her name is Clinton is because we live in a sexist society. She wanted to go by Rodham. She did for a while. But the voters in Arkansas were pissed off by this and it was hurting Bill’s electability so she gave in and changed it.
So far still an Edwards person. But Hillary’s definitely second.
DougJ
Me too. But at the same time, I do think that wingnut hatred of Hillary might hurt her as a president.
I hate David Broder and David Brooks when they get all gaga about Obama, it makes me want to vote for anyone but him. But his ability to charm these clowns probably is a real asset, as sickening as that is.
ThymeZone
Than whom?
Than Edwards, yes. Than Obama, I don’t think so. My point about the commercials is that is resonates with Dems and with people who feel like they are losing ground. That might be enough to overcome the CDS out there. I figure that neither Mittney nor Mcpain can overcome the vast mountain of ill will the GOP has garnered for itself this time around.
As for who would be the best president? My choice today would be Obama, based entirely on my gut feel that he can bring good instincts and brains to the task and make up for lightweight experience. I used the Lincoln example above for a reason.
Clinton can be a competant president, I just don’t like her much, and less and less with each passing day. I also think she buys the GOP a lot of seats on the hill in 2010. I don’t see any need to give the GOP any advantage on anything. I also don’t like her husband any more, I think he’s a fuckhead of a person, no matter how smart he is as a policy guy.
On this we probably agree. We will win because the GOP has dug itself into a hole too deep to get out of this year.
I would like to keep them in that hole for as long as possible. Twenty years would be nice.
DougJ
I tend to agree with you here. I think Obama may be our best chance to get a near-supermajority in Congress.
ThymeZone
Then, we are riding the Unity Pony right here in BJ.
We agree, and it’s time for hugs and toasts.
D-Chance.
Nice to see its the Republicans who are falling apart at the seams… ;0)
srv
Yes, the “I’m as wrong as everyone else, so listen to me about electability”. Anyone who’d bothered to watch Floundering Fred and Rudy’s Florida Hail Mary strategy should have been able to figure out where all those voters were going to go. It’s not rocket science, McCain figured it out.
Maybe you should shut your windows more, all your neighbors crank fumes wafting in and all.
ThymeZone
Uh, those of us who live in Arizona don’t need too much instruction on how to think about McCain. Foreign policy, he is 1973. Domestic policy, he is Who Do I Pander To?
Ethics, he is I Never Had Quid Pro Quo With That Felon, Charles Keating.
Religion, he is How Far Behind Am I?
As for you, srv, your sorry-assed spoof act ran out of steam several months ago. With all the material out there, can’t you fashion a new act for yourself?
Really, I am your friend, but you suck.
srv
You’ve spent too much time in your artificial world, you can’t ever let go. I’m as real as DougJ.
p.lukasiak
I’m not a Clinton supporter, and I don’t think that the Florida or Michigan delegates should be seated.
But I really don’t have a problem with Clinton saying they should. Its just smart politics. Instead of the media hyping the “race issue” for the next 10 days, suddenly her win in Florida will be talked about (and her coming to the defense of Floridians will ensure her win there).
Lets face it folks, Cole started out this blog as a Bush supporter, and was doubtless a Clinton-hater from way back. For him to tell us that he doesn’t want to deal with eight more years of the Clintons is Cole returning to his roots — not the words of a Democrat, but of the exact same kind of GOP slug that gave us George W. Bush…twice.
wasabi gasp
Reads like a case against suffrage.
Zifnab
There’s a sad ring of truth to that. John’s been fair to Hillary in the face of the media trashing, but he still doesn’t seem to understand how Hillary isn’t the root of the problem in this mess. You’ve got an entire political party along with the vast majority of media in this country with an avid, viseral hatred of the Clintons. That’s not the Clintons’ fault. Nor does it say anything about the Clintons’ leadership capabilities. Nor does it say anything about the Clintons’ presidential potential.
I’m personally not looking forward to a second media circus of a Clinton Presidency any more than I’m looking forward to a dog throwing up on my shoes. But, much as I’m not going to blame my shoes for being covered in vomit, I’m not going to denegrate the Clintons for being repeatedly slimed.
And, much like when dealing with a vomity dog, dealing with a bile-spewing media won’t be resolved by changing your shoes. They’ll vomit all over one pair as soon as the other, and you won’t have done yourself any favors. If you don’t want to put up with this crap, turn off CNN. Stop watching FOX. Take down your Malkin links. Tear out the Wall Street Journal Op-Eds and save yourself the time of reading them. Avoid the fucking dog, and your shoes will remain clean no matter what you are wearing.
I think I’ve successfully beating my analogy into the ground, so I’ll leave on that note.
OxyCon
The people worrying about possible “Obama Fatigue” are fretting over nothing because he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever beating any of the Repub candidates in the general election.
After this election, you might here Obama’s name mentioned maybe once or twice a year.
Chuck Butcher
The fact that I detest Hillary has not one thing to do with Republicans, their media mouthpieces, or the irrational right loon bloggoshpere. It has everything to do with her triangulating corporate whoredome. I am a Democrat, in fact a left wing Democrat, and I’m a gun totin’ Democrat, and Hillary stands against most of what I stand for.
I manage to employ a couple people, we word real damn hard together, nobody sweats more than I do, so I know exactly what it means and my guys are underpaid badly, and as a consequence, so am I. This means something to me, it is not theoretcal, it is every day reality. People like these guys have been getting fucked to death for 20 years and the same old shit will mean the same old shit. Hillary is the same old shit.
I have no idea how Barak’s kumbaya is supposed to work, I don’t know of any Republicans that’ll vote for what I want.
TZ, you say liberalism has triumphed because government has grown, you’re full of shit. Plutocratism has triumphed and it has used the size and scope of government to do so, that is not liberalism, or progressivism, or any other left idea. Conservatives have not cared about the size or power of government since after Goldwater as long as it enhanced their power. Using tax dollars (and future debt) to subsidize their business buddies and calling is shrinking govt. is just a game, and you know it. Now you could make a debate about what to call such a growth in scope and scale, but to call it liberalism is nonsense. You have as much business calling the scale and scope of Nazi Germany liberalism – or are you and doughy in bed?
Tractarian
Yeah, I mean, all that scrutiny from the right, and they only got 12 years of Congressional majorities, welfare reform, NAFTA, DOMA and an impeachment to show for it.
Piss off the country – vote for Hillary!
Blue Jean
Hillary, ah, Hillary….
I feel the same way about her as I do about…Remember that scene in The World According To Garp when Garp and his wife are shopping for a new home? And they’re looking at a particular house, not sure if they want to buy it? Suddenly, a biplane comes roaring out of the sky and crashes into the side of the house. Garp starts dancing around and says “Honey, we’ve got to buy this house! It’s already been predisasterized!” And if that’s not a word, then it should be.
To side with Bob for a moment, I’ve seen Dem candidates come and go–Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, etc. All of them looked great at the convention, then the GOP slime machine kicked into gear and the great candidates ended up looking like deer in the headlights as they got cut to ribbons. I like Obama, he’s sure got the brains and the charisma to be President, but I’m afraid he’ll get the nomination, the GOP slime machine will crank up, he’ll decide to stay “above the fray” while he’s getting massacred, and he’ll end up losing on Election Day. Been there, done that.
Hillary’s been “predisasterized”. Sure she fights like a cornered rat, but she fights. And she’s already been investigated more than anybody else on earth; if she does get elected, what’s the GOP going to do, call for the umpteeth round on Whitewater?
tarrah begone
Poor poor Hillary. Getting ganged up on by the VRWC. Is this the same Hillary whose husband signed the FCC law deregulating media? The same Hillary whose hubby made zero attempt to pass some kind of fairness in media rules? Bill is also the same guy who lost Congress for the Dems. Also the same guy who made zero attempts to strengthen the labor movement. The same Hillary who took defeat from the jaws of victory during the HillaryCare debacle. The same Bill who screwed around with Monica so the every f#*@*#* Dem has to damn well defend the twit (quite sheepishly.) WTF and now you want me to vote for those two again? Are you out of your f#$%@!!! mind???
I am an Edwards supporter. I’ve sent him money. I believe he is the only one of the three with fire in his belly to beat the living crap out of McConnell/Hatch/Boener/Limbaugh/Hannity/OReally etc. etc. etc. Its just a pity he ain’t a woman or an African American. I am hoping for a brokered convention with Edwards throwing his support behind Obama. And while I don’t particularly care for Obama and I know about his lack of experience I hate to remind you guys that Bill Clinton wasn’t exactly well experienced either. You have to appoint competent persons to various positions and that I trust Obama to do right.