Adding to my earlier post and partially in reply to John’s response below, I don’t have any major existential problems with Hillary. I just plan to support Obama or Edwards instead. She would still make such a vastly better president than the Republican competition (even, maybe especially McCain) that you could chain a starving, pissed off akita to my voting booth and I’d still throw the lever as long as I have one working limb.
The dynasty issue, her personal quirks and the Addington baggage shrinks almost to nothing compared with four more years of Bush. Think supreme court. Think another four years of insufferable neocon officials snidely mixing criticism with antisemitism. Hurricane FEMA. Schiavo. Aside from policy differences that I have with Republicans, they just can’t run the country. They can’t accomplish their own stated goals, they can’t even keep ordinary government functions going without colossally screwing it up. Maybe some future iteration will manage a Pizza Hut without disaster but the current crop haven’t made a break yet.
Plus, the thought of psycho freaks like Roger Stone suffering through four more Clinton years almost makes a restoration worth it.
annagranfors
to my wingnut brethren and sistren, a challenge: let us simply wash away everything and everyone involved in DC politics since 1980. we’ll throw away the Clintons if you throw away the Reagans and Bushes, ‘kay?
DVDA
You just don’t get it. Hillary Clinton is corrupt. She is dishonest and unethical. The country wants a change form this corruption. I want a change from this corruption. It is not nearly enough to say that McRomney is worse. The fact is that McRomney could never be worse than Bush if they tried. If I can survive 8 years of GW Bush, I can certainly stomach 4 more of some Bush wannabe.
But things have got to change. And that can’t happen when both of the political parties in this country are compromised. This is about retaking the Democratic Party as a force for good. That is why I, and no doubt many others, will NOT support the Clintons in November should they manage to sleaze their way to the nomination.
No way. Either the Dems back change or they lose again.
John
That’s for damn sure. Did you see the question in the FL debate about Iraq? All the Republican candidates (except paul of course) reiterated that going into Iraq was the right decision and worth the cost.
You can’t learn from your mistakes if you promise to repeat them.
Here’s the video.
Svensker
Famous last words.
The Grand Panjandrum
Hilzoy has this great post about supporting a Democrat for President. This is her money quote:
That, in a nutshell is how I look at this election. Pragmatism may not be the ideal outcome, but it is far better than walking away from the election in a snit, because my guy didn’t win the nomination.
TR
McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a hundred years.
Romney wants to double the size of Guantanamo.
And Rudy is clearly ten-times the petty tyrant and loyalty fiend that Bush was.
They’re already much worse than Bush is, and they haven’t even made it to the Oval Office.
TR
And yeah, that Roger Stone bullshit is what finally got me to feel I could vote for Hillary. Keep it up, scumbag.
myiq2xu
Here’s a reason to vote for Hillary: Piss off the media.
Imagine the meltdown Tweety will have if she is elected. Hell, even if she wins the nomination they will have to take him off the air because he’ll be foaming at the mouth.
Tweety won’t be the only one. The kool-aid drinking has taken its toll on the lapdog media’s brain cells. A vote for Hillary is a vote to put them down.
TR
Nah, the media would love to talk about Hillary and the Hillary haters for four more years. It’d be another chapter in their favorite book.
Edwards is the one who scares them, because he represents the poor people outside the Beltway. And they’re so, so uncivilized.
SGEW
IMHO, this is actually one of the saving graces of the current maladministration. I’m rather glad that they haven’t been able to accomplish many of their own stated goals (privatizing S.S., criminalizing abortion & teh gays, successfully conquering the M.E.’s oil reserves, scaling back more habeas rights, creating a total security state, bombing Iran, etc. etc. etc.). What’s worse, wickedness or incompetence? Wrong question! What’s worse is competent wickedness!! Hooray for incompetent fascism.
My favorite protest sign was: “If you’re going to be fascists, at least make the trains run on time!” Heh.
JL
I actually feel the same way as John about the Clinton’s but I can afford to cast my vote in November for none of the above since I live in GA. If I lived in a state such as PA, I would vote for the democratic nominee.
Bob In Pacifica
I suspect that there’s little real difference between Obama or Clinton, and I’m not sure if America’s inherent racism isn’t stronger than Clinton’s baggage.
And any Democrat in the White House will have a massive wreckage to repair.
As infuriating as the Demo campaign has become I can’t see pulling the lever for a Republican. And akitas aren’t so bad. They just need their kibble.
bob
For what seems like the millionth time, the difference between the parties is this: SOME democrats are corporate assholes. ALL republicans are corporate assholes. The only chance this country has left is to bring back a little old fashioned home industry protectionism, void the selling of US corporations to foreign interests, end corporate personhood and return to REAL responsibility and accountability. The ONLY chance of that happening is with the dems, sad though that may seem. The Goldwater movement has reached it’s malignant high tide. I will NEVER vote republican again. I used to think that giving them a chance was ok. Well, every time the repubs (read aristocrats) have been the ruling class, after twenty years or so, there is a depression. The one that is coming is going to SHOCK THE SHIT out of a lot of people. New Deal protections have kept the wolf from the door since 1938 or so, but the last 28 years of dismantling has left us unprotected again. But, I’m just angry. Deranged. A Bush hater.
mrmobi
Oh, bullshit.
How exactly do you go about making the Democratic party a “force for good” when the campaign finance system is designed to reward bad behavior?
Hillary Clinton has been a superb New York Senator and is probably a better campaigner than her husband. Most of her political life has been spent working for progressive causes. In terms of present-day political reality, she is a force for good.
Have you enjoyed watching the Constitution being dismantled during the past 7 years? I know your problem. The scientific name is “Claginaphobia.”
Still, since I think the chances remain good that Hillary will be the nominee, you have lots of quality Republican choices, eh? McCain is an ambitious liar. (from his speeches, I can only assume he has early stage Alzheimers) Romney is a good-looking, successful businessman with no position on any issue (his entire campaign so far has been to remind people how much he looks like Reagan.) Huckabee is a likable religious nut, with delusions of populism. He’d be a good choice for Pope, or Grand Inquisitor.
Of course, all of them believe in the forever war, rounding up illegal aliens, voodoo economics, and, most of all, in indefinite detainment and the use of torture. The law is “quaint,” don’t you know, and these guys are ready to do whatever it takes. But you’re ready to vote Republican because the Democratic candidate is not perfect, right? Shame on you!
I’m an Obama supporter myself, but I’m with Tim on which party’s lever I’ll pull on election day, no matter who the candidate is.
Criminal, stupid and fascist behavior should never be rewarded.
Dug Jay
No shit.
The Other Steve
Ok, this is all fine and dandy, but… this is what I think we’ve got going on instead.
The Fed, economists and so forth have now come out and admitted that the Bush economic plan is to create a weak US dollar. I can see the logic, somewhat, as it’s the only real way to negate the trade deficit and boost domestic manufacturing. No amount of protectionism will accomplish that. Protectionism just makes you weaker, as corporations will take the benefits from this and sock it in the bank instead of investing it back into their factories to boost their efficiency. We’ve seen this time and again with the steel mills.
Ok, so now we have a weak dollar, and we’ve accomplished it through deficit spending through our nose. How do we fulfill the Laffer curve and boost tax revenues while spending less money, as well as address our debt?
MASS INFLATION OF WAGES!
On top of that, mass inflation would also solve the consumer debt problem, as inflation causes debt to be worth less.
So that’s what we should expect to see for the next 10 years. We’re going to repeat the 1970s again.
Irons
Hello, Balloon Juice readers — we’re huge fans of the site! Since the college football season is over, our blog has been dabbling in politics. You might enjoy our pieces on Hillary and Huckabee.
The Other Steve
The people claiming Clinton is no different than Bush are deranged. Flat out, simple as that.
I heard enough of that Gore and Bush are the same bullshit from Nader in 2000. If you can’t see the difference, then you don’t obviously have a judgement problem, and maybe you should just shut up and watch Jerry Springer reruns.
Lupin
But … but … according to Malkinged, McCain is financed by George Soros.
Teh stupid, it hurts.
Oh, and damn you, Scott Beauchamp.
bob
Consider the source of EVERYTHING negative about Hillary Clinton. Every single negative meme is the product of some lie that has been going around since 1992. I’m an Edwards supporter, but I will damn sure vote for her if she is the nominee, or Obama, should he win. Draft Gore ’08 is what I’d REALLY like to see, but…….
Doug H.
If Clinton had spent half the effort to fight the Republicans these past eight years that she has in fighting Barack Obama, I might think better of voting for her. Right now, I remain undecided.
Tim (the other one)
I’m going Edwards in the primary. The whole Hillary/Bill campaign approach has it’s annoyances but it’s the media in my opinion that’s after them. I watched Bill talk in SC on CSPAN last night and he was great. He’s pissed at the media machine and they’re using his animosity against her campaign.
Jay
What the hell?!?!? “Anti-Semetism”?!?! The Bush administration has been the most blindly Zionist administration since Truman. How in the hell do you explain Wolfowitz’ continued entree into the highest reaches in spite of his ongoing incompetence? It sure as hell ain’t anti-Semetism, bub! Good God, Tim.
crw
Jay:
I’m pretty sure he meant the whole “I disagree with our Israel-first ME policy” == “I am a Jew hating neo-Nazi scumbag” false equivalence the neocons and their enablers keep pulling.
gypsy howell
Jay, you misread that. I think what Tim meant was the neocons’ strategy of deflecting criticism of their pro-zionist policies by charging their critics with anti-semitism.
Jay
OK, I guess I would’ve picked up on it if antisemitism had been in scare-quotes. I sit corrected.
DougJ
The dynasty issue, her personal quirks and the Addington baggage shrinks almost to nothing compared with four more years of Bush.
Well put. For me, the dynasty issue is ample reason to vote against her in the primaries, though.
ThymeZone
What channel?
Dreggas
I will vote dem but won’t piss away congress on Hillary. She either costs us congress now or two years from now. This entire shitstorm lately is the BEST reason to vote for anyone else. Compared to bush any period in time is probably better but the 90’s weren’t the pinnacle of civilization we’d like to think they were.
Besides I vote for the Democratic Party, NOT the Clinton Party.
jimbo
The dynasty issue is wingers partisan horseshit. When the hell will we start talking issues? If I think that if she were to be elected, and at the end of her eight years in office we had a balanced budget, no war and our troops at home, and our standing in the world at least partially restored, then I will support her. The fact that Bill Clinton accomplished much of that during his eight years argues that at least she will have an advisor who knows how to do it(actually any Democrat will have that). I prefer Edwards, can tolerate Obama. So get over your assimulated bias regarding Clinton, and get behind a Democrat.
Jake
Funny you should mention that…
At this point I’m of two minds about November 2009 (or I’m trying to steel myself for disappointment so I don’t step in front of a train):
If a Democrat wins, that’s great. We get some breathing room and someone can start piecing the Constitution back together. Yes, if Hilary wins we’ll have to get ear plugs to drown out the shrieking but I’ve never voted to make a []-con happy and I don’t intend to start now.
If a Republican wins it will weld the concrete albatrosses of the war + the economy + everything else that sucks around the GOP’s neck for good. The survivors will get to watch the complete and utter destruction of the GOP.
Darkness
Oh yeah. Sure. You’ve had your Giant Freespending, Debt Soaring Frat Party Part Deux and see how bad that worked out? So, _of_course_ you shouldn’t get yours.
And it’s tough to forget Chimpy McFlightsuit while he is still prancing around before us like some sick hangover manifestation.
carol h
The possiblity of one more conservative is enough to vote against any republican all by itself. If you want a conservative majority on the court for the next 40 years vote for a republican, if not you better vote democratic.
carol h
Darn, screwed up the block quote. It should be:
The possiblity of one more conservative is enough to vote against any republican all by itself. If you want a conservative majority on the court for the next 40 years vote for a republican, if not you better vote democratic.
TR
I’m pulling for Edwards, if only to keep his issues alive. Maybe he can play kingmaker at the convention, maybe he sidles into a major role like Attorney General.
But I’m not letting the fucking media tell me I only have two choices when there are three people running.
empty
Amen!
Brachiator
But here’s the thing. I have not been following all the debates closely, but I have not seen any of the candidates questioned about the Bush Administration’s abuse of signing statements, its disregard of the Constitution, the corrupt handling of US Attorneys, its outrageous mis-use of recess appointments, etc. Nor have I seen Hillary or any of the other Democratic Party candidates make any promises to demolish the scaffolding of this new imperial presidency.
I enjoyed Bill when he was our lovable rogue president, here he is just lying his ass off. Not only have Bill and Hillary gleefully run to the media to sling lies, they have also had their surrogates do it. Then, when the negative reaction builds, they either offer a lame apology or claim that they were misquoted — while giving another interview to the media during which they sling lies again. Even former Clinton Administration officials, such as Robert Reich, have been disgusted at the Clinton’s behavior.
Their campaign advisers have obviously told them that if they go negative, they may turn people off, but the calculation is that they will still win with whatever remains. The sad thing is to see how gleefully both Bill and Hillary get into this, and how shameless they are even after they are caught at it.
I almost admire the total ruthlessness they are employing against their opponents. I would love to see this unleashed against the Republicans. But it is needlessly harming the Democratic Party, and alienating some independents. And by lamely denying what he is doing, by attempting to blame the media, Bill Clinton is indirectly, but deliberately, saying that he doesn’t care what the fallout might be as long as Hillary ends up being the party’s nominee.
Actually it’s not. People don’t want to face the hard fact that Hillary Clinton would be a slightly up-market version of Eva Peron. She has done well as a senator, but the idea that she was NOT riding her husband’s coattails is ludicrous. And that people grant her penumbras of presidential experience just because she was present during her husband’s administration is laughable.
Nobody knows what the end results of Clinton Version 2.0 would be, but Team Clinton are clearly counting on people to imagine that life will be some kind of return to good times. And they have the nerve to say that Obama is just dreaming.
What we have seen of Bill’s behavior so far, it is possible that he would not be a clear-headed objective advisor, but a stridently partisan defender, facilitator and rationalizer. The worse case is that he will become a shadowy, and un-elected Democratic version of Dick Cheney. And the worst part of it would be that she could never fire him.
I never had any strong bias against Bill or Hillary, but their recent actions have convinced me that Edwards or Obama would be vastly superior, and far more honorable, as the party’s nominee.
Roger
Canadian observer here.
The difference between the US of 1955 and now is the Supreme Court. The RWL’s (right wing lunnies) want a return to the sexism and racism of the “Good ‘Ol Days.”
If you do not elect a Democrat this cycle you will have lost the Supreme Court for AT LEAST the next generation.
I don’t care if the Democrats nominate a dead skunk – if they do – work your britches off for it. I guarantee you THERE is a MASSIVE difference in what the US will look like if the Democrats lose this time around.
Do you have any idea how appalingly awful you are thought of in EVERY other country in the world? You b*stards have to win this time or no non-American in the world will even be able to even talk to any American without holding their nose.
p.lukasiak
what kills me about all this ‘dynasty’ chatter is that had Bill Clinton’s presidency not been so sucessful, Hillary wouldn’t even be in the running.
Now, I’m an Edwards supporter, because I think we need fundamental change, and Hillary’s senate career demonstrates that, while an infinitely better choice than any Republican, she’ll be governing as a moderate. (And Obama just doesn’t have the chops yet to handle what will be thrown at him. Edwards, on the other hand, does represent fundamental change — and his trial lawyer experience prepared him for the relentless and underhanded tactics of the opposition to real change.)
But lets face it… just getting this nation back to where we were seven years ago would be a major accomplishment — and if Hillary can do that in eight years, she’d be a hero in my book.
Jack H.
Where the Clintons are concerned most right wingers jumped the shark, stroked the dolphin, and started humping the whale years ago. Watching Sully & his peeps rant and drool is a real freak show.
Where were the dynasty complaints when Bush II came along? Where will they be when Jeb shows up for Bush III?
Jake
In SCarolina the Unity Pony has galloped over The Hill.
Don’t tell John.
Tim (the other one)
The Unity Pony just turned into Sea Biscuit !
Chuck Butcher
If I have to swallow Hillary in the General rather than one of the Republicans, I’ll hold my nose and do it. But I will be pissed, very pissed. I have real problems with Obama as well, but not quite as badly, but if this is the best Democrats can manage I’m pretty disappointed. I registered “D” in 1971 and while I vote the candidate rather than the initial, I haven’t been off the reservation much.
I’ve put a large amount of time, effort, and money into Democratic politics here in Oregon, including a US House Primary run in a very red CD. Oh well…
tek
Think, Obama is probably going to appoint Republicans to the Supremes.
Tractarian
Unhinged lies like this show why a substantial number of Obama supporters in the liberal blogosphere are now thinking twice about potentially pulling the level for Hillary in November. It comes down to one word: trust.
You see, these people (and, dare I say, a majority of voters nationwide) realize that if you can’t trust the commander-in-chief to tell the truth, it doesn’t really matter what their policy preferences are or how much of a “fighter” they are.
Myself, I have pretty standard left-liberal policy preferences. But I will be voting in November for the candidate most likely to restore transparency and honesty to the federal government. And it remains to be seen whether or not that candidate will be a Democrat.