I really, really don’t like Hillary. I have tried to be fair to her, but just because I am skeptical about the Obama magical unity pony does not mean I think Hillary is the greatest thing since sliced bread. hell, search my archives. Almost EVERY time I was trying to keep Republicans from excusing/advancing Bush’s executive branch grabs, I believe I asked Republicans to think how they would feel with President Hillary Clinton having those powers.
All I am saying is that right now a lot of Democrats are joining with some questionable folks regarding their Hillary hatred, and that ‘Yes We Can” and a need for “change” is pretty thin gruel. Particularly when we consider how important this election is, and what we have ahead of us. Maybe I am wrong, and some flowery speak and “hope” will win an election. I just don’t see it, and Obama supporters are setting themselves up for some pretty serious angst over the next year if they think the kid glove treatment he is getting from the media and the Clinton camp is going to last. This general election is going to be ugly. Period.
And one more thing- I am up to here with the faux outrage. I spent the last five years dealign with Republicans outraged by every little damned thing- “ZOMG people put an ad in the NY Times questioning Petraeus! TRAITORS!” That is the same sort of bullshit Isee coming from the Obama camp- “OMG, Bill Clinton said he was a kid! What a racist!”
*** Update ***
In other news, Captain Ed will caucus for multiple choice Mitt, the establishment candidate. I am sure you are all as shocked as I am. Can Romney run with the slogan “Four More Years?”
Nellcote
Clearly voting for Edwards is the only sane option!
dslak
Thanks to Hillary, Obama has not yet had to bear the full brunt of the combined right-wing spin machine/mainstream media sucker punch. On the other hand, I wouldn’t call front-page “OMG OBAMA HUSSEIN MANCHURIAN ISLAMIST?!?!” treatment “kid gloves,” either.
In the general election, all kinds of racists are going to come out of the woodwork. Have you considered the impact on the Republican candidate who will have to consistently deny any association with those assholes, and quite possibly return their money?
Steve M
You make some good points, but I just do not see how Clinton can win the general election. If ANYONE can unify the so-called Republican base, it is her. She has smeared Obama and played the gender card just as much as Obama may have smeared her and played the race card, so its a wash there. If Clinton can’t take it now, what is she going to do in the general election?
Punchy
Honestly, I cant muster the same enthusiasm that you and Josh Marshall can over these primaries. I’m in full-on who-gives-a-fuck mode by now. Just give me ANYBODY that isn’t Bush and I’ll vote for their sorry ass.
If I could self-induce coma, I would, and ask to reawakened in September.
taodon
John,
I don’t believe that anyone thinks the election is going to be anything but a knock-down dirty brawl with the fate of the universe in play. Be that as it may, to say that the Clintons are receiving unfair treatment is disingenuous, particularly when you consider that compared to 1998, the media is practically falling all over themselves to get close to the Clintons. The fact remains that the Clintons are one of the old school political powerhouses, that cause grown men to shake. There is not a single word they exits their mouth that has not been analyzed and tested. We all know this.
So what if Obama’s getting it a little easy right now. Personally, I rather enjoy the idea that maybe politics in this country can mean something more than it has for the last seven years. There is nothing wrong with a little hope, there is nothing wrong with having optimism, for a change, about the direction of this country.
People are hungry for it. Is it really so bad that people are idealistic about moving out of the Bush years? I don’t think so. Sometimes, it is imperative to leave a bad relationship. Bush dealt us quite a few blows, and Clinton is just the same relationship. Obama is offering a chance to move into a battered nations shelter, and a few of us want to take him up on it.
So, let’s be honest – why do you dislike Obama, really? Is it because you dislike his message – or is it that you think you still deserve to be treated like shit?
John Cole
I actually like Obama and plan to support him should he win the nomination. My primary is so far down the road I doubt it will have any impact on the nomination, so I am going to vote for Dodd. If the nomination is contested still when it is my turn to vote, I will vote for Obama over Hillary without flinching.
I am, however, cultivating an intense dislike of the Obama fanboys.
dslak
Maybe that’s just because they’re getting all the attention? Maybe you should read a bit of the stuff put out by Hillary fanboyz and fangrrls. Then you can throw your hands up in disgust and berate us all for even caring.
taodon
I’ll take Obama fanboys over Bush apologists any day of the week.
scott
John:
What makes you think that Obama’s free ride with the Washington Press Corpse will ever end? I mean look at President 24%. He’s still not given the treatment that the Clintons (or Edwards for that matter) are given in the press.
I totally agree that the way the Happy Meal’s campaign has dealt with the hard-nosed Clinton machine doesn’t exactly instill me with a lot of confidence in how Obama will handle the right wing shit machine in the general election.
I’m no Clinton fan. Whatever “expertise” she’ll bring to the job will be offset by the screaming press handling of her combined with the right wing shit machine kicking into overdrive.
With Edwards becoming increasingly unviable, I am truely undecided between Clinton and Obama. Neither will get my money, my time or my yard signs but will get my vote in November. Stoopid Dems, we *never* nominate the best candidate for the general.
F. Frederson
It would be nice if we could “like” the candidates we vote for, but between the fact that we are voting for human politicians, not divine saviors, and the fact that spreading F.U.D. works, I have given up on the notion.
I’m curious: is wanting to like candidates cross-cultural, or an American narcissism? Any opinions?
curtadams
Well, in the victory speech Obama called for affordable universal healthcare and withdrawing from Iraq. Is that still thin gruel?
dslak
If I were being Greenwaldian about it, I would say that’s because the press have been complicit in many of the policies that have made Bush unpopular. The press can still get caught up in its own conventional wisdom, so Obama might keep his Golden Boy status even after the mud starts flying in the general.
All bets are off if he’s up against McCain, however.
libarbarian
Do you think the “outrage” over the issue regarding the primary in Michigan and re-seating the Michigan and FLorida delegates is on the same level?
I agree with you over the stupid slights but I think the shenanigans with the Michigan & Florida primaries and delegates is pretty underhanded and an indicator that she will have similar respect for the “rules” as Bush.
demimondian
I’m going to say that Greenwald doesn’t go far enough. The Clintons were hated from day one — not part of the establishment, not respectful of the cocktail party circuit, not “part of the village”. The Washington press crops hated them from day one.
OTOH, Little Boots was an anointed member of The Pack, a guy that you’d want to have a beer with, a part of the “party of respect”, somebody who’d make up for the wild years of the Clintons. And besides, he was running against StuporWonk, Gore Himself, the man who committed the unpardonable offense of looking smarter than the press. (The fact that either of the Clintons made most members of the Washington press corps look like the inbred lapdogs they actually are was also one of their great crimes.)
So the press corps gladly charged forward into the C+ Augustus era, bless the little no-neck monsters. Now, their sins are coming home to roost, and they desperately want to curry favor with the next president. They’re hoping that’ll be either McCain or Obama, because they know that if it’s Clinton, they’ll get the treatment they deserve.
Wilfred
I think that’s correct. Bush/Clinton have always had a co-dependent relationship with the press, as has McCain.
Obama is outside of that and it’s too soon to know if that’s in his favor or not.
Vincent
Mr. Cole,
While I am an Obama supporter, I like to come here and hear your contrary opinions to stay grounded. You’re right that Obama has always been a long shot. That’s part of why I like him. You and I may disagree as to whether he’s more than an empty suit but I agree that this election will be ugly. Maybe Clinton would be better at facing the onslaught of the Republican machine, but I can’t use such speculation as the basis for voting.
Voting for who one would like to see as President is the only way to do things. A great portion of this country will never vote for a woman or a black man so ‘electability’ doesn’t really matter in my mind. In this respect, both Clinton and Obama supporters are pie in the sky dreamers.
But if this country elects a Republican in the general election despite the past 7 or so years then I guess we got what we deserved.
DougJ
And one more thing- I am up to here with the faux outrage. I spent the last five years dealign with Republicans outraged by every little damned thing- “ZOMG people put an ad in the NY Times questioning Petraeus! TRAITORS!” That is the same sort of bullshit Isee coming from the Obama camp- “OMG, Bill Clinton said he was a kid! What a racist!”
I agree completely. There are things in this world to be outraged about — genocide in the Sudan, the Iraq war, the conduct of the Bush administration. Bill Clinton’s comments are not among these.
demimondian
I’m pretty sure, by the way, that the “ABC (Anybody But Clinton) brigade” will line up behind her and give her its best if she gets the nom. That’s what they did for Kerry, and Dean was a much more central figure than Obama is.
Jake
John was taking a nap when Bush “fanboys” started handing out Purple Heart Band-Aids.
ThymeZone
No, we are not in an election campaign. We are in a primary campaign, and the goal is to win that.
I think that if Obama gets the nomination, you are going to see a political turning point in this country that will rival the Reagan years. Of course that’s the Panglossian view, the most optimistic view, but that’s the thing… the guy makes me feel like an optimist. And that, dear friends, is what Reagan had the power to do. That’s why despite his shortcomings he could have won reelection eve after he was dead, if it were legal. Obama has that potential, and yes John, I think you are dead wrong about it.
wasabi gasp
Unity Ponity is possibly the most important trait a great leader can possess. Magical is just how it appears from our seats at the bottom of a cynical well.
DougJ
Good post, Demi. I think you’re right.
I do think though that all this hostility towards the Clintons may hurt Hillary’s ability to govern. I think that’s a fair point even if its origins are unfair.
MBunge
“I’m going to say that Greenwald doesn’t go far enough. The Clintons were hated from day one”
Now that’s just BS. The media couldn’t have slobbered more over Bill Clinton in the 1992 campaign if they’d been a 22 year old intern. They also couldn’t have been more biased in Clinton’s favor in 1996 if reporters had gone out and beated Bob Dole with baseball bats. Beltway disgust with Bill Clinton started with Monica, the same way we’d all be disgusted if our boss or one of our acquaintances behaved the same way. It cemented itself with the pardon crap.
Mike
taodon
I will not give in to Hillary. If Obama is not the nominee, I will vote third party and even Republican. I also did not fall in line with Kerry, because I considered him to be the biggest tool this side of Craftsman. I am a democrat, and as such, want to vote for actual progressive candidates. Kerry was not. Clinton is not.
taodon
And yes, I consider McCain more progressive than Clinton.
The Grand Panjandrum
Say goodbye to the 4th, 6th and 8th Amendments. The leadership of the strongly worded letter Congress, with their BB sized onions in hand, will cry like the sissies they are and promise to yell really loud if those meanies keep doing it. Oh, and the Iraq occupation out into infinity is not very comforting either. But, WTF, at least they know how to make sure the economy runs smoothly. Whhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
OK, now I am sufficiently depressed. Time to take a little target practice and then get drunk. It may come in handy.
John Cole
Fuck you very much, I was pretty clearly pissed off by that bullshit.
But thanks for inadvertently proving my point- there is substantively very little difference between the Bush automatons and the Obama fanboys when it comes to love for their leader.
Wilfred
Me, too. And I think that’s the essential difference between him and Clinton and McCain, both of whom, rightly or wrongly inspire and are surrounded by cynicism.
Tom in Texas
Gotta beg to differ, John. Unless Obama pulls the same crap for 8 years and these people are still on his side, there is a very big difference between the two.
The Grand Panjandrum
Please explain that. John McCain a … progressive? Whoa. Yes, he has progressed into a shill for the Christianists and 100 years war crowd. I would like to know what you base your statement on.
demimondian
Around here, the preferred term is “BJuice”, or, if you’re feeling daring, “BJ”. We’re experts on it.
I don’t remember 1992 as you do — I remember a pretty hostile press corps who had all-but-written Clinton off, and patronized him when they weren’t writing coronation speeches for Bush the Elder or praising H. Ross. I remember the Gays in the Military fiasco, where the press was fully behind the push to keep the fags out. I remember Brinkley’s drunken performance on the night of the 1992 election, and I remember the laughter at the president talking about “still being relevant” in 1995 — and the sudden, horrified realization that he was, in fact, relevant, when he became “the mourner-in-chief” after the Oklahoma City bombing.
DougJ
I don’t like McCain but I don’t think he inspires cynicism. I think he’s a crusader in the Teddy Roosevelt mode and that’s exactly what we don’t need right now.
Tom in Texas
I’ve said for years now that it doesn’t matter, I’m voting Dem this election. Hillary and Bill’s actions these past few days have me rethinking this. Obviously it remains to be seen who Hillary would run with in a general election and who would be in her cabinet, but this crap they are pulling repulses me. I’m no naive optimist, but I just can’t defend these decisions. It’s exhausting to contemplate having to explain away moves like this in a general campaign, and I’m not sure I can do it. I don’t approve.
DougJ
I think you’d have to be nuts to vote Republican in 08, regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. The Republican party as it stands now needs to be destroyed.
wasabi gasp
If Clinton wins the nomination, I have to vote for her. She benefits from there being a gun against my head – SCOTUS.
demimondian
Damn. Here I spent several minutes trying to find a good way to say it, and DougJ said it in 12 words, most of them three letters long.
What he said.
demimondian
Don’t worry, she grows on you after a while.
Like ringworm.
Tom in Texas
Doug — I never said I’d vote GOP. The only one I ever had a smidgen of respect for was McCain, and that left four years ago and ain’t coming back. (Disclosure: I like to listen to Ron Paul. He continues to poke sticks in his Republican friends’ eyes, and it makes me laugh). I’ll probably end up voting for her in the end regardless, but her decisions thus far during the primary don’t fill me with confidence that she’ll bring anyone other than the usual suspects on board when she leads. The general election is a whole new ballgame, and I don’t see how she could put together a cabinet that would lose my vote. Then again, I never thought she’d be able to get me on the fence concerning a Democratic nominee this cycle.
Scotty
Actually multiple guns. Health care, Iraq, energy policy, and foreign relations, along with the Supreme Court nominees.
Jake
So:
John thought the behavior of the B fanboys was nasty and bad but that didn’t affect John’s vote.
But, the O fanboys (who haven’t used the 1200 rounds/pm shit cannon favored by the BushLeague) are driving him crazy and putting him off his nice shiny Unity Pony.
I don’t think John is one of those whiny ass titty babies who claims there’s no difference between Democrats and Republicans because they’re both carbon based life forms and waaah!
So maybe John should take the time to make it clear when he’s talking about rank n’ filers who support a candidate (something the candidate has no control over) v. the particular candidate (including the candidate’s campaign managers).
Otherwise, I call bullshit.
MBunge
“I remember a pretty hostile press corps who had all-but-written Clinton off, and patronized him when they weren’t writing coronation speeches for Bush the Elder or praising H. Ross.”
I know we all have our own memories, but…WTF?!?! Did you sleep through the “Come Back Kid” stuff after New Hampshire and the “Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow” bus tour n Summer of 1992? I’ll admit the media spent a lot of time on Perot as well, but I can’t believe anyone could have missed the antipathy the press had for Old Bush throughout 1992.
By the way, John Cole. The Clinton campaign and Bill Clinton did play the race card against Obama in SC. It’s not me saying it or Chris Matthews saying, it actualy black folks saying it.
Mike
dslak
The candidate with the most general popularity will also have the most fanboys. The more fanboys a candidate has, the more likely some subset of those fanboys will irk John Cole. Ergo?
BTW, does anybody have the dirt on some McCain fanboys?
Jen
I guess I think an election season with Hillary in it would be a right bit nastier than with Obama, and not necessarily because Obama is “above all that”, but because if the R’s are smart they will realize they might have to tread more cautiously around Obama. If he beats Hillary in the primary, that will mean that his tactics have already defeated hers, and I expect it isn’t easy to beat Hillary in checkers, much less an election.
Of course, the smear machine is only set to 11, so what do I know.
I posted it in the earlier thread, sorry, but this is just the statistic making me smile today.
SC Democratic primary turnout, 2008: 500,000+
SC Democratic primary turnout, 2004: 290,000
SC Republican primary turnout, 2008: 430,000
SC Republican primary turnout, 2000: 565,000
demimondian
MB — I do remember that. I felt that it was patronizing in an environment where the memes of “Slick Willie” were being so heavily promoted, too. I also remember that the tone of the coverage got suddenly much darker when it Perot left the race the first time, and Clinton jumped into the lead.
demimondian
By the way, DougJ — you’re a lot more valuable as a commenter under your own name.
Pb
Agreed.
Agreed.
tractor
I don’t understand why progressive bloggers insist on saying things like “thin gruel” in relation to Obama. There are policy positions galore on his web site. When he schedules policy-related news conferences, nobody reports on it. Then otherwise politically-aware bloggers simply repeat the tired framing that Obama doesn’t have substance. Maybe these same bloggers should take the time to understand his policy positions, and then make some kind of substantive criticism instead of meaningless and unproductive comments such as in the post above.
John, while you disparage his message, Obama has exceeded expectations time and again. He makes people feel good about their country for a change, and where it might go, and for the right reasons. I say you can have your cynical attitude. Great leaders inspire people and help them see the world in new way. I for one am donating again to Obama, and have great hopes that he will win.
Jen
I think you’re right, tractor, and the more time I spend listening to the Average Joe being interviewed as to why they plan to vote for a particular person, the less important policy seems.
A great quote from Bill Maher last week, after a guy told him he didn’t vote because he had his own priorities in life, who went on to tell him a girl shouldn’t be president because we need someone rough against the terrorizers: “You were right the first time. You shouldn’t vote.”
wasabi gasp
The ultimate Magical Unity Pony Ticket would be Obama/Clinton. =P
BTW: John Cole seems to not realize that he runs the Magical Unity Blog. This place often smells like an old Birkenstock.
The Grand Panjandrum
Which progressive bloggers are saying that?
Ninerdave
In other news…
Ted Kennedy is going to endorse Obama.
demimondian
Bear in mind that Cole doesn’t consider himself a progressive; he views himself as a conservative. So criticisms of the behavior of progressive bloggers might not be terribly effective in that case…
John Cole
I will say this one more time, and I will say it slowly. I like Obama and plan to vote for him in the general election if he is the nominee. That being said, you are talking to the guy who voted for Bush twice. I “hoped” we would succeed in Iraq. I “hoped” we would balance the budget. I hoped we would do all the things we (as a party) would do that we said we couldn’t because of the Clinton era.
You see what my “hope” got me. So right now, I feel about hope the way my Drill Sergeant felt about wishes. Whenever one us said “I wish….” he would immediately tell us “Wish in one hand and shit in the other and tell me which one fills up first.”
So you all can have your hope, and I will appreciate my new-found cynicism. I “hope” your faith-based politics works out better than mine did.
wasabi gasp
“I voted GOP and all I got was this stinkin’ hopeless disposition.”
Tom in Texas
I understand completely John — it’s tough to get into a serious relationship so soon after one went so sour. Play the field and keep your options open — plenty of fish in the sea.
Seriously I do get your position. It is annoying when hypersensitive defenders of a candidate react to all criticism with claims of racism. In this case, I think it was a calculated move by the Clinton camp that they themselves admitted — in other words, I don’t think Obama cried wolf at any point. The criticisms of him weren’t innocent. They were part of a coordinated attempt to cut him off at the knees and marginalize Obama. It remains to be seen whether the tactic was effective. Obama did what he had to do by winning SC handily and then giving a great speech to drive up the voting on the 5th. We will see if it was enough to overcome the Clinton/DLC machine (I’m not convinced it will be).
Darkness
Not that your points aren’t valid, John, but skip past the election for a moment and think about the four years after that. This country is SO effed up that no president, even Jebus himself would get through a fix-up effort unscathed. In other words, who would most feel comfortable with taking the heat just for something as simple as making taxes progressive again to pay down the debt?
I think Obama would hold out about a year before people started to become immune to the unity pony and when the right sends out their faxes telling their puppet press minions to hit low and the criticism sticks and starts tripping up the pony, that love will turn to derisory hate pretty quick. Whereas with Clinton (and I have no love for the woman, really) this will all be more of the same, sans the roller coaster, which is emotionally costly for all. From that perspective, I feel more comfortable with her taking the heat. I still want her as VP not prez, but I’m holding that back as a salve.
I say the “four years” because given how much shit needs fixing and how pissed some are going to be about the fixing, that may be all this prez gets.
Jen
Sheesh, El Capitan says:
I’m going to crib from Cleek again, and with a little bit of dismay that I am using these words as often as I am lately..
It’s like they’re fucking retarded.
dslak
Bush’s inadequacies shouldn’t be projected onto Obama here, because the situations with Bush in 2000 and Obama in 2008 aren’t comparable.
Many of Bush’s shortcomings were out in the open for anyone willing to see, and he had no record that should have served as a basis for having so much hope in him.
Obama actually does have a record of working to get his goals accomplished, and of bringing opponents on board by compromising on method rather than on principle. He did this when it came to the videotaping of interrogations in Illinois and with numerous bills in the Senate.
You don’t need to get on the hope bandwagon here, John, but you shouldn’t project what happened with you and Bush onto what’s happening with Obama.
Emma Anne
I wonder if hate and anger from the other side really does hamper a president’s ability to get things done as we all seem to assume it does? I could make an argument for the other side. Visible fury from the other side might just make the voters annoyed with them. I have a couple of examples to support this argument:
(1) FDR. My grandparents used to call him That Man is this hate filled tone of voice. He was considered to be a traitor to his class. The opposition actually tried to plan a coup against him. I can’t think of many presidents who got more done, or were more strongly supported by the electorate.
(2) Bill Clinton. He was never more popular than when he was being excoriated the most. Now his main flaw IMO is that he paid way too much attention to the opposition. He wanted everyone to like him. He kept trying to work with people who were only looking for an opportunity to stick a knife in his ribs. So he didn’t get as much done as I think he could have. But the job approval ratings support my argument.
Now, my thesis doesn’t necessarily support any particular candidate. I think whoever the Dem is will be hated and despised by the time the election rolls around, because the Repubs don’t have any other tools at their disposal right now. So I guess the candidate to support would be the one who would be the least phased by the hatred and who would go on to do what (s)he wanted to do regardless.
Emma Anne
Yeah, I think our need to “like” our candidates makes us prone to being manipulated, since likeableness is so easily manipulated. IMO people should vote for a person who will be a good president, and not worry about liking the person.
gypsy howell
John, I hate to say this, but I think your problem in 2000 and 2004 wasn’t some misplaced optimism, it was your ability to judge character. It was plain as day to millions of us even in 2000 that Bush was a loser and a fuck-up. All you had to do was look at every single thing he’d ever done in his past, or barring that, just listen to what he actually said in the debates. That things have turned out so badly under Drunken Fascist Low-IQ Frat Boy is not exactly surprising to a lot of people.
Optimism is still good, as long as it’s paired with a more accurate evaluation of the candidate.
gypsy howell
I see dslak types much faster than I do. And perhaps says it a little more clearly. :-)
D. Mason
It’s a lot more than annoying. It’s insulting to anyone who doesn’t fall in line behind Obamas every move. I hope Obama doesn’t ride this pathetic and divisive strategy all the way to a republican presidency in ’08, but I’m quite sure he can if he tries hard enough.
Jake
Right. You failed to check your “hope” against the reality of BushCo and now anyone, anywhere who uses the “h” word in any context, must be an oblivious moron.
If Johan Goldberg hadn’t recently re-set the bar on conflating two entirely different things because they sound sort of the same, you’d win The No Clue 4 U prize. You’ll pardon me if I refuse to be lumped in with the folks who were dumb enough to believe there was any hope BushMeister v. 2004 would be less than an unmitigated train wreck.
JL
In order to be completely comfortable with Obama, I would like him to spend more time focusing on foreign policy and the growing global economy. His health care policies and economic policies are quite progressive. The problem I have with Hillary is her Iraq vote. She might have earned my vote but the last two weeks, I feel, that she is using the “not me” and the victim card. I want the next president to take ownership of his or her campaign and his or her staff.
cpl
“the Obama fanboys”
Whether you’re talking religion, politics, business or recreation, it’s very often the fanboys who are far more annoying than the charismatic leader they lionize.
But John, I think you’re taking the “hope” meme the wrong way. What I hear in Obama’s speeches is the notion that Republicans in the future won’t find themselves treated the way they’ve treated Democrats during the Clinton/Bush years. The Clintons offer no such hope, in fact you can almost hear them saying “payback’s a bitch” already.
John Cole
I want payback. I want people prosecuted. Laws have been broken, crimes have been committed. I don’t want someone coming in with this whole “Let’s get along” attitude. I want heads to roll, I want the Republican party decimated, and I want key figures prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.
Otherwise they have gotten away with it all. If I was ok with that, I wouldn’t have left the god damned GOP.
dslak
Hear, hear! I even switched parties in 2000 due to Bush. In spite of that, early on I actively defended him from people who claimed he was right-wing.
The elephant in the room here is: Why is it you don’t like the Bush administration anymore? It’s not because it’s conservative, but how it’s run. It’s not enough to take the right positions, but you have to believe in our system of government and own up to your mistakes. Hillary is basically just the Democratic version of Bush, only without the facade he came in with, because we already took her for a spin in the 90’s.
The hope people are placing in Obama has to do with faith that he believes not just in progressive policy, but in American freedom and democracy. If you think Obama supporters such as myself are wrong in assuming that the Clintons primarily think of voters as an obstacle to attaining power, can you say why? Many of us dislike the Clintons for the same reasons you do, so for those Obama supporters who like Hillary more than Maureen Dowd, why do you get off the hook while we don’t?
crayz
And you think what of Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson’s victories? Just more imaginary race-bating?
Tim (the other one)
The Rs seem to be coalescing around “Country Club Boy”. This is good because I actually fear running against a McCAin nomination
MBunge
“”It is annoying when hypersensitive defenders of a candidate react to all criticism with claims of racism.”
It’s a lot more than annoying. It’s insulting to anyone who doesn’t fall in line behind Obamas every move. I hope Obama doesn’t ride this pathetic and divisive strategy all the way to a republican presidency in ‘08, but I’m quite sure he can if he tries hard enough.”
Uh, D. Mason, there’s nothing pathetic or divisive about claims of racism when racism is actually at work. Once again, this isn’t about Chris Matthews or Maureen Dowd accusing Billary of race-baiting. It’s African-Americans complaining about race-baiting, complaining especially because a Southern Democrat like Bill Clinton knows damn well what it means when you talk about race in a certain way in South Carolina.
Mike
demimondian
Here’s my problem: I want a junkyard dog. I want someone who will will drive the impeachments and convictions of Republican officials that simply need to happen. I don’t see Barack Obama as that junkyard dog; I see him as a fundamentally decent man who genuinely wants to make things better. I do see Hillary Clinton as that junkyard dog.
If I trusted Obama to give her a free hand to pursue such a strategy, I’d remember my Machiavelli and seek would argue that means we want Hillary for vice president, driving knives into the backs of opponents from the safety of an office not worth a bucket of warm spit. If Obama could show me he’s capable of that kind of mean-spirited, but essential, political infighting, then he’d be my unquestioned choice. He hasn’t clinched the sale, though.
Vincent
Whoa, nobody’s more righteous than a convert. Just kidding. Quite frankly, I have some concerns on that note myself. I would like Obama to say more about fighting the disasters of the current administration. Is it just about reversing their policies? While that would be nice, I’d also want people punished. Not out of a sense of revenge but to show that actions have consequences and that laws are made to be followed.
MBunge
John Cole – “I want payback. I want people prosecuted. Laws have been broken, crimes have been committed. I don’t want someone coming in with this whole “Let’s get along” attitude. I want heads to roll, I want the Republican party decimated, and I want key figures prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.”
Beyond the whole, “taking an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind” thing…what the hell makes you think Hillary would do any of those things? And even if she and Bill tried, wouldn’t the GOP be more unified against the Clintons than against any other Democratic President?
If you want the Republican Party decimated, then Obama should be your guy. Because he’s the only Dem candidate that could decimate the GOP where it really matters…at the ballot box, sweeping a buttload of new Democrats into office with him. Can you imagine, even in the best possible circumstance, Hillary doing much more than edging out a narrow victory that leaves the current status quo in place?
Mike
cpl
What it sounds like you want is accountability, John.
Payback would be acting as Bush/Cheney have acted, which solves nothing and holds no-one accountable.
An Imperial Presidency with Hillary at the helm is no better than one with Bush at the helm.
Tom in Texas
Has Hillary advocated prosecuting the current administration? Why would she be any more likely to do so? Seems a pretty weak argument for being anti-Obama, unless you are a Kucinich/Edwards guy.
taodon
Not going to happen. You have the old school democrats in Washington now and they refuse to do a damned thing. Do you honestly think that Clinton getting into office is going to change that. It will be ‘More of the Same’ ad nauseum.
So, Obama’s preaching unity and hope… ever stop to consider that part of unity and hope is a repudiation of the Bush government, including all those things you are hoping for? What better way to unite the majority of America than by throwing prosecuting those who nearly destroyed us?
Jake
[Snort]
Democratic Candidate X: “I promise if elected, the criminals of the GOP will be prosecuted to the fullest extent possible. President Bush and Vice President will be handed over to The Hague &c, &c, &c…”
John Cole: “What’s this guy doing? He’s going to scare off the moderate voters. There’s a war in Iraq, the economy sucks and he’s talking about arresting people, &c, &c, &c…”
This concludes today’s broadcast of DiYD/DiYD.
Place your bets: We’ll check in on November 5, 2008, and there will be a post titled “Dr. Strangelove or: Why I stopped giving a shit and voted for McCain.”
But we’ll still love ya John.
Tim (the other one)
“I want someone who will will drive the impeachments and convictions of Republican officials that simply need to happen.”
In light of all the shit-shoveling that is going to be taking place, who is really going to do this ?
MBunge
“I do see Hillary Clinton as that junkyard dog.”
Bill and Hillary Clinton are junkyard dogs for only one thing, the best interests of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not the best interests of America and not the best interests of the Democratic Party.
Just like in Watergate, you’re never going to get impeachments or convictions of Republicans unless other Republicans are willing to go along with it. What Republican is going to go along with a “Hillary Witch Hunt”?
Mike
Tim (the other one)
“Place your bets: We’ll check in on November 5, 2008, and there will be a post titled “Dr. Strangelove or: Why I stopped giving a shit and voted for McCain.””
That’s what I’m getting at Jake, it could play out that way on a national level. Which would suck on so many levels.
JoeCHI
Obama surrogates suggest that criticism of his inexperience or voting record is “racist”. They also suggest that compliments (Joe “Obama is attractive and articulate” Biden and Bob “I like the fact that his family has a Muslim background” Kerry) are also “racist”.
If these are the racial eggshells upon which Obama and his supporters expect Americans to tread, he’s already lost the nomination
LiberalTarian
I agree with demimondian’s notion that GW Bush is our own Augustus. We’re in our own version of “crisis of the third century.”
I feel pretty burned by the mythic 2006 ascendancy of the Democratic majority, e.g., they are getting steam rolled by a 24% president and a minority party because they would rather be polite than fight with bare knuckles.
Regardless of the rhetoric, the 2008 presidential nominees are in the process of saying anything and everything they think will get them elected. I don’t see much reason to think any of the bunch are planning to do a Crazy Eddy with government once he/she actually holds the office.
I hope a Democrat would be better than a Republican, but the more I see of the candidates the more I think I better be inclined to cover my own ass and to hell with everybody else. GW Bush and company have set the social contract on fire, and as cynical and disillusioned as it may be, I see neither HRC nor BHO standing ready with a fire hose. Neither have had the strength of conviction nor courage to do anything about the recent FISA debacle except note how “troubling” they find it.
We’re fucked.
JL
If John Edwards became Attorney General, you might see your payback. He probably doesn’t have fond memories of the 2004 election antics.
JL
If John Edwards became Attorney General, you might see your payback. He probably doesn’t have fond memories of the 2004 election antics.
JL
Sorry for the double post. Maybe I’ll go read the blog about Bissells and Dysons again.
Harley
Just for the record, and to state what should be obvious, one can tire of Clinton Vaudeville in all its forms and uses and not be guilty of faux outrage. Obama’s speech was aimed right at that particular fatigue, and it was his best of the campaign.
Also when writing something manifestly stupid – “Obama surrogates suggest that criticism of his inexperience or voting record is “racist” – it’s useful to dig up a cite or two.
As for the media? I understand the Build ‘Em Up In Order to Tear Them Down idea, but I wonder how and when it will be applied to Obama. Not by the usual wingtard publications, mind you, but by the MSM. I’m not so sure this love affair, however excessive you may find it, is going to end any time soon.
DougJ
By the way, DougJ—you’re a lot more valuable as a commenter under your own name.
Thanks, but I feel this place goes downhill without regular spoofing. There have been awfully damned earnest threads around here.
It’s for the newbies. I don’t have the energy to create a persona to fool the veterans. I wouldn’t do it all if those lazy bastards over at B4B did their job around here.
D. Mason
Of course it is. Who else would you expect to play that particular race card? I’ve seen countless examples of black people shouting racism when they were just being called out for being shitty individuals. Not that Obama is a shitty individual, but the game is still the same.
The way I feel about the jesse jackson comments is something akin to the ending of the boy who cried wolf. Maybe it was racist but I’ve heard too much from Obama supporters about how this or that was racist(and it’s just getting started). Obama supporters will continue crying bigot until the campaign is over. I’m quite sure they will point at some actual racism along the way, but by then I won’t be listening. If they continue to smear anyone who disagrees with him as a racist they will eventually smear everyone who isn’t black. Not only will that make Clinton’s comments accurate it will also make the next president a republican. I won’t hold my nose and vote for someone who insinuates by proxy of their frothing supporters that I’m a racist because I dare to disagree about some opinion or position of their guy. That’s what this tactic boils down to for me.
I gave my first ever presidential vote to Kerry in ’04 and I want to give my vote to the Dem candidate in ’08 but Obama supporters can change my mind with this shit. I could be wrong here and they could stop this tactic and truly let their guy be a candidate for all Americans. I sure hope so but at this point I’m not holding my breath.
DougJ
That’s exactly how I feel. But in the end, I’m not sure it’s best for the country.
It’s a problem as old as time, or at least as old as organized government. A bunch of crooks and thugs take over a country. How far do you go in driving them down after they’re toppled? The disastrous de-Ba’athification of Iraq is a monument to the folly of excess in this regard.
dslak
Some Hillary supporters have suggested that if you don’t vote for her, you might be a misogynist. So I guess that counts out Hillary, too. Any other candidates out there with only saints for supporters?
dslak
The Bushies are going to suffer to some degree, with or without prosecutions in the US. Rumsfeld won’t be enjoying any vacations on the Riviera, for example.
Daniel Munz
All I am saying is that right now a lot of Democrats are joining with some questionable folks regarding their Hillary hatred, and that ‘Yes We Can” and a need for “change” is pretty thin gruel. Particularly when we consider how important this election is, and what we have ahead of us. Maybe I am wrong, and some flowery speak and “hope” will win an election. I just don’t see it, and Obama supporters are setting themselves up for some pretty serious angst over the next year if they think the kid glove treatment he is getting from the media and the Clinton camp is going to last. This general election is going to be ugly. Period.
John, I think this is a valid sentiment. That said, I’ve been surprised at how uncomfortable a lot of Democrats are with the prospect of having a genuinely likable, charismatic, seemingly down-to-earth person as their nominee. Yes, I’m sure the election will get ugly, but I’m also willing to entertain the possibility that for once, we’re not joining with the questionable folks — they’re joining with us. I’m thinking here of folks like the Russerts, Matthewses, and whomever else of the world. We’ve been trained to see them as on the opposing side because, frankly, they’re terrible journalists who’ve tended to slant the public discourse in our country against our side. And that’s fine, so far as it’s a necessary strategy. But Obama has a lot of qualities — and I think this is where words like “transcend” start coming into play — that make that not a necessary strategy anymore. The media just genuinely likes him a lot more than Hillary, and they do so for reasons that are largely superficial but at least partially substantive, and not entirely unreasonable, IMHO. I think it would be a shame if the lesson that liberals took from the past eight years is that it’s per se problematic to be in agreement with people you otherwise despise, even if that agreement is because you convinced them. You know how John McCain drives liberals crazy because a lot of middle-of-the-road Democrats love him, even though us hard lefties can’t figure out why and it drives us bonkers? I think Obama can do that, and I don’t think Hillary ever can, and that’s why I’m putting my chips on him this time around.
TenguPhule
Until we start dragging out Republicans and shooting them in batch lots (tempting though it may be), we’re nowhere near Deabaathification.
What is certain though is that unless the moral hazard of having one party seize power and wreck the country is addressed with punishment, it will happen again much easier in the future.
The Bush admin needs to be strung up to the last woman, not only because they’re fucking criminals, but to make it clear that future fucking criminals who think to follow in the footstops will get the same treatment as well.
Otherwise, we might as well take a page from Iraq and stock up for the inevitable collapse.
crw
I actually think “thin gruel” is a pretty valid criticism of Obama’s speeches as far as that goes. Unfortunately, those of us on the right hand side of the bell curve tend to forget that’s what it takes to win. Most people don’t obsessively follow politics or get into the nitty gritty of policy and/or policy implementation.
We’re not Obama’s audience, particularly. If we buy in, great, but he’s mostly going after younger people and political independents. He’s using emotional appeals and high level speeches to win these people over. It’s not a bad strategy, per se, but it’s risky in the primaries where you need party loyalists to win (especially with all the closed primaries coming up). It also leaves those us who enjoy wonking out cold. And it tends to lead to, ahem, irrationally exuberant followers.
I tend to think outside of the primaries, it will also be more effective. During the primaries, though, he’s leaving large segments of the base, who do care about policy specifics and want first and for most reassurance that the Democratic leadership will grow a pair again, unsatisfied. And that’s a problem.
dslak
No one should be under the illusion that Hillary and her ilk, who were happy to give Bush carte blanche and look the other way when he was riding high in the polls, are going to drag anybody through the streets for those crimes.
As someone mentioned earlier, this might be an argument for favoring Kucinich or Edwards over Obama, but it’s no argument in favor of Hillary. We all know how John feels about Edwards however, and Kucinich is out, so who’s left for the John Coles of this world?
gypsy howell
I want that too. More than anything. We went from pardoning Nixon to Iran Contra. We went from pardoning Iran Contra to BushCheney and the dismantling of the Constitution. And now we’ll go from sweeping BushCheney under the rug to… ?
God help us in 2016 or 2020 when the Republicans make their *next* swing through the white house.
But I don’t see Truth Reconciliation and Accountability happening with any of the Dems, except perhaps Edwards — or maybe even that’s just more wishful thinking on my part.
Jake
Here’s what I see when I see comments like this:
1. Candidate X has supporters.
2. Some of those supporters happen to be assholes and/or idiots.
3. Idiotic/assholish acts committed by the supporters have the approval of Candidate X.
4. Therefore Candidate X is an idiot/asshole.
Did I miss anything?
demimondian
All right, you’re right — I don’t want payback. I want accountability. I want Elliot Abrams impeached and barred from government service for the rest of his life, along with Rumsfeld, Cheney, GWB, and the whole colleciton of clowns. I want people who will be pardoned to lose their power to rule; that is the only threat against the rise of a true Emperor.
As to the 2/3’s situation — pursue impeachment against those folks within the bounds of the law and the Constitution, and you’ll have your 2/3 majority, either because Republicans will be forced out of the Senate, or because they’ll accept that a few of the worst ought to be held to account.
D. Mason
No. This logic works just as well for Obama as it does for Clinton and that’s why I can’t stand either one. The smears of “you’re a racist” are every bit as divisive as any quasi-racist thing the Clintons have done. That destroys the unity rhetoric that Obama is trying to ride to victory. There is nothing unifying about calling your detractors racist even if it’s true and especially if it’s not.
demimondian
Oh, and since there’s no open thread, here’s _The Guardian_ expectorating some pure industrial grade USP snark. BJ posters, a moment of silence, please.
Scotty
In that case you’re stuck in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. The rhetoric from Clinton can be construed in a number of fashions depending on what your race is, where you grew up, or your age. Remember, racism doesn’t have to be straight up Strom Thurmond style to have an affect. It can be subtle and still do its job.
Cain
WTF is up with McCain, he’s quoted as giving the straight talk that there are going to be more battles or wars. I’m not sure what he’s alluding too, but I suspect he thinks he’s going to go after Iran and Syria. Where is this mystical army he’s going to produce to do that coming from, pray tell??
And for the guy who thinks that McCain is more progressive than Hillary, STFU. This guy will put in the draft and get more soldiers. Count on it.
See:
McCain warns there will be more wars
cain
Scotty
Blackwater and Halliburton. Army and logistics for rent.
Jake
No, if you’re saying a candidate, any candidate, is responsible for things his supporters do or say it isn’t logic. It is quite a ways from logic and well into Fauxrage territory.
Cast your mind back to the online short that compared Bush to Hitler. Even though was submitted to MoveOn by someone who had nothing to do with anyone’s campaign it became “OMG, KERRY CALLED BUSH HITLER!”
D. Mason
You’re right and that makes me sad.
D. Mason
I was responding to YOUR logic posted above. If they have the approval of candidate X then guess what, candidate X is responsible. That’s the difference between what’s going on in Obamas campaign and what happened with the Bush = Hitler stuff that happened to Kerry. The line is fine but there it is. If those people had been pushing Kerry and he didn’t step up and denounce those people the principle would have been the same.
Obama could stop this shit by aggressively denouncing the idea that attacks against him are based on his race. Failing to do so is the exact opposite of transcending race.
Temple Stark
Congrats Scott and all saying similar things, you’ve proved two things with this statement: 1) You want to give the national media pundits the power you don’t think they should have 2) You’re easily led, thereby justifying their contempt.
I will vote for Edwards in my Feb. 5 Arizona primary by the way. That is if the election department goobers in Phoenix get me my voting card. I just moved to Phoenix from elsewhere in the state.
Darkness
Okay demimondian made me realize how to restate me thoughts. So, there is a hostage situation in a bar going on, with the meanest, smelliest, dirty-fightingest bastards you’ve ever imagined. They’re sucking up all the beer in the place and blaming their enemies for the low beer situation and the lack of beer is only making them nastier.
So, you have ring-side seats (being one of the hostages) to the show where someone is going to try to evict these bastards. Do you send in the adorable, large-eyed chocolate lab puppy that everyone loves as soon as they set eyes on it because it reminds them that they once believed in something good, or the mean old alley cat with tattered ears and a limping swagger whose been sharpening her claws for the last sixteen years? Who would you feel worse about taking the hits in the fight to come?
Jake
Direct from the Johan Goldberg School of Critical Analysis: Silence = Approval.
Here’s how it works in the Real World: If Candidate X took time out to say “I utterly reject what that complete stranger’s fuck up,” people would be saying “Dear me Candidate X isn’t focused.”
It also means I could cause a lot of trouble for Candidate X by putting on a Candidate X in 2008 t-shirt and being a complete shit because instead of talking about the issues he’d have to spend all of his time apologizing for my behavior.
But let’s flip this on its head and look back to the year 2004. We’ll have to pretend that somewhere in the country a lot of Bush supporters were caught being nice in public. So I see these Nice Bushies. Bush doesn’t speak out against them, so I have to assume he approves of the niceness. By extension I have to assume Bush is a nice guy.
No. Way.
libarbarian
Oh come on man, of course someone isn’t responsible for some random thing one of their supporters says, on their own, but you know its more complicated than that.
You know that its a common tactic for political leaders to use surrogates to say things that the candidate wants said but doesn’t want to be seen saying.
You might not believe Hillary was behind the shenanigans of her campaign but dont insult our intelligence by acting as if the idea is on par with Jonahs tactic of cherry picking random blog comments made by random people to tar an entire political party.
D. Mason
No, straight from your fucking post. YOU said candidate X approves. If you didn’t mean that then fine, say you fucked up but approval is part of your post and approval is what earns my scorn.
Brachiator
What an odd, wrongheaded, and deliberately one-sided analogy. But let’s go with it, but make the lab not a puppy, but more correctly an adult dog (but still adorable). And let’s bring in a little something from Wikipedia:
“[The Lab] is also the most popular breed of assistance dog in the United States, Australia, and many other countries, as well as being widely used by police and other official bodies for their detection and working abilities. They are exceptionally affable, gentle, intelligent, energetic and good natured, making them both excellent companions and working dogs.”
So, the answer to your question is that you would obviously want the Lab there, not only to fight to save you, but to break through the ropes tying you up with its teeth.
Alley cats, on the other hand, only fight to save themselves.
As an aside, while waiting for my commuter train this week, I watched CHP officers take K9 dogs on practice runs. There were labs, German shepherds and other dogs. Oddly enough, no alley cats. No feline units. Go figure.
I want someone fighting for me who can throw a punch, not brag about all the body blows and punches to the head that they have absorbed over the years.
D. Mason
Also, the idea that he must refute everyone who uses the tactic individually is a red herring. He must simply refute the tactic a few times and his fanbois will stop trying to beat everyone to death with racism smears.
DougJ
To turn this back to Mitt and the Cap’n, I can’t really blame a Republican for backing Mitt over McCain. I think Mitt would be the most competent president of that group. I like McCain better but I think he has massive potential for complete disaster.
Cain
I think McCain is screwed up since it’s not foreign policy right now that people are worried about. It’s the economy and flippin Romney is probably the right guy when it comes to a match up. I think people are tired of war and conflict abroad. I mean jeezus, it’s been 6 fucking years and we haven’t caught bin laden yet. Expect another video around Nov 6th.
cain
Kevin K.
Good cripes, John. If you think the “Obama fanboys” are whiny and spittle-flecked, you’ve really got to take a stroll through Larry Johnson or Taylor Marsh’s sites (posts and comments). Or even MyHRC (MyDD). I’ve yet to see a pro-Obama blog, including Sullivan’s, that comes close to emitting the same level of vitriol and reworked oppo horseshit at Clinton that I see directed at Obama at the pro-Hillary blogs. And don’t even get me started about hillaryis44.org.
Regarding Scarborough, I’m a cynical son-of-a-bitch, but I think Joe’s learned a few things over the past few years, much like you have (although, admittedly, you kick his ass in that department). I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Regarding Obama not being ready for the Republicans, he just totally schooled one of the best politcal minds of our generation in South Carolina, so I’m pretty confident he can handle anything Mittens and his half-hearted minions would through his way in a general election.*
* There’s no way in hell the Repubs will ever hand the nomination over to the Maverick.
John Cole
WTH is the significance of hillaryis44?
Drawing a blank…
Darkness
I don’t deny that the analogy holds up, extended as you describe it. My main point was that I’m preparing myself to feel sorry for Obama in the fight to come… not so much for Hillary. On the other hand, I don’t care if Hillary takes no prisoners in the fight because it suits her and Bill’s best interest. At this point we don’t have the luxury of caring why someone fights tough. Whether she isn’t too much DC to fight at all? Scary question. I prefer to think she’s half as evil as the right thinks she is… it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to do so.
With Obama, I’m afraid that throwing a punch may be seen as risking breaking the unity pony’s back, a la Ford’s mentality. If you don’t send this crop of bastards to jail, they will be back, a la Chuckie. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read the résumés of the people who have trouped through the whitehouse in the last 7 years. I don’t care who spends the political capital sending them up the river, and why. If it’s a personal vendetta that gets it done, fine with me.
Kevin K.
44th President. Or do you mean why did I reference such a cute & pink site?
Daniel Munz
With Obama, I’m afraid that throwing a punch may be seen as risking breaking the unity pony’s back, a la Ford’s mentality. If you don’t send this crop of bastards to jail, they will be back, a la Chuckie. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to read the résumés of the people who have trouped through the whitehouse in the last 7 years. I don’t care who spends the political capital sending them up the river, and why. If it’s a personal vendetta that gets it done, fine with me.
Darkness, I agree, but to me, this is the argument for Obama. You say that “if you don’t send this crop of bastards to jail, they will be back” — but really, sending them to jail doesn’t even do the trick; Ollie North got sent to jail and still ran for an came goddamned close to winning a Senate seat in VA. As long as “this crop of bastards” maintains some intellectual capital, there’s nowhere you can put them — jail, Gitmo, Mars — that will neutralize their influence. If you really want to deal them a deathblow, you have to discredit their ideas. Then, it won’t matter if they come back, because no one will listen when they do.
That, above all, is what scares me about a Clinton presidency. I fear she’d basically be a rerun of Bill’s term — a record of mixed legislative victories that does a lot to help Hillary Clinton but does nothing to position progressivism, and leaves whatever policies she *does* manage to enact with only marginal public support, and therefore easy to overturn or chip away at. That’s what I think we can’t afford: another eight years that misses the opportunity not just to pass progressive legislation, but to make more people into progressives. This could finally be the term that sees universal health care; you’d better believe that to survive, that program’s going to have to have full, deep, total public support. We’ve got to make universal health care like social security: a Third Rail — you touch it, you die. I believe Obama could do that. I don’t think Hillary could. Could Obama fail? Maybe, and frankly, in limited terms, I think his chances of “failure” may be higher than Hillary’s. But boy, will I fill shitty if we don’t even try. Even in purely partisan terms, Obama makes me aspire to something better than the least I think is possible. I like that, and I’m voting for it.
Geoduck
If you’re asking about the name as opposed to the site it labels, I assume it’s saying she’ll be the 44th president of the US.
Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA
Daneil Muntz writes:
Welcome to our planet, Daniel. I’m glad you’re enjoying it so far.
Incidentally, there must be a reason why the OFB is going after Krugman, now Conason, why Digby had to close her comments section, and so on, while they simulataneously accept the endorsements of Kristol, Brooks, Sullivan and Broderella without missing a beat. I can’t think what it might be…
empty
So I went to this website and read through the policy statements and, for the most part, it really is thin gruel. Or maybe there is some other site I should be looking at?
And as for this:
Here is Obama looking out for the best interests of Obama back in 2004. Saintly!
demimondian
Absolutely. Mitt is clearly the best choice for the corporatist republicans.
His record of “flip-flopping” will actually be valuable in the general, since he’ll be able to use the “wink-and-a-nod” style that mainline republicans have perfected on the wedge issues (abortion, GLTB rights, etc.) to sell the ‘I had to say that to get the nom, but I’m really more reasonable than _they_ are.’ McCain has the problem of being sold as a straight-shooter, so he’d have to undermine his own campaign narrative to move back to the center for November.
Katherine
Some serious people support Obama for serious reasons & this condescension DOES NOT ENDEAR YOU TO THEM, AT ALL. Nothing makes me more hostile more quickly than being patronized.
Eural Joiner
Way OT but…
Just got back from “Cloverfield” and it was fantastic – a lot of fun and the most “bang for the buck” since the last Bourne movie. And I know they never give Oscars to these kind of movies but the screenplay was awesome. All of the character/plot details have to be worked in around the hand-held/”you are there as it happens” gimmick. It works surprisingly well. Check it out!
demimondian
What condescension are you talking about here? I’m willing to be educated — what is the problem for you?
Katherine
” I am skeptical about the Obama magical unity pony….
Maybe I am wrong, and some flowery speak and “hope” will win an election”
“there is substantively very little difference between the Bush automatons and the Obama fanboys when it comes to love for their leader.”
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum.
Jake
Bloody hell. Let’s hop in the time machine because scrolling upthread is too hard:
I was commenting on the inherent logic of your original post. Perhaps I should have said “Dude you’re full of shit,” right then, but I thought I’d first check to see if that’s what you meant. Shame on me for being restrained. I promise it won’t happen again.
Not at all. Let me clarify: Jonah said of the NYT review of his book that since the reviewer didn’t disagree with anything before page 180, the reviewer must not have disagreed with anything on those pages. Since then I’ve seen him do the same thing on at least one other occasion. If a reviewer doesn’t refute every single thing he says, the reviewer must agree with those points he neglects to refute.
At best this is the sort of reasoning used by naughty five year olds. “You didn’t say I couldn’t stick the cat in the dryer!”
Sane people know the world does not, can not work that way.
AkaDad
I agree, and I’m glad you took a break from ironing shirts to say this.
demimondian
Cole wasn’t patronizing anybody, Katherine. He was being rude and nasty, which happens a lot here. This is a rude and nasty place, and not the nicest one on Earth.
On the other hand, when Cole talks about the Bush automatons, he speaks from first-hand experience; he’s a recovering automaton himself. He’s pretty well qualified to sense the kind of mindless hero-worship that the Republican party extended, for far too long, towards GWB, and to see it in other locations. If he says that there’s a disturbing strain of hagiography around Obama, then you might want to step back and ask yourself if he’s right. That won’t make Obama a worse candidate — in fact, if there is, and you call it out, it’ll make him a stronger candidate — but it will make you a better person.
Darkness
I’m too lazy to scan back up to see what/who I’m defending here, but I didn’t see this as condescending, really at all. But could just be I have a natural paranoia about flowery speech and minions that makes me read it differently than you.
Personally, I think he can win the general election. What I fear is that his charisma will only carry him so far, that his policy ideas feel like they don’t take reality enough into account, and since we have so little data to go on, his charisma may backfire in the end (this the engineer in my talking, charisma is incorporeal and therefore suspect). That’s how I read the first statement (extended to actually occupying the office, which is my focus).
As to the second statement, I’m not sure where the issue is. I don’t think it implies that all his supporters are fanboys. Well, that’s not how I took it. There was some excellent discussion here about what a leader’s role and actions should be in controlling or setting examples for their, shall we say, more energetic minions. I think Obama could be doing a better job at that, but I also acknowledge that it’s a job that takes time to learn, and he hasn’t had that much time.
D. Mason
Oh, my bad Jake. Should I apologize for not confirming your assumption? Let me correct your flawed analysis of my logic at least.
1. Candidate X has supporters.
2. Those supporters repeatedly level the same divisive, meritless smears against detractors of said candidate.
3. Those smears by proxy go unchallenged by and seem to have the approval of Candidate X.
4. Therefore Candidate X is a hypocrite/liar/guardian of the status-quo.
demimondian
Ah, so you’re talking against Obama, D. Mason? I thought you were an Obama supporter.
D. Mason
Demi I will pretty much vote for whoever the dems put up. That doesn’t mean I have to like the way Obama supporters sling around the accusation of racist. It’s a major turn off and is one of the few things that can make me stay home. I have a limit on how much I can be insulted as a racist because I don’t lockstep behind Obama. To me it’s no different than Bush supporters smearing anyone who disagreed with King George II as a traitor.
Also if I had to be a supporter of someone it would be Ron Paul simply because he would obliterate the status-quo.
demimondian
I don’t think that’s strictly fair, D. Chance. I don’t think that Billary has a racist bone in their paired body — but there were a number of insensitive things that they, or their surrogates, said. I mean, really, Obama won South Carolina “just like Jesse Jackson did”?
Good heavens to Murgatroyd! I remember Jackson’s candidacies, having been of voting age in both 84 and 88. He did well in South Carolina because of the unique dynamics of the race; particularly in 88, people came out to vote for him in order to make sure that he wasn’t shut out of the convention, in part because of his race He wasn’t a serious candidate, voted in because of a genuine expectation that he’d win the nom (in both cases, it was sewn up before SC), but rather a marginal protest vote by the broad left of the party.
That’s not the story behind Obama, who is a serious candidate with a real shot at both getting the nom and winning the Presidency. The Carolinians who came out for him weren’t casting a racial protest vote, but rather a vote for a candidate. Claiming otherwise strikes me as both disingenuous and divisive, and certainly seems to give cover for the real racists.
Now, Ron Paul, on the other hand…he *is* a real bona fide bigot.
Jen
Okay, I’m officially inspired, I joined my area Meetup.com Obamania group. Seemed more current than the Banarama crowd. NC is a pretty damn red state, and I did voter registrations and door-to-door voter information in ’04 so I am clearly a masochist and a glutton for punishment, and here I go again. Probably the most useful thing to come out of that canvassing was witnessing and reporting a situation that most definitely needed to go to Child Protective Services, so I’ll always have that…
Here’s to hoping for throwing away my vote a little bit less and no child neglect in 2008!!!
Jake
Yep. I should have said you’re full of shit from the start. A smear by proxy would mean Candidate X is whispering to the supporters “Hey, go out and smear Candidate Y but if anyone asks, I don’t know you.” If that isn’t the case then the supporters just “seem to have the approval of Candidate X.” And the best part is, you don’t need any proof beyond the negative proof of silence, even though the rest of the world doesn’t work that way.
Here’s an example right here:
My first reaction = What the fuck?
My second reaction = Who the fuck cares?
My third reaction = Birdzilla, is that you?
D.Mason’s reaction = OMG, a nasty Obama supporter! He’d better apologize for this right now.
Sad.
Adam
I find that the “Unity Pony” euphemism really gets on my nerves, having been a fan of Obama on policy grounds long before his Presidential campaign. That said, I haven’t had any face-to-face contact with the Obama campaign (not much point, being in Texas), so maybe it really is as annoying as John often makes it sound. I supported Dean but for the most part couldn’t stand many of his supporters, and every time I hear the name “Ron Paul” I get murder thoughts — maybe I’ve just got a Pavlovian response based on my hatred of Ralph Nader, but that’s a different discussion…
Anyway, I think I’ve finally found a logical explanation for the strategy in this fairly-amazing Matt Stoller article:
…I suppose I just bolded that entire graf, but I don’t really know where to cut it. I think the GOP picked up on this in the 2000 election (their voter lists and mastery of direct mail, Karl Rove’s original specialty, have long been a distinguishing factor between the parties), though I don’t think the party leadership yet grasps the difference between direct-mail and internet campaigning. The Democrats, on the other hand, seem to be getting the hint. I had heard nothing about the new voter list programs.
I think you have to give a lot of credit for this to Dean. Supporters aside, he was way ahead of the curve on this one while people were mocking his 50-state strategy, etc., and it’s paid off big. Obama’s managed to step it up yet again.
D. Mason
Yeah, you should have. Then I could have told you to fuck off and not wasted any time with another Obama fanboi.
Tim (the other one)
“* There’s no way in hell the Repubs will ever hand the nomination over to the Maverick.”
That’s my firewall and I hope it holds.
Jake
Has RoPaul denounced Stormfront yet?
D. Mason
Has RoPaul denounced Stormfront yet?
Yes. He went as far as to say he doesn’t want their support.
D. Mason
Yes. He went as far as to say he doesn’t want their support.
Jake
The Fail never ends. I’m a Dodd man and my remarks apply to anyone who has ever run for office because bullshit is bullshit no matter where you throw it. But what the hell, your rules allow me to throw a tantrum until any candidate you ever have supported or support in the future apologizes for your comment.
Jen
I know it’s 10:00 on Sunday, but can we get a new thread? There’s a really boring flame war on this one….please? I’ll even discuss vacuums again.
Jen
All right, fine, I’m going to watch some free Netflix on demand stuff. I’ve never done that before. I have to use IE.
Tsulagi
If I were voting for one of the three top Dem candidates in the primary, my order would be…
Edwards
Clinton
Obama
That was made clearer at the last Dem debate featuring those three. On Iraq, Edwards gave the best answer. Clinton gave decent/good. Obama served up a long-winded transcending waffle. On healthcare, Edwards and Clinton both said they advocated universal healthcare. Obama poured some more batter into the Transcender Waffle Maker 2008.
But he sure sounds good, doesn’t he? Since Obama’s site is reportedly just chock full of wonderful policies and positions, maybe his supporters should point him toward it. Maybe could help him do less transcending and better answering of direct questions.
Adam
Also, John, I think that your argument answers itself. You have been consistent about pointing out “what if Hillary got this power?” for the last couple years, and that’s no less the issue today.
Job one — before the economy, health care, everything else — is rolling back the legal damage that’s been done to the government over the last 8 years. It means no more VP “4th branch,” no more signing statements, no more invoking executive privilege to avoid discussing your favored brand of toilet paper.
On one hand, the notion that Hillary or any of the GOP candidates will do this is, as you’ve said, laughable.
On the other hand, Obama is a constitutional law professor and a stand-up guy who seems to respect the system.
But aside from that, the “magical unity pony” is, as far as I’m concerned, probably the only way that we’re ever going to get the political opportunity to make things right again. The “moment of unity” doesn’t have to be permanent or very deep — it just has to be enough of a stand-down for the two sides to agree to mutual disarmament.
I think that if we don’t have that moment now, we’re never going to get it. Clinton will abuse the power of the office for at least another term, and it’ll be all downhill from there.
And finally, with regard to your point about getting payback, I’d say two things.
First, that Daniel is right about Ollie North, Eliot Abrams, et al., above. I mean, what are your current feelings on Sandy Berger? The problem is cronyism and nepotism on both sides (cf. Wolfowitz), with one set of bastards replacing the others every 4-8 years — besides Obama, I don’t think anyone else has even a prayer of breaking that cycle, and a “magical unity pony” stand-down could well be a precondition to breaking it.
Second, I think that I frankly have a lot more faith in a working government to do justice than the one we have now, no matter who’s running it. For example, one of the worst offenses of the Bush Administration is the damage they’ve done to the DoJ, by chasing away many career officials through overt politicization. Many of those people have served under Republican and Democratic Administrations, and many have left because of the toxic environment. Prosecuting the Scooter Libbys and Dick Cheneys of the world isn’t just in the hands of the current Administration. It requires the contribution of people like James Comey, Richard Clarke, Pat Fitzgerald, and Daniel Metcalfe.
When you talk about “payback,” I don’t think you mean just “revenge” — you also mean “justice,” which depends on the fundamental fairness and competence of the system and the people who keep it running across the decades. What we lost under Bush was a professional government, and that issue goes far deeper than specific policy proposals. All told, it was psychotic fanaticism that killed it, and I’m inclined to think that it’ll require some starry-eyed idealism to get it back.
Bill Arnold
It’s the attempts to slime Obama with anti-semitism that have been circulating that have me more worried. For full detail, heavy on innuendo, guilt-by-association, unquestioning assumptions of correctness of Jewish right-wing talking points, etc, and remarkably light on substance, see a piece called Barack Obama and Israel in “American Thinker”. (This is being forwarded a lot in emails.)
This is a strong indication that the year will be brimming with noxious slime.
crayz
I’m an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but am quite willing to admit that many of the people posting comments on political blogs are playing the race card far too eagerly in this election
That said, to not at this point recognize that the Clinton’s have been using a deliberate ‘southern strategy’ to fracture Obama’s coalition is just willful ignorance. There’s a reason it’s called “dog whistle” racism
DougJ
Good for you, Jen. Red state progressives are the best.
Keep on rocking in the free world.
Adam
This is a strong indication that the year will be brimming with noxious slime.
That’s inevitable. Personally, I’d rather see nonsense about Obama’s middle name and his ties to the Great Zionist Conspiracy than a discussion about the donors to the Clinton Presidential Library, but I don’t think the slander issue cuts one way or the other: it could backfire, one candidate might handle it better, there might be things we don’t yet know about, etc. And as of now, the anti-Obama stuff I’ve seen has mostly been nutjob territory — and I’m sure the Clinton campaign has been looking — whereas there’s no lack of nasty things that have been and still could be said about Hillary by any stretch of the imagination.
Frankly, I’m sure if there’s some bombshell ready to be dropped about Obama, the Clinton campaign will let us know in time for them to win the nomination. However, I’m not confident that the reverse is true. But if madrassa smears are the best they’ve got, that doesn’t exactly leave me quaking in my boots.
demimondian
There’s a key difference between trial and impeachment. Trial attempts to punish a person. Impeachment doesn’t punish a person — that’s not the point of removal — it removes them from direct power. It’s a deterrent, not a solution.
Sandy Berger got tried, and punished, and that’s the end of that. He won’t be back, because no Democrat will take him in (Hillary treated him like something she’d stepped in when he tried to limpet himself to her campaign, after all.) Evidently, Wolfowitz, Abrams, Gonzales, Cheney, and their chums don’t live by those polite agreements, and so we need to force their hands — behave like this, and we will ban you from future service.
Lavocat
Well, the gender and race cards are out on the table.
That’s nothing.
I’m just waiting for the lesbian card to be played.
Lots of smoke and no fire.
Should be interesting.
incontrolados
Jen, for someone who showed up here much after me . . . well you showed your hand here. So what do you want? Another thread where you can WOW the guys because you are supposedly a girl?
incontrolados
Just like the man-girl I work with. Typical.
The Other Steve
I really don’t see a problem with either candidate. I happen to prefer Obama, because I think he offers the most substance, as well as the ability to speak about issues in a manner which I find is appealing to a broader audience.
It’s that simple.
incontrolados
Wolfowitz can’t survive without the teet, so look for him to join a think tank. Abrams is done until another republican is elected, Gonzales is complete toast — look for him as a waiter at your local Arbies. Cheney will sputter and die and then we’ll have a divisive furneral. I still remember my mom having a senior moment and saying in passing to me, “wasn’t Cheney a good speaker at Ford’s funeral?” Yes, mom, just like it’s nice that the local sports team hires a non-black. I actually told her that I could live the rest of my life without hearing another word from the man. But you get the picture.
I’m still in Edwards’ corner and haven’t given up, but Obama/Edwards ’08 and ’12 would make my life complete. I could just go ahead and die.
demimondian
Ah. So you think that Jen is a man pretending to be a woman, inc? Well, I suppose that’s possible, although, from my experience with women posting on the web, unlikely. Then again, as a man, I’m more likely to be taken in than you are.
What’s the particular cue you find problematical? Going back to the discussion in Spanish, I don’t recall any screwed up gender markers on any of the words…
wasabi gasp
Obama/Edwards 12″ and 8″
demimondian
Obama/Edwards? God, I hope not; I still have it in for Edwards from his last VP run. I suppose it says something bad about me, but I fear for Obama, so I don’t view his VP choice as unimportant.
I want to see Cheney disgraced, so that he can’t have the faux news funeral when he dies. I think it’s important that we call out monsters when they arise from among us.
LiberalTarian
Oh good.
Pooch not as screwed as I thought.
The Other Steve
Yeah, picking Edwards as VP would be a worse mistake than it was in 2004.
wasabi gasp
obamabiden – the bambi ticket
The Other Steve
I think McCain is going to end up winning here in Minnesota. So Captain Ed can caucus for Ron Paul for all the good it’ll do him.
Darkness
How could that possibly stick? Everyone knows she’s sleeping with Barrack. Or was that Condi? Gosh, I get these black people all confused. Well, she’s sleeping with someone, anyway. Lord knows it’s not Bill.
One thing I was surprised about at the start of the debate cycle is how far Edwards has come from vapid cheerleader, which was the impression I got previously. He’s come a long way.
Darkness
You’re one of those people who measures from the bottom, aren’t you?
incontrolados
Always have. And the demanding for an open thread is telling.
But hey, that’s not my main point. I just like to point that sort of shit out. For fun.
wasabi you are nasty.
so, demi, we disagree. So?
Your fear for Obama is the fear that I have had from the beginning. It is not the reason for my support of Edwards, since I support him because of his policies, but I worry about Obama, too. I remember an interview that the Obamas gave to 60 Minutes and Michelle Obama brought up (IIRC) Colin Powell’s wife’s objection to her husband running for pres — the first truly possible (and I was a Jackson DELEGATE to the TEXAS state convention) African-American to seek the top office is marked.
It worries me too all get out.
I remember when Bill Bennett called me nasty on the air to millions!!!! of listeners. It was over a year ago, but hey, it was good.
Nellcote
BTW: Wolfowitz just got hired back at the State Dept.
wasabi gasp
Presidents get measured in increments of four.
demimondian
That’s harder than getting Malkin to call you a kook, even.
How did you earn that honor?
incontrolados
What?
incontrolados
Oh, and I refrained from jumping into the analogy about dogs and cats that happened up thread, but . . .
I have a chocolate colored lab pup that needs a good home — his name is Murphy and
I used to live with a black lab who would — and proved it — die for me.
The cats would just hide under the bed. I think the alley cat in the analogy would be like the Coupon Cat in my neighborhood — too stupid to get the squirt bottle treatment.
Adam
Yeah — I Am Not A [Constitutional] Lawyer, but I know that of which I speak :) That’s part of the argument, though — in order to have effective trials, you need a competent DoJ, which we don’t have, and politicization is a large part of the reason for that — I highly encourage you to read the Metcalfe article I linked.
Also, as far as Sandy Berger, I was trying to make a broader point about the revolving door, but in this case I think the point makes itself. Hillary’s response to the rumor that Berger was advising her was not exactly a resounding rejection:
That’s pretty tepid. But Berger’s not really my concern. I’m not making predictions either way — the underlying point here is that John’s objection to nepotism Re: Wolfowitz applies to Clinton as well — and in any event much more so than it does to Obama.
Simply put, Hillary’s ties to the DC establishment are one of the selling points her campaign promotes (i.e., “experience,” etc.), but those ties don’t come without baggage. Depending on your political bent, you might approve or disapprove of a candidate’s inner circle to whatever degree, but it is what it is.
If your concern is that there needs to be a partial “reset” on behalf of the experienced career bureaucrats and the government overall — and that is my main concern in this campaign — then I think that is a concrete reason to worry about a Clinton administration, and moreover, a tangible benefit to the potential standdown which Obama’s supposed “magical unity pony” represents, regardless of how ephemeral that reconciliation might be. There needs to be some window of opportunity to stop the continual raising of the stakes that’s spread from Congress to the entire federal government over the last few decades, and Hillary Clinton simply isn’t in a position to do it.
wasabi gasp
obamabidenScratch obamabiden.
I’m switchen’ to obamabuntu.
incontrolados
demi, I wrote Bennett an email that he read on the air — a little over a year ago. I called him on having Kagen on his show and not identifying that Kagen was the author of the surge. If you are premium member, I guess you could look it up.
In my email that he read until he trailed off and called me nasty, I pointed out that he had not made the fact clear.
Not that I’m being clear, but you get it.
wasabi gasp
OT: Asian markets are currently dumping.
Adam
wasabi: link?
wasabi gasp
Bloomberg
incontrolados
racist
incontrolados
If Jen joined and then reported back on this group, I would believe she is female.
Conservatively Liberal
I think the reason the 2006 Democratic wave has stalled (regarding Bush, Iraq, FISA and so on) is because far too many democrats were complicit in letting Bush get away with what he has done. If the past is examined too closely, I am convinced that some democratic officeholders would be very embarrassed by what comes out.
The chickenshit cave-in of October 2002 was the start of it, IMO. Bush knew the best time to hit them with the AUMF was when they were the weakest, right before the election. Bush handled it beautifully and herded the democrats into giving him his authorization for war. Most of the Democrats folded like a house of cards. Principle? Not when there is an election coming up! Gotta do what is right for me, not the country!
Efforts to stop Bush have been all show and no go regarding the democrats. Their hearts are not in it, and I believe they just want the whole thing to go away. I think Bush bullied/snookered enough democrats into what he wanted so that it would hinder any investigation down the road.
Gotta hand it to Rove (who I believe was the conductor of this orchestra of corruption) though, he really worked the system over royally.
John, anyone who knows anything knows that if Obama started calling for heads after he wins office, it would be instant fodder for the Mighty Right Wing Wurlitzer.
Do the math. Hillary and her multiple problems subtract from the Democratic party. Division is not going to win this battle for us, but lots of addition will.
wasabi gasp
I just noticed you called me nasty, icantaloupes. And, then went on to bask yer nasty. You got the sweets fer the wasabi. =)
DougJ
You mean she’s like a liberal Ann Coulter?
DougJ
Anybody who canvasses for Democrats in a deep red state gets a WOW from me.
incontrolados
no doubt
incontrolados
Dougie, that’s way weak.
wasabi gasp
{{ straightens pajama collar }}
incontrolados
Then that’s a WOW for me Dougie. From way back in the Bush gov years.
demimondian
I confess that I wish I could take your chocolate lab, inc — I love dogs. Unfortunately, I love breathing somewhat more, and I find that, personally, just speaking for myself, I can have one or the other, but not both.
So, no dogs in the demi-bunker. Also, no birds, rats, or mice. (FDDD has her share of unfortunate veterinary reactions.)
incontrolados
wasabi, just fine as you are ;)
incontrolados
demi — it’s not a problem — I’m going to take them on an adoption day next Saturday — with a box of tissues — they will find homes on that day and things will be back to normal.
My crush on wasabi will continue, though. (I also have a crush on Zifnab, but he’s not here.)
Cain
shorter: obuntu – an operating system that will transcend windows.
cain
incontrolados
I was just playin’ cain.
demimondian
Actually, cain, the Linux distro is Ubuntu — I run it on a couple machines here and at work. I know that the transliteration isn’t exact, but that’s what Shuttleworth calls it, so that’s what it is. :)
wasabi gasp
Zifnab, huh?
I get like 3 drunk insomniacs watching us. How many people do you call Zifnub nasty in front of?
incontrolados
clearly there has been no new thread.
Zifnab is local.
you, wasabi, are celestial.
DougJ
No wow for you, inc. If your offline persona is anything like your online one, you only scared the voters.
incontrolados
Like I would take your word for shit, Dougie.
demimondian
Isn’t that the point, DougJ? I mean, when I canvass, I go to the door and say “You! You are going to the polls to vote for [candidate], or I am going to know why!”
Is there a problem with that?
wasabi gasp
Not if you’re decked out in leather and heels and carrying a whip.
Darkness
Speak for yourself. I’m not an insomniac. I love sleep. It’s only 8:30 here.
But you are amusing and in the case of Wasabi and incontrolados, pukingly sweet.
I’ve read studies on gender and postings. An average person can’t really tell male from female with much reliability if topic is taken out of the equation (i.e., a post on alt.weddings is a dead give-away).
Beej
I haven’t read the whole comment section, so someone may have addressed this already, but, John, beyond appointing a special prosecutor to look into the “high crimes and misdemeanors” of the previous administration and giving them plenty of latitude to go wherever the evidence takes them, there isn’t a great deal a president can do to see to it that justice is done. What a president can do is suggest ways to set the the Constitution back at the center of our legal system and help along the Congressional effort to close the loopholes through which Bushco tried their subversion and sign any necessary laws to deal with said loopholes.
Cain
Oh, I know. I run it myself here at home and at work. We’re a big linux shop at work. I was trying to make a funny, which apparently fell flat on it’s face!
Shuttleworth is an interesting character. Very intense guy.
cain
Chuck Butcher
Demi, (this in answer previous post)
The Ballot said WJ Clinton, not Hillary. The impeachment articles were written on WJC. Vote and responsibility are the candidate’s not the wifey. Exactly one person has that role and it ain’t the wife. She gets a free pass on every damn thing. yeah, the nutjob right hates her for being out there. Out there is not the same thing. The President speaks for the President, sometimes the VP does it, the wife is the wife.
I have no idea what drum it is that you are beating. If you want to tout that health plan, then do it. It was a freaking disaster, at least partly because SHE laid no groundwork for it. Why? Because she had NO role that allowed for it, no hammer to swing and no favors to offer and NO constituency. NOT ELECTED, whatever bs campaign momentary slogan. 2 fer? Keeripes, Mitt says, “Change”
You want to toss around credit for that Admin for her? Well then how about the disasters? Since you seem to think she give’s a rat’s patoot about plain Americans, why don’t you check income growth by 20th percentiles and then take a look at the 0.1% during that Admin? Admittedly not nearly as bad as BushCo’s but take a gander and see how it makes you feel all warm and cozy.
You really want to take a stroll down the past? Why don’t you take a look at her voting record in the Senate? She’s real good at the earmarks trough, see who benefitted there. I don’t dislike Hillary because of anything the right ever had to say about her, I dislike her because of her voting record and her clique and their positions. Read some Howard Wolfson stuff, find out who her big dog is, you make progressive noises now and again, you won’t like him if they’re real views. He’s a DLC prick now, he was worse before.
Tim
John, yes the general election will be ugly, and this is true regardless of the Democratic candidate. But you’re wrong if you think Democrats would be better off defending Bill’s post-presidential sex-life than the mud the Republicans will throw at Obama.
I’d rather say “fuck you” to racists rather than women who claim Bill sodomized them.
Redhand
Time was I had some respect for “Captain Ed,” but it’s been waning for some time, and this pretty much ends it. How could anybody with half a brain support a whore like Mitt Romney?
Jake
Because he’s their whore. I’ve come to the conclusion that to our friends on the Right, blatant lying is a sign of strength. “Ha, ha, we can say whatever we want and you can’t do nuthin’ about it!”
Or maybe they know Romney is the one who’ll tell them everything is all right even as giant cockroaches knock down buildings.
A question: Does this mean Romney has “transcended” religion?
dslak
Especially since Bill seems to do a pretty good job of taking care of that, himself.
Jen
What is WRONG with that chick? Is it her mission in life to annoy me?
Richard Bottoms
As someone who loves Hillary, I am considering Obama for the first time in the California primary because now it looks like his tussle with Ms. Clinton may have woken his campaign up just enough to know a hard rain is going to come if he wins the nomination.
The second reason I am suporting him is I know the Republicans slobbering all over his dick will desert him once they get in the voting booth, lying bastards that they all are.
It is a 3% election and I don’t give a damn for anyone who voted GOP in 2004 who say they now see they light.
Fuck em.
Obama will win by a small margin. But we will kick the living shit out of the GOP in the Congress.
Zifnab
Wow. I don’t even post in a thread and people are talking about me. And what they are saying is mildly complementary. I think I’m blushing.
Zifnab
Cheers to that. I’ll vote for Hillary in the general, if I’m forced to do so. But I won’t touch her in the primary except as a last resort. I honestly suspect that Obama has been co-opted by the Democratic Machine enough to make him less than ideal. But Clinton sold out a long, long time ago. She’s Republican-Lite, which probably translates to “competent government that will whore for its corporate masters” as opposed to “incompetent government that will whore the rest of us out to its corporate masters”, so she’s better than the current crop of Rethuglicans running, but not by enough.
demimondian
Zif, Chuck…want to list the votes you think mark her as Republican-lite? Did you know that of the current candidates, she’s got the most “progressive” voting record in the Senate?
Zifnab
I don’t know what the hell that means. John Kerry was the “third most liberal Senator” back in ’04, for all that was worth.
She voted “Yes” on border fences. “Yes” on Real IDs. “Yes” on ANWR Oil Drilling in ’03. She gave a “Yes” vote on the “English as the Common Language” amendment. She has a hard time finding a Defense bill she doesn’t like, or an Iraq bill she won’t vote for. She put a yes in for the “Iran’s military corps are terrorists” resolution.
And while her voting record is generally in-line with the party, you could say the same of Harry Reid or Dianne Feinstein or even Joe Lieberman, all of whom have been a thorn in the side of progressives for the last decade. The issues she has been most vocal on in the last decade – flag burning, violence in video games, “it takes a village” social rhetoric – have not helped progress the country. She was generally silent during the Alito and Roberts confirmations. She voted once for the Iraq Authorization of Force bill and failed to take the lead later in opposition to further funding. Her long term goals for Iraq consist of a 40k troop presence through the end of 2012.
Then you’ve got her husband’s history in office. He supported NAFTA, “reformed” welfare, and ushered us into a recession caused by lax oversight of energy companies and dot com traders. In the name of “bipartisanship”, Bill committed many of the same sins as his successor – from launching an unprovoked “Desert Fox” attack on Iraq to handling union-busters like Walmart with kid gloves – and achieved proportionately dismal results.
The ties between the DLC, an organization within the Democratic Caucus that hold strong ties to Joe Lieberman and animosity towards Howard Dean, and the Clintons are strong.
All this poisons my opinion of a Hillary Clinton Presidency. While Bill was a welcome relief from the Reagen-esque policies of the 80s, he did little but pave the way for the Bush policies of the new century. We don’t need another 8 years of Clinton, even if the Clintons are more progressive than their Republican counterparts.
Chuck Butcher
Demi, I don’t give a damn if a candidate is male, female, or damn green Martian, I care about my fellow citizens. I’ve got enough edges in intellect, health, and drive to keep my family out of absolute poverty, but that isn’t a general case. I also would like to see some of my investment in tools, insurance, years of experience, etc do a bit more than keep the wolf off the door. I do NOT need a repeat of the last 20 years and HRC is that and worse.
I don’t want a 2fer, I want some different direction. I won’t get most of what I want, probably not in my lifetime, but pushing in that direction is not apathy and it is not oh poor me and it is not phony feminist advancement.
You do not do my kind of work without a very large practical streak, I have one, but I also know that a screwed up foundation follows all the way through a building and it does with a politician as well. Materials count and so does the work force, Wolfson is the work force and the materials are in his writings. Hillary is an empty political vessel serving whatever power interest will get her money.
I blame the citizens of this country for this pass, 40% won’t vote, 90% won’t contribute to a politcal campaign, 40% abdicated from Party politics through “Independent,” and a whole damn bunch will vote on stupid shit like race, gender, religion, prettiness.
I know what Edward’s voting record was, and I also know that he’s spent over 2 years trying to make up for it. Hillary and Obama seem to half-wakened at the Primaries. I don’t have great choices, I don’t even have good choices, but there is one very bad choice I won’t make other than in a General.
You and others can scoff at my 2nd Amendment stances, but I will point out to you that it is exactly #2 in the BOR, and no different than #4 or #1, or you take your pick. You think someone who is anti-BOR is going to look out for it? You don’t get to pick which one you like and the rest can go hang, that is the point of the damn document. The WHOLE point of it. You can amend the thing, but it is law that precedes and preempts the Constitution, if you don’t know that, you better find out what you’re doing.
The Framers looked at the Constitution they were putting together and said, we’ve got all these checks and balances, but you know how governement is, we’ll codify some things that are so basic that NO responsible form of government can interfere with them because they pre-date all government. Authoritarians dismiss that.