The following are not reasons to vote for your candidate:
1.) Because there have been sexist attacks leveled against Hillary Clinton– Yes. There have been sexist and nasty attacks leveled at Hillary. There may be a group of people who are not voting for her because they are sexist, misogynist, choose your word. But just because there are those folks out there, it does not mean I have to vote for her to make up for it. Additionally, just because I am choosing to vote for someone else does not mean that I am a sexist womyn hater.
2.) The media has an anti-Clinton narrative– I would agree with that aspect of Krugman’s column. There is an anti-Clinton narrative out there. But the fact that many in the media hate the Clintons is NOT a reason for me to vote for them. if anything, it is a sign of what will come should Clinton win. And while we are at it, check out the following equations:
Vote for the Republicans or the terrorists win.
Vote for Hillary or the media wins.
I don’t find either one to be very compelling.
3.) Some Obama supporters are fanbois and he has a cult of personality– Undeniably true. Some Obama supporters are way over the top. I have, myself, mocked the magical unity pony and the Jonestownesque followers. But why is this a reason to vote for Hillary?
So if all you can do when you come in here, pitching a fit about my refusal to support Hillary in the primaries (knowing full well I will vote for her in the general election should she win the nomination) is to list these three things- “ZOMG Hillary is the victim of sexist attacks” or “ZOMG the media is unfair” or “ZOMG Obama has fanbois,” just please spare us all the time and effort of reading your drivel. If you can give me some reasons why I should choose Hillary over Obama other than the previously listed items (offenses?), have at it. Otherwise, put a sock in it.
Zifnab
Can I add?:
4) Because her husband was a good President and therefore she will be a good president, too.
See: Bush, George Jr.
Dumbass logic gets you dumbass Presidents. I regret thinking this back in 2000, even if I did throw my support to Gore in the end.
Oh, also:
5) Because the right wing hates her.
If I had a nickel for every person Rush Limbaugh hated, I’d be banging high class transvestite hookers while downing bucketfuls of oxycotin-laced barbeque sauce in some resort in the Dominican Republic.
They hate Ward Churchill and Cat Stevens too. But I wouldn’t run either of those guys for President.
HumboldtBlue
I agree completely, although we don’t want to read drivel, as opposed to dribble.
Ugh
As if Clinton doesn’t have fangirlz.
John Cole
Thanks, fixed. I honestly think there is somethign wrong with me. I am only 37 but I am getting worse and worse with homonym’s- their/there, etc. It was never a problem before, but it is happening all the time now. I wonder if I am just rushing or this is just normal aging?
Kevin K.
Bravo, you misogynistic, Chris-Matthews-humping, Obama zombie!
John Cole
And I just said homonym when I meant homophone.
/wrist.
Pixie
I voted for Clinton, but in retrospect, I would have cast my vote for Obama had I not been too lazy to actually look at his platform. Yes, she seems to have more detailed answers for things, but she almost seems Bush-lite. Obama’s progressive ideals are closer to my own, therefore, I’d like to see him win it =) Either way, our nominee will pwn the republican nominee whether it be the warmonger or the snake handler.
PS- ZOMG!!!one!111eleven!!! Obama is teh dreamiest!!!
c. murphy
re your equations I would point out that the first one is false while the second is true, and sticking it to the media who have systematically debased political debate out of their hatred for the Clintons ain’t such a bad reason for supporting Hillary
CFisher
If you really like the status quo, but want more domestic spending too.
Wilfred
It’s called Hillary guilt. It means you’re too stupid to think for yourself so the only reason you won’t vote for her is because you’re a fucked-up misogynist who wants the jihadis to win so that Hillary will have to wear a burqa.
If you can live with yourself knowing that’s true then go ahead, be my guest. Because what I really want is for you to be happy, more than anything, happy with yourself. You say you don’t want me, but that’s just the little boy in you being afraid that the other boys will laugh at you. Cause that’s what you really are, you know.
No, I mean it, just go. I’ll be ok, we’ll get by. You never loved me, you never cared about your own family, so why should we matter. So go, walk out that door, don’t turn around now, cuz you’re not welcome here no more. But just remember one thing before you go (insert tape, playback as needed)
Jake
Can we vote for Obama because there have been racist attacks against him?
What about the Madrassa thing?
Zifnab
That’s gay.
Bubblegum Tate
Yes, but I learned something about this over at the always-educational Blogs for Victory (nee Blogs for Bush). You see, the media is in total cahoots with the Clintonistas. ALways has been, always will be. So what looks like an anti-Clinton narrative to the unwingnutty eye is actually a very clever campaign to prop up Obama and talk down Hillary so that when, not if, she wins the nomination (with the assistance of the aforementioned media, naturally), she looks that much more triumphant for overcoming not just Obama, but the hatred of the media as well.
Really. One thing I have learned about Mark Noonan is that when he says stupid shit like that, he is not at all kidding.
mrmobi
John, you’re taking these Hillary supporters too seriously. As a life-long Democrat, I’m delighted with both of our candidates this year. I thought the last debate was both substantive and refreshingly civil.
As someone who started visiting here about the time you came out against torture, I’m gratified to see how much your comprehension of our national dysfunction has changed. I’m not a progressive who thinks we don’t need conservatism. We just need conservatism that is consistent with actual conservative principles.
I also agree with you that this has not been that nasty a campaign. Both sides want to win, did people think that this was going to be a tea party?
This comment of yours, for me, says it all:
You have come far, grasshopper, and you are not alone. My dearest friend in all the world is a life-long Republican. He and I were talking recently and, even though we generally don’t talk politics, I asked him who he was supporting for POTUS. His response, “Obama.” When I asked him to explain this, he said he was “disgusted with the Republican Party.”
mrmobi
Sounds like not enough sleep to me.
John S.
Vote for a Democrat he will, even though Republican he is. Fascinatng.
The Magic Unity Pony is strong with that one.
Blue Jean
Bubblegum Tate,
I’m one of the Hillary voters who has the opposite, (though perhaps equally paranoid) reaction; Peggy Noonan, Bill Kristol, etc. are setting up Obama for a fall.
jcricket
Ditto. And I’m a Hillary supporter, although I don’t fall prey to the ZOMG! stuff at all.
I myself am thinking of changing my vote to Zod. He most clearly articulates his position (“Kneel before Zod”), and never seems to waver in his beliefs.
Uncomplicated, Uncompromising, Powerful. Vote Zod/Bloomberg 2008!
Billy K
You cannot win. For if you strike him down, the Magical Unity Pony will become stronger than you can possibly imagine.
Ed Drone
That reminds me of the truly asinine “Manchurian Candidate” BS about Obama. My thoughts about that:
If the radical Muslims can plan so far ahead as to prepare a candidate 40 years ahead of their need for him, then we’re S.O.L. anyway.
Really! If their thinking is so many years and strategic moves and unnoticed plots and unexpected events and all other such things ahead of our thinking, then we have NO chance at all. None. We should just give up now and start pulling back (or make doomsday plans to take the world with us) — OMG! THAT’S WHY BUSH REFUSES TO ATTACK GLOBAL WARMING!!! It’s their plan to ‘defend’ us against the wily brown menace.
Think about it!
Run!!!
Hide!!!
Explode your brain!!!
(You know, paranoia is contagious.)
Excuse me, I have a fall-out shelter to build.
Ed
Paul L.
I am surprised that no one has taken issue with that statement.
Yes We Can – Barack Obama Music Video
mrmobi
Although I have been an Obama supporter since I first saw him speak at the last Democratic Convention, I would consider changing my vote if Flying Spaghetti Monster decided to jump into the race.
demimondian
I have met pretty vitriolic Obama supporters, some of whom really had (or have) lost touch with the fact that Clinton is a superbly qualified candidate. That she may not be the most qualified candidate we have this year is our fantastic luck, as well as the nation’s.
Does that mean she should get my vote? I don’t see why, just because she absolutely would any other year. On the other hand, I’m not going to sit odly by and let D-Chance observe, darkly, that
.
John S.
After watching that I have the sudden urge to give you a glass of Kool-Aid laced with poison.
Oh wait, that isn’t how it’s supposed to work.
Doubting Thomas
John,
I think there are a lot of Hillary supporters who aren’t upset that you’re voting for Obama and won’t try to stop you. I think you only hear from Hillary’s rabid crazed supporters just as I think Krugman only hears from Obama’s rabid crazed supporters.
I think most dems in the this country are where you. We have a preference, but will vote for whoever the nominee is and think both candidates are far superior to any of the Republicans.
As usual, the extremes on both sides tend to paint an ugly picture on the most civil political contest I’ve seen in 40 years!
Ed Drone
Hmmm… Whycome my exclamation points (multiple, naturally) disappeared from the previous post? Is there a magical exclamation point-remover in operation?
Let’s test it out!
Let’s test it out!!
Let’s test it out!!!
Let’s test it out!!!!
Now to post! Nyah-hah-hah-hah!!!!?!
Ed
jcricket
I think we (Democrats) need to get a f*ing grip. Sure, some Republicans are “supporting” Clinton or Obama, and they probably think they can beat either, but they’re just playing games with your head. They don’t think of it that way, but don’t give them super-hero status when they don’t deserve it. It’s like ascribing god-like power to Karl Rove. He was a good strategist, but was never unbeatable.
Both our candidates have negatives the Republicans can and will play up, so let’s not fool ourselves that nominating either one is an easy win. The latest “national polling”, FWIW, show’s both Hillary and Obama narrowly beating McCain, with Obama having a slight edge (still within the margin of error).
So while I’m confident Dems will retake the WH next fall, let’s not think there’s any “nominate candidate X and then sail on to victory”. Although I do think a Hillary + Obama ticket would be the “real” MUP.
Wonder-twin powers activate?
John S.
Fixed for vitriole.
ThymeZone
Dude, with that kind of money, you can get real hookers.
I mean, if you want them.
Jen
The defense presents Exhibit A. Exhibit A is a 1992-era bumper sticker which reads “Annoy the Media: Re-elect President Bush”.
John, you need a wife. They’ll make you live longer. Well, she, I guess I mean. You seem to have early-onset Alzheimer’s, and I wouldn’t waste any more time. O/T sort of, but this is a funny list.
John S.
Fixed for spelling.
demimondian
Actually, mrmobi, I think that the various news media organizations are distraught that they haven’t been able to create a 1968 convention. They know that there’s enough anger out there, and an internecine war would get great ratings, so they’re cheering for injuries.
jcricket
So what you’re saying is the MUP is basically like the Hulk. The more you make him angry/hit him, the stronger he gets.
Jake
When Americans use logic the tarrists win.
demimondian
Yeah, Paul, it’s a great video. I don’t see what it has to do with the Duke Lacrosse team, though?
ThymeZone
Nah, just rushing. Aging is when you can’t remember your name, and don’t really give a shit.
demimondian
Hey, Herb, do you remember your name any more?
jcricket
Yes, let’s start selling the race as Democrats deciding between Super Duper, and merely Super. Seriously.
We need to carry the passion and energy and GOTV efforts of both sides into the general election. I don’t care if Obama supporters think the independents and Republicans will all vote for Obama (I have my doubts). If Dems turn out in record numbers, we can’t help but win, even if we don’t pull a Reagan and take 49 states.
Shade Tail
Mr. Cole: **A-MEN**.
I’m really tired of the democrat trolls that exist in *both* camps. Clinton people bringing up the sexism thing, which is real and makes me sympathetic to her but doesn’t buy my vote. Obama people claiming their candidate is somehow immune to GOP smears, as if the GOP won’t be able to invent lies about Obama out of thin air like they did to the Clintons. And on and on and on. You just can’t get away from it on any serious politics blog anymore.
I’m an Obama supporter, but I’m embarrassed by the antics of the vocal minorities from both sides. The NYT’s Krugman is right; it’s like Nixon has basically taken over the entire American political system.
Billy K
I imagine the MUP as a glowing, glitter-ensconced, life-sized My Little Pony.
ThymeZone
I have people to remember it for me.
Cyrus
True or not, I’d say that neither matters. In 1942 (Godwin!) someone could have said (and many did say) that we should support Hitler or else Stalin would win. They were 100 percent correct about the facts of it, but supporting Hitler would still have been a horrible thing for America to do. To put it in less inflammatory terms, in real life, not everything is a zero-sum game, and it’s simply not always the case that the enemy of your enemy is your friend.
p.lukasiak
in quick succession, John quotes approvingly about a venomou attack on Clinton by Frank Rich…
wonders why Krugman would say that the campaign has been venomous (notwithstanding the swift-boating of the Clinton on the race issue)
launches a venomous attack on Hillary supporters….
Here’s a clue, John. There were very few vocal Hillary supporters on-line prior to this becoming a two-person race. There were lots of people defending Hillary from attacks against her—something which you claim to have done. These people were complaining about Obama’s fanbois and the media’s treatment of Hillary (including misogyny) before they supported Hillary.
Most of the people who are now supporting Hillary are doing so because they compared the two candidates that are still standing, and finding that Hillary is far superior. And they’re still complaining about the fanbois, and the media attacks.
I support Hillary because she understands the issues, and the real challenges, that face this country and the next President. And while Obama may (or may not) try to achieve more of what I think needs to be achieved, I don’t see him having the political chops to get things done (or deal with the GOP attack machine that will come after him if he gets the nomination.) Hillary may not govern as a progressive, but at least I know that she’ll get the job done.
ThymeZone
What?
LarryB
My support for HRC in the primary comes down to disbelief in the Obama unity message in the context of governing, not campaigning. I freely admit that Obama is a better bet for getting crossover votes in the general (all of the Hillary-hatin’ in this thread and others speaks for itself). I question, though, whether any of that crossover appeal will translate to D.C. As John has noted over and over, the GOP party has been taken over by fringe elements who exert draconian dicipline on their Congress critters. What is the chance that any of these people will be allowed to join in a centrist movement based on Democratic values, no matter how inspirationally expressed? Given recent history, I’d say little to none. That means, to me, that the next President will need a strong base of Party support to accomplish anything. So, take your pick: a) Vote for Obama because he may have a better chance of getting elected; or b) Vote for Clinton because she may understand better what it will take to govern against the intransigence of a fanatic opposition.
John Cole
I will grant you that Rich’s column was ascerbic, but I still think Krugman is wildly overstating how nasty this overall campaign has been, and I flat out reject that this was somehow a venomous attack on Hillary supporterts.
crw
Yes, it is a bad reason for supporting Hillary, because supporting Hillary doesn’t do anything to “stick it to media.” As long as the anti-Hillary media narrative sells, they will keep pushing it. As long as taking a steaming dump on the political discourse sells, they will keep doing so. The problem with this line of thinking is it anthropomorphizes “the media” as an artificial person with feelings. The media is a collective endeavor interested mainly in profit. Individual people in the media have feelings, and seeing Hillary win might tweak them. But the media as a whole? No, it’s just another story to dramatize for profit.
The only true way to stick it to the media is to vote with your eyeballs/dollars. Don’t buy their product. Don’t ingest their memes. Do support better alternatives.
But voting for Hillary? Do it because you like her as a candidate, not because you think a Hillary victory will hurt the media. Because it wont.
Emma Anne
You were right the first time, John. This has been a relatively polite, gracious, respectful campaign, and I think that the folks drumming up hostility and angst are just bored with primary season (what’s *your* excuse, by the way?)
But since you invited Hillary supporters to respond and there aren’t any here (I’m an Edwards fan, but I did caucus for Hillary), let me try. The following are not reasons to not vote for Hillary:
1. The press hatres her and will give her a really hard time in a general election. This is true, but irrelevent, because they will do the same thing to Obama. They always do this to Dems. They turned serious, quiet policy wonk Gore into a serial liar. They turned war hero Kerry into a cowardly faker. They will use anything, and if there isn’t anything, they’ll make it up. Personally, I think that Obama probably knows this and is ready, but I’m not sure his supporters really understand what is coming his way.
2. The Clintons are corrupt and dishonest and viscious. No they aren’t. They are just politicians, spinning things their own way, just like any other politician, including Obama. I see people bring up Whitewater, for God’s sake. That deal Starr spent millions investigating and couldn’t find anything?
3. Obama will win and Hillary won’t. Either of them will win this year, by a lot. It is a Dem year anyway, and McCain loves the war.
4. Hillary is a big whiner. Naw. See (2) above. She spins things the best she can, for campaigning advantage. So does Obama. This very site spun the Herbert column to be dead on about Hillary and the Krugman column to be unfair and biased about Obama – I’m sure a pro-Hillary site would take the opposite view on each. Both sides try to act pure and picked on, so long as it works.
John Cole
That is one hell of a bumpersticker. Was “They’re boxy, but they’re good” taken?
Johnny Pez
Or I’ll kick you in the junk.
(Hey, someone had to say it!)
JGabriel
John Cole:
I suppose I’ll jump in here, since I voted for Clinton in the primary.
First, I like both candidates, and will *happily* pull the lever for either in the general election.
That said, I remember that the Clinton’s have both spoken of how unexpectedly difficult, and in retrospect important, it was to fix the executive bureaucracy after 12 years of Reagan/Bush. So Clinton will be going in prepared and experienced in resolving the problems there.
In general, I like Obama better on foreign policy and I trust his judgement on those issues a little more than Clinton’s. Conversely, I like Clinton better on domestic issues and economics.
Since I like both candidates, I have no problem with you favoring Obama. But hearing anyone who ever agreed with Ann Coulter describe Hillary as ‘shrill’ is kind of mind-boggling.
Jake
How is this venomous? I don’t see how it reaches the level of an attack on HRC supporters, but I may be biased because it is directed at assholes who need to calm the hell down.
Shade Tail
Emma: John never said that he wouldn’t vote for Clinton in the general. In fact, he said the opposite. So that’s not an issue. As for not supporting Hillary *now*…well, I think Mr. Cole is smart enough to see past the spin of the vocal minority and vote intelligently. I’m betting that he just likes Obama’s message and politics better (as do I, for what it’s worth).
Personally, I’m pretty annoyed by the very blatant Hillary Hate I see from a lot of my fellow Obama supporters here on the ‘net. But that doesn’t stop me from supporting him.
mrmobi
Now that was a political convention. It had everything. A iron-fisted mayor, a terrifically unpopular war, dirty hippies (me included, although I was “Clean for Gene” at the time), and police going batshit. Admit it, Chicago is the greatest city on earth, when we fuck something up, we don’t go halfway.
After the tear gas cleared, I was treated to the sight of National Guard jeeps with machine guns with live ammo strapped in, in front of crowds of anti-war demonstrators. It was a frightening and clarifying moment.
However nasty the remaining campaign becomes, I don’t see anything like that convention happening again.
John Cole
I wouldn’t take that bet. I voted for Bush twice.
Jen
I take it John didn’t find the “but TPM posted pictures of Hillary that aren’t there anymore but they were unflattering and that is misogynistic” argument convincing?
People have to stop assuming this. It isn’t going to happen just because it would be completely fucked-up for it not to happen. Exhibit A: 2004. If you’re going to make this argument, then you need to produce an electoral college map and explain precisely which states HRC is going to get that John Kerry didn’t get, and why.
LarryB
You sure about that?
Emma Anne
Damn. Rich, not Herbert.
Billy K
There were very few vocal Hillary supporters on-line prior to this becoming a two-person race.
That’s a baffling and untrue statement.
There were lots of people defending Hillary from attacks against her—-something which you claim to have done.
He did. Why are you trying to cast doubt on it?
Most of the people who are now supporting Hillary are doing so because they compared the two candidates that are still standing, and finding that Hillary is far superior.
And you know this because…you’ve spoken to “most of the people?”
carol h
Why I support Clinton over Obama:
I don’t think feel-good speaches about working together and getting along are going to sway the republicans. Reaching across the aisle means having
The issue of reproductive health is very important to me. I am old enough to remember the days before roe v wade and never, never, want to go back. Clinton has been working for reproductive health and choice of women for her entire career. Obama supports these issues but his support does not really translate into action. Link; link
We are in a terrible mess in Iraq. Everyone knows it, everyong wants to get out, but it is not that simple. We cannot simply pull out and let Iraq explode. We have an obligation to the people of Iraq to leave their country in the best way that we can and I do not believe that Obama has a realistic plan on how to get out. My son served a 15 month deployment in Iraq and will return their next January. I want to know that someone will manage out inevitible withdrawal in the best way possible and I see nothing in his record to give me confidence in his ability to manage this.
Clinton voted for Kyl-Lieberman and Obama did not. I am not in favor of Kyl-Lieberman but Clinton showed up to the senate and took a stand. Obama did not vote yet uses the vote against Clinton. I you want to be president you have to take a stand and take the heat.
Obama has said the he is not sure think that his supporters will support Clinton is she wins the nomination. He should be doing everything he can to ensure a democratic victory, even if the candidate is Clinton, unless he thinks a republican would be better.
I could go on, but mainly I do not think that Obama is ready to be president. To me he is a lightweight who gives a good speech but is not ready to take on the republicans or the incredibly difficult problems this country faces. My dream ticket is Clinton/Obama, 8 years of Clinton followed by 8 years of Obama and we might have a change of getting us out of the hole dug by Bush.
Wilfred
All Hillary all the time. Would be nice to discuss how Obama won four states over the weekend in true “this land is your land, this land is my land” style. But instead, more Hillary – like attracts like, narcissism attracts sycophancy:
Cue music, Hillary embracing old people, fade to banality.
ThymeZone
Sounds good. I work in one of those areas that will get protection. I will have squads of jack-booted thugs around me for protection when the turrists come for us.
Eat your hearts out, lowly citizen bitches!
Emma Anne
2004 wasn’t a Dem year. People were still hoping against hope about Iraq and voting with their lizard brains out of fear. By 2006, people were sick to death of being frightened and ready to punish the frighteners.
Believe me, I don’t at all assume it will happen simply because it would be fucked up if it didn’t happen. I’ve seen way too many elections for that.
No I don’t. Instead I will point out that Reagan won a lot more votes (and states) in his second election than his first. What changed? How people felt.
Shinobi
MAGICAL UNITY PONY FOR PRESIDENT!!
Jen
That just isn’t enough of an argument. We aren’t re-electing anyone. We are going into an election with a R candidate much less divisive than Bush. Whatever McCain’s many faults, he is the most palatable Republican to independents and moderates, and he currently polls ahead of HRC. I am not saying that February polls will predict a November election, but weak data is better than contrary data, and everyone knows HRC has a ceiling. Everyone knows that about 45% of the country won’t vote for her if she spends the summer walking on water.
Darkness
Huh, you just made me realize how badly Obama needs Hillary in this race. Instead of obsessing about White-guilt we have Man-guilt. She’s the perfect foil for his run to the white house, running interference on a parallel Ism. Without her, I’m not sure where he’d be.
Of course there be plenty of time before the election to switch to the TheMan-guilt.
John S.
As long as the Hillary supporters may be stopping by this thread I have a sincere question that hopefully one of you may be able to answer…
I am strongly opposed to Clinton solely on the grounds that she is part of the oligarchy that has held power over this country for the last two decades.
What can you say to convince me that in the contest between Obama and Clinton (because if it comes down to oligarch vs. warmonger, I will vote oligarch) I should back Clinton despite my view that sending her to the oval office is not in the best interests of our democracy?
ThymeZone
Um, the guy wants a 100 year military operation in a war that is widely opposed by the American people.
The stupid old guy is still pimping the Vietnam war, for crissakes.
Jen
Oh, I forgot to mention that my husband was listening to a really old podcast this weekend, something from NPR, I think. It was back from when McCain’s campaign looked like it was sunk and his people were jumping ship. He said the Hillary campaign staffer basically said, Thank heavens, because Hillary would have had a really hard time with McCain. Anyone seen anything like that around…? I can find it out tonight if anyone wants the link.
TheFountainHead
I’m starting to suffer from Primary Season Fatigue, and nothing has really riled me up in the last 24 hours, so lets see if I can get through this…
The primary difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is that of style. Their vaunted policy issues are utterly irrelevant. Congress makes law, presidents sign them. What matters here is how they work within the confines of the constitution and the types of people they have chosen to surround themselves with.
I choose Obama for as many reasons as I choose NOT to vote for Hillary. For me it is a clear choice. There are, however, those out there who feel that adopting the same strategies that have been employed by the Neo-Con wing of the Republican party against us is the only way to regain ground after the disastrous Bush presidency. I think it’s pretty obvious that Hillary and her people are in that camp while Obama and his people are in the camp that looks to gain ground by ignoring the hell out of the far right and gaining enough of a mandate to force progress past their flailing arms, rather than attempt to beat them to death with their own tactics.
Those are the differences. Everything else is petty identity politics and doesn’t matter one damn.
Jen
I’m not arguing his merits, which are few. I personally think he will lose more support than he will gain as people get to know him better, but that’s just my hunch. But he polls better than all the other R candidates. He polls a lot better than Bush. It may be a fraud, but independents, for the moment, like him.
Jamey
What’s wrong with “sexy”?
libarbarian
Good piece over at ObsidianWings
about the campaign at what it says about the candidates respective abilities.
Long Story Short:
Hillary has run her campaign just like the Bush team ran Iraq. Both expected easy wins against opponents that they didn’t respect enough to take seriously and both have displayed a frightening inability to adapt to their unexpected reverses.
Finally, to make the comparison just perfect, we get this:
Hillary is the kind of boss to whom subordinates are afraid to give bad news even when it is vital? Who does this sound like again? Oh, yeah, Bush!
Now all we need now is for Mark Penn to tell us that the Obama campaign is the last throws of a few dead enders….
Wilfred
An unscrupulous incumbent president can help a candidate in lots of ways:
Just now we start to hear about trials…after 7 years. All the old wounds and fears on television every. fucking. day.
Who else?
p.lukasiak
That is one hell of a bumpersticker. Was “They’re boxy, but they’re good” taken?
Don’t ask me to apologize for looking deeper into politics beyond bumper sticker slogans…
There are a LOT of issues that have nothing to do with “progressive” politics, but that need to be handled. Getting back to fiscal sanity is one. Getting us out of Iraq in a way that does not lead to a bloodbath is another (given the choice of 24 months in Iraq and no bloodbath, and 16 months followed by a bloodbath, I’ll go with the longer period. And I personally thin that getting Iranian and Syria help in preventing a bloodbath is going to take a fairly long time.)
J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford
I like to imagine the MUP as Mr. Ed. He’d be all white with with a beautiful saddle and he would be able to counsel me on my life’s journey.
quickdraw
I agree with both of these statements. Also, the difference between the candidates’ views on the death penalty sum up why I voted for Clinton. Both candidates support the death penalty. I don’t. However, while Clinton supports the death penalty and proposes a bunch of safeguards to ensure that the people being executed are actually guilty, Obama says that the death penalty is bad, unless the guy really deserves it, and then it’s okay.
People are sick of dynasties, and I get that. Me, I’m sick of feel-good speeches that don’t mean much. Doesn’t mean I won’t vote for Obama when he gets the nomination. I’m pretty sure the MUP can transcend his hype, too.
cbear
For the last hour+ MSNBC has been running live coverage of the testimony of some ex-cop who killed his pregnant girlfriend—complete with color commentary and game analysis by one of those ubiquitous ex-prosecutor babes and the always vapid daytime hostess/anchors, Nora O’Donnel and Contessa Brewer.
It’s a slight upgrade from listening to Chris Matthews, even though the subject matter (assaulting women) is eerily similiar.
Fascinating stuff, although I’d be willing to bet that today’s coverage of the trial action exceeds the total weekly coverage of America’s two wars by a factor of 10.
Oh well, maybe there will be a Perry Mason moment and the guy will cop to the Natalee Hollaway slaying, the O.J. murders, and the latest Britney Spears impregnation—all at once. I wouldn’t want to miss that so I guess I better keep watching.
ThymeZone
He polls better than Bush because not all of the anti-Bush sentiment comes from anti-war positions. Some of it comes from pro-war voters who think that Bush didn’t war hard enough. Those people will vote for McCain, they’re really his core.
LarryB
LOL! Sorry, but comparing the Sull-n-Bones Bushies to the “they came to D.C. and trashed the place” Clintons tickled my funny bone. So, John Quincy Adams and FDR were oligarcists? Without bothering to look it up, I’m damn sure their political opponents made this point. However, the Republic seems to have survived both of their Presidencies.
Hmm. Besides recommending you not bite off your nose to spite your face? Scrub the excessive ideology out of your eyes and evaluate the candidates on their merits.
Billy K
The wonderful thing about the MUP is we can all have the MUP of our dreams. The MUP appears to each believer as they imagine it.
zzyzx
I agree. The question is which is more likely to work, fighting exceedingly hard for every single vote in order to get your goals passed at the risk of pissing people off by your combative nature or trying to convert people to your views via impressive speeches at the risk of not having the conversions happen.
After 16 years of the former, I want to give the other approach a shot to see how it will do. It’s more important to me to try to get us all talking to each other (at least for a while) than to win every single battle. It’s the same reason I think the whole impeachment idea was so dumb.
The Grand Panjandrum
There are minor differences in the goals each candidate is proposing, and what I have heard many other people say, is not that Mr. Obama has different goals than Ms. Clinton, but that he has not thought out how to accomplish his goals.
This simply isn’t the case. You can compare the level of detail in the plans on Mr. Obama’s and Ms. Clinton’s websites.
But Mr. Obama clearly talks less about policy specifics than Ms. Clinton. The Senator from New York often will list a few dozen policies and rattle off some specific ways her plans will function. It’s an impressive show. But the show is also deceptive and ineffective.
Although Ms. Clinton explains how her plans will work, she does not explain how she will put them in place. She cannot – because if she begins to, it ruins the illusion that is a great part of her appeal. Ms. Clinton may have all the details planned out now, but her carefully wrought and nuanced proposals will not survive the legislative process. When the time comes to make these policy plans into laws and programs, legislators, business interests, bureaucrats, and anyone else remotely affected by the policy will get their say – and the details will quickly change.
Which brings us to Mr. Obama. He also has detailed policy proposals – but he does not present them as one of the basic pillars of his campaign. Rather he focuses on creating a movement, an active citizenry, that will demand change; on changing the processes by introducing elements such as transparency and direct accountability. Mr. Obama explains his approach and his thought process – two elements Ms. Clinton guards as a tactical secrets – because he acknowledges that he cannot promise specific items.
Not only is Mr. Obama’s approach more honest – it is also more effective. Think of the last presidential candidates who spouted policies versus those who campaigned on broad themes. Senator Kerry campaigned on policy; President Bush on themes. Vice President Gore campaigned on policy; Governor Bush campaigned on themes. President Clinton campaigned on some amalgamation of policy and theme – in a way I have only seen Mr. Clinton fuse them – and Senator Dole campaigned … you know, I don’t know what Mr. Dole’s campaign was about. But going back further over the past half-century – most winning presidential candidates have focused less on policy, and more on character, themes, and narratives.
Janine
Blue Jean,
I’ve seen this new meme pop up. It’s ridiculous to try to triangulate your vote to what republicans may or may not be thinking. All the same, it makes me laugh because it reminds me of Vizzini in Princess Bride:
If you want to vote for HRC, vote for HRC.
mrmobi
On the first point, that explosion will almost certainly happen, one way or another. Either it will happen over the course of 20 years, while we lose thousands more brave soldiers and trillions in treasury, or it will happen more suddenly. No one knows.
The one thing I do know is, we don’t owe the Iraqis anything, except perhaps asylum for more of them who might be killed once we withdraw. We deposed a despot and his two homicidal sons, provided an opportunity for the establishment of a democratic government, and their “government” has done virtually nothing. I don’t subscribe to Colin Powell’s “you break it, you own it” philosophy. We made an effort, and that effort has failed. Best to make a relatively clean break and try to get back to a foreign policy which allows us to get our military ready for the challenges ahead. Absent that break, Iraq could be for us as Afghanistan was for the Soviets.
One the second point, I agree. Obama doesn’t have a realistic plan on how to get out (not when defined as leaving a stable democratic state behind). Neither does Hillary. That’s because, as Obama has said, “there are no good options in Iraq.” Whoever is elected POTUS will be attacked by the right as “surrendering” even if our efforts to extricate ourselves lasts several more years.
So, I don’t think either Obama or Clinton are going to get our troops out of Iraq for several years. They are both politicians, after all, and won’t want to be saddled with responsibility for a bloodbath, even if it wasn’t their war to begin with. Be prepared to be disappointed about the withdrawal.
Of the two candidates, Obama has been more honest about our prospects, and opposed the concept of the war from the start. For that reason, among others, I trust him more on effectively changing our course in Iraq.
My very best wishes for the safety of your son.
ThymeZone
A report via DKos on the Maine caucuses yesterday.
In case anyone really still doesnt get what is going on here.
Darkness
But Edwards in the polls would have beat him by a handy ten points.
Please let them not pick some obscure governor we’ve all never heard of, or a “moderate” back-stabbing senator as a VP pick. Make it Edwards. Please.
LarryB
The Grand Panjandrum,
Nice summary. I’m sympathetic to Obama’s analysis that it will take a movement to change direction in D.C. I just don’t see how he can translate that movement into votes in Congress by running away from his party. It’s ironic that Obama is currently trashing Bill Clinton for the damage he did to the Party in the ’90s by doing just that.
dslak
Carol, all you did was repeatedly post links to the same blog entry by Greenwald, which doesn’t even mention Obama. Also, you’re equivocating on the word ‘bipartisanship,’ making it such that, because Obama appeals to some Republicans, that means he’s just like the Democrats in Congress who continually acquiesce to Bush and Cheney on everything they demand. The word doesn’t mean the same thing in both contexts, and you know it.
Zifnab
They were never going to impeach Clinton or Bush, they all knew it, and TZ can tell you why. The vote count didn’t exist to get either one. Gingrich was an idiot for going all in on a weak hand and trying to bluff his way to the Presidency. Pelosi was an idiot for folding without even checking to see if her opponent blinked.
All the same, I still say Barack’s Unity Pony can take us a lot farther as a nation than Hillary’s Deviciveness Short Bus. Hillary comes to the White House with 16 years of political baggage and a giant bullseye on her back. She’ll be impossible to work with if only because everyone will have too much fun hating her to work with her. Republicans will try to outdo themselves with the Filibuster in ’09 and it won’t be pretty.
Barack gives the ‘thugs someone they can cozy up to and make peace with. Specter and Graham can cut deals with Obama and not take it up the rear from their party for showing up in a photograph with him. The same just can’t be said of Clinton.
Besides, Obama’s Unity Pony is running downhill with a full head of steam. He’s racing for the finish line while Hillary’s nag chokes on its own dust. I don’t think this is even an issue of whether Barack will win, but by how much.
Billy K
I drove for two hours yesterday to Bangor with my sister and daughter to see Barack speak in Maine. [snip] We waited in the longest line I had ever seen in my life for almost two hours. We met some wonderful people, many younger and surprisingly many quite a bit older. After all of that waiting, we were only a few hundred feet from the auditorium when we were told that the main room had filled to capacity as well as the overflow room. Just when we were ready to turn back, we were told that Barack would speak to us outside, and would do so FIRST.
So imagine a scene like the stump speeches only read about in books, people jostling on snowbanks, climbing fences, trees, even each other in the calm cold that was Maine yesterday to hear and see Barack, for only a few minutes. And did he deliver.
There was excitement, there was hope, and there were specifics. Talk of new ways to use our old industrial centers, dead and forgotten by the establishment. Talk of help with college tuition. Talk of thinking about our children and grandchildren first. He then spent time talking to and shaking hands with the crowd before going in.
Link
A report via Andrew Sullivan on the Maine caucuses yesterday.
In case anyone really still doesnt get what is going on here.
Zifnab
Ponies for victory. Any state that has a 9:1 Dem to Rep lead is A-OK in my book.
John Cole
Neither did Bob Dole or about 65% of the electorate.
Dennis - SGMM
Too true: “That McCain, he’s bombed brown people before, he knows how to do some bombin’ all right.”
That said, Bushco has made no effort to add brigades to the military’s ground forces – despite the obvious need from the day after the fall of Baghdad. The next president (No matter who) will inherit worn out troops with worn out equipment. The temptation will be high to minimize casualties and shorten the war by increasing aerial bombing, helicopter strikes and artillery barrages. While these tactics will momentarily quiet the area on the receiving end they will create more implacable enemies for us. This without resolving the internal problems of Iraq.
Bush has left the next president with few tools with which to extricate ourselves from Iraq without leaving it either a failed state or a wilderness of bomb craters – or both. I take with a huge grain of salt the promise of any candidate to either win in Iraq or to get the majority of US troops out quickly.
zzyzx
I do have a problem though. Now that I’m an Obama delegate, I have 2 ponies and I don’t know how I’ll be able to afford the upkeep.
dslak
Dole’s campaign was about the hip idea for people to start talking about themselves in the third person. It turned out that America just wasn’t ready.
Jake
Heh. This makes me think of Willard Mitt Romney being for everything before he was against everything.
Unless he was against it before he was for it.
Of course, Mittens actually tried to be all things to all voters and now we’re sorry he quit because he was teh funny.
John S.
If you think that Theodore Roosevelt and FDR are an example simply because of relation then you aren’t taking into account that there were five other office holders between them that weren’t related in any way. And interestingly, after FDR was out of office, a constitutional amendment was passed to prevent power from remaining in the hands of one person for too long (I wonder why congress would do something like that).
Even the Adams’ had power change hands several times between their presidencies. An entire generation and three two-term presidents passed between when John and John Q. held office, so even this seemingly oligarchic period doesn’t rise to the level of what we’ve seen recently.
For twenty years straight, the executive branch has been held by members of the same two families. You seriously want to argue that the Roosevelts and Adams scenarios bear even a passing resemblance to what we’ve seen lately?
Interesting that people like you can laugh this glaringly obvious example of oligarchic control off while sneering at people like me who see it for what is and writing us off as kooky or unserious.
Wilfred
In a thread on supposed misogyny, this goes unnoticed:
The White Man’s Burden, eh? How about a fucking apology for all the civilians we’ve killed?
D-Chance.
Obama wants change (yeah, I’ll take his word on it for now); Hillary wants power.
Obama espouses a vision; Hillary sees herself as President.
One candidate is being activist in his words; the other is simply grubbing for herself.
I prefer the former to the latter choice.
chuckdps
I’m not fully convinced of voting for Hillary, but one good reason would be that she is better prepared to control the bureaucracy. As Stalin knew, you need to control the bureaucracy in order to advance your political program. Dick Cheney has been involved in putting bureaucrats loyal to him in government since 1973 (Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush, Bush presidencies). Regardless of who wins the election, civil servants will have a huge impact on what is actually accomplished, and many of them are servants of the dark lord. While I really like Obama’s message, think optimism always trumps reality in elections, will vote for him if he is the candidate, and believe he has an opportunity to realign our politics, I THINK Hillary will kick ass and deal with the bureaucrats more effectively.
Like I said, I’m not fully convinced of this, and will vote for the D candidate. I think Hillary is better prepared to deal with the dark lord’s servants more effectively than Obama.
dslak
Not until the Iraqis thank us for everything we’ve done for them, the ungrateful little fuckers! Seriously though, I have no idea how to make it up to them, but arguing that we should stay because we screwed up their country is just another way of saying that Iraq should be an imperial vassal.
John S.
Oh, and here’s a little background perspective on the terminology for anyone else who thinks that Clinton isn’t part of an oligarchy.
See, by definition it isn’t merely the fact that people in power are related to former people in power, it is whether or not that power remains wholly divested from anyone else. So when you have a situation where the presidency is held for 20 years by two families, that fits the definition rather nicely. If there are other examples in American history of power being consolidated into the hands of the few for such a long period time, by all means bring them to light.
apishapa
How about this as a reason to vote for your candidate:
I do not believe Obama is the messiah. I just do not. I know Obamaites do. I also do not believe this kumbaya platform is going to work. “We all are one!” “Can’t we all just get along?”
No, we are not all one and we cannot just all get along. Democrats have done enough of this crap already. We need a spine in the Whitehouse and in the Senate. Bipartisanship is destroying this country.
Zifnab
I can’t bring myself to be that callus. America walked into Iraq and fucked it up pretty hard. We’ve spent the last five years digging a terrible hole for the Iraqis to climb out of and we’ve thrown a bunch of guns and bombs down that hole just to make their lives more miserable.
What we did in Iraq borders on Holocaust levels of brutality and horror. To claim we tried our best and can just leave the goat herders to pick up the bill adds grievous insult to bloody injury.
dslak
Oh, Jesus Christ. I’ll throw out there the serious observation that homosexual men seem to have a problem with powerful women. Maybe that explains Sully’s CDS.
Originally posted in the wrong thread, so apologies for cross-posting.
demimondian
FOr the sake of argument, I’ll grant your claim, although I think it’s probably false.
My response to you would be: Fine. So?
At the end of the day, you are voting for a person, not a family. There’s no risk of the ascendancy of a royal line in the US — look at the downfall of the Kennedys in Massachusetts or the Rockefellers in New York, West Virginia, and Arkansas. All those folks have a much better shot at establishing a royal line than the Clintons or even the Bushes, and yet none of them have succeeded; their respective scions will never hold nationwide office.
If you want an oligarchy, look at the mandarinate in the circle around the headline, not at the headliners. You can find oligarchs there, in both parties, people who have risen to power and prominence simply because of their paternal ties, and those folks do not hold elective office. Don’t waste your focus on Clinton.
Billy K
That’s the best way of expressing it I’ve heard yet. Very nice. (Apologies in advance, cause I’m gonna steal it)
demimondian
Not really. The thing which makes the Shoa so particular is how dispassionate it was — it was murder by machine, with the intent of removing people from the earth in the most expedient and efficient manner possible, no fuss, no muss, no escape. The horror of the murders really isn’t the murders themselves, as there have been other genocides, but the utter nonchalance of the murderers.
We have murdered a lot of people in Iraq, and we owe the Iraqis many apologies — and no set of apologies can suffice. But our guilt really is different from that of the Nazis, or even the Tutsis. We didn’t intend to kill any civilians, and, in fact, worked hard to minimize any accidental deaths. That doesn’t bring the dead back to life, or mitigate the pain their unnecessary deaths caused, but it puts the acts in a different moral light.
Jake
Let’s see. Can we come up with any examples of oligarchies?
Here’s a few.
But more importantly:
Well, that would be compelling if you exclude the other two branches of governement from “everyone else” and you pretend that no one else had a chance to get that power.
Nope.
dslak
Being a student of Indian history helps, and that directly relates to the “White Man’s Burden” bit you referred to (although Kipling himself may have been using that phrase ironically). The British spread across India first on flimsy military and business pretexts, then, they argued, they had to stay on because some parts were either shitholes or likely to become one if they left. Often unremarked upon was the fact that those places became that way because the British had destabilized them.
John S.
How gracious of you to humor my claim of reality. Care to explain in what way it is false?
For starters, oligarchies are inherently un-democratic. That troubles me, even if you are fine with it. More importantly, I don’t look favorably on the prospect of American presidential history looking like Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush / Clinton / Clinton / Bush / Bush. Obviously, that doesn’t trouble you in the slightest, but I’m of a different mind.
But hey, I guess I was looking for a solid and serious response. Oh well.
Jen
You know what crap I’ve had enough of? People willfully ignoring the difference between bipartisanship based on compromising your principles, and bipartisanship based on getting the other side to see your point of view. It isn’t fucking kumbaya, it’s this:
Huge opposition to UNANIMOUS votes in your favor. The Pony has one hell of a spine, thank you very much, he needs it to hold all those millions on his back.
/fangyrl, over and out
rawshark
“Bob Dole just likes to say Bob Dole. Bob Dole!”
Wilfred
I doubt it. he never quite understood that the Empire ‘was a money making concern’ (Orwell’s take on him). He knew and loved India, however, and understood quite a lot about the apparatus of Empire. This is from the “The ‘Eathen” (c.1885)
The ‘eathen in ’is blindness bows down to wood an’
stone;
‘E don’t obey no orders unless they is ‘is own;
‘E keeps ‘is side-arms awful: ‘e leaves ‘em all about ,
An’ then comes up the Regiment an’ pokes the ‘eathen out. (Lines 1-5)
Here he grasps the three pronged Imperial trident of Administrators, Missionaries and Soldiers in a few lines. It’s not very different from the US mindset in Iraq, actually, nor could it be.
Jake
Oh for fucks sake. Andrew Sullivan speaks for exactly one person – Andrew Sullivan. And he sucks at that.
But let’s take a similar example:
Fred Phelps is a Hetero Male. Fred Hates Teh Gehy. Therefore all Hetero Males are homophobes. Make sense? No?
Thank you. StFu.
Actually you’re even further from home. There’s already a thread about this.
John S.
Gee, I guess if it isn’t on Wikipedia, it must not exist! Also, from the link you provided, you may want to check out the referenced Political Parties by Robert Michels and his Iron Law of Oligarchies. It is an interesting read, and the cornerstone of my thinking on the subject.
I guess you haven’t been payng attention the last seven years. The Judicial branch packed with key Bush Sr. apointees made sure that Bush Jr. became president. Since then, they have failed to check his extensive power grab in any way. The Legislative branch has become a joke. Bush does whatever the fuck he wants, issues signing statements to overturn or nullify laws congress passes and nothing happens.
But keep telling yourself that the other two branches of government have fuck all to do with the monstrous power that the executive branch has been wielding. And I hardly expect a president Hillary Clinton will give up those powers.
demimondian
No, John S., you weren’t looking for a solid and serious response. You’ve gotten a bunch of those, and you’ve blown them all off. You were looking for agreement, and you aren’t going to get it.
As to why I thought your premise was false, Jake already answered you: the President is not a king, and there’s no evidence of a oligarchy when you include the rest of the government.
LarryB
Peace, John. Maybe my snarkerator was on overdrive there. Everyone has their own political hot buttons, and I guess I just pushed one of yours. Mine run a lot more towards outrage at illegal wars, illegal domestic spying, erosion of prosecutorial independence, and stacking the executive and the judiciary with second rate flunkies. Oh, did I mention selling the country to the Saudis and the Chinese? But then again, I’m a very unserious person.
dslak
Jake, I was running the same armchair psychology game against Sully that he was running against Hillary, so show how impoverished it was.
Darkness
And more generally, so does being a millionaire as a requirement of running for office… that includes Obama and rounds out the picture nicely. The “dominant class” as defined by wealth or a “clique” as in Ivy League education. If you want to work against Oligarchies, you’ll have to look a little more broadly.
Trouble is, an true outsider (Carter leaps to mind) has no powerful friends to call on and does not understand how the levers of power get pulled because those levers work through personal influence and networks. I think you have to settle for a benevolent insider if you want progress out of a leader. Then be sure to kick them out again before they get utterly corrupted.
rawshark
Neither do I but I won’t for McCain for that reason. Its not really a reason at all. Just a statement of fact. Lots of wingnuts will use that though. They’ll be repeating what their radio said.
John S.
I see. Two snarky responses and one dismissal = a serious response.
Interesting math.
Bill Arnold
For whatever it’s worth, Krugman responds to the responses to his column on his weblog.
I pretty much agree with him – this is not about the Clintons so much as it is about the media.
dslak
John S. said that he would vote for Clinton over McCain, so don’t accuse him of saying that his concerns about oligarchy trump everything else.
rawshark
Didn’t mean to imply that of him. Bad writer is me.
John S.
Perhaps not.
You should note that I am concerned about the same things, too. I already said in my original post that if it comes down to a choice between Clinton and McCain, I have to make the logical choice and choose Clinton.
I may be a lot of things, but irrational isn’t one of them.
rawshark
you don’t follow sports?
myiq2xu
John S.:
From Wiki:
Your oligarchy issue is based upon the assumption that two families have controlled this country for the last two decades. But this is a constitutional republic with (until recently) a separation of powers and limitations on government. It is also a federalist system.
Although the Bush and Clinton families have held the White House, they are not allied with each other and only competed directly on one occasion.
Except for 1992, each election was a competition between one of the two families and an outsider. Had the outsiders won, your issue would be moot.
Your question posits the situation to be what would more accurately be called “duelling hereditary monarchies.
If your view were correct, the Bush and Clinton families would have control of at least the nomination process, which is an obviously fallacious assumption. If it were true, Obama would not even be running right now.
Even if Hillary wins, it is highly unlikely that another Bush or Clinton will follow her, because the Bush name is political mud and Chelsea would be a mere 35 years old and shuns publicity.
There is a virtual oligarchy in this country, but it is one that combines the super-rich and the two main political party establishments. The super-rich control the media and most corporations, and have enormous influence in both parties. It is difficult if not impossible for an outsider to win high office without belonging to that group.
In that regard, with maybe four exceptions all of the current and former candidates from both parties are members of that de facto oligarchy.
Ron Paul, Huckabee, Gravel and Kucinich are basically outsiders, and you can see how well they all did.
The Bush-Clinton thing is just a coincidence. We’ve had two members of the same family win the White House before, we’ve just never had it alternate consecutively between two families.
mrmobi
You know Wilfred, your argument is with Dick Cheney.
I was merely trying to point out that the argument that we cannot leave Iraq without dishonoring those Americans and Iraqis who have given their lives is bullshit, pure and simple.
As far as Iraq being a case of colonization, who knows, maybe you’re right. We have built permanent bases, a half-billion dollar Embassy, made long-term deals for oil development. Bush has been trying to lock us into a permanent deal with the Iraqi government.
Ok, sure, we’re there for the oil and we’re a bunch of murderers? And I’m a heartless prick. Happy?
lou
I’m with Panjandrum. To reinforce his/her analysis, I’d also point out that Clinton was more likely to “sell out” progressive attitudes, ie, flag burning, during her Senate career, whereas Obama worked with Republicans when he agreed with them, as in partnering with Coburn on more transparency in the government.
I frankly think Obama’s lifting pages from the Republican playbook of 2000 where they promised a moderate government (compassionate conservatism anyone?) and governed from the right. Only in his case, it will be from the left. Unfortunately too many voters vote by gut, not by policy analysis, so why shouldn’t he?
John S.
You are exactly correct. The Clinton/Bush phenomenon is the easy one to work against (in theory). Obviously, the domination of our system by two parties is a more deeply rooted and serious issue that likely will not be resolved in my lifetime. There are many reasons Washington urged against the system we presently have; I’d like to think his distate for un-democratic oligarchies was one of them (even though he himself was arguably part of one).
That’s a valid point. The ‘club’ certainly does not look favorably upon outsiders and they will go out of their way to destroy them. Perahps Obama will have problems with this if he isn’t seen as on the inside enough by the insiders. I have a question, though. How do you sufficiently gauge where a politician falls on the scale of corruption? What metric can one really look at to determine whether they are corrupted just enough or too much?
rawshark
Sunk costs fallacy. Don’t throw good money after bad. Works in poker, economics and war.
myiq2xu
Actually, I would say heterosexual men are more likely to have a problem with powerful women.
No stats to back that up, just my own observation. Feel free to disagree, some of you will anyway.
jcricket
How about B/C/C/B/B/C/C + Obama/Obama?
I say Hillary/Obama ’08 if she’s ahead by the convention, and Obama/Someone-else if he’s ahead. Someone else can be Clark, Edwards, whatever.
Z
I respect Clinton supporters who like her policy positions and honestly think she will be a better candidate. But the argument, that Obama supporters don’t know what will hit them when the fRight attacks, really annoys me. Seriously, what country do you think we have been living in all these years?
I also really want to point out that there are more than just progressive pet issues that need to be worked on. Infrastructure, for one. That is going to take bipartisianship.
John S.
I think the issue is more about where that power lies – not how it is exercised. The vacillation between Democrat and Republican is merely a ruse to convince the people that somehow this power is changing hands, when in fact it is not.
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
I disagree. I think to some extent the choice is an illusion, although if Obama wins I will be proven wrong (with pleasure). Again, this sort of thing is quite similar to oligopolies. They thrive on giving the people the illusion that they are making free choices. That is where they derive their power from – in lulling people into thinking that despite the fact their choices are really made for them by a small elite group, that they are in control because they chose to vote for Hillary or select a particular brand of cigarette.
I wish I shared your optimism.
I do not disagree one bit. I realize that I am fighting a Sisyphian battle here, but can at least feel like I moved the boulder uphill – just a little bit?
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response.
rawshark
Bob Dole doesn’t like this. Bob Dole doesn’t like this one bit.
Bob Dole has the power!
Bob Dole AWAY!
Bob Dole likes to hear Bob Dole say Bob Dole. BOB DOLE!
Dennis - SGMM
I’ll bet Hillary will be just as benevolent as Bill:
NAFTA (Goodbye jobs)
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Hello CLear Channel)
Welfare Reform (Child care hell, get a job)
381 Signing Statements
Z
Bob Dole likes pineapples! Wheee!
srv
John, I think that wonderful site you added, Stiftung puts it best, albeit cryptically.
America is a hegemon with ADHD and is spinning towards disaster. While there are those of us who think that would be a good thing, it would be best for most if we had some professional management.
Slick managed to cock slap the wingnutsphere for 8 years. Imagine what a competent executive could accomplish with a democratic landslide. It’s really your only hope for real change.
Obama will make you all feel good, and if this was the 50’s, we could afford that. But in 2008, we need Hillary the prison guard giving the broom handle to the Republicans.
Jake
Forget it. Don’t even bother. First you talk about 20 years of dual family rule. Then you pull out seven years of Bush 43 being a power-crazed dick (duh), tack on HRC will be just as bad and say that equals oligarchy.
F.A.I.L.
myiq2xu
That is kinda correct. The power is changing hands within the oligarchy, but on some issues they are in agreement. If two royal families are fighting over the throne, neither wants to eliminate the monarchy, they just want to control it.
Obama is a member of that oligarchy too. So is John McCain. Basically we will be choosing which member of the oligarchy we want for President (unless Huckabee wins the nomination.)
A very unusual uncle, to say the least.
myiq2xu
Do you know what Bob Dole says now?
“Welcome to Walmart!”
rawshark
Actually it is but since nothing changes about your life or the lives of millions of us it seems like nothing changed. That’s just because we are, as Orwell puts it, the ‘low’. The mids changed to high, the highs change to mid, we keep watching football. When the dems take control of the WH there are sections of the noble class that are elevated to power and sections that lose their power. There are wealthy families that go from rich to rich and powerful back to rich as the WH changes hands, we’re to beaten down by the drudgery of living our lives to notice we’re little more than cheerleaders.
John S.
20 years of dual family rule is a fact. The seven years of Bush 43 unitary executive power grab didn’t just come from thin air. It was built upon a foundation of people from former administrations and by taking advantage of policies set in place by them.
Of course 9/11 was the biggest factor in allowing Bush to perform such a naked power grab, but he didn’t invent the practice. Bush 41 and Clinton also issued signing statements – just not nearly as many or as egregious. I assure you, everything Bush has done he has done in the name of precedent – even if it’s hogwash.
And I never said HRC would be as bad as Bush – I would never make such a ludicrously subjective statement. Nort did I ever say that is what created the oligarchy. What I said was that HRC will be reluctant to give up the power now consolidated in the executive branch, and though I’m sure she will act as a more benevolent despot than Bush, she will seek to retain those powers nonetheless.
The oligarchy is self-evident, and has nothing to do with any of that gibberish you just spewed. With someone like you, I definitely should heed your advice and not bother.
srv
Y’alls desire for America to that picket-fence era where the three branches had ‘equal’ powers is quaint, but ignorant. You could go sit in a 7th grade civics class today, and they’re still teaching how wonderful and ideal our system is. That it’s a ‘feature’ that Article II powers are still widely interpreted 220 after the Constitution was signed.
Short of a couple weeks during the Church Commission, Congress hasn’t really tried to take any powers back from the Executive in many, many decades.
myiq2xu
Actually, both the Clintons and the Obamas are charter members of the oligarchy. Bill and Hillary made some money over the years, but they weren’t born into it, and neither was Obama. The Bush family, on the other hand . . .
BTW – I think it’s both sad and scary that $30 million is chickenfeed in that crowd.
rawshark
Congresscritters or the people he appoints to run agencies?
Tlazolteotl
Yes, all of those are true, but what we have to do is put forward our candidate and then make the best case. Period.
AkaDad
I don’t think I’m an Obama fanboi just because I want to have his babies.
Jeesh
OriGuy
Note that Kipling wasn’t referring to India in “White Man’s Burden”. The poem was subtitled The United States and the Phillipines. If you read the whole thing, I think the irony is pretty apparent.
The US stayed in the Philipines 47 years. McCain wants to beat that.
John S.
You’ve got me thinking more about this whole thing.
The presence of the oligarchy I think is a given (except to poeple like Jake). But that oligarchy is actually tiered, and individuals fall within each level of it depending on their specific role. I think it is borken up into:
Top – Familial
Middle – Political
Bottom – Corporate
The corporations and money interests make up the base of the oligarchy. Upon their shoulders stand our two political factions. And upon their shoulders we have the seen the rise of the Bush and Clinton families.
Obama and McCain certainly would belong to the middle oligarchy, but I thnk Hillary definitely rises to the top of the oligarchy because of the special circumsatnces we’ve seen the past two decades. The Kennedys most likely fall into this group as well.
I realize we can never fully dismantle the pyramid, but at least if we can get rid of the top (or at least prevent it from growing any taller), it’s a start.
What do you think?
John S.
Appointees – of all stripes.
Jake
I get it. The entire system is an oligarchy. Or at least somehow rotten.
In which case it doesn’t matter who the I vote for. Once a person comes within sniffing distance of the powerful elite, s/he’s one of THEM as well.
Thanks. You’ve spared me hours of agoninzing over which candidate fight the power and stick it to the man. Now I know they’re all the man.
Darkness
The cute answer would be: when you can’t get them back out of office again
…no matter how many skull-damaged kitten corpses are piling up in their trash can.
The rationalist in me believes you can see if from how their rhetoric stacks up to their actions. Their real actions, not the poison-pill bills that they vote for to claim support knowing it will die. If the permanent default assumption is that they have lost the right to lead so as to make them earn it every time, that would go a long way. If your employee has sticky fingers for tens out of the till but can sell a high-end product with a 100% profit margin every other week… I guess just keep running the numbers, or in this case, a decision matrix.
When they are using up more than ten shares worth of the political oxygen and new issues never see the light of day. Time to change horses, I think, even with no evidence of traditional corruption. Corruption of discourse by limiting it to pet issues is damaging enough. I love Ron Paul, not as a potential leader by any stretch, but because you can just see him throw open the door to let air into the room. Gods, we need more of that.
srv
The difference being that some of them have had to fight a lot harder to get there. I really don’t think it was much of a struggle for GW or McCain. I can’t speak for Obama, but Bill and Hillary fought the long, hard slog to get where they are. That should be worth something.
The Clinton family really ends with Hillary. It’s not like you can compare it to the Kennedy or Bush clan.
Darkness
I want to say, well, duh, but that sounds childish, so I won’t.
Yes, the people who make up the system are rotten, but this is supposed to be a system where the rot does not overwhelm getting enough done to keep things functioning. Rot is a basic assumption built in, hence regular elections and transparency through the press and freedom of speech.
That’s why things like the press being pwned by one of the parties and the white house keeping every last stupid thing secret, and barring that, deleting or forgetting things in a fit of fake incompetence, is not unrelated to the last seven years of clusterfuckery we’ve been living through.
I don’t get the surprised sounding sarcasm you are using here.
jcricket
I don’t disagree that the ultra-rich have far too much power in our system. When I consider the lack of national healthcare, the bankruptcy bill, the power that corporations have and their lack of real liability/accountability – it’s clear that America is ruled by the rich and corporate overlords.
But when I compare the parties and consider which one might be changeable once elected, there’s really only one choice (that would be the Democrats).
Another 20 years in the political wilderness for the Dems is not going to make them more liberal. But some years in power, combined with political pressure (think the fundies, but in reverse) might actually turn the course a little bit.
John S.
I don’t either.
But anyway, the trick is – like you mentioned – to let some fresh air into the room every now and then. While there is no denying the state of things, throwing your hands up in the air in acquiescence isn’t the proper course. We have to do what we can – no matter how seemingly small or insignificant – to slow the creeping rot.
Using your metaphor, I would say that even though I’ve had to rethink my position somewhat based on various comments, I still see Obama as less gangrenous than Clinton. Perhaps the rot on him just doesn’t run as deep, but if I have no other choice, then that will have to be the rot I choose.
Kilroy Montgomery
You misspelt “women.”
Why does the Left have a fixation on re-engineering the English language for political ends?
… and all this time I’ve been told it’s the right that is populated by freaks!
sparky
I find the resistance to the oligarchy notion interesting; it reminds me of the difficulty Americans confront when they are faced with the reality that America is just like every other country.
But, to get back to the point, I like Jefferson’s notion that the US should basically start over every 20 years. Can’t really do that, of course–and this is the real root of the problem. Oligarchy, though bad, does perform the important function of stability. We’d have to replace that form with something else that would ensure stability through periods of transition. Can we do that absent an external event (Civil War, Depression, war)? I don’t know. Perhaps institutionalized constitutional conventions might work.
empty
John S. Do you think Obama would be less reluctant to give up the power? If so what do you base that on? And please, no snark – the question is a sincere one.
John S.
That’s a really good question, so I’ll do my best to give you a really good answer.
I think my impression that he would be more likely to restore balance to the
forceexecutive branch stems from his background. His work with community organizers, discrimination claims, and voting rights cases indicates that he comes from an egalitarian mindset. He has spent much of his career fighting for the rights of individuals, and taught this to others while a professor at the University of Chicago. I think his record (both in the Illinos senate and congress) speaks very highly to this effect.Now obviously, I don’t think Hillary lacks some of these qualities. Quite frankly, her voting record has been very similar to Obama’s and her stated positions are very similar as well on many issues. I’m not trying to brand her as some sort of mean-spirited figure at all, because if she were, she’d be a Republican! But seriously, for me it boils down to one major difference between them as to why I think her less likely to give up the reigns of power.
She has tasted it.
Obama has attained moderate amounts of individual power, but for the most part he seems more interested in deriving power from the people. Hillary, having been at the side of an executive – both of a state and the nation – has had a taste of the power that comes with such a position. And I think once a person has had even a sip from that cup, it is difficult to stop thirsting for more. Obama doesn’t have the thirst (yet) because he doesn’t know what he is missing. Hillary does.
That’s just how I see it.
empty
Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it. I don’t really disagree with you on Hillary. I do disagree with you on Obama. I hope I am wrong and you are right.
jcricket
Why do I feel like all the Hillary v. Obama arguments end up sounding like “Duck Season! Rabbit Season” from Looney Tunes?
Doesn’t really matter, McCain’s gonna end up shooting one of us in the face if we’re not careful :-)
empty
I think that is why the heat in the argument. We are driven more by our fears than our hopes. Even when we pretend it is our hopes that are driving us.
Darkness
There is a social contract at work here between the oligarchy and the hoi polloi but it has a creeping breakdown going on. The wealthy have started believing their own libertarian rhetoric to their own long term detriment. Taxes on the wealthy to fund affordable housing, education and health care for poor pregnant women and young children should be viewed as an insurance policy against the torch-wielding mobs if the system breaks down irredeemably far, and as a collective system for building a consumer base for their corporate empires.
Why they don’t see this and instead move their personal accounts and companies offshore so they don’t even have to pay for national defense, let alone anything else, boggles my mind.
Linda
I have to say I wonder where all this concern about having an oligarchy or a dynasty was when George W. ran for President. I don’t remember anyone getting all hoity-toity about dynasties then. It only becomes a problem when a Clinton, and frankly a FEMALE Clinton is running for President.
That said, I have mixed feelings about voting for Hillary. I strongly oppose her votes on the war. I like what Obama says in concept and I keep wanting to vote for him. Then I see the debates or hear Hillary speak and I am struck by her COMPETENCE. She pays attention to points being made during debates. She takes notes and thinks about her responses. She always impresses me when she speaks.
I am also concerned because to my knowledge, Obama (and may I say that I am very bothered by the fact that we call Senator Clinton by her first name and Senator Obama by his last name, but I digress). I am concerned because as far as I know Obama has not had to engage in an all out, no-holds-barred fight for an elected position. It’s not that I don’t think he is intellectually prepared, it’s just that I think there is a difference between KNOWING that the Republicans will play rough (and yes, I am sure the N word will “slip out” and Andrew Sullivan will unearth his copy of The Bell Curve) and actually dealing with the kind of game the Repubs have played for all these years. The one thing you have to admit, is that Hillary has had a lot of practice dealing with the half-truths and outright lies that will be used on any Democratic nominee. And I believe that she will be prepared to fight back immediately. I hope Obama will do the same, but fear that his Unity message will conflict with the need to fight back hard and effectively. The one good thing about this primary is that Obama is getting a taste of what the Repubs will throw at him and I hope he is learning how to deal with attacks that are negative and sometimes unfair, because if (when) he wins the nomination he will have to deal with far worse.
My other concern with Obama was a statement I read (and no I don’t remember where or have a link) where he basically said, If I don;t get this nomination, I will not ever try again, it is too much work and takes too much from my family. This is a wonderful statement of family loyalty, but also reeks of I’ll pick up my ball and go home. Either you believe you have enough to contribute to this country that you keep trying to the power structure, or it is a less important part of your life, and I’m not sure that I want to vote for anyone who is a do it now or not at all candidate.
Just to be clear, I will vote for the Democratic candidate whoever it is. Both candidates reflect many of my beliefs and they are so fare superior to the Repubs, that I can vote for them in good conscience.
myiq2xu
I know Michelle Obama said that, but I think it was just to forestall the idea of a Hillary/Obama ticket this year with Obama the VP/heir under the theory that Hillary is older and should go first.
It doesn’t sound very good, but the media ignored it.
tBone
Oh, please. Plenty of people were bothered by the idea back then too. If you don’t remember it, you weren’t paying attention.
If Michelle Obama had been President for eight years, we’d be calling her husband Barack. And it doesn’t seem to bother Hillary too much, considering that she uses it in all of her campaign branding. OMG why does Hillary hate women??
4jkb4ia
I will try to construct a pro-Hillary argument. Maybe it will even work on Kos.
a) She is entirely reliable on Israel. Yes, you knew that was coming.
b) She has served on Armed Services, and Obama has not.
c) She is determined to get some kind of health care legislation passed, and Obama may have other priorities.
d) She knows how the federal bureaucracy works, and Obama knows less about it.
d’) She will be a hands-on manager and won’t put up with any nonsense from the people Bush stacked places such as DOJ with.
Well, I tried. I really think that Obama is appealing to people’s idealism rather than their need for hero worship. In that case people will hold their government much more accountable than we have been accustomed to seeing.
Beej
Someone may have mentioned this upthread, but another reason I think McCain is going to be a lot more palatable to moderates and independents: He will probably be a 1-term President who will decline to run again in 2012. The appeal of that really shouldn’t be underestimated. Voters are tired of politicians who do things to get re-elected rather than because those things are good for the country. McCain, particularly if he takes the pledge not to run again, is going to attract a lot of voters for that reason alone.
John S.
Psst…I never voted for Bush, partially on those very same grounds. I seriously doubt the average person who did vote for him because they could have a beer with him thought about it either. Do I need to point out that most of these people will likely not vote for a Democrat?
You had better alert the media and share your concern with Senator Clinton, then. Especially since she chooses to use her first name on her own website (Hillary for President) and campaign material (everything says ‘Hillary’ on it).
John S.
You realize that many of us (even Jews!) think her fealty to AIPAC is a bad thing, right?
I see. But he has served on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. I have no idea what the significance of either is.
She was determined back in the 90s, too. She may have the same success today as she did then.
That may be true, although I don’t think you can automatically infer this simply because she has been in the senate a few more years than Obama has. There are senators who have held office for decades who still seem to have no clue how things work.
Luke
John, with all due respect, your reasons not to vote for Senator Clinton are only a few of the reasons why I support Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has my VOTE for these reason along with many others. Senator Obama is a good man, however, he is not ready to lead this country out the mess Bush has made. Senator Clinton will be a strong leader for our great country.
4jkb4ia
Hey, it was the best I could come up with.
a) Part of why “Hillary is reliable on Israel” is that she has seen Oslo fail more personally than Obama has. A Hillary presidency would learn directly from the mistakes of the Clinton admin. This could very well piss off AIPAC because Hillary would not let any kind of decent peace deal get away.
b) Armed Services is the committee which directly oversees the military. So Hillary has some experience dealing with the active duty military.
c) Point taken. Either Hillary or Obama wins on domestic issues. Either Hillary or Obama will have a public expecting them to address health care.
d) I am going with Ezra Klein on this one
jcricket
I said this on another thread, but I now add to my list of reasons to vote Hillary: Andrew Sullivan will go apoplectic and get carpal tunnel writing 100,000 words on Kantian Nihilism or Burkean Barebacking and why it shows that Hillary is the devil.