• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Books are my comfort food!

I might just take the rest of the day off and do even more nothing than usual.

Putting aside our relentless self-interest because the moral imperative is crystal clear.

We can show the world that autocracy can be defeated.

I’ve spoken to my cat about this, but it doesn’t seem to do any good.

Dear media: perhaps we ought to let Donald Trump speak for himself!

The rest of the comments were smacking Boebert like she was a piñata.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

How stupid are these people?

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

You don’t get rid of your umbrella while it’s still raining.

We need to vote them all out and restore sane Democratic government.

It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.

This must be what justice looks like, not vengeful, just peaceful exuberance.

If you cannot answer whether trump lost the 2020 election, you are unfit for office.

Republicans want to make it harder to vote and easier for them to cheat.

The snowflake in chief appeared visibly frustrated when questioned by a reporter about egg prices.

Good lord, these people are nuts.

Proof that we need a blogger ethics panel.

White supremacy is terrorism.

Live so that if you miss a day of work people aren’t hoping you’re dead.

The worst democrat is better than the best republican.

There are times when telling just part of the truth is effectively a lie.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Elections / Election 2008 / The Continuing Rehabilitation of Newt Gingrich

The Continuing Rehabilitation of Newt Gingrich

by John Cole|  March 9, 200811:24 am| 226 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008

FacebookTweetEmail

Hilzoy has investigated Hillary’s “foriegn policy” experience regarding Rwanda, and has determined that she is (hold on to your seats) lying:

So, to sum up: the US didn’t just fail to intervene in Rwanda. Our government urged the withdrawal of the UN peacekeeping forces that were on the ground protecting Rwandans, for no better reason than to keep the Belgians from looking like cowards. It refused to jam the radio station that was passing on instructions for genocide. It blocked further efforts to reinforce the peacekeeping forces there. It also failed to do any of the much smaller things that might have shown that our government was not wholly indifferent to the people of Rwanda who were, at that time, being hacked to death with machetes.

It’s worth bearing this background in mind when you hear Hillary Clinton claim that she advocated military intervention in Rwanda. If you don’t, you might think: well, it’s perfectly comprehensible that she might have argued for military intervention but failed to convince her husband. After all, military intervention in another country is a big deal, not to be undertaken lightly. And it’s easy to imagine Hillary Clinton being in favor of it, and her husband reluctantly concluding that it just wasn’t something he could do.

***

But if, in fact, Clinton missed the chance to urge her husband to help stop the Rwandan genocide, then she should not pretend that she was, in fact, right there on the side of the angels all along. That’s just grotesque.

And while Hilzoy, being Hilzoy, uses language to give people the benefit of the doubt, I feel no such need. Hillary is lying about her position on Rwanda. Not just lying, but a typical double-axel-triple-lutz with a twisting Clintonian dismount with a straight face added in for difficulty.

At some point, even the most diehard Democrats are going to have to admit that the acrimony of the 90’s wasn’t just caused by the Republican party and Newt Gingrich. There was another force at play.

Obligatory Troll/Hillaryis44 protection: No, I am not going to vote for McCain. Yes, I will vote for the Democrat.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Fix Your Clocks
Next Post: Gaming the System »

Reader Interactions

226Comments

  1. 1.

    T. Scheisskopf

    March 9, 2008 at 11:36 am

    Is it not fascinating that The Hi44 correspondents are indistinguishable from the most frothing frothers the frothing right has ever frothingly offered?

    On the other hand, I might be too easily fascinated. I accept that.

  2. 2.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 11:37 am

    now all we need is a functioning press corps, and Hillary will be on the next bus home.

  3. 3.

    Andrew

    March 9, 2008 at 11:43 am

    Rwanada? Do they have caucuses there? If so, it totally doesn’t count.

  4. 4.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 11:46 am

    now all we need is a functioning press corps, and Hillary will be on the next bus home.

    Amen. It amazes me that Senator Clinton can claim that the press is harder on her than Senator Obama with a straight face. After numerous debates, no one has asked her exactly how and when she obtained the “experience” that makes her qualified to be president.

    No one has asked why no previous book by or about a Clinton has ever made the claim that she was ever a president-in-training.

    No one has asked exactly which cabinet meetings she sat in on, or which Clinton Administration policies can demonstrably be shown to reflect her counsel, guidance or input.

    No one has asked whether her husband ever passed classified documents to her for review (such as the Intelligence Estimate) or ever discussed matters with her for which she had no security clearance.

    No one has asked why she did not ask for, or evidently obtain, a high security clearance.

    And so it goes.

  5. 5.

    vishnu schizt

    March 9, 2008 at 11:46 am

    Good for you John, I on the other hand will not be voting for Billary or McOld under any circumstances. I’ll write in Obama. Call me ignorant, an asshat, whatever I’m not going to hold my nose. Any other Dem, would get my vote, but there is no way I’ll be party to continuing the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Viva la resistencia!

  6. 6.

    Liberal Masochist

    March 9, 2008 at 11:47 am

    slightly off topic and apologies if this has been mentioned before, but did anyone notice that Hillary was in a business suit when she answered the phone at 3 am? Guess she was still working the night shift like many a blue collar worker in Ohio

    By the way, I sort of picture Obama in pajamas wearing one of those dangling sleeping caps with a pom pom at the end. Bush, obviously, would still be asleep…

  7. 7.

    ken

    March 9, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.I would have thought that self imposed standards of honesty would have kept her in check, but I was wrong.

  8. 8.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 11:52 am

    now all we need is a functioning press corps, and Hillary will be on the next bus home.

    Fire up the engines?

    A fact check on Clinton’s foreign policy claims
    In some cases, CNN found a lack of clarity on her real involvement in foreign policy affairs. But in other cases, her claims do seem to check out fairly well.

    Maybe not.

    It’s an attention grabbing headline backed up by a rather thin piece. It looks at three cases of Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience: Northern Ireland, Kosovo and China. But it doesn’t really show one way or another if her claims are justified or if they are just fluff. It just looks like CNN asks the question but is afraid to give us the answer. I guess they don’t want to end up being satirized on SNL or something. Although the article does close with this:

    So while her experience is extensive, she rarely carried an official portfolio.

    It’s like they want to say she’s full of shit, but just can’t find the words.

  9. 9.

    Napoleon

    March 9, 2008 at 11:53 am

    Off topic, but the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports today that 16,000 Repiglicans crossed over in Cuyahoga County to vote in the Dem primary to vote, and although the law is they are to become Dems to do so many wrote on their forms stuff like “for one day” and “I don’t believe in abortion”.

    http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/120505162549970.xml&coll=2

  10. 10.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 11:55 am

    clinton’s claims now about rwanda sound conspicuously similar to her claims that “in private i was always against NAFTA, just trust me on that”.

    and the same question gets raised: if you give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that yes she indeed was vocally against NAFTA or bill’s stance on rwanda, 1) why is there no evidence at all about her saying anything about it and 2) how not being listened to at all fit in to her assertions of ‘white house experience’?

  11. 11.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics.

    WTF are you talking about ?

  12. 12.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 11:56 am

    Any other Dem, would get my vote, but there is no way I’ll be party to continuing the Bush/Clinton dynasty.

    Wow, I’m starting to see this more frequently these days.

    And to think that just a few months ago my aversion to dynastic politics was shouted down as lunacy by many. Nice to see that there are some other ‘crazies’ out there.

  13. 13.

    Anticorium

    March 9, 2008 at 11:59 am

    The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.

    Well, after that comprehensive list of examples of falsehoods from hilzoy’s post, I’m sure convinced.

  14. 14.

    rob!

    March 9, 2008 at 11:59 am

    my parents–lifelong republicans–changed their party affiliation in order to vote for Obama on Feb. 5th.

    they HATE Hillary Clinton, and if she’s the nominee, they will not vote in a Presidential election for the first time in their lives.

  15. 15.

    SGEW

    March 9, 2008 at 12:00 pm

    The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.

    What “false charges” has Hilzoy leveled? No, seriously. Is there anything in this particular post that is quantifiably false? Or are you just being, um, obtuse?

    Viva la resistencia!

    Proper response to this (as seen spray painted on a wall in Barcelona):

    Vota, idiota!

  16. 16.

    Raenelle

    March 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm

    I’m one of those who blame the acrimony of the 90s entirely on the Republican party and its minions. What this campaign has shown me is that Hillary does appear willing to do just about anything, no matter how disgusting or dangerous, in order to win. So that leads me to admit what–that the Clintons are sleazy, opportunistic politicians and everything they say and do, all that they value and aspire to, is solely about naked self-interest? OK. So, Bill Clinton didn’t really get up each day and ask himself how he could help the American people. I am a bit disappointed to realize that.

    But does Hillary’s conduct really make Whitewater a scandal? Does it mean she killed Vince Foster? Oh, forget the RW fantasy list of the Clintons and their demonic misdeeds. Does Clintonian sociopathy mean anything scandalous whatsoever? Which of the Republican claims of the 90s, beyond the gut instinct of people whose gut instincts I don’t trust that the Clintons lacked character and were thus unqualified for office, which of their claims were based in evidence, were even fucking rational?

    I’m open. Hillary has been disgusting. So, what charges were based in real-world evidence? What charges were of significant weight to justify the snarling hysteria? Why, beyond personal contempt, was Bill Clinton such a nightmare as president?

  17. 17.

    Buck

    March 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    By the way, I sort of picture Obama in pajamas wearing one of those dangling sleeping caps with a pom pom at the end. Bush, obviously, would still be asleep…

    No. Bush would be stumbling his was through the rose garden, with a bottle of Jack in one hand.

  18. 18.

    Dug Jay

    March 9, 2008 at 12:08 pm

    What are Obama’s foreign policy experiences, beyond living abroad when he was a child. As Chairman of one of the subcommittees of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has never held even a single meeting. To the best of my knowledge, he was never schooled in a madrassa in Libya as some have claimed, and therefore, he has never had any direct exposure to the evils of nasty dictators.

  19. 19.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    Why, beyond personal contempt, was Bill Clinton such a nightmare as president?

    Because he championed Republican legislation like NAFTA and the repeal of critical parts of the Glass-Stiegal Act?

    Because he lost the Congress?

    Because he tried to invoke executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation?

    Let me count the ways.

  20. 20.

    Wilfred

    March 9, 2008 at 12:10 pm

    Yes, I will vote for the Democrat.

    This is just enabling the shitty behavior and scheming politics you say you don’t like. Saying you’ll vote for Clinton no matter what just encourages her to do more of the same. This complaining is getting old.

  21. 21.

    The Other Steve

    March 9, 2008 at 12:15 pm

    At some point, even the most diehard Democrats are going to have to admit that the acrimony of the 90’s wasn’t just caused by the Republican party and Newt Gingrich. There was another force at play.

    You may be pushing this a bit far.

    The Republicans weren’t assholes because of Clinton. They were assholes as part of a concerted political strategy to drive citizens away from politics. The more people there are who aren’t voting, the easier it is to win elections with a minority of religious freaks and commited lunatics.

  22. 22.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    I can’t decide on the greater thing for which I should thank the Pantsuit Posse: the resurgence of springy steps and idiot grinning at Fox News, or my re-discovery of cynicism regarding politics in general.

  23. 23.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 12:21 pm

    Because he championed Republican legislation like NAFTA and the repeal of critical parts of the Glass-Stiegal Act?

    Because he lost the Congress?

    Because he tried to invoke executive privilege in the Monica Lewinsky investigation?

    i defend clinton’s administration on stuff, but the things they 1) gave us or 2) helped to give us or 3) did nothing about, that piss me off are still legion.

    DoMA, NAFTA, GATT/WTO, epic fails in rwanda, east timor and major healthcare reform, expanded government powers (yay “free speech zones”!), DADT, an expanded drug war, ‘3 strikes’ provisions etc etc.

    not a very good democrat. he was, however, the best republican president we’ve ever had.

  24. 24.

    The Other Steve

    March 9, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    What are Obama’s foreign policy experiences, beyond living abroad when he was a child.

    If I recall correctly in 2000, Bush had never even been out of the country.

  25. 25.

    hilzoy

    March 9, 2008 at 12:28 pm

    Ken: “Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.”

    Care to explain which false charges I have made?

  26. 26.

    John Cole

    March 9, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    That is, without question, simultaneously the dumbest and most dishonest thing EVER written in the comments section of this blog.

    And you have some stiff competition, because that includes my comments during my heady kool-aid days circa 2002-2004.

  27. 27.

    John Cole

    March 9, 2008 at 12:31 pm

    i defend clinton’s administration on stuff, but the things they 1) gave us or 2) helped to give us or 3) did nothing about, that piss me off are still legion.

    DoMA, NAFTA, GATT/WTO, epic fails in rwanda, east timor and major healthcare reform, expanded government powers (yay “free speech zones”!), DADT, an expanded drug war, ‘3 strikes’ provisions etc etc.

    It has been a running joke in conservative circles for several years that in retrospect, after the three Bush administrations, the Clinton administration turns out to be the most “conservative.”

  28. 28.

    Sirkowski

    March 9, 2008 at 12:33 pm

    She’s using a genocide to further her campaign, but she’s not a monster…

  29. 29.

    TheFountainHead

    March 9, 2008 at 12:34 pm

    What are Obama’s foreign policy experiences, beyond living abroad when he was a child. As Chairman of one of the subcommittees of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has never held even a single meeting. To the best of my knowledge, he was never schooled in a madrassa in Libya as some have claimed, and therefore, he has never had any direct exposure to the evils of nasty dictators.

    Man, I must have missed that part of his campaign where he was running as the foreign policy experience candidate.

  30. 30.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    clinton is also claiming to have helped pass the FMLA. which was passed twice during bush I (and vetoed twice), and then passed by congress and signed by bill 2 weeks after he was inaugurated.

    jesus, gore got crucified in 2000 for less than this much resume-padding.

  31. 31.

    TheFountainHead

    March 9, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Ken: “Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.”

    Care to explain which false charges I have made?

    Totally pwnd!!

    /SundaySillies

  32. 32.

    tBone

    March 9, 2008 at 12:38 pm

    Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    Well, thank goodness you still have ethical, objective straight-shooters like Taylor Marsh and Armando to turn to, Ken.

    WTF is wrong with you?

  33. 33.

    Rick Taylor

    March 9, 2008 at 12:42 pm

    Obligatory Troll/Hillaryis44 protection: No, I am not going to vote for McCain. Yes, I will vote for the Democrat.

    You are, which is good, but I’ve been seeing too many Obama supporters saying they won’t vote for Hillary in the general election if she’s the candidate, and too many Hillary supporters saying they’ll never vote for Obama, no matter what. I’ve been disgusted with Hillary Clinton recently myself, but this is just nuts (and an example of the democratic party circular firing squad).

    Hillary and Obama are, based on their voting record, barely distinguishable. As much as I’ve been disgusted with Hillary’s recent innuendos, or disappointed in Obama’s use of right wing talking points on social security or health care, these are nothing compared to the Republican maneuvering to claim the election in 2000, or their tarring anyone who opposes the war as being a terrorist sympathizer.

    McCain is taking the mantle on from Bush; he is a full throated supporter of the current war, and has promised us we’re going to have more wars. How anyone could even dream of not voting for the democratic candidate in the general election, or even (as some have said) vote for the republican, after we’ve been through these eight last years is beyond me.

  34. 34.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    McCain is taking the mantle on from Bush; he is a full throated supporter of the current war, and has promised us we’re going to have more wars. How anyone could even dream of not voting for the democratic candidate in the general election, or even (as some have said) vote for the republican, after we’ve been through these eight last years is beyond me.

    this is true. the only reason i have for not voting for clinton if she ends up the nominee is if she gets it by shenanigans. because i in no way will support that. of course, i live in NY so a protest vote is a convenient option.

  35. 35.

    CapMidnight

    March 9, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    By the way, I sort of picture Obama in pajamas wearing one of those dangling sleeping caps with a pom pom at the end. Bush, obviously, would still be asleep…

    No. Bush would be stumbling his was through the rose garden, with a bottle of Jack in one hand.

    Actually, the ad ends as George, calling from his cellphone in the Garden, asks Hillary, “Ya (hic) got any Prince Abdullahs in the Gitmo can?! (snicker)”

  36. 36.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 12:50 pm

    To the best of my knowledge, he was never schooled in a madrassa in Libya as some have claimed, and therefore, he has never had any direct exposure to the evils of nasty dictators.

    Sorry, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t be deliberately ignorant of the fact that Obama has not claimed any significant foreign policy experience and then refuse to be deliberately ignorant of the Libya claim. It’s all or nothing on being intellectually dishonest – pick a side.

  37. 37.

    J. Michael Neal

    March 9, 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Hillary and Obama are, based on their voting record, barely distinguishable.

    This is true. My problems with Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with the policies she’s running on. They have everything to do with the problem that she doesn’t have any capacity to be useful in passing those policies, and the fact that she is morally repulsive. That combination would, I think, be a disaster to have as a Democratic president right now.

  38. 38.

    ilovebestparts

    March 9, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    the best part is, how humiliated would clinton be if, after all the “as far as i know” stuff, the darkened ads, the “states that i don’t win don’t count”, the “denounce AND reject”, and especially the “commander in chief” line, she loses to McCain, becomes the biggest goon in history to the party she worked so hard to take over, and Obama gets her margin of victory in write-in votes?

    i’d write him in if she wins with all her “wreck Obama for the general” stuff. in a second. it’d be like a national pantsing.

  39. 39.

    Dug Jay

    March 9, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    TOS:

    “If I recall correctly in 2000, Bush had never even been out of the country”

    To the best of my knowledge, Obama is now competing in the Democratic primary against Clinton who is claiming superior foreign policy experience than Obama. I don’t believe Bush is running in 2008.

    The Fountainhead:

    “Man, I must have missed that part of his campaign where he was running as the foreign policy experience candidate.”

    Obviously, that’s not all that you’ve missed.

  40. 40.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 1:13 pm

    slightly off topic and apologies if this has been mentioned before, but did anyone notice that Hillary was in a business suit when she answered the phone at 3 am? Guess she was still working the night shift like many a blue collar worker in Ohio

    Maureen Dowd has fun with this image of Senator Clinton in her latest column (The Monster Mash):

    Hillary successfully recast herself in Ohio as a beer-drinking former waitress. Only after last week’s reversals did the Obama camp raise a louder ruckus about her tax returns. Obviously, Ms. Night Shift does not want to reveal the details of the fortune that Bill Clinton has made, sometimes through dubious associations.

    On the other hand, the media has simply given Senator Clinton a pass with respect to most of her claims of experience. Even though plain commonsense suggests that her claims are at best hyperbole, it is easy and somewhat reasonable for people to transform conversations that the Clintons may have held about various issues into an active and ongoing collaboration.

    It’s an attention grabbing headline backed up by a rather thin piece. It looks at three cases of Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience: Northern Ireland, Kosovo and China. But it doesn’t really show one way or another if her claims are justified or if they are just fluff.

    Senator Clinton’s claims to some role in Northern Ireland discussions have been refuted by some of those who were, you know, actually there (Nobel winner: Hillary Clinton’s ‘silly’ Irish peace claims):

    “I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around. She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player,” – David Trimble, former First Minister of Northern Ireland on Hillary Clinton’s absurd lie that she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland.”

    Some people just refuse to accept that Senator Clinton’s role was surprisingly traditional for someone who is without a doubt very intelligent and talented: Once a peace deal was in place, Mrs Clinton supported women politicians and was always available if they visited Washington “to give them a pat on the back, give them moral support”, he added.

    There is no constitutional office of First Lady. It is ceremonial, and Senator Clinton’s attempt at revisionism are becoming increasingly strained.

    The Other Steve Says:

    What are Obama’s foreign policy experiences, beyond living abroad when he was a child.

    If I recall correctly in 2000, Bush had never even been out of the country.

    Great point here. I just love the obvious political amnesia involved here. When Dubya was running, experience didn’t matter because Dubya would not only have access to all of his father’s wise advisors, but born-again Dubya had apparently been blessed with infallibility by the baby Jesus.

    But now, suddenly, “experience” is everything, though much of this is the laughable spectacle of Senator Clinton trying to offer the frequent flyer miles she accumulated while traveling aboard Air Force One as in-depth knowledge of international affairs. And we have the equally sad spectacle of John McCain abandoning any independent foreign policy experience he may have gained in order to embrace Bush’s irrational Iraq policy.

  41. 41.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    March 9, 2008 at 1:17 pm

    Ken says:

    Hilzoy is an ethicist without a shred of ethics. It has been interesting to watch her self destruct during this campaign.

    and John responds:

    That is, without question, simultaneously the dumbest and most dishonest thing EVER written in the comments section of this blog.

    Ken,

    John nails it here. You just made yourself the all-time poster-boy for brain-shriveling levels of selection bias.

    Hilzoy has a towering reputation as one of the most soft spoken and fair minded writers anywhere in Left Blogistan. She consistently bends over backwards to give even the most despicable people some benefit of the doubt, some possible reason to excuse by way of mistakes or confusion their words or actions, which most of us mere mortals have no problem attributing to malice and moral depravity.

    People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones at 13th century castles.

  42. 42.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm

    Clinton who is claiming superior foreign policy experience than Obama.

    True, though she’s claiming a lot of things that are just fiction as well.

    Once again, neither of the Dems are rockin’ on foreign policy. Why again are we arguing which Dem is stronger on the only issue the Republicans are going to run when the Democrats better strategy is to cede that point, and hit back on every other issue from the economy to civil rights to Iraq to corruption? Oh, right, because Hillary thinks its a winning strategy.

    (Hint, it’s not, and every moment she spends on it is yet another reminder that her judgement sucks. McCain will hold her on this topic because she focused so much time on it and bury her in all those tea and crumpet foreign policy facts on her just as Gore got killed on ‘inventing the internet’)

  43. 43.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 1:19 pm

    This is true. My problems with Hillary Clinton have nothing to do with the policies she’s running on. They have everything to do with the problem that she doesn’t have any capacity to be useful in passing those policies, and the fact that she is morally repulsive. That combination would, I think, be a disaster to have as a Democratic president right now.

    Exactly. I would not vote for Clinton, period. She and her husband are two of the most accomplished bait and switch artists to ever appear on the American political stage. I live in a state where you don’t have to vote for every candidate or measure on the ballot. I will exercise that privilege if Clinton is the nominee. Voting for a repugnant Democrat, just because that person is a Democrat, is akin to the Republicans voting for Bush just because he is a Republican.

  44. 44.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 1:20 pm

    Hillary and Obama are, based on their voting record, barely distinguishable.

    Hillary did vote for the AUMF; and she voted to designate Iran’s Rev.Guard a “terrorist organization” (which is pretty close to giving Bush authority to invade Iran). Obama did neither.

  45. 45.

    capelza

    March 9, 2008 at 1:25 pm

    Oh for fuck’s sake…stay home (those who have threatened to)…and let McCain win.

    Clinton is Clinton..all her faults are laid bare and I would like to see Obama become President, BUT if McCain wins, who’ll be the next batch of federal judges, who’ll be on the SCOTUS?

    It is you right to NOT vote, but if, and it’s a big if, then who do you want in office? McCain? ( “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran” and “We’ll be in Iraq for 100years?) Jesus, you might as well be voting for Nader…

  46. 46.

    Dug Jay

    March 9, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    Hillary did vote for the AUMF; and she voted to designate Iran’s Rev.Guard a “terrorist organization” (which is pretty close to giving Bush authority to invade Iran). Obama did neither.

    True. Additionally, however, Obama promised to meet Iran’s leader without any pre-conditions and probably wants him as his first Lincoln bedroom visitor if he beats Hillary and McCain.

  47. 47.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm

    Hillary did vote for the AUMF

    But that’s not really a comparison of ‘voting records’. Obama was not in the Senate when that vote occured.

    However, he was against the war and states that if he were there, he would have voted against it. If you go by that assumption (which I do) I guess you can make that comparison. But it isn’t really directly comparing votes on an issue.

  48. 48.

    Plumdog

    March 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    So basically, we will all be voting for Laura Bush for President in eight years because of her extensive experience in the White House….????

  49. 49.

    TheFountainHead

    March 9, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    True. Additionally, however, Obama promised to meet Iran’s leader without any pre-conditions and probably wants him as his first Lincoln bedroom visitor if he beats Hillary and McCain.

    See, and here I was, all prepared to take you seriously.

  50. 50.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Martin, Hillary’s strategy has been to cede that McCain has better foreign policy bona fides. ‘member, that was the complaint, um, yesterday and the day before, and oh yeah, the day before that.

    And Brachiator is silly eneugh to agree that since Bush didn’t have overseas experience it makes sense that Obama doesn’t need it either. ???????? Vote for your candidate, just don’t fool yourselves that it’s because Hillary Clinton is mean. It’s because YOU THINK she’s mean.

    It’s as if there’s an attempt here to try to be wise but it comes across as exceptionally unwise. Because you think she’s mean does not make it so.

    Political campaigns are ALL about framing, because most people know that once you get in the job it all changes. Most of it’s not lies, it’s just framing.

    Hillary has “experience.” It’s framing, however tenuous.
    Obama is about “hope” and, like every other politician has said before him, “change”. it’s framing, however tenuous, except a lot more people seem to accept this framing as somehow meaningful.

    It’s called framing.

  51. 51.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    True. Additionally, however, Obama promised to meet Iran’s leader without any pre-conditions and probably wants him as his first Lincoln bedroom visitor if he beats Hillary and McCain.

    Well, seeing as how America Junior Iraq has already met with Ahmadinejad, why do you hate the Lincoln bedroom?

  52. 52.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Oh for fuck’s sake…stay home (those who have threatened to)…and let McCain win.

    I guess that would depend on the state you live in.

    I would also say that staying home altogether is pretty stupid. There are plenty of ballot initiatives, referenda and downticket races to vote for, even if you don’t want to pull the lever for the Democratic presidential candidate you don’t like.

    If you live in a safe state, go and vote anyways and when it comes to the president, write someone else in. If you live in a swing state, just get over it and do what it takes to make sure McCain does not get the job.

  53. 53.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Obligatory Troll/Hillaryis44 protection: No, I am not going to vote for McCain. Yes, I will vote for the Democrat.

    There are people here that are neither, who want Hillary Clinton to win, who still think Obama is a wonderful person. And who have heard often that McCain or Nader is “The Man” if Hillary gets the nom.

    Temple

  54. 54.

    SteveinSC

    March 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    And you have some stiff competition, because that includes my comments during my heady kool-aid days circa 2002-2004.

    I actually dropped in on this blog sometime in 2004 or so because either Tbogg or someone had it as a link. I thought, “Jesus Christ this guy is one ignorant mother fucker.” Could someone please point me to some of the the more exquisitely Kool-Aid posts of that time? I am just interested in the metamorphosis of John Cole.

  55. 55.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    But that’s not really a comparison of ‘voting records’. Obama was not in the Senate when that vote occured.

    the AUMF, no. but i’m willing to take Obama at his word that he wouldn’t have voted for it. the other, definitely. her “experience” and her record in the Senate shows that she has lousy judgment. Obama’s isn’t perfect, but it’s better than hers.

  56. 56.

    Pug

    March 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm

    True. Additionally, however, Obama promised to meet Iran’s leader without any pre-conditions and probably wants him as his first Lincoln bedroom visitor if he beats Hillary and McCain.

    Well, instead of the Lincoln bedroom perhaps he could meet Ahmadinijad in Baghdad where the little bastard arrived last week to a hero’s welcome. He didn’t sneak in under cover of darkness like our president. He arrived to a formal state welcome and not a peep out of all the right-wing tough guys and not a peep from Clinton or Obama. She’s too busy smearing Obama and he’s too busy trying to defend himself.

    If Hillary is elected, Ahmadinijad will never stay in the Lincoln bedroom because he probably wouldn’t be willing to pay the bribe required by the Clintons.

  57. 57.

    ThatLeftTurnInABQ

    March 9, 2008 at 1:50 pm

    At some point, even the most diehard Democrats are going to have to admit that the acrimony of the 90’s wasn’t just caused by the Republican party and Newt Gingrich. There was another force at play.

    John,

    To be fair to Hillary for a moment here, aren’t you confusing cause and effect here? IIRC all of the evidence dredged up by the VRWC against the Clintons, after millions of taxpayer dollars were spent investigating their entire adult lives, added up to about an average week in the Nixon administration.

    Is it possible that Hillary was changed by that experience, and concluded that she might as well be hung for a wolf as a lamb? In other words what is the point of remaining purer than snow, if you are never going to get credit for it anyway, because your public image has already been hopelessly tainted by your enemies? Might as well play dirty from that point forward – what do you have left to lose?

    If anyone in public life has an excuse for thinking that dirty politics is the only kind that matters, it would be the Clintons.

    They came into politics during the 1972 McGovern campaign and saw what the entrenched Democratic establishment did that year to kneecap the party’s nominee going into the general election, because the party brass feared a takeover of “their party” by the Dirty Fucking Hippies more than they feared a loss to Nixon.
    Fast forward to the 1990’s, and well, just ewwww.

    I don’t want Hillary to be our nominee. I think we have a chance this year to bury this kind of scorched earth politics and replace with something that is much better (both for the party and more importantly for the nation). But I don’t blame Hillary for being hard-bitten, and I don’t think you can give Newt retroactive justification for anticipating something that he helped to create.

  58. 58.

    srv

    March 9, 2008 at 1:55 pm

    I would not vote for Clinton, period.

    Wow, my work is done. First ppGaz, now we must have half a dozen posters who will never vote for Hillary or would reconsider McCain.

    Well, they can always fall back and do a Nader.

  59. 59.

    Realist

    March 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm

    I’m a little sick of the SCOTUS Stick being beat over my head whenever I state unequivocally that I will not support Clinton’s shitty tactics. There’s another little buffer before judges get elected — Congress. I’ll vote Dem straight down the ticket except up top (write in Obama) and watch as McNutty’s nominees waste away in a strongly blue Congress. But I will not vote for Clinton. Not after this. I can’t defend this crap for months prior to election, or for years if she pulls it off.

    And I’m not the only one thinking this.

  60. 60.

    srv

    March 9, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    Could someone please point me to some of the the more exquisitely Kool-Aid posts of that time?

    He hates that when we do it. And has like the worst search engine in the intertubes to dissauage any attempts.

  61. 61.

    Zifnab25

    March 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

    Jesus, you might as well be voting for Nader…

    Fall off a cliff and die.

    Hillary is not my first pick for President, but she’s no worse than Nixon or Bush 41 or Reagen or Bill. We survived all of them well enough. She’s not the best option, but we already passed on Dodd back in Iowa. She’s not the one with the most experience, but we passed on Richardson and Biden too. If she wins the nomination, I’ll be in Texas so my vote won’t matter. But if I was in Ohio or Virginia or another “swing state”, I’d vote for her. I really don’t want to see another term of Bush, and I really don’t see McCain as anything other than a second incarnation of the mega-corp neo-con clusterfuck machine. In that respect, Hillary is the lesser of two evils.

    God willing, we won’t have to make the choice. I think Obama has the grassroots support to pull out of the convention a winner, and I think the Superdelegates will fall in behind the will of the people. And I think Obama will landslide us to strong Democratic Majorities for a generation if he is the nominee.

    But in the event Obama fucks up and we are staring down the barrel of a McCain v Clinton race, claiming “Clinton isn’t any better” is making the same horrible, horrible, horrible mistake that so many in ’00 made when they claimed Bush and Gore were cookie cutter copies of each other.

  62. 62.

    Zifnab25

    March 9, 2008 at 2:04 pm

    There’s another little buffer before judges get elected—Congress.

    Dude. You almost made me shoot milk out my nose. That was hilarious.

    Wait… were you serious?

  63. 63.

    capelza

    March 9, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Realist…do you want McCain to be President?

    I hear the Gore same as Bush crap echoing here…yeah, that worked out fabulously!

    I’ll vote for her over McCain anyday..and I mean actually vote for her…Christ on a Crutch…I can not believe the crap I’ve read.

    Oh and Newt can suck on this! That man and his “revolution” poisoned the 90’s.

    And yeah, Congress NEVER folds does it? Thomas anyone?

  64. 64.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 2:11 pm

    And I’m not the only one thinking this.

    Don’t worry, you won’t have to vote for Clinton. She’s a dead woman walking, and she knows it – hence this type of stuff repeatedly coming out of her camp:

    But you look at most of these places, he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you’d have an almost unstoppable force,” Clinton went on to say.

    This is at least the third time Clinton’s campaign has brought this up [Steven Benen also noted “For the third time in the last four days, the Clinton camp is emphasizing, rather blatantly, the notion of a Clinton-Obama ticket.”], and that’s Bill himself talking about the ‘dream ticket’ of Clinton/Obama. Too bad Clinton (Hillary) is the only one receptive to the idea:

    “Well, you know, I think it’s premature. You won’t see me as a vice presidential candidate. You know, I’m running for president. We have won twice as many states as Senator Clinton, and have a higher popular vote, and I think we can maintain our delegate count.”

    Riddle me this Ballon-Juicers: Who is talking like the winner here?

  65. 65.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    Martin, Hillary’s strategy has been to cede that McCain has better foreign policy bona fides. ‘member, that was the complaint, um, yesterday and the day before, and oh yeah, the day before that.

    Actually, Senator Clinton’s strategy has been confused, self-serving and self-defeating. Neither she nor McCain have much in the way of serious foreign policy bona fides, as judged by their similarly wrong-headed statements, votes and decisions with respect to foreign policy.

    And both are creating equally foolish ads that will only highlight the degree to which their claims are laughable. McCain, for instance, has released an ad in which he compares himself to Winston Churchill (John McCain likens himself to Winston Churchill).

    The Republican candidate John McCain yesterday released an advertisement comparing himself to Winston Churchill, as he attempts to convince American voters that he would be the nation’s worthiest leader in wartime.

    Produced just days after he sealed the Republican nomination, the two-minute advert begins with Churchill’s 1940 promise to “fight them on the beaches”. This os followed by a clip of the Arizona senator exhorting his countrymen not to yield in the Iraq war in a 2004 speech at the party’s national convention.

    The video can be viewed directly via YouTube here: John McCain’s Churchill video.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Senator Clinton followed up her 3am ad with a video in which she compares herself to Queen Victoria, and husband Bill to Prince Albert in a can.

    And Brachiator is silly eneugh to agree that since Bush didn’t have overseas experience it makes sense that Obama doesn’t need it either. ????????

    Actually, the point is quite simple. Republicans and some Democrats are trying to have it both ways. And they can’t.

    With Dubya, Republicans flat out said that experience did not matter. And in Bush, they had one of the most inexperienced and least qualified human beings to have ever walked the planet, a doofus who had to be home-schooled by Condi Rice before he could even pretend to be able to find any place outside of Texas on a map.

    It’s not that Bush did not have overseas experience. It is that he did not have any foreign policy experience, and had previously demonstrated a deep lack of curiosity about anything related to world affairs.

    Vote for your candidate, just don’t fool yourselves that it’s because Hillary Clinton is mean. It’s because YOU THINK she’s mean.

    I don’t care whether Senator Clinton is a Mean Girl. I DO care that she is a liar, and largely a fraud. I care that much like Patrick Buchanan and others whose main careers have been in the background, she doesn’t appear to understand that watching someone else be governor or president does not magically or automatically endow her with the ability to do the job herself.

    Hillary has “experience.” It’s framing, however tenuous.
    Obama is about “hope” and, like every other politician has said before him, “change”. it’s framing, however tenuous, except a lot more people seem to accept this framing as somehow meaningful.

    It’s called framing.

    The whole point is to get around the BS of the framing. NONE of the present presidential candidates are particularly strong with respect to experience. And yet the candidate with the deepest resume, Bill Richardson, lacked a certain gravitas, and couldn’t convince people that he was really ready for the big leagues.

    No matter how they attempt to frame it, what McCain and Clinton are offering is not what I am looking for.

  66. 66.

    Tim F.

    March 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    And has like the worst search engine in the intertubes to dissauage any attempts.

    Someone needs to visit Kevin Drum’s site.

  67. 67.

    Realist

    March 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Realist…do you want McCain to be President?

    No. I want Obama to be. But I’d rather McCain be president than Clinton. I think once elected McCain will completely blow off the far right. He’s not shooting for two terms, and he can see which way the winds are blowing.

    If McCain picks Brownback or Huckybear, and then proceeds to stack his cabinet with Bush retreads, then I will hold my nose and vote for Clinton. But I don’t think he will. I think Clinton is a hell of a lot more likely to surround herself with mindless cronies than McCain.

  68. 68.

    JR

    March 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    All the hyperbolic talk about voting wrong and “pulling a Nader” would be less ridiculous if the actual Democratic Party was not EXACTLY as he warned.

    People forget that part. It is the value, and the danger, of scapegoating.

  69. 69.

    PeterJ

    March 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    The problem here isn’t voting for Clinton. She won’t be the nominee. The problem here is what Clinton will do between now and when she finally gives up. And how long it will take her to do that.

  70. 70.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 2:25 pm

    Well, with Bush, experience didn’t matter. Neither with Bill Clinton, nor Reagan. The only president we’ve elected that, at the time he was elected, had any real foreign policy ‘bona fides’ was Bush I.

    When Bush II was first in office, I remember hearing my Republican father-in-law saying something to the extent of “George Bush may not be intelligent, but he surrounded himself with intelligent people”. The truth is that all presidents, even the least experienced, surround themselves with intelligent people.

    The question is, what is the agenda of those intelligent people the president surrounds himself with? And, does the president have at least the requisite judgment and intelligence himself to seperate the agenda from the advice? Does the president have the proper judgment to look at his advisors and tell them when they’re wrong?

    In Bush II I did not see the latter. I saw a president who let his advisors make all the decisions and nodded his head in agreement without doing any mental heavy lifting.

  71. 71.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 2:26 pm

    Actually, the ad ends as George, calling from his -cellphone- Red Phone in the Garden, asks -Hillary- Medvedev, “Ya (hic) got any Prince Abdullahs in the Gitmo can?! (snicker)”

    Fixed that.

  72. 72.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    All the hyperbolic talk about voting wrong and “pulling a Nader” would be less ridiculous if the actual Democratic Party was not EXACTLY as he warned.

    What, progressive, reality-based, fundamentally honest, and filled with hard-working people? That’s not what I remember him saying from 2000, but if he did say that, then yes.

    That’s why Nader fits in so well as a Green.

  73. 73.

    Tim (the Other One)

    March 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

    “There’s another little buffer before judges get elected—Congress.”

    Yeah, that’s worked out well.

  74. 74.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    Could someone please point me to some of the the more exquisitely Kool-Aid posts of that time?

    It didn’t take me too long to find this:

    Dear Democrats ‘outraged’ over the Swift Boat Vets (who unlike Blumenthal and Ellis, actually where there),

    STFU.

    Regards,

    John Cole

    But even back then, John was suspected of ditching his Interval on a regular basis. Which is part of the reason I enjoy reading him so much now.

  75. 75.

    PeterJ

    March 9, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    And about Nader. Fuck Nader.
    He’s had four years since the last election. Eight years since 2000. What has he done? Except for running for president twice, once funded by republicans?

    A good idea for him would be to actually do things himself and stop using the elections to try to blackmail the democrats.

  76. 76.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm

    First ppGaz, now we must have half a dozen posters who will never vote for Hillary

    You are really bad at this. Nobody puts words in my mouth but me. You should know that by now.

    I will never vote for McCain. Even if he were running against Generalissimo Franco, I’m not sure I could vote for that butthead.

    Will I vote for Hillary? Well, Arizona is going McCain in the general, I think that’s a given. My vote is wasted here. If I thought for a second that my vote would make a difference, I’d hold my nose, pray for forgiveness, and vote for that awful woman.

    To keep McCain out of the White House, and only for that reason. But my vote won’t make a difference and so my talk about how I’ll vote in November is all rhetorical.

    Clinton’s nomination will probably result in a Dem presidency, but it will also be the end of the potential real turnaround in politics that we need in this country.

    We should have learned by now, by the example of Bush, that you can’t take a sow’s ear in an election and turn it into a silk purse in government. If we choose a lying, power mad person who gets ahead by sheer force of will and ends-justify-means politics, then we get another shitty president who does what she wants and to hell with everybody else. Pisses everybody off, fucks things up, and leaves the country, and the Democratic party, in worse shape than she found it. Every day that goes by, right now, compounds the evidence that she isn’t fit for this assignment. Her only claim to the title, if she gets that far, is that her Republican opponent is more awful than she is (even though she herself, right now, doesn’t have the fucking sense to say so).

  77. 77.

    Realist

    March 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    “There’s another little buffer before judges get elected—Congress.”

    Yeah, that’s worked out well.

    With a lot smaller margin than they are likely to have next year, they blocked Meiers. And McCain won’t be nominating anyone close to her “caliber.”

    Presidents have a long and storied history of telling their party’s base to go screw itself when they nominate judges. Bush was obviously imperialist in his appointments. McCain is, in my view, a lot less likely to be so than is Hillary.

  78. 78.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 2:38 pm

    Clinton’s nomination will probably result in a Dem presidency, but it will also be the end of the potential real turnaround in politics that we need in this country.

    You know, this statement is one that I (the man-who-writes-Demi…that is, I’m not spoofing here) disagree with.

    I respect and admire Barack OBama. I know he is optimistic, hopeful, and that his exhorations that “Yes We Can!” are sincere.

    I don’t believe him. Mencken once said “For every complicated problem, there is a solution which is clear, simple, and wrong.” It’s always fun to point at some problem and “fix it” by changing direction. Usually, those proposals are wrong-headed; usually, there’s a collection of reasons that the system has evolved the way it has, and, as a reason, usually, “Sorry, but…no you can’t”

  79. 79.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    But even back then, John was suspected of ditchin

    This is less about John than about a lot of other people who still believe the swiftboat bullshit … but …

    ABC News sent a crew into that river area where the Kerry gunboat events happened, and interviewed locals who were there that day and had never heard of John Kerry nor knew that he was a well known person. All they knew was what they saw happen on that day back when.

    Guess what? Their accounts pretty much meshed exactly with Kerry’s account. Conclusion? Kerry was telling the truth about what happened there.

    This story was broadcast on Nightline well before the election. Don’t blame John for not knowing about, but figure out why this story was not played up … not even by the Kerry people themselves. Riddle me that.

  80. 80.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 2:43 pm

    Brachiator, i still can’t see how people have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a fraud without buying the kitchen sink of Republican characterizations of her in the 1990s through today.

    Many of the “she’s a race-baiting bitch” points that people base their “she’s mean” on are manufactured.

    Wanting to get past framing? Seriously, this is politics; it’s definition is all about framing. Seriously. I too wish we cuold have absolute truth from our presidents, but I’m not basing my vote on wanting that to happen because it won’t.

    Obama and/or his campaign right now does not seem to me to be a very straight shooter in the transparency department

    This is politics, even JFK didn’t get past framing. FDR, he was pretty well, “This is how it is” and came closest but you know there were many things he “framed”, the Pearl Harbour invasion for one. (OK, likely did so)

  81. 81.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    I don’t believe him.

    Too bad you are talking to your hand. My assertion was not based on the magical powers of Obama, it was based on the total shittiness of Clinton.

    SHE is why the party will suffer if she is nominated, not because a magical pony will carry us to la la land.

    Is there anybody around here who can take an idea at face value and not turn it into their own fucking bullshit?

    Take your asinine post down, it has nothing to do with mine.

    Either than or take your reference to mine out of your post, I am not here to provide a soapbox for your crap.

  82. 82.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    With a lot smaller margin than they are likely to have next year, they blocked Meiers

    The right wing had as much to do with Meiers not seeing the light of day as anyone else, if not more.

  83. 83.

    Davis X. Machina

    March 9, 2008 at 2:45 pm

    (as seen spray painted on a wall in Barcelona):

    ¡Vota, idiota!

    This isn’t actually bad etymology. ὁ ἰδιώτης (idiōtēs, one taking no part in public affairs), I suspect would be the Attic Greek for the dread ‘independent, ‘low information’ voter.

  84. 84.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    Um, TZ? If you believe that your contrastive argument, then you must believe that Obama will bring the fundamental change you mention. Sorry, but that’s a pretty strong claim, and it’s one I reject.

  85. 85.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 2:48 pm

    the Pearl Harbour invasion

    Yeah, if you want to sound all historical, you might try being at least a little accurate in your language. Pearl Harbor was an aerial attack on a naval base, not an invasion.

  86. 86.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm

    That’s not to say (except I didn’t so I’m adding) there aren’t grades of honesty /transparency with the Bush administration on the low grade with a broken clutch.

    I don’t buy that either Dem. candidate has much over the other, I think one just talks a better game and the other realizes the narrative is in on her and was long ago so focuses on other matters.

    Temple

  87. 87.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 2:53 pm

    Sorry, but that’s a pretty strong claim, and it’s one I reject.

    Fuck you, then. I am not making the claim here. You are putting it up as a strawman. Do you want to do this all day, because as you know, I can, and will.

    I am saying that SHE is going to harm the party. If you want to have a discussion about what Obama can or cannot do, then that’s a different topic.

    My vote for Obama is based on several things, one of which is that I just like him, and I don’t like the other people. The second of which is that he is not one of them, one of the power insiders who will gladly fuck us for their own purposes. I see him as still an outsider to that machine of power, and while he has no magical powers to change the machine, he has an opportunity to do so just based on his outsideness. Clinton won’t and McCain won’t. They both care more about their own power. Obama hasn’t shown me that obsession with power.

    Stop putting words in my mouth and then using them to bolster your weak-ass arguments.

  88. 88.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    Clinton’s nomination will probably result in a Dem presidency, but it will also be the end of the potential real turnaround in politics that we need in this country.

    Hey, um, Herb? That little grey box around the text? It’s called a “block quote”. It indicates that I’m “quoting someone else’s words” — in this case, yours.

    So this:

    Stop putting words in my mouth and then using them to bolster your weak-ass arguments.

    is laughable. “Stop putting words in my mouth” doesn’t work when I’m quoting you verbatim.

  89. 89.

    The Other Steve

    March 9, 2008 at 2:59 pm

    Dug Jay,

    To the best of my knowledge, Obama is now competing in the Democratic primary against Clinton who is claiming superior foreign policy experience than Obama. I don’t believe Bush is running in 2008.

    I wasn’t commenting on Obama or Bush.

  90. 90.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Mencken once said “For every complicated problem, there is a solution which is clear, simple, and wrong.”

    Mencken also once said “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”

  91. 91.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    I see him as still an outsider to that machine of power, and while he has no magical powers to change the machine, he has an opportunity to do so just based on his outsideness.

    This statement is exactly the kind of counterfactual idiocy I objected to.

    I don’t actually think that Obama is as much of an outsider as you say, but, if he is, then you’ve just *disqualified* him for the office. In order to make immense changes, you need to understand the interest groups who have a valid stake in the outcome. Outsiders, by definition, do not.

  92. 92.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    “Stop putting words in my mouth” doesn’t work when I’m quoting you verbatim.

    You quote, and then distort. WTF is the matter with you?

    Don’t use quotes from me to prop up your fucked up arguments.

    I’m making no claims about Obama’s powers here. You are arguing against something that NOBODY EVER SAID HERE.

    Do you really want to spend the day having this argument with me? The posts are right there for all to see, asshole

    Find in my original post any reference to any claim about what “Obama can do.” I said NOTHING. So why are you arguing about that? What the fuck is the matter with you?

  93. 93.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Mencken also once said “Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.”

    And it’s true.

    It’s just that truly normal men (and women) don’t actually give into the temptation.

  94. 94.

    The Other Steve

    March 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm

    jesus, gore got crucified in 2000 for less than this much resume-padding.

    Don’t worry. The media is giving Hillary a free pass now, but if she got the nomination they’d use this all against her.

  95. 95.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    TZ, I’m ignoring you now. I’ve given you three reasonable answers, showing that you are wrong. I’ve gotten back abuse and lies. That’s your pattern when confronted — and the reason I think you wrote Darrell — and I won’t play.

  96. 96.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:05 pm

    I don’t actually think that Obama is as much of an outsider as you say, but, if he is, then you’ve just disqualified him for the office. In order to make immense changes, you need to understand the interest groups who have a valid stake in the outcome. Outsiders, by definition, do not.

    Says who? Don’t use my posts to prop up your phony proof-by-assertion arguments.

    My argument is based on Obama’s own campaign: Vote for me, I’m an oustider, I am not one of them.

    You can go with that or not, but don’t sit here and pretend that I am making claims I didn’t make. Or that he didn’t make. His argument is the same as mine: You want change? Then don’t vote for the same kind of power insiders that you have been voting for, I’m not one of them.

    If you have a problem with that argument, then send him a letter, don’t bother me with it.

  97. 97.

    The Other Steve

    March 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    I don’t actually think that Obama is as much of an outsider as you say, but, if he is, then you’ve just disqualified him for the office. In order to make immense changes, you need to understand the interest groups who have a valid stake in the outcome. Outsiders, by definition, do not.

    Witness Jimmy Carter.

    I do agree that what makes Obama unique is that he is able to negotiate and talk with both insider and outsider.

  98. 98.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:06 pm

    TZ, I’m ignoring you now.

    You can never possibly ignore me enough, demi. I want nothing to do with you and your bullshit.

  99. 99.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 3:09 pm

    It’s just that truly normal men (and women) don’t actually give into the temptation.

    Actually, my point was that the “Sage of Baltimore” was a in fact, a loon.

  100. 100.

    caustics

    March 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    a in fact, a loon. Sorry.

  101. 101.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm

    you must believe that Obama will bring the fundamental change you mention. Sorry, but that’s a pretty strong claim, and it’s one I reject.

    Blah blah blah, you waste of pixels.

    This is Obama, pretty his own words: You can’t get change by voting for the same power insiders and expecting to get a different result.

    Obama isn’t claiming the power to make the great change. He is claiming that the people, via their votes for something different, can bring about something different.

    If you don’t believe that argument, then write to him. It’s his, not mine.

    I believe that the counter argument is Hillary’s “I’m the consummate power insider, I can make the change you want.”

    A, or B. Pretty simple.

    What horsehit you are arguing, I’m sure nobody knows. And the more you argue it, the less anyone will know.

  102. 102.

    Chris Johnson

    March 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    What, progressive, reality-based, fundamentally honest, and filled with hard-working people? That’s not what I remember him saying from 2000, but if he did say that, then yes.

    Not exactly. I figure if Obama gets the nod, that’s enough of an indicator that the democrats are WILLING to be what you describe. Certainly the Obama camp has demonstrated hard work in the primaries.

    If Hillary gets the nod, as things stand, I see it as underlining what Nader said- it’s a bunch of politicans who probably will take us into war in Iran or even China, who are working angles on absolutely everything in thrall to polls and efforts to spin the public discourse to further deeply entrenched, established power structures that WILL NOT CHANGE particularly with a Hillary win.

    I voted for Nader once. I didn’t realize how out there Bush would become. I remember being very concerned about the prospects of Gore expanding police surveillance… that he was solidly behind a big-brotherlike big government and possibly had more capability of doing it. Bush looked like a total loser who couldn’t get anything done and just flapped his mouth- harmless and detestable.

    I didn’t vote for Nader twice- I voted for Kerry, who failed. After that, I wanted to see if the Democrats would put a leash on Bush, and either they were what Nader said they were, or Bush has blackmailed them with threats of martial law and Halliburton internment camps on US soil (which do exist, same as his ability to use National Guard as a private merc force).

    I think Hillary will LOVE those Halliburton camps. Don’t expect to see any rollbacks to that stuff with her. Exactly what in her current behavior makes you believe she will cut back unreasonable executive power? She knows EXACTLY what opportunity she’s looking at. She’s far from dumb.

    I used to be pretty ready to vote for her as the Dem, should that happen. Right now, the last straw is: McCain is actually cordially loathed by the neocons, he’s not the guy they wanted. Who is going to be his VP? He’s such an old guy that it’s a very relevant question- even if he was not, Cheney’s example shows us you can’t just ignore the veep. He might be running the show. The new veep will be walking into a situation where the presumption is the VP has enormous executive power.

    If there is any reason to believe a McCain presidency would be less _effective_ at further wrecking the country than Clinton, I’d write in Obama at the drop of a hat. The burden of proof is on Clintonistas.

    You’ve got to explain WHY Clinton would not seize power and promptly lock in all the Bush executive power gains while being competent enough to not immediately trainwreck. Sometimes you’re better off with a real disaster- it could be that McCain as President would be lame duck from the start, and that’s actually the situation we need- trading a lot of the President’s power away again so we can have a representative government.

    The answers to these questions directly affect how many innocent people are slaughtered in our name in the years to come as our empire crumbles. The LAST thing we need is a capable, unprincipled Clinton in there locking in the power imbalances we already have, yet not doing a thing to resist the various public outcries for more slaughter and destruction.

    Prove this posing-with-generals, 3-AM-phone-call nonsense doesn’t just show she intends to outBush Bush, for fear of being called a loser.

  103. 103.

    Incertus

    March 9, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    No. I want Obama to be. But I’d rather McCain be president than Clinton. I think once elected McCain will completely blow off the far right. He’s not shooting for two terms, and he can see which way the winds are blowing.

    I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that McCain will be anything other than a Bush clone. His so-called maverick status is nothing more than a media image, and the last 8 years has been an exercise in pandering that, frankly, puts Hillary Clinton to shame. She can pander with the best of them, but McCain is the master, no question.

  104. 104.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    I voted for Nader once. I didn’t realize how out there Bush would become.

    Let me say that I can’t provide a lot of detail without risking a loss of anonymity, but I have been face to face with Ralph Nader in a situation that you’d probably find …. rather surprisingly up close and personal. And would not vote for him to be dogcatcher, although I greatly admire his work in the field of law in the public interest.

    But … I’m blown away by the idea of people voting for a candidate who has no chance to win. Is there any way to do that with a straight face, not knowing that the errant vote is actually a vote for one of the mainstream candidates?

    I just don’t get that. Why do people do this? A “protest” vote, resulting in electing something like Bush?

    Stop me now before I go on and on about how utterly terrible an idea that is.

  105. 105.

    Chris Johnson

    March 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm

    Witness Jimmy Carter indeed.

    I’d LOVE to see a Carter in the White House again. Carter, shall we say, did not further the godlike image of the President. You might say he didn’t do a whole lot to stomp all over the world and his own people and march on a road of bones. Peanuts, maybe.

    People don’t seem to quite understand things are out of whack. Congress needs to be strengthened, media need to not be such damn bootlickers, the Presidency MUST step back into line with the other branches of government. We’ve got that setup for a reason, it’s amazing how long it’s sort of lasted. If we must have a king, can’t we just dig up Reagan’s corpse and use that, in a purely ceremonial manner, and come up with some sort of prime minister position that gets to be under heavy attack when it does stupid things?

    Please, let’s witness another Carter. Just long enough for things to get back to a tripartite system. It’s a GOOD system and it’s close to ruin.

  106. 106.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    She can pander with the best of them, but McCain is the master, no question.

    Truer words were never spoken.

  107. 107.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm

    And while Hilzoy, being Hilzoy, uses language to give people the benefit of the doubt, I feel no such need. Hillary is lying about her position on Rwanda. Not just lying, but a typical double-axel-triple-lutz with a twisting Clintonian dismount with a straight face added in for difficulty.

    At some point, even the most diehard Democrats are going to have to admit that the acrimony of the 90’s wasn’t just caused by the Republican party and Newt Gingrich. There was another force at play.

    In space, no one can hear you screed.

  108. 108.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 3:24 pm

    let’s witness another Carter. Just long enough for things to get back to a tripartite system

    I don’t think he’s the model you want. Carter didn’t show any particular ability to bring people together and get a consensus, to be effective.

    It’s one thing to be a low-key executive, it’s another to be basically incompetant. As much as I like certain things about him, I have to conclude that he was incompetant at that level.

  109. 109.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 3:25 pm

    Obama and/or his campaign right now does not seem to me to be a very straight shooter in the transparency department

    By the way, where are Clinton’s tax returns?

  110. 110.

    Rick Taylor

    March 9, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    For any Democrat who lives in a swing state and who’s thinking of sitting out the election if their pick for the nomination doesn’t win, or for that matter any Republican who thinks maybe war with Iraq wasn’t such a good idea after all and maybe compounding the error by starting more wars would be a mistake, I’d recommend this video.

  111. 111.

    Realist

    March 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    McCain learned how not to run a primary in 2000. He’s no Bush clone, as proven by his attempts to actually pay for the war we’re waging. As I said, a lot will be told be his choice of VP and his choice of cabinet members. I think he’ll go for a governor who is no arch conservative, like Christine Todd Whitman. After the convention, when the possibility of boos from the Hucksters during his acceptance speech is gone, he will sprint for the middle as fast as his legs can carry him.

    Why should I trust a woman who has shown herself to be no fan of civil liberties with nominations to the Supreme Court? I think she’ll be as authoritarian as Bush ever was. These same craven Dems will certainly roll for her when they are in the majority, as will happen this year regardless of who wins the presidency in my view, and I don’t want to live in a nanny state any more than I want to live under a military junta..

  112. 112.

    The Other Andrew

    March 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm

    At this late stage of the game, there are three main things I’m looking for in a Presidential candidate:

    1. Sanity. Obama and Hillary both have this, thankfully.

    2. The willpower to resist popular and/or easily-marketable bad ideas. Some would call this pandering, but I think that makes it sound too soft and harmless. Hillary gets negative points on this–she clearly looks at situations as opportunities. If something looks like it’ll help her, she’ll go for it, whether it’s voting for the war or wagging her finger at video games. That’s true of all politicians, to one extent or another, but it seems to be her reason de etre. I think she’s much more willing than Obama to put her sanity on the back-burner for the sake of her career.

    3. The ability to help America psychologically heal from the last eight years. In 1999, we were the only superpower, our military was just fine, our economy was great, our biggest concerns were a bunch of tabloid-crime crap…and then we were hit with the double-punch of the Bush administration and 9/11. America was making progress, and the psychological effect of 9/11 set us back years. Reagan was elected because America wanted warm, fuzzy optimism, instead of thinking about the complicated reality of Watergate and Vietnam, and Reagan gave it to them, while engaging in his own black-ops misadventures. Obama, on the other hand, can give America what it wants *and* what it needs–the former being optimism, the latter being sane, competent government. Hillary would just be a repeat of the fights of the past. We can either rail against the soon-obsolete notion of Bush’s America or redefine America, keeping the good and ditching the bad. I think Obama is more qualified for that, personally.

  113. 113.

    Mike

    March 9, 2008 at 3:31 pm

    Lets look to who was in charge of policy options regarding Rwanda: Susan Rice,

    …. a senior Obama foreign policy advisor, who served on the National Security Council and later as the Assistant Secretary for African Affairs at the State Department under Bill Clinton. We don’t know for sure what Barack or Hillary would do with a “3 a.m.” phone call, but we don’t have to wonder about Susan Rice. She sits on her hands doing nothing. During her time on the National Security Council, as the senior person responsible for giving the President policy options on Africa, Rice reprised the role of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. She sat by while more than one million Rwandans were butchered in a bloody genocide. She let the phone ring and declined to offer any answer that would have saved lives. And she is one of Barack’s key advisors….

    No, there was no support among the American people for a military intervention in Rwanda just as there is none for intervention in Dafur. Memories of Somalia are strong. Interventions rarely work and the US is has neither the resources nor the authority to police the world. If you think that Obama would, you’re in error. He thinks putting the likes of Hagel, Lugar intp his cabinet as possibly Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense is a good idea.
    Those two have supported Bush is all his policies (excepting Hagel going sour on Iraq).

  114. 114.

    Chris Johnson

    March 9, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    ThymeZone- in the absence of approval voting or some other sort of voting system there is no other way to be SEEN crying “You’re ALL scoundrels!”

    Hence, the temptation. You have to really believe the primary choices are both equivalent and horrible. If I had to do it over again I would go with Gore unhesitatingly.

    I seriously, seriously can’t predict which of McCain or Hillary would be more disastrous. If McCain was ineffective for any reason, but Hillary was effective and yet completely adopted the Bush/Cheney doctrine on matters of foreign policy and shall we say internal affairs, Hillary would be a choice of Bush-like disastrousness for this country- as lots of wingnuts are happy to tell you.

    I still don’t get why they’re jockeying to get her the nomination- they more than anybody would shit bricks if she won, and events are confirming SOME of their contempt and fear for her. It really is possible that Hillary would be worse, just as Bush turned out to be worse than Gore possibly could have been.

    The situation’s changed. At the time, it was a population primed for stampede and a media ready to seduce and dominate.

    Now, it’s an arsenal of executive power beyond the dreams of Caesars, and what is still the most lethal military out there, in a situation (peak oil, the economy) where the US must either lose or become a hideous world tyrant.

    The American people WILL suffer economic hurts, insults to pride, a major grow-up call that will make them mad at the President… unless the moment is staved off by a series of actions (probably doomed) that will shame us forever.

    I’m damn sure that Hillary would rather start a doomed war with China than allow the American people to call her weak- and there are more important things in the world than whether your re-election is on track.

    We gotta have somebody adult enough to face the music, even though they weren’t the ones initially responsible for it.

  115. 115.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 3:34 pm

    Temple Stark Says:

    Brachiator, i still can’t see how people have come to the conclusion that Hillary Clinton is a fraud without buying the kitchen sink of Republican characterizations of her in the 1990s through today.

    I don’t give a rat’s ass about Republican characterizations of Clinton. Never have. Last year, a co-worker who disliked Senator Clinton and who respected my political judgments gave me a copy of Ed Klein’s “Truth About Hillary” to read. I pretty much demolished every piece of BS in the book and had my co-worker re-evaluating his position on Clinton. Quick example: one passage in the book tried to show how Hillary held a deep grudge against a male high school friend who — inexplicably if grudges were involved — was invited to a personal gathering after she had been elected senator. Similarly, Klein tried to show that Clinton’s college years were a wallow in liberal (and perhaps lesbian) extremism, and yet he couldn’t be bothered to tell the reader whether she had been a good student, her grade point average or whether she had graduated with any honors or distinction. Not much truth there.

    However, Senator Clinton’s deep claims to “35 years of experience” and being ready from “Day One” are flat out nonsense, which become even more objectionable when she tries to claim that only she and McCain have passed some mystical “commander-in-chief” threshold.

    It’s already been shown that her claims to have had any input into Rwanda or Northern Ireland policies are complete fabrications.

    When she attempts to re-weave Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial or presidential achievements as part of her own record, well she is nothing but an empty pantsuit.

    Many of the “she’s a race-baiting bitch” points that people base their “she’s mean” on are manufactured.

    Never called her a bitch or mean, but the race-baiting charges stick. What Jesse Jackson or John Lewis say doesn’t matter nearly as much as the perceptions of hundreds of thousands of voters.

    Wanting to get past framing? Seriously, this is politics; it’s definition is all about framing.

    Seriously, politics is about much more than this. You need to bring more than faux cynical reductionism to the table.

    Seriously. I too wish we could have absolute truth from our presidents, but I’m not basing my vote on wanting that to happen because it won’t.

    The only “absolute” I believe in is absolute zero.

    I went into this campaign season only with the firm conviction that the Republicans must be defeated. But Senator Clinton’s inept, divisive and desperate attempt to win at any cost repelled me from Day One.

    Obama and/or his campaign right now does not seem to me to be a very straight shooter in the transparency department

    Odd. When Obama was asked whether he would revisit any of the scandals that previously plagued the Clintons, he simply said “We don’t play that.” When Senator Clinton was asked about whether she believed that Obama was a closet Muslim, she could only hem, haw, smile and purr “Not as far as I know.” She has attracted around her advisors who have well-earned reputation for dealing in slime. She, apparently, loves to play that.

    Transparency? Where are those tax returns? Where are the presidential papers that might actually document the experience that she constantly reminds us that she has accumulated?

    This is politics, even JFK didn’t get past framing. FDR, he was pretty well, “This is how it is” and came closest but you know there were many things he “framed”, the Pearl Harbour invasion for one. (OK, likely did so)

    It appears that the idea of “framing” will be the new tactic that Clinton and her supporters use to deflect any examination of her record or her bizarre and self-defeating attempts to position herself and (?) John McCain as the most presidential couple ever. The stupendous lack of political acumen that she displays here should by itself disqualify her from being considered a serious candidate for anything.

  116. 116.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm

    By the way, in the same vein as Samantha Power:

    Former Sen. Tom Daschle on Friday suggested that top Clinton advisor Howard Wolfson should resign for comparing Barack Obama’s tactics to those of Ken Starr.

    “It’s comments like [Wolfson’s] that make me question whether we do have the same standards,” said the former Senate Majority Leader. “I don’t think that you can make a statement like that and consider yourself within the bounds of civility. I mean, this shouldn’t be tolerated. It’s not acceptable, and it’s unfortunate.”

    In case anyone wants to question where Daschle stands since he’s pro-Obama, as a superdelegate he is going for Obama due to his lead in pledged delegates. He has said that if Hillary takes the lead, he will vote for her instead.

  117. 117.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    I’m making no claims about Obama’s powers here.

    It’s true, I’m not getting that from ThymeZone’s post either, demimondian. Saying that there can be a potential turnaround in politics in America isn’t saying that Obama will magically fix Washington. I think ThymeZone is speaking (typing, really) more of the electorate.

  118. 118.

    Chris Johnson

    March 9, 2008 at 3:44 pm

    Other Andrew- well put. Although I think ‘pandering’ is a pretty good way of putting it.

    I dutifully saw the McCain clip, where he says ‘there will be other wars’ with all earnestness and sincerity.

    At least he’ll SAY it. OK?

    Guess what? No matter who wins, America CANNOT continue as it’s going without other wars. It will be either a constant bloody fight over the dwindling resources of the Earth (such as oil), or a graceful sunset and willingness to scale back our American entitledness and try to get along as just another failed empire. We WILL not automatically win as China’s needs mushroom, as India develops further.

    So it’s a picture of either the President continually buffeted by forces totally beyond his control- huge, macroeconomic forces that will make us feel cheap and small- or the President defending at all costs our American entitledness and demand for comfort, luxury and superiority, for a populace all too willing to look for towel-headed or yellow-peril scapegoats, way too happy with xenophobia, already countenancing torture of foreigners.

    If you want to talk pandering you have to consider who you’d be pandering TO. These people are in for some rude awakenings and they’re going to be angry and blaming.

  119. 119.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    However, Senator Clinton’s deep claims to “35 years of experience” and being ready from “Day One” are flat out nonsense

    there was a funny bit on weekend update last night about how hillary says after her recent wins on 3/4 she’s “just getting started,” and which doesn’t at all jibe with “being ready on day one” when it takes you 31 days to get started.

  120. 120.

    Chris Johnson

    March 9, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    If it wasn’t clear, I’m advocating America NOT continuing as it has been going- I think it’s pretty obscene and I think we oughta tighten our belts and be world citizens if we don’t want to be increasingly hated- for good reason.

    And not just our aristocracy (corporatocracy?).

    I think our typical wealth, even in decline, is still pretty shocking, and we’re going to have to cool it and get a little more humble- in order to NOT run amok starting more wars to defend what we don’t, honestly, deserve.

    This is why McCain says there will be more wars, and why I am certain Hillary will start them whatever she says. The situation won’t sustain American exceptionalism anymore, and substantial numbers of organized, vocal Americans will DEMAND more wars rather than suffer any decline in standard of living on the home front.

  121. 121.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    In case anyone wants to question where Daschle stands since he’s pro-Obama,

    There’s more to it than that:

    “It’s sort of logic turned on its head, but it really is true,” said Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the former senator and Democratic leader who has been a close adviser to Mr. Obama.

    snip

    Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office.

    That kinda answers TZ comment about Obama being an outsider.

  122. 122.

    Dug Jay

    March 9, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Brachiator, I hope that the rest of your post is not as grossly inaccurate and misleading as this portion:

    When Senator Clinton was asked about whether she believed that Obama was a closet Muslim, she could only hem, haw, smile and purr “Not as far as I know.”

    Here’s the text of what was said on 60 Minutes, and of course, it in no way resembles Brachiator’s distorted nonsense:

    “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

    “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

    “You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

    “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

  123. 123.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 4:04 pm

    That kinda answers TZ comment about Obama being an outsider.

    wait, so obama’s an “insider” cause daschle’s former chief of staff worked for him? that’s hilarious!

  124. 124.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    Brachiator, I hope that the rest of your post is not as grossly inaccurate and misleading as this portion:

    When Senator Clinton was asked about whether she believed that Obama was a closet Muslim, she could only hem, haw, smile and purr “Not as far as I know.”

    Here’s the text of what was said on 60 Minutes, and of course, it in no way resembles Brachiator’s distorted nonsense:

    This lie pops up here regularly. Here’s the WHOLE quote:

    From the March 2 edition of CBS’ 60 Minutes:

    KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim?

    CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s — you know, there is no basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.

    KROFT: And you said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim.

    CLINTON: Right. Right.

    KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim —

    CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? There’s no —

    KROFT: — or implying, right?

    CLINTON: No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

    KROFT: It’s just scurrilous —

    CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time.

    also from Media Matters:

    Moreover, when Clinton was asked recently by NBC News’ Andrea Mitchell if she planned to “raise any doubts about … him [Obama] being a Christian,” Clinton responded, “No, not at all. I mean, obviously, I’ve been the subject of scurrilous rumors for years, and … it’s hard to get them to go away. … [T]hey just keep coming back. And, you know, I really sympathize with Senator Obama. It is — it’s — you know, it’s disturbing to turn around and see this all the time. And, you know, obviously, I hope that people get beyond it and ignore it.”

    It really discredits Obama when his supporters keep peddling lies about Hillary. You have plenty of legitimate grounds to bash her. Why not stick to those?

  125. 125.

    hilzoy

    March 9, 2008 at 4:08 pm

    “The lesson is that even someone who claims to teach ethics is not immune from using false charges when it suits her purposes.”

    Still no word on what my lies actually were. How am I supposed to change my ways, or repair what remains of my character, if I don’t know what I did?

    Sigh.

  126. 126.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm

    obama’s an “insider” cause daschle’s former chief of staff worked for him?

    No. Obama’s less of an outsider because he’s deeply connected, through his mentor (Paul Simon), as well as through the other insider connections he’s cultivated.

  127. 127.

    Chuck Butcher

    March 9, 2008 at 4:14 pm

    I barely like Obama, I did not like Hillary from the time of her first term in the Senate. I didn’t give a rat’s ass about her as First Lady, other than her propensity for giving the loons ammunition. No,Health Care, Whitewater, Travelgate, brother’s contracts, pardons, etc didn’t amount to the corruption the R’s tried to make. But they all demonstated bad judgement, crummy ethics, and top down contempt. There waa a “there” there, and getting slimed over it doesn’t excuse the actual “there.” It was a matter of holding my nose in Nov, at the beginning of the Primary.

    Her campaign over the last month has changed things, it is no longer a matter of just holding my nose, which didn’t make me happy; to having to suppress the gag reflex. I’d do that in Nov in order to block McCain, but my level of fury about it would be ugly.

    I’d really like to see some miles long coattails in this election, Obama’s backing of Congressional candidates and having those voters in the booth could make a huge difference. If you think the old tired base of Hillary is going to have that effect you are ignorant of demographics and political realities. A huge chunk of Hillary’s base is the most reliable turn out at voting time and reliably Democratic. They’re a goddam gimme.

    I understand Temple Stark’s attempts to defuse the bomb. and I applaud it, as an attempt. The problem is that Hillary just keeps adding powder to the keg.

    To think that 4 years of John McBush as President is somehow preferable to Clinton ignores a bunch of realities. McCain will face Congress with as much or more stubborness than George II, he only kow towed to BushCo because he dealt from a position of weakness, he’ll be hell on wheels with a big gun in his hands and where he’s at is ugly for the US. This nation has proved that it can survive some real ugly things and maybe it can survive more Republicanism, but why in the world would you wish such a thing on your fellows? A good first 1 1/2 years would do more to explode the R’s than all the damage they could do under McCain and the off year elections could be another blood bath for R’s.

    Playing the idealistic spoiled child voter throwing himself on the floor in protest might feel good for a couple days, at the end of 4 years you might feel very different.

    In 2000 I had two very large problems with Al Gore, guns and natural resource utilization and I voted for the more harmless GWB. Thank heaven OR over-ruled that piece of stupidity, it has not faded from my memory and I apologize to America as a whole for that vote (unlike Hillary). I’m sorry, I had good reasons but oh boy am I sorry. Do you want to be in that position? Really, do you want to have to assume some of the blame for a McCain outcome. I won’t do such a thing and the 2nd Amendment is once again in play. Don’t be goddam stupid and help those fucks back into the White House. Please, please.

    no I wasn’t a conservative in 2000, nothing like it.

  128. 128.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    Hillary supporters should relax. The supers will throw the nom to her regardless. Several have publicly stated that if the difference in pledged delegates is “slight” (Whatever that means) then they’ll vote their best judgment. Others have said that they’ll weigh electability or the good of the party.

    In the end, neither party wants to take a chance that someone with ambitious goals, some ideals and even some principles, might get elected.

    Could you imagine the uproar if a newly elected president was to say something like this:

    “Although the genesis of the war in Iraq is questionable, The safety and security of its people as well as those of the people of Afghanistan are now our moral and legal responsibility. To achieve those ends I have directed my Secretary of Defense to direct all military spending, other than that required to maintain operational readiness, to the recruitment, training and equipping of sufficient troops to provide that safety and security without the need for extended multiple deployments or reliance on the National Guard.”

    Or,
    “Many in our Congress spend far more time with lobbyists than they do with their constituents to the detriment of the nation. I hereby propose legislation requiring that any and all meetings between members of Congress and lobbyists are to be recorded by the FBI. Said recordings to be then publicly posted on the Internet. Any violation of this law will result in both the Congressperson and the lobbyist being subpoenaed to testify publicly under oath before Congress.”

    The last great person to be President died in 1945. Both parties have since made it their business to nominate candidates who will not upset the apple cart.

  129. 129.

    PK

    March 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    I am from Pennsylvania, an apparently important state. I won’t vote for for Hillary. I hate despise and loath Bush and McCain, but still will not vote for Hillary! The reason-she is an intelligent George Bush! She wants power for its own sake. The moment she takes office it will be a repeat of the late nineties, scandal after scandal after scandal. She will spend her whole time fighting republican and media hatred, and I believe there will be plenty of underhanded Clinton dealings which will come to light. I don’t believe most of the stuff the republicans say about her, but I do think the Clintons are unethical and they have had 8 yrs to create more trouble for themselves. The last two weeks have given us a picture of the future Clinton presidency, divide and conquer should be their slogan! Nothing will get done and she will be kicked out after 4 yrs. Voting for Hillary will cause more damage to the country, than 4 more yrs of McCain. Voting for the lesser of the two evils is still voting for evil!

  130. 130.

    Wilfred

    March 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    It really discredits Obama when his supporters keep peddling lies about Hillary.

    I think someone who wishes to be the President of all Americans would have answered that question quite differently. In one of the 1992 debates, Perot said “If you’re a racist or a bigot, I don’t want your vote”.

    Clinton could have denounced any and all implications of the discussion as soon as it was brought up. Instead, she implied that the mere mention of being Muslim was somehow scurrilous, the same way that Red Channels would regularly ‘out’ well known Jews with Christian names. She had a chance to denounce religious bigotry and instead distanced herself from it.

    She’s unfit to be President for that reason alone.

  131. 131.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    wait, so obama’s an “insider” cause daschle’s former chief of staff worked for him? that’s hilarious!

    Do you know anything about your candidate? From the linked story:

    Determined to be viewed as substantive, Mr. Obama kept his head down, declining Sunday talk show invitations for his first year, and consulted Senate elders for advice.

    snip

    Yet Mr. Obama was planning for the future. He spent much of his time raising money for other Democrats, which helped him build chits and lists of potential voters.

    snip

    He had been anointed his party’s rising star after delivering a soaring speech at the Democratic National Convention the previous July.

    snip

    He met with nearly one-third of the Senate, from both sides of the aisle, including his future rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, to learn about the institution and solicit advice on how to succeed. That shaped a strategy: work hard, tend to your constituents, and, above all, get along with others.

    snip

    Knowing he needed insider help, Mr. Obama cajoled Mr. Daschle’s former chief of staff, Pete Rouse, to lead his office. Mr. Rouse advised Mr. Obama about managing relationships on the Hill and helped engineer hefty assignments, including a Foreign Relations Committee seat. He sought out senior colleagues, traveling to Russia with Senator Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana, an advocate of nuclear disarmament. (Later, they passed legislation to reduce stockpiles of conventional weapons.) Mr. Obama also sought tutorials from Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, considered the Democrats’ master legislator.

    snip

    During the midterm elections that year, Mr. Obama was his party’s most sought-after campaigner — he helped raised nearly $1 million online in a matter of days that spring for Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, the institution’s senior member.

    His appearances on the trail helped lay the groundwork for a possible presidential campaign. He earned the good will of some Democrats who have now endorsed him. And most campaign events required tickets, so his staff members collected names and addresses of potential supporters.

    Finally, Mr. Obama did what he had done when he first arrived in the Senate, quietly consulting those who knew the institution well — Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Daschle — for advice on whether to run.

    If anybody thinks I am criticizing him, pull your head out of your ass. I’m criticizing the idea that Obama is some kind of non-political outsider.

    He may be relatively young and new, but he is a skilled and savvy politician who worked the system from the inside.

  132. 132.

    Wilfred

    March 9, 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Clinton is Clinton..all her faults are laid bare and I would like to see Obama become President, BUT if McCain wins, who’ll be the next batch of federal judges, who’ll be on the SCOTUS?

    This is just more fear mongering. You’re afraid of losing SCOTUS and the bedwetters are afraid of death. Anybody who votes from fear deserves whatever happens to them.

  133. 133.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    yes, i read it. sorry if i don’t think that “meeting with nearly one-third of the Senate to learn about the process” magically morphs you a “washington insider”.

    OMG, he met with some senators! he’s a machine politician! it’s like he’s been inside the beltway for decades OMG WTF BBQ!one!

    OMG, his party wanted him to speak at the 2004 convention! OMG HE IS SUCH A WASHINGTON INSIDER!

    yeah, what an insider. sheesh, you’re an idiot.

  134. 134.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    “You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

    “Of course not. I mean, that, you know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

    “You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

    “No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.

    Why settle for a transcript when one can see the clip (Hillary Clinton: “As Far As I Know”).

    Also note from the comments how easily swayed some people are to demonize Muslims. Senator Clinton had a clear opportunity to speak out against religious bigotry as well as to put the Democratic Party in the best light. She chose not to do so.

    The only rational response should have been to denounce and reject those who were attempting to smear Obama and the un-American idea that some religions are less acceptable than others.

  135. 135.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Clinton could have denounced any and all implications of the discussion as soon as it was brought up. Instead, she implied that the mere mention of being Muslim was somehow scurrilous, the same way that Red Channels would regularly ‘out’ well known Jews with Christian names. She had a chance to denounce religious bigotry and instead distanced herself from it.

    She’s unfit to be President for that reason alone.

    Those goalposts move fast. First she was “implying” that Obama was a Muslim. Now that that lie is disproved, you assert that she implying that being a Muslim is scurrilous.

    Looking at her statements in context she is clearly referring to the rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim and is lying about being a Christian as scurrilous.

    CDS can be treated.

  136. 136.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    No. Obama’s less of an outsider because he’s deeply connected, through his mentor (Paul Simon), as well as through the other insider connections he’s cultivated.

    “Less of an outsider” doesn’t mean “not an outsider”, demimondian. Yeah, so some people think he’s the commensurate outsider, a bigger outsider than anyone *ever*, and they’re wrong. So what? He’s definitely much, much less an insider than Hillary, or McCain.

    You can’t have it both ways, folks. You can’t claim that Hillary has far more Washington experience than Obama and, at the same time, act like he’s a Washington insider just like her.

  137. 137.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 4:36 pm

    The last great person to be President died in 1945. Both parties have since made it their business to nominate candidates who will not upset the apple cart.

    God, ain’t that the truth.

  138. 138.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm

    You can’t have it both ways, folks. You can’t claim that Hillary has far more Washington experience than Obama and, at the same time, act like he’s a Washington insider just like her.

    There’s no inherent inconsistency. He can be an insider like Hillary with less experience.

  139. 139.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    There’s no inherent inconsistency. He can be an insider like Hillary with less experience.

    Do you believe that Obama is an insider of the same caliber as Hillary? An insider “just like her”?

  140. 140.

    capelza

    March 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Wilfred…why do you say it is voting from fear?

    Oh fuck it…this crap is why I am not posting lately…

    Piss off and wake me up on the first Tuesday of November.

  141. 141.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Callipso — when you accuse someone of misstating something, you really ought to read what he or she wrote. I have always said “less of an outsider”. I merely point out that either he’s a significantly outside the standard circles of power(in which case he’ll get nowhere) or he’s not (in which case, he must be assumed to really mean the right-wing lite kinds of things *he’s* said about health insurance and social security, in which case…he doesn’t really want to do anything.)

    Either way, he’s not the man you want for radical transformation. Sorry.

  142. 142.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Do you believe that Obama is an insider of the same caliber as Hillary? An insider “just like her”?

    If by “caliber” you mean “quality” that’s a third issue. It’s also what this election is all about.

  143. 143.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    aren’t “inexperienced” and “insider” mutually exclusive ?

  144. 144.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 4:50 pm

    There’s no inherent inconsistency. He can be an insider like Hillary with less experience.

    Be what you would seem to be — or, if you’d like it put more simply — Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise.

    The Duchess, in Alice in Wonderland.

  145. 145.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 4:53 pm

    aren’t “inexperienced” and “insider” mutually exclusive?

    Hardly.

    Someone can be inexperienced (not ever run a difficult campaign, had little experience in elective office), and yet be an insider (child of a machine boss). I’m describing Dan Lipinsky.

  146. 146.

    TenguPhule

    March 9, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Obama promised to meet Iran’s leader without any pre-conditions and probably wants him as his first Lincoln bedroom visitor if he beats Hillary and McCain.

    Fuck you Dug Jay. Talking to Iran would be the first smart thing done by a president. Peddle your shitty wares elsewhere.

  147. 147.

    Wilfred

    March 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Looking at her statements in context she is clearly referring to the rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim and is lying about being a Christian as scurrilous.

    Are you fucking dense? Substitute Jew or Black into her comments and then interpret them for me. It would be better to ignore you but in this case الساكت عن الحق شيطان أخرس

  148. 148.

    TenguPhule

    March 9, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    CDS can be treated.

    So when is MyPonyIq getting that Clinton Deity Syndrome treated?

  149. 149.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    demi, i suppose you’re right. but your example needs a little tweaking, for relevance:

    Someone can be inexperienced (not ever run a difficult campaign, had little experience in elective office), and yet be an insider (wife of a former president).

    fixed.

  150. 150.

    conumdrum

    March 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    Hilary’s spurious claims concerning her so-called intervention to head off the Rwandan genocide are the last goddamn straw for this citizen. Since I reside in blue, blue California, she’ll not be getting an iota of support from me.

    Bill Clinton’s foot-dragging and moral cowardice when confronted with the Rwandan situation were the nadir of his presidency, hands-down. But then again, why the hell should Americans give a fuck when Africans kill Africans, right, Bill?

    I’d suggest everyone here read Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda to learn about the United States’ shameful role in selling out the Tutsi people. It was a vile, unspeakable stain on the Clinton legacy… and for Hilary to attempt to work it to her advantage is a spin job worthy of Rove at his most amoral.

    Fuck you, Hilary. Fuck you.

  151. 151.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 5:01 pm

    If by “caliber” you mean “quality” that’s a third issue

    You’re not answering the question.

    Who is more of a “Washington insider”, Obama or Hillary?

  152. 152.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Who is more of a “Washington insider”, Obama or Hillary?

    That one might be tough to answer just because of the subjectivity involved in judging what makes one an insider.

    What I want to know is, who would govern more like a Republican, Obama or Hillary?

  153. 153.

    TenguPhule

    March 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    I don’t know where anyone gets the idea that McCain will be anything other than a Bush clone. His so-called maverick status is nothing more than a media image, and the last 8 years has been an exercise in pandering that, frankly, puts Hillary Clinton to shame. She can pander with the best of them, but McCain is the master, no question.

    Amen.

    I just wish Clinton would stop acting like an asshole and try some honesty instead of triangulation.

  154. 154.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 5:05 pm

    Someone can be inexperienced (not ever run a difficult campaign, had little experience in elective office), and yet be an insider (child of a machine boss). I’m describing Dan Lipinsky.

    Aside from cleek’s good point about Hillary, I’d note Ron Paul, who outside of being a nut, has quite a bit of experience at being a politician but is not someone I would call a “Washington insider”.

  155. 155.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 5:06 pm

    cleek, for reasons similar to those which TZ has for not talking about how well he knows Nader, I can tell you that I know what Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced in regard to involvement in difficult campaigns.

    She’s seen everything — and she’s played a huge, personal, part in handling it.

  156. 156.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    That one might be tough to answer just because of the subjectivity involved in judging what makes one an insider.

    there’s subjectivity in everything, dogg. still it’s pretty clear that clinton’s more an insider than obama is. i mean, come on.

  157. 157.

    TenguPhule

    March 9, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    But then again, why the hell should Americans give a fuck when Africans kill Africans, right, Bill?

    Ahem, please recall the shitstorm the Republicans raised every time Clinton acted like a president.

    Bill Clinton had his fuckups.

    But the Republicans were just as much evil fucking bastards who needed to be bumped off then as they are now.

  158. 158.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    aren’t “inexperienced” and “insider” mutually exclusive ?

    No at all.

    If you want an example of an “outsider,” look at Ross Perot or Ralph Nader.

    Who is more of a “Washington insider”, Obama or Hillary?

    John McCain

  159. 159.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Aside from cleek’s good point about Hillary, I’d note Ron Paul, who outside of being a nut, has quite a bit of experience at being a politician but is not someone I would call a “Washington insider”.

    Both of which are quite irrelevant. Cleek asked if “inexperienced” wasn’t inconsistent with “insider”. I showed that to be false.

    These are jackalopes: the point stands that Obama can be coth inexperience and an insider. I’d appreciate it if you chose to try to refute that point, rather than running away from it.

  160. 160.

    TenguPhule

    March 9, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    Who is more of a “Washington insider”, Obama or Hillary?

    A: It doesn’t fucking matter. If they get the job done, I don’t give a shit about who’s what or was where for how many years. Just make the Republicans go away into the wilderness for the next 10,000 years.

  161. 161.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 5:11 pm

    Either way, he’s not the man you want for radical transformation.

    [Status Quo] —— [Clinton] —– [Obama] ———– [Radical Transformation]

    No, but he is closer to that end of the spectrum than Clinton is.

  162. 162.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    there’s subjectivity in everything, dogg. still it’s pretty clear that clinton’s more an insider than obama is. i mean, come on.

    You’re right. There is that “eight years of White House experience” thing and that “setting back universal healthcare twelve years” thing. It’s a lot like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez touting his broad experience as a mariner.

  163. 163.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:15 pm

    I can tell you that I know what Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced in regard to involvement in difficult campaigns.

    well she sure hasn’t picked up too much wisdom from those days. it seems like most days her campaign can’t find it’s own ass with two hands and a map with a big arrow pointing to a picture of its own ass.

  164. 164.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    still it’s pretty clear that clinton’s more an insider than obama is. i mean, come on.

    You know, that’s not at all clear to me.

    Obama’s rise to power has been frequently assisted by other pols. He’s made a series of safe choices for someone who is politically ambitious. Chicago University School of Law isn’t exactly an outsider’s haven.

  165. 165.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    chopper, please can the red herrings.

    You made a false statement, and I refuted it.

    Please try to answer the question: why is Obama less of an insider? What real experience does he have?

  166. 166.

    cleek

    March 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    it’s really absurd to say that Obama is as much as an insider as a former first lady who was elected Senator with no previous elected experience, in a huge state, in which she had never lived.

    none of that happens to people who aren’t deeply connected. Obama has nothing like that.

  167. 167.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 5:29 pm

    Please try to answer the question: why is Obama less of an insider?

    Because he would have had to start working within the system when he was eleven years old to match Clinton’s thirty-five years of experience?

  168. 168.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Aside from cleek’s good point about Hillary, I’d note Ron Paul, who outside of being a nut, has quite a bit of experience at being a politician but is not someone I would call a “Washington insider”.

    Both of which are quite irrelevant. Cleek asked if “inexperienced” wasn’t inconsistent with “insider”. I showed that to be false.

    These are jackalopes: the point stands that Obama can be coth inexperience and an insider. I’d appreciate it if you chose to try to refute that point, rather than running away from it.

    cleek ended up agreeing with you, demimondian. He just provided another example similar to yours.

    As to Ron Paul, that was not put forth to refute your statement, but rather as evidence that the inverse of your statement is also true; you can also be experienced and be an outsider, just as you can be inexperienced and be an insider.

  169. 169.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 5:31 pm

    Answer the question, myiq2xu:

    Who is more of a “Washington insider”, Obama or Hillary?

  170. 170.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:33 pm

    It’s a lot like the skipper of the Exxon Valdez touting his broad experience as a mariner.

    that is so awesome.

  171. 171.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm

    …you can also be experienced and be an outsider, just as you can be inexperienced and be an insider.

    Or you can be experienced and be an insider and be a flaming asshole, like Joe Lieberman.

  172. 172.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    I can tell you that I know what Hillary Rodham Clinton has faced in regard to involvement in difficult campaigns.

    This must be demispoof speaking. Because in the only two campaigns Hillary has had to run:

    Clinton vs. Lazio (2000)

    No doubt it was a fairly close and dirty race, but Clinton faced a much weaker opponent in Rick Lazio than the more formidable Giuliani (laughable as this seems now).

    Hillary by KO 55-43
    Difficulty: 3 out of 5

    Clinton vs. Pirro Spencer (2006)

    This was a ridiculously easy re-election for Clinton, though she spent $36 million on it (more than any other Senator that year). Jeanine Pirro was doing so poorly campaigning against Clinton that she had to drop out, leaving a fragmented field of 3rd party opponents and GOP candidate John Spencer.

    Hillary by KO 67-31
    Difficulty: 1 out of 5

  173. 173.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    chopper, please can the red herrings.

    You made a false statement, and I refuted it.

    what the hell are you talking about?

    Please try to answer the question: why is Obama less of an insider? What real experience does he have?

    what question? who asked me that and when?

  174. 174.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 5:46 pm

    none of that happens to people who aren’t deeply connected. Obama has nothing like that.

    Nothing? Like a virtually unknown state legislator who is running for the US Senate getting picked to give the keynote address at the Democratic convention?

  175. 175.

    Dennis - SGMM

    March 9, 2008 at 5:47 pm

    If you can’t answer the question “How many insiders can dance on the outside of the head of a pin then your candidate deserves to lose – and OJ must be acquitted.

  176. 176.

    conumdrum

    March 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    But then again, why the hell should Americans give a fuck when Africans kill Africans, right, Bill?

    Ahem, please recall the shitstorm the Republicans raised every time Clinton acted like a president.

    Bill Clinton had his fuckups.

    But the Republicans were just as much evil fucking bastards who needed to be bumped off then as they are now.

    Oh, I agree, Tengu, believe you me. And I’m sure the Repubs would have raised holy hell if Bill Clinton had attempted to intercede in the Rwandan genocide. But a president of real principle – which Clinton was not, superior as he was to Dubya – would have told the GOP’ers to go pound salt.

    As for Hilary, if I lived in a swing state like Florida, I would stick a clothespin on my nose, pull the switch for her and flog myself in penance afterwards… but residing in California gives me the luxury of the protest vote.

  177. 177.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    Still no word on what my lies actually were. How am I supposed to change my ways, or repair what remains of my character, if I don’t know what I did?

    You suggested that Hillary was less than truthful. Evidence is not relevant.

  178. 178.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    Like a virtually unknown state legislator who is running for the US Senate getting picked to give the keynote address at the Democratic convention?

    like a virtually unknown state treasurer who wasn’t even running for federal office (ann richards) getting picked to give the keynote address at the democratic national convention in 1998?

    i know, totally! she was such a washington insider, right?

  179. 179.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm

    sorry, 1988. all the crazy conspiracies of the secret washington insiders gets me a decade off.

  180. 180.

    Chuck Butcher

    March 9, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Hillary and handling dirt. There is the little issue that she had a real big hand in creating the actual dirt, not the R bullshit, the actual junk. Then there is the rest of the issue, handling it. She did such a good job with it that her negatives approach 50%. Being politically attacked and still still being breathing at the end is not handling it. Winning NY Senate as Bill’s wifey is scarcely handling it. Handling it would involve negatives considerably below 50%, particularly with all good experience she has to run on.

    jeeze louise box o rocks, inexperienced insider? Reach reach. Judgement and attitude count. You hire experts and your judgement directs who that is. You complete idjit, no one human is ready to run the entire Executive Branch single handedly. Any President will hire help, the expectation is that they will use good judgement in the hiring and good judgement in evaluating advice.

    You present clip after clip of a man taking the responsibilty to learn how the organization he just joined works, who is exactly who and why. You call that being an insider. Then don’t ever go work someplace new because you will be a distinct negative hire. A governor (Billy Clinton) has no idea how and why the Senate works as it does. His wifey is even more disconnected (see health care. Do you Hillaryites have anything? Is her health care plan better – why? Can she pass it? Is … better? you keep wanting to play on losing ground, national security – McCain’s, experience – nobody’s, new historic candidate – either. That is what I object to about you guys. Her, well, she’s personally provided all needed ammunition to smack her with.

  181. 181.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    Like a virtually unknown state legislator who is running for the US Senate getting picked to give the keynote address at the Democratic convention?

    Considering how many people still remember that speech 4 years later, do you think he was a poor choice?

    If you pull someone out of the minor leagues and he hits 60 homers, is that being ‘well connected’ or being talented? I think the measure of being ‘well connected’ is being advanced to a position for which you are not deserving. Given that the state senator from 4 years ago is currently leading the frontrunner, the assumed candidate for president, the person who has been on the front burner of political life for 18 years is hardly evidence of being ‘well connected’. And if he is so undeserving of being there, what does that say of Clinton, Dodd, Biden, and Edwards?

  182. 182.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 6:03 pm

    If you pull someone out of the minor leagues and he hits 60 homers, is that being ‘well connected’ or being talented?

    exactly. i brought up ann richards, right? she wasn’t some kind of crazy washington insider, she was just a good pick for the keynote speech. and i still remember her speech to this day for the same reason i remember obama’s. why? because they were really good speeches.

  183. 183.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    that’s not at all clear to me.

    That doesn’t matter. It’s the core rationale expressed by his campaign up to now, and the core of his appeal.

    The derision, which you can say includes the MUP nonsense, is just the smokescreen that the power structure throws up to scare you away from anything they don’t have control over.

    His appeal is not based on any widespread misunderstanding that he claims to have magical powers, it’s based on an understanding that he isn’t part of that power structure. Whether he’ll succeed or not is no more or less unknown than it is for the other two candidates still standing, but the attraction is based on his central appeal, which is the meat and potatoes of his stump speeches at least up until a couple weeks ago: If you want change, don’t vote for the same old power structure that has produced what you don’t like about the government you have now.

    This ain’t rocket science, and nobody here has to listen to these horse’s ass trolls around here to figure it out: Just listen to the candidate’s own speeches. Obama sells his separation from the machine. Clinton sells her identification WITH the machine.

    Pick the one you like. I found it rather easy to do.

    I’m not picking magic, or rays of light coming down from heaven. For one thing, I don’t believe that the machine is essential, so I don’t believe that it takes rays of light from heaven to solve the problems it created. I think that the machine wants us to believe that we can’t get along without it. For another, I don’t believe that Obama, or anyone else, has to slay the machine dragon like some knight on a pony or white horse. He has only to demonstrate that we can get along without the machine and the rest of us will start to take it from there. His stump speeches say essentially this, it’s not my idea.

    All of the things we hate about Bush are things of the machine, the idea that only THEY with their great powers can save us, can keep us safe from the turrists and the collapse of Social Security and the other scary things out there. That’s WHY we hate Bush in the first place.

    McCain and Clinton are just more of the same. Obama seems to be different. I am not just willing, I am eager to give him a chance to show what he can do.

    Cut through all the bullshit around here, this is what this primary is really about.

  184. 184.

    AnneLaurie

    March 9, 2008 at 6:04 pm

    IIRC all of the evidence dredged up by the VRWC against the Clintons, after millions of taxpayer dollars were spent investigating their entire adult lives, added up to about an average week in the Nixon administration.

    … Or a slow afternoon at the Cheney Compound (ex ‘Oval Office’).

    At one point last year, I thought we might be looking at an Obama/H. Clinton ticket — unbeatable for a lot of reasons AND liable to make the paleo-paleo-cons’ head explode. And the squatting WH occupants have established that the VP can indeed be a “co-President” in all but name. Of course, now it’s virtually impossible for either Clinton or Obama to offer, much less accept, any kind of partnership… but I can still hope (dream) that President Obama will offer Clinton a seat on the Supreme Court. Once she’s wrapped up her DoJ stint cleaning out the Rove/Cheney/Bush infestation, of course. Hey, if you want to believe she’s a ‘nutcrusher…

    As for those BJers who vow that they’ll stay home rather than vote for That Woman: While you’re polishing up your little chrome halo, the party that controls the political machine in your state is re-writing statutes to keep itself in power. Your state representative is giving his biggest contributor’s idiot brother-in-law a sweetheart deal on a highway contract. And the Talibangelicals are stacking your school board with loons who’ll insist your kid’s teachers tell them that Jesus Christ rode a dinosaur and that abortions cause breast cancer.

    Nobody says you have to pull *all* the levers, but you could at least pay attention to what’s happening in your very own neighborhood.

  185. 185.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:05 pm

    i know, totally! she was such a washington insider, right?

    Now you are degenerating into farce. Actually, it happened a long time ago.

    Richards was prominent within the Democratic party. She gave one of the nominating speeches for Walter Mondale in 1984.

    She was picked as the keynote speaker in 1988 (there was no convention in 1998) in part to give her recognition (it is one of the highest-profile spots at the convention) and in part because she was from Texas, like Bush pretended to be.

    She was funny as hell too.

  186. 186.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    No, John S. Do you know who ran William Jefferson Clinton’s campaigns? Up until very late, one…Hillary Rodham Clinton. You know…his WIFE?

    demi know Arkansas politics. demi knows them VERY well. Demi’s blog is “Bohemian Paris, *Arkansas*”, remember?

  187. 187.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Lets look to who was in charge of policy options regarding Rwanda: Susan Rice,

    [snip]

    No, there was no support among the American people for a military intervention in Rwanda just as there is none for intervention in Dafur. Memories of Somalia are strong.

    I notice you’ve chosen to ignore the addendum I gave last night. Forgetful or willfully ignorant? I’ll repeat it:

    Susan Rice, Clarke’s co-worker on peacekeeping at the NSC, also feels that she has a debt to repay. “There was such a huge disconnect between the logic of each of the decisions we took along the way during the genocide and the moral consequences of the decisions taken collectively,” Rice says. “I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again, I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required.”

    That was written by Power in 2001. That was on the record when Obama called Rice and Power.

    And your comment about military intervention is disingenuous. What of other intervention? We didn’t do *anything*. And even if the public doesn’t support it, isn’t it the job of the President to try and change that opinion? The public opposes many things largely out of ignorance. Why not educate them? If you show them children being killed by machetes and explain the dynamics there, opinions will change – but you have to try.

    I won’t defend Rices role in how Rwanda was handled, but her view on how to handle the next situation has changed. So far the only thing we can find connecting Hillary to Rwanda is a statement in December that she urged Bill to get involved (with no corroborating evidence from any of the many, many accounts written of the event and how the government handled it) nor any statement of how she would approach a similar situation in the future, but she’ll gladly check it off in the ’35 years of foreign policy experience’ without talking about it too much. Personally, I think it’s unfair to pin any part of Rwanda on Hillary, but she invited it, so I feel no remorse doing it.

  188. 188.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:12 pm

    Considering how many people still remember that speech 4 years later, do you think he was a poor choice?

    He did a hell of a job. How does that affect my point?

    And if he is so undeserving of being there

    I didn’t say that. In fact, I didn’t say anything critical of Obama, and yet you rant away anyhow.

  189. 189.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 6:14 pm

    He may be relatively young and new, but he is a skilled and savvy politician

    You don’t get it, dude. Obviously. Obama doesn’t have people going around saying that if you elect Clinton or McCain, Al Qaeda wins.

    Clinton and McCain, on the other hand, are saying just that about Obama. McCain’s team, in so many words. Clinton, in veiled terms, but it’s the same message.

    Obama is saying to the people, you don’t have to let yourself be terrorized by your own politicians. Trust yourselves to govern yourselves without that kind of fear. I represent you, I am not here to tell you that you should be scared of the future and only I can save you.

    If you don’t understand that core message, quite honestly, you have no business talking here. You don’t have to agree with it, you can sell the fear too, that’s up to you. But you need to at least understand it.

  190. 190.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    Richards was prominent within the Democratic party.

    yeah, treasurer of texas is sure prominent in the national democratic party all right.

    She gave one of the nominating speeches for Walter Mondale in 1984.

    hey, you can google too. great. now you have to explain how giving a nominating speech on behalf of texas has anything to do with being a ‘washington insider’.

    yeah, what a washington insider that ann richards was. yessiree.

    look, she got the job in 1988 (and yeah, nice job picking up the 1998 bit after i’d already corrected it, you’re really a smart one) because 1) she was from texas and that did well against bush, 2) she could deliver a helluva speech and 3) it gave the dems appeal in red states, something dukakis didn’t have. it didn’t have anything to do with her being a washington insider, because she wasn’t one.

  191. 191.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 6:19 pm

    Just in case anyone doesn’t get this fear mongering bullshit.

    And if you think that Clinton is not telling you the same thing, then you aren’t listening. Listen to her stump speeches. Listen to her “CIC threshold” bullshit. What the heck do you think she means by that, if not “Vote Obama and Die?”

  192. 192.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:20 pm

    If you pull someone out of the minor leagues and he hits 60 homers, is that being ‘well connected’ or being talented?

    Let’s use your baseball analogy. Obama is like some phenom who was drafted early, came up quickly through the minors, reached the bigs, and in a couple years he’s not only reached the play-offs, he’s a contender for World Series MVP.

    Is he “inexperienced?” Yes. Is he an “outsider?” No. Will he win? Stay tuned.

    If he were an “outsider” he would be a walk-on that had never played baseball.

  193. 193.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Yes, chopper, Ann Richards was prominent within the national Democratic Party. Either you’re too young to remember, or yu’re playing disingenuous bullshit games. In the former case, do a bit of research. In the latter case…well, go soak your head.

  194. 194.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    yeah, what a washington insider that ann richards was. yessiree.

    Moving the goal posts again, this time by adding “washington.”

    We don’t have a “Washington DC” party, we have a “Democratic” party.

  195. 195.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 6:26 pm

    f you pull someone out of the minor leagues and he hits 60 homers, is that being ‘well connected’ or being talented?

    It’s called being Willie Mays, only he didn’t do anything quite that spectacular in his rookie season. His 51 homers in 1955 were quite the feat in his day, before the juice, the ginormous and corked bats, the juiced ball, and the lowered mound.

  196. 196.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    Never called her a bitch or mean, but the race-baiting charges stick. What Jesse Jackson or John Lewis say doesn’t matter nearly as much as the perceptions of hundreds of thousands of voters.

    The truth doesn’t matter? Interesting. So the perception that Obama will be a better president is much more important than knowing the truth of whether he will, in fact, suck mightily at it?

    Brachiator, I deeply appreciate – -and I mean it sincerely- you being 1 of 1 here to look back over and approach the questions I’ve raised. Thank you for that.

    We are obviously going to have to disagree on many things. There are so many anti-Hillary Clinton assertions here, not all yours, that It’ll take a long time to discuss them and I’m not sure I want to do that against the closed eyes and ears of so many here.

    But, the truth matters. In all the manufactured claims against Clinton in this campaign – it matters. The wide chasm between the two camps is the willingness to believe the worst – or the best.

    I understand Temple Stark’s attempts to defuse the bomb. and I applaud it, as an attempt. The problem is that Hillary just keeps adding powder to the keg.

    That assumes that it was Hillary / her campaign “adding the powder” most of the time. Giving the strong impression that McCain would be better than Barack Obama on foreign policy matters is going too far. I’ve agreed with that. it came after the anti-Hillary tenor of the cmpaign was already quite strong.

    What the statement doesn’t mention is other forms of experience. What she is actually talking about is experience to be commander in-chief. That leaves her a big out, if words are chosen well, to say, but a CiC isn’t all a President is and Obama would be much better at all these things _____________ than McCain.

    It would, actually, be nice to hear her say that sooner rather than later, but if she does not become the nominee than she can definitely say it then.

    (If she believes it or not it’s still framing though.

    Temple

  197. 197.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 6:34 pm

    Either you’re too young to remember, or yu’re playing disingenuous bullshit games. In the former case, do a bit of research. In the latter case…well, go soak your head.

    come on, demi, you can do better than that.

  198. 198.

    chopper

    March 9, 2008 at 6:36 pm

    Moving the goal posts again, this time by adding “washington.”

    uh, callisto was asking you about who was the ‘washington insider’ for a while now. it seems obvious that ‘washington’ is what people mean here, and that’s the way it’s been framed for a number of posts.

    i’ll note you still haven’t answered him yet.

  199. 199.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 6:37 pm

    We don’t have a “Washington DC” party, we have a “Democratic” party.

    Heh, yeah, that’s pretty naive. We indeed have a Washington DC party, aka the War Party.

    Study up a little.

    “We’ve had enough of a misguided war in Iraq that never should have been fought – a war that needs to end.”

    Barack Obama said that in a Des Moines speech back in October, but he’s been repeating it – with added emphasis – as his campaign has taken off. It’s that last line that always gets the loudest, most prolonged applause: the audience goes wild, people stand and cheer – as well they should. We are told that the ideological differences between Obama and the Clintons aren’t all that great, that in fact they barely exist, which I think is a highly dubious proposition, but, in any case, on this issue – the vital question of war and peace – the gulf between them could not be wider, or deeper.

    She, after all, voted for the war, and she’s been saber-rattling over Iran – much to AIPAC’s delight. Obama, on the other hand, has taken a clear and consistent antiwar position on the Iraq war, as angular as one could hope for in a mainstream politician, while her insincere pandering to the antiwar instincts of the Democratic base has been absolutely shameless.

    Justin Raimondo

  200. 200.

    Callisto

    March 9, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    i’ll note you still haven’t answered him yet.

    ‘Her’, actually. I don’t get the feeling that myiq2xu is going to answer the question though.

    And by the way, I’m from Texas. In no way, shape or form was the late, great Ann Richards ever a “Washington insider”, much less back in 1988.

  201. 201.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 6:43 pm

    He did a hell of a job. How does that affect my point?

    You were the one suggesting that Obama is as much of an insider as Clinton, the suggestion being that he got to be the keynote speaker because he was lifted up. I don’t see that being the case.

    If by ‘insider’ you mean he was a politician with a ‘D’ next to his name before the convention, then, uh, sure, I guess he was an insider. I have 4 coworkers that have run for office as Democrats – one has run 6 times, I think, over the past 12 years at least. Are they insiders like Clinton too?

  202. 202.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm

    Study up a little.

    The paduan obeys

  203. 203.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 6:51 pm

    You were the one suggesting that Obama is as much of an insider as Clinton, the suggestion being that he got to be the keynote speaker because he was lifted up. I don’t see that being the case.

    Please explain your theory as to how he was selected as keynote speaker. Was there a contest? A lottery?

  204. 204.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 6:54 pm

    come on, demi, you can do better than that

    As an insult generator? Sure, but I’m not spoofing on this thread, so I’m forced to restrain my pen. As a response to your claim that she wasn’t an insider in the party? Go read Richards’ bio — it’s actually quite impressive, and, yes, well connected.

    chopper, I think you’re going to have to drop the claim that Obama was some kind of outsider. I really didn’t realize how well-connected he is — I just don’t think the claim stands up.

    (Here, we’re all pony riders here. It’s OK to decide a message won’t work, right?)

  205. 205.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    Someone at Kos referred to Team Clinton as “Monsters, Inc.”. I thought it was a funny jab at the monster line, but I think a better description of them would be Nickelodeon’s “AHHHH!!! Real Monsters”. Hillary would be ‘The Gromble’, Bill would be ‘The Snorch’, McAuliffe would be ‘Zimbo’, Penn would be ‘Krumm’ and Wolfson would be ‘Ickis’.

    Hmmm, who would be ‘Oblina’?

  206. 206.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 6:57 pm

    who would be ‘Oblina’

    BRAWWK HUSSEIN OBLINA, of course.

  207. 207.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Please explain your theory as to how he was selected as keynote speaker.

    Aside from the fact that you probably don’t know, your implied argument would only make sense if he were campaiging on the idea that is making the keynote speech qualified him to be president. That would make his claims on the same level as Clinton’s “I traveled on the plane with a president, and now I are the best candidate” routine.

    Climbing a ladder doesn’t make anyone an insider, it makes them look like they brought a ladder.

    Obama’s speech? I don’t know of any theory other than the one that says he was a rather good speechifier and was thought to be able to make a helluva speech …. which he did.

    That would make him, not an insider, as much as a good speechifier. Would it not?

  208. 208.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm

    Aside from the fact that you probably don’t know, your implied argument would only make sense if he were campaiging on the idea that is making the keynote speech qualified him to be president.

    Actually I do know. John Kerry picked him.

    And while he’s not campaigning on that particular speech, it’s one of the two that many of his supporters seem to feel is all he needs.

  209. 209.

    Martin

    March 9, 2008 at 7:17 pm

    Stephanie Cutter, communications director for the Kerry campaign, explained why the campaign chose Mr. Obama, a former community organizer and Harvard-educated civil rights lawyer: ”We believe he represents the future of the party.”

    Mr. Kerry’s supporters say they hope the choice will also sway those who have accused Mr. Kerry of failing to include enough minorities in top campaign roles and, more broadly, of failing to excite black voters.

    ”This represents the Democrats reaching out,” the Rev. Jesse Jackson said. ”It’s important because the destiny of the Democratic Party is tied up, in some sense, in the growth of the minority base.”

    Given that I get to choose keynote speakers for events on occasion as part of my job, I’ll tell you that very often you decide what tone you want set at the event, what message, etc. and then you go looking for that person. You make it seem as though he was ‘due’ or that someone was pulling for him. Of course, given that is a part of the justification for Hillary, I suppose such thinking isn’t surprising.

    But don’t be too shocked that it works that way. Kos was looking for poster child for the 50 state strategy in 2006 and found John Tester and helped him become the junior senator from Montana. Tester was anything but an insider but became the showpiece for how the netroots and a focus on races even in seemingly impossible places can yield results.

    Obama was the same thing. He was an unlikely politician given his background and was campaigning on a different message than many in the party. He stood out.

  210. 210.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 7:25 pm

    You make it seem as though he was ‘due’ or that someone was pulling for him. Of course, given that is a part of the justification for Hillary,

    Show me where I said anything like that. Until you do, STFU.

  211. 211.

    ThymeZone

    March 9, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    it’s one of the two that many of his supporters seem to feel is all he needs.

    Really? Well that tops Hillary’s claim that a 3 am phone call from Vince Foster’s ghost qualifies her to be CIC.

  212. 212.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 7:57 pm

    Really? Well that tops Hillary’s claim that a 3 am phone call from Vince Foster’s ghost qualifies her to be CIC.

    You win again, Master Yoda.

  213. 213.

    John S.

    March 9, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    No, John S. Do you know who ran William Jefferson Clinton’s campaigns?

    Oh, I thought we were referring to Hillary’s campaigns since she’s the one running for office and everything. But certainly, if she ran Bill’s camapigns then that would be some excellent experience. I wonder how David Wilhelm and Dick Morris feel about that claim.

    I’m asking seriously – is Hillary Clinton really the mastermind behind getting Bill elected to all his offices? Or is the claim as spurious as her touting her foreign policy experience?

  214. 214.

    Temple Stark

    March 9, 2008 at 8:31 pm

    That strikeout in my post above – wasn’t meant to be there. Temple

  215. 215.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    I’m asking seriously – is Hillary Clinton really the mastermind behind getting Bill elected to all his offices?

    Yes, of course. She is also the evil mastermind behind the Illuminati conspiracy, water flouridation, American Idol, and the murders of Vince Foster, Ron Brown and Chandra Levy.

    She was also behind the ERA, which was an insidious plot to get women to divorce their husbands, practice witchcraft, and murder their children.

  216. 216.

    demimondian

    March 9, 2008 at 8:42 pm

    is Hillary Clinton really the mastermind behind getting Bill elected to all his offices? Or is the claim as spurious as her touting her foreign policy experience?

    Depends on what you mean by “mastermind”.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton is a hard-edged, driven politician. She’s troubled by a set of scruples which never hampered her also-brilliant (although not quite as brilliant) husband, and by her own awareness of her own smarts. She played an important role in his rise to power, and played an active role in all of his Arkansas campaigns.

    He is, however, a very capable man in his own right, and certainly wasn’t her cat’s paw, if that’s what you mean.

  217. 217.

    Conservatively Liberal

    March 9, 2008 at 8:54 pm

    demimondian Says:

    who would be ‘Oblina’

    BRAWWK HUSSEIN OBLINA, of course.

    Oh boy, have you ever crossed the line! Oblina is female with black and white stripes and shaped like a cane. You are obviously attacking Obama by referring to him as a pussy, that he is both black and white, and that he is too young since he does not need a cane.

    You are obviously a McCain supporter. ;)

  218. 218.

    Jill

    March 9, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    John, I am as staunch a liberal as you’re going to find, and I have said a number of times over the past few weeks, “I am starting to understand why the wingnuts hated the Clintons.”

  219. 219.

    tBone

    March 9, 2008 at 9:29 pm

    Either way, he’s not the man you want for radical transformation. Sorry.

    Late to the party here but this is an interesting argument.

    Given that there are certain political realities in DC that even the MUP can’t transcend, and without getting into silly distinctions about insider/outsider . . . who would have more potential to have a transformational effect on our politics, Clinton or Obama?

    If you look at their respective campaign machinery, donation bases and overall strategy, the contrast couldn’t be more stark. Clinton is running a quintessentially old-school campaign straight out of the DLC playbook, while Obama has appropriated and perfected a lot of the tactics from Dean’s 2004 insurgent effort.

    Granted, we don’t know how or if any of that would carry over into actual governance, but given the information we have right now, it sure seems to me that an Obama presidency has much greater potential for a sea change in our politics.

  220. 220.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm

    John, I am as staunch a liberal as you’re going to find, and I have said a number of times over the past few weeks, “I am starting to understand why the wingnuts hated the Clintons.”

    Your credibility tanked as soon as I clicked the link to your website. Not exactly neutral are you?

    Did you know that there were GOP members talking about impeachment before Bill even took the oath of office? The GOP and the VRWC accused Bill (and Hillary) of multiple murders, drug smuggling, rape, fathering a black child with a prostitute (recycled for McCain in 2000) along with a list of other lesser (but mostlty sordid) crimes.

    From Molly Ivins’ Who Let the Dogs In:

    A Republican consultant told a network newscaster that his job was to make sure Hillary Clinton is discredited before the 1996 campaign. Each day, anti-Hillary talking points go out to talk-show hosts.
    (from a column originally published in May 1993)

    As for good old Newt that John wants to rehabilitate, back in 1994 he gave a list of adjectives to his proteges to use against their Democratic opponents. The list included: “sick,” “twisted,” “pathetic,” “bizarre,” and “traitor.”

  221. 221.

    empty

    March 9, 2008 at 10:24 pm

    Martin, before you get too enamored by Samantha Powers you might want to visit A Tiny Revolution (scroll down to the March 7th entry). As far as the Rwandan genocide I do blame Bill Clinton and Susan Rice because as you point out military intervention was not the only way the US could have tried to stop the genocide. I appreciate the fact that Susan Rice later regretted her role (as did Bill Clinton – while attempting to generate excuses as well). What worries me about her now is her swing to the other side – becoming a liberal interventionist. Both she and Powers seem to feel that American military power should be used to intervene in situations where people are suffering from oppression. In theory this sounds good. In practice the idea that the US should take upon itself this role makes all kinds of alarm bells ring. Or to put it more bluntly it scares the crap out of me. Does Obama buy into this? It seems so. Especially, given his announced intention of increasing the size of the US military. Yes, the US military is overstretched. But that is because we are occupying another country. The way to relieve that stress is to end the occupation. To increase the size of the military IMO is an invitation for more adventurism – with I am sure the best of intentions. The only person among his advisors that gave me some grounds for hope was Zbigniew Brzezinski who, in spite of his checkered past, seems to have a reasonably sane view of America’s role in todays world. Lately, after receiving pressure from the AIPAC crowd, Obama has distanced himself from Brzezinski.

  222. 222.

    Brachiator

    March 9, 2008 at 10:53 pm

    Temple Stark Says:

    Never called her a bitch or mean, but the race-baiting charges stick. What Jesse Jackson or John Lewis say doesn’t matter nearly as much as the perceptions of hundreds of thousands of voters.

    The truth doesn’t matter? Interesting.

    You could not possibly disagree with me here. You have consistently stated that how a candidate “frames” the debate is more important than the actual content of the debate.

    But apart from this, neither John Lewis (who switched from backing Senator Clinton to supporting Senator Obama) nor Jesse Jackson are the arbiters of the truthiness of the Clinton campaign. Numerous stories have been written about how Democratic Party leaders called Bill Clinton to note how dismayed they were over aspects of the campaign. Numerous stories have been written how many voters, not just black voters, saw both Clintons as pointlessly throwing away the genuine goodwill that they had previously built up with black voters and other groups.

    And obviously, the perceptions of voters, even if wrong, ultimately matter. This is why some candidates (and I am not specifically pointing to Clinton here) use negative campaigning even if the negative ads are one hundred percent fact-free.

    So the perception that Obama will be a better president is much more important than knowing the truth of whether he will, in fact, suck mightily at it?

    Unless you have a time machine, there is no way to test the “truth” of the proposition that Obama, or Clinton, or McCain will make a better president.

    But I think that the idea that Senator Clinton was “lady president in waiting” or that she accrued the ability to do the job by proximity to Bill Clinton is ludicrous. She has already been found to be a liar with respect to claims of her input into Northern Ireland peace discussions. Her vote on Iraq was a demonstrably bad judgment. I noted before that her comments in the January debate on Pakistan, where she demonstrated an admirable grasp of the background, but an abysmal inability to suggest anything that might be reasonable policy, was a sad indicator that she was more Policy wonk than potential commander in chief.

    In other words, despite her claim to long years of experience, her actual positions are less than rookie league. Might she grow into the presidency? Might Obama stumble after he is elected president? Maybe. Is she clearly the best candidate? Not even.

    Brachiator, I deeply appreciate – and I mean it sincerely you being 1 of 1 here to look back over and approach the questions I’ve raised. Thank you for that.

    You’re welcome.

    The Clinton campaign has consistently sought to present Obama as jejune, too young, unready, untested, while she is the old hand, experience, ready to lead. Her most recent, sly suggestion that she might be willing to offer the VP slot to Obama obviously attempts to frame herself as the obvious, inevitable presidential candidate. A nice touch of political theater.

    On the other hand, her weird linkage of herself and McCain as more presidential than Obama was not only a tactical mistake, it disgusted some who were supportive or neutral because it undermined party unity, and implies that as far as she is concerned, if she can’t have the nomination, then McCain should be elected.

    But, the truth matters. In all the manufactured claims against Clinton in this campaign – it matters. The wide chasm between the two camps is the willingness to believe the worst – or the best.

    One bit of political acumen that Senator Clinton has picked up from her husband is her ability to present herself as the put-upon underdog, giving her supporters psychological space to ignore the degree to which aspects of her campaign has deliberately and willingly chosen to become Manufactured Claims, Inc.

    If you pull someone out of the minor leagues and he hits 60 homers, is that being ‘well connected’ or being talented?

    Let’s use your baseball analogy. Obama is like some phenom who was drafted early, came up quickly through the minors, reached the bigs, and in a couple years he’s not only reached the play-offs, he’s a contender for World Series MVP.

    Good analogy. I guess that Senator Clinton would be the wife of an MVP who, after long seasons of watching her husband’s excellent play, demands that she be put into the line-up.

  223. 223.

    myiq2xu

    March 9, 2008 at 11:19 pm

    I guess that Senator Clinton would be the wife of an MVP who, after long seasons of watching her husband’s excellent play, demands that she be put into the line-up.

    In space, no one can hear you screed.

  224. 224.

    Chuck Butcher

    March 9, 2008 at 11:24 pm

    Temple,
    That was not a slam of some sort. The candidate has final say in what the campaign does (I don’t include myiqisboxofrocks) and the campaign is running certain pieces of stupidity in a Democratic campaign. The 3AM ad was right at or over the line, the pumping of John McBush over a Dem was way over, comparisons to Starr is stupidity, using discredited information is both.

    Talk of toughening up Obama with slime is horseshit of the deep variety, this is a Democratic campaign and a Democratic candidate ought to have some respect for the long run. Obama has observed that. Out of ethics or the restraints imposed by his theme is not my call, but it is fact. The tax returns are not a problem – unless they ARE a problem. Same for the WH records, she’s running on it, back it up, she’s trying to make Obama pay with it.

    There is a good reason Hillary is at 50% negatives, it is her. Surely minus the R slime machine of the 90s her numbers wouldn’t be that bad, but they wouldn’t be good either. It is her way of doing business that costs her worst. It is what you virtually always see against her, not shitty policies – there are some – Hillary’s way of doing things.

    I’d love to defuse the damn bomb. It’s not my call. It is her’s. I’ve advocated the value to the voters of a continuing campaign, but not bomb throwing. Not trying to gain ground kickin the DNC apart with false claims and rhetoric. You cannot defuse something if one player keeps on at it. Yes, Temple, the bad behavior is Hllary’s and she’s going to get slammed for it until it either doesn’t pay off or she’s gone or she changes tactics. It’s way too late to gain respect from me, but there are a lot of voters still out there. I’d be happy to quit slamming her, quit giving me reason to.

  225. 225.

    myiq2xu

    March 10, 2008 at 12:24 am

    (I don’t include myiqisboxofrocks)

    Who packed your fudge?

    You need to work on your “people” skills.

  226. 226.

    chopper

    March 10, 2008 at 11:08 am

    Go read Richards’ bio—it’s actually quite impressive, and, yes, well connected.

    i still don’t see how she was a ‘washington insider’ back in 1988. maybe you can show me.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Image by BillinGlendaleCA (6/24/25)

Recent Comments

  • Goku (aka Amerikan Baka) on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:38pm)
  • They Call Me Noni on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:37pm)
  • Paul in KY on OBBB Open Thread: Money Money Money Money (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:34pm)
  • WTFGhost on Schrödinger’s Ceasefire (Open Thread) (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:33pm)
  • They Call Me Noni on Respite Open Thread (Jun 24, 2025 @ 12:32pm)

Personality Crisis Podcast (Cole, DougJ, mistermix)

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
No Kings Protests June 14 2025

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!