I was looking (unsuccessfully) for a version of John Stewart’s “Wingless Angels” when I ran across this. And it reminded me that I’d meant to post something about Rebecca Traister’s nicely observant NYTimes essay:
In the worst of the Democratic primary campaign in 2008, the angry end of the thing, when I had become a devoted Hillary Clinton supporter and was engaged in bitter arguments with people with whom I often agreed, I used to harbor a secret fear, the twin of my political hope: I worried that Hillary Clinton would win her party’s nomination.
This possibility scared me because I knew, with a furious surety, that if she went on to win the presidency, I and the handful of other Clinton supporters in my privileged, mediacentric, Obama-drunk circle would be forced to spend the next four to eight years hearing the words “We told you so,” spoken at various accusatory pitches. Every time she made a compromise, lost a battle or started a war, those of us who had — often shamefacedly — proclaimed a preference for her would have to answer for it, and more profoundly, have to answer for the dream we dashed. We would have to apologize to the world for robbing it of an imagined Barack Obama presidency.
Three years after that intense and acrimonious time, in a period of liberal disillusionment, some on the left are engaging in an inverse fantasy. Almost unbelievably, they are now daydreaming of how much better a Hillary Clinton administration might have represented them…
Rather than reveling in these flights of reverse political fancy, I find myself wanting the revisionist Hillary fantasists — Clintonites and reformed Obamamaniacs alike — to just shut up already.
I understand the impulse to indulge in a quick “I told you so.” I would be lying if I said I didn’t think it sometimes. Maybe often. But to say it — much less to bray it — is small, mean, divisive and frankly dishonest. None of us know what would have happened with Hillary Clinton as president, no matter how many rounds of W.W.H.H.D. (What Would Hillary Have Done) we play.
The empirical choice between Clinton and Obama was never as direct as those on either side made it out to be; neither was obviously more equipped or more progressive than the other. The maddening part, then and now, is that they were utterly comparable candidates. The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented. These are fictional characters shaped by the predilections, prejudices and short memories of the media and the electorate. They’re not actual politicians between whom we choose here on earth…
Barring unthinkable tragedy, President Obama will be the Democratic candidate in 2012. As a Democrat, and a sane person, I will be voting for him. So, I suspect, will his current Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. But I don’t regret supporting Clinton during the 2008 primaries, and nothing that’s happened since then has convinced me I should be ashamed of my choice.
Not that I can vote, but if I could I’d be willing to give Hillary a shot. After all she weathered with Republicans slandering her left and right during her husband’s presidency, I like to think she wouldn’t be afraid to stand up to those bastards. But who knows…
And oh look, Obama “Goes All Out For Dirty Banker Deal” (Matt Taibbi)
Matt said it not me. He’s wrong of course. Bush is the worst president the country has ever had, and before that Bush senior and Ronnie. But perhaps he means worst democratic president, I don’t know. What I do know is I trust Taibbi implicitly when it comes to reporting on finance because he’s about the only journalist who has bothered to plumb the depths of the rot. The financial industry continues its destructive path and their profits have never been greater.
I know it’s a celebration of Women’s Equality Day and all AL, but did you really have to ignite the PUMA wars again? And I say this as someone who would have voted for Hillary in a heartbeat.
Villago Delenda Est
The thing is, ANY of the Dems in the 2008 primary field, even Edwards who in retrospect was clearly a disaster waiting to happen, could not be worse that McCain/anyone.
Hillary’s big problem I think was she was not well served by her campaign staff, but that entire “I was under fire” thing was as embarrassing as hell. If a Rethug came up with that, we’d mock him mercilessly, although Rethugs say things just as stupid or moreso and their base ignores it, or pulls the old “both sides do it” trick.
And, yes, no matter who the victorious Democrat was, they’d be treated as an usurper. That was firmly established in 1992 with Bill Clinton. The Village has to be a bit more careful with it’s attempts to illegitimize Obama, or attempts to illegitimize Hillary if she were the one, mainly because both are/would have been “historic” firsts, and the Village can’t be overtly sexist or racist, it just isn’t done. The Village has to maintain at least a fairly thick veneer of social liberalism and egalitarianism if it wants to retain any legitimacy.
I think she’s been a very good Secretary of State. I also have a secret love for how she has chosen to grow her hair out again now. People might say a woman “of her age” shouldn’t do that. She says, STFU and does what she wants. You go, Hillary!
I cast my first meaningful presidential primary vote for Barack (not Barry, you asshole Taibbi) Obama in the Connecticut primary. But it was a 51/49% kind of decision for me; had Hillary won, I’d not have complained, and would have supported her in the general as much as I did Obama.
What say ye all to the rumor of Biden stepping aside and Hillary being Obama running-mate in 2012?
@Villago Delenda Est:
I wonder if the Democratic nominee had been someone like Biden, a fixture in Washington for years, if they’d be treated as a usurper?
Really Anne? Why didn’t you support Edwards, who was running on the most liberal and populist platform of all the candidates?
On a personal level, I love Hillary, but on a political level, I couldn’t bring myself to support someone who told Iraq invasion opponents to fuck off:
Why would you be ashamed? Why should anyone be ashamed of supporting a losing primary candidate?
I had a number of reasons for not supporting Hillary during the primaries, but if she’d won I’d have campaigned for her just as I did for Obama, and for Kerry before that. John McCain would have made a disastrous president, and even though I find Obama too conciliatory to his insane opposition, and I’m disgusted by the coddling of Wall Street, and by the unwillingness to hold the criminals in the previous administration to account, I’m not ashamed of my vote, or of the effort I put into helping it get elected.
Sheesh…even if I don’t agree with Taibbi’s take on the issues, there’s a role for people like him in society, gadflies and all that, but…”Barry”? Really, Taibbi?
Anne, what is the point of giving voice to a thoughtful, perceptive, reasonable observer of the situation, who has it just about right? How can we generate a decent 400 comment thread over something like that, when all the East Coast people who are up are filling their bathtubs with water and moving their most valuable possessions up to the second floor?
@Spaghetti Lee: What’s the problem? That is his name. And if Taibbi is less than enthusiastic about our president, remember that that president swore an oath to uphold the law, and plainly has not done so – on torture, on foreclosure fraud, on corruption…..
Taibbi has a right to be pissed, and so do we. Rightly or wrongly, he has been a coward.
James E. Powell
No one is asking to say that you are ashamed of your choice. We only want you to admit that you were wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Come on, you know you were wrong. Admit it. Come on, just admit it! Admit it, damn you!
I wouldn’t. He’s not an economist, nor does he have any background in finance, accounting, or law. He’s not Elizabeth Warren or Krugman.
Let’s face it, he’s trying too hard to occupy Hunter S Thompson’s space.
She’s performing a vital role in her current job. And doing great at it. So, I hope she is happy in it and wants to stay in it. In fact, a lot of the action in the Obama presidency has been foreign policy– necessarily, since the teabaggers have shut down Congress– and she’s had a key role in those successes.
As for VP? Being VP is a dead-end, boring-ass, do-nothing job. Perfect for an old guy like Biden who’s already been around DC for decades, and is kind of coasting to retirement and seems to be enjoying his senior advisor role.
I hear he played decent basketball though.
The problem is that it’s a wingnut meme intended to rob him of his identity and infantilize him. If you want to criticize him, there’s plenty of ways to do it without resorting to immature schoolyard bullshit.
remember that that president swore an oath to uphold the law, and plainly has not done so – on torture, on foreclosure fraud, on corruption…..
And as long as I’m good and liquored up, can I just say how much I hate, simply fucking hate this stupid cult of personality/authority complex that makes people think that the president can just get anything done by snapping his fingers, and if he doesn’t it’s a personal failing on his part? Seriously, with the possible exception of Norquist’s no-taxes-ever bullshit, there is no meme out there that distorts political debate than this garbage.
And I say this not out of some sense of Obot loyalty (although I pretty much plead guilty to that), but out of a sense of trying to analyze politics in some sort of objective way. No way that failures on cleaning up Wall Street or getting out of Iraq could be the fault of congress, or the supreme court, or the MIC, or Wall Street, or the Fed, or lobbyists and interest groups, or any other of the two billion institutions that help determine how this country is run. For Taibbi’s specific gripe, never mind that politics and money have been intertwined pretty much since the beginning, and it’s only gotten worse in the last few decades to the point where the corruption is institutional. If Taibbi thinks Obama can overcome all that on his own if he just wants it bad enough, he’s more of an Obot than I am. Nope, gotta be Barry Soetero the sniveling coward. That’s the only explanation. I’m glad that you and Taibbi can read his mind and determine that it’s his personal cowardice that’s caused all these problems, not political reality.
I mean Jesus Christ people, wasn’t one of the problems with Bush that the executive branch took on too much power? And now it’s like people take that power as a given and assume the president can do whatever he wants, just because he’s the big daddy president guy. It just doesn’t work that way, and it’s not supposed to either.
I thought someone put an end to those rumors. Hillary said she wouldn’t consider it, or Biden or the WH confirmed Biden will be on the ticket as VP or something.
Didn’t she stay she doesn’t want to stay in the job if Obama is elected for another term? She’s done at the end of this term? I thought I read that, but maybe I’m mis-remembering.
God reading crap like this makes me sick. You would think Hillary Clinton was Bernie Sanders or something. She was not then and is not now a liberal savior. I really thought this site was somewhere where I wouldn’t see the idiot PUMA posts. Guess not
Um, I think the point of the post is that Hillary is not a liberal savior, and neither is Obama, and those images were/are wishful thinking on the parts of their fans. But maybe I missed something?
I would have voted for Clinton, but she would have lost.
If she was made VP, as the heir apparent, I would vote for her, of course, in 2015.
I do not subscribe to her politics, though I will support a very similar Obama next November,
Matt Taibbi is a credit to his class.
…and I’m never going back
to my old school…
This isn’t a PUMA post. To the contrary, it’s an anti-PUMA post. Anne specifically says she’s a dedicated Democrat who will definitely vote for Obama. The author she quotes writes that PUMAism and recent PUMA revisionism is foolish.
@jheartney: Hear, hear!!
If Hillary had been the nominee, I would have worked just as hard for her as I did for Obama. But, as a liberal, my first choice was Edwards– a lousy choice, as it turned out, but his health care proposals were seriously to the left of either Hillary or Obama. I’d always admired Hillary’s expertise and dedication, but the whole slo-mo train wreck of the health care debacle in the first Clinton term didn’t give me much confidence in her vaunted “experience.” I was wary of her reliance on Ira Magaziner for policy decisions on health care issues, plus a “no compromises” stance. During the 2008 campaign, I had an eerie deja vu about Mark Penn and his campaign strategy for Hillary, and it wasn’t mistaken. I wish my powers had extended to revealing what an asshole Edwards was, but you go with the gut you have, not the one you wish you had.
But, hell yeah, again– I’d have worked just as hard to get Hillary into the White House if she’d been the nominee. But that doesn’t mean I have any illusions about how swell things would be if she’d won. The right wing creeps would have savaged her just the same. If you think Hillary could have gotten past the obstruction Obama’s had to deal with, I’d really like to hear your reasons.
Biden would also be an usurper. Not treated as, be. The
throneWhite House belongs to the GOP and no one else in the eyes of a significant part of the GOP and their enablers in the Village. Of course that also goes within the GOP. Perry is doing well because he has lineage. He is the successor to the son of the adopted son of Ronaldus Magnus. There’s so much about the current Republican Party that can be explained in Ancien Régime terms.
Clinton said she wouldn’t consider it. That doesn’t guarantee that Biden will be on the ticket, although I can’t see an obvious candidate for Obama to annoint as his successor, and I doubt whether he would even be looking to do that.
I don’t know what WED is.
I can share.
My mom was the fist president of the Memphis chapter of NOW in 1971. (maybe 72?)
I remember my mom explaining to me what “feminism” was when I was 10. Let me recall: Feminism is a movement to change our society so that women can do anything like men can do. I think that was what I got out of it. Of course the conversation had to digress into the explanation of Things Women Aren’t Allow to Do. When my mom told me I was horrified. I thought all women liked doing crappy stuff like cleaning house, being secretaries and cleaning maids, school teachers, ugh.
And so on to Women are Just as Good as Men, which was a short, and How People Stop Women from Doing What They Want to Do, which was rather complex. I had excluded girls from the treehouse in the past just so the boys would approve of me. I was shamed.
What was left unanswered was why women needed to form a group to change things. Why couldn’t women just go out into the world as individuals and say “this is the way it’s going to be, fellahs.”? I probably assumed every adult woman was as omniscient and vengeful as my mom. So it shouldn’t be a big deal.
Now that mom had revealed to me this totally cool new world of male-female interaction I was like a vacuum that latched onto any adult conversation and dissect it for clues. Yes, I was way too intense at that age. Yes, people really did say to me, “please go stand on the other side of the room.” Thank you, I’m much better now.
Many men hated feminism, passionately,
The breakdown looked like this: Men who were hardcore Dad types were angry as hell. The laid-back Uncle types were OK with feminism. Rarely, very rarely, there was a humorous but cranky Grandfather type not only was for it, but was willing to hold other men down so women could beat them.
I expected women to be a solid block in favor of feminism. Nope. But it was a simple spectrum of opinion. Some were fer it, some were agai’n’ it. But both were in the minority.
I replay this scene in my mind. My mom is talking to a lady I’ve never seen before. It may be in a department store or at the grocery or at my school; it’s happened more than once. When Mom mentions the word “feminism” they get this expression that hard to describe. Their lips pinch and get flat a bit. A subtle wrinkle of the brow. They look over my Mom’s shoulder like they’re staring at something vaguely sad that’s a thousand miles away.
And then they say, “that’s nice dear” and pat my mom’s hand or “good luck” with a pat on the shoulder. Mom would drag me to the next victim.
After a while it got scary. Everybody else in the world thought this was a big deal except for these vacant women. Where did they come from? How did they get here? It turned out those questions were easy to answer.
Find a friend who had a mother that exhibited these peculiar properties. Easy, my mom would chat up other moms when she picked me up from school. Check. Get myself invited to a sleep over, check. Observe target, check.
My first impression was house, spotless. Frighteningly clean to a boy used to a somewhat cluttered household. Way, way too many small things to dust and yet they were! There apparently were designated areas where some types of behavior were impermissible; eating only in certain rooms, playing only in others; animals were confined to certain places or only allowed in at certain times.
(not finished yet, sorry wandering tenses; it’s improv, what can I say? I need to go pee and I’m scared my PC would crash so I’m submitting it. Should I continue? I’m actually pretty close to the end.)
You know, I’m not sure why you should “feel” bad about your vote. I’m not sure why anyone should. This post mostly sprung an ok in my mind because I don’t get this tendency to try to shame people who are mostly on your side into complete lockstep agreement. I would have supported Hilary in the general and if she wantd 2012, I would be supporting her now. You have to really scrape the bottom of the barrel of Democrats to find someone that I’d pick a Republican over. In fact, I doubt I’d do that now on sheer principle, since the GOP have proven they are simply not sane enough to govern a tea party with stuffed animals.
And fuck Matt Taibbi. That’s President Obama to you, douchenozzle. That “Barry” bullshit is what people say to denigrate Barack Obama. Don’t tell me that’s his name, the man hasn’t gone by that since he grew out of short pants and trading cards. It’s fucking Barack and it’s President to fucking journalist who’s key selling point is that he uses fuck a lot in his writing. This sort of bullshit is what pisses off Obama supporters and the black community. I don’t recollect the complete air of derision and emasculation in the criticism of Bill Clinton and that president was busy using an intern as a humidor. Shit, critique away, but quit speculating My theory is that the Obama administration is trying to secure its 2012 campaign war chest with this settlement deal. (Hint, motherfuckers; a theory is an opinion with delusions of science), and write the damn fact. Too many post articles with smatterings of facts and a whole lot of opinions and proclaim that to be sufficient to panic.
I try to not judge professional women by superficial stuff like their hairstyles. Really, I do try not to. But I watch the evening network news shows with my dad – and we both LOVE Hillary…
But sorry to break it to you, she looks TERRIBLE since she stopped keeping her hair nice and just let herself go, deciding to grow it out. And once recently she was caught with a scruncci thing in it. (shaking my head) Not good.
She is an older woman and she can be very attractive. Lately it’s just not looking so good. Dad and I quietly comment “Oh. Look at her today.” and “She looked so much better with shorter hair.”
I think we’d also say the same things about a male politician, say Donald Trump, who needs to cut that hair and acknowledge that he’s bald.
Just FYI, this is stoled. And righteous post also.
Yes, please continue. I wouldn’t trade my ’70s childhood for anything, either, but I came from the sort of household you’re describing.
Thoughtful Black Co-Citizen
I don’t know why anyone would be ashamed of supporting HRC.
Now if you supported HRC and used that as an excuse to become a shrieking fuckhead, that’s another story.
If you supported HRC and now support Sarah Palin because
they both have vaginasOBAMA SUCKS! That’s another story.
Traister wrote some nasty shit during the primaries, so I suppose this is a mea culpa of sorts. That said, I’d have gladly voted for Clinton if she won the primaries. Hell, I’d have even voted for that douchebag Edwards.
That all may be. But that kind of attitude is (for example) the reason male America is drowning in a sea of completely unnecessary buzzcuts these days. We’re not monks, people–let’s stop selling ourselves so short.
BTW, what if she put it in a bun?
You are absolutely right. But one correction… To Mr. Taibbi, who I really enjoy reading, it is “Mr. President.” Not “Barry.” Not “Barrack.” Not even “Mr. Obama.” It’s “Mr. President, SIR.”
When will these kids ever learn how to show a little respect?
I’m a Taibbi fan generally, but “Barry” was kinda jarring. The only people I’m aware of who refer to the president that way are wingnuts.
I don’t know. She just looks awful and tired of it all lately. Like she’s given up. Her skin looks like a 30-year veteran flight attendant from all of the flying (low humidity) and lack of moisturizer. It’s like she’s exhausted. Maybe she works too hard. And letting the hair just hang there un-styled as it does lately… Sad. I miss the attractive Hillary who either cared about her appearance or had stylists looking after it.
Just listen to me, the 40 year-old queen criticizing the divas of the world. I guess I miss “Diva Hillary.”
Out of respect to Women’s Equality Day, I’ll redact some broader thoughts to just point out that if a Hillary Clinton administration would have been advised by the same quality people who ran her campaign..
(The people that in the actual primary campaign said Ohio and Texas were their firewall, followed shortly by “what do you mean Texas has a primary AND a caucus?”)
.. I can’t imagine how they would have done as well as the Obama administration.
(But I see no reason anyone should have to be ashamed of backing Hillary during the primaries. Maybe some twinge of conscience around the time she sat down with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review?)
Bill Clinton went by “Billy” until he was 12 years old, and yet I don’t recall anyone — even Republicans — insisting on referring to him as “Billy Clinton” even though that’s the name he used as a child.
There’s only one reason anyone refers to the president as “Barry” — because they’re condescending assholes who think that they’re better than he is. We’ll let you fill in the blanks as to why a Rolling Stone reporter thinks he’s better than the President of the United States.
Right on. If Hillary had Obama’s staff instead of the borderline fellons she had running her campaign (Mark Penn, anyone? Scumbag from hell – and he was the chief strategist – Ick) she would have had my support.
But Obama had the real Pro’s. Definitely. I really respect that bunch and all of the wonderful staffers, interns and volunteers that they drew to the campaign. It’s all about the leadership.
Imagine a President Obama that Matt Taibbi would not think of calling “Barry”. Would that President Obama have disappointed us less, or more, than the President Obama we’ve got?
Don’t even try to get me wrong: I will vote for Barack Obama in 2012; I will do my best to convince everybody I know to do the same; I will rejoice if he wins; I will be despondent if he loses.
And for all I know, Matt Taibbi is a poseur and an asshole.
But I believe, nevertheless, that Obama would have been a better President, and would have an easier time getting re-elected, if he had been the kind of President that only the Coulters and Limbaughs of the world — not the Taibbis — would dare call “Barry”.
Meh. You sound like the wingers freaking out over the President’s new immigration policy. Word for word.
Funny how liberal critics aren’t screaming about the rule of law when it comes to not enforcing a law they dislike.
But it’s also sad how critics on the left use the same rhetoric found on the right.
@PanurgeATL: Hell, my whole town was like the household he’s describing.
My mom was too busy making a living to be that active, but she was a charter subscriber to Ms., and I grew up with those “Stories For Enlightened Children,” or whatever they were called.
Imagine my chagrin when I moved from DC to Murfreesboro, TN to go to college and learned of the Mrs. degree. And girls who wore hoop skirts to the prom.
My mom was very much the anti-feminist take care of your husband type when she first got married. Until she decided she HATED being a homemaker (right after I was born). We were a two-income household right after that until she retired last year. That contradiction has never squared itself.
I had many objections to Clinton in ’08. One of the foremost ones was that her election would further advance the notion of dynastic politics in America. Had she become the nominee I would have worked just as hard for her election as I did for Obama’s. The notion of Palin being a McCain heartbeat away from the presidency just scared the hell out of me.l
They’re both stooges for the banks, so sure, why not?
No one in power is your friend.
I know! I was a Dean supporter, and we worked so hard. Some of our guys went up to Iowa for the caucuses, and the precinct leaders were clueless college kids (Kerry’s campaign had quietly locked up all the old hands).
Joe Trippi had managed the Iowa caucuses for Mondale (laugh if you must, but he won, right?) He knew how arcane the process was, and he didn’t do shit to make sure it was managed competently.
It’s shocking to see highly paid “professionals” step on their dicks like that.
I remember during the 2008 campaign, Matt Taibbi had a major hard-on for Obama. He loved him and really wanted him to win very badly. He was a big-time supporter and openly admitted it on Bill Maher’s show. Unfortunately he became too much of a True Believer and was ultimately disappointed by his guy when he had to go to Washington and play big-boy politics. I can understand this. Many Obama supporters feel this way.
But the “Barry” stuff is so Maureen Dowd. Matt should know better than to be such a vindictive bitch.
Lord knows we better not disrespect the powerful person with a diminutive, if we call him polite names we might get to play on his touch football team in our dreams tonight.
There is no such animal. As others have noted, Taibbi thinks he’s the reincarnation of Hunter S. Thompson and tries to adopt the same insouciant tone. The problem for him is, Limbaugh and Coulter adopted Thompson’s tone first, so he ends up echoing them when he wants to sound Thompsonesque.
The only president that Taibbi wouldn’t refer to as “Barry” is one that the Limbaughs and Coulters wouldn’t call “Barry,” either.
ETA: Quite telling that the asshole trolls are coming out in droves to defend Taibbi. Like defends like.
Let me share some Matt Taibbi quotes with you from the eXile book.
It’s funny how he’s right all the time, though, and I’m right all the time, too. Almost like critical thinking works.
@Mnemosyne: Barry Obama was Barry Obama until well after age 12, and well into his adult life. Whoopee.
And pointing out that Obama refuses to enforce the law is not being an asshole. You garner that distinction for yourself for throwing the epithet around.
You realize that you’re proud of being the asshole in the schoolyard who taunts the fat kid until he cries, right? Because that’s what Taibbi is bragging about being.
Being able to “debate” at the level of personal insult the way Limbaugh and Coulter do is not an accomplishment. Adopting right-wing talking points because they’re effective isn’t going to do shit to advance the progressive agenda you keep saying you want, but the drama is just too addictive for you to give up.
Again, point out to me where any Republican, anywhere, ever referred to Bill Clinton as “Billy.” Just once.
It’s so weird how you complain about Obama adopting right-wing talking points while picking up Limbaugh’s habit of calling him “Barry.” Hypocrite much?
I’m not quite sure how calling the president “Barry” constitutes a rational criticism of him for not following the law. Please elucidate.
@efgoldman: Coward. Start with cramdown, a clearly broken campaign promise. Move on to health care, we he pre-sold out to Pharma rather than take it all on.
Even his no tax increases on people under $250k is pure cowardice. Remember, there are no tax increases if you just let the cuts expire. But he won’t even try that argument.
Coward. He thinks his arguments can’t win. So he starts with conceding that the R’s are right on austerity, on tax increases, on defense, on labor. Coward.
Dolly, you don’t really have to follow your hero Matty down the name calling path. It doesn’t make you look cool.
And this, right here, is why we lose: because even when we win, people can’t shut the fuck up about how it was secretly a loss because we didn’t win the way they wanted us to win.
This is why we lost the midterms: because Democrats were afraid to run on the accomplishments of 2008-2010. They really thought that PPACA was something to be ashamed of. Lots of Blue Dogs spent a lot of time pledging to repeal PPACA, which naturally made voters think, “Why should I send this asshole back to Washington when he tells me the biggest thing he did this term was a huge mistake?”
Fuck. You’re right, Dollared. I may not deserve President Perry, but you sure as fuck do, and you’re not going to be happy until you have him.
@Dollared: Show us on the doll where the black guy touched you.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
You really don’t get feminism at all, do you?
“Most disappointing” isn’t the same as “worst”. Obviously Matt Taibbi had higher hopes for BHO than he had for GWB.
@PanurgeATL: Bah. Lost it. Way too sleepy now.
The gist was that these vacant women I found were slaves, caged humans, no physical marks but a lifetime of conditioning that erased their very souls. I’d seen women that embraced homemaking and these weren’t them. They lived in a box of permissible behaviors so sharp and hard-edged you could cut yourself on it and there was a vast sea of them out there. I was a bit frightened by the concept that a person could have so much of themselves missing yet still be considered human.
Back then I didn’t understand about suppression and sublimation.
Their husbands were regular guys on the outside but inside they were white hot overly coiled springs of hatred that was only directed at their wives.
The food was too salty and snap! he’d say something mean.
The coffee was too cold and snap! he’d complain loudly that he couldn’t get a decent cup of coffee.
She didn’t buy enough hamburger and snap! I gave you your allowance what did you waste it on?
His shirts weren’t ironed etc etc
And when men like that went snap!, their wives immediately corrected the mistake in humble silence.
These men – it’s not like they were assholes. If I came over and sprayed milk out of my nose they’d laugh. If one of their kids interrupted their Dad while he was reading his paper he’d put the paper down and be nice. They just treated their wives like tools that required constant maintenance and the way you maintained the tool was to say something really shitty at regular intervals.
Within 2 or 3 years I stopped going over to many of my friend’s houses. I felt like grinding my teeth whenever husband and wife were in the same room.
I arrived at a deeper understanding of why my parents got divorced as a result.
Mom quit NOW in 1973. She said all they did was sit around and talk and not do anything.
Then she went out and opened a bar and I learned all about adults and alcohol. But that’s another story.
So true. So true.
Does anyone realize how hard it was to get the half-ass healthcare reforms that we were actually allowed to pull off, considering the powers that be in Washington? You are all fooling yourselves if you believe that “for the People, by the People, of the People” stuff. It was a fun fantasy for a while but there are serious financial interests that own all of our asses. The insurance industry is just one of them.
Maybe y’all just haven’t seen enough of the Great George Carlin (RIP). It’s all available on YouTube. Go watch it and check back with me.
The healthcare bill actually passed and it may be thrown out soon. We spent alot of time and effort even getting that past our overlords. That’s a good start for future reforms if it manages to hold, but we can’t have people flaking out because it wasn’t just perfect. Sorry. In this climate, we peasants have to accept what we can get today and try to fix it tomorrow. Seriously, I wanted Medicare for All or a “Public Option” as much as everyone else here did. We got what was politically possible and we should be glad our leaders were willing to expend the political capital to get even that.
So be mad! Take it out on that Obama guy! Vote for some dumbfuck Republican religious nut and see where it gets you. Hey you’ll feel better, right?
@RandyH: Funny, I take Hillary’s toned-down appearance rather as a positive. I don’t think she’s ever really been all that vain.
She’s doing stuff she wants to do. She doesn’t need to be glamorous. She’s just being herself. Kinda reminds me of those pictures of her at Yale. Big thick glasses. Hair not styled. She doesn’t need that stuff.
(I say this as a complete Obot from the beginning–but I would have cheerfully voted for Hillary and supported her just as much. I think she’s a great lady and would be a good president.)
@Ozymandias, King of Ants:
I AM a feminist. Seriously. I am. But Feminism doesn’t mean you have to look ugly to prove your Feminist bona fides. It is about respecting women for their abilities in positions of authority. And I do. They’re often much better than men in positions of authority. However, I expect men in authority to at least try to look good as well. And if they should let themselves go, I will point it out just the same.
I’ll probably get some blowback for this comment. I realize that.
You are right that SHE is not vain. Never has been. It’s always been the political handlers who decided what look “the people” wanted on her since she came to Washington. I definitely remember her before. Even in Arkansas she wasn’t forced to have focus groups decide what hairstyle was best on her, as she has now for years. And that is really unfortunate that she’s had to undergo that kind of scrutiny.
No, she’s NOT vain.
@RandyH (comment 69)
As did I. President Taibbi must have forgot that the Medicare buy-in idea died when Joe Lieberman heard that Anthony Weiner and other progressives were too amped up for the idea, right?
Unless the Roberts court pulls a bigger con job than Bush v Gore, the ACA ends in Medicare-for-all (oops, spoiler alert – sorry). The key is getting as many people covered as possible. Like SS and Medicare the program will only grow more popular, and people won’t want to give care up once they’ve had it. If the court only strikes out the mandate, that just makes the economics of the private/employer-based insurance model blow up sooner.
That’s why I feel the administration was agnostic on the ‘Public Option’ – they wanted to get as many people covered as possible. You squeeze the inefficiency out of the system later. Every (Western) European country has shown that you can functionally have universal coverage for about half the per-capita price the US pays.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
@RandyH: I just thought your comment was petty, that’s all.
I mean, how are you affected by the Secretary of State not looking as good as she can? You’re not, are you? So why mention it? What’s the point?
Thinking about your comment alot. I’m starting to see it your way. Maybe I’ll have to view her differently. I was thinking that she was unhappy but maybe it’s just the opposite. Maybe she is just being herself and doesn’t care what the focus groups and average TV viewers think anymore. She’s just gonna be who she wants to be. I can respect that but I’ll just have to adjust to it. That’s cool with me.
@Ozymandias, King of Ants:
Sorry for sounding so petty. It will never happen again.
I know what you’re talking about. Personally I hope they drop the private-insurance mandate in a year or so. Because we will then have to offer a “Public Option” as the one thing we can mandate individuals to buy into. And the exchanges will create a truly competitive marketplace for the first time in my life. Our insurance premiums should come down to the levels of Germany or Holland or Switzerland within a few years after that because it will be such a transparent and competitive marketplace that everyone has a right to shop for insurance in, not just big corporations getting the good deals.
But they’d better not kill the whole bill. That will really set us back.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
@RandyH: You are forgiven. I’m only King of Ants, not King of Blogs.
Seriously . . .
But seriously, I constantly encounter people who look past me and see only my disability, so I’m just really sensitive.
Anne Laurie, you could have done a worthy post about Women’s Equality Day, instead you decided to indulge in a PUMA dog whistle. how disappointing.
I hope everyone who’s in the hurricane’s path is safe.
@Ozymandias, King of Ants:
What are you talking about? You don’t have a disability as far as I can see.
Ozymandias, King of Ants
@RandyH: You owe my a new keyboard!
@Ozymandias, King of Ants:
Okay. But what happened to your old keyboard?
There is something maddening about this post and it just hit me, the implicit idea that as an Obot I should be ashamed of my choice. Fuck that, Hillary lost. She lost early and then she took a fucking long time to accept her loss. Fortunatly, team Obama used the time well.
As for politically, there isn’t much point in speculation I agree. But fuck if she would have taken more risks. We saw in the campaign how risk averse she was and the way as SoS she’s pushed Obama to the right. Which makes me feel good about Biden being my second choice.
Really good points. With Hillary (and Bill, they came as a package) I was worried that they would bring the DLC back into power. That’s the scumbag group of Wall-Streeters who got all the deregulation they wanted under Bill.
Maybe we got them anyway and maybe it’s unavoidable since they have more money than God, apparently. But something wasn’t right about her campaign. I’ve already said some rotten stuff about her staff that were not serving her well. And I stand behind all of it.
Obama just seemed right for the time. I wish he would speak more but he’s done well so far, really. So many accomplishments and no decent PR folks to sell it. Some disappointments too, but what’s new?
For many people, some on the left and even more on the right, the 2008 campaign will never be over. Some are unwilling to accept the results, and because of that they are often incapable of giving President Obama credit where credit is due.
The long list of accomplishments of Obama and his administration are oftentimes completely ignored, while other times they are easily shrugged off or discounted, explained away as having not been fast enough or bold enough or progressive enough or weren’t fought for hard enough, etc, etc. It’s all so unfortunate on many levels.
Odie Hugh Manatee
The defense of ‘Barry is his name’ is one uttered by Hillbots, especially really bitter ones.
This one is very bitter.
And, I want to add I for one do get angry about the campaign Hillary ran. There’s a reason Ted Kennedy came out and endorsed Obama. So, yeah Hillary has plenty to be ashamed about in that campaign.
I was a Hillary dead-ender, too. What none of us could forecast was the depth of the Republican intransigence and refusal to cooperate, which would have made her life as difficult, too. I’m thinking that the only way Obama can salvage the 2012 campaign is to put Hillary on the ticket.
Man, my experience was one of descending satisfaction with my choices. I hoped for Gore, supported Edwards, voted for Hil in the primary, and Obama in the general.
@bob h: I think the only way he can salvage 2012 is by increasing employment and decreasing foreclosures. And I don’t see how he can do that. I don’t usually listen to his speeches, but I’ll tune in to see what sort of jobs program he has in mind.
That’s just crazy talk. Biden is the man, if he wants to keep doing it. Hillary should stay where she is – and I doubt she’d want to be veep anyway.
What needs to change is Obama himself. If he wants to win, he’s going to have to shift from “Compromiser-in-Chief” to “Fighter-in-Chief.” And fast. Start bashing some Republican heads if he doesn’t get his way. People (especially “Independents”) love a “fighter” regardless of what they’re fighting for. That’s why they choose Republicans so often. It doesn’t matter what that pol is fighting for (rich people and corporations) but the fact that they look like a fighter makes them a “winner.” And “Independents” only want to vote for “Winners.” Forget about all that mumbo jumbo policy shit, they want a “fighter” and a “winner” regardless of who they’re fighting and winning for.
@Dollared: Are you really this fucking stupid? Let’s take some of these on.
Health Care: Were you conscious during the health care reform debate? Anything remotely progressive was stonewalled in the Senate once the GOP decided that passing anything was going to take 60 votes. The bill we got (which is STILL an improvement) barely had the votes to pass in the House.
Tax increases for the rich: Again, did you actually follow what was going when this was happening? The GOP was demanding a vote on renewing ALL the cuts and nothing was going to get through the lame duck session without it.
He’s hardly perfect, but the idea that if he just went out there and demanded the GOP accede to his bills it would happen is foolishness.
Had to laugh because that was so much like me.
Running for nomination/election as president is a very, very tough game. All the players sustain injuries.
Great points made in that post, SL.
All I have to say in rebuttal is that not everyone who is concern trolling the president is quite so simply described as you do. I think there is a tendency by those who identify as Obot or what have you to rush to cast critics as immature, unrealistic, overly-idealistic (in one way or another).
I am not happy with the president’s performance on specific items, yet over all I am and will be a supporter. That is a distinction, and yet some people have a tendency to outright dismiss any criticism of the president as misguided, childish, misplaced, petulant… Nah nah nah. Nope nope nope. You are missing the point. I don’t wanna take my ball and go home. I want to push the president to do what he said he would do in the campaign. I voted for him, after all, based on what he said he was going to do during the campaign.
I struggle to square what the president has done, vis a vis the economy, with what talked about doing during the campaign. And that’s the problem I and a lot of others have. In my mind, when it has come to pocket book issues, the president in the post-Stimulus period sorta stopped articulating a clear liberal Democratic vision for the economy. He made a deal to get stimulus done, then moved on. Then he made a deal to get health care done, and he moved on. Yet again, once the ball got rolling, he stopped, in my opinion, articulating a clear liberal Democratic vision. He simply made a deal.
And so on with Dodd-Frank. Again, the deal was sought, made and he moved on.
So the let’s make a deal and move on is what Obama does. And that’s what I’m disappointed with. I didn’t ask for a Center-Right vision of the economy. I do not discount nor take lightly the super important and very progressive reforms he’s achieved.
But I want him to be a sales man for liberal Democratic ideology and ideals. Instead, I think I often see him chasing the compromise as if that in and of itself is an achievement.
Take the tax cuts post-2010, then the near-shut down this spring, then the debt ceiling fight. WTF? I mean, really, WTF? I do not understand why the president did not articulate liberal Democratic priorities every day, or as often as he could, and explain to the country every chance he had what the Republican vision will do to wreck the country? Because it makes Joe Klein or David Brooks uncomfortable? Because Paul Krugman and Dean Baker and Duncan Black are meanies who can’t stop saying “I told you so?”. Nah. Because he wanted to get a deal done and make the compromise.
That said, I don’t know even what the Grand Bargain was. Or why it was ok to continue the tax cuts, or why it was ok to cut (or make the appearance of cutting) discretionary spending from the budget in a recession. He didn’t try to sell it to me. He didn’t try to sell it to anyone. You either had to be on board with him making the deal, or you got nothing.
I have never been told, as an American voter, why I should support the president making these deals, other than, “well, that is the best we can do under the circumstances, so shut up and get back in line and don’t say anything mean about Obama.”
Sorry, not gonna happen.
I’m sure one of the usual scolds will come along and say I’m just lobbing shit-bombs and whatever, but I stress again I am a strong supporter of the president, but I am tired of his leadership style.
And I like Hillary’s hair now. I was a bit shocked when I first saw it, but being a cranky old bitch now, I say what the hell, let it grow! Let it fly in the trees, get caught in the breeze, etc. I sorely regret having my hair cut for my current job (which was ridiculous as everyone dresses like hippies or pseudo-jocks there) and am growing it out. For me, it is sort of a “shield” against the world. Weird, I know, but old people can get sort of “out there” and sometimes, we flout convention because we are sick and tired of doing what everyone has expected of us for decades.
@harlana: I haven’t been watching TV news, so I haven’t seen her hair lately. As far as I am concerned she can dye it purple and get a mohawk if that is what she wants, but just out of idle curiosity, what has she done with it?
Don’t understand at all why you would even consider being ashamed of voting for Hilary unless you became a total douche about losing, like so many Firebaggers have.
Like you, I’m not ashamed of being wholeheartedly on the other side. I’d have voted, happily, for Hil but I am glad my guy won. Still am. He’s not perfect and I have serious disagreements with him on some things, but I think he’s a very good president and I will happily donate, volunteer, and vote for him again.
omg, I could not have lived through that again!
I appreciated your comment, which was well-presented. But isn’t it a shame one has to go to such lengths and explanation in order for others to understand that not agreeing with every single thing the president does is somehow destructive and juvenile. Any criticism of the president seems to get smashed on here, for the most part. I’m not talking about silly comments that really are juvenile in nature, but well-thought out, reasoned expressions of frustration with the president as you outlined above.
As for me, I am done being frustrated with his style of leadership and accept it for what it is, in the same way that I no longer feel I have to defend the president to his right-wing critics. (Does anybody notice that those of us who are not absolutely in love with this president, regularly defend him from attacks from the right? Except for this bitch, because I am too tired and worn out to deal with whack-jobs who will never change their thinking anyways) It is pointless and upsetting to me at a time when I must remain calm and focused for my own survival.
I’ll leave that to “the professional left” :)
@Omnes Omnibus: She has grown it out long past her shoulders – sort of an Oprah-inspired thing I am seeing some older women do these days. My entire life I was raised to think that it was inappropriate for older women to have long hair but I’ve changed my views. I guess I like the “rebellious” aspect to letting it grow.
Also, there is an “earth mother” aspect to it that I sort of like (which also may have the effect of softening Hillary’s image, subconciously ,to the masses). I’m turning into a hippie, apparently. Next thing you know, I’ll be tromping around in birkenstocks and not shaving my armpit hair. =)
i was strongly on the fence about both candidates, but found the Obama fanboys to be intolerable. Still, what i perceived as Clinton’s race-baiting in PA, as well as a lot of pressure from many of my fellow bloggers and my residual hostility to her husband, pushed me into the Obama camp, if reluctantly.
I wouldn’t have been happy with a Clinton presidency, but I wouldn’t have been as appalled and angry as I am now at this cowardly fraud. It is not too much to say that I cannot STAND Obama. When I hear his voice, I turn off the radio the same way I used to do when Bush came on.
@brendancalling: I don’t feel that way, but I do find his speeches incredibly boring. It’s easier for me to get the highlights from the “news” and just be glad when he says something remotely hopeful or wise.
Of course, actions speak louder than words so I try to take into account what he has accomplished and put things into a larger perspective because I do want this president to succeed as we are screwed otherwise.
Joe Biden will be the VP nominee. This has already been decided. Seriously. You can even buy the bumper sticker at the OFA store.
So stop it with the Hillary thumb-sucking.
Why do people think they have the power to force politicians to run for the offices they want them to pursue, even when they don’t want them? I loved a lot of the comments when Feingold announced his intentions. People were FURIOUS with him for failing to run for the Senate or WI Governor. They had it all planned, you see.
Oh, and nice post, Anne Laurie. I for one appreciate you sharing this with the BJ crowd.
Nice of brendancalling to provide a perfect example just a few comments later:
2012 will be the “Keep Anthony Kennedy Relevant” campaign.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
I am a Democrat because the party represents what I think are the best traits to govern this country. I will support whoever is the Democrat until it stops representing me. And I think any Democrat, but especially the first black or the first woman, would have made nearly the same choices under these circumstances. The only exception I see is the ACA, because the Clinton’s had prior experience and had seen what it will do to their political capital.
There seems to be a theme among the Obama defenders that Hillary would never have been able to succeed because of Republican intransigence. Much like the man these people are defending, anyone making this claim must have been in a coma during Bill Clinton’s presidency; or is simply pretending not to know what happened during it as a means to rationalize their own arrogance or stupidity. Republican intransigence and extremism was one of Bill Clinton’s biggest assets politically, not a liability. This was because he knew how to stand up to Republicans and wasn’t afraid to take a loss in order to help drive home to the American people how obstructionist the Republicans were being. Our current president however has decided to sell almost every watered down compromise he has been forced into as a victory (the stimulus, health care, Bush tax cuts) so he has gained very little political leverage from the Republican’s behavior. Even on the debt ceiling debacle, at best it seems to have hurt the Republicans, but it hasn’t really helped him any because he has come to be seen as an accomplice in the Republicans’ damage doing due to his weakness/incompetence. People are correct in asserting that we wouldn’t have had a progressive utopia if Hillary had won, but I don’t see anyone claiming that. All people are claiming is that we would have been better off if Hillary had been president, which is hard to dispute if one is being honest with one self.
Nobody does cryptic passive aggressive ODS posts like Anne Laurie. And then there are the little chickenshits that claim troll protection for wanking Obama is weak coward, or whatever the right wing adopted meme is, because they are planning to vote for him. Personalized attacks like that are worse than the republicans, coming from alleged loyal democrats.
@RJPJR: DADT, DOMA, Welfare Reform…. Jesus, were you politically aware during the 90s? If you want to see how horrible a progressive Bill Clinton was, just read some back issues of The Nation. Jesus H. Christ in high heels and push-up bra, Clinton compromised his ass off. Ever hear of triangulation? Is Obama perfect? By no means. Has he made mistakes? Oh, fuck yeah. You know who I think would have been good, really good, presidents? Al Gore and John Kerry. You know what else? They never ended up as president. Grow the fuck up.
POTUS Campaigns serve a purpose to let people get a glimpse of what a particular candidate’s presidency might resemble. While HIllary is a terrific SoS, a president Hillary would have been an unmitigated disaster, as an extension of the unmitigated disaster that was her primary campaign.
If one was being honest with ones self.
It was in January 2008 that I made the deliberate decision to support Obama rather than Clinton. It was a rough choice, and the reason Obama edged Clinton out was that I feared she would govern as she and Bill had during his Administration: too centrist, too incremental. Another factor was the dreary prospect of another 8 years fighting The Clinton Wars against a GOP and an MSM that hated the Clintons.
I thought we would get more done, against a less strong headwind, with Obama in the White House.
I don’t know that I was wrong. The GOP has turned out to be truly the party of treason, treachery, and nihilism – which they were becoming in the 90s, but it’s gotten so much worse. No matter who was or is or will be in the White House, if they are not GOP, the GOP will regard them as illegitimate – and the MSM will allow the GOP to set the terms of the debate, just as it already does.
That would have been equally true if Clinton had been the nominee and the winner in 2008.
I go back and forth over how much responsibility Obama bears for the mess we’re in. But I keep coming back to how completely cruel, stupid, and savage the GOP is, and I don’t see how Obama could have overcome that, short of declaring himself King of the World and sending them all to Gitmo.
(And believe me, there are times I wish he would do just that.)
@Violet: I don’t get it why do older women have short hair? Who made this stupid rule? In India BTW it is the other way around having long hair is the epitome of a sedate conservative “good” Indian woman. Also you are supposed to either braid that long hair or put it up in a bun.
ETA: As far as Hillary is concerned she can do whatever the hell she likes with her hair.
Concur, except for the Taibbi slam.
I do think that sexism had something to do with her loss. I know that many readers here disagree with me and put the blame solely on Mark Penn, or the “under fire” crap. And I’m not saying that sexism was the only or even the primary reason she didn’t get the nom. But leftist sexism is still prevalent and overt, and I do think it’s an interesting thought exercise to consider, in light of all the racist crap Obama endured and endures, to consider how sexism would have manifested itself in the opposition to a Hillary presidency.
My working, divorced, feminist mom, who still hasn’t forgiven me for going by both my maiden and married names, tried to entice me to learn to cook when I was in high school by telling me, “Boys will like you!”.
I early on was an Obama supporter, and for a long stretch I grew pretty disgusted with the Clinton campaign. I think there was bad blood on both sides, but they did a good job of healing it at the convention. I went through a stretch where I thought I couldn’t vote for Hillary if she won the nomination, but if I am honest with myself, I think a similar sort of thing would have happened had she won the nomination and I would have happily gone and voted for her.
As I’ve said many times, Obama is nowhere near perfect. I understand his need to compromise given the craziness of the political environment today, but I’d like to see him say more often “I don’t really like doing X, but this is all I can get done right now.” He does say it on occasion, but not enough. But this is a matter of optics, not policy. The reality is that progressive policies are not going to be easily implemented because there is a large resistance to it by politicians. Right now, it’s just crazy because as far as I can tell, the only real policy being put forth by the republicans is “If Obama is for it, we are against it” which puts them fairly often in the bizarre position of criticizing their own ideas. Until we can have actual rational debate about policy I don’t think anyone can do any better than he is.
@Omnes Omnibus: Everything I need to know about Hillary Clinton is her cozying-up to the righties by joining the fascist power hungry right wing organization – the Family – which counts among its members: Sam Brownback, Ed Meese, John Ashcroft, James Inhofe, and Rick Santorum. If you’re not current on their destruction, then check The Family’s Ugandan Project.
Man, Obama has changed a lot during the stressful years of his presidency:
Just like this was the ONLY way he would in the 2008 general.
The question I always ask of my friends and acquaintances who think the world would have been so much better under a Hillary Clinton presidency (or a John McCain presidency, for that matter), is “What would she have done differently.” Not “How much harder would she have pounded on the table,” or “How much more bold and decisive would she have been,” but “What actual policies and programs would she have instituted that would have been different from what Obama has done?” Followed with a “How would she have gotten that through Congress” as appropriate. There’s usually no good answer to the first question, and when there is — whether it’s “She would have passed a bigger stimulus more focused on infrastructure spending” or a McCainiac’s “He would have cut taxes to stimulate economic growth” — there’s never a good answer to the second question.
No he doesn’t. This was the same type of advice that was given during the 2008 general but Obama continued to be himself and he won. Ever heard the phrase, “Let Obama be Obama”? Obama knows how to campaign. The pundits and supporters crave for Candidate Obama because they know how damn good he is. They practically get orgasmic. No need to change himself.
What you are talking about? He did all those things PRIOR to the mid terms and the Repubs got voted in. Oh and we’re just going to dismiss the speech he gave in front of Paul Ryan and the numerous press conferences he gave during the debt deal right? Of course. And yeah he wants a deal. Imagine that. A once or (twice) in a lifetime chance to be president and Obama chooses to actually TRY and get things done. He didn’t sign up to be Activist In Chief. Congressional Democrats and left wing activists should be going door to door “explaining” this “liberal Democratic priorities” to the American people not just Obama.
When did history get rewritten? Reconcilliation required only 51 votes. Why was I lobbying Congress right up to the final bill to put in a public option?
Why are the Obots so bitter and angry when Hillary is mentioned? I mean, after all, they “won,” right…
What’s that all about? What can we learn from their behavior…?
The maddening part, then and now, is that they were utterly comparable candidates. The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented.
yet more of the media’s obsession with false equivalencies.
Then and now HRC was never, and would never have been the republican appeaser that obama is now and was then. Other than supporting breaking the gender vs. the racial barrier for POTUS republican wannabe vs. republican fighter was THE SALIENT AND HUGELY SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN the two. Unfortunately too many progressives were too stupid (including the Kennedy machine) to understand just how hugely significant that difference was and is.
And not for nothing, but the huge difference that should have lit progressives on fire, but instead half of them joined in and piled on was the public and widespread denigration of HRC’s woman-ness vs the respect heaped on obama for his Black-ness. It was a disgusting exhibition of misogyny by many in AMerican and worse by many faux progressives including prominent ones like KOS and Marshall for which they should be panned and should be deeply ashamed.
Hear, hear. But I prefer the even more succinct “They call me President Obama!”
You left out “bigotry.” And “ignorance.” And “willful blindness.”
I guaran-damn-tee you that if positions had been reversed and Hillary had won instead, you’d now have a whole lot of buyer’s remorse in the form of “I should have known that a chick could never handle the pressure of being president! Obama would have stood up to the Republicans!”
And it would most likely come from all of the usual suspects we have right here, because they’re not really Hillary fans. They’re addicted to being the lone voice in the wilderness who we totally should have listened to. Monday morning quarterbacks to a wo/man.
I’m guessing you also wonder why your current girlfriend is so bitter and angry when you keep telling her that the girl you dated before her would have dressed better, or cooked dinner more often, or got that promotion, unlike her. Constructing a fantasy girlfriend (president) who would have been so much better than the one you actually have and drawing constant comparisions tends to make people think you’re an asshole.
@Mino: It’s not clear that the public option could have been put in under reconciliation. (It’s also not clear there were ever 51 votes for the public option in the Senate)
In case you were in a coma during the 80s too, Clinton ruled as a centrist because the country was still basking in the glow of Saint Ronnie and the Reagan revolution and it wasn’t exactly ready to embrace a progressive agenda. Had it not been for a strong President Clinton getting tax policy right among various other things than the country would have moved much farther to the right including the dismantling of the New Deal, which it took two government shutdowns to prevent. Clinton’s presidency didn’t create a progressive utopia, but it was a major accomplishment for him to first unseat an incumbent president who had just decisively won a war, and second to get re-elected in a country that was far more right leaning than it is today. Obama on the other hand came into power after eight years of the Clinton administration had disproved the ridiculous claims of the Reaganomics Supply-Side Voo Doo , and eight years of the Bush administration had completely repudiated such non sense to any thinking person. What Obama should have been able to achieve after eight years of the disaster that was George W Bush is completely different than what Clinton was able to achieve in a country just waking up from the hallucination of “Morning in America”. Clinton was a centrist because he was a pragmatist and he had to be, Obama is a centrist because that is who he chooses to be to feed his own ego based illusions about being “above the fray”, “post-partisan”, “the adult in the room”, etc. Bill Clinton fought Republicans to save the New Deal, but because he wasn’t progressive enough for some, even though the times didn’t allow him to be; people like you chose Obama-someone who refuses to fight the Republicans and is eager to slash the New Deal as a means to cater to so-called independent voters. I was never a huge fan of Obama, but in one sense he has grown on me. I have a lot of contempt for those who supported him so ferociously in the 08 primary, and from his actions in office it is clear he does too.
@RJPJR: Oh wow. Where to begin…
That’s a nice little convenient excuse. It tells you bupkess about what Hillary would have done.
LOLwut? You’re saying the shutdowns were about saving the New Deal and had nothing to do with Newt’s ego?
H. Ross Perot called. He never did get that thank you basket you promised him for guaranteeing a Clinton victory both times by making the vote a three-way race. Clinton won with a plurality both times.
I’m not done yet, but this will get lengthy here.
If you think the president, in the latter half of 2010 up to the debt ceiling negotiations, was presenting a well-developed vision for what he wanted, then you and I are living in totally different realities. I am sorry, I just don’t see that the White House has had a coherent strategy that has been articulated, as respects the economy on the macro level.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
The “republican fighter” being Hillary AUMF Clinton?
Wow. What a big steamy pile comment.
No, he’s bragging about punching holes in a bunch of inflated Harvard nerds who decided the best way to help Yeltsin-era Russia was to hook their own wives and girlfriends up with no-bid contracts for state assets.
These people absolutely need to be informed that nothing will ever make them physically attractive.
They are not the victims on the playground, whether then in Russia or now in America.
@pluege: Harriet Christian, is that you?
So let me get this straight. Traister still thinks Obama supporters were “drunk” on him, and she says people shouldn’t say I told you so while saying in print that she thinks it several times a day (um, honey, that’ saying it). And this is supposed to be some kind of fence-mending piece. Fence mending is letting sitting dogs lie and either supporting Obama or criticizing him in terms of the actual history he and we have lived through over the last three years, which has had next to nothing, or even actually nothing, to do with the 2007-8 primary cycle.
If you want people who are now stuck on fantasizing about an alternative 2009-11 under President Hilary to get the kind of reception in people’s minds that they should, just shut up and let sane observers drink in their rank idiocy. A piece like this from Traister does more to semi-legitimize that perspective than to undermine, something I think Traister pretty clearly knows she is doing. Certainly she knows that re-raising the contention that Obama supporters were just starry-eyed dreamers drunk on his personality is not doing anything to bury any hatchets.
Traister knows what she is doing, and she should be doing better things, because she is much better than this pointless drivel.
One other thing: if this post was in any serious way about who we as working, earning, paying, living Americans should wish had been in office for the last three years, then it wouldn’t posted under the Women’s Equality Day heading. This is exactly the kind of thing from Clinton supporters that raised questions among those who were not 07 Clinton supporters about whether their motivations and interests in choosing a candidate to support and ours really were in harmony with each other, and whether theirs were ones we should really respect in the context of what citizens should expect from each other by way of a good faith calculation of interests of a coalition that was seeking to elect someone who would make policy that advanced the coalition’s interests.
If Perot hadn’t run, who would’ve won? Clinton, both times. If Perot had sat out, most of his voters would’ve either voted for Clinton or stayed home. People have this tendency to assume that all of Perot’s votes would’ve gone to George Bush if he hadn’t run, but that’s just silly. People voting for Perot were voting for change, and I don’t know why the Dems never made hay out of that.
You might begin by making an argument that is actually responsive to something I wrote. Just a suggestion.
Wow. What a pathetic excuse for a response.
You know how many time, I and others have responded to your canned firebagger talking points on how Obama has failed us today? Way too many times to waste more time on your near completely manufactured bullshit.
guess now is when you tell me you will vote for Obama, even though he is the worst president since Hitler, or something like that.?
I am voting against the Republicans. One of the main reasons I think Obama is a weak president is in large part that people like you continue to defend him in spite of his terrible performance. No wonder he is so willing to sell out his base, when they blindly follow and defend him no matter what he does. It is a no brainer that Obama is better than anyone who could win the Republican nomination. My point is that he would be of far more use to us if people were not constantly making excuses for him, and there was actually some pressure on him to satisfy his base’s demands, rather than sell them out at every chance as a means to appeal to independents. Obama has no real pressure to do anything for progressives because he knows he doesn’t have to. His true believers support him not for any substantive reason, but rather for what he supposedly represents. Remember in the primary when all the Obama supporters decided they were against a mandate because Obama’s health plan didn’t include one. Where were they when Obama actually included one in health care reform? I don’t remember hearing anything from them then. The reality is simply that while Obama may be worth voting for, he is not worth defending; and he should be criticized and called out on his many substantial weaknesses. The fact is that all of the ridiculous reasons people gave for supporting Obama over Clinton in the primary have been proven to be completely illusory. That does not mean there is a good reason to vote for the Republicans; but it does mean that Obama should be held accountable for the all the garbage he is polluted our politics with. It is a waste of time to defend Obama because no one but the dimmest of the dim is going to vote for him, they are simply going to vote against the Republicans. The biggest threat to that happening is people’s fear that Obama believes his own BS, making him seem more like the Republican crazies than most of us would like to admit.
Lastly, thank you for resorting to the Hitler card. It couldn’t really be classified as a true defense of Obama without some extreme illogical nonsense like that. I think in future posts I am going to call myself General Stuck with Obama as a means of avoiding ridiculous vapid responses like the one you seem to be so good at offering.
Nope, actually one of the best and strongest presidents we have ever had. Not perfect, but a mile better than Clinton or Carter. And his base, his “real base” outside the precious internet progressives, is just fine with Obama. He has now, and since the beginning of his term, maintained the highest approvals amongst rank and file dems since Gallup began polling presidents. And among self described ” liberal dems” the highest of all, at 80 to 90+ percent approval. So you are just full of shit with the tired, “sell out the base” canard.
As I said, the base is fine with Obama, and independents decides elections in this country now a days. I WANT him to be mindful of this fact in his daily presidenting.
You mean the tiny number of emoprog whiners with internet connections. He or Rahm calls them “retards” , so they should feel special to get a presidential insult.
Yes I do defend him. Gladly, and peacock proudly.
If you are going to do that, wear a helmet and shin guards.
I think you are a spoof though, maybe even a DougJ mind fart, but I enjoyed your high brow pomposity of firebaggery. We get so little of the good shit around here.
for your pleasure
and compared to Clinton at same point in first term
“The Base” still lurves them some President Barack Obama. And wants some more of that there.
The problem with calling the President “Barry” is not (only) that it’s a rightward meme, nor that it’s infantilizing on its face. It’s that it’s a dog whistle: they’re calling the President of the United States “Boy.” As in, “don’t you go lookin’ at those white women, Boy.” Blackety black black.
My original point was that the base was stupid and enabled Obama by continuing to support him in spite of the fact that he continues to take positions and an approach that goes against what they claim to stand for. Your response to this is to claim that the base supports Obama. This is not at all responsive to what I have argued. In fact it just supports what I have been claiming. You then try to use this fact to make the claim that Obama is not selling out the base, but the only way for you to validly claim that Obama has not sold out the base would be to actually defend what he has done as being things the base wanted. I think that is an absurd claim, but if you voted for Obama so that he could extend the Bush tax cuts, kill the public option without a fight, slash government spending in the face of disastrously high unemployment, and let the Republicans achieve their long held goal of gutting Social Security and Medicare, well congratulations on a job well done. If you didn’t, that just proves my point that the base is stupid for continuing to defend Obama, of course you posts in general are doing more than anything I could in proving the point that those who continue to defend Obama are stupid.
This is quite an interesting position for you to take considering your disdain of Clinton when in fact he was doing the exact same thing when he was President, with the difference being he was doing it successfully. Considering as you point out how much better Obama does with the base than Clinton did, yet Clinton’s approval rating in August of 95 was 46% and Obama’s is 40%, then we would have to conclude that Clinton was doing substantially better with independents. So according to your reasoning Clinton was a bad president for doing what you claim a president should be doing successfully, and Obama is a good president for failing at it. It was already clear that you are just a Kool-Aid drinking Obama sycophant incapable of making a rational and coherent argument, but thank you for driving that home for us.
That really hurts a lot coming from a President who should feel special to break a %40 approval rating and is having a hard time beating Michelle Bachman or Ron Paul in the polls.
Congratulations on being proud of failure, ignorance, and arrogance. I guess it beats being all of those things and not be proud of it.
I wish you were a spoof, but given the sorry state we find oursleves in; I know that would simply be too good to be true.
And in spite of all this love from the base, the man’s approval rating continues to plummet. This is probably explained in part by the fact that Obama has been so wretched that the number of people left in the base is smaller than it used to be. I not really sure this isn’t a false comparison, essentially apples and oranges due to the fact that some many factors are different between the two time periods. But as long as we throwing such comparisons around, how about this for your viewing pleasure: