Every day I like the Vietnamese who tortured McCain just a little bit more.And then there's Keith Olbermann:
What Keith Olbermann said yesterday is not symbolic. He flatly said a (male) Democratic super delegate should take Hillary Clinton into a room, and only the man should emerge.If pressed, he'll fall back on the all-purpose Limbaugh defense: "Just kidding!"
Keith Olbermann is openly advocating the murder of Hillary Clinton.
And then we have the classic Clintons-as-racists meme, mixed in with the Clintons-as-homophobes meme:
...the Clintons will appeal to racism if it gets them a win"Under a bus"? As I recall, Bill Clinton -- who should have concentrated on health care and saved other battles for later -- expended far too much of his initial political capital on the deeply unpopular issue of gays in the military. It was a battle he could not have won. Of course, progs will tell you Clinton's defeat on that front proves that he always hated gays, just as defeat of his health care proposal proves that he always favored the status quo.
After all, the Clintons threw LGBTs under the bus when it was convenient to their political schemes.
Under "Clinton rules," defeat is considered siding with the opposition. By this logic, Napoleon was an ally of Wellington, Hitler thought Zhukov was peachy, Spartacus adored the Roman empire, and Mary Kelly was a big fan of Jack the Ripper.
20 comments:
"who should have concentrated on health care"
How dare you say that, Joe. Don't you realize that the major problem facing the United States is gay rights?
Just kidding!
This entire issue shows how specious the logic of the progs is: they whine and bitch that the Republicans exploit "God guns and gays" - but the fact is, those issues are the primary focus of the progs themselves! They just take the other side, so it's OK.
Meanwhile, McCain goes to Appalachia to connect with voters...picking up bitter white male votes (although I maintain that the economy could push them in to the Hillary camp if she campaigns well enough).
I always loathed Olberman, but back when it was bashing Bush, you couldn't say a word against it.
There's still some controversy about whether Democrat is a race or political party. It's not up to you, regardless of what you claim or how you vote. You know, suck one cock one time, and they mark you for life.
BTW, the 2007 'anniversary' DVD version of Bonnie and Clyde finally restores the original theatrical release. All VHS, Beta, and prior DVD versions were copies of the 1974 CBS TV film-chain EDITED version.
You know, J, I actually did not have MSNBC available to me until recently. So I cared only about Olbermann when I saw bits of his stuff online. I liked what I saw, usually.
I did a little research into Truman's desegregation of the military, which was opposed by Ike and Omar Bradley. It was a bold move, and some have said that Clinton should have acted as boldly.
What people don't understand is that Truman was acting with just as much political calculation. The power of blacks as a voting bloc was starting to be felt (It's a sub-theme in "Hid Girl Friday," oddly enough) and Truman was convinced that securing the black vote was key to his reelection. He was also worried that the Republicans would gain that vote.
His calculation -- or "triangulation," to use the chic new term -- proved correct. If blacks in California and other states had not come out en masse for Truman, he would not have squeaked through to reelection.
And that was the difference between Truman and Clinton. It wasn't a matter of personal boldness -- it was actually self-interest, sorry to say. Truman Executive Order insured his holding onto the office. If Clinton had issued a similar EO, he would have lost in 1996.
One possible workaround in a new Democratic asministration would be to have someone in the Justice Department offer the "dispassionate" assessment that the Truman EO actually DOES apply to gays as well. The wording may allow for that interpretation.
I read somewhere that if you take a straight line and divide it in half and mark the left end Democrat and the right end Republican, most people(citizens) falling in the middle are indistinguishable from one another.
The problem arises when you try to fit everyone including the extremists into only two parties.
Kind of reminds me of what the Bushies and McCain are trying to do with Muslims in pretending that Shia and Sunni and Wahabi and Arab and Iranian and East Asian Muslims are all Islamofascists.
John Dean was interviewed about his new book about Goldwater last night and he said that Goldwater disliked McCain and after Bill Clinton called him and asked him to call Hillary on her 40th birthday, they struck up a relationship and that Goldwater was very fund of Hillary(not that I see anything wrong with that), which goes to prove the point I am making.
Should we resign our US citizenship because there are racist Americans, anti-Semitic Americans, pro-torture Americans, pro-war Americans...etc.?
I don't mind you defending the Clinton's when they are defend-able or criticizing Obama when criticism is called for, but I do question the logic filter you are using and the embrace of some questionable individuals and groups to add weight to your argument.
We get it: you're a republican.
BTW, I imagine that all the people who have ever voted third party(hint..hint...Nader) must have felt the way you do right now!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Stop taking the arguments of some freaks and attribute them to an homogeneous group like the Obama campaign or the democratic party.
You seem to have some difficulties doing that lately, either with the DailyKOS you mixed with the Obama campaign or the comment of readers on TMP you're reading like an official press release of the Democratic party.
If I applied the same logic, I would go kill myself because I'm too ashamed of some humans behaviors.
I just don't understand how you can accuse Obama of being the real racist, accuse him of every evil plan you hallucinate based on little evidence while you freak out when others do the same about Hillary ?
Very briefly, Joe, thank you for forcing me to look up the actual EO:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=84
It's admirably clear, and devoid of all legalese. I sincerely doubt that anyone can interpret this EO to encompass sexual orientation. Some might try, based upon the word "all" in the first paragraph, any first year law student would be able to shred that to bits, as the rest of the document clearly defines this totality as meaning "race, color, religion or national origin."
HST would have blown a gasket if anyone suggested to him that this applies to gays. He was a total anti-Semite, and a racist to boot, but he knew what was right.
Here is some more background on the momentous decision:
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology
Your general point is correct: he did it out of a combination of pragmatism and idealism.
I do not accept the analogy between race & sexual orientation (anymore than I do between race and gender), but that's another issue.
A fresh one from DailyKrazynesss:
-------------------------------
This is what I've been thinking all along (4+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
Cathy Willey, Heart of the Rockies, catleigh, happymisanthropy
Obama does not represent machine Dems like Clinton; they will do whatever it takes to destroy him. This is a war for the future of the party, and frankly, if she gets the nomination, I think Obama should run as a third party indy with some right leaning indy or moderate R like Bloomberg or even someone like Chuck Hagel as no. 2.
I mean it.
I think they would win, too. The country is sick of this politics-as-spectator-sports-drama bullshit that the Clintons espouse.
If the "Dems" go with Clinton, many folks will leave the party permanently. We left the party the last time a Clinton was nominated.
by sean oliver on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:42:10 AM PDT
-------------------------------
(That emphasis is by me. There are two other lines I see as emphasisable, but it's too subtle.)
That place (and some others) are an insane mob. Thank God there are no nasty people who have studied how to create and control insane mobs.
I could not agree with you More on this!!!
As a gay woman, I am disgusted by Olbermann and the biased reporting done by the media and now on Bill Clinton's presidency concerning gay issues? Geez.
Yes, we would have liked a better outcome for gays in the military, but the compromise Clinton made in the throes of a conservative (whack job) movement, was a testament to his genius.
Now, gays cannot get kicked out for merely being gay. Yes, we have a long way to go, but Bill Clinton, by making this compromise work, also exposed the recessive puritanistical gene that America has with minorities.
It is a gene that pops up every couple of generations, throwing progressives under the bus, not the gays.
Hi Joe,
I remember thinking that our party had both great diversity across the political spectrum (Jimmy Carter, Sam Nunn, Sam Ervin, George Mitchell, Gary Hart, Tom Daschle, etc.) and the right ideas (equal rights, pro-choice, universal healthcare, shared prosperity, etc.)
It seems to me what you are rebelling against is the purists. I agree that they are as bad as the right wing evangelicals, but we need our diversity of opinion to achieve credible results.
I've enjoyed you work here for some time.
sheryl: Let me return to the Truman analogy again. He did not try to desegregate the military when he assumed the office in '45 -- he had to win WWII and do a few other little things first. He made his move only in 1948, when he knew the job, knew Washington, knew how to handle the top military staff, knew what all the repercussions would be.
Clinton, by contrast, addressed the issue of gays in the military a couple of weeks after taking the oath of office. He had no idea that he would face a near-mutiny from the military establishment. He simply did not yet know the job.
I know that what I am saying sounds callous. The aggrieved minority with a legitimate gripe always says "If not now, when?" And they have every right to say it.
But the answer to the question of "when" must be: "When it's POSSIBLE." It just was not possible to integrate open gays into the military in early 1993. The wisest course would have been to set up a low-visibility commission of some sort to study the problem, and then to implement their recommendations at a point of political strength. Under those circumstances, any compromise reached would have been less of a compromise -- and perhaps there would have been no compromise at all.
My criticism of Clinton behavior in 1993 is thus precisely the opposite of the progressive stance. I think he was being too idealistic. The progs think he was too cynical.
As always, the progs pretend that political opposition simply did not exist. A president is not a king.
Gary: That example you give is more astonishing than most. Also more revealing.
I don't see how any Democrat can look back on the 1993-2001 period as The Nightmare Years.
"I think Obama should run as a third party indy with some right leaning indy or moderate R like Bloomberg or even someone like Chuck Hagel as no. 2...
"If the "Dems" go with Clinton, many folks will leave the party permanently. We left the party the last time a Clinton was nominated."
It's pretty disgusting to read stuff like this at a time when I have been accused of being a Republican. The above quoted writer demonstrates that the Obamabots are actually Republicans. They've taken over what used to be my party, leaving me homeless.
Imagine what being a Democrat was like in 1968.
"Guilty as hell":
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911745,00.html
Jerry Rubin's antics led directly to Ronald Reagan.
Joseph, take heart. Most of these idiots have the attention span of gnats. They can't carry an idea to the other side of a room.
The slogan, 'Press on,'
has solved
and always will solve
the problems of the human race.
(Calvin Coolidge)
GMC(ie. gnat),
"Joseph, take heart. Most of these idiots have the attention span of gnats. They can't carry an idea to the other side of a room."
Who exactly are you(gnat) calling a gnat?
And which idea have you carried on your "poor tired' "Conspiracy infested Back" to any side?
Or do you have the "audacity" to believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence gives you a mere thought!
And if Joseph ever gave you so much as a glance(to his credit he hasn't)I would call him a gnat too!
beeta,
What do you stand FOR?
beeta,
Whups. If I expect you to answer my questions, I should answer yours.
1. “Who exactly are you(gnat) calling a gnat?”
A: Obamabots.
2. “which idea have you carried on your poor tired Conspiracy infested Back to any side?”
A: A conspiracy is what beings you your morning coffee (or tea, or milk, or whatever). Only fools or worse will deny the existence of conspiracies, including conspiracies in politics. If you are saying that I’m not the brightest light in the string, I agree. You are not particularly impressive yourself. Let the readers of our respective posts decide which are of worth.
3. “do you have the audacity to believe that anyone with an iota of intelligence gives you a mere thought!”
A: I don’t want anyone to give ME attention. I want them to consider what I’m trying to put before them. As to that, by my reckoning, I have maybe a 1-2% success rate. But times being as desperate as they are, I consider that better than nothing.
beeta, Why don’t you use your real full name when you post?
I think everybody misremembers, and mischaracterizes, the Gays in the Military debacle. (I am surprised to see any gay person applaud the compromise result, because that isn't the feedback I get from my gay friends and family members, and quite the opposite).
Clinton's early days as president are mischaracterized as his (switching to) 'going left' when he'd campaigned as a moderate, and supposedly 'picking this fight' as the first one of his presidency. Neither is true.
All of the things he supposedly did as a lurch to the left were things he promised in the campaign. Except canceling the promised middle class tax relief, but that was actually a lurch to the right, heeding the advice of Greenspan that he had to be still more aggressive in fiscal restraint to assuage the financial markets.
Clinton's plan was to issue an Executive Order allowing gays to serve as gays in the military, modeled after Truman's similar EO integrating the services racially.
It's true that he probably underestimated the military opposition, and didn't realize they'd all but mutiny on the issue, led by Chairman of the JCS, one Gen. Colin Powell (who should have been ordered to tamp it down, or be fired, ala Gen. Douglas MacArthur). That might not have mattered, but the real sticking point was the opposition of the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA).
Nunn was the one who made it the first order of business for the Clinton presidency (badly damaging Clinton, just as Democratic Party chairpersons' (Sen. Moynihan in particular) footdragging and obstructions helped doomed the health care reform not much later).
Nunn, allied with Powell, the JCS and the rest of the military, threatened to pass a new Uniform Code of Military Conduct throwing out any effect of such an EO from Clinton. Clinton would of course had a veto power over any Congressional enactment of a revision of the UCMJ; Nunn quickly lined up co-sponsors and enough supporters so as to make for a veto-proof majority in Congress for such a rebuke of Clinton's intended change of military policy towards gays.
Sure, maybe Clinton was naive, perhaps thinking that the Democratic Party overall, and in its elected Congresspersons, would favor such a gay-friendly move, thinking it wouldn't be so controversial that Demcrats in Congress would stampede to oppose it.
Or more likely, he was in a uniquely weakened condition coming into office with his bare 43% plurality win, with all his alleged draft dodger baggage. Oddly, and as I'd never seen take place before, there was no general rallying around the new president rhetoric, with then-Minority Leader Bob Dole immediately announcing that '57% of the people voted against Clinton, and I'm here to represent them in fighting against everything this man wants to do' (paraphrasing).
Gays in my family and otherwise known to me (irrationally, IMO) wanted Clinton to go ahead with his EO anyway, even in the face of certain overturning in the Congress, and even though that huge rebuke would have made this subject even more a debacle than it already was, probably crippling the new presidency so badly as to make it a one-termer at best.
I'm guessing party discipline must have been stronger in the Truman EO era. But in any case, all should realize that making this fight the first one of his presidency wasn't Clinton's doing at all, but Sam Nunn's.
...sofla
Post a Comment