Saturday, November 29, 2014

Webb and Hillary

Riverdaughter is okay with the idea of a Jim Webb candidacy. Wow. That's some sort of ultimate test, right?
But one thing I disagree with is Edsall’s characterization of Hillary as polished and over produced. Maybe that was the case early in the 2007-2008 primary campaign season. But as the race became tighter and Florida and Michigan delegate numbers were withheld from her win column to create an artificial narrative that she was always behind, she transformed as a candidate and became much more authentic. We all saw her become a different person.
Agreed. And then she became Secretary of State, and she went all neocon on us. Let's not forget that.
There’s another problem with the current Democratic party opinion makers that I think they need to sit and think about. For all the talk about Hillary being in the pockets of the corporate and financial elite, those donors abandoned her in 2008 for Barack Obama. I find it curious that no one wants to talk about that.
That's not quite true. The Wall Streeters gave her a big pile of dough, but they gave Obama an even bigger pile. And then the Obama supporters scored Hillary for taking the Wall Street money while ignoring the lucre also funnelled toward Mr. B.O. At the time, this display of hypocrisy really pissed me off. And off I still am pissed. (As Yoda would say.)
Plus, it’s my sense from reading all the commentary in the past 6 years that the gentry elite has never really liked the Clintons. Anglachel had a series of riveting posts on the subject back in 2008 about how the liberal elite thought of the Clintons as Arkansan podunks who didn’t know which soup spoon to use. They were rather too authentic in their support of working class economic issues. Bill was channeling the Jacksonian/Truman wing while the gentry liberals are all Adlai Stevenson. The class issues are stark and the bridge very hard to span.
That's not quite fair to Adlai, but the point is still well-taken. What I always loved best about the Clintons was the way they pissed off both the east coast snobs and the far-right crazies. It's reasonable to say that Bill Clinton was/is in the Andrew Jackson populist mold, although Bill is a lot smarter and a lot saner than ol' Andy was.

This brings us to an interesting question: Now that the Clintons are New Yorkers, and now that Hillary has compiled a neoconnish record -- do they still belong in that tradition?

Believe it or not, there's a lot about Hillary that I like, and there are things about Webb that I do not like. But Obama's foreign policy has been awful -- not as awful as McCain's would have been, but awful nevertheless. And Hillary was part of that.
did see what Warren said during the Gaza crises? she sounded as mcain would
I would support Webb, too, for this one very important reason: he and my rep at the time, Delahunt, got very close to passing sweeping prison reform.

Very close as in they drafted it, and Obama had both a House and Senate with Dem majorities but did not use his considerable influence at that time to call for the bill to pass. With an incoming Republican majority, it became a dead deal.

It was around this time of year, I recall, and very hard to get public attention on anything but it would've been a massive breakthrough had we as a nation focused on it.

Now that the militarization and brutality of police is a national issue, and with the private prisons funneling mostly black men into slave labor, the only way to avoid the powder keg from completely blowing up is to de-fuse the situation with straight talk about reform from someone who can authentically claim to have longstanding concerns over the entire system.

A Clinton-Webb ticket would not only be unstoppable, but also put my top two social injustices in national focus: sexism and the prison-industrial complex.

With states now decriminalizing marijuana, maybe we could end the "war on drugs" and start growing hemp, which, as anyone in the Hemp Cult will tell you, will save the world!
anon, I was not talking about Warren, although I do like her. All American politicians are going to say horrific things of that sort whenever the Israelis go on one of their "lawn mowing" sprees. We need to change the facts on the political ground here in the states. We need to make it politically possible for American politicians to tell the truth about Israel without fear of being labeled "anti-Semitic."
Clinton's foreign policy within the Obama administration was even worse than Obama's.
If you wanted working class politics, Perot was much closer to them than the
phony Clintons. Of course he wasn't "cool" on the wedge issues. We can live with outsourcing and Robert Rubin if we can have unstigmatized house husbands, right?
And off I still am pissed.

But not sufficiently that you didn't vote to re-elect the hypocritical SOB.
It's interesting that with less than one-fifth of the world's population, less than two percent of the US population and a piece of land that is barely visible on most world maps, Jews are able to exert such influence. There is only one answer: Mind control. Having exercised such control, we will now be turning our attention to you. You will be eating gefilte fish and bagels by Christmas.
A Clinton/Webb ticket could be an interesting mix. Then you would have a counterweight on foreign policy issues while HRC's experience and basic domestic issues could shine [and yes, I do think her attitudes on working class issues [despite the Wall St connections which every candidate must woo] are a natural for her.

What scares me right now is the "Shadow War Cabinet' that McCain and his neocon buddies are organizing for the next two years. POTUS has been far too passive of late in expanding our involvement in Afghanistan, the endless war cry. Hagel's departure is equally ominous because he reportedly was not playing nice with others.

Clinton and Webb. That could very well be a nonstop combo.

So what both are sale outs of Main Street. Please the lesser of 2 evils is still evil. I would vote for a 3rd party. The demodogs can't be repaired, the party has sold their soles to ws 1% are doa
small-j joseph: You forget that I was raised in a half-Jewish household. Didn't much care for my stepfather (the post about Manson may give you a hint as to why), but HIS mother was a wonderful, wonderful lady. And I'm pretty sure that she was the one who introduced me to gefilte fish (a taste I never really acquired) and bagels (love 'em). That happened, probably, before you were born.
I'm not sure there was any logical Secretary of State position that any SOS could have taken over the first four years of Barack Obama's administration. It was a time where social media took over parts of the middle east and became the tail wagging the dog.

I seriously doubt anything in your life happened before I was born, but whether your animus towards Israel is a result of your relationship with your stepfather is something I haven't the expertise to analyze. Someone who is truly unbiased can make an argument for positions contrary to his own, so what is your argument for Israel as a Jewish state?
Alessandro Machi said...
"social media"
as "social media" actally is privately owned media, it
reminds me of "national socialism"
Why don't You people THINK before
repeating pre-fabricated b.s.?
In my mind, Clinton's comment that Putin was the new Hitler --the worst possible insult against a Russian leader-- demonstrated that she lacks the temperament to be President, let alone Secretary of State. I fear that as the first female President, she would feel compelled to demonstrate her ability to blow shit up and kill people just as well, if not better, than a male leader -- What I think of as the Thatcher Effect.

The truth is that whoever is selected as the next leader of the Empire, we will get more war. The only question is how many conflicts and how big.
Anon, Alessandro is a terrific fellow; let's have no insults.

small-j, you are so cute. You think that animus toward Israel must be born of psychological reasons, not of the horrifying things that Israel has actually done.

I haven't been described as cute since I was three, back in the Truman administration, so thanks. To paraphrase Bill James, the goal should be to advance the discussion, not end it. When you said that the reason Manson had followers was simple, sex and drugs, I pointed out that it was not that simple, that sort of relationship has occurred before and since without the necessity of sex and drugs. I wasn't trying to end the discussion, I would really like to know why people are followers generally and follow lunatics specifically. That you were unable to provide an answer is understandable, I haven't been able to come up with one and I've been considering the subject for a long time. But as regards Israel and your attitude towards it, an unbiased observer should be able to understand multiple points of view, so what is the best argument for Israel as a Jewish state?
ABC is the new ABO. Lost last time, getting used to it. Is there an outside chance that the left has any semblance of being opposed to Clinton? I hesitate to add 'again' there, as we had so many fakers line up for the big head fake in Obama that its tough to imagine ever being alongside that crowd again. Although, as tools, numbers, they are... yea, sure.

The thing is. Webb is white male. So the identity clinger club is going to flip out that we are not moving on down their list. Their number one issue will be something like guns, and declare, despite HRC being lined up to massacre millions abroad with drones (while Webb might actually reign that in), and so guns will be where they draw the line.

Yea, I am with Webb. He's the only one that might talk about populist issues and actually mean it.
jOseph: Being unbiased in the discussion around the policies of the State of Israel is a morally indefensible position. Israel as a Jewish State is an essentially racist and supremacist project built on stolen land (it was stolen in the beginning and it's being stolen while you read this). Being unbiased regarding Israel is like being unbiased on to the claims of a trespasser who murders your family and then builds a house in your backyard.
@ J.
No insult intended.
Where I live, asking a question
does NOT insult anybody.

Just about every country in the world was built on stolen land, United States, England, Australia. The real question, though, is what facts could be presented to prove that you are wrong. If I could prove that Israel was NOT built on stolen land, would that change your mind? As far as being a Jewish state is proof of racism, then would you agree that so is Denmark, which is a Lutheran state, Argentina, which is a Catholic state, England, which is an Anglican state, and every Arab country, which all define themselves as Islamic states?
3 individuals sitting next to each other.
Endlessly discussing who is sitting to the right, who is sitting to the left of whom.
But the box, which they are sitting in
is clearly positioned at the right of the parameter.
(As one can easyly see from outside)
They have to come out of the box they are sitting in in order to recognize their error.
What constitutes the difference between what IS "right" and what IS "left"
is the capacity to consider that one is sitting in a box.
Now You apply this example to the difference between
"critical thinking" and "critical thinking"[sic]
Supposed a bank declares all of their clients to be "a family",
does that make the bank's clients a family ?
What constitutes a FAMILY is not by "definition"
What constitutes a "family" is a constant in natural SCIENCE.
The term works fine here.
The difference is not in WHAT we think
The difference is in HOW we think.
If "common sense" was all that is needed,
why then we differentiate it from "science"?
If SCIENCE equalled "common sense"
we were all still sitting on trees.
Or in boxes.
(No insult intended)

Just about every country in the world was built on stolen land

Just about every country that was once a colony, yes, I agree 100%. Israel is a colonial settler society today, that's why we are talking about it.

As far as being a Jewish state is proof of racism, then would you agree that so is Denmark, which is a Lutheran state, Argentina, which is a Catholic state, England, which is an Anglican state, and every Arab country, which all define themselves as Islamic states?

What I said is that a state that legally discriminates against a certain people based on tribal affiliation (and perpetrates methodical mass murder with the explicit intent of stealing land) is racist and supremacist. Does Denmark kill non-Lutheran families to steal their land and give it to Lutherans? Does the Iranian state do that to non Muslims? To the extent that they did it in the past or are doing it nowadays, yes, they are racist states.


You should learn the difference between evidence and conclusions. The evidence does not support your conclusions.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?