It would be nice to have a rational discussion on that topic without hearing any purist lectures on "Hillary Clinton, Demon Incarnate."
I am not so angry at Obama as I recently was, but I still believe that his camp (though not the candidate himself) injected race into the race. Nothing Bill Clinton has said has struck me as particularly offensive. Of course, Clinton-hate has reached such delirious levels that most BlogProgs would find reason to scream with outrage if the former president said "Hi, I'm Bill Clinton."
Lefties continue to adopt right-wing talking points -- Jackson Stephens! Mena! Whitewater!! AIEEEE!! They would have us believe that the 1990s were The Nightmare Years. They continually tell us that Hillary's voting record is pro-corporate, even though she is, by any objective measure, one of the most liberal Senators in the history of this nation. Her record is certainly to the left of the one compiled by John Edwards.
As long as the left continues to do the work of the right, a Republican victory seems assured.
The Progressive Purists insist that Hillary can win only if she refuses to pander to the political middle. Those who see the world in prog-vision always conclude that the best strategy is to go after that all-important 2% Kucinich vote. This, despite the fact that most national polls show Hillary Clinton losing to McCain in a general election match-up.
Dig: McCain is the more popular figure, even after so many years of Republican mis-rule. And what lesson do the BlogProgs draw from this fact? Naturally, they insist that Hillary would be more popular if she were less centrist.
This kind of logic is akin to arguing that 1997's Batman and Robin would have had a bigger audience if it were more gay and campy.
The Obamabots insist that their man represents the more progressive agenda. Oh really? Consider what Paul Krugman has to say about the candidate's stances on health care:
I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama’s rejection of health insurance mandates — which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage — doesn’t really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president’s initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the [Bill] Clinton failure: if the next president doesn’t arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.On the other hand, Obama's (relative) centrism may have greater appeal in the general. He certainly should not be judged by the fanaticism of certain of his followers. (Isn't it cute how the acolytes of the "great uniter" keep trying to divide the Democratic Party?) And I am not at all happy with the thought of discussing all the Clinton scandals -- or, rather, pseudo-scandals -- throughout the next ten months. I'd rather spend that time year talking about the very real Bush scandals.
So even though I am less enthusiastic about Obama's health care plan than I am about Clinton's, I suspect that he may be the better choice, from a purely tactical perspective. Edwards would be better still. Alas, facts have a way of upending strategy: Edwards stands almost no chance, and Clinton has come perilously close to front-runner status. (Yes, Obama got a huge boost in South Carolina, but Hillary will win California.)
Like it or not, Hillary Clinton may well be the only thing standing between the Republicans and the White House. Our weakest candidate versus their strongest.
Can she prevail? How?
12 comments:
This morning I heard that Edwards is dropping out. My ESP sources, OTH, tell me that the Ted/Caroline Obama endorsement might be related to the California vote and the state's First Frau. Hillary got RFK, Jr's support several months ago, so it's starting to show some internecine fun.
Rove has said he wants Hillary to run, presumably because she has no chance to win the general.
McCain will be a good puppet, escalating and starting more wars. If perhaps his numbers need some tweaking at the last minute, well the techniques are in place for that.
I live in South Carolina and the people of this state took offense to Bill Clinton comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson. I personally agree to the offensive part.
What so angered Ted Kennedy and plopped him in Obamas lap was the Clinton statement that LBJ was the key factor in producing the civil rights breakthrough.
Ted knows that LBJ hated the Kennedy's and that he was not so "unhappy" that John was assassinated that Dallas (Dulles) Day.
In fact LBJ reversed the Kennedy decision to withdraw our troops from Nam.
Hilary's ridiculous (pandering) remark that put a white face on the Black heroism of the civil rights sacrifices, is patently absurd.
Ted admires Obamas' strength of character, his charisma, and his integrity since he knows him better than we, and has worked with him intimately..so there you have it, like it or not.
Yes it is a risk to support and person of color in this often racist country..but the times demand a serious and perhaps "radical" next few months. The dialogue and conversations that we will all participate in will be truly significant. Not to mention the looming "impeachment" proceedings (no thanks to Pelosi or so far Conyers) will be a real test of all of our faith and respect for the very foundational spine of this nation..the Constitution
With the help of "purists" like Kucinich, who refused to compromise himself to the establishment and the media moguls, we will have an exciting and boisterous shouting match..won't we?
If it's Clinton against McCain in November, it will be another 1964 landslide (LBJ against Goldwater) for many of the same reasons. The Senator from Arizona is much crazier than Goldwater was thought to be. McCain's tortured past will be used, rightfully when appropriate, to make voters wonder if such a man should be in control of so much. If McCain's the candidate, I'll remind some readers that his support of Senator Tower's (failed) nomination for Secretary of Defense was self-serving since Tower had failed to be confirmed because of his drunken behaviors; that is, McCain wanted a damaged personality to have his finger on the button. Ms. Clinton's clean, icy stoicism becomes a huge asset in such a context. Both McCain's and Clinton's bank-regulator scandals cancel each other out. McCain's only constituency are the warmongers. It could be a referendum on Fortress America. I expect wholesome unity to be portrayed among the Democrats because they are a party, and most of them will be running for re-election and election, and they understand (just like us!) that the government of the US is up for grabs in November.
I wish I had AitchD's faith in the American people to reject McCain. However, in order to know about McCain's "tortured past", the mainstream media would have to discuss it - and that's not going to happen.
I oppose Hillary Clinton because she has such high negatives among the public, and because the Republicans have spent 16 years vilifying her and the residual effect of that has permeated a large portion of the electorate.
Clearly if a Democrat wins in November, Clinton is better equipped and more likely to get somewhat progressive domestic programs enacted than Obama (although that's not saying much). I just don't believe either of them can beat the hero of media mythology, John McCain. That's a depressing thought, but reality is often like that.
No shit it is Clinton vs. McCain. There was no other choice was there? Who else is going to stick up for the crimes of the CIA??? These two can be counted on to cover up the fact that CIA and FBI were watching the hijackers in the days leading up to 9/11. And they can both be counted on to keep us in Iraq FOREVER. They are building U.S. bases in Iraq right now. Bush just signed it. So obviously there is no intention to leave. So they need a president who will play ball. Who better than two old hands like McCain and McClinton?
As always, the two creeps who wander into this blog's territory with no concept of what this site is about choose to bray in bravely anonymous mode. Any more of this crap and I'll have to re-instate comment moderation.
We have discussed the LBJ remark already. Clinton did not say what you say she said. If you continue to twist words and to misquote, you will stand revealed as a GOP mole. Every word she ACTUALLY said was perfectly true, and the "offense" taken was purely tactical, whipped up by the Obama forces.
Since we have already had at least one major post devoted to this discussion, the issue is now CLOSED.
So, Teddy Kennedy endorsed Obama because of a family vendetta against LBJ. One kind (and accurate) word about Johnson was sufifcient the clan turned against Hillary. Riiiiight. You got any proof for that assertion, bub, or are you simply engaging in the grand purist game of presenting blue-sky speculation as though it were capital-T Truth?
Oh, and what does your claim say about other mmbers of the Kennedy clan -- including RFK jr. -- who support Hillary?
As for Kucinich: I admire what he did in NH, but I like nothing else about the guy. He panders to purists, which means he functions soleley as a splitter, not a uniter. I've been watching politics longer than you have, kid. Progressive purists have done NOTHING in all this time except get Republicans elected. They have never -- EVER -- created even the "boisterous shouting match" that you speak of, except within ultra liberal circles, which are much tinier than those within them would like to admit.
I hate the purists almost as much as I hate the conservatives. Purists ARE conservatives. That's why they repeat right-wing talking points about Hillary.
As for the second Anonymous purist who equated Clinton with McCain and who insists -- despite all evidecne -- that Hillary wants to keep us in Iraq forever...
...you know what? I'm not paid for this blog. I don't need to wake up angry looking at horseshit posted to MY OWN DAMN SITE.
You're outta here, you purist assholes. Go find some other place to infect. Fools like you elected Bush in 2000 by insisting that Al Gore-- Al Gore, who might have been our best presodent -- was a corporate sell-out.
Fuck off and die.
If it's true NOW that McCain is besting HRC in national polling, it wasn't always that way (it was the opposite just a month or two ago) and it needn't remain that way in the future. I don't think it will be that way, once McCain's positions are better known to people, esp. his Iraq war position.
McCain is not now being attacked by his current rivals for supporting the Iraq war (other than St. Paul, I guess), because they all do, even though it's a 70/30 opposition in the general electorate. Despite his national name recognition, and it's hard to appreciate how true this is, he really is a bit of a cipher to many Americans, who could tell you probably all of two sentences about him.
Once he has full national exposure, including to non-political junkies who haven't been watching the GOP debates (as I admit I have not, not once, even as an interested observer of politics), his Iraq position will not be given a polite pass by his new rival, but highlighted for the intense idiocy of judgement it reveals.
McCain also labors under his side's version of the PPs, the rabid right wingers, all of whose radio talkers but one (Michael Medved, to my understanding), HATE MCCAIN!! The level of their vitriol against him is 11 on a 1-10 scale. Could he do well if the harder core conservatives sit on their hands, don't turn out enthusiastically, or vote some fringe rightie candidate or party?
No, the Republican nominee will be part-owner of Bush's war, has to be, and that SHOULD give any Democrat the edge at the end.
...sofla
Here's a very simple formula for Americans to take their country back:
GET THE CORRUPTED OFFICIALS OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER
Here's one way to force this change. Keep in these politicians face the evidence of how certain U.S. officials in league with foreign interests committed treason and allowed 9/11 to occur and we want them held accountable!
By now, anyone familiar with 9/11 should know that the hijackers were being watched by U.S., Israeli, French and German intelligence. They were followed and spied on for at least 3 years.
Rolling Stones just did an article explaining how just about every terror threat in recent memory has been manufactured by the FBI and its informants.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/18137343/the_fear_factory
Well guess what, the 9/11 hijackers were also led around by paid FBI informants.
* So the hijackers were watched in Germany in approx. 1999-2000
* They were watched in the US in 2000-2001
* FBI informants paid for everything they needed and drove them to places they needed to be
* Intelligence agencies have the ability to tap phones, see/hear through walls, track you from satellites, plant bugs, read through your email. If they were being WATCHED which they WERE then they did all of this and more and must have KNOWN WHAT THEY INTENDED TO DO
* The Israelis among others warned the US BEFORE 9/11 what the hijackers were up to
* The hijackers were connected to people who had planned to do something similar in operation BOJINKA
* The Minneapolis FBI in 2001 warned that something was up. FBI HQ blocked them from examining the hijacker's computers
* So you see, the government KNEW what the hijackers were up to and did not stop 9/11
* You can't be spying on people and have all of these informants WITHOUT KNOWING what was going on
It should be obvious what is going on by now:
Certain parties in the U.S. government and certain foreign governments(Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel) used Agent Provocatuers to round up jihadis to do 9/11 and push us into ENDLESS MIDDLE EAST WAR and YOU WANT TO KNOW WHO THE FUCK THESE PEOPLE WERE!
My impression is that McCain's popularity is largely based on his reputation as a maverick and a straight shooter. The media have assiduously fostered this reputation, but the fact that it's not true does present a certain vulnerability.
More to the point, however, Americans like McCain not because he's conservative but because he's (wrongly) perceived as anti-establishment. There's a great hunger for change at the present moment, and that is also likely to play to the benefit of Obama rather than Clinton. The liberal/conservative dichotomy just isn't relevant this time around -- it's far more about change vs. more of the same.
Obama, whatever his limitations, seems to be perceived as someone who accepted the patronage of powerful establishment figures on his way up but who isn't necessarily beholden to them and could, under the right sort of pressure of events, be a catalyst for radical experimentation. Clinton, on the other hand, is perceived as being the essence of the establishment in her own person and unlikely ever to do anything different than try to take us back to the 90's.
There's an enormous amount of energy building in the country, but if a candidate is elected who is not responsive to the popular mood, I see the whole thing as likely to curdle -- turning either violent or decadent or a little of both. That's what really concerns me, and not anything that can be measured along a 20th century spectrum of liberal vs. conservative.
DL, McCain's sad and long POW story, including the torture, is already the stuff of mainstream lore. Recently enough, McCain was a headliner in the torture policy debate, and before that, he balked loudly when Cheney wanted to exempt (I forget, CIA?) gov't employees from the no-torture language of the legislation. Although each anchor or commentator on those stories mentioned McCain's tortured past in passing, the mention was always italicized and bolded. I expect it to continue to be mentioned. How can it not be? But that's not my point. My point concerns what we recently have been learning about torture and how different forms of torture have inflicted permanent damage. In developing their separate theses, both Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf have presented evidence that torture, but specifically isolation and deprivation as torture, makes normal people insane, it causes insanity. (They don't merely assert, as I always do, they present the best evidence available.) Klein and Wolf are not lightweights and they're not on the fringes of society or popular discourse. These elections are contests, not recitations according to Hoyle. The popular media moguls (along with other types) don't want a psycho time-bomb in the WH. Rupert Murdoch will lose everything if the world is destroyed, his life's work all for naught. My "faith" is in the Corporate State's telling "the American people" why they should reject McCain. Anyway, I don't expect McCain to be the Republican candidate, I only wish for it.
Post a Comment