Naturally, the prog blogs are dripping venom. The ultimate in progshit is this sentiment:
Hillary endorsed McCain over Obama, on the basis of a disastrous policy position that she shares (pro-Iraq-war).Her position on the war is indistinguishable from Obama's, and she did not "endorse" McCain.
Progs. I wish they all had one throat. I already have an exacto blade.
If you're a prog, your Great Satan is Hillary the conservative war-monger who wants to return us to the Nightmare Years of the 1990s. If you're a conservative, your Great Satan is Obama the gay Muslim socialist. If you're an evangelical, your Great Satan is either Darwin or J.K. Rowling or the homosexual cabal plotting to queerify your children. If you're George Noori or Alex Jones, your Great Satan is Adam Weishaupt, dark grandmaster of the Illuminati. If you're a jihadist, your Great Satan is that chesty American tart who once gave you a boner. If you're a Jew, your great Satan is anyone who doesn't sing Israel, Israel ueber alles on cue, because anyone who believes that the Palestinians have been robbed obviously yearns to toss all Jews into the oven. And so on.
We live in a world of imaginary Great Satans.
38 comments:
The Ohio exit polls show Obama winning, but the results favor Clinton. I don't rule out Clinton machine vote fraud, but with the Republican control over Diebold vote machines, could they be 1) selecting a a candidate with higher negatives than Obama that they think they can beat easier and/or 2) setting up a November election in which they can't really lose because while they prefer McCain to Clinton they are comfortable that either one will follow the neocon/war party/WTO/Corporate Elite agenda? From www.rightpundits.com:
7.45 EST - A number of exit polls have Obama winning Ohio by either +1 or +2. However, the HRC camp is adamant that these polls are not right and that Clinton will win by +3 in Ohio.
Results have Clinton winning by 12% - some 200,000 votes. yet exit polls showed Obama winning. Am I being paranoid, or is there a legitimate question of fraud - we are talking about Ohio, and I am sure most have read RFK Jr.'s account of the 2004 election in that state.
"I don't rule out Clinton machine vote fraud..."
I do. If Hillary had that level of control, she would not be in the position she is in.
I'm reminded of the 1990s, when conspiracy theorists spoke as though Bill Clinton had thousands of loyal "soldiers" in spookworld, downing airplanes and killing enemies and so forth. In reality, the CIA hated him and would never have lifted a finger to help him politically.
And your Great Satan is...?
Anyone who expresses discontent with the Democratic party for any reason, evidently? Or are there people out there who dislike the Democrats and are still okay in your book?
And if your Joseph Cannon, your satan is a combo of a 9/11 truther (a "tranny"), a "progshit" and an Obamabot.
Maybe some of the people helping Clinton know that they will have more chances of beating her in the final election. It's a bit like the Republican help Nader received, I don't think it was because they share ideas. Helping your ennemie's ennemies is not a bad idea. And I'm sure in some circles they are very affraid of the Obama phenomena (and the hordes of Obamabots).
Reader, your comment was amusing. Have I not made clear that I am unenthused about both Dem candidates? It's a little hard to argue, then, that I am some sort of hyper-partisan zealot. At least, at this moment.
H-man, you miss the key distinction: Trannies and progs are REAL. They are not imaginary villains. I don't have to interpret their words in absurd ways in other to concoct reasons to be outraged.
Your other point is one which I have suggested myself.
Reader, your comment was amusing. Have I not made clear that I am unenthused about both Dem candidates? It's a little hard to argue, then, that I am some sort of hyper-partisan zealot. At least, at this moment.
Ummm, given your routine ranting against "progressives", "trannies", conservatives, and evangelicals (i.e. groups whose only thing in common is opposition to the Democratic Party establishment), I don't think it's hard to make a case for you as a hyper-partisan at all. That you are unenthusiastic about the candidates just makes you that much more partisan- even though you admit these guys aren't that great, you still demand that they be supported. Who out there is a more hardcore Democrat than you?!?
So like I asked... is there anyone who dislikes the Democratic Party who you think is alright? Or are they all scum?
Plenty. I even work with 'em.
Brad Friedman is not a Democrat, although he doesn't advertise that fact.
I do happen to think that things were a lot better under Clinton than under either Bush, and a LOT LOT better under the FDR paradigm than under the RR paradigm.
You think otherwise? Fine. No prob. But why on earth are you HERE? I have no desire to dialog with you.
I admit that I am utterly alienated these days by the progs. I haven't felt this strongly about their inane antics since college. You should re-read the opening bits of David Brock's "Blinded By the Right" -- he and I both went to UC campuses at kind of the same time, and we both became disgusted at what passed for "the left" for the same reasons. I didn't follow his course -- thank God -- but I might have.
Progs will never understand how bad they make the left look, just as Freepers have never understood that they were making the right look bad.
Another point...
"given your routine ranting against "progressives", "trannies", conservatives, and evangelicals (i.e. groups whose only thing in common is opposition to the Democratic Party establishment)..."
Actually, they have something else in common. All of those groups have embraced Friedmanism -- that is to say, radical Laisez faire.
Are the progs an exception to the preceding statement? Well, yeah -- many progs have indeed read "The Shock Doctrine." But then again, look at how many progs made excuses for Ron Paul (Libertarianism = Friedmanism) and for Kucinich's embrace of same.
So if I do have a Great Satan, he wears the face of Milton Friedman. This is one "Satan" which remains very real (even though Uncle Miltie himself is no longer with us), and which has ruined the lives of literally millions of people.
Have the progs shown ANY ability to combat the Friedmanites over the past few decades?
Or have their inane natterings so alienated middle America that they've turned for relief to Rush Limbaugh?
There are many ways to "support" an ideology. One method of support is to make the alternative look stupid. Progs are GREAT at doing just that.
5th columnist says..
What disappointed me this morning more than Clinton's use of the GOP tactic of fearmongering was that the public -- after all these years of GW Bush -- has fallen for it! I really thought we were over that, sick and tired of it even. My other great disappointment is that this brutal gory crap isn't over. I thought I'd wake up this morning and the party would be on its way to healing and unity. Instead, we're preparing for more bloody battle and I'm so over it. I want the party to start focusing on McCain. Despite his longevity, despite his credentials, McCain should be easy to beat. But not if the Dem party tears itself apart, not if Clinton keeps giving McCain ammunition, and most certainly not if Clinton keeps aligning herself with McCain -- against another Dem -- as she has done in the past week. That blew my mind more than anything. It's one thing for primary candidates to knock each other, but to cozy up with the other side against your own party is despicable. I don't like the word "hate" and I can't say that I hate Clinton and I will not be called a "Hillary-Hater," but I do strongly dislike her style of politics and do not want her as my president.
5 col, I've seen that commercial. It was innocuous. Bland, even.
All she was saying was that she would be more trustworthy in a crisis. Maybe she would be and maybe she would not be. I dunno. But I don't have a problem with any candidate for any office SAYING a thing like that.
At this point, Hillary could say "I like Cezanne" and the progs would interpret those words in such a way as to make her look like the Beast of the Apocalypse.
"In her commercial, HILLARY says that she is the better candidate...! The nerve of that RACIST BITCH! How DARE she! I thought that she had plumbed the depth of depravity before, but never have I seen such sheer, vile, disgusting behavior..."
Was WALTER MONDALE a horrible Republican-tactic-using Democrat? Because his was the last campaign to use the 'red phone' call late at night motif, against fellow Democrat Gary Hart.
Was LBJ following **Republican** tactics in his infamous 'Daisy' commercial against Goldwater?
Please, people. It's called politics, look into it. Listening to so many on the left these days, it is jarring how their analysis, such as it is, is so different from my take on this.
...sofla
At last, an accurate headline when referring to Hillary. SO far as playing to win at all costs, she ran an effective campaign. Congratulations to her. If Obama is unable to counter her change of focus in the next round, then he isn't ready. However, I think he can, and he will.... and he'll be even more effective than Clinton was, because he has a lot more meat to work with.
Obviously Barack needs go on the attack against Hillary (and would be well justified in doing so.) However, he must be careful to attack within the framework of his positive, inspiring, and uplifting message that he's been delivering from day one. Fortunately, Clinton makes that easy.
The "Scorched Earth Politics" of the Clinton campaign where they threw everything but the kitchen sink, tested the response, then emphasized what worked best served to highlight both the narcissistic nature of her campaign, and the lack of any guiding principles beyond "winning" the contest of the moment.. What struck me most about it was:
Hillary took a two pronged approach:
1. seeking to reign in the previously strong support she had in the "Left Establishment Base" she once had in the party with her constant picking away at various minutae in Obama's various positions, and more importantly:
2. Seeking to kill the entheusiasm and excitement Obmama carried into the race from voters outside the traditional Democratic base, working to send the scurrying back to the Republicans, or dropping out altogether. Her incredibly audaceous "3 AM phone call" and "National Security" attacks were not aimed at her supporters so much as they were aimed at chasing away Obama's supporters.
This fact is a very good issue to raise with so-called "superdelegates" who might not be as impressed with a narrow Democratic primary victory that is run in a way almost certain to induce great damage to the party's efforts to transform its role and national posture by exploiting the current window of opportunity.
Hillary Clinton's approach has betrayed her disdain for true democratic processes and voter participation. It is too messy for her. The way she ran her "Healthcare Reform Fifedom" during Bill's administration has not been adequately exposed, explained, and exploited. However, that episode was her philosophy in a nutshell: Gather a small group of powerful individuals with strong personal financial interests in the solutions they construct to develop a "solution" they can then hand down to the little people with little explanation, less input, and no chance at raising objections.
The fact is, Hillary wants to "rescue" people from above, and has little regard for their thoughts, opinions, or concerns beyond how she feels she can "fix" them. Killing entheusiasm that Obama engenders is no problem for her, because she doesn't want that riff raff upsetting her apple cart to begin with. When she derides that inspiration, and Obama's ability to stir up public involvement in the process, she isn't really insulting Obama - she is insulting the people cheering him on. "Hope" for her is an empty plattitude that can only interfere with the business of governing, which itself must only be conducted by professionals with as little exposure as possible.
Hillary does not want to Change the politics of Washington, she just wants to change the players. So she has no use for Huge crowds of citizens anxious to volunteer their work and assert their own influence. To her, they are empty vessels lacking "substance". But Barack Obama understands how important changing Washington's sick dynamic is, and he also understands that these people in the audience are the ones who must make it happen. What's more, he knows for a fact that CAN make it happen! That is what really scares "status quo" politicians like Hillary.
Many people have commented on how close these two candidates are in their positions. Check that - how close they are in their STATED positions. Because only one of those candidates has proven themselves trustworthy, only one has shown that his word means more than an empty promise. Only one has taken a political risk to follow through on principle. Only one went out of his way to object to the Senate's ill-advised surrender of their authority to wage war to the President, without themselves insisting on weighing his "future justifications', and he did so well before that war became the albatross it is today. Hillary on the other hand, threw the NIE in the round file with the Constitution, and went along with the crowd, because it was politically expedient. Think about that. She is willing to support the projection of death and destruction with no real consideration when doing so provides the path of least political resistance. This is the canddate who claims the record of National Security experience and judgement? So, not only was she cavalier and wrong in her actions, but she has clearly learned nothing from the experience, since she feels that conduct is worth bragging about.
We deserve better than that in this country.
Only one stated unequivocally that providing retroactive immunity to telecom companies for crimes they have not even been charged with was a dangerous and ill-advised capitulation of the Congress' oversight responsibility, and a betrayal of any American's who may have been harmed by such actions and would be denied their day in court. And only one showed the courage to stick around long enough to back his opposition with a vote that risked making powerful enemies in the midst of a Presidential campaign, because it was the right thing to do. Hillary skipped town without voting, when she was in Washington, DC, and should have taken a stand for the rights of Americans and the rule of law.
(I am sure there must be hudnereds of examples of Hillary Clinton either giving vague, plausibly deniable lip service in support of important concepts of Constitutional law and other critical issues, and then has turned around and either avoided the vote, and voted against her implied stand, abandoning principle for expedience. Those must be researched and hammered away at, while at the same time riling up the crowd that they have had enough, and encouraged to say out loud they have a choice, and do not have to put up with this kind of conduct.)
Hillary is often viewed by Confirmed liberal democrats as the more "liberal" of the two candidates. Maybe based on words, but not in action. She has repeatedly abandoned core Democratic principles in the service of her political career, as shown. Other examples abound in this campaign, stanting with the campaign's efforts to exploit racist undercurrents by doctoring images of Obama in their ads to make him look darker.
Abandoning principle can hardly even be called that, since you can't abandon what you don't have. Clinton's efforts to threaten Texas with legal action that would disrupt the Texas primary when things were not looking good should have outraged even her own supporters. Her efforts to twist the Michigan and Florida non-primaries into some kind of claim to 100% of those candidates is simply disgusting, but also an example of what this country could expect from a Hillary Clinton adminstration: Nothing worthwhile, and more partisan gamesmanship while the nation continues to sink.
Anyone who can't see she abandons the truth just as easily is not paying attention. She constantly hammers away at Obama's experience, when her own resume is even thinner. Her greatest claim to "experience" is being Bill Clinton's wife for 8 years. If you think being the spouse of the President of the United States qualifies one for the job, perhaps next time you need cardiac bypass surgery, you can safe some dough by having the surgeon's husband do it.
Even within that limited claim, she has (not surprisingly) greatly exaggerated her role and involvement. Those Clinton adminstration insiders who divulged this need more ink.
Believe it or not, this only accounts for half my notes, but much of the rest is redundant, and emphasizes how Americans cannot allow themselves to be fooled into another 4-8 years of such self-indulgent and unprincipled leadership, and they most certainly cannot allow anyone to tell them they do not matter, that hope does not matter, or that they cannot do what we intend to do. We most certainly can, and we most certainly will.
The way Hillary "ran her" health-care reform under Bill copied the blueprint that Bill used during the transition between November 1992 and January 1993, when he convened meetings and retreats to gather ideas from great minds. Everyone applauded his open and thorough approach; it made perfect sense to repeat the process. It's not Hillary's fault that good faith turned bad, she didn't cause it. It wasn't her intention to harm you or anyone, but I do wonder about her motives for wanting to be POTUS of a nation of ingrates and morons who fell under Newt Gingrich's spell. Maybe it's for Chelsea; it's not every day someone can have her mommy and her daddy be POTUS.
Come on, George Noory? It's his job to listen to (and his wont to believe) any story he's told.
No one should be surprised that there might be some fraud going on in Ohio and Texas. Both of those states are Bush country. And Ohio has already been involved with vote fraud in the last elections.
And don't be surprised if "they" try to steal Pennsylvania too.
PA is another state that had been involved with stealing election votes. And PA has a lot of high strangeness swirling about it since 2000. For example:
Nick Berg teamed up with an Iraqi ex-patriate from PA, Flight 93 crashed in PA, Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum are from PA, the daughter of one pilot from flight 77 was killed in PA, the controlling partner in the gambling ship in which Makram Chams was a partner was from Gladwyne, PA, McCain Lobbyist Vicki Iseman is from PA, Jeff Gannon lived in PA, able danger man Curt Weldon was from PA, SS Poet which supposedly shipped Arms to Iran during Iran/Contra, left from PA, and the Republican National Convention was held in PA in 2000.
Don't be surprised if they try to steal PA.
We need to find a way unify this party and fast or we will be seeing a President McCain a stacked far right Supreme Court, and endless islamo wars for oil. It could be a disaster if this process drags out for months with the republicans building their electoral machine the whole time. I wanted Edwards but sadly he dropped out too soon in my opinion. Now it is looking like an Obama/Clinton (or Clinton/Obama)ticket could be our only way out of this mess. Months of negative attacks from both candidate's camps to nothing to help the party. I am worried. The Dems have a habit of never missing an chance to miss and chance. The stakes are far too high this election to lose. BYW, my politics are far left for the USA but centrist in the rest of the world. I dont give a damn about all this progressive vs liberal vs party insider crap. We need to pull it together and we need to win. That is what we need to be focusing on.
I'm kind of with you there, FT, and as I mull it over this morn, you may be right -- an OBama/Clinton ticket -- or (unlikely) Clinton/Obama -- may be the only way to get unity.
John Cleese used to say that he based Basil Fawlty on a real-life inkeeper who seemed to think that the customers were an impediment to the efficient running of his business. I've come to the conclusion that the Democratic electorate is an impediment to the efficient running of the Democratic primaries.
In other words, I agree with the sentiment expressed here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/obama-and-clinton-supporters-m.php
"I think one thing is clear this far into the Democratic primary race: Both Obama's and Clinton's supporters must now drop out of the race."
"Don't be surprised if they try to steal PA"
Only over Richard Mellon Scaife's dead body.
You forgot to mention crude oil, which is from Titusville, Pa.
Pennsylvania was a great state before that Kansan boy, Arlen Specter, immigrated, before the NFL changed the rules against the Steelers' defense. I think he had something to do with that. You know, he moved from Kansas to Philadelphia a few years after the Philadelphia Athletics left and became the Kansas City Athletics. Kansas, Missouri, whatever. Interstate 40. Last time he ran for Senator, he was asked about his 'single-bullet' theory (his proudest achievement) when he worked for the Warren Commission, and he said "It's held up. No one has been able to disprove it". Maybe the finest legal mind in the US Senate, you know? A few years ago a reporter asked him (after his first hearing as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee) if this was his crowning achievement, and he said, No, the single-bullet theory was. I know, he just wants to see the look on their faces when he says that. I have a theory about Arlen: he'll never be nominated for or accept any nomination for anything that would make him have to talk under oath. When his sinuses are clear he can be pretty funny, though.
Flight 93 - where they said "Let's roll!" or "Roll it!"? Mary Lou Williams was from Pittsburgh and composed the great swing classic "Roll 'Em" some 60 or 70 years ago.
Did you know that the term 'brainstorm' was coined by Harry K. Thaw's lawyer in Pittsburg (PA, not the Kansas city, where the aitch was never added), as the foundation of the first or one of the earliest insanity defenses, and he beat the murder rap? The New York Times called the murder "the crime of the century". A bronze plaque on Thaw's townhouse (next door to Steeler founder/owner Art Rooney's townhouse) commemorates the term's coinage.
Yeah, thanks for that pointless response..aitchd.
I was brainstorming so people could connect a few dots if they so choose to. Not saying they are each directly connected. My only point is that there are alot of strange things going on in PA. Don't be surprised if the elections get stolen their *again*.
Do you see any part of the bigger picture at all? Or are you just here to gatekeep us all into the Stop-Questioning-The-Official-Theory boat?
My guess is that PA might be a hotspot for some of this shit because it has spent so many years in the coverup of Iran/Contra related activities. And now they are saddled with the work of covering up the fact someone shot down an airliner over PA and that is why there is no plane on the ground in those 9/11 photos.
But apparently you are not even able to consider the possibility that something odd is going on.
ACtually, anon, I thought your ideas might have some merit. And even if they don't, it was rather interesting.
But I am going to have strongly urge everyone to steer clear of this newly-chic "gatekeeper" accusation. This manipulative crap has got to stop: "Agree with me, think as I think, or I will accuse you of being part of the Great Conspiracy."
Before you resort to such tctics again, I suggest I read a book called "The Devil in Massachusetts." It's all about a little town called Salem.
I was living in Pgh on 9/11. I watched local TV in the afternoon and saw live interviews with witnesses at Shanksville, hours before the FBI got there and shut down the site. The witnesses' versions never again got reported as such. When the 9/11 Commission Report was published I read it and read the outright lies in it and noticed how it employed misdirection in its narrative passages.
I'm not a gatekeeper for the official version of things, but if I say what I really think, Joseph will remove my comments.
Do you like Wonkette? According to Wonkette, Rick Santorum is a baby farmer.
Special privileges you get, H. What did you hear the witnesses say?
(Everyone else: Pipe down. I've learned the hard way that if I don't get a padlock on this particular gate, a shit stampede will result.)
Unify the party with a O/C or C/O ticket? I don't think that would work very well, Joseph. It sounds reasonable enough in theory, but there are a lot of "swing voters" like me out there whose opposition to Hillary is based on our perception of her as being untrustworthy. Besides, after all the bad blood that will have been passed back and forth by then, I'm not sure either side would be comfortable with that arrangement.
Forcing Clinton onto an Obama ticket would be tantamount to forcing LBJ on a JFK ticket, and we all know how well that worked out. I would immediately be seriously concerned about Obama's health. When I say that, I am insinuating nothing about Hillary, except that the aforementioned voting bloc preceives Hillary as more "flexible" when it comes to working with the power structure that generates violent overthrows when they don't get their way.
I am not posting this comment in order to get into a debate over whether or not our perception of Hillary is reasonable in the eyes of her supporters. I am merely pointing out that this perceptions is not likely to change any time soon, and therefore, a combo ticket has virtually no chance of uniting the party.
I will say that since Obama is generally less objectionable to Hillary supporters than Hillary is among Obama suporters, an O/C ticket would offer greater healing potential than a C/O ticket. That latter would be unlikely to offer significantly better unity of movement than a Clinton/Take-Your-pick team, given the basis of "our" objections.
My only point was that PA seems to be a hotspot as of late, in my opinion because of coverups related to 9/11 and Iran Contra. That there is some undercurrent there causing strange things to bubble up. Not saying "Hey, All Things PA are tied into Bush and his New World Order." Just making an observation.
Surely the jihadist's Great Satan is the United States (government and economic system and culture), and his Little Satan would be Israel.
Not imaginary after all, and I'm sorry to say, more real than not.
...sofla
JFK and LBJ truly despised each other. I suspect that Clinton and Obama like each other a whole lot better than the Clintonites and the Obamites like each other. There are a lot of bullshit myths being spread right now -- the hoi polloi (and you, I fear) may buy into them, but the candidates themselves do not.
Did you know that LBJ had a listed number during the Kennedy years? And nobody called!
Well, I am pretty rigorous in avoiding the hoi polloi, which makes me an unusually ill-informed activist, when it comes to knowlege of what "they" are talking about. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.
I think they DID like each other pretty well before. I would not be at all sure of that now. If an O/C ticket were to materialize, I'm sure I'd be on board, but it would take me a while to acclimate to it. After a couple more months of viscious slander and non-stop derisive insults where she has decided the best way to highlight her "qualities" is to obscure and denigrate his, it is going to be a little difficult to belive that SHE could believe in this ticket.
Hillary had done a good job of sticking to the high road until her back was against the wall. She seems not to recognize the fact that her own walls are glass, and she has now unleashed a genie that will be very difficult to put back in the bottle.
Hey politics is not a game for the meek, but during primary runs, I think a candidate would better serve the party by staying affirmatively focused on what they bring to the table, rather than on inventing things to tear down your opponent. Constant repetition of those messages only offers the Republicans a head start in getting their own message out when it is their turn.
I am not surprised. This is how politics has been conducted, with an especially mean spirit, especially since 1980. It didn't have to be this way, but for Hillary, her victory trumps all else
I just read this blurb at the end of an article touting the possible "joint ticket":
"Primary season rivals who have successfully shared a presidential ticket after tough nominating fights include Democrats John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush."
What else do the two pair have in common?
She HASN'T slandered him. That's the point I've been trying to make for days now. WEEKS now. Every time I read some progshit claim about some horrible thing that either Bill or Hillary said, I look up the exact words and find that it is something I might have said myself. You're parsing. Straining.
I mena, jeez, I was just looking at some progshit on a thread at DU -- the one about taxes -- and my freaking GOD, but those jerks are worse than Freepers! In fact, they are EXACTLY like the right-wing anti-Clintonites of the 1990s -- at times they even repeat the same long-disproved claims.
ANd look at all the crap they are sying about Hillary defending NAFTA at each and every turn. It's just not true! The Hillary created on these prog forums is a completely different creature from the one I've heard on the debates.
Made me want to put a "Hillary" ad on this site, it did. I don't really mind Obama, although his economics advisors have me VERY worried. In fact, most of his advisors strike me as pretty "iffy."
But Obama's prog supporters -- they are VILE. Just vile.
My apologies. I didn't mean to imply "slander" in the literal/ legal sense of the word. I was using it in more of a poetic/descriptive mechanism for conveying the spirit of the messages, direct and implied that are bound to come out of each camp over the next couple of months, as the campaign has taken a turn from the constructive to the descructive, where the impact of a message carries greater currency than its meaning or veracity.
I'm a long ways from being on wave with any of those Freepers, and I most certainly did not intend to get myself lumped in with them. Rather, I am reflecting on the impact that this altered focus is likely to have on prospects for any possible joint ticket.
I've got my problems with Hillary, and for any practical purposes, they have nothing to do with her conduct in this campaign. I've explained those issues above from my vantage point. NAFTA and any candidate's purity of commitment to modern liberalism is not my focus or concern. Between issues of the war and foreign policy, Constitutional integrity, and rule of law in government, if any candidate can hit the mark on those three issues, they could be full on socialists or Neoliberal corporatists, and I'll be happy, for now. That is a battle I'll be happy to fight later, under a reinvigorated constitution, and a reformed government that people can believe in again.
Yeah, you reminded me just now -- I have my own problems with Hillary. If she gets the nod, the right will be dragging us through every damned pseudo-scandal of the Clinton years, and it'll be infuriating.
But the Obamabots are also infuriating. And I suspect his closet is rather more skeletonized than his fans want to think.
What to do?
Well, in my case, all I can do is accept the fact that all candidates are flawed human beings, because that's the only kind of human beings in production right now.
That said, I have rather effortlessly identified what I consider to be the overwhealmingly highest-priority issues for the country (not for me, but for the country as a whole) and committed to supporting the candidate whose words and deed most earn my trust that those issues will be addressed as honestly, sincerely, and effectively as humanly possible.
The trade off is that I will also be supporting a candidate who does not share my views on some personally very important issues, but that is a sacrifice worth making, if the trust in those other areas is there.
There are two quotes in politics that have stayed with me, and really haunted me since I heard them. I can't specifically source either one, and I'm sure they are both actually paraphrased.
The first was from an onlooking citizen after the Berlin wall fell:
"I think in the end, we all get the government we deserve."
The other was, "All that was required to allow the rise of Nazism in Germany was a political culture in which people were concerned only with their own narrow interests ."
BTW, Obama is winning and will win Texas.
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2008/03/obama-is-winning-texas-not-clinton.html
Think this has anything to do with her campaign's demand for a delay in the reporting of caucus results, with threatening legal action to get her way?
DHSMD, I'm not a Hillary supporter; I stopped supporting (believing in) her when she got her hair bobbed; but I love her, and I want her to be POTUS. She's credible and important, I believe, because she turned during her college time, away from irrational, reactionary conservatism, toward an enlightened and liberating ideology. Say what you will, her beauty is undeniable. If Edwards is still on the ballot when I vote next month, I'll vote for him because he hasn't released me yet, and I promised. If the ghost in the machine switches it to Hillary or to Barry it's okay with me this time.
The hundred US Senators don't know all the other 99. But Barry and Hillary (affably together) were blessed at the Congressional Black Caucus Forum in 2005 as a possible combo ticket for 2008. The audience cheered.
re the Shanksville witnesses: Soo long ago. Today the recollection includes reportage intro, summary, recap; vile lying in the next two days by network anchors and commentators; and (worst) the way radio news speaks its lede, then you hear the reporter speak his or her lede in that near-tinny phone-line style so you know it's remote, then you hear the recording of the witness, tinny but with wind-in-the-mic sound effects, then the reporter again. First, on the radio (in my car) and pretty early, a report about a nine-one-one call made from the plane, answered by Greensburg's 911 dispatcher. Do I remember if the radio played the message? No. Another caller's call, to his parents, was also reported about. I don't recall which caller described flashes of light outside the plane along with explosions - I think the word was 'pops'. Neither call was mentioned, as such, in the 911 Commission Report, but the Commission said there were several calls in general, and also mentioned 'confusion' out there in the public, so it pretended to clear it up by singling out the widow's famous "Let's roll!" phone message, saying it wasn't exactly like that, but that the cockpit recorder picked up "Roll it...". goodfuckinggrief.
Four different eye-witnesses said they saw a white plane which had no ID markings anywhere, at the same time (give or take tens of seconds) they heard the explosion; i.e., I saw them tell their stories on TV.
Joseph, will you say categorically there are no buildings within US domain that are wired for self-destruction?
Again, Joe, you disappoint me. And this has been a common theme for months now. Before you get defensive, I'd like you to just listen. Over a long period of time now (almost a year I think), you've devoted a considerable amount of time going after "progressives." For all your talk of politics, plotting, etc., I'd really like you to pause for a second and consider the fact that "progressive" is not an all inclusive term, just as "liberal" isn't. I'm a progressive and/or liberal. You can call me whatever you want, though I fall into that group that seems to be the target of your own venom quite often. I don't believe Hillary endorsed McCain either, and would never go such a silly route. But, in your rant, you imply that I do. In other comments, you've said you would spit in my face. For real, when you pull this kind of BS, is it any wonder why Republicans seem to win when it matters? Think about it.
Here is the comment that gave rise to the claim of Hillary "endorsing" McCain over Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw
Calling it an endorsement is a stretch, but it most certainly suggests she considers McCain a better choice than Obama. Then again, it fits with her "Hillary First" approach to politics where a personal win ranks above any collective benefit to party or country.
"Calling it an endorsement is a stretch, but it most certainly suggests she considers McCain a better choice than Obama."
What are you smoking?
She didn't say "Better choice." She said "More experience." And McCain DOES have more experience. The public may well vote against Obama in the general for that very reason.
john, all labels are invidious, and all rules have exceptions. That much is true. But we must needs use labels, or no communication is possible. I think when I use "progressive" or "prog," people know what I mean. In 1980s terms, I'm referring to the arrogant, self-satisfied, annoying creeps at Berkeley who drove a young David Brock rightwards. In current terms, I'm referring the guys who kept saying "If Kucinich doesn't win the nomination, I'm voting Republican!" -- and who are now spreading all kinds of horseshit about Evil Hillary "darkening" the face of Obama in an ad.
More on that soon.
The point is, the brevity of life forces us to resort to shorthand. I cannot, in each and every post, define just what I mean by "prog" or admit that there are always exceptions, sub-groupings, communities within communities and so forth.
Joseph, I just saw your response, hence the late reply.
I think your fondness for Hillary is blinding you to what she is doing, and you are splitting hairs to avoid having to confront it, while you attack those of us who are repulsed by it.
I didn't say she SAID she thought McCain was better, I said it SUGGESTED it, and it does, whether you want to admit it or not.
It isn't just the over-enthuseastic Obama supporters who think so, either:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-clinton.html
As Tapper points out, just in case people didn't get her drift, she repeated it over and over.
The tendency to see dirty politics and unseemly tactics in things Hillary does did not just develop out of thin air. Some may not be credible, but they cannot be dismissed as being "out of character."
Post a Comment