The pro-Hillary vote now divides like the Red Sea.
One side supports the nominee, however unfairly he got the nod and however ghastly his tactics. The other side understands that you need to punish a child if you want to make sure he or she does not misbehave again. The only way to punish Dean, Brazile, the progressive bloggers, the DNC and the big media pundits is to ensure that the Democrats lose in November. If you can think of any less drastic way to "spank" the parties responsible, tell me about it.
An alien force has commandeered the Democratic party. This force does not have a name. I've called it "the progressive movement," but that term lacks accuracy, since the ringleaders are actually libertarians. By whatever nomenclature, this force mimics the politics of mob hatred previously associated with the Republican party.
If Obama wins, the brutes win, and things will get worse in the next electoral cycle. The DNC countenanced a smear campaign in a primary; this must never occur again.
The truth is, I don't care for Hillary. The idea of a former president's wife running for office never sat well with me. The entire concept seems like an attempt to circumvent the Constitution.
Do not count me among those who grew to admire Hillary's tenacity and courage. In my view, she failed because she was too timid. Her most courageous moment occurred when she berated Obama for his ties to Tony Rezko. The next-morning's press reviews were murderous, and she never mentioned the topic again. Instead of backing away from that mode of attack, she should have kept hitting and hitting and hitting on the corruption theme.
If she had ignited a national debate, more people would understand that Barack Obama helped Rezko attain those tenement buildings, and that Rezko received $100 million from the taxpayers to help poor people who never got any help. The loot was stashed overseas with the aid of Tony's ultra-shady Middle Eastern associates.
If HIllary had spoken up, the public would now understand that State Senator Obama pushed through a law which placed the hospital board in the greedy hands of Governor Blagojevich, who instituted a ruthless "pay to play" policy. Every time Blago got paid, so did Obama.
Hillary Clinton could have educated the public, but she did not.
So do not count me as a fan. She would make a decent president, and I certainly prefer her to Obama. But her calls for party unity do not impress me. I call for party cleansing. For punishment.
13 comments:
The tragedy is in this election cycle the Democrats became what the Republicans have always been about: smears, thuggery, and vote stealing.
I still can't believe the whole thing.
I, too, believe Hillary Clinton made a mistake in running for president. I didn't think the idea would work for just the reasons you have described (constitutional issues). It looked too much like it was less her idea to run and more like Bill's.
Still, though, I supported her after Edwards was forced out of the race because of the nutroots and others of their ilk have utterly trashed the Democratic Party through their purges. Joe Lieberman was just the first casualty of the nutroots' crusade to make the party into their image. He was an easy target, but trust me, there will be others.
They have got to be stopped or the party will forever be marginalized just as Karl Rove and Grover Norquist have wanted.
Jeez, susan, if I were worth having, I might ask you to marry me.
They cannot be called progressive as they stole delegates in Michigan and many of the were misogynists.
Shall we call them the neo-progressives, since many are "ex"-Republicans?
djmm
I heard Barack Obama has fathered two black children!
I think she knew--what Obama did not--that if she trashed her opponent in the primary--she would end up losing the general.
She's a smart woman playing a very deep game--maybe deeper than we see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra_Complex
The Cassandra metaphor is applied by some psychologists to individuals who experience physical and emotional suffering as a result of distressing personal perceptions, and who are disbelieved when they attempt to share the cause of their suffering with others.
I completely agree that the thugs have to be stopped. They cannot be allowed to win, or our party is gone forever. It is just another side of the republican coin.
However, I have to disagree about Clinton. I supported her lukewarmly at first. But over the months after hearing her many times, poring through her position papers and her record, and finally hearing today's speech - I've become aware that she has a much clearer vision of what the Democratic party should and could be than any other politician currently in office. She is far more a progressive than Bill, and would be a much better president. She understands what competent government can and should be, and the role it should play in people's lives.
I do agree that early strategy was lacking, particularly when Mark Penn was running things. After he stepped down, she just got stronger and stronger. Since the first of March, she has basically ran all over Obama, while he just got weaker and weaker. Without the party bosses dragging him over the finish line, he was done. He should have been done. He should now be dragging himself back to the Senate with his tail between his legs. He didn't win. The party bosses gave it to him. I cannot vote for such a loser, and I especially cannot vote for someone who has sociopaths for supporters.
"I don't like nostalgia unless it's mine". Lou Reed
Imagine the despair at MSNBC. Heckling McCain is as amusing as lampooning Walter Reed patients.
Clinton nostalgia should be setting in just about the time Tony Rezko has his second bout of prison food colon blow.
<>_<> HIDE AND SEE
Jeez Joe,
I am all for romance... of any kind.. cyber/if I was worth having/if things were not what they are now....or any other kind
but back to business, is there any one in the Democratic party that you still support? Your response takes care of Dean, Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, Clinton, Richardson and about at least ten other prominent Democrats.
Should we consider you a Republican now and call it a day?
Joe, you are calling to punish the party rather than defeat McCain.
I call that putting Party over Country, and that is something about Bush Republicans for the last 8 years that has always made me irate. This attitude they have all shared (and stuck with well into 2008), that no matter what reality says, we must support and protect 'the President' or 'the course' or 'the Republican policy'...
I disagree with the premise--I like Obama--but I wanted to point out how some might compare your strategy to that of the OTHER side.
I don't like John McCain and will not vote directly FOR him. However, I recognize that going third party, or going write in, or just going camping on election day all amount to support for John McCain.
He doesn't scare me the way Bush scared me. He's more like Bob Dole. An old school conservative, from the days when they hadn't yet gone bonkers. Conservatism was once merely a political standpoint, one with which I disagree. Only more recently did it become a movement, a great big Messianic Thing.
Now, the progressive movement has become a Great Big Messianic Thing. And I am not a religious man.
(Despite being not a religious man, it so happens that as I write these words, I have a large scratch wound on my forehead and another on the center of my hand. I have no idea how they got there. It isn't even Easter!)
I've been a Democrat for all of my nearly 50 voting years, but I don't trust Mr. Obama one bit. My feeling is that McCain as President with a strong Democratic majority in the House and Senate to keep him in check is much preferable to Obama as Prez with a compliant Democratic Congress.
Jerome
Let's not forget, the king of misdirection pulled out a photo.
We couldn't expect the press to look at the Chicago news archives for millions of examples of his corruption.
BTW, who goes to look at a house they can't afford, what would be the reason you take Rezko with you?
Post a Comment