Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMy god, I loathe the Clintons.
The idea of Clinton redux gives me acid reflux. The idea of Clinton duplex gives me Clinton reflux. Look out - I really feel the need to hurl.
And (almost) never more than during the last weeks. Since the days just preceding the New Hampshire primary these two have been insufferable. Nothing brings out their worst behavior than having their little personal joyride at the national expense threatened by the rest of us trying to grab back the keys to the battered car.
Wanna know how much these two sicken me? They've gotten me to stop thinking lately about how much the little punk in the White House sickens me. That's how much.
It's hard to know who is worse. Bush is as immoral as it gets, at least this side of the Third Reich. The Clintons are as amoral as it gets, this side of any bank in Switzerland. You want us to pretend to be liberals? Fine, we'll do that. You want us to play conservative? No problem. We'll do whatever it takes, just give us the White House. We have no more policy principles than did our cat, Socks. We have no other politics than ourselves. The ideology of the Clintons is the Clintons.
There's one hell of a lot of clean-up that needs to be done in America, and that includes some serious payback to the criminals (read Republicans) and their enablers (read Democrats) who have looted the country blind. That's hardly news, but it was altogether too much to hope - after a quarter century of utter darkness in the country formerly known as the United States - that it could all come together in the 2008 election. One could imagine that the present perfect storm of perfect storms could finally wrest the White House out of the hands of the Republican Party, though history teaches us that even that would be foolish to assume. Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And, besides, even if they could finally prevail, what would it mean? Last time they held the White House it was full-on corporate rape, just at a slightly slower pace than when the GOP unzips.
Only in a hallucination fueled by the finest collection of controlled substances - and plenty of them - could the mind imagine not only the demise of the worst criminals of our time, but also some tasty payback to all their accomplices who've facilitated the plundering of America these last years, starting with Hillary Clinton being denied the nomination for the presidency she obviously feels entitled to, and the scourge of Clintonism being purged forever from American politics, right along with Bushism.
Now, all of a sudden, all of this looks like a possibility. This week, Hillary got absolutely shellacked in South Carolina, losing to Obama by more than two to one. And this, crucially, after the desperate HillBillies had made a trip to the outhouse to fetch their most vile weapons for purposes of derailing the Obama freight train. But when the dust had cleared, Obama had stomped them, and they were left standing there, stinking of racism, deceit, hypocrisy, desperation and cheap Rovian politics. And all for naught. At least when Rove or Lee Atwater did it, they won. Poor Bill Clinton. Now even his faux 'legacy' is toast. Not that there was ever anything to it, anyhow. As far as history is concerned, the best thing that ever happened to Wild Bill's presidency was to have a Bush before it and a Bush after it.
I like - if that's the right word - seeing Democrats show that they can get down in the gutter and throw a political punch or two. That's been all too necessary these last decades, and all too absent. But what Hillary seems to have forgotten is that such behavior is only admirable on the defensive. The invasion and destruction of Germany last century was a good thing only because Germany had already invaded and destroyed everybody else. That's not a small distinction. If you do it first, you're a scumbag. And the Clinton's are scumbags. From The Cry That Saved New Hampshire, to the uncontrolled rage of Bill's "fairytale" fairytale about Obama being inconsistent on the Iraq war (and even if he was, could anyone possibly have been more so than Hillary?), to suing in Nevada to block voting at casinos in order to disenfranchise black and union voters, to twisting into absurdity Obama's Ronald Reagan comment, to using a complete non-sequitur in response to a reporter's question as a vehicle for morphing Obama into Jesse Jackson - in all these ways, the Clintons have shown their willingness to do nearly anything to win the presidency again. Spell it with me now: s-c-u-m-b-a-g-s.
This should hardly be a surprise to anyone. Just ask Ricky Ray Rector. He'll tell you. Or he would if he wasn't dead. He's the poor SOB whom Clinton Bill flew home to execute during the 1992 campaign in order to show frightened Americans that Republicans aren't the only viciously ambitious politicians who can pander to their fears, by golly. So what if poor Ricky Ray was so mentally impaired that he asked to have the dessert from his last meal saved so he could eat it later? What did one less retarded kid matter when there were so many electoral votes at stake?
Anybody paying the remotest bit of attention could have figured out a long time ago what William Jefferson Clinton was all about. And you have to laugh at all those nice ladies six long years later clucking about how could Hillary stay with a guy who betrayed her by messing around with other women? Were they joking? My question is how do you sleep with a guy who fries somebody with the IQ of a gifted tuber in order to get into the White House? How do you stay with a guy who turns millions of welfare mothers out onto the street in order to pick up a second term that he already had in the bag anyhow?
No, man, make no mistake - this is nothing new for the Clintons. But the thing is, it isn't working so well anymore. Indeed, there is good evidence to suggest that it is backfiring. People really do seem to want something new and something better than this dreck. I used to have some small measure of sympathy for the Clintons, for the way they were incessantly hammered by the right clear across the length of their presidency. Not a lot, mind you - because they were fundamentally putzes, and because they were dumb enough not to fight back all through that time - but some. But watching Bill go all Rove on Obama, including the race-baiting, in order jam Hillary (oh, and a certain other individual) back into the White House was the complete end of the line for me. Seeing her now claiming Florida as a victory and vowing to fight to seat those delegates after previously trashing the state for scheduling its primary early back when she was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire was just more of the same. This is just nauseating.
But what to do now? I suspect Clintonism may be a spent force, and not a moment too soon. It's bad enough that she's the one hope that Republicans have of winning the White House for yet another term. (What a great idea to nominate that candidate, eh?!) But it's worse the degree to which they degrade American politics and taint progressivism, even by their remotest proximity to it (being a Democrat doesn't make any or all of your policies liberal - just ask the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese babies Lyndon Johnson napalmed). I really don't know what cards they can play now, other than their money. Bill being Bill not only didn't help, but hurt their campaign in South Carolina and nationally. What else can they do? Have Hill be Hill? Is there even any such thing inside the robot? And, besides, she already pulled out her hanky and tried that one in New Hampshire. How many times can you do that? It feels a lot like the presidential ship might have sailed for 2008 and they're left standing on the dock. Bummer, eh?
At the same time that the last shard of non-antagonism that I ever felt toward the Clintons has disappeared, I must admit that I've warmed up to Barack Obama a bit over the last week. I very much appreciate that he fought back against the Clintons. He'll never get my endorsement unless he shows that he can, because he'll most assuredly need to should he win the nomination. I'm about as interested in having another Kerry or Dukakis as the Democratic nominee as I am in contracting a nasty dose of the clap. Thanks, but no - I'll pass.
I'm also liking Obama better the more I see him because I think he is pretty authentic, at the end of the day. That ain't hard to pull off when you're standing next to John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, mind you, the latter of whom is the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party. (I try not to envision the concept of the two of them having sex - fortunately, I can't imagine it wouldn't last long - but I can't help thinking that their love child would look an awful lot like a stick of margarine. And would be about as yummy.) But Obama has a non-pandering seriousness of purpose that I do find authentic and therefore attractive. Watch him on stage before and during the delivery of a speech. He doesn't do that plastic smile bit that other candidates do, or - worse - the ubiquitous and dreaded pointing gleefully at some member of the audience trick and mouthing some faux insider message. And his speeches are serious, not rah-rah. I still find them a bit airy, though on closer inspection he really does say a lot of the right things. I just wish he'd emphasize more the fight we're in, and the depravity of the enemy, d.b.a. the Republican Party. This country and this world are in disastrous condition. It's crucial now to name names, if for no other reason than to make sure we don't come back this way again.
The other wild thing is that a lot of Republicans actually like Obama, from what I can tell. That totally spooks me, and makes me wonder what I'm missing. But, truthfully, I don't think he's that much different than Hillary ideologically, and I do think he'd make a much stronger candidate against anyone they tossed up there, so I suspect it may be a genuine affection. Maybe Obama really could drag the country back together again. And I do think they'd have to be very careful how they went after candidate or president Obama, otherwise risking a boomerang of sympathy, the phenomenon henceforth to be known after last week as the "Bill Clinton effect".
Anyhow, there's a party in deep trouble if ever you've seen one. Their only candidate who can win is hated by the kleptocratic establishment for only being willing to rip off three-fourths of the national wealth on behalf of the ruling class, rather than all of it. It's truly delightful to see the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter foaming at the mouth when considering the prospect of McCain getting the nomination. The guy loves Clarence Thomas, loves the war, wants more of both, is down for making the tax cuts permanent, and opposes abortion across the board. But he is, alas, not conservative enough for this lot. Can you imagine? If you were ever inclined not to be afraid, very afraid, about the right in America, that notion ought to reorient your head just a bit.
Their other choice is the real deal - Morphing Mitt himself - the true conservative, the man who never met a voter whom he couldn't find a way to slobber all over. This guy's a one-man pander-fest. Even Republicans hate him (but the money people, of course, never let sentiment get in the way of a healthy profit margin). What a looney, too. Did you see him riffing in his speech after losing (again) in Florida? About all the things America asked their government in Washington to do, and it didn't. No doubt that's because we've had a Democrat in the White House for 20 of the last 28 years! Right?! Er, wait a minute - did I get that backwards...?
What a week it's been in presidential politics. Hillary has become unglued. Obama is now imbued. McCain is back from the dead, while Giuliani and Edwards have gone off life-support. Even Kucinich is no more. And the only thing more frightening than the prospect of a Mitt Romney presidency - the actual current president - gave his state of the onion address this week, a pathetic yawner notable only for its sheer lack of ambition and a recounting of the distance we've fallen. All that remains now is the petulance. At least that hasn't changed. Just the same, what the hell is with the Democrats giving this guy the warm treatment in the halls of Congress? This is not just some president who should be respected because of his office. This is a home-wrecker. This is a destroyer of the same Constitution that created the very Congress hosting him. This is a guy who has spent seven years turning Congress (with a lot of their own help) into the equivalent of the human appendix. You might as well give standing ovations to George III, you know? Both are equally anathema to American constitutional democracy.
But now we're down to four, and perhaps even less after Super-Duper Tuesday right around the corner. The bad news is that it looks a lot like McCain for the GOP. He is clearly their best chance at the White House. If the Dems are stupid enough to go with Hillary, I have a hard time seeing McCain losing. Only Democrats could find a way to fumble in 2008, when everything imaginable is going their way (everything except that they're Democrats, of course). Maybe if George Washington himself came back and stumped for the Democratic nominee they could possibly have more going for them than they do now. Maybe. Maybe if Jesus showed up and ID'd Cheney as the anti-Christ might the Democrats have slightly better conditions for winning this year. Not necessarily, though. And yet still there's something of a chance that they would blow it, and probably every chance they would if they pick Clinton as their standard-bearer.
Progressives can hope that Romney pulls it out and buys his party's nomination, which is still the best bet for Democrats locking it up. Short of that, it's time to start thinking about the shape of these potential White Houses. Hillary is the most predictable of the three. She'll be the epitome of safeness, moderation and poll-driven nickel-and-dime politics. Four years later, not a damn thing would have changed. McCain, on the other hand, could actually be a bit interesting as president. I see him as far less the captain of his party than its long-suffering captive. Given that he could put together a fat popular and governing coalition of independents and Democrats whilst taming elements of his own party, he could actually achieve some unexpected results, and he'd be in a hurry to do so, too. He'd be Unchained McCain, to be sure, and the DeLays and Limbaughs of this world would be crushed when they got in his way. No doubt he would make some horrendous choices for the federal courts, but otherwise - even on Iraq - I don't think we know exactly what McCain would actually do, other than not sit still. Some of it could even be quite progressive. This could be an 'only Nixon could go to China' moment, times three or four.
That leaves Obama, the obvious choice - though, unfortunately, for me still as much by default as the lesser of evils than on his own merits. I'm afraid my expectations for what he might do would be for something well less than bold initiatives, progressive or otherwise. The constant comparison to JFK may be more instructive than people realize or intend. The 35th American president to this day - especially today - was a lot longer on symbolism than real substance, especially of the progressive kind. My guess is that Obama would likely be the same, in both respects: Lots of aren't-we-all-together-now rhetoric, little substantive change.
It sure is true that we could do a lot better than that. But we also know that we could do one heck of a lot worse.
Because we are.
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
50 Comments so far
Show All"Hillary Clinton has been thoroughly vetted, and will be able to fight the Republican smear machine..."
Problem is she never beat it. Never. The Clintons ALWAYS compromised (triangulated)in attempt to innoculate themselves--they never really stood strong--they ALWAYS caved--and the party under Clinton DLC sway, still does. Truth be told, Hillary is a lousy politician, but still a politician. She is a horrendous speaker--in terms of style and interest and she filabusters continually--filling space with words rather than actually saying anything. She is stiff, snide and smug as well as uninspiring and the Right still hates her. The Clintons don't stand for anything other than themselves so they sell-out party and ultimately country. Truth be told, her experience is her husband's and the only way she clawed her way up was by staying with a man who abused her. It was through sympathy and her husband that she got her foot in the door and that is a terrible role model for women. Has anyone noticed that Clinton's touted experience is a record of failure? Why the hell would anyone want her in charge of healthcare considering whose pocket she is in?
Does anyone ever think about these things????
Sorry Max, that "race card" stunt Hillary and Bill teamed up to pull in South Carolina is a perfect example of why I would never vote for Hillary. I don't vote for sleazy politicians. And as a result of that, she lost 50% of the Black support she previously had. Serves her damn right.
With Hillary there's no integrity and her goal is self gratification, not public service. I don't sense that with Obama. And I could be wrong about him, but he used his law degree to work as a community activist lawyer while Hillary sat on Wal-Mart's board of directors. I hope I'm not wrong, and I'm willing to take a chance. In 44 years, I only voted for a Democrat twice for President (I made a mistake with LBJ and held my nose for Mcgovern).
Even before Bill Clinton went to Arkansas to hold Hillary's hand and watch them fry retarded Ricky Ray Nelson I knew he was a fraud. But I had read about his secret meetings with the big five insurance CEOs at Jackson Hole. That's all I needed to know about him. Of course all his populist talk was a lie anyway.
Obama feels different to me. He didn't stoop to the Clintons' level when they were pulling their "Willy Horton" on him, but he did defend himself so it's good to see he won't roll over like Gore or Kerry. And unlike the Clintons who pretend to care about the little people while selling them out, I think Obama really does care.
kathyodat
I feel like a member of the Donner party being lectured on the righteousness-- and in any case, the inevitability-- of dining on the corpses of fellow travellers in order to survive.
Dark meat or white meat? No matter! These corpses are certified disease-free and fully digestible. It may not be something we'd choose to eat, but one must needs face up to the circumstances. Besides-- it tastes like chicken!
I consider myself progressive, but also a realist. I don't find Obama that different from Clinton. Wait, yes I do. Hillary Clinton has been thoroughly vetted, and will be able to fight the Republican smear machine. Obama is not ready, and the insidious racism in this country will torpedo his chances.
I had no idea that progressivism had such a large measure of naiveté in it. Just substitute "Obama" for "Hillary" in the comments above. It's quite telling. For instance, "I agree that with [Obama] it's all about [himself]." Can anyone say that's not true? *All* politicians are in it for themselves.
If we have any hope of rolling back some of the mistakes of the past 7-8 years, we need a Democratic super majority in Congress. We know a majority isn't enough. If we don't support the Democratic nominee in November, how much chance do we have at any moderate, let alone progressive, legislation (not to mention judicial appointments, social and economic policy)? Throw your vote to a 3d party candidate, we know the result of that "principled" stance. Whether you can admit it or not, Hillary will be better for the environment, the judiciary, the economy, labor, health and human services, and international relations than any Republican. To those who decry the acts of "politics" in political campaigning, I respectfully ask that you get over it.
I agree that with Hillary it's all about herself. Only a narcissist dedicated to staying attached to power would weather multiple affairs right under her nose and in public without leaving. When there's no there there, why not just stay until she gets the payoff she so desperately wants.
i'm with rudyjo, another oregon green who will not vote for clinton, no doubts. green or go home.
As far as Obama, his senior foreign plicy advisor is Zbiggy B, who is on the side of The Devils, so what's the difference.
RE Z.B:
"····In January 1998, in an interview with the French
journal {Le Nouvel Observateur}, former U.S. National
Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, an advocate of a
``Clash of Civilizations'' between the West and Islam,
confirmed that, indeed, secret CIA support to the
mujahideen started six months before the date given
officially.
The secret support was intended as a
provocation to the Russians, to lure them into the
"Afghan trap.'' Brzezinski stated: "According to the
official version of history, CIA aid to the mujahideen
began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army
invaded Afghanistan, on Dec. 24, 1979
But the reality, ecretly guarded until now, is completely the opposite:
Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter
signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents
of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I
wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him
that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet
military intervention.''
····When asked if he regretted that provocation today,
Brzezinski replied, ``Regret what? That secret operation
was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the
Russians into the Afghan trap--the day that the Soviets
officially crossed the border, I wrote to President
Carter: `We now have the opportunity of giving to the
U.S.S.R. its Vietnam War.' Indeed, for almost ten years,
Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable by the
government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet
empire. What is most important to the history of the
world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire?
Some whipped-up Muslims or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the Cold War?''
So here is your 'change' candidate and here is your Lieberman-style 'hope'. I wish I could vote for Martin Luther King, Jr. Instead, we get Obama, Speaker of Platitudes, Worthy of Nothing, King of Going Along to GET ALONG.
"The other wild thing is that a lot of Republicans actually like Obama, from what I can tell. That totally spooks me, and makes me wonder what I'm missing."
Just wait to see what the repugs have to say about Barack Husein Obama in the general election.
Little Brother - Nice post, my sentiments exactly!
"And his win in South Carolina was a racist win - he won most of the black vote because he is black. "
Yup thats right. Of course you also do know that every single American President in the last two hundred and fifty years has won thanks to racist White votes.
The other wild thing is that a lot of Republicans actually like Obama, from what I can tell. That totally spooks me, and makes me wonder what I'm missing.
_________________________________________________________
Go with that thought, Professor. Or maybe Oprah can explain it to you.
To repeat myself: I've tossed away the shovel, kicked off the hip boots, and have retreated into a Moon Suit.
The Obama mega-hype is rising higher and faster than Jack's magic beanstalk– mankind hasn't witnessed anything like this since the construction of the Tower of Babel.
Perhaps the Dominionist elements have indeed succeeded in triggering the Last Days, and this is indeed the Second Coming.
Parenthetically, I'm appalled by the utterly puerile, smarmy, atavistic Amerikan pseudo-royalism growing like kudzu in both the corporate media and the blogosphere: the ostensibly profound question of whether Obama, now anointed by "the last living heir of John F. Kennedy" as metaphysical successor to the fantastic and mystical realm of Camelot, Amerikan Style, is truly the second coming of JFK or RFK.
The trash-tabloid Huffington Post is rife with such infantile melodrama, and I suppose it does put asses in the seats, which is really what our political show-biz is all about.
Obama may be the second coming of William Jennings Bryan, though, also a virtuoso orator. It's predictable that a citizenry hungry for even the illusion of morality and positive change would be especially susceptible to such a spellbinder. There's trouble in River City, but by God, River City's gonna have its boys' band! Carpe diem!
You gotta feel the magic! Don't you feel it? What's wrong with you, anyway?
(For those familiar with "Lord of the Rings", I'm reminded of the Voice of Saruman-- not that I believe Obama is essentially malign or corrupt, just that in the last several days, the enthralled are attracted to him like the proverbial moth to the flame. Sometimes the brightest light source around turns out to be a Bug Zapper after all.)
For whatever reason, Obama's charisma doesn't leave me feeling all warm & runny inside. It rings a little too pseudo-Lincolnesque to my ear.
Alas! the anti-intellectual Amerikan political weltanschauung has long since consigned George Santayana to the Memory Hole, along with his classic admonition that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". Well, although I very much respect and admire Jimmy Carter-- Bill Clinton, not so much-- I well remember a similar infatuation with the candidate(s) as a purifying blast of fresh, clean air supposedly destined to blow away the stale misfeasance of the incumbent administration and return us to the pre-imperialist constitutional democracy that eroded during the past century. We saw how that worked out, even though many of us manifestly sort of disremember it when the Obama zephyr blows through our hair.
Pardon my cranky wailing and gnashing of teeth.
And fee, fie, foe, fum!
Sadly, it's hard to ward off the cynicism that is understandable in many posts above. It is true that a green party candidate, a Kucinich, a Gravel, or a Nader is very very unlikely to win this election. Grass roots organizing is the only way to improve our chances every two years or four. If Obama can bring the youth into electoral politics, it would portend a percolation up rather than the top down, charismatic authority figures we're used to. We now that those who get involved in Obama's campiagn are likely to remain Democrats. Yes, we also have to fight for free and fair elections, or none of this blarney will mater. The President is just a figure head who cannot do much without the congress, corporate acquiescence, and the now stacked Supreme Court which will have 3 critical seats turnover in the next four years.
We must take a long view. Obama is, in my view, more of a visionary and a leader than the billary Clintons ever could be. With Madeline Albright, Sandy Burger, Richard Holbrook, et al, this line-up is far more regressive, reactionary and reckless than I would expect of Obama. And McCain is worse. this crew of Clintons brought us E. Timoor, the 1998 bombing for regime change while the sanctions were imposed that killed 400,000 Iraqis. And don't forget Kosovo, Somalia, etc.
Of the options, I'll take a chance on Obama.
FVHorn:
"I just don't think any of the red states would go to a black dude with a Muslim name and African father, Obama."
Black dude you say. Well here's to black dudes and white chicks.
And on the issue of so called black racism. The following are dictionary definitions of racism:
rac·ism [rey-siz-uhm] –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Most ( and I mean most) African Americans probably are not racist. Some might be prejudiced maybe, not racist. What's the percentage of so-called Black people that truly believe they are SUPERIOR, not EQUAL, to other races? Or that actually set up institutions, governments, or policies that foster discrimination. Black restaurants, clubs, churches, colleges and other institutions were always accessible to white people. Okay, maybe not the Nation of Islam, but you know what I mean.
It's probably that whole slavery, lynching, Jim Crow, poll tax, Rodney King, James Byrd (Texas man dragged behind a pickup till his body broke apart) thing that makes us Black dudes and Black chicks a bit weary. I could give many more examples but I think you get the point.
Not to say that this qualifies Obama as president. But to chalk up his win in South Carolina to "black" RACISM is at best misguided. If it were indeed racism, then "black" people would have no problem voting for ANY "black" person for president over any white person simply because they believe that "black" people are SUPERIOR to white people. Somehow I just can't see the AVERAGE black dude or chick voting for say Eddie Murphy (if he were to run) over John Edwards. I mean "Beverly Hills Cop 1,2 and 3" were funny but I'm not sure we as black people could trust Eddie to come up with a sound economy or healthcare policy. And I shudder to think about his Supreme Court appointments. Also if who "black" people chose to support for president had anything to do with Black racism, then we might have gotten close to President Alan Keyes. (Okay you can stop screaming now!)
Now I will grant that for "black" South Carolinians it may be a feeling that as a person considered to be "Black", in some way Obama may relate to or have some insight to the sentiments of African American people. The irony of all of this is that Obama really is an African American, that is having a truly African father and American mother. Most of us black dudes and black chicks are just Americans originally of African descent. Not to parse words of course.
"...But the greatest of these is love" I Corintians 13:13
Hey, if you want a woman president, why not bring Margaret Thatcher over from England? Or maybe Phyllis Schafly, she's been politically active for ages? Maybe Elizabeth Dole would do? Or maybe Condi Rice?
If you want to continue the last 30 years of uninterrupted presidents who follow the same pro-war, pro-corporate rule line of thinking, just vote Hillary. Reagan=Bush=Clinton=Bush=Clinton= ...
Studies have shown that most people who vote for a Presidential candidate think that candidate believes what they believe. There were some incredible numbers among Bush voters, including I think that something like 60% of them thought Bush supported Kyoto.
Obama plays this masterfully. He stands up and says a lot of phrases that are all well tested by his pollsters. "Hope" and "Change" must be the words that score the highest with the pollsters, as Obama uses them constantly. And he's stolen the cadences of a black preacher, so he almost sounds like MLK sometimes.
But all that's on the surface. There's nothing underneath. There's nothing there to tell you what type of 'change' he'll bring. That's left to the imagination of the listener. So each listener believes Obama believes in th type of change that they believe in. With no details given, there's nothing to break that illusion.
Obama is the latest luxury car. So everyone is ooing and ahhing. He is sleek and the exhaust sounds good. But look under the hood and there is no engine there.
Obama supported Lieberman as an Independent in the Connecticut Senate race. No other candidate did. For this, he lost my confidence. Republicans like him because they see him as the Black Lieberman. He won't rock their capitalist boat with corporate taxes nor taxes on the rich.
He has said NOTHING about progressive issues that doesn't sound like, "can't we all just get along?" That is the Surrender Song of the current Democratic bunch in Congress, straight from the playlist of one Joementum Lieberman. And I am sick and tired of hearing how HE was against the war - but voted yes on every appropriation when he was actually IN Congress. Please, heard it already! But he seems to believe it elevates him from Hillary, so he repeats it endlessly like Rudy's 9-11 mantra.
And his win in South Carolina was a racist win - he won most of the black vote because he is black. And in South Carolina, most of the white people are long-gone from the Democratic party. But Bill Clinton was pilloried for pointing out this inconvenient truth. Can't mention black racism.
Really, my favorite candidates are all gone. Either of the remaining Democrats are tweedle-dee-dum. Both are better than any Republican on offer though. I believe Hillary has the better chance to win in the general. I just don't think any of the red states would go to a black dude with a Muslim name and African father, Obama. Maybe later for that, maybe now he can be Vice-President, as he says he wants to get along and wants unity. Remember, almost none of America reads CommonDreams, or Gore and Kerry and Kucinich would have been made President
And let's get some women's sexism into this damn campagin, and give a win to a Democrat in November. First woman president. For that 60% of the electorate that is of the female persuasion. The rest is just tweedle dum-de-dum.
Rudyjo -- "My guess is that if Hillary wins the nomination, many Obama supporters will not vote for her, while many Clinton supporters will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination"
This is an accurate observation. A lot of Progressives are able to muff it and bite into the Obama pill but will not be able to do the same for HillBilly. The corollary is also true but to a lesser extent and that is a lot of white, right-wing Democrats (trust me there are tons of them) will probably go the McCain way as they will never be able to bring themselves to vote for a Black man.
This is truly a great and funny piece that helps alleviate the nausea a bit. Thanks to David Michael Green.
And don't forget the Bloomberg wild card. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg has the money to buy his way into the election as a very late-stage "independent" alternative, or as a "compromise" if the Repugs should get stuck at their convention.
And Al Gore could come in late in the game. Or even a true independent like McKinney or Nader, who has enough name recognition not to win, but to upset the whole-preprogrammed apple-cart.
Chunga's Revenge: I am registered in the green party of Oregon. I will most likely vote for
Obama, if it's Clinton, whoever is on the Green ticket as I did for Nader the last two elections.
Well, folks, this Progressive will NOT vote Democrat in November. I've voted Democrat in every election since 1968 but not this time. I shall vote Green. But then I'm not certain we'll really be allowed an honest election anyway. By the by, anyone really think any of the current Republican candidates will be the actual nominee in November? I'm guessing it'll be darling Jeb! Or maybe Karl Rove and friends will allow a Democrat to win this time and then they'll bring Jeb in on a white horse in 2012!
Yes onelove a John McCain or Mitt Romney presidency will be a real step forward. Much more preferable to another Clinton.
Excellent article!
Hillary and Bill's inflated egos keep them from doing what is in the best interests of the Democratic party and the nation.
Bush, Clinton, Bush, ...another Clinton? PLEASE NO!
Let's move forward and leave the past where it belongs.
So Rudyjo, what do you expect those enlightened Obama supporters will do if Clinton takes the nomination, vote Republican, or stay home and let the Republicans take the White house? You don't actually believe they will vote Green do you? Now there is an exciting thought!
"It's bad enough that she's the one hope that Republicans have of winning the White House for yet another term."
This is a absurd statement. The republicans actualy have two good hopes of winning the white house in 2008. And they are the two Democrats left in the running for that nomination. Way to go Democrats! What a bunch of losers.
Actually Clinton has a much better chance of winning than Obama, and if she gets the nomination I think she will be the next president.
"Warm up" to Barack Husein Obama all you like David Michael Green, and help nominate him to the losercrat party if you like, but do not have any illusions, he will not be elected president in 2008.
My guess is that if Hillary wins the nomination, many Obama supporters will not vote for her, while many Clinton supporters will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.
Clinton and Edwards did not vote for more inspectors. They voted for war. In fact, the resolution that Clinton and Edwards voted for has no conditions attached to it. It is a resolution for war to invade and occupy Iraq for any reason Bush determines.
What H.J. Resolution 114 "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq" actually says:
"Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
[Section 8(a)(1): SEC. 8. (a) Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred–(1) from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution), including any provision contained in any appropriation Act, unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/warpower.htm]
"The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to—(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/october02/houseres_10-10-02.pdf
"Some seek to rewrite history. They argue that they weren't really voting for war, they were voting for inspectors, or for diplomacy. But the Congress, the Administration, the media, and the American people all understood what we were debating in the fall of 2002. This was a vote about whether or not to go to war. That's the truth as we all understood it then, and as we need to understand it now. And we need to ask those who voted for the war: how can you give the President a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it?…
We thought we learned this lesson. After Vietnam, Congress swore it would never again be duped into war, and even wrote a new law — the War Powers Act — to ensure it would not repeat its mistakes. But no law can force a Congress to stand up to the President. No law can make Senators read the intelligence that showed the President was overstating the case for war. No law can give Congress a backbone if it refuses to stand up as the co-equal branch the Constitution made it.
That is why it is not enough to change parties. It is time to change our politics. We don't need another President who puts politics and loyalty over candor. We don't need another President who thinks big but doesn't feel the need to tell the American people what they think. We don't need another President who shuts the door on the American people when they make policy. The American people are not the problem in this country - they are the answer. And it's time we had a President who acted like that."- Barack Obama, probably the next President of the United States
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27....
"Clinton: I didn't think I was voting for the war"
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/31/clinton_i_didnt_th...
"Hillary Clinton on Iraq"
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802
"All of us have heard this term 'preventative war' since the earliest days of Hitler. I recall that is about the first time I heard it. In this day and time… I don't believe there is such a thing; and, frankly, I wouldn't even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"As Blair has said, in war there will be civilian was well as military casualties. There is, too, as both Britain and America agree, some risk of Saddam using or transferring his weapons to terrorists. There is as well the possibility that more angry young Muslims can be recruited to terrorism. But if we leave Iraq with chemical and biological weapons, after 12 years of defiance, there is a considerable risk that one day these weapons will fall into the wrong hands and put many more lives at risk than will be lost in overthrowing Saddam." -Bill Clinton, March 18, 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,916233,00.html
"If a political party does not have its foundation in the determination to advance a cause that is right and that is moral, then it is not a political party; it is merely a conspiracy to seize power."- Dwight D. Eisenhower
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower
"During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq "from the beginning" - a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html
"I did though at least expect him to correct the false statements he made when he was trying to protect the Presidency. Instead, he talked about it as though I had laid it all out there for the taking. I was the buffet and he just couldn't resist the dessert."- Monica Lewinsky
http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2004-06-25-lewinsky-clinton_x.ht...
"When I think of the person that I thought was Bill Clinton, I think he had genuine remorse. When I think of the person that I now see is 100 percent politician, I think he's sorry he got caught."- Monica Lewinsky
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/04/lewinsky.interview/
"The real gamble is having the same old folks doing the same old things again and expecting a different result. That is not an approach we can afford."- Barack Obama
"The pundits judged the political winds to be blowing in the direction of the President. Despite - or perhaps because of how much experience they had in Washington, too many politicians feared looking weak and failed to ask hard questions. Too many took the President at his word instead of reading the intelligence for themselves. Congress gave the President the authority to go to war. Our only opportunity to stop the war was lost.
I made a different judgment. I thought our priority had to be finishing the fight in Afghanistan. I spoke out against what I called "a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about, 'an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.' The full accounting of those costs and consequences will only be known to history. But the picture is beginning to come into focus."- Barack Obama
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Hillary and Barack O = Bush-Lite Barack O tastes great and Hillary is less filling--Say, now wouldn't that be a great campaign slogan in the America of 2008?!
"….. wonderfully aggressive 60's agenda"
How could anyone be so deluded as to think Hillary has a 60's agenda? There is absolutely nothing in her record to suggest this. She's a lying bitch, so she might lie and suggest that she might do this if she thinks that's what her audience wants. But with any pol, especially Dems, you have to ignore the words and watch the actions.
Hillary is a rich white girl from a Republican, Methodist family who went to elite private schools. She did show a brief burst of left-wing activism in the early 70's, but quickly put it aside.
She's been a corporate lawyer. She's been part of a Clinton governorship in Arkansas that constantly sucked up to corporate money and did corporate bidding. A good example is Tyson chicken which runs processing plants in Ark. That's a dangerous nasty job that regularly costs workers fingers and hands. The Clintons did nothing for worker safety while taking money and sucking up to Tyson chicken.
This carried through to the White House. Was Hillary's health plan some wonderful 60's vision. Of course not. It as a protection act to protect HMO and insurance company profits. The American people were demanding change, and Hillary promoted fake change really just protected the crooks who've been ripping us off.
The entire Clinton years was an exercise in sucking up to corporate power and money. Thus we got NAFTA and WTO and Welfare Reform and Telecom Reform (say hello to Clear Channel) and Banking Reform (say hello to today's recession) and a host of corporate friendly bills.
Just remember the Lincoln bedroom and the financing of the Clinton's 96 campaign. The Lincolm bedroom stuff was symbolic of the way they suck up to money and corporations.
Of course, you can always just go read yesterday's story about her time on the board of WAL-MART.
You'd have to be delusional to think Hillary has a wonderful 60's agenda. You have to completely ignore 30 years of a ACTIONS she's laid down. Both Clinton's will lie to get what they want. So yes, if Hillary thinks you want to hear about a 60's agenda, she'll say it. But like with any con-person, you have ignore the patter and the lies and look at facts and actions. Her actions make the concept of her having a wonderful 60's agenda completely laughable.
If you believe in that, call me. I can give you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge.
Prof. Green is guilty of sloppy thinking.
Yes, the Clintons are awful. It doesn't follow, though, that another candidate with the same positions is good.
I'm going to stick my neck out a bit here and go so far as to venture that another candidate with the same positions would also be awful.
Oooooh, that darn logic!
Check out the Green Party. Cynthia McKinney is already campaigning for that nomination. And I'd love it if Mr. Nader joined the competition. A political debate between them would be so much better than anything between Obama and Hillary. Of course, CNN would never show it to the American people, so if it happens you'll probably have to find it on YouTube or something.
We can vote for 'more military spending, more war, fewer jobs and fewer rights'. Or we can start building an alternative. If we never build that alternative ourselves, then we'll never get it because the corporate funded candidates, the corporate parties and the corporate media sure aren't going to do it for us and just give it to us. We need to build it and we need to fight and struggle for it.
But we need to start building that alternative, and I can't think of a better time than 2008 to really begin. If all the people who don't want 'more military spending, more war, fewer jobs and fewer rights' were to join in on that work, we could become a powerful force this year.
What Obama revolution? What has he actually said that would lead anyone to believe this? Nothing. While he slings around words like 'hope' and 'change' , he never says anything to make anyone believe he'd actually deliver the change that most people who comment on CD would want.
There's a great piece by Dave Lindorff up on the web yesterday where he looks at the four remaining survivors left on the island. Its way to real and realistic for CD to post apparently. Here's his part on Obama. I love the above characterization of Hillary. But I think the following is the truth about Obama too.
http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff01312008.html
---------------
And then there is Barack Obama, a man who is trying to gain the presidency on sheer sophistry. "Change" is his mantra, but change to what? He doesn't really say. His whole campaign is a feel-good exercise in ducking the issues. The United States has been pillaged relentlessly since at least the early 1970s, when Richard Nixon paved the way, with his recognition of China, for the wholesale offshoring of American industry to Asia. Administrations since then, Democratic and Republican, have been competing with each hasten the hollowing out of the American economy. Will Obama "change" this? No. He has no plan to undo the North American Free Trade Act, or to demand changes in the World Trade Organization rules. American labor unions are dying. Does Obama plan to "change" that by undoing decades of one-sided laws and regulations making it easy for employers to crush unions? No. He hasn't said a word about defending, much less expanding the rights of workers. Health care is in crisis. Does Obama have a solution? No. He is wedded to the same approach as Hillary Clinton, which leaves the blood-sucking insurance industry in charge of financing (and denying) care. The US is being bled to death by military expenditures, which in total account for more than half of the US budget when honestly accounted for in full. Does Obama plan to slash that spending, which is greater than all the military budgets of the rest of the world's nations combined? No. He has not said a word about cutting military spending (nor is he committed to ending the Iraq occupation). The Constitution has been undermined, particularly over the last six years, to the point that it is unrecognizable, with the presidency now more appropriately called an elected dictator, and Congress now little more than a talk shop. Does Obama plan to "change" that by voluntarily restoring the presidency to what it is supposed to be: just on co-equal branch of a tripartite government? He hasn't said a word about restoring checks and balances. Obama's "change" rhetoric is as empty as was Ronald Reagan's talk about America's being a "shining city on a hill."
In the choice between a bomber, a bummer, a betrayer and Obama, it hardly matters who comes out on top. My guess is whoever wins, we get more military spending, more war, fewer jobs and fewer rights.
-----------------------
The most damning indictment of The Clintons and i feel better already !! the 'stick of margarine' swipe ofcourse had me on the floor spilling my guts !!
I agree with the first comment-
Obama might be a surprise but so far his politics are similar to Billary's. Too bad that Kucinich was presented as sort of a twerp, because his ideas were solid and proposed concrete actions to implement them; end the war, defund the industrial military complex and use that money to reinvest in our hard and soft infrastructure. Healthcare, education, basic research, roadways, bridges, ports, water supply, waste systems, etc.,etc.
This election is probably the most important in recent memory, it gives us a chance to redo - but I'm afraid our souls have become so rotted because of our complicity in the normaliztion of torture and implied support for the illegal and immoral agression and occupation of Iraq, that we will make the worse possible choice.
what's a true green progressive to do? i will not vote for clinton, and obama would be foolish to ask her as vp. do i go to mccain so the repukes can maintain the responsibility for this crap, maybe just stay home? clinton wil only give progressives and bad name and allow all the bs to be pinned on us again. obama is no saint, and his enviro/ energy policy needs a lot of work, but god i hope he gets the nod.
the clintons and the bushes the best america has to offer. . .what a country !
It looks like the GOP doesn't have anybody to run who can appeal to the varying streams of their constituents, yet the Democrats still have no FDR to step into the breach. We may have to vote for Obama and hope that his JFK delusions take hold.
"..... wonderfully aggressive 60's agenda"
Where do you people come up with this crap?
We could ONLY HOPE that she had a wonderfully aggressive 60's agenda, rather than a triangulation of the Rockefeller-Reagan-bush continuium
A Clinton Coronation or an Obama Revolution?
Hillary can't wait to put the finishing touches on her wonderfully aggressive 60's agenda, while Barack is at home in a tomorrow Hillary can't visit even in her dreams.
Hillary is thrilled with the chance to add more contributions to her amazing lifetime list, while Barack is thrilled with America's chances for real change when he is President.
Hillary is amazed at where she's been and what she's been able to accomplish, looking forward to recognition and vindication for her life's work, while Barack envisions efficiently accomplishing today's most pressing American policy goals and then moving forward to heal the world's common global challenges.
Hillary loves herself-in-power ruling over her former enemies, while Barack loves the-power-in-himself leading a unified America and world into a hopeful 21st century.
Shall generations await coronation of Jeb Bush into an inevitable succession of Clinton and Bush kings (and queen) reigning in hubris over a 20th century past? Or will we charge our servant Barack Obama to lead us into an American future of unimaginable possibilities?
(Nancy Pace blogs on breaking news at the intersection of politics, peace, culture and spirituality at www.epharmony.com.)
and here's some breaking news from the medical front: a previously-unknown syndrome called "electile dysfunction" has just been described. its chief symptom is the inability to become aroused about any of the front-runners. and no, cialis won't cure it.
You all sound like gossip columnists as you treat our elected officials as celebrities. These political and media whores are destroying our country.
Hoa binh
I would never have voted for Bill Clinton if I had known about his execution decision - it explains why he had no hesitation in bombing Iraq to soften it up for invasion in 1998. You cannot do such things and escape unscathed, even if you only do it once.
Oh, and it is too bad that the author is still viewing the smarmy obama through a rose colored tint.
But but but the Republicans are so much worse!
Hopefully, sooner or later, the picture of the Clintons becomes crystal clear for more and more observers. The sooner the better because until critical mass is reached we are going to hear the but, but, but....and any honest assesment of reality will be dismissed as whining or unrealistic demands for purity.
I almost posted that yesterday but after expressing it so many times for naught, I thought wtf.
Mexico is starting to look better everyday.
The Clinton's ARE giving my beautiful mind a needed respite from Bushics.
Re Obama, I can only hope that he means what he says here: 'We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient.
...You have called upon our leaders to adhere to the Constitution. You have sent a message to the halls of power that the American people will not permit the abuse of power – and demanded that we reclaim our core values by restoring the rule of law.
...I share your commitment to this cause, and will stand with you in the fights to come. And when I am President, the American people will once again be able to trust that their government will stand for justice, and will defend the liberties that we hold so dear as vigorously as we defend our security.'
Hope--because we have all been lied to so many times...
militantliberal: "I fear Clinton (which Clinton? does it matter?) will get the primary votes merely because of brand loyalty."
Exactly. People don't really want something new. They want something a tiny bit less old. I think Clinton gets the nomination, and then we might see McCain do much better than expected.
Great post, Nancy Pace. I've been noticing the distinction myself, that with Hillary it's all about herself, and Obama is calling us to reach for our dreams. No, he's not being very specific, although looking at his past accomplishments prior to the US Senate, I have an idea of what he would like to accomplish. Unfortunately the public is inattentive to details, and may well not notice the above distinction.
Our country is in crisis and we are at a crossroad. One group that seems to appreciate that are young people who are turning out in droves for Obama. Robert Scheer wrote a good article "Obama, Clinton and the War" and I include here a line from it. "Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction." I recommend his article. You can find it on Alternet.
On his positions, Obama is not my favorite choice, but based on what he has done in the past, he comes close. I admire his ability to create hope and excitement in people, especially young people, and my hope is that he will restore the rule of law, and that he will care as much about the downtrodden (which has become most of us now) as he did when he was a community activist lawyer on the Chicago streets.
kathyodat
Clinton's getting the most corporate money and is the favorite candidate of Israel (McCain next).
That's how I'm calling it for November. McInsane vs Mrs. BJ Clinton.
Gawd, I hope I'm wrong. In fact, I think I need a drink.
I fear Clinton (which Clinton? does it matter?) will get the primary votes merely because of brand loyalty. And do you realize how pathetic the US will look? Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, two families ruling the supposed republic from 1989 to 2017 like some old-style Latin American regime. And by 2016 surely the Bush family will produce its next creature. We aren't that poor in talented people, are we?
I would vote for Attila the Hun before I would vote for HRC/WJC or any of the DLC filth. This has nothing to do with blue dresses, race, or feminism. It has everything to do with disgusting filth that are bought and paid for Overseers on Master's Plantation that I would not cross the street to spit on.
The election should prove comical if nothing else.
Can a Black man run for Pres. without being executed by Nov 4? (given that he doesn't stand for anything that would frighten Master, the monsters probably won't execute him.)
Can a WOMAN be elected President in a country founded on and dedicated to white male supremacy? (given that she doesn't stand for anything that would frighten Master, white male America will NOT vote for a woman).
Whoever takes office on Jan 20, we get an Imperial Hoover, that's Herbert & John Edgar.
When I read the first six words, I thought I had written this piece. I wish I had as it explains exactly why I don't want Hillary Thatcher Clinton in the Senate let alone the White House.
I could not agree more with this piece. I disdain the republicans but the Clintons make me sick. Please don't vote for these people!