Time to Ditch Legacy Politics and Chart a New Direction

Five presidential contests in 16 years is a span of time and political cycles that should present a voter a variety of political choices.

For me, and anybody near my age of 35, it has not happened and will not if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton wins the Democratic nomination.

My misgivings about Clinton have as much to do with her name as they do her politics. If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, a Clinton or Bush will have been on every ballot since my first presidential vote in 1992. This royal succession did not start with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. My peers and I became politically aware in the 1980s during the vice presidency, and presidency, of the elder Bush.

Why stop the trend with the current generation of Bushes/Clintons? Chelsea Clinton for prez in 2016! She will be 36 by 2016, making her technically eligible to be president.

My generation has been called a lot of things, including Xers slackers, cynics. I propose the Bulinton Generation. We have weathered Lewinsky, impeachment, record deficits and the Iraq war - all formative events with the Bushes and Clintons at the core.

A comparison of the presidential choices for voters in their early to late 30s of our parents’ choices is a sad statement on how stagnant the two-party system has become.

The Gen Bulinton ballots have looked like this: 1992, Bush/Clinton; 1996, Clinton/Dole; 2000, Gore/Bush; 2004, Bush/Kerry; 2008, McCain/Clinton or Obama.

The first five elections my parents voted in started with Johnson/Goldwater in 1964; 1968, Nixon/Humphrey; 1972, Nixon/McGovern; 1976, Ford/Carter; 1980, Carter/Reagan.

This familial fatigue is wearing on voters. It is playing out in the Democratic contest with younger voters coming out in droves for Sen. Barack Obama.

Curious what others my age are thinking about this election, I turned to a living political encyclopedia, all-around good thinker and occasional Seattle Times op-ed contributor, Matt Zemek.

I shared with Zemek, 32, my worries about the future of the United States, and asked him how important he believes this election is for the nation. Via e-mail he responded, “Before we attain all the urgently needed reforms that will get our country back on track, we need a campaign and then an election result that will put our country in position to be healed.”

Zemek, an Obama supporter, was first eligible to vote in the 1996 election. He supported Sen. Bill Bradley in 2000, and Gov. Howard Dean in 2004. While the Obama/Clinton dynamic cleaves along age fault lines, Zemek believes this election offers an opportunity if the candidates break away from the campaigns we have grown up with.

“Younger people … see how politics (like other aspects of life) can be - and, one could say, needs to be - conducted in an outside-the-box manner that can substantially change the subculture in which political battles are waged,” he wrote. “If this underlying subculture can be changed, and if long-prevailing Beltway methods can be removed from ‘The Way The Game Is Played,’ the whole nature of politics - its possibilities and its guiding principles - will be entirely reshaped. This is the hope of young people and all who long for the kind of complete, systemic overhaul that would transform our country for the better.”

I could not agree more, and feel that Zemek’s comments deeply resonate with many voters.

A great nation of 300 million people should be able to come up with a non-Clinton to replace another Bush. How did the idealism of the baby boomers we hear so much about translate into the Clintons and George Bush in the White House? Is Obama the answer? I do not know. I do know that more of the same is not needed.

I believe Democrats have a chance to escape the family dynamics of the past two decades, and choose a candidate that truly offers a view different from the calcified politics dating back to NAFTA.

Ryan Blethen’s column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is rblethen@seattletimes.com.

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

26 Comments so far

JConrad March 14th, 2008 11:56 am

One of the classic expressions from the 60’s was, “Don’t trust anyone over 30 !”

In a similar manner today’s young voters sense they have been betrayed by the power structure that created the world they are about to inherit.

This generation gap generalization is still relevant and is one reason of many why an “establishment” politician like Clinton should not be given power by any voters.

locust March 14th, 2008 12:08 pm

The Dems will lose in November if they go with a win/lose paradigm.
Clinton and Obama will tear the party apart unless they UNITE the Democratic party, one way or another, and give up their own egotistic gain for the good of the country.

This ‘win at all costs’ political attitude leads right into McCain’s universe that we are ‘winning’ in Iraq and that the Dems will ‘lose’ the war. The Dems can never ‘win’ that argument.

The Dems can succeed on an ‘us versus them’ paradigm. A majority working together for its rights and freedoms.

locust talks about ‘uniting’ and changing the framing, working outside the box.
Yet locust reads, here and elsewhere, how one candidate will ‘win’ and the other ‘lose’. This dichotomy must disappoint half the Dems, either way.

United the Dems will succeed, divided they will lose.

BeForKids March 14th, 2008 12:10 pm

It’s great that young people are paying attention and that we have a candidate who proposes a different way of doing things. Say what you will about Obama, but he doesn’t stoop to Hillary’s tactics and that alone is a relief and presages the possibility of real change.

Not having been a Democrat for over 40 years I would consider supporting the Democratic party but only after flushing out the DLC, starting with Hillary, which in my opinion has destroyed it.

My oldest son, unfortunately prescient, predicts that the superdelegates will present Obama with their support only if he takes Hillary as his running mate. Regrettably that will send me back to Nader. I refuse to choke on a vote and no way will I vote for someone who for personal gain votes against banning cluster bombs - among many other felonious acts. I could wish my son is wrong, but he rarely is.

kathyodat

Stilba March 14th, 2008 12:49 pm

The biggest thing I hold against Clinton (even bigger than her stupid vote for war in 2003) is the notion that she is entitled to the presidency. We’ve all watched her plot this since 2000, carefully line everything up, vote, act and speak only to further this plotted-outcome. A political animal such as this could NEVER heal the US. She is exactly what we do not need. If McCain wasn’t so pro-war, I might even prefer him to her, if only for the reason that he does not carry that terrible attitude.

Nobody should be entitled to be a leader in this country. That entire mode of thinking is ugly and against all of America’s finer (forgotten) qualities. Hillary isn’t all bad, of course, but the moment I sense that entitlement argument from her (or worse, her supporters), I loathe and fear the prospect of her winning. Why did she have to be a product, a project, and not a person? I would have loved to vote for the first woman president …but I guess I’ll have to wait for someone more qualified.

BeForKids March 14th, 2008 12:59 pm

Stilba, I agree with you, you made a good point. We have an entitled class running this country. Not easy to break loose, they have all the power and money.

Obama is not part of that power elite. But the corporate media is. And it’s syncophants, “reporters”, are the mouthpieces.

kathyodat

since1492 March 14th, 2008 1:30 pm

Bill and Hillary are both products of a political system that robs you of your integrity if you stay too long. It’s a system that guarantees you have have to step on people to get ahead. Because dishonest people are running the government there is no way we are going to have just and fair laws. We don’t even really have a Democracy anymore at the national level. What we have is a government that is more interested in leading an empire than continuing to try and build a great country.
Instead of heading in a new direction we have to first put on the breaks. And kick out all the current backseat drivers.
Hoa binh

Daniel David March 14th, 2008 1:41 pm

“Is Obama the answer? I do not know”, the author says. Good grief. When McCain and Clinton are the only other two running, why doesn’t he “know”? Important subject, bad ending.

damnliberal March 14th, 2008 1:49 pm

Obama does present America a unique opportunity to elect a president that is informed by a very different intuition than anyone who has been able to launch a real campaign against the status quo. If he is the nominee, we could see a real debate happen. Obama can use the hugely insane attack against Iraq and the obscene amount that has been already spent on it to offer the voters a chance to have a real peace candidate. Obama can argue in a way that Hillary can’t that American foreign policy is too militaristic for the our own good.

McCain is embracing Bush more now than ever. He will argue for no surrender and then not be able to explain what victory in Iraq would look like. Victory in Iraq is very difficult to conceptualize. McCain will be stuck with Forrest Gump’s assessment, “Stupid is a stupid does.”

I am more optimistic than kathyodat because Obama’s campaign is on solid footing. Six weeks is plenty of time to destroy Hillary’s lead in Pennsylvania if Obama continues to run against the war and its horrible costs. So, far he has not been tempted to abandon his message and Hillary is still looking for hers. “My experience as Bill’s wife” is becoming a joke.

And if Obama is on a re-vote ballot in Michigan, and he has time to launch his campaign in Florida, he will reduce any lead Clinton has in March looking at June. Then uniting the party will be no big trick, because Obama’s message of change has longer coattails than Hillary’s huge negatives. Super delegates are for the most part elected politicians who will consider their own skin first.

Obama’s nomination will be perceived as being won fair and square and her supporters, for the most part will get behind Obama. Obama will be free to pick the person who can most balance his ticket. And there is a wide selection available.

This is a very competitive race and that give Obama a huge opportunity to get his message of change across. Bush has created a mess. The war, its effect on the economy and decades of failed policies has created much dissatisfaction in our country. The war on drugs and the filling of prisons, trade policies, foreign policy all are huge mistakes and the consequences have come home to roost. $4 gas, itself, is at least a once a week reminder to every voter of the need to change energy policy.

McCain campaigns for the extension of tax relief for the rich and for the continued disaster in Iraq. There is not much he offers except more of he same.

Meanwhile the huge crowds coming to see Obama and the excitement of a hotly contested race sucks the oxygen out of the McCain campaign. John looks like an old man, tired, out of ideas, with little idea of what the real problems of the country are.

I can hardly wait to see a President Obama fill stadiums that the pope can’t fill when he visits foreign countries. Most American’s have no idea how much the world longs for a change in American leadership and policy.

There is no reason to consider supporting Ralph Nader. He was wrong about Gore, and he is wrong about Obama. Like McCain, he is a tired old horse who really deserves to be put out to pasture.

rtdrury March 14th, 2008 2:32 pm

The audacity of elites exploiting the rabble’s hope is very motivating to the elites and paralyzing to the rabble, thereby perpetrating capitalist oppression-as-usual under the new “king”. God Bless The United States of America!!

ladyfractal March 14th, 2008 4:58 pm

(
all past societies FELL because of democracy!!!!)

This is not even wrong. Rome did not fall because of democracy and neither did Greece. For that matter the Babylonians and the Egyptians fell from their heights long before the idea of democracy was on anyone’s lips or papyrus. Democracy did not doom the Maya, the Aztec or the Anasazi. It played no part, what-so-ever, in the decline of the Dutch or Spanish Empires. Democracy did not hasten the demise of Imperial Japan or the Nazi’s, nor did it cause the fall of the Ottomans or the Hapsburgs. So, you were saying?

(
best to move to ireland if they had enough land…america’s 2 parties have BOTH the world wars going for GREED.. one with world war 111 on babies for greed and the other war on workers to enslave them…)

You’re not quite entirely sane, are you?

(work against abortionists)

Misogynistic claptrap.

(.. feminists and slavery to save the WORLD!!!)

Yet more misogynistic claptrap.

Dude, you missed your med-pass. Remember what your social worker told you the last time, you need to take your meds *before* you go out on the Internet.

Cheers
LF

BeForKids March 14th, 2008 5:39 pm

Hope you’re right, damnliberal. As I said, my son has an unpleasing history of accurately diagnosing what’s coming down. If Obama “chooses” Hillary, it might be hard to prove his arm was twisted, but she certainly doesn’t represent his theme of change.

kathyodat

BeForKids March 14th, 2008 5:41 pm

ladyfractal, trolls don’t go away when you feed them, they just argue back. I just scroll past.

kathyodat

COMarc March 14th, 2008 6:24 pm

What exactly is Obama’s ‘message of peace’.

So far its …
– fully fund the Iraq war.
– vote to fully fund every bloated Pentagon budget.
– Promise to expand the US military (add troops to both Army and Marines) which will expand Pentagon spending.
– lots of other promises to spend more on military pay, training and equipment, which will expand the Pentagon budget.
– Promise to keep troops in Iraq through 2012.
– Threaten to expand the war into Pakistan.
– Support Democratic ‘withdrawal plans’ with huge loopholes for leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. And which only ‘redeploy’ to other bases in the area. And which also rely on heavy use of airpower in densely populated areas that will kill many more innocent people.
– Go to AIPAC and tell them ‘all options are on the table’ with regard to Iran (when the Bushies were using exactly the same words to signal a nuclear attack).
– Tell an interviewer at the time of his 2004 convention speech that his policy on Iraq was very much in accord with Pres. Bush’s.

Yeah, I know he uses the word ‘change’ in every sentence of his stump speech, but don’t assume that what he’s saying matches what you want.

lizard March 14th, 2008 6:48 pm

The US has a 2 year campaign. UK does it in 4 months. Why? Because Americans like a long season to have the thrill of the race for first. Notice how coverage is about who will win the race and how one edges out the other and how that was accomplished. There is, however, a lot less coverage of the issues, and, in particular, of congressional races. This is indicative of an immature attitude toward elections and shows that the American population is politically, and otherwise, immature and incapable of fulfilling its responsabilities under a democratic system. When that is the case, corruption and concentration of power occurs. Such is now the state of affairs and one cannot expect Americans to mature quickly enough to avoid the painful resolution of this situation.

The emotional immaturity of Americans is a separate but equally important problem. The ease with which violence is resorted to and the high degree of religiosity are the types of behavior typical of children, which is why we contain them. Unless this problem is resolved, political accumen is not likely to follow. The answer, therefore, lies in the schools. Materialism, in the sense of obtaining an understanding of the world by observation and the use of logic, must displace religious thinking and emotionalism or progress toward a just and rational society will not occur.

snydly March 14th, 2008 9:07 pm

WE NEED NEW ROYAL FAMILIES

Kernel March 15th, 2008 12:06 am

COMark__I have to say you actually have a very good post there about what we may expect from Obama, and it is not at all what many are convinced of. I am glad to be able to really agree with you on something.

However, I am still with the half a loaf crowd, which will vote for either Dem, instead of the Repug no loaf crew, which would continue what we now have. My feeling is that if Clinton and Obama would go on the same ticket, it would be Clinton top spot and Obama vice, which would set him up nicely for Prez 2012.

sLiMsHaDy March 15th, 2008 1:10 am

The title of this article says it all. It is time to ditch legacy politics because it is long PAST time to do so.

Sadly,only smoke and mirrors are being presented though, and much of the public is blindly set to go forth on a “new path” that is very much a repackaging of same ole same ole.

sLiMsHaDy March 15th, 2008 2:45 am

“…hillary clinton votes yes to BOTH of these very evil wars… her voters have the lowest logics of all.”

Well, perhaps not THE lowest.

lizard March 15th, 2008 3:57 am

Correlational studies are difficult to interpret and can be very misleading. Tattos used to correlate with violent death but no longer do. Have tatoos become safer? No. The people who get tatooed have changed. Deaths associated with abortion are not due to the abortion but to the socioeconomic situation of those geting abortions. The intent seems to be to undermine the rights of women. We should help troubled teens, but not by forcing them to have children. Unstable teens don’t make good mothers. As the studies show, they are prone to committing suicide. Of course. They aren’t well to begin with, that’s why they had the abortion. This is a psychiatric problem, not an obstetric one.

cranky_chatter March 15th, 2008 8:40 am

bush clinton clinton bush bush

clinton clinton?

no wonder we support tyrannical monarchies and tin pot dictators.

we want to BE them.

DAB March 15th, 2008 10:17 am

Mrs. Clinton’s politics have become downright boring and unteresting. Rather than sticking to her message, she is running all over the place with the goalpost while picking a fight with Mr. Obama by misrepresenting everything he says - the politics of the past at its best.

Does she not have any policy ideas that are: new, creative, maverick or interesting that give hope to Americans for a brighter future.

Hillary’s politics of fear create unfounded panic and consternation in Americans at a time when they are yearning for: inspiration hope and change from the failed past of doom and gloom to a better and brighter future for all.

Being devoid of creative and interesting ideas, poor Mrs. Clinton has now resorted to using established losers and old redundant surrogates, such as the aged Feraro, to attack Mr. Obama - Is this “much of the same” the best Mrs. Clinton has to offer Americans and the rest of the world that is watching keenly?

These are certainly the signs of a campaign in serious trouble.

Do the decent face-saving thing Mrs. Clinton by bowing out gracefully before it is too late.

Rockerbabe1 March 15th, 2008 1:21 pm

Senator Clinton has lots of new ideas. . .the media is more interested in any disagreements and the clothes she is wearing; so hence, we the people do not get to really know her without a great effort on our part. She wants what so many other Americans want: global healthcare for all Americans, a balanced budget, increased energy self-sufficiency, a fairer tax system, fair and honest mortgage system for homebuyers, respect for the rights of women and all people, an end to the Iraq war and peace in the middle east - all the “OLD” problems that still plague us today. There are lots of other things, but that is for another day.
Geraldine Ferraro maybe up in age, but she is level headed, clear as a bell and a tireless warrior for the rights of women, yes woman. I have read her comments in their entirity from 3 different sources and she is not a racist. She spoke the truth. . .anyone with Obama’s credentials, but Obama, would have been laughed off the stage ages ago. Stop being so thinned skin about the unpleasant truth - Obama always seems so unpleasant when the truth about him is being spoken. When the media and America in general stops making the telling of the truth so horrendous, then maybe we will get more truth and less propagranda.

KCUSICK March 16th, 2008 3:32 pm

Stilba: Women are entitled to do long term planning its not just a guy thing.

And Im in full agreement with Geraldine Ferraro, Obama wouldn’t be a candidate if he wasn’t Black. He’s america’s weapon to disguise the profound sexism of the population.

mwf March 16th, 2008 6:30 pm

This primary election goes beyond the two remaining candidates. This primary election is about the future of the Democratic Party. Will the Democratic Party be a 50 state, grassroots, small donor party or a swing state, elite, large donor party? Which version of the Democratic party do you think will be more relevant?

cranky_chatter March 17th, 2008 2:48 am

exactly mwf

This is not about race and gender.

This is about the corporately dominated DLC insiders (Clinton), or someone MILDLY more progressive, that could help the DNC put out the tentstakes, and become more inclusive.

Obama is no saviour. He’s just mildly less insufferable and corrupt, than Clinton.

Whatever they’re packin under the hood.

megaronin March 17th, 2008 8:08 am

I want to say something about the pastor’s comments the media seems to be obsessing over. Church’s are living breathing entities and they are made of common folk who assemble for one purpose and that is to pray to a higher God. Any church founded on the zealousness and celebrity of one individual is not a true church. I do not believe Mr. Obama and the hundreds of other folks attending his church are there to be mindlessly wooed by some pastor swept up in the moment. What local church going citizen can honestly say they’ve gone to church every Sunday leaving the building feeling absolutely comfortable with their priest or pastor? It’s absolutely ludicrous.

I went to church almost twice a week during my college years. And I would say more often than not I was leaving the building with unanswered questions. But I kept going because I was going for God. I was going to pray to God for my family and for myself in tough times. I just think it is unjust to categorize all those people who may be there for their own reasons, because of one man’s over-zealousness. I think the man truly owes his church an apology, if he really supports Obama he should also apologize to Mr. Obama.

JConrad March 14th, 2008 11:56 am

One of the classic expressions from the 60’s was, “Don’t trust anyone over 30 !”

In a similar manner today’s young voters sense they have been betrayed by the power structure that created the world they are about to inherit.

This generation gap generalization is still relevant and is one reason of many why an “establishment” politician like Clinton should not be given power by any voters.
locust March 14th, 2008 12:08 pm

The Dems will lose in November if they go with a win/lose paradigm.
Clinton and Obama will tear the party apart unless they UNITE the Democratic party, one way or another, and give up their own egotistic gain for the good of the country.

This ‘win at all costs’ political attitude leads right into McCain’s universe that we are ‘winning’ in Iraq and that the Dems will ‘lose’ the war. The Dems can never ‘win’ that argument.

The Dems can succeed on an ‘us versus them’ paradigm. A majority working together for its rights and freedoms.

locust talks about ‘uniting’ and changing the framing, working outside the box.
Yet locust reads, here and elsewhere, how one candidate will ‘win’ and the other ‘lose’. This dichotomy must disappoint half the Dems, either way.

United the Dems will succeed, divided they will lose.
BeForKids March 14th, 2008 12:10 pm

It’s great that young people are paying attention and that we have a candidate who proposes a different way of doing things. Say what you will about Obama, but he doesn’t stoop to Hillary’s tactics and that alone is a relief and presages the possibility of real change.

Not having been a Democrat for over 40 years I would consider supporting the Democratic party but only after flushing out the DLC, starting with Hillary, which in my opinion has destroyed it.

My oldest son, unfortunately prescient, predicts that the superdelegates will present Obama with their support only if he takes Hillary as his running mate. Regrettably that will send me back to Nader. I refuse to choke on a vote and no way will I vote for someone who for personal gain votes against banning cluster bombs - among many other felonious acts. I could wish my son is wrong, but he rarely is.

kathyodat
Stilba March 14th, 2008 12:49 pm

The biggest thing I hold against Clinton (even bigger than her stupid vote for war in 2003) is the notion that she is entitled to the presidency. We’ve all watched her plot this since 2000, carefully line everything up, vote, act and speak only to further this plotted-outcome. A political animal such as this could NEVER heal the US. She is exactly what we do not need. If McCain wasn’t so pro-war, I might even prefer him to her, if only for the reason that he does not carry that terrible attitude.

Nobody should be entitled to be a leader in this country. That entire mode of thinking is ugly and against all of America’s finer (forgotten) qualities. Hillary isn’t all bad, of course, but the moment I sense that entitlement argument from her (or worse, her supporters), I loathe and fear the prospect of her winning. Why did she have to be a product, a project, and not a person? I would have loved to vote for the first woman president …but I guess I’ll have to wait for someone more qualified.
BeForKids March 14th, 2008 12:59 pm

Stilba, I agree with you, you made a good point. We have an entitled class running this country. Not easy to break loose, they have all the power and money.

Obama is not part of that power elite. But the corporate media is. And it’s syncophants, “reporters”, are the mouthpieces.

kathyodat
since1492 March 14th, 2008 1:30 pm

Bill and Hillary are both products of a political system that robs you of your integrity if you stay too long. It’s a system that guarantees you have have to step on people to get ahead. Because dishonest people are running the government there is no way we are going to have just and fair laws. We don’t even really have a Democracy anymore at the national level. What we have is a government that is more interested in leading an empire than continuing to try and build a great country.
Instead of heading in a new direction we have to first put on the breaks. And kick out all the current backseat drivers.
Hoa binh
Daniel David March 14th, 2008 1:41 pm

“Is Obama the answer? I do not know”, the author says. Good grief. When McCain and Clinton are the only other two running, why doesn’t he “know”? Important subject, bad ending.
damnliberal March 14th, 2008 1:49 pm

Obama does present America a unique opportunity to elect a president that is informed by a very different intuition than anyone who has been able to launch a real campaign against the status quo. If he is the nominee, we could see a real debate happen. Obama can use the hugely insane attack against Iraq and the obscene amount that has been already spent on it to offer the voters a chance to have a real peace candidate. Obama can argue in a way that Hillary can’t that American foreign policy is too militaristic for the our own good.

McCain is embracing Bush more now than ever. He will argue for no surrender and then not be able to explain what victory in Iraq would look like. Victory in Iraq is very difficult to conceptualize. McCain will be stuck with Forrest Gump’s assessment, “Stupid is a stupid does.”

I am more optimistic than kathyodat because Obama’s campaign is on solid footing. Six weeks is plenty of time to destroy Hillary’s lead in Pennsylvania if Obama continues to run against the war and its horrible costs. So, far he has not been tempted to abandon his message and Hillary is still looking for hers. “My experience as Bill’s wife” is becoming a joke.

And if Obama is on a re-vote ballot in Michigan, and he has time to launch his campaign in Florida, he will reduce any lead Clinton has in March looking at June. Then uniting the party will be no big trick, because Obama’s message of change has longer coattails than Hillary’s huge negatives. Super delegates are for the most part elected politicians who will consider their own skin first.

Obama’s nomination will be perceived as being won fair and square and her supporters, for the most part will get behind Obama. Obama will be free to pick the person who can most balance his ticket. And there is a wide selection available.

This is a very competitive race and that give Obama a huge opportunity to get his message of change across. Bush has created a mess. The war, its effect on the economy and decades of failed policies has created much dissatisfaction in our country. The war on drugs and the filling of prisons, trade policies, foreign policy all are huge mistakes and the consequences have come home to roost. $4 gas, itself, is at least a once a week reminder to every voter of the need to change energy policy.

McCain campaigns for the extension of tax relief for the rich and for the continued disaster in Iraq. There is not much he offers except more of he same.

Meanwhile the huge crowds coming to see Obama and the excitement of a hotly contested race sucks the oxygen out of the McCain campaign. John looks like an old man, tired, out of ideas, with little idea of what the real problems of the country are.

I can hardly wait to see a President Obama fill stadiums that the pope can’t fill when he visits foreign countries. Most American’s have no idea how much the world longs for a change in American leadership and policy.

There is no reason to consider supporting Ralph Nader. He was wrong about Gore, and he is wrong about Obama. Like McCain, he is a tired old horse who really deserves to be put out to pasture.
rtdrury March 14th, 2008 2:32 pm

The audacity of elites exploiting the rabble’s hope is very motivating to the elites and paralyzing to the rabble, thereby perpetrating capitalist oppression-as-usual under the new “king”. God Bless The United States of America!!
ladyfractal March 14th, 2008 4:58 pm

(
all past societies FELL because of democracy!!!!)

This is not even wrong. Rome did not fall because of democracy and neither did Greece. For that matter the Babylonians and the Egyptians fell from their heights long before the idea of democracy was on anyone’s lips or papyrus. Democracy did not doom the Maya, the Aztec or the Anasazi. It played no part, what-so-ever, in the decline of the Dutch or Spanish Empires. Democracy did not hasten the demise of Imperial Japan or the Nazi’s, nor did it cause the fall of the Ottomans or the Hapsburgs. So, you were saying?

(
best to move to ireland if they had enough land…america’s 2 parties have BOTH the world wars going for GREED.. one with world war 111 on babies for greed and the other war on workers to enslave them…)

You’re not quite entirely sane, are you?

(work against abortionists)

Misogynistic claptrap.

(.. feminists and slavery to save the WORLD!!!)

Yet more misogynistic claptrap.

Dude, you missed your med-pass. Remember what your social worker told you the last time, you need to take your meds *before* you go out on the Internet.

Cheers
LF
BeForKids March 14th, 2008 5:39 pm

Hope you’re right, damnliberal. As I said, my son has an unpleasing history of accurately diagnosing what’s coming down. If Obama “chooses” Hillary, it might be hard to prove his arm was twisted, but she certainly doesn’t represent his theme of change.

kathyodat
BeForKids March 14th, 2008 5:41 pm

ladyfractal, trolls don’t go away when you feed them, they just argue back. I just scroll past.

kathyodat
COMarc March 14th, 2008 6:24 pm

What exactly is Obama’s ‘message of peace’.

So far its …
– fully fund the Iraq war.
– vote to fully fund every bloated Pentagon budget.
– Promise to expand the US military (add troops to both Army and Marines) which will expand Pentagon spending.
– lots of other promises to spend more on military pay, training and equipment, which will expand the Pentagon budget.
– Promise to keep troops in Iraq through 2012.
– Threaten to expand the war into Pakistan.
– Support Democratic ‘withdrawal plans’ with huge loopholes for leaving tens of thousands of troops in Iraq. And which only ‘redeploy’ to other bases in the area. And which also rely on heavy use of airpower in densely populated areas that will kill many more innocent people.
– Go to AIPAC and tell them ‘all options are on the table’ with regard to Iran (when the Bushies were using exactly the same words to signal a nuclear attack).
– Tell an interviewer at the time of his 2004 convention speech that his policy on Iraq was very much in accord with Pres. Bush’s.

Yeah, I know he uses the word ‘change’ in every sentence of his stump speech, but don’t assume that what he’s saying matches what you want.
lizard March 14th, 2008 6:48 pm

The US has a 2 year campaign. UK does it in 4 months. Why? Because Americans like a long season to have the thrill of the race for first. Notice how coverage is about who will win the race and how one edges out the other and how that was accomplished. There is, however, a lot less coverage of the issues, and, in particular, of congressional races. This is indicative of an immature attitude toward elections and shows that the American population is politically, and otherwise, immature and incapable of fulfilling its responsabilities under a democratic system. When that is the case, corruption and concentration of power occurs. Such is now the state of affairs and one cannot expect Americans to mature quickly enough to avoid the painful resolution of this situation.

The emotional immaturity of Americans is a separate but equally important problem. The ease with which violence is resorted to and the high degree of religiosity are the types of behavior typical of children, which is why we contain them. Unless this problem is resolved, political accumen is not likely to follow. The answer, therefore, lies in the schools. Materialism, in the sense of obtaining an understanding of the world by observation and the use of logic, must displace religious thinking and emotionalism or progress toward a just and rational society will not occur.
snydly March 14th, 2008 9:07 pm

WE NEED NEW ROYAL FAMILIES
Kernel March 15th, 2008 12:06 am

COMark__I have to say you actually have a very good post there about what we may expect from Obama, and it is not at all what many are convinced of. I am glad to be able to really agree with you on something.

However, I am still with the half a loaf crowd, which will vote for either Dem, instead of the Repug no loaf crew, which would continue what we now have. My feeling is that if Clinton and Obama would go on the same ticket, it would be Clinton top spot and Obama vice, which would set him up nicely for Prez 2012.
sLiMsHaDy March 15th, 2008 1:10 am

The title of this article says it all. It is time to ditch legacy politics because it is long PAST time to do so.

Sadly,only smoke and mirrors are being presented though, and much of the public is blindly set to go forth on a “new path” that is very much a repackaging of same ole same ole.
sLiMsHaDy March 15th, 2008 2:45 am

“…hillary clinton votes yes to BOTH of these very evil wars… her voters have the lowest logics of all.”

Well, perhaps not THE lowest.
lizard March 15th, 2008 3:57 am

Correlational studies are difficult to interpret and can be very misleading. Tattos used to correlate with violent death but no longer do. Have tatoos become safer? No. The people who get tatooed have changed. Deaths associated with abortion are not due to the abortion but to the socioeconomic situation of those geting abortions. The intent seems to be to undermine the rights of women. We should help troubled teens, but not by forcing them to have children. Unstable teens don’t make good mothers. As the studies show, they are prone to committing suicide. Of course. They aren’t well to begin with, that’s why they had the abortion. This is a psychiatric problem, not an obstetric one.
cranky_chatter March 15th, 2008 8:40 am

bush clinton clinton bush bush

clinton clinton?

no wonder we support tyrannical monarchies and tin pot dictators.

we want to BE them.
DAB March 15th, 2008 10:17 am

Mrs. Clinton’s politics have become downright boring and unteresting. Rather than sticking to her message, she is running all over the place with the goalpost while picking a fight with Mr. Obama by misrepresenting everything he says - the politics of the past at its best.

Does she not have any policy ideas that are: new, creative, maverick or interesting that give hope to Americans for a brighter future.

Hillary’s politics of fear create unfounded panic and consternation in Americans at a time when they are yearning for: inspiration hope and change from the failed past of doom and gloom to a better and brighter future for all.

Being devoid of creative and interesting ideas, poor Mrs. Clinton has now resorted to using established losers and old redundant surrogates, such as the aged Feraro, to attack Mr. Obama - Is this “much of the same” the best Mrs. Clinton has to offer Americans and the rest of the world that is watching keenly?

These are certainly the signs of a campaign in serious trouble.

Do the decent face-saving thing Mrs. Clinton by bowing out gracefully before it is too late.
Rockerbabe1 March 15th, 2008 1:21 pm

Senator Clinton has lots of new ideas. . .the media is more interested in any disagreements and the clothes she is wearing; so hence, we the people do not get to really know her without a great effort on our part. She wants what so many other Americans want: global healthcare for all Americans, a balanced budget, increased energy self-sufficiency, a fairer tax system, fair and honest mortgage system for homebuyers, respect for the rights of women and all people, an end to the Iraq war and peace in the middle east - all the “OLD” problems that still plague us today. There are lots of other things, but that is for another day.
Geraldine Ferraro maybe up in age, but she is level headed, clear as a bell and a tireless warrior for the rights of women, yes woman. I have read her comments in their entirity from 3 different sources and she is not a racist. She spoke the truth. . .anyone with Obama’s credentials, but Obama, would have been laughed off the stage ages ago. Stop being so thinned skin about the unpleasant truth - Obama always seems so unpleasant when the truth about him is being spoken. When the media and America in general stops making the telling of the truth so horrendous, then maybe we will get more truth and less propagranda.
KCUSICK March 16th, 2008 3:32 pm

Stilba: Women are entitled to do long term planning its not just a guy thing.

And Im in full agreement with Geraldine Ferraro, Obama wouldn’t be a candidate if he wasn’t Black. He’s america’s weapon to disguise the profound sexism of the population.
mwf March 16th, 2008 6:30 pm

This primary election goes beyond the two remaining candidates. This primary election is about the future of the Democratic Party. Will the Democratic Party be a 50 state, grassroots, small donor party or a swing state, elite, large donor party? Which version of the Democratic party do you think will be more relevant?
cranky_chatter March 17th, 2008 2:48 am

exactly mwf

This is not about race and gender.

This is about the corporately dominated DLC insiders (Clinton), or someone MILDLY more progressive, that could help the DNC put out the tentstakes, and become more inclusive.

Obama is no saviour. He’s just mildly less insufferable and corrupt, than Clinton.

Whatever they’re packin under the hood.
megaronin March 17th, 2008 8:08 am

I want to say something about the pastor’s comments the media seems to be obsessing over. Church’s are living breathing entities and they are made of common folk who assemble for one purpose and that is to pray to a higher God. Any church founded on the zealousness and celebrity of one individual is not a true church. I do not believe Mr. Obama and the hundreds of other folks attending his church are there to be mindlessly wooed by some pastor swept up in the moment. What local church going citizen can honestly say they’ve gone to church every Sunday leaving the building feeling absolutely comfortable with their priest or pastor? It’s absolutely ludicrous.

I went to church almost twice a week during my college years. And I would say more often than not I was leaving the building with unanswered questions. But I kept going because I was going for God. I was going to pray to God for my family and for myself in tough times. I just think it is unjust to categorize all those people who may be there for their own reasons, because of one man’s over-zealousness. I think the man truly owes his church an apology, if he really supports Obama he should also apologize to Mr. Obama.

Join the discussion:

You must be logged in to post a comment. If you haven't registered yet, click here to register. (It's quick, easy and free. And we won't give your email address to anyone.)