Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiHillary Clinton Is The Madonna of American Politics
The second casualty of Election 2008 will be the regressive right movement that has done so much damage to the United States and the world these last decades. The Republicans lost another bi-election this week in a district that should have been a cakewalk for them. That makes three of late, including the former seats of Speaker Dennis Hastert and Trent Lott. (The latter race was in Mississippi, y'all, and even featured use of the entire Republican playbook of liberal- and race-baiting -- prominently featuring Obama and Reverend Wright, of course -- to no avail. Did I mention it was in Mississippi?)
Hurricane Bush has done a 180, and is circling back on Washington with an angry vengeance, building up a furious force as it nears land, hunting for anything and everything that moves and has an 'R' following its name. The GOP and their regressive agenda will be the second casualty of Election 2008, and it's going to be a blowout the likes of which we've not seen since 1932.
But, even before that happens, the first casualty will be the enablers par excellence of that regressive movement all these years, the Clinton Family. Indeed, they're already finished, and all that remains is for them to further humiliate and ostracize themselves by refusing to let go, a project they seem only too willing to pursue to their own destruction.
I like 2008.
People like me get a lot of grief from other folks for being supposed Clinton-bashers. But, then, some of us also got a lot of grief (sometimes from a few of the same people) for being Bush-bashers in 2001 and 2002. I would submit that the reason is the same in both cases. We refused to buy into the mythology of the post-9/11 presidency, or of the wonderfully empathetic one which preceded it, and we were right not to. We just got there a little earlier than other folks. By 2007, just about everybody had figured out what a disaster George W. Bush was. Now they're finally starting to grok the Clintons as well.
Some people also accuse those of us who despise Hillary of being biased, or worse, against a female candidate, and Mrs. Clinton (the former Ms. Rodham, mind you -- some feminist she) has more than once hinted at playing that convenient card. Talk about hiding behind a skirt. I resent that presumption, especially as a feminist (though I never particularly liked that appellation, for the same reason that I wouldn't want to be labeled a 'blackist' because of my support of racial equality), and as a progressive who is anxious to broaden the ranks of those participating in American politics well beyond the class of straight, white, rich males who've been mucking it up for over two centuries now. For the record, I loathe Hill, but I also loathe Bill at least as much. Thatcher disgusted me, but no more or less than Reagan. I admire Eleanor Roosevelt deeply, rather much like I feel toward what's-his-name?, that guy she was married to. In short, when it comes to politics, I don't really care what you're packin' in your undies, but rather what you stand for and how willing you are to fight for it.
Watching Hillary in action lately, I am reminded of nothing so much as her husband's disorientation during his White House years, when everything came a cropper. You could see that Billbo assumed all along that he, like his hero JFK, would be getting laid two and three times a day during his presidency, without anyone knowing. That just seemed like one of the built-in perks of the job! You know, Air Force One, Secret Service, tons of babes. Like that. He seemed completely unprepared for the concept that neither the Republicans (themselves even more promiscuous) nor the media would wink and nod and keep his dalliances secret, as they'd done for every other American president.
Similarly, Hillary now seems startled to have played by all the traditional rules of presidential politics, only to be denied that to which she most surely is entitled. She's like Prince Charles. Or maybe Gordon Brown. It's so freakin' unfair. She played the hyperpower nationalist card, voting for a war that she knew was a total lie, because you had to do that to become president. Who gives a shit if a million Iraqis are dead? Who even cares if 4,000 Americans are in the same state and countless lives in this country have been shattered? Of course (and unlike where the Iraqis are concerned), you do have to pretend to care about these fallen soldiers. But let's not lose sight of our priorities here, people. They gave their lives selflessly for a higher cause -- namely, so that Hillary Clinton (or John Kerry or John Edwards) could experience the personal joyride of the presidency.
Since then, Hillary The Inevitable has pandered to voters in every way imaginable, quaffing beers and knocking on doors, faking tears and pretending to care about the poor. Oh, and don't forget the gas tax relief plan. You know, the one that demonstrates how much more in touch with the common people she is than her opponent.
And then, of course, there's race. We expect it when Karl Rove or Lee Atwater or their candidate marionettes play the race card in American politics, though there seems to be decreasing tolerance for that kind of disgusting garbage, especially where newly mobilized young voters are concerned. When a Democrat does it, or even a Potemkin Democrat like the Clintons or GOP-Joe Lieberman, it's shocking to see. But the Clintons have in fact been doing it all year now, in a desperate attempt to salvage the fast-disappearing presidency to which only they have legitimate claim.
In a recent interview, Hillary made reference to an AP survey and noted that it "found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." "There's a pattern emerging here", she added.
Let's leave aside for the moment (but more on this below) why you would ever want to brag about having locked up the uneducated racist vote in this country. That's something to be proud of? That's your argument for why everyone should break all the rules and give you the nomination?
But, even apart from that idiocy, it must be noted that these are the most outrageous and shameful remarks from the most outrageous and shameful campaign. They show, at last, for even the most naive, what the Clintons are truly all about. But, what they really reveal, above all, is her frustration at having done all the things you're supposed to do in order to fool stupid little people into electing you president. All the tedious meet-and-greets, all the endless handshakes, all the bogus smiles until you feel like your jaw is about to freeze forever in that position (and maybe it wouldn't be so bad if it did), all the whoring for contributions from people you can't stand, and all the lying. Okay, well, maybe the lying isn't so tough. But you get the picture.
So there's poor Hillary this week, still trying to make the case for a lost cause. She might as well be trying to convince Catholic women not to use birth control. The old magic just isn't working anymore, and she seems like nothing so much as a women who has stumbled into a parallel universe, where all the rules have changed. What she was really saying when she made those remarks this week was, "Look, I sucked up to stupid low-rent voters, the kind of people you'll never see me within a thousand yards of other than when I have to go through this horrible prostrating ritual every four or six years. I gave them the war they love, the flag waving that makes them feel good about themselves, and the ubiquitous tax breaks so we can all pretend I'm a friend of the middle class. I even stooped so low as to feed them the racist rhetoric that allows them to momentarily forget their place in the social hierarchy. I did everything you're supposed to do, okay? Now give me my goddamned presidency!"
What I never understood is why anybody ever saw this pair (and now Chelsea, as well) in any other light. When you think of the principles and people they've thrown overboard in a relentless pursuit of their self-interest, it's astonishing that anybody ever considers them in any other way. Think about it for a second. Let's just leave aside all the damage done for the time being, and ask ourselves what they did right with eight years of the presidency. I personally tend to doubt the capacity presidents have to influence the economy -- though they are nevertheless always judged on that basis by voters -- and I think this is especially true in Clinton's case, where he happened to be in the right place when the dot-com gusher went off. But, okay, let's give Wild Bill a little bit of credit anyhow for presiding over a solid economy that even helped the middle class a bit for once. What else is on the list, after that? Seriously, I can't think of anything. Advances in healthcare? Civil rights? Foreign policy successes? Great Supreme Court appointments? Environmental leadership? Moral leadership (and, no, I'm not talking about jive GOP sexual morality, which Vito Fosella proved yet again this week is simply a euphemism for complete hypocrisy)? Eight years wasted. Eight years, and there's no there there.
Except sell-outs and failures. You wanna understand the Clinton presidency? What is perhaps its greatest crime is also a walking metaphor for the whole enchilada of that administration. Remember how after the Holocaust everyone said "Never again!"? Turns out that that 'again' came in Rwanda while Bodacious Bill was in the White House. This one's classic Clinton. While 800,000 people were getting hacked to death with machetes, he refused to come to their rescue. That would be bad enough, but it gets worse. He also made sure that the UN couldn't come to their rescue either, presumably to protect his presidency from a potential Somalia-style quagmire if those forces had to be bailed out. That too would be worse, but still it gets worse yet. He had the sheer gall to go to Rwanda afterwards, and apologize for 'not doing enough'. As if that was what happened. As if he had tried, but got waylaid by some other urgent problems elsewhere, like maybe failing to protect gays from discrimination, or doing Wall Street's business by jamming through trade agreements that undercut workers and trash the environment.
If you understand this, you understand everything about these people. I spoke at a conference on the Clinton presidency once, where sundry notables, pundits and former administration types were all a-agitating and a-cogitating, trying to figure out the mystery of Clinton's ideology, given that when he was president he had tacked right, feinted left, then tacked right again, for eight years or more. As I noted then, it's simple if you stop looking for real ideological commitments to ideas and policies, as those commitments are traditionally understood. Rather, the ideology of the Clintons is the Clintons. Once you get that, it all makes sense.
Then you can understand why a Democratic president would throw welfare moms and their dependant children under the bus in order to win an election he already had in his pocket. Then you get why he would toss gay rights aside by signing the Defense of Marriage Act, or come up with the weasly Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell policy, in order to placate conservative voters. Then you see why he sat on Kyoto and the International Criminal Court treaties, sweeping them under the carpet until Bush could come along and annihilate them permanently. Then you know how Clinton could sell-out working class and middle class Americans by jamming through WTO and NAFTA, saying he'd come back later to fix the labor and environmental crimes in those treaties (still waitin', Bill -- any time now would be fine). Then you get why, in order to get himself reelected in 1996, he ran against his own party's members of Congress, including many who had walked the plank for him on tax hikes, gun control and Hillary's abortion of a healthcare plan. We could go on and on. Half a million dead in Iraq through failed sanctions, including on food and medicine -- hundreds of thousands of them children. Ruby Ridge and Waco. Myriad appointees tossed overboard the minute right-wing lunatics characterized them as remotely controversial. And more and more and more.
Get it? All benefits to the Clintons. All expenses externalized, including to loyal allies and the soldiers of their little army. All of which leaves me with just one question: Why in the world is anyone even remotely surprised that they are now absolutely willing to wreck the party, wreck its chances in November, wreck Obama, wreck the country by giving us a third Bush term under McCain, and use tactics as sick as racism to pursue their incredibly selfish goals? Man, I would have been shocked if they hadn't. I'll tell you one thing. In actuality, this ain't nothin'. If it wasn't for their (now rather stale) desire to preserve some (bogus) legacy, but especially for their desire to keep alive a possible run four or eight years from now, you'd actually be seeing a lot worse than even this garbage. This is the Alpha Family of the Me Generation, on irradiated steroids, my friends, and they don't take prisoners. You'd have to go hang with the junta in Myanmar to find folks more willing to sacrifice others in order to serve their own interests. Or, of course, you could save the airfare and just join your local Republican Club.
Given this combination of failures, sell-outs and nonexistent successes, how do we account for the degree to which the Clintons have been lionized by otherwise relatively sane Democratic voters? This may be the saddest part of all, but it is reflective of how deep go the roots of the American political tragedy of our time. Just one glance at the gossip rags in the supermarket checkout lines and their headlines (celebrities, sex, weight loss, celebrities, sex, weight loss) gives you a pretty quick reading of the intellectual state of the electorate. Why do we vote for dynastic idiots to lead the world's only superpower for eight years, based on the criterion of who would be most fun to have a beer with? Because we're seriously stupid, and we're functional illiterates when it comes to reading politics. For the same reason, people love (or, for the right, hate) Bill Clinton on the basis of his personality, without any clue as to what he really did in office. And his wife is one step removed from even that.
We're a society that can no longer distinguish between substance and celebrity - indeed, there may no longer actually be a difference remaining anymore -- and Hillary Clinton is the perfect candidate for our era. She is to American politics what Madonna has been to rock-and-roll.
Remember when rock mattered? I was reminded this week of how far we've come by this photo showing a beaming Dmitri Medvedev hanging with the jaded members of Deep Purple, the latter doing yet another private gig for yet another member of the überclass. Look at these people. Look at the suits, all happy on themselves. "Da! Deepski Purplenik! Da, Dudeski Dudovenich, we rock roll now!" You know Dmitri, don't you? He used to be the head of Gazprom, like the biggest energy conglomerate anywhere, and nowadays pretty much the whole of Russia's government, or at least the part that matters. Now he's the new president of the country, picked by the old president of the country, who once was a nice KGB lad, until he was picked by the preceding president of the country to rule, including by assassination when necessary. Okay, fine, that's politics on the big stage. And, sure, Deep Purple was never exactly pushing any serious boundaries back in the day, unless you consider proto-grunge stonerism a political statement.
And, yeah, I know that there was Wayne Newton well before there was John Lennon. And that the same folks in Jefferson Airplane who gave us "Volunteers" were not many years later selling glossy pop-rock to stadium-size crowds in their new corporate guise as Jefferson Starship. Trust me, my expectations aren't that high here.
But it's still disappointing to look at rock-and-roll and see what is, and what it once was. And I blame Madonna for this. Of course, she's hardly the only culprit. But no one, in my mind, so personifies the corporatization, the trivialization and the faux controversialization of the genre, and no one brought so much of this to bear on a vulnerable medium as early as she did. Madonna's malefic skill was to turn rock music in to a profit-making center by substituting fake controversy for real political and social content. "Ooooooohhh, look, there she is pretending to kiss a woman!!" "Oooooooohhh, now she's fooling with religious iconography!!" Oh, and by the way, there she is also selling millions of disks. And selling out an art form that once meant something.
And so it is with the politics of our time. We're so far from getting the right answers that we've long ago stopped even asking the right questions. Plastic Hillary is the complete personification of that sad state, though of course, her emoticon husband Bill was the master of all time. But it's absolutely the same with either of them. They wouldn't know a principle if it fell on their house like meteor full of molten heavy metals. They will be whatever you want them to be, whatever you need them to be, as long as they can get what they need -- which is power and, especially, psychological validation, via your vote. Do you need her to be tough? Fine, she'll vote for the war. Do you need her to be wise and prudent? Fine, then she'll turn around and oppose your freakin' war. Should we beat up on the poor by killing welfare, or the gays with the Defense of Marriage Act, or the blacks when they vote for Obama? Just what is it you need, ladies and gentlemen? An irresponsible gas tax holiday? No problem! Want fries with that? Can do! She's a fighter!
I truly hope this is the last column I ever write about the Clintons, though I doubt it, knowing them. They're just not going away. And yes, as a matter of fact, that is grossly irresponsible of them, now that you ask, because, no, she doesn't have a prayer at winning the nomination, and, yes, she is tearing down the presumptive nominee and therefore assisting the forces of darkness at obtaining another four years of destructive power. For some reason, with the Clintons, we suspend all the normal rules of the political sandbox, and give them all kinds of free passes. But imagine if someone else were doing this? Imagine if Obama was hanging in there when he could no longer win, trash talking her and effectively dragging down Clinton? Perhaps reminding voters about how she can't seem to attract black voters, a vital Democratic Party constituency? The hue and cry from the Clinton camp would be deafening, and he would be ostracized from the party.
We also suspend our common sense when it comes to these people, for some reason. Why is Hillary doing this? What greater cause is she serving by staying in this race? She talks all the time about fighting for healthcare and ending the war and all the other things that are important to do for all those fine little people out there. But there's hardly a nickel's worth of difference between her positions and Obama's. Which means, since he'd be pushing essentially the same policy agenda she would, she's really only fighting for herself and her need to be president. And, worse, the truth is that by doing this, she is actually quite literally fighting against those very principles, because she is helping to hand the election to the GOP, which has rather different ideas altogether.
Yeah, I really hope this is the last column I ever have to write on the Clintons, because I'm sick of them, and I'm angry about the damage they've done and continue to do to American politics, especially by eviscerating our progressive national agenda as well as the former electoral vehicle (before Bill crashed it) of what little progressivism there actually is in America, namely, the Democratic Party. I blame them, above all, for turning the party of FDR into Republican Lite, just as I blame Madonna, above all, for trivializing rock-and-roll. The Clintons are truly DINOs (Democrats In Name Only), and they are truly political dinosaurs as well -- so 1990s in every way. Sorry to break the news to you, kids: The era of small politics is over.
I take pleasure in their comeuppance not because I'm mean-spirited, but because they are so amoral. I'm delighted that their dream has been denied, their name ruined, and their bank account deflated, because it's about time we had some modicum of justice in this country for those who would lie to us, use us, and abuse us, in order to further their own personal agenda.
All of that is playing right now at a theater near you, and I couldn't be happier. One disaster of American politics down, one more to go.
I like 2008.
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 (mailto: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.
39 Comments so far
Show AllNematoad [May 18th, 2008 12:04 pm], JFK did that by bringing in Lyndon Johnson in 1960 and look what happened to him! (Just a joke, Hillary fans -- I'm not saying Hillary would have Obama iced.)
Seriously, I think Edwards, Richardson, Boxer, Sebelius or even a wild card like Chris Dodd would be a better pick.
Hillary has earned a spot on the ticket if she wants it. It would be a pragmatic move for Barack. You can say all the feel good things you want to about uniting the party but the best way to neutralize the Clintons is to bring them in. Keep your friends close...
While I think this is a great article and agree with most of what Dr. Green wrote, I take exception to a few points in this paragraph:
"You could see that Billbo assumed all along that he, like his hero JFK, would be getting laid two and three times a day during his presidency, without anyone knowing. That just seemed like one of the built-in perks of the job! You know, Air Force One, Secret Service, tons of babes. Like that. He seemed completely unprepared for the concept that neither the Republicans (themselves even more promiscuous) nor the media would wink and nod and keep his dalliances secret, as they'd done for every other American president."
It seems Bill Clinton did believe that, just as he thought that in Arkansas and did get away with extramarital affairs, including a prolonged fling with Gennifer Flowers. But we likely would never have heard of Monica Lewinsky if not for Richard Mellon Scaife's well-financed 'Arkansas Project' wherein the nutcase Pittsburgh multi-millionaire spent a fortune to uncover dirt on the Clintons. (Former right-wing smear-merchant-for-hire David Brock, now of Media Matters, covers this brilliantly in his book, 'Blinded By the Right.')
Also, many powerful Republicans, among them Karl Rove and Dick Cheney, wanted a 'revenge impeachment' on a Democratic president as payback for what they considered to be the politically-driven impeachment of Richard Nixon by the 'liberal' media and the Democrats. As we see by how the Bush White House conducts itself, they actually believe Nixon's old saw that if the president does it, it's not a crime.
Then there's the conservative corporate take-over of the media for the past thirty years and the Republican-led deregulation that allowed them to dominate markets both local and national, plus the generous business tax breaks the GOP provided.
I'm convinced that without Scaife's money, the GOP's lust for revenge, and the Republican-spearheaded consolidation of most of our media under the ownership of six large conservative corporations that started with Reagan, none of Bill Clinton's affairs would have ever come to light.
I wasn't ready to absolutely tie Hillary to Bill's presidential feints to the left while governing right until I saw her in action and under pressure -- like hubby Bill with his Republican 'consultants' Dick Morris and David Gergen, she welcomed worn-out conservative themes into her primary campaign, championed by chief dolt and dedicated corporatist Mark Penn, a man who once dreamed up an anti-union campaign for one of his Burson-Marsteller clients. Penn was still on the payroll when Hillary was making her outrageous and bogus claims about NAFTA and accusing Obama of being against the interests of the working class and unions. Shameless and disgusting and now typically Hillary.
BTW, Dr. Green is dead on about rock music -- Madonna and her glitzy wannabes helped take an honest, straightforward art form, even when it was only singing about teenage angst, and turn it into a phony and empty drum-thumping dance and beauty contest where actual musical ability is secondary and tunes are apparently written by Orwell's big Prole Wheel of convenient and comforting rhymes combined with tired disco rhythms and insipid melodies, a world where slick and vacuous 'talents' like Simon Cowell, Randy Jackson and Paula Abdul can earn large paychecks for encouraging naive kids to feed with them at the artistic bottom or, for those who can't quite pull off a Mariah Carey or Justin Timberlake impersonation, a trip to the perdition of public humiliation, in the vain hope of becoming the next Laff-Riot William Hung sensation.
I also agree regarding Hillary's 'toughness' -- what controversial issue has Hillary ever stood against the tide on; where has she taken the heat for supporting a position that wasn't in line with the majority of her corporate campaign contributors? Refusing to leave the stage when the play is over isn't 'tough,' it's obnoxious.
mf [May 16th, 2008 2:47 pm] wrote: "The drummer for the Doors turned down a large money deal for commercials out of Doors tunes."
So did John Lennon. While he was alive, he continually refused to let the Beatles tunes he'd written with McCartney be used for advertising, even under heavy pressure from Sir Paul. That ended when he was murdered, of course. I also heard that Frank Zappa turned down a mega-bucks marketing deal involving his 'Suzy Creamcheese' song, even though, with a family, he desperately needed the money at the time.
I agree with mairs [May 16th, 2008 7:54 pm] comment -- I'm sick and tired of these 'feeble attempts at blackmail,' too -- "If you aren't nice to Hillary I'm voting for McCain." If you're that anxious to destroy what's left of the country because Hillary is more important to you than our nation's future, then you weren't very progressive to begin with -- I say go ahead and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
The only hate is the hate Hillary is trying to prosecute with her hate crime legislation. The hypocrisy is that the only idiots supporting her now are the ones she intends to put in jail for thinking about racism-the white male woring class. Unlike Hillary, who wants everyone to think that blacks are wayward pets who can't fend for themselves wihout white liberal jerks to guide them and feed them- her new white support comes from white people in WV and KY who just don't like blacks, period.
Hillary's only support is coming from the very same racists she, Bill and Reno tried to kill off with ATF and FBI. How ironic that if Hillary is elected she will persecute these people worse than Hitler did the jews!!!
Why do you think so many Amicans are supporting Obama!!. They look at him as a leader- not a vindictive victim like Hillary. Hillary's entire campign has been she is a victim- Obama's has been responsibility and leadership. Hillary's racist support comes from whites who have never trusted back people and like Hillary, believe them to be helpless and hopeless.
Hillary's loss comes from the fact the rest of the country has moved on and respect Obama for his true love for our country and all of its citizens! He refuses to be labeled a victim- a true leader. Hillary is the only bigot left in this country and her white klan supporters are lost. If you don't support Obama, you hate America!! Please- to all those suporting Hillary give up your racist "I'm a victim" self righteousness!! JOIN OBAMA!!!!!
With the hateful bigots at Common Dreams as supporters, Barack Obama does not need any enemies! He will lose!
Yes, you really do HATE! God! What's that about? It's creepy!
Hate is usually some deeply buried part of one's self. Take a look.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your roving reporter, Irving Invertebrate.
Hillary Clinton is about to begin this hastily called news conference. We have no idea what she's going to say but her handlers have told us that she's about to divulge information that may *salvage* her run for the presidency.
Ladies and gentlemen, Senator Hillary Clinton. ...
"My fellow Americans, I'll get right to the point. My husband, Bill Clinton, who as you can see is standing next to me, is a hopeless dickhead.
"By finally admitting this all-too-obvious fact, I'm hoping that my campaign for president will be revived and eventually successful.
(Thunderous applause.)
"I realize now that during the Monica Lewinsky affair, many of you were turned off by my standing by this useless piece of ****.
(BILL smiles, obligingly.)
"Many of you felt that I stayed with my husband for selfish, opportunistic reasons. WELL, OF COURSE I DID! Jesus H. Christ, any idiot with an IQ greater than their shoe size could have figured that one out. (Ponders what she just said; then, thinking out loud): On the other hand, there sure are a lot of idiot votes out there. (Turns to her husband.) Right, Goober?"
"Sure are, honey-bunch."
(Pats BILL on the head; gives him a Milk Bone Dog Biscuit): "Good boy! (Turns back to the audience): Now, as I was saying. This sorry excuse for a human being, I want everybody to know, especially the superdelegates, is a disgrace. True, loyal, upright Americans would never stand for his heartless behavior as a husband. The only thing he's interested in getting upright is his you-know-what.
(BILL blushes): That's right, honey-bunch.
"Sure, I put up with this philandering pig-dog for over 20 years, but that's because I figured it would get me a shot at The Big Enchilada. But now that I'm up Sheboegans' Creek without a paddle, I'm changing course, baby, and pronto!
"Fact is, I'm so desperate for votes, I'm actually gonna try telling the truth. And starting with this putz. (Eyes BILL up and down): Sheesh! Look at him. The guy's a card-carrying hound dog. Am I right?
(The CROWD screams their approval.)
"Why, he's not worth a bucket of warm you-know-what. And I don't mean piss. Let's face it, he's a dickhead; and today, before God and Mickey Rooney, I want all the world to know!
(BILL leans into the microphone, smiling): "That's right, folks, I'm no good. And I can prove it."
(HILLARY throws BILL another biscuit): "Good boy, Fido. (Turns back to the CROWD): And so, my fellow Americans, I'm kicking this bum out, hoping of course that by doing so I will have finally earned the trust and respect--
(BILL interrupts): and gullibility.
"and gullibility of the American people. Then, if I win the nomination and then the presidency, Bill and I can go back to being the lowlife shysters you all know and want us to be.
(Raucous cheers. The CROWD goes nuts!!!)
Thank you. Thank you, crowd. Because let's face it, (pauses dramatically) without power, slimeballs like Bill and me are nothing but obnoxious s***s. Right, Bill?"
"That's right, honey-bitch."
"WHAT???!!!"
"Err, I mean, honey-bunch."
Atheist, Hillary HAS lost the nomination by every democratic metric. Her only hope to win it resides in back room brokering at the convention.
I agreed with a lot of what was in this article about the Clintons, especially Bill. Unfortunately, Hillary was beat back early in the Clinton years and had to assume her role as a submissive president's wife, even during the blowback from Bill's dangerous liaisons. I thought the comparison between Hillary and Madonna would go the route of both women's abilities to dominate a male dominated field and reinvent themselves at will. Hillary has been everything from a highly educated, upper class lawyer, to a down-home swill drinking, gun toting regular gal, fake accent and all (like Madonna's faux British accent to hide her Michigan roots).
What I don't agree with is the premise that first of all Hillary should be equated with Bill. Bill did his thing in the white house, including selling off Rwanda, his gay and lesbian supporters, welfare moms, the middle class, and so many others. That Hillary did not step in and stop him is not something that should be used against her now, except in cases where she touts her experience. Then she needs to be forced to explain what that experience is. Was she there when Bill ordered the bombing of Bosnia with Monica under his desk doing him? Is that the experience we're supposed to trust in?
But, my biggest disagreement with this article is with the premise the Hillary (again Bill is different) is ruining the Democratic party. I disagree and as much as I would love to see Obama just get the nomination already, I am beginning to see that this never-ending primary is the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party. As this never ending march to the White House moves to each new state and territory (yes, we have territories that are not even on the American continent, and they are voting now!), people are energized, issues are discussed, some nasty things have been said by both sides, but in the end, rather than leave a trail of destruction, the primaries leave behind a well-organized electorate, ready for November. People who have never voted before in their lives, register and actually make it to the polls. For a country that has an abysmal voting record, to increase voter participation should be one of the goals of all people who call themselves progressive. Yes, we run the danger of hicks such as those in West Virginia who think Obama is a Muslim (and therefore won't vote for him) even though they are also aware of Reverend Wright (and won't vote him for that either), but this just means we have our work cut out for us. Obviously, there are a lot of people who are being misled and misinformed. If we want to get rid of the Republican junta once and for all, we need to ask ourselves what we can do to educate the uneducated - you know those folks who vote for Hillary because Obama's middle name is Hussein.
So, I don't think the Democratic party is in ruins. I think it is energized to the point of being a Republican nightmare. Even the pundits are saying that the Republicans are history (the brand is soiled as they say) - they need to find a way to repackage themselves. In the meantime, we need to unite the Democratic party and push them on the issues that matter. A landslide victory in November with all of the Congressional seats, state legislatures and governorships that would go along with that would be the equivalent of the Republican Revolution (thanks again to Bill) that brought us to the sorry state we're in now. This will be a historic time not just because we'll have the first Black President (and possible female VP), but because for the first time in American history, record numbers of people voted and they voted for people who will serve their interests and not the interests of the ruling class.
Let's be careful of our rhetoric and reach out to Hillary supporters. Hillary has already begun a more conciliatory tone and in her latest incarnation, I can see her as a potential Vice President. Yes, I know there is history and baggage, but if it means getting Obama into the White House, then I'm willing to give her a chance to show us how she can work for us and not against us.
It amazes me that by criticizing Hillary, one believes that a person is for Barack and therefore the response is to criticize Barack. The response should be defending Hillary's actions/behaviors. But I guess sometimes there is no legitimate defense, except, well Barack did this or that too. Sounds like children arguing. "Bobby you did this, well your friend Rachel did that".
What sort of mental blindness causes this belief that one can not see the negatives, because s/he is for a particular candidate? Why is the response to attack the other candidate? (BTW, this also happens when someone criticizes Barack.) Oh yeah, then comes the name calling – very mature as if you can lump all followers of Clinton or Obama into one group. I have no problem criticizing both candidates, even when I supported them. There is so little difference in their policies that character is probably the only way to distinguish them. I do however like how Obama states that he would talk to heads of states. As far as policies, I do recall watching the Barack/ Hillary pseudo debate, where Obama seemed to agree with much that Hillary said on policies. It was a sickening love fest.
As far as character which is on display in public, who knows what these people are like, at least their positives, EVEN I can behave well for the moments that I'm in the public eye (especially with advance notice) -- apparently Hillary, not so much. I'm not for either candidate, but I can criticize the actions of the candidate that I plan to vote for and still be for them – not a difficult choice because looking at the "top three" it gets a little frightening.
From what I understand, the republicans are only half as strong as they once were. What I'm hoping for is that Hill Clinton does an Joe Lieberman and doesn't drop out but continues to run as an independent. Perhaps then, Nader and or McKinney would then draw many more republicans as well as dissatisfied democrats, and of course the progressives. Indeed it could become an interesting election.
I don't think Madonna deserves being insulted here. Did she really trivialize and commericialize rock? I still remember Wham, Michael Jackson, Kenny Loggins, Sammy Haggar and Def Leopard from those days. Were they the true heart and non-commerical soul of rock music? Gimme a break.
As I recall, Madonna had a goal that was not merely to make herself known. She actually had an interest in and talent for music. In other words, her going into rock music was not for the sole purpose of self-promotion. And small as it is, there is a difference between going into something for the sole purpose of using it to gain fame, and having a goal to go into something that you hope will end up with your becoming famous. I speculate that Madonna would have continued to struggle with music her whole life even had she not been incredibly successful because her heart is in it, regardless of how you rate her talent.
I don't get the feeling that Ms. Clinton is in politics because her heart is in it, or that she loves public service. I think rather that she saw/sees it as a step to greater personal power. This is not uncommon among those who have sought, and even gained, the presidency. I don't think that this would even be an issue if she weren't a woman. I mean, can you really recall or even imagine, George Bush, pick either one, being called out for using politics as a stepping stone for the pupose of personal aggrandizement? It was generally considered as coming with the territory.
I'm not a Clinton, pick either one, supporter, nor an Obama one either. But I don't really find this article very meaningful.
Do the Hillary's supporters realize that she supported the war only because she thought it advanced her political ambitions? That is, that Hillary was willing to support mass murder to support her own career? Never mind that she voted with the bankers and the capitalist class against the common interests of the people. Should we be supporting her just because she's a woman? She's clearly the wrong woman.
This article was unnecessary.
DMG couldn't agree more. I very reluctantly voted for Bill twice.... where else was I to go? I voted for the socialist parties James Deberry in 64, Eldrige Cleaver in 68, McGovern in 72.... the only presidential candidate that I voted for that won was Carter in 84(?). So I was, in my mature years, desperate to vote for someone who would actually become president.
I did come to his/her defense during the "Whitewater-Louinsky" crucifixion but that was about it. Never could understand why the republicans hated them so much as they were basically fulfilling the rights agenda. Maybe they were pissed-off by copy right infringement. So many waster years in every respect but then again the cash registers were ringing. Al Gore as VP for eight years, under warps with nothing done about GW and the environment. Just a shame. Then the crass pardons for money at the end. It's like they used the white house beds as Depends and just walked out the door, leaving a stink in everyones mouth and Gore's electability more difficult.
auspiciousbunny: the policy stances taken by clinton and obama may not look a whole lot of different to you, but they are going to make one hell of a lot of difference to the iranians.
Cynthia McKinney will get less than 5% of the vote... yes, of course, so long as you don't vote for her, even though she supports the progressive agenda and will actually do what most of us would agree needs to be done. THERE IS NO CHANCE OF ANYTHING GOOD HAPPENING BY VOTING FOR OBAMA! If you think McKinney is the best candidate, then support her. "Viability" has to be taken off the table. If not now, when?? It's getting awfully late!
This is not about an Obama supporter trashing Hillary. This article is about the arc of the Clintons' political life in the Democratic party, and there is no reason why Mr. Green's opinion shouldn't be heard. After reading it I was scrolling down to find the inevitable remarks from Hillary supporters who say we all need to be nice to Hillary or they won't vote for Obama, as if individual's opinions of Hillary are somehow tied to or directed by the Obama campaign. I say screw it, say what you want and don't give in to the feeble attempts at blackmail.... be nice or we'll vote for McCain. My opinion of Hillary is not predicated on her supporters not offending my delicate sensibilities, but on how she herself acts. I expect the same logic from the Clinton supporters come November.
Bill Clinton's true nature surfaced in the campaign....
This man is responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, is guilty of war crimes for attacking Serbians, served the interests of the rich over that of workers and you only realize during this campaign that he is not good? May I suggest that one should look more carefully at what presidents are doing?
With the exception of obliterating Iran, I really can't see much difference between Clinton and Obama's policy stances.
THIS is why even some of us on the left find the Hillary Clinton nutcracker funny Marie Cococo (previous article on common dreams) not because we are evil raving sexists who hate women. I really hope Obama choses Edwards BTW who actually al least acknowledges the working poor in the U.S. and not the vile repulsive (policy wise) Hillary Clinton. Of course Cynthia McKinney would be better (see what a raving sexist I am?) but alas she will get less than 5% of the vote. With a war on and threats to attack Iran that could kill millions IMO opinion we can't afford a protest vote in this election and note that in the past I have voted for Nader and even Leonard Peltier for president.
I could care less about offending the Clinton supporters. Your candidate is a loser. She is not likable. She had everything (in terms of infrastructure and political connections) going for her in this primary. Aside from this, the only things she had going for her was name recognition and her gender. She projects insincerity like a kleig light. She's a pathetic hypocrit and a corporate shill. She voted for the Iraq War because she lacked the spine to do what is right for the sake of political gain.
America loved the Clintons so much because the Republican's worked so hard to politically assassinate them. Many of us found ourselves rooting for this philandering centrist not because he was some visionary leader, but because it was so freaking absurd that he was being impeached for a blowjob.
He should have had the decency to resign so that the Nation's business could be pursued. He might have been a sort of martyr. President Gore would have kicked governor Bush's heiny in 2000.
DMG wrote a decent rant. Good on him. And to you shmucks who have nothing more intelligent to contribute than ridiculous "obamabot" comments, Suck on it losers.
It remains to be seen if Clintons manage to wreck the Democratic party and help McCain win in November. There is definitely still enough dumb americans to make this a possiblity. If that happens I would say good, you got what you wanted, enjoy. The problem is that McCain is definitely crazy enough to start the WWIII, in which case we can all bend over and kiss our a** goodbye. Once the nukes start flying RIP human race.
annabelle, you're only weary because your chosen candidate is ahead, though not by as much as you would like. You can only speak for yourself and the other Obamabots. Most of us Clinton supporters are happy to see that she hasn't allowed herself to be pushed out.
A caveat. Bill Clinton is less an ego than the abused child his youth. To stop the abuse, the abused child constantly seeks to mollify the abuser. Identifying the public as the abuser, every working morning, the first person Bill saw during his tenure as President, was his pollster. Whatever the polling indicated the public desired, Bill did, zig zagging in whatever way would please his tormentor. Not suffering the same psychological baggage, Hilary is different. She actually appears driven by ego.
This is one of the best political articles I've ever read on Common Dreams. Amen, brother Green, Amen.
I was a Clinton supporter. That was before Bill's true personality surfaced in this campaign. I am sorry that candidates can not run for the presidency of the United States on their platform alone. When bashing the opposition is the only tool available to convince voters how great they are we are the suckers. At this point in the campaign game, which has gone on far, far too long, the voters are weary of the whole disgusting sideshow. Really, how long does it take one to figure out for whom they will vote. Six more months and it will all be over and the duly elected person can begin campaigning for the next four years. Not much time to accomplish any significant progress.
Obama won't choose Clinton because he'll want someone to work for him, not with him.
Daniel David,
There are many reasons an Obama-Clinton ticket would not fly, including incompatibility of styles and rhetoric and the easily replayed tapes of all of her attacks on him. But something not often mentioned is the more is less angle. One barrier-breaking candidate provides a subtle message that this candidate is so great that he/she has broken through where so many others have tried and failed. Two barrier-breaking candidates reek of identity politics, because it seems, as a subjective probability, highly unlikely that there would be two extraordinary barrier-breaking candidates at the same time and on the same ticket.
Also, the Republicans would be able to fill up all the news cycles on all the cable shows 24/7 with manufactured scandals, practicing that old Republican art of turning molehills into mountains (with an assist from the corporate media of course as always), if they have all the Clinton material to work with along with Obama's.
Someone once said 'sacred cows make the best hamburgers'. I certainly enjoyed this meal. Thanks David.
Hoa binh
Don't agree about the rock comment.
The drummer for the Doors turned down a large money deal for commercials out of Doors tunes.
If you want to hear very good non commercial music, (there's lots of it) listen to the kids, (fifteen to thirty).
Since it is now impossible to make a living from music, They don't even bother attempting to be commercial. They are playing new, unique, very good music, but you have to look for it. Their level of musicianship is in many cases, extremely high
DMG saying little, even less that is useful, in too many self-aggrandizing words, as usual. I'd sure hate to go to Hofstra. Can you imagine getting stuck in a for-credit class with that guy?
If he had any sense, he'd know that Mrs. Clinton is the very partner needed to get Mr. Obama and the whole liberal agenda elected.
OMG Stilba, using your logic one could make a comparison between Barack Obama and OJ Simpson !
Hey Rich, you reminded me of something I've been thinking about recently ... Obama and his supporters should be making nice with the Clinton supporters, Obama NEEDS them to win the general election. If they are so convinced that Clinton is going to lose the Dem nomination, why do they keep attacking her ?
I read the title and agreed: They're both mega-rich, older white woman who know about the existence of places like Malawi, and probably sleep well on (and talk tough from) that pillow of smug.
David Michael Green = Obamabot (see his prior articles for proof)
Hey Green, if you have all of the right answers, then run for office or do work for the Dem Party instead of being a lazy "pundit" at a second-rate university. Remember, opinions are like .... you know.
I just think articles like this one are more than just a waste of time, they are counter-productive. I can't believe Clinton haters don't realize that this hateful stuff alienates her supporters, who you are going to need in November! Why not articles pointing out the good things about your candidates? You know, the Dems who promised us they would lead us out of the occupation of Iraq and wouldn't even consider impeachment, etc., etc., etc.
i'm in agreement with the writer's view of the clintons, but, really, what rockn' roller ever thought of madonna as being a rock' roller?
That's a long article.
Its over.
Billary is just going to run out the clock.
I dont think she has the support to make it to the convention.
They just dont want to be rude, like she has been.