jclientelle

I take your point and respect your opinion regarding 350.org, but I don't share it.

Nor have I confused "tact or dry understatement" with cowardice (whatever that means). You say that 350.org "fights" and assert that the "fight" is what counts in your book. Plus, I don't recall saying anything about "cowardice" -- avarice, yes; cowardice, not so much.

You opine that Bill McKibben and 350 have "self-restraint" when they speak, and you declare that is a "good thing" since it allows people who are not already in agreement to listen. Perhaps, but that is a value judgment that is open to debate. For many on the Left, McKibben now seems to be preaching to converted Obots to keep them on board through the 2012 re-election campaign.

The issue is not about people who are "both civil and disobedient" -- the issue being addressed by many of us in this thread is not a trade-off between being "civil" and "disobedient" or trying to find the proper balance between the two extremes.

The issue is about activists being effective in the fights they undertake, and when Bill McKibben and 350 started making excuses for Obama and going into denial over what was obviously the president's temporary delay in approving the new application for the Keystone XL that bypasses the sensitive Sandhills area that sits atop the Ogallala Aquifer, that is when I stopped being a fan and supporter.

This message appeared on the 350.org website on November 10, 2011, and there is little in the way of "dry understatement" to say the least:

“Dear Friends,

“Um, we won. You won.

“Not completely. The President didn’t outright reject the Keystone XL pipeline permit. My particular fantasy -- that he would invite the 1253 people arrested on his doorstep in August inside the gates for a victory picnic by the vegetable garden -- didn’t materialize.

“But a few minutes ago the President sent the pipeline back to the State Department for a thorough re-review, which most analysts are saying will effectively kill the project. The president explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess. There’s no way, with an honest review, that a pipeline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.

“And he has made clear that the environmental assessment won’t be carried out by cronies of the pipeline company -- that it will be an expert and independent assessment. We will watch that process like hawks, making sure that it doesn’t succumb to more cronyism. Perhaps this effort will go some tiny way towards cleaning up the Washington culture of corporate dominance that came so dramatically to light here in emails and lobbyist disclosure forms.

“It’s important to understand how unlikely this victory is. Six months ago, almost no one outside the pipeline route even knew about Keystone XL. One month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by the National Journal found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end. As late as last week the CBC reported that Transcanada was moving huge quantities of pipe across the border and seizing land by eminent domain, certain that its permit would be granted. A done deal has come spectacularly undone.

“Our movement spoke loudly about climate change and the President responded. There have been few even partial victories about global warming in recent years so that makes this an important day. We need to let the president and oil companies know that we're ready to take action should they try to push this pipeline through in a couple of years. There's a pledge to take bold action against the pipeline up on our site, and I'll be keeping your names an emails safely stored away so that you'll be the first to know about anything we need to do down the road.

“Please sign the pledge here.”

(McKibben’s message continues on after the “pledge” break.)

The subtext: Send money!

That overheated message is seriously low on "self-restraint" and "understatement" and shamelessly laden with over-the-top hyperbole. Is McKibben is being disingenuous, outright dishonest, a fool, or a blinkered Obot? Take your pick.

PS – There was a time not so long ago that I, too, was a fan and supporter of Bill McKibben and 350.org – but that is no longer the case. If the new application for the Keystone XL pipeline is absolutely stopped in its tracks by Obama and Hillary Clinton at the State Department once and for all, full stop, end of story, with no weasel words and hedging and caveats, perhaps I will rethink my position regarding 350.org -- but, in the meantime, I'm not holding my breath.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since you hate President Clinton, and you promote candidate for president Jill Stein, I'm wondering: who do you think have been the best U.S. presidents in your lifetime?

I agree with your first paragraph. After that it's all incorrect.

Taking the article "personally?" I can't even fathom what you are trying to say by that. Whatever it is, the answer is no.

"The Clintons?" What does that imply? That wives are just appendages of their husbands and never have different opinions or goals? Or do you think that only of Bill and Hillary Clinton? I object to your framing. It's misleading because of what it implies (above), and sexist.

As to CD's intent, in 2008 when Obama and Hillary were competing for the Democratic nomination, CD published only pro-Obama articles and only anti-Hillary articles (including anti-Clinton articles — using "the Clintons" framing — that tried to tarnish Hillary with Bill's failures while giving her zero credit for his successes). There were plenty of articles available that presented Obama for what he truly was (and is) but CD ran none of them. Of course they published nothing that even came close to fairly and accurately representing Hillary's record, either as Senator or First Lady. Everything they published about her was slanted, inaccurate or worse.

In 2008 I researched the Senate voting records of all three major presidential contenders and found that Obama voted with the Republicans on all the major issues of the day, and that Hillary's voting record was surprisingly progressive. Obama's voting record was much closer to McCain's than to Hillary's. I provided their comparative voting records in the comments sections of numerous articles. But, CD readers who read only the articles would certainly have been led to believe that Obama was the more progressive and more anti-war candidate (just as corporate media was portraying), which was the opposite of the truth.

CD's bias against Hillary continues to this day. They publish only articles that put her in a bad light, even when they are inaccurate. They ignore positive reports. They sometimes edit articles (as in this case) to create the spin they desire. They even go so far as choosing unflattering or unrelated file photographs (as in this case) that were not part of the original publishers' reports to illustrate their articles.

Bill Clinton, the DLC and the 1992 election. You're way off base, but it would take a chapter to correct it all. When Clinton ran in 1992 no Democrat had won the presidency since 1976. 18-year-olds who voted in '92 were in Kindergarten in 1976. Voters in their twenties literally had no memory of any Democratic president. The nation had been mesmerized by the "Reagan Revolution" of deregulation, trickle-down economics and tax cuts for billionaires (all couched as "optimism"), and the national media had been transformed into the corporate media, backing the Republican agenda all the way.

No matter that Reagan had run on the (phony) issue of the national debt (it was tiny at the time) and then produced enormous budget deficits for 8 straight years, followed by 4 more years of even larger deficits under George H.W. Bush, exploding the national debt and changing the U.S. from a creditor nation to a debtor nation. No matter that Reagan cut the tax rates for the richest 1% from 70% to 28%, the same as what middle class people paid. No matter that he slashed funding for education, public health and safety, environmental protection and civil rights enforcement, but borrowed trillions to spend on the military. No matter that the rate of job growth was lower under Reagan's leadership than it had been under Carter's. Voters didn't know any of those things (and even today many Republican myths created during that time are still entrenched.)

Clinton and the Democrats had a big mountain of propaganda to overcome if they ever wanted to win the White House again. Hence the concept of "New Democrats" and the DLC. The "new" Democrats were not the big spenders of legend (even though Republicans were the real big spenders). They were no longer the evil regulators holding back the economy (even though job growth had been higher under Carter). The "new" Democrats were "business friendly." This was a public relations concept. It was posturing. It was designed to counter the Reagan myths and win votes. Proving my point, once elected, Clinton reversed the Reagan/Bush policies on tax rates, domestic spending, military spending, deficits and debt, and everything mentioned above. Not entirely — due to the most intense and hateful Republican opposition we had ever seen — but to a large extent.

You say "triangulation" in a pejorative way. It's otherwise known as bi-partisanship, or simply negotiation.

As to Perot's impact on the election, Clinton won with only 43% to Bush's 38%. Perot got 19%. I haven't done an electoral vote analysis, but it's likely that Bush would have won if not for the Perot vote.

Extramarital affair? Did you know that George H.W. Bush was having one while he was Vice President, and continued it throughout his four years as president? No? Neither did voters in 1992.

Bill Clinton was no LBJ? LBJ drafted teenagers and sent them to an illegal and immoral war in Vietnam, a war that killed 3 million people there and 58,000 Americans. Bill Clinton kept us out of foreign wars, and was attacked for it. Yes, LBJ had a stellar record on civil rights, but Clinton's record was such that he was called "the first black president."

FDR and JFK were great presidents in many ways (even thought they both took us to war) and Bill Clinton was no FDR or JFK, but then, neither was anyone else. I would have liked Clinton to be as transformational as FDR and JFK, but to be fair, given the circumstances that may not have been possible ... even for FDR or JFK.

Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush are not personal friends. What you see is tolerance and courtesy.

Bill Clinton's "gaffe." That word is usually used in a political context. Obama is going to approve the pipeline because he's an actual anti-environment/pro-big oil Republican (in Democrat's clothing) and not a PR "new" Democrat. Party loyalist Bill Clinton is giving him cover in order to help elect Democrats and defeat Republicans in 2012. If that backfires somehow, then it's a political gaffe.

If Obama wasn't who he is and what he is, and Democrats weren't shackled to him, Clinton's statement would have been different.

But, that's not all there is. Read the Politico report.