Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiShould an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?
The first half of the interview is about the Obama informercial (which I said was a great idea) and about John McCain's criticism of Obama as a "socialist" (which I said was absurd, considering the Bush years have redistributed wealth up the income ladder). But where it really gets interesting is toward the end in a discussion about Bill Clinton.
Fox showed a clip of Clinton allegedly "complimenting" Obama for having called all of Clinton's economic advisers during the financial crisis. Clinton also "complimented" Obama for supposedly knowing nothing about the financial situation, but having the courage to admit he didn't know much and the courage to tell Clintonites he wanted to know more. This is problematic on a number of levels.
First (as I told Fox) why does Bill Clinton always need to make everything about Bill Clinton? We're five days from an election that is a referendum not only on Bush-ism, but on incrementalist Clintonism. And yet, Bill Clinton seems unable to realize that reality - and is desperately trying to make sure the Obama presidency is, in part, about Bill Clinton.Second, why does Bill Clinton need to reinforce the right-wing narrative that Obama's inexperience means he supposedly doesn't know anything about major issues before the country? True, that's not exactly what Clinton said - but it is what he implied. Not good.
Third - and perhaps most substantively concerning - Clinton's entire narrative is the starting gun of what will be a very intense effort by the larger pool of Clintonites to infiltrate an Obama administration. If we can step back and look honestly at the economic situation, then we have to admit (as I admitted on Fox) that Clinton officials had a hand in the key deregulatory policies that led to the financial meltdown, and the key free-market fundamentalist policies (rigged trade deals, corporate tax loopholes, etc.) that are hollowing out the economy. These same people are now going to try to use an Obama presidency to reassume the posts they had in a Clinton administration. And the fact that, according to Bill Clinton, Obama is already potentially letting them - well, that's really disturbing (if unsurprising).
The hope is with a big enough election mandate, Obama will feel more empowered to sweep out the Clintonites and start fresh - both in terms of personnel, and in terms of ideology. Because if he doesn't, not only could it stunt his policy agenda, it could also create political problems for him. The media - and especially outlets like Fox News - are going to be looking for weak points that allow them to tar and feather an Obama presidency as just "more of the same."
To be sure, I told Fox that having Bill Clinton campaign for Obama is a great thing. Bill Clinton is a great political asset to any campaign (if he's not implying that the guy he's campaigning for is uninformed). And while I don't love criticizing Democrats on Fox News, I thought that under the circumstances, it's important for progressives to start laying down markers about what we should and should not cheer on - what we should and should not expect from an Obama adminstration. In my opinion, it doesn't help Obama win the election, nor will it help his administration, to be painted as a mere second act for the last Democratic administration.
Making the Obama presidency the third term of Bill Clinton's presidency is both substantively inappropriate to the times, and politically dangerous/tone deaf. I hope that's not the path a President Obama takes, should he win the White House.
99 Comments so far
Show AllBill Clinton's job was to persuade some in Florida who might not otherwise vote for Obama to do so. Nothing else. When one looks at the speech in that light, it was brilliant and perhaps the only message Bill Clinton could deliver that might work to a substantial extent. Barak clearly had no problem with it. As long as it keeps McCain from carrying Florida, neither should anyone else. But I forgive you David Sirota for succumbing to pundit fatigue and overlooking this simple reality. Usually I agree with 100% of what you say and write.
Wow, it amazes me that the left is so cynical. I'm not saying Obama is perfect. But does anyone honestly think that a)Obama would be no different than McCain? b)that Obama, though not as liberal as most CD readers, is light years ahead of most Dems in DC? c) Nader or McKinney are more qualified than Obama or could do a better job?
The problem as I see it is the Messiah-ism on the left. You either have folks thinking that the Second Coming has occurred in the form of a skinny mulatto guy from Chicago or are awaiting the return of Gandolf on the eastern mountains in the form of Nader or McKinney. Ironically, since most hard lefties are anti-religion, there is a lot of idolatry going on in our politics. No politician is a 'magic bullet'. We on the left don't believe that you have to hard work and constant engagement for change. Nope, just find the political equivalent of Elijah to strike down the Lobbyists of Baal with Fire from Heaven.
The only person I've seen clearly these three who doesn't think he's Jesus is that "Closet Republican" Obama.
He seem like a DLC type because he is smart enough not to repeat the mistakes progressives make when they gain power. He's shown so far that he's smart enough not to act like a flaming demagogue. If he did, they paint him as a Jesse Jackson wannabe and we'd all be bitching about Queen Hillary's return ot the White House. He's won by having Bill Clinton's third way make nice with everyone politics without the personal baggage, or Hillary.
Ironically, its the old war horse like Clinton and McCain who have been sputtering out of control.
The progressive third party guys are more interested in the soapbox than governing. Nader and McKinney see themselves as the man (and woman) on the white horse, ready to clear out plutocrats at high noon in old fashion shootout on K Street. Americans don't want another hard nose ideologue who can't play nice with others. 8 years of Bush is enough.
"I'm not saying Obama is perfect."
"Imperfect" is not the adjective that comes to mind to describe the politics of someone who supports war and an expanded military, the Patriot Act, and welfare for Wall Street, among other major policy areas where he agrees with McCain.
"But does anyone honestly think that a)Obama would be no different than McCain? b)that Obama, though not as liberal as most CD readers, is light years ahead of most Dems in DC? c) Nader or McKinney are more qualified than Obama or could do a better job?"
In answer to a, I don't think anybody has actually said he would be no different, just not nearly as different as Obama supporters imagine.
As for b, no, of course he's not "light years ahead of most Dems in DC." It's quite evident that you have no idea what his voting record is or how he compares with his Democratic colleagues if you actually believe this. He is squarely in the "moderate" mainstream of Democrats, which makes him conservative when compared to politicians from most other countries.
As for c, yes, Nader and McKinney would definitely do a better job, because their politics don't suck, but they're not going to get elected anyway. Getting elected isn't necessarily the point of third-party campaigns for President of the US; there are other ways to use candidacies to aid the process of change besides getting the candidates elected.
On major policy positions, the basic core beliefs, both major parties are in agreemenet. I agree that Obama would throw a few progressive crumbs from time to time and that the tone would be quite different. This however does not trump his imperialism, his corporatism, his not supporting single payer health care, his support for ever increasing military spending, his pro-nuclear & "clean coal" positions, his anti-gay marriage, his... the list is ENDLESS! And I could post it about McCain, too. I refuse to be swayed by McCain is worse arguments into giving up my CORE beliefs. I also am ashamed of any peace activists anti-war voters supporting Barack Obama. And yes, 8 years of Bush is 8 years too many but you need to blame Bush supporters, not us.
'To be sure, I told Fox that having Bill Clinton campaign for Obama is a great thing. Bill Clinton is a great political asset to any campaign (if he's not implying that the guy he's campaigning for is uninformed).'
No he's not, David! In fact, Slick Willie is like some sort of vampire that decent folk are having trouble getting rid of for once and all. Ditto that about Hillary, too. Only a Liberal glued to these vampires would ever think otherwise. But then again, these liberals have become undead zombies stumbling around in the fog, shadows, and darkness of election year.
Obama would be a 3rd Clinton term and McCain a 3rd Bush term. America, pick your poison. We so lack imagination as a country.
I just have one question for the right wing, where does the disconnect happen with your party? As I type this, I am watching Sarah Palin at one of her "rallies" lying through her teeth, bald faced and the crowd is there "drinking the kool-aid" by the gallon. In a way, it's hilarious, to see Sarah Palin channeling Emily Littella (70s SNL character played by Gilda Radner). I'm just waiting for her to say "never mind".
Palin just said "You shouldn't be working for your government, your government should be working for you." What ever happen to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."? Even better, is how Palin and McCain go on and on about how we're WINNING the war in Iraq. I have one question. what exactly are we winning?
Sarah Palin and John McCain have jumped on Joe Biden's statement about Obama being "tested" as if that would be a testament of Obama's inadequacy. How about a little recent history?
George W. Bush - tested on September 11, 2001. Terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.
War waged against Iraq now for 5 years on the basis that Iraq had WMD in violation of UN protocols and Saddam Hussein was complicit with Al-Qaeda in the attack. No WMD and the Al-Qaeda connection proven fraudulent. "Enemy combatants" being held in Cuba prison, being tortured in violation to Geneva Conventions, away from Congressional oversight. Judicial due process for these prisoners subverted with the creation of military tribunals with the intent of punishing the prisoners as war criminals with no or little burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. However, the Supreme court has ruled that the prisoners have the right to file Habeas Corpus and the military attorneys appointed on both sides - defense and prosecution in a show of integrity, have mounted heroic defense and have rejected confessions that came from torturing the defendant. Result? It is 7 years later and not one terrorist involved has been arrested. G W Bush tested and failed miserably.
Now let's compare Bill Clinton. 4 terrorist attacks during his administration.
1. New York 1993, World Trade Center. 5 WEEKS into his first term.
2. Oklahoma City 1995, Alfred Murrah Building.
3. Atlanta 1996, Olympics.
4. Los Angeles 1999, the Millennium Attack scheduled for December 31, 1999 at Los Angeles International Airport. Scheme foiled when terrorist transporting explosives arrested at Canadian border.
All the above terrorists, captured, arrested, indicted, tried, convicted and punished by Attorney General Janet Reno with full due process, within the justice system in compliance with the Constitution. Clinton tested and passed.
That being said, it would be in the best interest of national security to have a 3rd Clinton term than a 3rd Bush term.
I think that part of the sadness that underlies much progressive support of Obama (vs. McCain) can be found in the oldest faulty mindset in history: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
I just listened to Michael Moore being interviewed by Amy Goodman for the past hour. Every time she brought up the facts about Obama's voting record or his healthcare plan, bailout vote, surge in Afghanistan, etc. the only thing Moore could say was that he hopes Obama behaves as a real politicain and renegs on what he has spoken about and promised during the campaign. How sad is that?
I see no connection between Martin Luther King Jr. and Barak Obama, quite frankly. MLK would never have supported ramping up military spending and surges into Afghanistan and Pakistan. Never. Barak Obama is probably a decent guy who is highly motivated to succeed. But i think he sees the world much more as a hedgemonist, than as a progressive. And military supremacy and american exceptionalism are part of this man's mindset. So how can he help the economy and global environmental crisis?
Just a few thoughts.
MLK was not an elected official who had to go through a right wing media spin machine. When people saw the unspun video and photos of women and children being hosed and beaten then they said enough is enough.
No MSM footage of police brutality anymore. No honest representation of marches and demonstrations. Just "are they terrorists" or "america haters".
Even if every progressive voted for Nader who ran instead of supporting McKinney mind you he would get maybe 10% and we would have a McCain/Palin administration.
At least Obama will allow us to more easily organize and protest.
The argument to vote for Nader is passe. Get to work building a coalition for 2012 instead of ranting. Change the media. Be part of the solution or part of the problem.
"At least Obama will allow us to more easily organize and protest."
Are you fu%&ing serious?! Tell you what - before November 4th, go to an Obama rally wearing a McKinney or Nader tee shirt with a bunch of leaflets listing Obama's betrayals and see how far you get. Or ask Dennis Kucinich what it was like having Obama's support to participate in the primary debates. Get real!
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I am talking about our civil rights kgarry. If you don't think that we have a chance to roll back some of the Patriot Act over the next four to eight years you are just a demagogue and need to get counter-punch to open up a comment section so you guys can feel at home.
What exactly did Obama do to Kucinich in the primaries??
Oh, you make alot of sense. You are not accepted at an Obama rally by berating him? Good one.
The third parties are doomed with tactless blowhards like yourself in it.
I think I will go to a McKinney rally and hand out Obama stickers....NOT.
I'm a demagogue?! Excuse me, highkarate, but before you go around trying to impress people with having finally mastered a word more than two syllables in length, you really should ascertain its meaning.
You can't even admit your thinking is clouded by the Obamagasms you're experiencing at the hands of a REAL demagogue, for Obama is one just as much as Bush and McCain. If you disagree, just consider his misrepresentation of McCain's "100 years in Iraq" statement. While not as blatant, crass, nor strident as his opponent, he nonetheless has earned the label.
Since I am NOT a political leader looking to gain power by playing to people's passions or fears, I am at a loss as to how the term applies to me. But then, I am used to this kind of illogical name-calling and emotional fisticuffs from Obamaniacs; I always feel as if I had just belittled or demeaned someone's prom date.
What did Obama do to Kucinich in the primaries? Shut him out. When Obama had the opportunity to demonstrate that he believed in real democracy and an open and more transparent electoral process, he colluded with his other Wall Street-approved candidates to make sure real progressive voices like Kucinich, McKinney, and Nader were not heard.
Tactless blowhard? Me? Hey! Third parties are not doomed because of people like me; they're relegated to the margins because of ill-informed, easily-manipulated, muddy-thinking automatons known as (R) and (D) party loyalists, you arrogant, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous Pelosi lap dog!
And by the way, you would have been more than welcome to attend the McKinney fund-raising dinner at my house with your Obama "hope" literature and "change" leaflets. I have some Obama change literature that I've written myself, in fact: the VERY long list of promises Obama has made that his actual votes betrayed. Change indeed.
- supported the Republican Class Action Reform Bill;
- supported one of the worst attacks on civil liberties in recent history, the reauthorization of the Patriot Act after saying he would oppose it if elected to the U.S. Senate;
- in February 2008 he promised to vote against (and filibuster if necessary) the FISA bill that gave immunity to telecomms. When the FISA bill came to the Senate for a vote this past July, Obama voted for it. He even voted to stop debate on the bill so he could get back to the campaign trail!
- He voted to reverse a 25-year ban on off-shore oil drilling.
- As a state legislator, Obama voted "to expand the list of death-eligible crimes," despite admitting in his own allegedly soul-searching memoir that the death penalty "does little to deter crime."
- Obama has changed his position on NAFTA to suit the moment. While running for the Senate in 2004, he said he supported NAFTA and thought there should be more trade agreements like it. Then, while running against Hillary, he blamed her for NAFTA’s impact on workers in the rustbelt states of Wisconsin and Ohio. But once he won the primary things changed. When asked if he would truly invoke the six-month clause in NAFTA for unilateral withdrawal, Obama showed his signature political reversal.
- And if I hear one more Obama supporter say, "Yeah, but think of the Supreme Court!" I think my head will explode. If you Obama will appoint good Supreme Court justices should just take note of his long history of supporting some of the worst Bush appointees to the federal bench, including Thomas Griffith (D.C. Cir.), Susan Blake Neilson (6th Cir.), Milan Smith (9th Cir.), Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Cir.), and Kent Jordan (3rd Cir.). The Neilson vote was particularly troubling as both senators from her own state "blue slipped" her for being "too extreme."
When he does manage to find the backbone to vote against conservative appointees, he barely registers, refusing to join any filibuster efforts. He voted cloture on Priscilla Owen (5th Cir.) and Brett Kavanaugh (D.C. Cir.) both extremely conservative jurists, thus ensuring they would be confirmed.
- He heaped praise on the first George Bush saying, "You know, one of the things that I think George H.W. Bush doesn’t get enough credit for was his foreign policy team and the way that he helped negotiate the end of the Cold War and prosecuted the Gulf War. That cost us $20 billion dollars. That's all it cost. It was extremely successful. I think there were a lot of very wise people."
- His VP selection, the Senator from Mastercard, who almost singlehandedly carried the Republican Bankruptcy Reform Bill (that Clinton vetoed twice) to fruition, finally getting W. to sign it into law in 2005. You know, the bill that makes it harder for average people to file for bankruptcy protection; makes it easier for landlords to evict a bankrupt tenant; endangers child-support payments by giving a wider array of creditors a shot at post-bankruptcy income; allows millionaires to shield an unlimited amount of equity in homes and asset protection trusts; makes it more difficult for small businesses to reorganize while opening new loopholes for the Enrons of the world; allows creditors to provide misleading information; and does nothing to rein in lending abuses. (Thanks to A. Huffington for the Bankruptcy Bill synopsis.)
So, go ahead and cast your vote for your own personal savior (and a REAL demagogue) and then come back in 8 years and tell us all how you're turning your back on American politics because you "just feel so betrayed and used." Meanwhile, I'll continue trying to do what little I can to reintroduce America to democracy.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
kgarry-
Do you not think that 99% of the people on CD are disappointed with Obama.
I have been trying to find out what people are doing here with third parties besides voting in the general election.
I think it is great that you hosted a fund raiser for McKinney, I really do, but what is with the lecture? I don't get it.
I am calling for action and organization. Your reply is one of the less diatriabical ones. Yeah, that's right, I just made up a word.
I have stopped trying to engage third party supporters in any relevant dialogue. They have refused to work with anyone who does not swallow their hatred for the DEMS.
As I have said before I am down with people like Alex Jones but do not believe this rhetoric that third partiers bandy about is going to help build a movement.
Go ahead, don't even try to work with people who don't hate Obama and see how far you get.
Go ahead and have another fund raiser for McKinney in 2012 to help a split third party get another 5% of the vote. I love McKinney but we got to get real.
You do know Obama voted to renew the Patriot Act, and Biden voted for it twice? And FISA..?
Did you know that Kucinich and McKinney voted against it?
Obama would be a 3rd Clinton term and McCain a 3rd Bush term. America, pick your poison. We so lack imagination as a country.
I just have one question for the right wing, where does the disconnect happen with your party? As I type this, I am watching Sarah Palin at one of her "rallies" lying through her teeth, bald faced and the crowd is there "drinking the kool-aid" by the gallon. In a way, it's hilarious, to see Sarah Palin channeling Emily Littella (70s SNL character played by Gilda Radner). I'm just waiting for her to say "never mind".
Palin just said "You shouldn't be working for your government, your government should be working for you." What ever happen to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."? Even better, is how Palin and McCain go on and on about how we're WINNING the war in Iraq. I have one question. what exactly are we winning?
Sarah Palin and John McCain have jumped on Joe Biden's statement about Obama being "tested" as if that would be a testament of Obama's inadequacy. How about a little recent history?
George W. Bush - tested on September 11, 2001. Terrorist attack in New York and Washington DC.
War waged against Iraq now for 5 years on the basis that Iraq had WMD in violation of UN protocols and Saddam Hussein was complicit with Al-Qaeda in the attack. No WMD and the Al-Qaeda connection proven fraudulent. "Enemy combatants" being held in Cuba prison, being tortured in violation to Geneva Conventions, away from Congressional oversight. Judicial due process for these prisoners subverted with the creation of military tribunals with the intent of punishing the prisoners as war criminals with no or little burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. However, the Supreme court has ruled that the prisoners have the right to file Habeas Corpus and the military attorneys appointed on both sides - defense and prosecution in a show of integrity, have mounted heroic defense and have rejected confessions that came from torturing the defendant. Result? It is 7 years later and not one terrorist involved has been arrested. G W Bush tested and failed miserably.
Now let's compare Bill Clinton. 4 terrorist attacks during his administration.
1. New York 1993, World Trade Center. 5 WEEKS into his first term.
2. Oklahoma City 1995, Alfred Murrah Building.
3. Atlanta 1996, Olympics.
4. Los Angeles 1999, the Millennium Attack scheduled for December 31, 1999 at Los Angeles International Airport. Scheme foiled when terrorist transporting explosives arrested at Canadian border.
All the above terrorists, captured, arrested, indicted, tried, convicted and punished by Attorney General Janet Reno with full due process, within the justice system in compliance with the Constitution. Clinton tested and passed.
That being said, it would be in the best interest of national security to have a 3rd Clinton term than a 3rd Bush term.
Obama will actually be the third term of George Bush Jr. Just look at his policy positions. I do expect he will throw us some crumbs from time to time.
It would be amusing if it wasn't so serious. Listening to naderites
lambasting obamanoughts over a RIGGED ELECTORAL process that will
GIVE MCCAIN the election based on their rationales that are already well established (bradley effect, neck and neck, etc etc). The reason NORTHCOM
now has troops at its disposal is that when the BLACK BOX election is over,
a "war hero" will take the presidency from an unelected supreme court
APPOINTEE and when citizens take to the streets to protest, MARTIAL LAW
will be declared. There will also be agents provocateurs to create the
legal and PHYSICAL trigger allowing violent reprisal.
THE FALSE FLAG attack was established in the "REMEMBER THE MAINE" incident and Hearsts newspapers drummed americans into war with SPAIN. KBR and halliburton
have the 'prisons' for 'enemy american combatants' well prepared. The method is
well established and the rationale has been laid by the INFLAMMATORY story
lines laid out on FAUX news and SLEAZE CNN. That story is that obama is associated with terrorists and will bring SOCIALISM. The tiny minority now
have (in PALIN) someone for the FAKE CHRISTIANS to rally around.
The worst part is that there normal citizens who, by virtue of their GREED, who will support this action because , having lost 40% of their net worth, they are even more opposed to anyone raising their taxes. The REPUGS have effectively
divided citizens along the generational divide once characterized as HIPPIES
and squares. People of the generation maturing in the fifties are firm
AUTHORITARIANS, believing in the benign 'GOOD' federal authorities. They don't
have thje insight to discern that through the much abused PATRONAGE process
entire bureacracies can be weeded out and misdirected against the intent of the governed. THIS REAGAN ADMINISTRATION is just doing what it did in the early
eighties and got away with then. ITS ALL THE SAME PEOPLE>>>GATES is a prime
example, he holds the keys to all the skeletons.
Interesting that you mention Gates at the end of your useless diatribe: Obama is considering retaining Gates as Sec. of Defense. Just the fact that he would consider it is yet another reason not to vote for him. Again, tell me how Obama's policies are all that different from the Republican positions. I expect we will get some crumbs from an Obama administration, which might pacify some of you. Deprogramming "Democrats" is hard work!
Well I think what they call this is informed consent, or is it a legal disclaimer? Anyone who votes for him was informed of exactly what dangers that vote might entail, long before the day of election, four days, to decide if they wanted him or not. Whoops, I guess a lot of people already voted.
Remember per his own words Obama is the sacrifice candidate, but it wasn't until now that we are getting a concrete inkling of exactly what one might be expected to sacrifice once he was in office.
But wait, Gates isn't a problem, but Gates is only the beginning.
Of course it is always
interesting to hear from someone whose fulltime job is supporting the propaganda networks and the storylines I laid out.
The dem 'party' as controlled by the emanuels and bidens DLC are part of
the longterm strategy as exemplified by political machinations in So America in the 60's and 70's. Phil Agee documented CIA's infiltration of ALL political parties and the Catholic church in addition to the use of false flag attacks to trigger
authoritarian reprisal against those working for legitimate purposes,
I met and spoke with Ralph and his sister Saturday night.
You can either cut to the chase and vote for Nader; or you can beat around the bush (or Bush?) and assure yourself that if your top issues are: War in Iraq (and a military based foreign policy), Universal Health Care, Corporation corruption (which means protecting the corporate elite assets), that your concerns won't be addressed with Obama.
If the above statement seems to be too far 'left' to support, then you are rightfully voting for Obama. But if you believe in the importance of those concerns, then this could be the year that you stop giving your tacit support to the corporate democratic party.
It seems that a fundamental shift in social consciousness may not happen this year, but it could with your vote. All it means is that if you have disdain Clinton and Bush, a path to consider is NOT voting for the lesser of two evils, and vote for a third Party candidate.
You need to remove your power that you are giving to the corporate elite every time you are voting for the lesser of two evils.
Give money to Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Cindy Sheehan. Show your support with your money.
Effective propaganda contains some truth. The "third Clinton-era" charge against an Obama Presidency might be called "good" propaganda because it contains some elements that are hard to shake.
1. Obama supports NAFTA; President Bill Clinton signed NAFTA into law. (Ironically, NAFTA was a George HW Bush-sponsored initiative.)
2. Obama supported a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout for rich Wall Street bankers; President Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin, helped get rid of the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, thus precipitating the financial crisis in the first place. To add insult to injury, Obama brought Rubin on as one of his campaign advisors.
3. Obama wants to drill for oil in sensitive coastal areas; President Bill Clinton essentially had no environmental policy, despite all of Al Gore's book writing. Clinton allowed more forest cutting in federally protected lands.
4. Obama wants to bomb Pakistan; President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia, the Sudan and Iraq.
5. Obama signed the PATRIOT Act and the FISA bill allowing Fourth Amendment violations to be considered nil; President Bill Clinton enhanced FBI domestic spying powers.
So, there isn't a one-to-one correspondence to the charge. Certainly, Republican lies are legion, and that's something to renounce. However, in this case, the charge isn't that far off from the truth. Obama is a very Bill Clinton-like politician, especially with all of the "hope" and "yes we can" talk. Clinton's line was "real change" - not too far off from Obama's "we are the change we have been waiting for."
The real irony here is that Bill Clinton was the best "Republican" President that the Republican Party ever had (and witless Republicans hated him for that). Clinton's policies were indistinguishable from the hard right. So far, Obama's policies look like they will be more of the same.
-TIA
You don't think a deal was brokered between Obama and Hillary?
Silly!
Everything forgotten so quickly, like the fact that the primary vote for Obama was not a cinch by any means until Hillary gave it to Obama, and I don't think she gave out for free just cause he's the first black man to run for president.
Josephine Ortez
Tell me about it, and I'm an HRC supporter. I recall the first thing Obama did
when he gave his acceptance speech in Denver was to thank Hillary, even
before his family(!) although he said it half heartedly. I thought at the time,
man! what's she got on him?
The problem is not lack of consciousness of the American masses, but the fact that the reformist elements in the leadership of both parties, do not have a clear socialist perspective. The only solution for USA is to expropriate the key levers of the economy (the banks, the land, the food distribution chain and the remaining industries) and put them under the democratic control of the workers and peasants within a Socialist plan of production. This and this alone can solve the urgent problems facing the United States of America today.
Of course they lack a clear socialist perspective. The electoral system was designed to keep the people out decades before there WAS socialism.
The reformists are not in control of events; neither are the bankers, the investors, the owners, the rulers.
Americans have to see someone making good faith efforts to reform & preserve the system they've known before a majority reach the conclusion that it can't be saved, and begin to understand that what they thought was a way up was in fact an escalator always going down.
What all the AbsoProgs demonstrate is that they don't really believe that historical development trumps personal decisions; that personalities are instruments & adjuncts, not causes in themselves.
Obama is not a Clinton retread because it's the foundations of capitalism in the US and Europe, and not the fringes, which have given way. Even should he share the same political philosophy, he won't be able to act in the manner of Clinton, just as Louis XVI could not act in the manner of Louis XIV.
Ah, the "glory" days under Clinton. Forget about Bush Sr. lying about being "out of the loop" on Iran/Contra, NAFTA, don't link trade and human rights with China, Greenspan, welfare reform and balanced budgets. What more do you want from a good conservative?
VOTE NADER.
I came home from work (East Coast) at 8:20pm last night and turned on the TV. Got to see the closing minutes of the Obama infomercial. First words I heard from Obama's mouth were about the need to ramp up the war in Afghanistan and beat the Taliban, etc. Now I'd been struggling with myself to find a way to vote for Obama (because McCain is so atrocious), but these words were enough to tilt the scales. I'll either stay home Tuesday, or I'll vote either for McKinney or Nader. Can't vote for another Democrat who, like Clinton, will ramp up Republican military aggression. Nobama for me. The Democrats won't improve until we stop supporting them when they are nothing but Republican light.
Excellent! Thanks for sharing that, real stuff!
At least Clinton and Gingrich managed to balance the budget, and Clinton didn't launch any never-ending wars. Some baby steps were taken during Clinton's administration, and a lot of mistakes were made, but the neocons took their non-mandate and trashed everything. We will be paying for this for decades, and McCain promises more of the same.
McCain has completely walked away from any strategy to combat global warming or other environmental problems, promises to continue Dubya's tax structure and militaristic policies... Its time to give the sincere young man from Hawaii, Indonesia, Harvard, Columbia and Chicago a chance to start things changing, and hope it doesn't turn into Jimmy Carter's doomed from the start administration.
Josephine Ortez
By "sincere young man..." you cannot be referring to Obama, he
is anything but sincere. He gives a good IMPRESSION of sincere,
granted, but he is as duplicitous as they come. He is the con-
summate lawyer, always leaving himself a loophole.
Just two well known examples: he promised to fillibuster the
FISA bill yet promptly voted yes when he won the nomination.
He reneged on his pledge to accept federal campaign funds.
"Clinton didn't launch any never-ending wars..." Well, he sure continued the massive deaths in Iraq that began with Bush the Elder. And he warmongered with the best of them there. "Launch" may not be the right verb, be that doesn't absolve Clinton of much.
Obama's first term will be Bush's third term. Clinton/Bush was there really a big difference? Both bombed Iraq and killed civilians. Remember, we have been bombing Iraq since 1991.
VOTE NADER
Really????
I don't even live in the US (never have), but I think there was a difference between Clinton and Bush II. I mean DIFFERENCES (Plural!). I won't bother anyone here with a list.
The public image of Clinton is better than that of Bush. Clinton had better relations with the Press. In reality more Iraqi civilians died during the Clinton Administration than under Bush. Anybody remember when Madeleine Albright said that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it?
I was thinking the same thing and then I read your comments.
Yes, if there is an Obama "first term," it will be a continuation of the status quo despite all of Obama's sales pitch "hope and change" manure which the gullible wishful-thinking D sheep have fallen for.
To me it's a given that McCain will be selected by the vote-flipping, easily-hackable, riggable Repug-owned and controlled electronic voting machines/central tabulator, because McCain is the official R candidate (think 2000/2004). Even though Obama is a neocon Repug in reality, he charades as a "Dem."
Speaking of the status quo, check this article out:
One week until the US elections
October 28, 2008
One week before Election Day, Democratic Party leaders are already issuing excuses as to why a lopsided Obama victory should not be interpreted as a mandate for a significant change of policy, and why...
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o28.shtml
Obama asking Rahm Emanuel to be White House Chief of Staff is just the latest clue.
Yes. It means Obama doesn't want Emanuel in the Houes of Representatives.
Does anyone here have the slightest concept of strategy?
Could it be that Emanuel will serve as Obama's direct liasson with AIPAC??
My first thought was that it would be a boon to have Emanuel NOT VOTING, but please elaborate a bit more on what kind of strategy this might be. I do know that Obama colluded with Emanuel, Durbin, Pelosi, et. al. in sabotaging Democratic anti-war candidates. Who might be put up for Emanuel's seat? Very interesting. What could this strategey be?
Yes, Bill Clinton's focus on self is irritating and counterproductive.
Conspicuous by its absence, though, is a clear example in this article of where Obama differs from Clinton on a policy level.
"Making the Obama presidency the third term of Bill Clinton's presidency is both substantively inappropriate to the times, and politically dangerous/tone deaf."
And yet, it is probably the least of our worries. No matter who he turns to in an effort to fill that enormous "unqualified to lead" vacuum... in a few days, Americans will lose. They will lose once again. Only this time, it will be in a BIG, BIG way.
The only consolation will be that the sound of all the individual bells tolling will certainly wake up a few people who are still fortunate enough to enjoy the luxury of sleeping.
It will be their reaction to this tragedy, that will be most telling.
... and all of Clinton's horses and all of Clinton's men....
The presidency of Bill Clinton, along with the disaster that is Dubya, Cheney, & Co., should be history. Current circumstances mitigate that any repetition of either prior president's policies is truly a bad idea and an obvious non-starter. For all the vociferous third party types on this site, are any of you going to do anything except whine and vote? How about running for local office in your area? Change begins on the ground floor, not from above.
ummm, lets see change begins on the ground floor, not from above, so run for a local office in your area?
The ground floor is the people, not the peoples representatives even if it is just a small local position.
I prefer to continue to be a member of the directing class and stay in that ground floor office.
Thanks though.
I ran for city council; how's that for "ground floor"? What offices have you run for? This election cycle, I have worked on 2 ballot initiative campaigns.
Have done so already. Abused by local "liberal" press, abandoned by friends. Thanks, Democratic Party!
"FWIW, no, Obama never 'cited Ronald Reagan as his ideal of what a President should be.' He said the Reagan came to office at a time when the culture was ready to shift, and that we are at a similar point of cultural shift (in a different direction) now:
'I think part of what's different are the times... I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.'
But feel free to twist his words."
It is you who have misrepresented his words by leaving some important ones out. Here is the whole quote pertaining to Reagan:
"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Clearly, he is expressing approval for the direction that Reagan took the country in and disapproval for the so-called "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s"--i.e., the political movements that from a progressive point of view changed the US in a positive direction.
"Clearly, he is expressing approval for the direction that Reagan took the country in and disapproval for the so-called "excesses of the 1960s and 1970s"--i.e., the political movements that from a progressive point of view changed the US in a positive direction."
No, it is not at all clear regarding the conclusions that you draw out of it.
The things that Obama referred to as things people felt positively about about Reagan were not policies but emotionally-laden terms: "accountability... clarity... optimism... dynamism and entrepreneurship..."
And the things Obama cited that people felt negatively about were unspecified "excesses... and government had grown." Lots of people felt there were excesses in the social movements of the 60s and 70s, and this is plainly part of what Reagan appealed to. This is not some blanket, Reaganesque denunciation of all the social and political movements of the 60s and 70s, this is an analysis of Reagan's appeal.
And his statement is led by saying "I think they felt that...", meaning that this is his understanding of what was involved the appeal of Reagan in the popular consciousness, not that this is what Obama is doing as a candidate. Clearly he is NOT appealing to the same public consciousness as Reagan did, in many obvious ways.
Again, you are free to twist his words...
He has said different things at different times. He clearly said during the primaries that he preferred Ronald Reagan's policies to Bill Clinton's (which isn't saying much as both were non-progressive right-wingers). Of course, he was running against Hillary Clinton at the time.
Compare anything any one of us would have said when asked about Reagan with what Obama said. The gap is appalling. Also, watch the video of Obama saying it; it's pretty clear that the "excesses" (liberalism winning a few battles for 15 years or so) bit is something that Obama agrees with when you note tone.
Nicely done.
Could that be a play on Mindwalk?
Just curious.
As of today, no one's won anything yet. As for the Republicans . . . those rotten, miserable, superstitious and ignorant screwheads will be back in force in 2012 if McCain loses and Obama cannot get the MSM to depict him as a "dynamic leader" worthy of reelection. It's the Democrats who've disappeared over the last 30 years and become a parody of the Democratic party I knew as a younger person.
Unless they change their tune it won't matter if they come back in 2012. Unless Pelosi and Reid manage to screw things up more . Some of these idiots are touting Palin for the future, geeezzzzeee.
"It's the Democrats who've disappeared over the last 30 years and become a parody of the Democratic party I knew as a younger person."
Isn't that the truth.
Obama's one and only term will be a carrying out of his conservative right-wing policies that he has pledged himself to & his corporate sponsors.
Thanks for the report from the future. It is certainly true, and perfectly clear that:
No one has ever been surprised by how history turns out;
No President has ever moved in ways that surprised or confounded his backers;
No political leader anywhere has ever been moved by crises or popular movements.
Sorry if i'm rude, i just think this kind of "future certain" thinking feeds cynicism and inaction. Whether Obama is allowed to win, or the thuggest party steals another term, how can we move history no matter who sits in the Oval Office? Presumably history is not only moved by the person in the Oval Office...
Yeah, let's just continue the Clinton neoliberal policies that helped pave the way for where we are today.
I'm hopeful that Obama's first term will be more like Chavez's or Evo's first term. Nationalize energy resources, for starters.
:)
It seems to me its about time to start coming together and moving forward.
Obama is going to win and the best idea would be to start finding out how to make the best of it. And certainly stop saying can't/won't/before.
Quit worrying about Nader/Barr/McCain/Palin. They are history. If people aren't going to be part of the solutions, they are assuredly part of the problem.
With all the serious problems coming, shouldn't we start addressing them?
...three, two, one...
Ka-Boom!
"Should an Obama Presidency Be Bill Clinton's Third Term?"
Maybe so, unless he has a death wish.
Obama will decide on his own or based on whoever can best control him. Just let him win first. Geesh !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Yeah, geesh! Quit all of this democracy crap and let the man win first! He bought the most TV airtime, he gets to win! Geesh!
i know some pathetic hillbilly fucks who live around here who have Mccain-Palin yard sign stickers in their front lawn, when Obama seizes power I will drive by their houses to see how they feel.
I will harass my Republican Party neighbors by playing a Henry Rollin song called 'Liar' real outloud, so that Republican Party militants, get real depressed, and down on November 5. I just wanna see their look on their pathetic faces on that day when the History of USA will change. And when the road toward socialism will begin in this barbaric right-wing culture.
I don't think that the Republican Party will get back to power again. The Republican Party left a big scar in this country. USA will continue to have different political parties, i think Democrat Party will survive for some years, but new parties will arise in these 4 years. I think that the Green Socialist Parties of this country will get stronger. Free Speech TV will get more funds, and a new wave toward social-democracy first and then toward socialism of the XXI Century in the near future.
The evangelical churches will continue brainwashing the masses, but they won't have so much power. AIPAC and Israel will lose its hegemony, and best of all Sarah Palin won't appear on CNN so much lying to the world.
.
Very funny! Rollins is bad ass.
I hope you are right. Don't listen to any of these "expect more of the same" jackholes. They really don't know what they are talking about.
I am first generation from eastern europe and none of these so called radicals have any idea of what they are talking about. People change. The revolution can happen real fast and they wont know what hit them because they are not out on the street. They get all their info from cable TV and so called radical sights on the net.
The don't care about people and they have no respect for the middle class but most of all they do nothing but vote for Nader.
And that of course makes them cool.
First of all, leave your neighbors alone! Secondly, please understand that "Democrats" are brainwashed, too. AIPAC? Obama full supports. Faith-based initiatives? Obama wishes to expand. The Republican party will certainly regain power! Obama: one term president.
"First of all, leave your neighbors alone!"
Yep, trying to get staunch "conservatives" to vote for real progressives such as Ralph Nader is like teaching pigs to sing. Nader would be winning if he could convince voters from both the Republican and Democratic camps but he isn't. Do the math. In 2004, Bush won 62 million votes while Kerry won 59 million. That means Ralph needs at least 40 million votes to even have a snowball's chance of winning. I'll vote for Nader because of his crystal clear stands on various issues even if I don't expect anything but I wished Nader would have reached out to Republican voters sick and tired of their privacy rights being shredded. Nader should be reaching out to disaffected Republican voters sick and tired of being sold out on the economic front and being duped into nation building for the corporate cronies.
"Secondly, please understand that "Democrats" are brainwashed, too. AIPAC? Obama full supports. Faith-based initiatives? Obama wishes to expand."
The reason Ross Perot actually won 19% of the vote in 1992 was he hammered away at both parties equally. I wish Ralph would do the same. Most progressive groups and people are not convinced that Nader is taking on both the Republicans and Democrats equally which may explain why they're sucking up to Obama. Until Ralph can erase the perception that he is taking votes only away from Democrats, he will be derailed. He needs to make it clear that he's taking away votes from both parties or his lunch will be eaten every election.
"The Republican party will certainly regain power! Obama: one term president."
How can you be so sure? What if the Green Party finally gets it together in 2 or 4 years or some other 3rd party progressive party. Why aren't you looking forward to prospects of 3rd/Independent parties consistently? Just expecting Ralph Nader to show up once every 4 years is not helping him or us. Don't fall into the trap of picking between the Republicans and Democrats. You already know that both Republicans and Democrats suck so why not move towards helping others build a viable 3rd/Independent Progressive/Liberal Party for a REAL change like I'm doing. And if at first you don't succeed, keep trying. Don't you think that is a much better idea?
Sorry Fred-
The Dems are getting better and the third parties are getting worse. Look at all the postings on this site from third party supporters. What are they offering to the dialogue? Not much.
Politricks_of_de_sh-tstem
In addition to some progressive "thrid party", what is really needed is a viable "third party" on the far right, one that better appeals to social conservatives.
Then, with the threat of Republican victory in swing states muted, more progressives could vote according to their convictions, rather than choose a Phyrric victory.
[OTOH, the far right will become organized into a party before progressives can agree to a party platform: it just a classic collective action problem (with social conservatives being fewer in number and easier to organize).]
None of the existing third parties have a snowballs chance of ever moving up in my opinion. Their appeal is far to narrow. It would take a new third party.
Is that what you are talking about?
The reason I chose the name "progressiveparty" is because I believe the alternative progressive parties ought to merge into one larger party, called "Progressive Party". We would "move up" if we got a fair shake: inclusion in debates, level playing field including an equal amount of money for all candidates, a level playing field when it comes to media attention - 4% is one of 20 people. Imagine how high the percentage would go with a level playing field? It would be enough to get a progressive agenda on the table!
Please ---- no more Clinton/Bush crappy economic progams. I'd like to see Goldman Sachs get out of the government and leave our tax money alone.
I hope Michelle will have a great influence on the Obama administration and that she will make him govern as a progressive which is what we need.
Michelle and Barack are heavy into the Council on Foreign Relations--Not Progressive, Subversion and Destruction of Sovereign Nations--North American Union and other "Market States" under One-World Global Government, Corporate/Military, Totalitarian and Fascist.
...can't forget about Joe Biden!
If this is what you want, vote Nader.
Don't vote for the candidate who just strongly supported the Wall Street Bailout and who actually seems to the right of Clinton on most economic views under the strange premise that his wife will set him straight.
Obama has hundreds of millions of corporate dollars in his campaign accounts. And the way American politics works, he and the Democrats will start fund raising for the next election the day they take office. Its bizarre this constant belief that somehow Obama is going to tell all his contributors to go stuff it after he's elected, especially when at the same time he'll be calling them asking for more money the next election.
That's the reality we face. I really hope you aren't voting for the next President based on what his wife will say during pillow talk.
If you want Goldman Sachs out of the government, vote Nader.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
The chance of Nader winning the presidency is as "good" as the chance that a meteorite will hit this planet somewhere in the next 2 months. In other words, not happening. Get a local Nader and then have him or her move up the ladder even as far as presidency. Ralph Nader running for presidency is like trying to learn calculus when you haven't even taken the basics of algebra.
Paul Street's book Barack Obama and the Future of American Politics tells the whole story referred to above in the excellent comments by Quizmasterchris, Mordechai Shiblikov and Stone. I urge true progressives to read it. It not only reveals Obama as a conservative, corporate militarist, but also goes on to lay out a clear agenda for (real) progressive change in the case of an Obama administration.
Paul Street is the bomb.
--
Eric Patton
http://www.myspace.com/412205319
I've only read the beginnings of this book so far. But the parts I've read I'd highly recommend.
I'd be interested in seeing what he gives as an agenda later in the book. And if he has any suggestions on how to achieve it. I can only see one way to do it, and here it is.
We will need to be organizing very strong Green Party \Independent Congressional campaigns in the 2010 elections. And we'll need to have campaigns directly targeted at Democrats in races where a strong 3rd party run might cause their defeat.
Democrats only understand raw political power. If we don't have a big club in our hands, they'll continue to laugh at us and call us idiot liberals just like the leaders of the Dem majority in Congress have done. If you want them to pay attention, then we need to show we have the ability to hurt them. And the ability to go in and cause their candidates to lose is just that.
If we don't do that, there's not a chance of Obama doing a dang thing we want. He's already clearly said the only way he'd do anything progressive is if we force him to do so. The above is how to force him to be progressive. Threaten the Democrats with defeat.
And the best way to set this up and make sure we have a credible threat in 2010 is the strongest possible vote in this election for Nader, McKinney etc. The bigger those numbers are in this election, the more Obama and the Democrats will take our agenda seriously.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
The problem is that we have to do the work of deprogramming Democrats and Republicans FIRST - otherwise we'll have the same arguments in four years, with well-meaning well-intentioned "peace activists" voting for pro-war candidates/parties. We also need to form one progressive party and choose one candidate we can all be reasonably happy with. (I like Matt Gonzalez!!)
I like Gonzalez too. I think you'd have to go to Counter Punch to read his latest article - very well worth reading. Common Dreams would never publish it. Too bad there isn't a comments section on Counter Punch. Maybe if we ask nicely ....
"What Do They Have To Do to Lose Your Vote?" by Matt Gonzalez, running mate of Ralph Nader, a lawyer living in San Francisco.
http://www.counterpunch.org/gonzalez10292008.html
It's odd isn't it, but I think the right question is what more do they have to do than Bush to win your vote? Most Obama supporters in the end want someone as much like Bush as possible, but with the democratic veil on. What will we do after four more years of Bush policies sugar coated with forgotten empty promises as Obama out bombs Bush?
I posted a link to his fantastic article, too, all over Common Dreams! But I have a deep suspicion that only non-Obama supporters actually read it, don't you?? Obama supporters (& Democrats) always talk about "horse race" issues, you know, "winning" and how we can't "win", never about issues - I ask: do you Obama supporters want more endless wars? More bailouts? More FISA bills? More right wing policies??
For Green/Indies to win, they must target both Republican and Democrat seats. Wouldn't you agree?
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Obama shows the ability to listen to contrary viewpoints & to come up witih his own nuances. Though he doesn't always come down wholly where I would want him to, both his method & his substance show he works outside the traps that fundamentalists of both types try to create for him.
Limiting Clinton's role in the campaign -- deploying him but not allowing him room to run with his own interpretations -- is a sign of the carefulness of his judgment.
To bad the viewpoints he listens to never include the left.
He's alwasys surrounded by right-wingers. He's got most the Clinton types advising him, and he's always sitting down with Republicans and promising Republicans cabinet posts.
Meanwhile, during the DNC here in Denver, most the progressive left was in town. To my knowledge, no one ever met or sat down with the Obama camp. The response from teh DNC and the Democratic mayor of Denver was to send the riot police out into the streets to pepper spray anyone on the left trying to express a different view from the Dems pro-war, pro-corporate position.
?
Have you seen Obama talking to say Iraq Vets against the war?
Have you seen Obama talking to the people who were protesting the bailout?
Obama never talks to these people, and never 'comes down' anywhere near them. Meanwhile, his big contributors have constant access, and he always manages to 'come down' with what's favorable to them.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Obama's "careful listening to all opinions, nuancing, and leaving everyone feeling as if they had been heard, is just plain B.S. It's just propaganda of the carefully groomed, crafted persona of the mythical Obama.
The Democratic Leadership Committee, a Clintonian committee, is a pro-business entity meant to model the Kennedy Administration. It fails however, in that it is narrowly focused and does not adequately address the weakened condition of the poor and middle class (soon to be poor). That enormous failure has led to to the near bankruptcy of the middle class. Obama, based upon his votes, is clearly an adherent of the DLC philosophy. He is NOT a man of the people. Obama only tilts marginally toward the middle class in his policies although his rhetoric is more expansive. Obama is a compromiser and feels more comfortable in the company of those who led America along the path toward an economic neutering. Obama's mighty ego will likely not lead him down the path of recapitalizing the middle class. In all probability he will fall victim to the culture of Washington upper class corruption and an endless quagmire in Afghanistan. Obama's past votes absolutely fail to qualify him as a man of the people. He is just another in a long line of pied pipers with unlimited ambition and limited wisdom. The enormity of the hardships facing America will not be slowed by a, "can't we all just get along" presidency. Obama is unprepared for the reality he will inherit. We can only hope that he is strong enough to stand up to it, and that seems very unlikely.
http://www.blackcommentator.com/48/48_cover.html
For those who don't follow the link above, it leads to an article about how Obama rejected membership in the DLC during his original run for US Senate in Illinois.
Of course, whether Obama is formally enrolled in the DLC or not, the fact is, a disgraced Clintonite like Rubin is on his economic team.
So odd that every anti-Obama comment complains about his "mighty ego". A "mighty egotist" would have spent the whole half an hour of his ad with the camera focused on himself; the focus was on others.
An egotist would have had a Clintonian style war-room reacting instantly to every attack & launching others; Obama has brushed off the personal attacks against him, while declining to make use of the abundant material that might have been used against McCain.
The anti-Obamites are too Bushian for my taste, "Yer either with us or yer with the bad guys."