by hilzoy
As many of you know, I haven’t been following political coverage for the past week or so. While this presents some problems for me as a blogger, it does have a few advantages, and one of them is: having missed all the coverage of Hillary’s Tears, I do not need to wonder whether I am being unduly affected by it. (I did see the video of The Tears themselves, and failed to see what all the fuss was about.)
My main concern about Hillary Clinton has always concerned foreign policy. On the domestic side, I think that the proposals of the three main Democratic candidates are pretty close to one another, close enough that their differences will be swamped by whatever changes have to be made to them in order to get them adopted. On foreign policy, however, I think that she and Obama are quite different, for reasons I hope to explain later. Moreover, as Matt Yglesias and Tom Schaller (see also Ari Berman) have pointed out, her advisors tended to support the war in Iraq, while Obama’s tended to oppose it, and this worries me a great deal.
Most of all, though, there is her vote on the Iraq war. Whether she voted as she did because she thought it was right or because she thought that George W. Bush was trustworthy enough that Congress could authorize him to go to war confident in the knowledge that he would not abuse that power, that vote, the most important she cast as a Senator, was disastrously wrong. Moreover, she didn’t just vote for the Iraq War Resolution; she voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have required Bush to go back to the UN for authorization to use military force. And she cast this vote without having bothered to read the relevant National Intelligence Estimate. Which is to say: she took the decision whether or not to go to war — to invade another country, and to put both Iraqi citizens and members of our military in harm’s way — without bothering to do her homework first.
Given a choice between Clinton and any intelligent, well-informed, basically sane candidate who inhabits some recognizable corner of the reality-based community, and who did not support the decision to go to war, Clinton’s vote for the Iraq War resolution, especially in light of her vote against the Levin Amendment and her failure to inform herself adequately, is a dealbreaker for me.
All this started out as a preface to my main point, which concerns the political effects that nominating Clinton would have. Briefly: while my main reasons for opposing Clinton involve policy (see above), I also think that to nominate her would be to throw away a political opportunity that comes along once in a generation. I’ll put my arguments for that point below the fold.
I think, not particularly originally, that many voters have become disenchanted with the Republican Party. For this reason, if I had to bet now on the outcome of the election, I would bet on the Democrat. What I’m not at all clear on is how the Democrat will win. And how we win matters immensely. On the one hand, I think this election could genuinely change people’s views about the two parties in ways that could reshape the political landscape. On the other, it could not. And a lot depends on how the Democrats play their hand.
When people talk about what would happen if Hillary Clinton were nominated, some of us, myself included, note that a sizable number of voters dislike Hillary Clinton, and will continue to dislike her whatever she does. We could argue about whether this is fair or unfair, but it seems to be a fact, and as such, it should be taken into account, at least if we’re serious about winning.
The usual response to this line of argument is: well, the Republicans will demonize anyone the Democrats nominate, so even if more people dislike her now, those same people will end up disliking any Democratic nominee by the time the Republican Party gets through with him or her. To which my side normally responds: yes, but why make it easy for them? Why hand them a candidate who comes pre-demonized? Why not make them work for it?
I think this response is basically right. But it has a corollary that is, I think, more important. Namely:
As I said, I think that many voters are disenchanted with the Republican Party. They are, I think, poised to see through it. One of the things that I, as a citizen, would be happiest to have them see through is the sheer level of maliciousness that Republicans normally deploy in campaigns like this. I suspect that a number of people who might have been prepared to explain all this away when they were convinced that the Republicans stood for morality, strong national security policy, fiscal discipline, and so forth might be a lot less willing to do so now.
Perhaps I am wrong about the Republican Party. Perhaps the people who gave us the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the accusations that the Clintons had killed Vince Foster, the sneaky phone calls questioning John McCain’s sanity and insinuating that he had fathered a black child out of wedlock, and so on and so forth, have had a complete change of heart, and will henceforth be models of decorum and propriety. As a citizen, I would be delighted if this were true. Personally, though, I’m not counting on it.
For that reason I think that Democrats should prepare a sort of Aikido strategy: turning our opponents’ attacks against them. We should try to set things up in such a way that if the Republicans go after our candidate in an underhanded, dishonest, and despicable way, that fact will be as clear to ordinary voters as it could possibly be. (If they don’t, no problem: Aikido strategies, unlike, say, preemptive violence, do not involve anticipating someone else’s attack by launching an attack of one’s own. This is one reason why I’m not attempting to defend my view of Republican tactics: I’m not proposing that we do anything morally problematic based on that view; just that we set things up so that if they launch some sort of despicable attack, we can turn it to our advantage. If they don’t, as I said, I would be delighted.)
This would not have been so important in, say, 1996: in that year, people were not particularly ready to see Republican scorched-earth tactics for what they were. (Nor, in fairness, did Bob Dole use them.) This year, however, I think they are. If we capitalize on that fact, we have the chance to change people’s perceptions of the two parties in a serious and lasting way. If we do not, then this will be one more election, which the Democrats will probably win, but it will not be a game-changer.
In this context, I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a disastrous mistake. Of all the people whom we are at all likely to nominate, she is the one whom people would be most inclined to believe the worst of. Some of those people — the ones who thought the Clintons had Vince Foster killed and hung crack pipes on their Christmas trees — are presumably unreachable by Democrats. But others — the ones who don’t pay close attention to these things, and came away from the 1990s with a vague sense that the Clintons were just plain sleazy — are people we can reach.
If we nominate Hillary Clinton, then I assume that the Republicans will go after her, and that they will not restrict themselves to attacking her policies and her record. When they do, then all those people who are already inclined to think the worst of Hillary Clinton will, for that reason, be prepared to find those attacks believable. Stories about her sleaziness, her underhandedness, her cold and calculating nature, etc., will be a lot less likely to strike them as implausible, overreaching, mean-spirited, malicious, or vile. And that means that the chances that people will see standard Republican attacks for what they are are dramatically reduced.
By contrast, if we nominate someone whom people like that are not antecedently disposed to think the worst of, that will have two good effects. First, those attacks will be less likely to be believed, since the Republican establishment will not have spent the better part of two decades preparing the ground for them. Second, in order to get people to the same point of loathing, they will have to attack harder.
Both of these things — the fact that any given attack will be less likely to be believed by ordinary, reachable people, and the fact that the Republicans will therefore have to attack harder to produce the same effects — make it much, much more likely that people will see those attacks for what they are. They therefore make it much more likely that this election will genuinely change the political landscape.
This analysis turns on the idea that in this election, ordinary voters — people who do not follow political campaigns in detail — are more than usually open to seeing through Republican attacks. If you don’t believe that this is true — if you think, for instance, that those attacks will be effective not just on some people, but on the same numbers of people, regardless of who the Democrats nominate — then you should reject it. But if you think this might be the moment when people actually see the Republicans’ attacks for what they are, then I think it matters to set things up in such a way that this is as likely as possible. And that means not nominating Hillary Clinton.
This matters not just for Democrats, but for our country. When people can get away with sliming candidates, with making attacks that are not just false, but despicable, our democracy suffers. As citizens, we have, I think, an obligation to do our best to check out the factual basis of any attacks for ourselves, and not to reward those who make them. But we should also hope that our politics changes in such a way that attacks that are really beyond the pale just stop working: that they turn off more people than they convince.
***
There’s another reason why I think that nominating Hillary Clinton would make this election less likely to transform the political landscape, namely: she provokes bad reactions not only in Republicans but in Democrats.
Many Democrats, myself included, believe that the Clintons were subjected to an unprecedented campaign of vilification during the 1990s. We are angry about this. Since I share this anger, it should go without saying that I find it completely comprehensible. But I don’t think that it would be a good idea for us to nominate a candidate who brings it out in us, especially not in an election that truly has the potential to reshape the political landscape.
Most obviously, when Hillary Clinton is attacked, it makes a lot of us angry all over again. And it seems to me that a lot of Democrats don’t just get angry in whatever way the current attack warrants. We have a lot of leftover anger from the 1990s, and it tends to spill out. I don’t think this is particularly useful if we want to win.
Worse, I think that some Democrats are inclined to respond to attacks that remind them of the 1990s by reflexively assuming that those attacks are wrong, This risks blinding us to serious problems. Here’s an example:
Back in the 1990s, I believed, as I said, that the Clintons were subjected to a campaign of vilification that made me very angry. However, I did not think it followed from this that not a single one of the various accusations made against them was true. Even stopped clocks are right twice a day, and I didn’t see any particular reason why the utter odiousness of the people who went after the Clintons meant that they could not be right on rare occasions as well.
Leaving Monica Lewinsky to one side, the accusation from that period that seemed most troubling to me was the cattle futures controversy, in which Hillary Clinton started trading cattle futures, a type of investment with which she had no experience, and turned an initial $1,000 investment into nearly $100,000 within ten months. I fully expect that if Clinton is nominated, the Republicans will bring this and other accusations from the 1990s up again. Imagine, for the moment, that they do, and that there is some evidence — suggestive, but not definite — that a Democratic policy wonk I once spoke to about this was right to say: oh, well, that was obviously just a bribe. Maybe a legal bribe, but a bribe nonetheless*. (If you don’t like this example, just imagine another one.)
How do you think Democrats would respond? I think that a number of us would be likely to narrow our eyes, dig in our heels, and assume that this was just one more false accusation, and prepare for battle. A significant number of us would be mad enough about the 1990s that we would not try to figure out whether this particular accusation had any truth to it, and if so, what we should do about it. I don’t think this would be nearly as likely to happen if suggestive, but not definitive, evidence of wrongdoing by some other candidate came to light.
Or, more briefly: our anger would make us stupid. And stupid is not a good way to be if you want to win an election.
***
I take it it goes without saying that all of this is unfair. While I think that a number of criticisms of the Clintons, and perhaps a few attacks as well, might have been warranted, I don’t think it was the least bit fair that they were subjected to either the amount or the kind of vilification that they received. And everything I’ve said above is true precisely because Hillary Clinton was vilified. It’s because of that fact that many people are inclined to believe the worst of her reflexively. And it’s also because of that fact that Democrats are inclined to react to attacks on her defensively and angrily.
But fairness isn’t the point when it comes to nominating a candidate for the Presidency. No one is entitled to be the Democratic nominee, and all sorts of people have lost their chance to be nominated unfairly. It’s unfair that Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson had to go up against one of the strongest Democratic fields in living memory. It’s unfair that Paul Tsongas looked like a dweeb. It’s unfair that Richard Nixon’s five o’clock shadow played any role at all in the 1960 election, hard as I find it to regret its effects. I could go on and on, and that’s without getting into all the people who didn’t even bother to run, or for that matter to enter politics, for unfair reasons.
If we want to, we could take this opportunity to redress the injustices done to Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’d rather win, and win in a way that makes it harder for those kinds of injustices to be perpetrated on anyone in the future.
***
* Footnote: The policy wonk in question knows a lot about Washington, has worked there, and has followed politics quite closely for a long time. At the time we spoke, s/he had not made up his or her mind about whom to support; in particular, s/he had not decided against Clinton. I do not believe that s/he remembered the cattle futures scandal until I brought it up, so the fact that s/he was still undecided does not reflect a willingness to countenance what s/he took to be (possibly legal) bribery.
I think you are 100% correct. I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC. Maybe if Bush was eligible for a third term, maybe if McCain is the R candidate I could do it, but unlikely.
You are correct that it’s mostly unfair – but it is what it is.
Reawakening the hostility surrounding the anti-Clinton attacks would be a sufficient reason to avoid a general election featuring the principal objects/participants of that episode.
My own preferences for Obama are related.
He is a more electable candidate, entering the general election without all of the Clinton associated antagonism (although the Clintons may themselves put him in such a spot by the time the general election arrives – ie, the ‘fairy tale’; Martin Luther King vs. LBJ invitations to racial polarization)
More importantly, Obama offers the greatest liklihood of a return to the rule of law. The abnegation of treaties, the disregard of our own criminal law, the abandonment of habeas corpus, the invasions of personal privacy, rendition, torture, the wholesale conversion of American government as the rule of men rather than laws, represents a present fact of life.
We live in a nation that is ruled by fiat. There will be precious little motivation for whoever succeeds Bush/Cheney to cede that power.
Given that impeachment is not an apparently viable option, Obama seems to represent the indiviual least likely to hold onto the raw power that now resides within the Executive.
Hilzoy, I have a data question. I know that Bill Clinton retained very high favorability ratings throughout the impeachment, left office well regarded in opinion polls, and (to the best of my knowledge) retains most of that today. I don’t know of much actual polling about Hillary Clinton. Do we actually know what the public thinks of her? It seems to me quite possible that folks like OCSteve are, with all due respect to Steve’s many cool qualities, much more outliers than the media-channeled discourse would suggest. But I don’t really know, and it’s not clear to me who does.
Sullivan has made a habit of posting emails from his readers that sound exactly like what OCSteve wrote: thoughtful conservative says he’d vote for Obama over most of the Republican field (though would have to wait and see if McCain is the R nominee), but would never vote for HRC.
but, it’s looking like HRC is going to be one. so, i guess i have to hope she can find a way to diffuse some of that hatred, especially among members of the media, who utterly adore McCain. and i hope she finds it soon.
(Not that Clinton is my preferred candidate. Of N available Democrats, she’s Nth on my list. But I am skeptical of much of the criticism of her on grounds other than disastrous policy inclinations and evil advisors, too.)
“I think you are 100% correct. I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC.”
OCS, what Rs would you vote for over Clinton (or would you just not vote)? And based on what policy/politics/exposure to her message?
I think it’s also worth remembering that Obama’s base of support is much younger than Clinton’s (in fact, 36% of Obama’s support in Iowa was from people under 30). That has no real bearing on which of them would be a better president, but Obama will bring a lot of young people into the Democratic party. Since party identification is something that forms relatively young and remains pretty stable throughout life, the effect of an Obama nomination/presidency will be to dramatically strengthen the Democratic party in the long run. That would offer us a pretty good chance at having a solid long-term progressive movement in this country, and it’s one of the major reasons I’m supporting Obama.
OCSteve wrote:
I can see myself voting for Obama. There’s almost no way I’d ever vote for HRC.
Does that mean you’d vote for Huckabee instead of HRC? Presumably it *does* mean you’d vote for Romney or Giuliani.
I actually find statements like this slightly baffling, because of the 3 Dem front-runners HRC is the one who looks most like a Republican to me, especially on war & foreign policy issues — as hilzoy said.
One reason for Republicans to reject HRC more than Obama or Edwards *does* spring to mind, of course — and given the state of the national rhetoric in the past few weeks/months/years, it would be foolish for me to think otherwise. It would be nice of me to be nice, but it would be foolish.
Dr. S: offhand, I don’t think it’s sexism, at least not directly. To think that this was a reason to be more hostile to HRC than to Obama, I’d have to think that people likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) sexism were not also likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) racism.
Since I don’t think that, I’m inclined to go with the hypothesis that fifteen years of vilification have had an effect.
(NB: “at least not directly” means: while I think that the Republicans would have attacked Bill Clinton by any means available, and did, some wives would have been less amenable to being used in those attacks than Hilary was. An extremely popular one, like Elizabeth Edwards, would have been less usable in that role, but so would someone along the lines of Mamie Eisenhower.)
I love the aikido reference, though, if viewed on a more local level, HRC, because she has the ability to force her opponents to overreach, provides more energy with which to work, and therefore allowing a much stronger reversal. Which is, in essence, the thought behind some of the argument for her, with the parallel thought that some things need to be more strongly refuted. The opponent has to give you the energy that you use and the question is whether this negative energy should be channeled so that the throw is more spectacular or dissipated. We see people wrestling with that when the suggestion is made that a vote for Obama represents the icing over of the rifts that have developed in our society and a vote for Obama is simply a vote for forgetfulness, most clearly seen in the discussions about feminism, that is summarized by Dr. Science’s comment.
I don’t want to suggest that is the basis of any one individual’s thoughts, but I think in the aggregate, one can see that.
This strangely is opposed by a strand of anti HRC thought, which is that she doesn’t really represent change whereas Obama does. When look at Josh Marshall’s take on the Redstate endorsements of Obama, you see him thinking that this is because of the game changing nature of Obama. On the other hand, Publius takes them as simple calculation of electability, and that those people want to maintain their incumbency so much, they are willing to support Obama over HRC.
All of this stands orthogonal to what the truth, in a sort of Rashomon like way. I really don’t think we will know what is inside either HRC’s or Obama’s heart, but we do want the one who is the most ‘authentic’, and so a lot of the media’s awful coverage reflects desires that we have.
I thought that you would be interested in knowing that BabiesForObama.com has just announced that it will be donating a portion of its profits to the Obama for America Campaign:
http://www.BabiesForObama.com
Thanks!
– Babies for Obama
I’d have to think that people likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) sexism were not also likely to be motivated by (conscious or unconscious) racism.
I disagree. There’s is plenty of evidence that quite blatant sexism is given a pass — and even encouragement — that racism no longer can rely upon.
Exhibit A: Chris Matthews. Media Matters has a good, if stomach-turning, summary. If he were making similar comments about someone’s race, he’d have been off the air years ago. Although Left Blogistan is up in arms about him, I see no sign of a generalized uproar, so I am forced to conclude that most people don’t think he’s being out of line.
Latest CNN/USA Today/Gallop out yesterday. (PDF)
She’s within the margin of error for favorable compared to Obama and McCain. But her unfavorable is 39% compared to Obama’s 28%. Her current unfavorable puts her with Giuliani and Romney. If you look at her unfavorable rating back when she was first lady it’s comparable to now: 40-45% most of the time, peaking as high as 53%. She has the highest “definitely vote for” but also the highest “definitely not vote for” and the lowest “consider voting for”. You either love her or hate her. One thing for sure – she consistently gets the lowest “no opinion” rating. I take all that to mean that hilzoy is right on the money. There is no way to change the mind of those who dislike her.
rilkefan: what Rs would you vote for over Clinton (or would you just not vote)?
Doctor Science: Does that mean you’d vote for Huckabee instead of HRC?
There is no R I would vote for this time around. I think they need to lose and lose big. There’s a chance I’ll just sit it out. Although I may vote for Obama or against McCain.
Is that like Toys for Tots? Just what is Obama expected to do with all these donated babies?
Referring to the spam upthread, of course. That’s what happens when I take a call in the middle of the captcha check.
There is no R I would vote for this time around
Ah, OK. And I should have remembered that you’d said that before, but, well, my brain.
Very good post. A slightly off topic question to anyone who knows: In HDC’s meet the press, she said after Obama’s 2002 anti Iraq war speech, in 2003 he took the transcript down off his website, and HDC gave the impression that Obama was trying to pretend he had never opposed the war. Is this true?
I do think it unfair of her to claim that this was the whole basis of his campaign, and that now it is “ruined”. A “fairytale”. Although one of the things I loved about Obama is that he would speak his mind when no one else would. So did he really try to rewind time? If so, why?
Jason: I don’t know. One thing I’d like to find out, though, is: did he “take it down”, or did he create a new website in order to run for the Senate, and not put it up?
I want to do some digging on this. However, I think that the idea that anyone would oppose the war in 2002 and change his mind in 2004, or that he would do so out of pure political calculation, in Illinois, strikes me as a lot less plausible than Obama’s actual explanation: that he didn’t want to spark a disagreement with Kerry during the 2004 campaign.
Right: the idea is that Obama was afraid to admit his Iraq war opposition in Illinois because he was afraid of Alan Keyes. Clinton, meanwhile, voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because it was the best hope of stopping the war.
OCS – thanks. I’m still not clear why you’d vote for Obama but not HRC – is it the issues he’s to her right on, or a sense that she doesn’t have presidential character, or not wanting Bill back in the WH?
Also note I think you greatly overestimate the informedness of people polled, esp. in relative comparisons of the leading candidates.
Re the war: here’s the best fairy-tale argument I’ve seen. This claims his campaign took down the speech saying it was out of date. I’ve seen it argued by Obama supporters that he didn’t want to embarrass Kerry, which is a quite reasonable explanation if true.
It seems clear to me that both Obama and HRC have always opposed the war, that the AUMF vote was orthogonal to the invasion, and the candidates’ stances in office have been very similar, so I as a war opponent don’t have much of a decision point here, though Obama certainly doesn’t have the Levin problem. (That’s the first question I would ask HRC if I could. IIRC Feingold voted against that amendment too, so maybe there was some politicking behind the scenes.)
“However, I think that the idea that anyone would oppose the war in 2002 and change his mind in 2004”
I think the argument is that he wasn’t as opposed in 02 as claimed and not as publicly committed to that afterwards as claimed. Compare e.g. Feingold.
Here’s the rebuttal.
I’m not sure why they’re bringing this up again, unless it’s to make Obama & his supporters so angry they start making mistakes.
The AUMF vote wasn’t REMOTELY orthagonal, Clinton voted against amendments to require Bush to go back to Congress & the UN, she never expressed opposition in 2003, she supported the war throughout 2003 & said she had no regrets about the vote, and did not say she wouldn’t have invaded as president until….actually I don’t know when. The first clear statement I remember seeing was maybe 2006? But I could have missed something. It would be interesting if they could find actual anti-Iraq war statements from her before instead of distorting Obama’s record.
Here’s the link. This ought not to be “he said she said” stuff. Clinton’s portrayal of both Obama’s actions & her own is sheer revisionism.
Katherine’s right. It seems rather hypocritical of Clinton to bring it up. It could backfire if someone challenged her on your point.
Thanks hilzoy, I think the Kerry-explanation sounds plausible.
Useful chronology on Clinton’s Iraq war stance.
rilkefan: I see two options for Clinton. (1) She viewed the vote on the Iraq War Resolution as a vote for the war, and voted for it. I probably don’t have to explain why I think that’s bad. (2) She viewed it as a way of strengthening Bush’s hand at the UN, etc. This requires some explanation of her vote on the Levin Amendment, but let’s just stipulate that one exists. This still leaves her believing Bush’s assurances about how he would use this authority — which is, in fact, the line she seems to be taking now.
Why should I not regard her willingness to trust someone so manifestly untrustworthy, especially on this topic, as absolutely damning? Especially since it was a vote to give the President the authority to go to war, and I would have thought the burden of proof would be on those who supported giving him that authority.
Why, just to put this tendentiously, should I not regard this vote as the equivalent of handing someone with a known blood-borne contagious disease, a burning desire to donate blood, and a history of unreliability the keys to the Red Cross blood bank, and then saying, when people died as a result of their contaminated transfusions: oh, I believed him when he said he wouldn’t actually use those keys?
And would it really make a difference if someone in my family had been traumatized by being denied those keys on some earlier occasion? Would that excuse a lapse of judgment that left hundreds of thousands of people dead?
And, preemptively: yes, I realize that Clinton didn’t pass the AUMF all by herself (or, in my analogy: that the unreliable person with the blood-borne disease had to get a whole lot of keys in order to gain access to the blood bank, and only one was hers.)
But she didn’t have to give hers. Moreover, she could have raised her voice against it. She did not. That should be to her lasting shame.
One of the most bothering things about Clinton is her refusal to accept that she was wrong. Is it so hard to say
“I was wrong on X for the reasons…..”
“Now I believe Y for the reasons….”
I suppose one would be accused of flopping on the issues, but if you clearly explain the rationale behind the change, it shouldn’t be too damning.
Mistakes should be used as things to learn from, not to hide from.
Why should I not regard her willingness to trust someone so manifestly untrustworthy, especially on this topic, as absolutely damning?
Wait a minute, Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 2002? Was this common knowledge, supported by polls, a constant refrain in the Media? Can I have some quotes to this effect, during the period, by public figures with mainstream credibility?
The “story” just keeps getting better & better as the years go by.
Bob M: on the question of being willing to use an authorization for the use of military force only to go to the UN, not for unilateral invasion? I think he was.
What jumps out at me from reading the fuller Obama quotes is just how achingly stupid it was to field a candidate who voted to authorize this catastrophic war in the first place. It put the unequivocally anti-war wing of the party into the incredibly uncomfortable position of having to choose between feigning enthusiasm for a pair of war-enablers, or simply letting Bush/Cheney have four more years without a fight.
It is clear in those 2004 quotes that Obama found himself forced to temper his opposition to the war precisely because the Democratic party, in its infinite wisdom, decided to make the war an alabatross around its own neck. That Hillary Clinton and her surrogates would use this in a dishonest attempt to paint Obama as inconsistent is pretty reprehensible, especially considering that if she does ultimately win the nomination, he and other anti-war public figures will again be forced to downplay the foolishness of that vote in order to stave off McCain’s 100 Years War.
Doctor Science: Thanks for that great Media Matters link. Wow, Matthews truly is repugnant.
I’m sick of people just saying bigoted things and covering it by claiming that they’re just talking straight or saying what everybody already thinks anyway (let us call this the Eminem defense, for lack of a better exemplar). Really tired of people thinking they are doing something politically provocative or fresh or daring, by means of it, making some kind of bold statement. Really tired of people thinking that ancient prejudices somehow represent something new.
I always feel like saying: “No. Really. Some of us really never had that thought. Really. And we’re not uptight. And we’re not constrained by political correctness. And, no, it is not the case that we’ve had the thought and are in denial over having had that thought. And, no, don’t start casting aspersions about whether we are real men or real women because of it. No, really. you’ll just have to wrap your brain around this: it’s just you. And probably the sleazy people you number among your intimate friends.”
Bob, I second hilzoy on that one. Bush had already made it clear that he didn’t even think he needed to go to Congress, much less the UN.
However, I don’t hold the vote itself against Clinton. Several people who should have known better voted the same way. But, for example, Kerry made it very clear why he voted the way he did and what he expected form the President. And both Kerry and Edwards did acknowledge that the vote was a mistake.
Clinton has never done so.
Someone…anyone address Obama’s lack of experience. Unless of course all you anti-republicans are skeered to actually asking the man how he plans to end this damnable war.
In that case lets just elect him because he is soooo charming, and the first black man to actually have a chance of winning the presidency.
Margaret Swank: start here. Then try here. I, for one, came to support him because I’m a policy wonk, and he kept turning up doing really good things. His charm, and the fact that it would be wonderful to elect an African-American president, are just the icing on the cake, as far as I’m concerned.
Wait a minute, Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 2002?
well, yes. plenty of people were wondering, “Hey, wait. Where are these WMDs he keeps going on about? Looks to me like he’s just making this sh!t up in order to get the war he wants..”
hilzoy: “rilkefan: I see two options for Clinton.”
I think I’ve explained my view of the events in question about a dozen times here without it being even engaged afair – I can’t see why another time would help.
rilkefan: is it the issues he’s to her right on, or a sense that she doesn’t have presidential character, or not wanting Bill back in the WH?
All of the above? It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral. That is the part that is hard to explain. She wouldn’t get my vote for dog-catcher, because I like dogs…
Let’s see… She scares me. I think that “Cheney with hair” is a good description. Anyone who wants power that badly, who’s worked her whole life to get it – should never have it IMO. Then I’m tired of this dynasty thing – I want new blood in there.
Finally, it is just my impression. HRC makes me cringe when I listen to her. Obama actually gives me hope even though I disagree with 70% of his stated policy goals.
I am a glutton for punishment. I am very apprehensive about what I am about to say in this forum, but it does need to be addressed. I have seen little discussion of how Obama reacted to Jackson’s attack on Clinton’s so-called NH tears. Jackson claimed she was crying about her appearance but she never cried about Katrina victims, implying she is not truly concerned about African-Americans. Edwards lost some of his feminists supporters over a much less critical reaction to the “tears”, eg. Kathe Pollitt. Is Obama given a free pass? Has he criticized Jackson?
I worry that Obama is more concerned about his election than about the Democratic Party. Why in the world would the apostle of unity and hope try to portray the Clintons, who have great support in the African-American community, as racists? This whole brouhaha about Hillary’s remarks on King and Johnson makes no sense, and many people feel the Obama’s people are behind it, but trying to conceal their support. Edwards jumped on the race card train as well, implying that Hillary had given credit to “some politician in Washington” instead of Dr. King. A strange way to characterize the president of the United State.
Here is an excerpt from today’s Meet the Press:
MR. RUSSERT: When we arrived in South Carolina yesterday this was The State newspaper, and the headlines agree to this. And let me share it with you and our viewers: “Clinton Camp Hits Obama, Attacks `painful’ for black voters. Many in state offended by criticism of Obama,” and “remarks about” Martin Luther “King.” Bob Herbert, in The New York Times, columnist, weighed in this way: “I could also sense how hard the Clinton camp was working to undermine Senator Obama’s main theme, that a campaign based on hope and healing could unify rather than further polarize the country. ….
What is this all about?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, beats me, because there’s not one shred of truth in what you’ve just read. And I regret that, because obviously a lot of people have been, you know, given information or an impression that is absolutely false.
First, with respect to Dr. King, you know, Tim, I was 14 years old when I heard Dr. King speak in person. He is one of the people that I admire most in the world, and the point that I was responding to from Senator Obama himself in a number of speeches he was making is his comparison of himself to President Kennedy and Dr. King. And there is no doubt that the inspiration offered by all three of them is essential. It is critical to who we are as a nation, what we believe in, the dreams and aspirations that we all have. But I also said that, you know, Dr. King didn’t just give speeches. He marched, he organized, he protested, he was gassed, he was beaten, he was jailed. He understood that he had to move the political process and bring in those who were in political power, and he campaigned for political leaders, including Lyndon Johnson, because he wanted somebody in the White House who would act on what he had devoted his life to achieving.
Please explain to me what is wrong with Hillary’s response?
” It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral. That is the part that is hard to explain. She wouldn’t get my vote for dog-catcher, because I like dogs…”
I suspect and question my visceral reactions. That is where racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, xenophobia, jingoism are likely to nest. Apparently, saying things like the above about Hillary is acceptable political discourse. I can’t imagine what would the reaction to someone’s trashing Obama along these lines.
Shirley Chisholm, first African American woman to sit in the House of Representatives, May 21, 1969:
“Mr.Speaker, when a young woman graduates from college and starts looking for a job, she is likely to have a frustrating and even demeaning experience ahead of her. If she walks into an office for an interview, the first question she will be asked is, “Do you type?”
There is a calculated system of prejudice that lies unspoken behind that question. Why is it acceptable for women to be secretaries, librarians, and teachers, but totally unacceptable for them to be managers, administrators, doctors, lawyers, and Members of Congress.
The unspoken assumption is that women are different. They do not have executive ability orderly minds, stability, leadership skills, and they are too emotional.
It has been observed before, that society for a long time, discriminated against another minority, the blacks, on the same basis – that they were different and inferior. The happy little homemaker and the contented “old darkey” on the plantation were both produced by prejudice.
As a black person, I am no stranger to race prejudice. But the truth is that in the political world I have been far oftener discriminated against because I am a woman than because I am black.
Prejudice against blacks is becoming unacceptable although it will take years to eliminate it. But it is doomed because, slowly, white America is beginning to admit that it exists. Prejudice against women is still acceptable. There is very little understanding yet of the immorality involved in double pay scales and the classification of most of the better jobs as “for men only.”
More than half of the population of the United States is female. But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions. They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet No women sit on the AFL-CIO council or Supreme Court There have been only two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10 Representatives.
Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous.:
Red: Apparently, saying things like the above about Hillary is acceptable political discourse.
Again, it is what it is. Is it acceptable political discourse to say that I dislike someone at a gut level? I think so. I hate my mailman. He just rubs me the wrong way. Is that unacceptable? Do I have to like him as a civil servant? I don’t think so. And I don’t think anyone should infer from that that I discriminate against older white dudes who insist on wearing shorts long past the season even when they have gross legs.
Redstocking: I think that OCSteve’s giving an honest answer to a question about his views of HRC is perfectly acceptable. He was asked about his feelings about her; he replied. And, as he says, there are reasons to dislike someone other than their gender, race, etc. Back in 1994, I was living in a part of NJ which got PA political ads, and so I got to see many, many, many ads for Rick Santorum. He just creeped me out. Now, years later, I think I was onto something. At the time, however, I’m not sure I could have said what.
(Had I been (a) able to vote in PA, and (b) remotely tempted to vote for Santorum, I would of course have tried to sort this out more, consider his views on the issues, etc.)
Honestly all this controversy about wehter Obama is better on the issues than Clinton and or who said what about who is totally unproductive. It doesn’t matter. They’re both good enough. The only thing that matters is which one is most likely to get elected and which one will help get down ticket Democrats elected. This primary season has gone ontoolong already and everyone’s losing perspective and porportion. The Clintom team is bgeing really nast y and unfair and Obama’s team may well respond in kind. The end result will be a messy, angry convention and Democrats pissed at each other when the real race begins.
Redstocking, I can’t figure out what is wrong with her comments either. Here is a fuller article on it.
As far as I can gather, it is not the Obama camp itself which is raising these objections, but rather people in the community. And that is the best thing I can say on behalf of the campaign itself.
I know many people are reading a racial undertone into Bill Clinton’s quote about the Obama campaign being a fairy tale. I’m not sure I really understand where this is coming from.
Red: Also note the poll I cited above. I’m not alone. She consistently polls 40-45% unfavorable, and peaks at over 50%. There are plenty of Democrats in there, and feminists, and anti-war types. Sometimes you just dislike somebody and that is all the explanation there is to it.
And you know what? I’m hitting middle age here. I would really like to see a black person (notice I didn’t specify gender) as president before I die. This seems like the best chance ever.
I guess that introduces the argument that I prefer a minority over women – well – no. If there was a black, lesbian, woman, Wicca running I would probably vote for her. But there is not. HRC is not something different. She is the establishment…
Hilzoy is making the Andrew Sullivan pro-Obama argument, except without Hillary hatred and fully admitting that voting against Hillary because of associations largely out of her control isn’t fair.
Hilzoy’s presentation is also more convincing than Andrew’s.
All that said, Hilzoy doesn’t give enough credit to the idea that the Republican’s have already spent it all in terms of vilifying the Clintons. There is nothing new. Will the public or the press be interested in re-hashing stuff that has been out for years? On the other hand, the anti-Obama dirt will be fresh dirt.
How’s this for a slogan?
Hillary: already fully hated.
Hilzoy this is just so pathetic. Really.
Hillary Clinton did not read the NEI because she was being briefed by the people who wrote it and knew what was in it.
She did her homework. You haven’t done yours.
You are a well respected blogger and I know there is no requirement that your research go any further than reading what other blogger speculate about what Hillary might or might not have done.
But we are in the middle of a nominating process and your misinformation might mislead someone into making a decisions they may later regret.
So I call bullshit on this smear.
Hilzoy, I was just speculating whether it would be acceptable if I gave a similarly honest answer about my current feelings about Obama? I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist. I think it is arrogantly grandiose to compare himself to Dr. Martin Luther King, jr. Harvard Law School is not the equivalent of the Birmingham jail.
There are many reports that the Obama camp is raising these questions. Obama is very good at being nasty and blaming it on someone else.
Does anyone know if Obama has spoken about the Jackson/Hillary tears/Kathrina outrage? Is he preparing a new ad showing him crying about New Orleans?
1. I sdoubt there is any issue that Obama is to the right of Clinton on.
2. Obama has in no way, shape or form accused Clinton of racism, not, to my best knowledge (which is probably incomplete) have any of his staff.
3. Jackson owns his words, not Obama. Has Obama been asked about them?
4. One can have a visceral dislike of someone without being racist, sexist, or any other ist.
5. Clinton has, in effect, called Obama naive, a keeper of false hopes, misleading the voters, etc. I do not view her as racist for those comments.
6. The reality is that Clinton will have a much harder time not fighting the Republicans, but fighting the media portrayl of herself. Part of the problem is that many people already have a negative concept of her, unlike Gore or Kerry, and they weren’t able to overcome a negative media. Can she? If nominated, I hope so.
7. I don’t blame people for being for Clinton. She is an intelligent person, very capable, and would undoubtedly be a capable President. I prefer Obama based upon issues, policies, staff, advisors, etc.
ken, please chill a bit. Your point might have value but it’s phrased too hotly for this environment.
Anybody interested in this topic should check out TalkLeft, where there are currently about six posts “that will make all candidates’ supporters angry” or anyway think.
Me: If there was a black, lesbian, woman, Wicca running
I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. 😉
OCS: “All of the above? It’s tough to explain because 80% of it is visceral.”
Thanks, I think that’s an entirely understandable stance when voting for president (oww, the assonance). You want someone you’re comfortable with.
OTOH when Bill did that cat-ate-the-canary thing (or the bite-the-lip thing or …) I had to remind myself that at least a Democrat was in the WH, but I thought he was a good president.
I see you’re point about not making things easy for the Republicans, but you dont seem to consider the possibility that most candidates can’t handle being demonized and end up self destructing when the Republicans go after them. We know that Hillary won’t but we don’t know that about Obama.
This brought up something that I’ve been trying to figure out how to express for the past couple of days: the problem of Obama’s niceness. It’s a problem because the Republicans delight in doing low down dirty stuff in campaigns and often if you don’t get mad in those situations you look worse than if you do.
Problem is if Obama gets mad he becomes the angry black man that most of the electorate won’t vote for, and the people supporting him now abandon him.
Redstocking, there’s nothing wrong with that MLK comment by Clinton. The problem was this comment:
Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act,” Clinton said. “It took a president to get it done.”
A lot of people saw that as belittling King’s work, especially in the context of “speech vs. action” she was trying to set up.
Obviously (and unsurprisingly) she realized her misstep. But she did say it first.
“A lot of people saw that as belittling King’s work”
Entirely nonsensically given the context.
I don’t believe Obama is in the least homophobic or sexist. He’s trying to win an election, and if he does it will be a great day for gays and women. I think Clinton is probably slightly better on that count, but either will be fine.
“I think it is arrogantly grandiose to compare himself to Dr. Martin Luther King, jr.”
Cite?
“I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. ;)”
No; just the woman part.
I can’t imagine what would the reaction to someone’s trashing Obama along these lines.
Let’s find out. I don’t like Senator Obama for visceral reasons. He comes off to me as someone who’d be in way over his head as President. I don’t like Senator Clinton either, but in a decision over who I’d rather have facing Putin or The Iranians across a table (even a virtual one via TV or the web), she’d be my choice of the Ds; and that includes Mr. Edwards.
Considering that there are about 3 1/2 million more women in the United States than men, this situation is outrageous
I had a comment written and then thought better of it due to the following quote by Hilzoy at TiO
I think it’s natural for men to think: hey, everything is pretty good (on the grounds that neither they nor anyone they know is in any way obviously sexist), while women think: the hell it is (on the grounds that things still suck for them.)
So, I’ll keep my keyboard un-clickety-clacked
Anyone who wants power that badly, who’s worked her whole life to get it – should never have it IMO.
I feel the same way about Senator Clinton OC, but, OTOH, its just freaky what people have to go through to run, much less get elected. Perhaps we should be more appreciative of those that go through the hassle? Going back to RedStocking’s point, given what a hassle it is to run, is it surprising that smarter/better people of any color/gender don’t want to do it?
Redstocking, “I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist.”
Really? I haven’t seen that all. Especially not homophobic. What have you seen that makes you think so?
“I guess that the lesbian – woman thing is rather redundant. ;)”
Not entirely. It depends on how you define it. I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians…
Curt, check this TPM piece on how the NYT truncated that quote. The full quote is:
“I would point to the fact that that Dr. King’s dream began to be realized when President Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the President before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done. That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became a real in people’s lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it, and actually got it accomplished.”
I’m not sure the core meaning changes much, but the NYT’s version certainly sounds snippier, and I suspect that perceived snippiness contributes a lot to the negative reaction we are seeing.
“I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians…”
Well, sure, but now you’re just argued that transexual women aren’t women. Hello, kettle of worms I ever so carefully declined to spill (and wouldn’t be inclined to, as it’s not a position I hold).
Redstocking: I do perceive him as being homophobic and sexist.
Sebastian Holsclaw: Really? I haven’t seen that all. Especially not homophobic. What have you seen that makes you think so?
Not to mindread, but dollars to donuts Redstocking is referring to the Donnie McClurkin brouhaha.
I think that the “it took a President” quote was taken out of context, and should not be held against Clinton. Otoh, I also think that while Jesse Jackson Jr. should probably not have said what he did, there’s nothing particularly wrong with wondering whether or not Clinton’s tears were staged. I have done it myself.
I do think that there’s a lot wrong with basing one’s vote either on the tears or on the coverage of them. There are many more important things than The Tears, genuine or not; and the appropriate objects of wrath about the coverage are the people responsible for it. I’m not in a position to do much, having long since stopped watching anything but PBS and CSPAN for news (except when I’m specifically interested in how things are covered), but if for some unfathomable reason I were still watching Chris Matthews, this would have made me stop forever.
Sebastian: I know two men who got a sex change to become lesbians…
Once again – I realize I’ve lived a rather sheltered life. 😉
crionna : Perhaps we should be more appreciative of those that go through the hassle?
I think that’s a really good point. It seems insane to me that anyone would voluntarily subject themselves to this level of scrutiny. And it’s only gotten worse with the web. Everything you ever said is available via Google. So I do appreciate the big brass ones it takes just to do this at all.
Just tuning in – but this seems to hit on what I think is the strongest pro-Obama argument. That is, the “higher ceiling” argument.
He alone has the potential to really do something historic. Sure, HRC is a known quantity, and there’s some risk involved. But still, windows like this don’t tend to last — you either seize them, or lose them forever
hilzoy: Otoh, I also think that while Jesse Jackson Jr. should probably not have said what he did, there’s nothing particularly wrong with wondering whether or not Clinton’s tears were staged. I have done it myself.
What bugged me about Jackson’s comments was the way he tried to shoehorn Katrina into the story. This was pure exploitation, and beneath the Obama campaign.
Well, I was also bugged by the fact that even if it was fair game, which I think is debatable, it was really stupid to even comment on the incident. Too many downsides, no real upsides.
I’m guessing you didn’t mean to say that the election of the first woman president wouldn’t be historic, and that opportunities for this to happen are a dime a dozen, it happens every day, but perhaps you could clarify what you mean by “do something historic”? It’s a tad vague.
“That is, the ‘higher ceiling”‘ argument.”
I’m doubtless being stupid, but what are you referring to? Is this going to be on the test? What “‘higher ceiling’ argument”?
“Well, sure, but now you’re just argued that transexual women aren’t women. Hello, kettle of worms I ever so carefully declined to spill (and wouldn’t be inclined to, as it’s not a position I hold).”
Oh no! I merely said it would depend on your definitions. But I think that becoming a woman to become a lesbian is interesting because it shows how little the transgender thing has to do with the sexual attraction thing. (I normally would have said sexual orientation, but that would be confusing in this context).
Obama has a higher ceiling, but a lower floor. So is the higher ceiling argument truly pro-Obama?
All the dirt is out on Hillary, and we know she can take abuse. After decades of smears she remains popular enough to be elected, and she is formidably smart.
Obama? Maybe, maybe not. Dukakis looked pretty good for a while and then he folded like a tent.
On the other hand, Obama could possibly change the game, as did FDR and (to a lesser degree) Reagan. That would be awesome. Hillary will never be more than modestly popular.
(Clint Eastwood’s voice) “So I guess the question you gotta ask yourself is, do you feel lucky?”
The best argument for Obama is that he opposed the stupid war in Iraq. Don’t listen to Bill Clinton on this – Obama opposed the war. During the 2004 campaign Obama refused to embarrass Kerry & Edwards and he softened the sharp edges of his dissent, that is all. Bill Clinton knows this and his latest line of attack is offensive.
The best argument for Hillary is that she is as hated as she is gonna get, and she has a proven ability to withstand blistering attacks. That is important.
For my money Obama deserves to win, because the Iraq War is a great evil, and Hillary still hasn’t come clean on her complicity in that fiasco.
Obama – high risk, high gain
WHat is this “she has a proven ability to withstand blistering attacks” argument. She’s been attacked, and is quite unpopular now. You’re conflating ‘has taken attacks’ with ‘has taken attacks and figured out how to remain popular.’ I see no evidence that she can take attacks and come out looking good, just that she takes attacks. What i remember from the 90s was that whenever she’s been in the spotlight, her approval numbers go down pretty low; once she sits out for a while they go back up.
Out of curiosity, how do we know that all the dirt is out on the Clintons? Or, for that matter, on anyone else?
We can presumably assume that all the dirt that had accumulated before Bill Clinton left office is out. I see no reason at all to assume that none could possibly have accumulated since then.
yoyo: HRC’s “proven ability to withstand blistering attacks” is the documented fact that, unlike some, she will not lose her cool just because people say the most awful things about her.
Now look at the latest Oliphaunt cartoon, publius, and tell me HRC’s presidency wouldn’t be all that historic.
I’m not saying that I’ll necessarily vote for HRC on Feb.5. But if you want to claim that sexism is anything other than defining for her chances, you’re going to have to argue pretty hard.
Slightly OT: Bitch Ph.D.’s description of her husband making calls to Nevada for Obama is hysterical. Sample:
I don’t agree that HRC has demonstrated that she’ll be able to survive whatever the Republicans throw at her. Yes, she’s been tested over the years, but it has damaged her. And I don’t believe she’s faced the level of smears she would as the Democratic presidential nominee. In earlier years she was only a secondary target. If she’s the nominee, she’ll be getting much more focus.
Sweet jeebus, that Oliphant cartoon is bad. Wingnutty bad. I’ve long admired his work but wow.
It seems like something from that parody right-wing cartoonist in the Onion.
Must have had that conversation, from both directions, a zillion times in 1980, when lots of us did the same thing in reverse for John Anderson versus Reagan.
It wasn’t all that funny, although as I mentioned before, my significant other and I did end up as Dave Horsey’s editorial cartoon in the next day’s Seattle Post-Intelligencer. But he had to really caricature us with a bunch of non-existent details to make his point.
That is, our precinct caucus of Republicans consisted of 8 stereotypical blue-haired Republican little old ladies, my SO, me, a couple of other usually-Democrats, and Dave Horsey; the cartoon consisted of a drawing of me and my SO addressing a prune-face woman with a clipboard, and us saying, “why yes, ma’am, we’re lifelong Republicans!”, with me wearing a leather jacket I’ve never own, an earring I’ve never worn, and a few more hippie-like accoutrements to make the point.
There’s nothing whatever hehhehheh about it, though; it’s just the way the system has worked longer than I’ve been alive.
Without wanting to argue the flaws of the system, I think the virtues of the caucus system are terribly underrated: if all you want to do is vote, you can do just that: show up, put your name on the list as voting for one candidate, and leave.
But the system allows for endlessly more involvement. First, you get to talk with your fellow citizens, and attempt to persuade them of your view.
Then delegates are elected to represent that precinct at the next highest level, and so forth and so on, up to the national convention.
It favors the articulate, to be sure, but so does democracy in general, so I don’t see much wrong with that.
I found it to be such an open system that in 1984, when I caucused as a Democrat for the first time, with absolutely no contact whatever with any local activists, or the Democratic organization, I simply argued my position, and was elected delegate to the district convention.
At the district convention, they kept intoning every five minutes over the loudspeakers that anyone was free to sign up to ask for votes to the state convention, and make a three minute speech.
After hearing this forty dozen times, I was completely hypnotized. That, and it suddenly occurred to me that three minutes to tell everyone what I thought sounded pretty good, even though obviously I had no chance of being elected to the next level, since I had no supporters and no contact.
So I signed up, made my three minute speech, and came within something like four votes out of several hundred in being elected, which made it obvious that if I’d made the faintest actual effort — all the folks ahead of me had been campaigning for months, and had literature and signs and supporters and the like — I could have been elected.
That strikes me as a pretty open system. Naturally, because it rewarded me. So I’m hardly saying it will reward everyone equally. But it gives everyone an equal opportunity — mostly, every system is flawed — and aside from the scheduling issues, which could be cured by guaranteeing by law time off from work to attend a primary or election or caucus — offers all the advantages of simply voting in a primary, with all the added value of citizen democracy (yes, up to a point; no, it’s not perfect).
Anyway, as I said, despite this, I acknowledge problems in the system. But there are problems with primaries, and there are problems with bosses, and it’s an imperfect world; I just like to speak up now and again in favor of caucuses, because hardly anyone does, and who ain’t for the underdog?
Oh forcriminently, HRC is tough. She knows that she is not going to be universally liked. I consider that a plus. Right now, she couldn’t say that Obama is an enigma without being accused of racism. But that’s the deal with popular opinion; it is always going to break bad at some point or the other. The ugliest personal smears I’ve seen in the political arena were by senators opposed to Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Sam Alito in the Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Every “liberal” insinuation in the book was tossed at them: supposed to be conservative, but actually a sex pervert, sexist and doesn’t want women to attend college, racist and in some sort of exclusive white man’s club, etc, etc, etc.
And of course, back a few years ago, HRC came right out and said that there was this vast right wing conspiracy. If Bush said anything about a vast left wing conspiracy (Exhibit A: Obsidian Wings:), he would be called a fascist or totalitarian – oh wait, he already is, never mind.
Yeah, hey, politics is ugly. If you don’t like Obama you are racist. If you don’t like Clinton you are sexist. If you don’t like Edwards, you are homophobic or something. In one way it is entertaining to watch the Democrats squabble over this sort of thing. After all, Republicans are routinely accused of all three isms or phobias. But I do sort of Feel Your Pain.
Unless Bizarro World has taken a strange turn after Thomas’s departure, that should be “red-state”.
Interesting points re the caucus system, Gary – thanks.
Just to put in a terse 2 cents worth, given a choice between Obama and anyone on the Republican slate, I’d lean in the Obama direction, whereas given a choice between HRC and anyone but Ron Paul, I’d have to sit and think a while.
God help us if it comes down to HRC vs Ron Paul. I’d probably have to vote HRC and learn to live with hating myself.
I’m not sure which way I’m going to register before the primary; I’ve got to go one way or another because the primary is where our resident set of sneaky bastards (aka the school board) have somehow managed to put their one and only set of ballots. Possibly, given that this is Florida, after all, they’ve gotten away with it this long because there’s so much other badness at the pollings.
“God help us if it comes down to HRC vs Ron Paul.”
Happy news: I will once again utilize my amazing seer-like powers, and suggest you shouldn’t lose too much sleep, Slart.
(I know you know; I’m such a tease.)
Um, last I looked your primary Democratic presidential vote in Florida won’t count, what with the 210 national convention delegates being stripped after the Florida party decided to secede from the rules, or some such impenetrable-from-the-outside decision (that is, what happened is clear; what the Florida Democratic leadership was thinking, I have no idea).
Sweet jeebus, that Oliphant cartoon is bad. Wingnutty bad.
You are way too nice to him rilk. That was just plain cheap.
I will vote for Clinton in the general. Though this week I would have to mutter “judicial appointments. Judicial appointments. Judicial appointments. Judicial appointments.” over & over & get really drunk afterwards.
Christ, this is like watching the 2000 & 2004 general elections: Karl Rove is running the other side’s campaign & I have the sinking sensation everyone’s falling for it. Primaries are never much fun when you care too much but criminy, this is worse than 2004. And I’d been on Dean’s side since March of 2003, volunteered, donated, etc. etc.; I got off the fence & for Obama less than one month ago.
Oh well: if he gets the nomination it’ll certainly be good practice for the general. If she does, it’ll increase the pressure to pick him as VP. Of course they’ll probably pick some schmoe like Evan Bayh instead….
judicial nominations. judicial nominations. judicial nominations. judicial nominations.
That was just plain cheap.
And having thought about it for another 10 minutes, I realize that “cheap” doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. He should be fired and shunned. He didn’t just blurt something out under questioning or in a stream of talk, he sat down, thought about this, drew it out, thought about it some more and then sent it in as his true opinion. How can there be any apologizing or claims of misunderstanding about his intent? AND, he thought it would be humorous.
Hilzoy’s comment becomes even more the sterling truth. Jeez. Unbelievable.
“Hilzoy’s comment becomes even more the sterling truth.”
Becomes? Becomes??? Mwahahahaha!
That is truly a dreadful cartoon. And I usually like Oliphant. — I mean, it’s so bad that the fact that Kim Jong Il’s little comment is actually funny doesn’t even begin to help.
It would be different if anything at all in HRC’s record or persona made that depiction of her appropriate. If, for instance, she had a habit of trying to get her way through tears. There is some possible human being, even some possible female human being, of whom that depiction would be funny.
With her, though, it’s just a cheap shot. Sort of as though Mike Tyson had been spotted doing something utterly ordinary, like looking in the mirror while combing his hair, and Oliphant had drawn a cartoon of him as an effeminate wuss. Straightfaced. Without meaning to call forth any of the irony in the idea of Mike Tyson, wuss.
Only that would never happen. Which is sort of the point.
I cannot imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket. Where can i go wager on this.
“And having thought about it for another 10 minutes, I realize that ‘cheap’ doesn’t go anywhere near far enough. He should be fired and shunned.”
Do you really think advocating that an editorial cartoonist should be fired because a bunch of us strongly dislike a particular cartoon is a great idea, in principle?
I agree the cartoon was sexist and dopey, and I’m there with being offended by it.
But just about every single editorial cartoon upsets a bunch of people.
Mind, I repeat that I don’t defend this cartoon in the slightest, nor Oliphant for drawing it. The only comment I’d remotely make of any sort of “defense” is in reply to the fact that it’s mean, which is that most editorial cartoons are mean; that’s the job, so that’s not itself much of a criticism. That it’s sexist and stupid is a valid criticism.
So protest it, sure.
But there are times, frankly, that I find the lynch mob aspects of the blogosphere fairly disturbing. It seems to me there’s a general patter of some commentator or other saying or writing or drawing something deeply stupid, and immediately a whole lot of people are calling for firings, boycotts, and thereafter, in certain quarter, person X — who typically was unknown or little known or previously not particularly offensive, to the head-caller-for, is A Famously Bad Person, known only for That Famous Offensive Thing, as if twenty or forty years of an amazing, or at least respectably impressive — or at least ten good years out of thirty mediocre ones — career never happened.
Pat Oliphant has had an incredibly distinguished career over fifty years. He undoubtedly was more responsible for helping people see Richard Nixon for who he was then any twenty columnists.
He did an offensive cartoon. It deserves protests and letters.
Firing? Well, the guy is 72, so I dunno how much longer he’s planning on working, anyway, but I do suggesting being really really sure that we want to get into campaigning for the firing of editorial cartoonists whenever we feel offended.
I’m assuming “shunned” is hyperbole, but that “fired” isn’t. I could be wrong on either or both.
“I cannot imagine a Clinton/Obama ticket. Where can i go wager on this.”
In Britain.
if i remember right, that same dude says lots of vile stuff.
Farbs: baby i’m a(be)a rich man, kthx.
Clinton’s triangulations don’t make any sense whatsoever, if one supposes she wanted to avoid war. The much more plausible explanation is that she did want war – or maybe she’s just a not very bright opportunist.
I think the important thing the Democrats need to remember is that there are a lot of independents who don’t like Hillary and won’t vote for her, and that the rabid hatred for her on the right may motivate some people who would otherwise stay at home to hold their noses and vote for a Republican candidate instead. There are polls showing that nearly half the electorate says they’ll never vote for her. Why is it not obvious that she’s not a good pick? At best, she could grind out a close victory. If the Republicans convince even 20% of the remaining half of the electorate not to vote for her (which wouldn’t be all that difficult), you’re looking at a McGovern-like blowout loss.
As for attacks on Obama, yes, they’ll happen. But I think they’re highly unlikely to work, because, well, people like him, and cognitive dissonance dictates that people aren’t inclined to believe negative things about people they like. Hardcore Democrats excepted, people don’t like the Clintons. Remember that despite his much-heralded 65% approval rating during the Lewinsky scandal, more than half the country said they disliked Bill personally. And Hillary is no Bill when it comes to natural charisma.
I don’t know about that, Xeynon. The population of independents is not fixed, and she has brought in a lot of votes in upstate NY that used to go to Republicans not that long ago. And there’s a lot of us who are really disappointed in Bill, but respect Hillary for her dignity throughout a difficult period.
Of those who are independent because they see themselves in the middle of the two parties — some of them will notice that is exactly where she is too.
For my part, I don’t like her or trust her, but if she gets the nomination she’s got my vote, because (a) she’s better than any of the Republicans, (b) the attacks on her are vicious and personal and deserve to be repudiated at the polls, and (c) how can I not be a part of electing the first woman President. I think some version of these arguments could bring in a number of independents, like those who keep electing her senator.
My disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist’s delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS. One of the great things about turning 60 is that both PMS and menopause symptoms are a distant memory. Hillary is an excellent exemplar of the postmenopausal zest of older women that the anthropologist Margaet Mead spoke about.
I absolutely agree that editorial cartoonists should not be fired. Their job is to be offensive to someone. Perhaps Oliphant secretly supports Hillary:) Perhaps he really knows about postmenopausal PMS and is drawing attention to the ludicrousness of the attacks on Hillary.
hilzoy: It would be different if anything at all in HRC’s record or persona made that depiction of her appropriate.
Wasn’t it the Clinton campaign that responded to that first debate in November by denouncing the “politics of piling on”? Essentially all those men were mean to her? I think that the fact that they were first out the gate with that meme makes it somewhat appropriate. She can’t have it both ways…
The more I read about Oliphant, the more I am taking a second look at the cartoon. He has frequently been criticized for being anti-Arab. Is he really attacking Hillary or comparing media attacks on her to the rapid misogyny in the Middle East? The PMS crack might have been an important clue; there is no chance on earth he doesn’t know better.
Here are excerpts from his bio in Wikipedia.
Here are excerpts from his Wikipedia entry:a “Pat Oliphant (b. July 24, 1935 in Adelaide, Australia) is the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world, described by the New York Times as “the most influential cartoonist now working”. His trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the subject of the panel.
Once in the US, he first worked at The Denver Post. His strip was nationally syndicated and internationally syndicated in 1965. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning in 1967 for his February 1, 1966 cartoon They Won’t Get Us To The Conference Table . . . Will They?. Oliphant moved to the now defunct Washington Star for six years, until the paper folded in 1981.
Oliphant’s work, which from time to time employs ethnic caricatures, has occasionally been criticized. In 2001, the Asian American Journalists Association accused Oliphant of “cross[ing] the line from acerbic depiction to racial caricature,” In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant’s caricatures were racist and misleading.
Oliphant’s work has appeared in several exhibitions, most notably at the National Portrait Gallery. In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize, Oliphant won the National Cartoonist Society Editorial Cartoon Award seven times in 1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991, the Reuben Award twice in 1968 and 1972 and the Thomas Nast Prize.
Here is an excellent post on HRC’s failure to live up to her campaign promises, especially for Upstate NY.
In my high school NY Regents exams, we were always asked to interpret historical editorial cartoons in light of what we had learned about that period of American history. This Oliphant cartoon would be an excellent one to use. Initially, my disgust with the cartoon was balanced by hilarity at the cartoonist’s delusion that 60-year old-women suffers from PMS.
The more I thought about it,the more I learned about the cartoonist,Pat Oliphant, the more I became convinced that the cartoon has been completely misinterpreted. According to Wikipedia, Oliphant’s trademark is a small penguin character named Punk, who is often seen making a sarcastic comment about the cartoon. The PMS remark is an important clue. Hillary is depicted as a much older women and people still blather about PMS.
In 2005, the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee expressed concern that some of Oliphant’s caricatures were racist and misleading. That is important to know. Oliphant is criticizing sexist media attacks on Hillary by equating them to the rapid misogyny in some of the Arab world. After all, the world leaders are only repeating the US media attacks.
The demand of some liberal bloggers for Oliphant’s firing is far more offensive than the cartoon even if the initial misundertanding was correct. Pat Oliphant,72, is described by the New York Times as the”most influential cartoonist now working. He has won more prizes than anyone, including the Pulitzer. When a man with such a superb career produces a cartoon seemingly so offensive, we owe him the respect of thinking about it.
I think that the fact that they were first out the gate with that meme makes it somewhat appropriate.
It’s appropriate because as soon as they reclaimed the Inevitability Meme, we got 3 or 4 plausibly-deniable attacks on race issues — conveniently, right before the SC primary. It stinks. And not just because it’s offensive — it’s almost insultingly predictable. It’s playbook politics, and it’s a sorry way to follow up the brief display of humanity we saw in NH. I’m disappointed.
“I have seen little discussion of how Obama reacted to Jackson’s attack on Clinton’s so-called NH tears. Jackson claimed she was crying about her appearance but she never cried about Katrina victims, implying she is not truly concerned about African-Americans. Edwards lost some of his feminists supporters over a much less critical reaction to the “tears”, eg. Kathe Pollitt. Is Obama given a free pass?”
Redstocking, why should Obama discuss Jackson’s comments? Is Jackson an Obama campaign member, or otherwise affiliated with the campaign in any way? Or is it just because Obama’s race forces him to comment on the statements of every other important member of his race?
Sebastian: national co-chair Jackson, I’d call that affiliated. See the videofragment on firedoglake, it’s more telling than the snip of quote.
Jackson hasn’t even endorsed Obama.
Sebastian, google “Jesse Jackson, Jr.” + “Obama.”
He’s a campaign national co-chair for Obama. (One of many people given that pretty much honorary title, to be sure.)
He doesn’t always say the most apt things.
“Jackson hasn’t even endorsed Obama.”
Possibly you’re confusing Jesse Jackson, and Jesse Jackson, Jr.? Or Jesse Jackson with some other Jackson, anyway.
Aside from the “co-chair” thing, he’s cut radio ads for Obama, and spoken frequently to the media as a surrogate for the campaign, as has been endlessly reported in every medium of news for months.
I otherwise tend to stay away from commenting on this sort of thing, but I can’t say either campaign has made itself look attractive to me in the last couple of weeks.
But I don’t think adding to the yammer of blithering uninformed opinion helps.
Oh, my bad. I thought it was Jackson Senior.
I actually don’t see any reason why Obama should lose feminist voters over that clip, however. The interesting thing about that clip is that Jackson is NOT attacking Clinton for crying as ‘womanlike’ or some other sexist notion. He is attacking her crying as out of step with her political reality–she isn’t willing to cry over real national tragedies, only when faced by the possibility of her own inability to win the Presidency.
It is most interesting because it is the first time I’ve heard any strong allusion to race used as a weapon against Clinton. He is saying that Clinton didn’t shed tears over Katrina–the tragedy that mostly hurt black people. He is hinting that her concern for black people is not very strong.
That may be a cheap shot too, but it isn’t an anti-feminist cheap shot.
And it is certainly less a feminist cheap shot than the drug thing which has come up AGAIN from people affiliated with the Clinton campaign. The strange thing about that, is that I can’t imagine that will play well going into South Carolina. Clinton’s team is supposed to be a tightly controlled, brilliant campaign. Why is it that we keep hearing about these accidents?
“And it is certainly less a feminist cheap shot than the drug thing which has come up AGAIN from people affiliated with the Clinton campaign.”
You’re referring to Robert Johnson.
The stupidity on display all around in the past couple of weeks has reached impressive levels.
“her appearance brought her to tears, not hurricane Katrina” (third time Katrina in that fragment).
And the guy who mentioned the drugstrade was fired from the Clinton campaing, this time the president of BET said that Obama was doing “what was in his book” whilst the Clintons were deeply involved in the problems black people were having. I thougth it was more to emphasis their commitment, since Obama tries to make them seem not really involved in black issues.
“He is attacking her crying as out of step with her political reality–she isn’t willing to cry over real national tragedies, only when faced by the possibility of her own inability to win the Presidency.”
And how would he possibly know whether she had or not? Does he follow her around with a camcorder?
I am sorry but the absurd brouhaha over Clinton’s so-called tears does trounce on women who are not even feminists. I liked Jon Stewart’s take on the tears episode. First he showed the headlines, Then he ran the clip. Then he looked dumfounded. “Is that it? Is that it? I am glad no one watches me get a flu shot.”
I keep asking myself whether I should continue here as OW’s lone radical feminist of the past who, like Hillary, can never, ever, ever be made to shut up and will always have an articulate comeback. I even have a sense of humor! Lucky for some of your underraised consciousness, my late father bequeathed to me the precious gift of intellectual arrogance. Even if no one on OW agrees with me, I would not conclude I am not right. After all, how many of you were born the day after Trinity?
I keep hoping I will lure out some shy lurkers too intimidated to buck the prevailing conventional wisdom.
“I thougth it was more to emphasis their commitment, since Obama tries to make them seem not really involved in black issues.”
But really it is a question of age. Obama, when younger, did drugs. And he did them at just a touch older than when Bill and Hillary were taking doobies but not inhaling them because they wanted to seem cool but definitely weren’t actually doing drugs. (Or was that just Bill? Was Hillary actually inhaling? Has anyone asked her?) By the way, isn’t that whole “I didn’t inhale” thing just a Clinton classic? Everyone knew he was lying, but no one cared because he was Bill. It should be amazing that his wife’s team can repeatedly attack some one for drug use in that context.
By the way, part III: this shouldn’t give any hope for sane drug policy coming from Clinton if she wins.
“I keep asking myself whether I should continue here as OW’s lone radical feminist of the past who, like Hillary, can never, ever, ever be made to shut up and will always have an articulate comeback. I even have a sense of humor!”
Made to shut up? Has anyone even tried? You’ve only been here a week. That is a bit early for a victimization complex about obsidianwings–I waited like 2 years and was called a woman-hating racist NAZI before I developed mine.
“I even have a sense of humor!”
I presume that was meant to be a joke? 😉
It would be wonderful to have a separate feminist or anti-feminist thread, so my fans can find me:) The debate would be more helpful if relevant posts were in the same place, If Obama is arrogantly stupid enough to agree with Sebastian that he will not lose any women voters over the clip, Michelle Obama and his daughters must not want him to run after all and are deliberately misleading him. Her comments to the press have made clear her opinion of her husband’s feminist credentials. Obama supporters should want him to run as a feminist so that what happened in NH doesn’t happen throughout the nation. I am giving him excellent advice. He should hire me as an aide:)
Redstocking, is intellectual arrogance really a good thing? It is good you have strong opinions, but please ease my mind and assure me that you are willing to listen to others’ ideas and take them seriously.
Sadly, OW wasn’t around for most of my 62 years. Many people have tried to shut me up in my lurid past, even my brothers and daughters. I made the mistake of being a librarian. Can you imagine how many people have tried to hush me?. I made the mistake of being a social worker. No psychiatrist has figured out how to stop my educating them about their mistakes while insisting on demeaning them by calling them sweetie.. Woman-hating racist Nazis are my favorite debate partners.
Well hang on. What exactly does it mean to be a feminist? Someone who thinks woman deserve equal rights and ought to be treated fairly? I don’t think any decent people would disagree with that. So I don’t know exactly what an anti-feminist thread would even mean.
What I sometimes find is that a few (and I mean only a very small number)feminists seem to be so caught up in the horrid past women have had to endure that they sometimes refuse to acknowledge the problems many men face. An example is the very serious problem of boys and our education system. I feel this issue never gets talked about enough.
“Lucky for some of your underraised consciousness,”
I realize you’re joking, but absent your following people around with mindreading devices, and considerable knowledge of everyone’s past, and their present views, it may not seem as funny to everyone else.
Some folks, I suspect, are apt to go the reverse direction, and rather than feeling obliged to take out past or present feminist credentials, and present them for your approval, may feel more inclined to bridle and disagree than they otherwise would. People tend, unfortunately, to be far more apt to respond when annoyed and irritated than when admiring and enjoying and contemplating.
“I keep hoping I will lure out some shy lurkers too intimidated to buck the prevailing conventional wisdom.”
What “the prevailing conventional wisdom” are you referring to, precisely?
“No psychiatrist has figured out how to stop my educating them about their mistakes while insisting on demeaning them by calling them sweetie.”
That’s just nasty. I hope you don’t really take pleasure in demeaning others. If so, then I wish you all the luck in changing. This is not a habit that is going to help you in life.
Jason ,I promise I was joking. My family’s intellectual arrogance was a horrible defense against our social awkwardness. However, it served as a powerful defense during 16 years of repressive, women-hating Catholic education, Even my daughters would agree that I take others’ ideas very seriously, especially young children’s.
I had an amusing, revealing dream the other night that I was on Lost with my four year old grandson, who is now only 8 months old. Andrew was fearlessly determined to explore every inch of the island, absolutely confident that he would discover the secrets of the island and save the Losties. Quickly giving up the fantasy that my job was to protect him, I realized my job was to communicate his wisdom to everyone else who would not take a four year old seriously enough. The dream taught me that Andrew loves his grandma enough to let her persist in the delusion that she is taking care of him three days a week.
“By the way, isn’t that whole “I didn’t inhale” thing just a Clinton classic? Everyone knew he was lying,”
No. I’ve never understood how anyone could possibly know that.
Suspect it, sure. Know? Absent being there?
I went to college (for a blink of an eye, before dropping out) in the mid-seventies, almost a decade later than the Clintons, and there was tons of dope in every dorm and at every party.
But by no means did everyone smoke, and by no means did everyone have the same smoking habits — some would politely take a puff or two at a party, but no more, and some would be smoking all day and night all semester — and, yes, there were people who didn’t inhale. Quite a few. It was a way of being politely social, but not getting more stoned than you were comfortable with, and of pretty much just sticking to what was called “contact high.”
Same thing at endless parties I attended over the next decade and more.
Now, you can call me a liar, too, if you want, and the couple of hundred people I know who can personally vouch for this, and the hundreds of thousands, minimum, of other people I know must have had similar experiences. But while the odds may suggest that Bill Clinton was lying or slanting the truth, I don’t know what basis there is for being pretty sure of that, absent general conviction that if it’s Bill Clinton, it’s most likely a lie.
I have absolutely no idea if Bill Clinton was lying, or slanting the truth, or being absolutely truthful.
I don’t know how you could know more, but if you do, feel free to say how.
Absent that, I fail to understand not just how you could call him a known liar on this point, but on what basis you feel justified in doing so.
If you wish to say that it’s your personal opinion that the odds are overwhelming that he was lying, fine: who could gainsay that?
But I know for an absolute fact that the statement “everyone knew he was lying” is a falsehood. I assume you were being careless, and engaging in projection, which is human and understandable.
But I suggest not repeating the claim, now that you know it’s false.
If he didn’t, in fact, inhale, that would go a long way in explaining why he didn’t enjoy it, if he, in fact, didn’t enjoy it.
Krugman prefers HRC and Edwards on recession measures.
“If he didn’t, in fact, inhale, that would go a long way in explaining why he didn’t enjoy it, if he, in fact, didn’t enjoy it.”
It’s hardly necessary. Dope comes in wildly different types, and levels of strength, and mixes of THC, cannabinoids, and so on. (I also just stumbled across this (the topmost piece).
And people don’t just react differently to different plants, but each person has a unique biochemistry and reaction. Even if someone has a spiffy experience 99 times out of 100, once in a while maybe it will go down the wrong way, so to speak, or for whatever reason, you’ll have a poor reaction for a little while.
That might and will happen frequently for some people, while rarely or never for others. There’s just no predicting.
And lastly, if someone is entirely unfamiliar with changing their brain chemistry, and their nervous or apprehension, they may simply increase those already present feelings.
Put that all together and it’s a fact that it’s not at all uncommon for someone trying mj for the first, or second, or maybe even third or more, tries, to have an unpleasant experience, contrary to what they were theoretically hoping for.
I am sorry if I have offended people by my inappropriate sarcasm. Now I will be absolutely serious and honest about something I have painfully experienced and I feel passionate about. I have struggled with bipolar disorder for 22 years and suffered much psychiatric mistreatment. Through extensive internet psychiatric research 11 years ago, I discovered the medication that proved to be the magic bullett and found a new shrink who would agree to try it. Unsurprisingly, I am skeptical about psychiatric wisdom.
Calling your condescending psychiatrist sweetie levels the playing field better than your calling him Dr. Fount of Wisdom and his calling you by your first name. Successful treatment requires a true partnership, where you each honor and respect the other’s experience and knowledge. You need a psychiatrist who doesn’t disguise his ignorance as therapeutic wisdom. Too many psychiatrists badly need to learn humility and skepticism before they treat millions more children with meds that have never been tested on children and are known to cause diabetes in adults. They keep advocating more nationwide screenings for mentail illness, so they and their their Big Pharm bedmates can impose on more of us a lifelong diagnosis requiring lifelong meds.
Jason, you make absolutely essential points. I have always thought being a feminist meant that both men and women are freed to be everything they can be and not handicapped by outdated, unproven sexist stereotypes. I think our current education system is abusive to boys and very hospitable to girls. Boys are much more likely to be diagnosed and medicated so they can fit into a school environment totally unsuited to them.
Now I will commit heresy. Women are just as likely to be sexist as men are, perhaps more likely since they are so less frequently criticized for it.
Krugman prefers HRC and Edwards on recession measures. [Is that link non-spam, Typepad?]
The last relevant to john miller‘s claim in his point 1) above. On other threads I’ve pointed to SS and health care among other examples.
I was trying to be funny, with my usual degree of success. But, Gary, are you suggesting that one can enjoy the psychotropic aspects of smoking mj without inhaling it? I can personally attest to the fact that one might not enjoy the experience when inhaling, but that’s not quite the same thing.
I’m imagining campaing advisors arguing:
“Just say you didn’t inhale.”
“No. No one will believe that. Just say you didn’t like it.”
“What if he says he inhaled, but didn’t hold it in long enough?”
“That’s too complicated. People will lose interest.”
“Okay. Didn’t inhale. Didn’t like it. Next.”
“But, Gary, are you suggesting that one can enjoy the psychotropic aspects of smoking mj without inhaling it?”
I wasn’t trying to, and neither did I intend to play a mary-ju-wanna advocate, but since you ask, there are endless food recipes, and even drink recipes, of course. Brownies and the like are only the most famous. For more education in an enjoyable way, I quite recommend renting the DVDs of Weeds, with the wonderful Mary Louise Parker, who may yet someday accept the proposal I haven’t made (okay, probably not, but one must have dreams).
“Contact high” pretty much just means that you’re influenced by the feelings and atmosphere prevalent in the room. No drugs necessarily need be included.
I always assumed that he had to be telling the truth when he said he didn’t inhale, just because it was such a ludicrous thing to say, if one were actually trying to argue that one had not, in fact, done drugs.
It might have been relevant here that the first time anyone ever offered me dope, I had no idea that one was supposed to inhale, so I didn’t. I don’t think this is all that uncommon, among non-smokers.
I think they need to lose and lose big. There’s a chance I’ll just sit it out.
Abstaining isn’t going to make them lose big. It strikes me as passing the buck.
===========================
Wait a minute, Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 2002?
Bush was manifestly untrustworthy in the fall of 1999! Molly Ivins and Jim Hightower had published story after story about how he was a liar, a terrible businessman, and a spoiled brat. It didn’t take any digging to find this information, just as it didn’t take much to find that the press was lying about Gore.
===================================
More than half of the population of the United States is female. But women occupy only 2 percent of the managerial positions. They have not even reached the level of tokenism yet No women sit on the AFL-CIO council or Supreme Court There have been only two women who have held Cabinet rank, and at present there are none. Only two women now hold ambassadorial rank in the diplomatic corps. In Congress, we are down to one Senator and 10 Representatives.
All true, but none of these are a reason to vote for the specific person who is HRC. In drastic terms, if it were Margaret Thatcher, say, instead of Clinton, would it still be better to vote for “the woman” over a much more acceptable candidate?
=============================
This brought up something that I’ve been trying to figure out how to express for the past couple of days: the problem of Obama’s niceness. It’s a problem because the Republicans delight in doing low down dirty stuff in campaigns and often if you don’t get mad in those situations you look worse than if you do.
He’s already defused a couple of things, like the “Osama / Obama” bit, his first school (not a madrass), etc. I’d say, by and large, he’s taken a fair amount of heat from both the R’s and the Clinton’s, and dealt with it without getting frazzled.
“All true, but none of these are a reason to vote for the specific person who is HRC.”
All true of 1968; it’s no more true of 2008 than a description of the circumstances of 1928 apply to now. I assume you meant something like that, because as a description of the last decade and more, it’s completely untrue.
Elizabeth Dole would seem to be a more applicable example. She actually ran for president rather recently, after all.
Jeff, note that Redstocking was quoting a statement from 1969. Most of the numbers in those sentences are in fact no longer true, though of course we are still far from reaching equality between men and women.
I should have made clearer that Shirley Chisholm’s statement was made in 1969 in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. I don’t know if there are existing videotapes of her speeches; she was a stirring speaker and a great legislator. I would have proud to support her as our first woman president, with none of the ambivalence Hillary evokes.
I agree that nothing Chisholm says is a reason to vote for the specific person who is HRC. But what grounds and rhetoric you use to oppose her candidacy should be influenced by Chisholm’s speeches. You can oppose the sexist nature of attacks on HIllary no matter how much you hate her personally. I would be so happy if someone could suggest women who might be successful presidential candidates 8 years from now.
I think the question of whether someone of Clinton’s age smoked marijuana was an irrelevancy, but once asked, Clinton should have said “Mind your own business”, or better, “Yes, I smoked marijuana.”
I would speculate that Clinton was in fact telling the truth that he didn’t inhale, because I can see him, the nerdy/wonkish, good-looking big dog showing up in a room where a doobie was being passed around and jovially faking a puff or two as he button-holed a coed on the intricacies of Medicaid rules.
That in and of itself would be a minor fib, at least to Dan Quayle, who might have felt that Bill was shirking the chance to try some good weed.
My take on the Hillary/Obama/Edwards racial, feminist stuff:
I hope some wise heads from all three campaigns are communicating behind the scenes to cooperatively cut this crap out, regardless of who said what, who meant what, and who hinted what.
Better, I hope Howard Dean knocks their heads together.
Everything becomes “presentation” until November.
Cut it out.
Let the media and the RNC do their thing without inside help …. at least.
Redstocking I am genuinely saddened to hear about your past with psychiatrists. The internet can be very difficult to be understood properly (sarcasm, humour etc are all eliminated when one cannot listen to tone of voice and see facial expressions). Misunderstanding is unfortunately too common.
I would never have considered voting for Elizabeth Dole. A vote for HRC can never be a litmus test of your commitment to equality between men and women. It is perfectly valid for individual voters, male and female, to select family issues and feminism as their most important issues and vote for HRC, even if they strongly disagree on her position on the war, for example. That Edwards and Obama are coming as as clueless about feminist issues issues heightens the likelihood of women supporting HRC because they don’t trust the other candidates. The left has always found it acceptable to reject an otherwise decent candidate who is anti-choice. Why should that be such an important issue and other feminist and family issues be ignored?
It has never made sense to me why so many of the blogging left hate Hillary and the Clintons when Bill Clinton is the only democratic two-term president in our lifetimes. What are we saying to the voters? We have never had a good president, but Obama is the promised one. Disentangling himself from Clinton backfired on Gore.
What particular feminist issue do you believe that Clinton champions and Obama and Edwards are clueless about?
You seem to have something in mind because you say “The left has always found it acceptable to reject an otherwise decent candidate who is anti-choice. Why should that be such an important issue and other feminist and family issues be ignored?”
What issue or issues are you talking about, specifically?
When I was in college, so many people smoked pot that you inevitably inhaled even if you never held a toke.
Our drug policies are insane. People are encouraged, even compelled, to take untested psychiatric drugs that are at least as mind-altering as street drugs and often have much worse side effects.. Anti-psychotic drugs, used like candy in nursing homes, kill at least a 1,000 elders a year. You can’t watch a TV show and avoid lyrical advertisements for the latest psychiatric drug, which will cease to be miraculous the second it goes generic.
Sebastian, I am talking about policies that will make it possible for both men and women to have careers and take care of their children and their elders. Maternity and paternity leave is obviously a priority. The medical and family leave act has to be extended to all businesses and organizations, large and small,but the government will need to be involved in funding that.
Day care for young children is too expensive for parents to pay for because if done right, it is extremely expensive. Only the affluent can afford a nanny even at the less than living rates most nannies are paid. The government is eventually going to have to support child care for children under 5 just as they support education for children over 5. Child care workers ideally would have college degrees in early child education and be paid the same salary and benefits as school teachers.
As the baby boomers age, long-term health care for elders is going to be a huge crisis bankrupting Medicaid. Many people are not aware that nursing homes in NY for example cost more than $100,000 a year. Medicare covers only very short term care for people recently discharged from hospitals and capable of recovery. If you have a chronic illness, like Parkinson’s Disease or Alzheimer’s, you are on your own.
The health care proposals of the candidates are not coming to grip with long-term care. Virtually all private health insurance is no good whatsoever for what is dismissed as custodial care, which is care for people who are not going to get better, i.e. they are old and are going to die of their disease, even if they live 15 years with it.
Desperate, people spend down all their resources and are eligible for medicaid. Affluent families hire lawyers to protect and hide their assets, so they can go on Medicaid, make the government pay what they could afford themselves, and save their children’s inheritance. The amount that long-term health insurance pays is laughable; my mom had a good policy that only paid for 6 hours a day. Lots of policies seem like a scam; they have so many disqualifying conditions that your only chance of collecting anything is hiring an expensive case manager.
Home health aides are shamelessly exploited by home health agencies supposedly under government supervision. The aide gets less than half of the 18-20 an hour charged by the agency. Yet many long-term health care policies require you to go through a home health agency, instead of hiring the aide privately and paying her a living wage.
If any of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, are addressing these issues, I haven’t heard them.
I should have made clearer that Shirley Chisholm’s statement was made in 1969 in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. I don’t know if there are existing videotapes of her speeches; she was a stirring speaker and a great legislator.
Check out Unbought and Unbossed (available at Netflix). It’s a magnificent documentary on her ’72 Presidential run. Many of her speeches are included.
The left has always found it acceptable to reject an otherwise decent candidate who is anti-choice. Why should that be such an important issue and other feminist and family issues be ignored?
If a candidate was strongly for feminist issues (“family” is too weak a word to use without definition: what are “family issues”), I can’t see them as anti-choice. Silent on abortion, at best. But saying that women have no right to abortion is flagrantly anti-feminist.
I don’t see Clinton as pushing feminist issues. I think Obama has the better record there as well (but I could be mistaken).
This “leftist” isn’t rejecting Clinton because she is anti-choice; I’m rejecting her because she is anti-left (see her vote of the Bankruptcy Bill, among others). Come November, I will vote for her over any of the lower-life-forms running on the R side, but I’d rather have a candidate I can really get behind.
It has never made sense to me why so many of the blogging left hate Hillary and the Clintons when Bill Clinton is the only democratic two-term president in our lifetimes.
I don’t “hate” Hillary; but Bill did a lot of things that angered The Left — Don’t Ask Don’t Tell; Welfare “Reform”; “Defense of Marriage”… I’d rather see a true Democrat like Carter, but with his party behind him.
I agree that those issues haven’t been discussed much, which is why I don’t understand how you’re seeing a huge gulf between Clinton on the one hand and Obama and Edwards on the other in their positions on those issues.
Is there something specific you can point to suggesting that Clinton would favor legislation you’d support, while Obama or Edwards would oppose it?
Obama campaign playing to win in NV. Looking forward to the end of the primary season.
Yes, the production values on that flyer clearly show that it is from Obama campaign hq & represents official strategy. OTOH, there is no evidence that the teachers’ union lawsuit has an ties to the Clinton campaign & is more an attempt to disenfranchise service workers on the strip than to support teachers. Nosiree.
Nothing I said could be interpreted as opposition to abortion. That battle is won for the time being, although skirmishes will have to be fought. But many of the issues I discussed above are not being addressed at all. As baby boomers age, long-term care may bankrupt us as individuals and as a society unless the entire way elders are cared for is revamped. The average woman spends much more time caring for aging parents than for young children, and it is much harder to find alternatives to your sacrificing your career.
I believe HRC will be better on family issues because Clinton is a feminist, because she was very committed to family issues all her life until she became a senator, because she worked for the Children’s Defense Fund, because she wrote “It Takes a Village,” because she has personal experience with an aging parent. She also has far many more women advisors who struggle with these issues in their personal lives. She is good at listening to women. I have had hundreds of conversations with women my age about caring for aging parents; I am sure HRC has had more.
I admit I haven’t spent enough time on her website to be able to list specific policies, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Remember, I have only recently decided to make feminist, family and health issues the priority when deciding among three candidates with roughly similar voting records.
“If any of the candidates, Republican or Democratic, are addressing these issues, I haven’t heard them.”
Ok, and since Clinton is one of the candidates, isn’t it really odd for you to use the lack of addressing them as a problem for Obama and Edwards, but not for Clinton?
Your quote was: “That Edwards and Obama are coming as as clueless about feminist issues issues heightens the likelihood of women supporting HRC because they don’t trust the other candidates. The left has always found it acceptable to reject an otherwise decent candidate who is anti-choice. Why should that be such an important issue and other feminist and family issues be ignored?“.
I interpreted this as you saying that Clinton was better on these highly crucial feminist issues than Obama and Edwards? Are you now saying that she is the same as them?
“I’d rather see a true Democrat like Carter, but with his party behind him.”
This is really amusing to anyone who remembers 1980.
When, you know, Carter had a huge fight on his hands to keep the nomination, even though he was the incumbent, because the True Democrat was running against him.
“The dream may never die,” but it surely gets forgotten quickly enough.
Flyer:
I shouldn’t get into these fairly pointless back-and-forths, but that’s also hilarious coming from a Clinton. Yeah, they were so for supporting the election of Democrats in Congress, and ran Bill’s presidential campaigns with a keen eye to Congressional Democrats.
Pull my other one, now.
“I shouldn’t get into these fairly pointless back-and-forths, but that’s also hilarious coming from a Clinton.”
From a Clinton? Did you drop “supporter”? If so, note that BTD has (reluctantly) endorsed Obama. (Given, I think, that Dodd isn’t viable).
The guy who made the flyer mis-spelled “precinct”. And “choose”. And “Hillary.”
But: Mr. B’s in on it too! Clearly a coordinated strategy.
” If so, note that BTD has (reluctantly) endorsed Obama”
could you link to that? I’m shocked by it.
He’s been doing so at least since Dodd withdrew I think – anyway, here’s the latest endorsement: “I choose promise and possibility as well as an easier path to victory in the election. That to me means Barack Obama.”
He makes a pretty good argument.
Please tell me this isn’t true. The rumor is spreading among blogs that Obama precinct captains are distributing this flyer in Nevada:
“You can be a Democrat for one day. Vote for Obama and then return to your voting status as you chose [sic].
Everyone regardless of party is welcome to be a Democrat for one day and vote. Republicans, Independents, Everyone, you can make THE difference. If you think a Democrat will win in November and you don’t want Hillary you can come to the Democratic Caucus and vote for Obama.”
“From a Clinton? Did you drop ‘supporter’? ”
“As regards a Clinton,” if you prefer.
But, jeebus, anyone who wants to make the argument that people should support Billary — and she is running on their record in the White House — because of their record of supporting the Democratic Party, and not just Bill and Hillary Clinton, had better confine that argument to amnesiacs.
Bad move; I wasn’t thinking about how awful they were at supporting the party, but now I’m reminded to hold that against her.
I’m also freshly reminded of Senator Clinton’s outrageous demagoguery on video games. She has a generation gap problem.
Gee, I wonder why?
Holding hearings to View With Alarm the content of video games is no different in the slightest from the past Congressional hearings to View With Alarm, successively, movies, comic books, and rock and roll, and is no different in the slightest from making speeches and holding hearings about the irresponsibility of book and magazine publishers for publishing “questionable” material.
It’s a small thing compared to, say, signing on to the AUMF — if you don’t consider it an issue of a minor thing like free speech — but I’m sure she had no idea just how deep a shadow that would cast upon her judgment for innumerable people, not all of whom are under thirty. I know of no excuse for her decision to hold those hearings, but I’ll certainly listen to one if you’d like to make it.
It’s not going to make me not vote for her in the general, if it comes to it, but: jeebus, how effing stupid and bad was her judgment in demagoging video games?
But it was for the children.
“The rumor is spreading among blogs that Obama precinct captains are distributing this flyer in Nevada”
The rumor is that A precinct captain is distributing a flyer. Not multiple ones.
Funny thing is, that I’m considering becoming an Independent so I can vote for Obama in the California primary. But that isn’t an anti-Hillary vote so much as a function of the fact that the only person I’m remotely interested in seeing the White House isn’t running for a party I can currently vote in the primaries for. So I’m not really against the theory of the flyer. I’m NOT an advocate of crossing party lines to vote for the worst candidate of that party so you can help your own party. But I honestly don’t see a problem with registering to vote so as to see the person you like best actually get elected.
And it is most definitely not just a rumor that people deeply affiliated with Clinton are filing a ridiculous lawsuit to keep the Culinary Association’s people from participating on behalf of Obama in Nevada. (I’m posting about that tonight).
“The rumor is spreading among blogs that Obama precinct captains are distributing this flyer in Nevada”
Well, one captain. No evidence of any link to the top. I fully expect the person in question will get fired and Obama will deny any connection.
This is the story from TPM Election Central:. I have always been uneasy whether Obama truly identifies himself as a Democrat.
Obama Precinct Captain’s Mailer Urges Republicans To Switch Parties To Stop Hillary
By Greg Sargent – January 14, 2008, 5:10PM
An Obama precinct captain in Nevada has circulated a flyer that urges Republicans (and independents) to become Democrats just for a day in order to stop Hillary.
The flyer is likely to be controversial, because it’s playing on Republican dislike of Hillary to get GOP voters to affect the outcome of the Democratic caucuses.
“Republicans, Independents, Everyone,” the flyer reads. “You can make the difference if you think a Democrat will win in November and you don’t want Hillary…You can come to the Democratic caucus and vote for Obama.”
Though precinct captains are volunteers, they are designated as such by the campaigns. And while this flyer isn’t the official work of the Obama campaign, in this race campaigns have been held liable for the actions of such volunteers. When a Hillary county coordinator forwarded a copy of the Obama Muslim smear email, it became national news for days, leading to her resignation.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton confirmed that Buchanan is a precinct captain, and sent me this statement:
We’ve learned that one individual who volunteers for the campaign was making the flyer and weve instructed him to stop creating and distributing it. But make no mistake, we want as many independents and Republicans to become Democrats and help to build a new governing majority in this country.
I just got off the phone with the precinct captain, Bob Buchanan. He said that he had stopped distributing this particular flyer and replaced it with what he called a more positive one.
Nonetheless, Buchanan acknowledged to me that this one attacking Hillary had been distributed.
The new version also appears to play on GOP hatred for Hillary, though in more cautious language. Buchanan confirmed that the new version says:
“Republicans, Independents, Everyone. You can make the difference if you think a Democrat will win in November and you have said anybody but Hillary.”
“Please tell me this isn’t true.”
Setting aside that we’ve been talking about this since last night through today, why?
“We’re sorry, your comment has not been published because TypePad’s antispam filter has flagged it as potential comment spam. It has been held for review by the blog’s author.
Go back to Playing To Win.”
Yes, links to this thread are clearly spam. Fine.
“Please tell me this isn’t true.”
Setting aside that we’ve been talking about this
since last night through today, why?
If it’s just one volunteer, and the campaign reacts reasonably, it’s not actually much of a story.
Anybody with sound care to give [me] a precis of HRC on the lawsuit?
Re the Clintons and the congress, I don’t recall either side being much interested in supporting the other.
If you’re going to quote something, please link to it; it’s kinda rude to make everyone else do the work of googling instead.
And, really, there’s no need to quote beyond what’s necessary to quote; that’s what links are for.
Not disagreeing in the least, Gary, but that same impulse was so much a part of Tipper Gore (geez, remember ‘the kiss’? Was it true passion or just electoral manipulation of the voter’s views on Al Gore’s manliness?) that I think it impacted on Al Gore’s vote. At least as my bad memory has it today.
Of course, this is not claiming that we should view a spouse’s positions the same as a candidate’s positions (or a senator’s positions as HRC was at the time), so this is not to contradict you. It does remind me of the Atlantic article about HRC, and I wonder if the relationship between her and Brownback had something to do with that piece of work. This is not to say that she is calculating or merely loyal to a new-found friend, and how this is good or bad as I am sure that everyone will interpret it in their own way.
When, you know, Carter had a huge fight on his hands to keep the nomination, even though he was the incumbent, because the True Democrat was running against him.
That’s why we need a Democrat with the party behind them. Reagan wouldn’t have stood a chance if the Dems supported Carter — on the grain embargo, on the hostage rescue attempt, on everything he did and tried to do with his own party sandbagging him every step of the way.
Me, bitter? Nah!
=============================
Why should I care what
some random blogger“Big Tent Democrat” thinks when this appears on the site: “His unity schtick is a recipe for triangulation and capitulation. It will not work imo.”Obama’s unity “schtick” has worked, both in Illinois and in DC. 35-0, remember?
===============================
Today’s LA Times had a small piece on their Op-Ed pages advising Californian’s not to vote absentee just yet — in part, because there might be an endorsement that would sway you.
Forget policy and the like — you might not vote for the candidate Tom Hanks is supporting! Blech!
“Today’s LA Times had a small piece….”
Here.
Again, since we have neo/newbies with us, Here is a handy guide to HTML tags. Here is a super-quick explanation of how to link.
Note also that by putting the word “blockquote” between pointy brackets, then whatever you want to quote, and then “/blockquote” between pointty brackets, you’ll be blockquoting. Please don’t quote without using either blockquoting, or properly using quotation marks, or you will likely get someone either believing you wrote what you appear to have written, or otherwise someone may mistake you for a plagiarist. Quotation marks and blockquoting and quoting conventions exist for a reason: so people understand what you’re saying, and that you’re quoting.
And to repeat: just quote what’s necessary for understanding; anyone sensible will read the whole thing when you link. (Yes, some people like to argue without bothering to read what’s being argued about; it’s a useful diagnostic feature to find out who does this, rather than a bug.)
Drat, now I lost the revised version of what I wrote, in favor of the crap uncorrected, missing several paragraphs, version I lost when it reverted, and somehow my clipboard copy was lost as well.
Screw it. But that last comment was not really what I tried to post, damnit.
I hate Typepad with a passion.
For what it’s worth, pop over to John Cole’s post _Played the Fool_ and follow the link to Jonathan Chait’s article regarding who Robert Johnson is.
This is such a fun ride, I feel nausea coming on.
Is this pragmatism on Hillary’s part, like her significant looks in Rupert Murdoch’s direction?
Or is this the New Republic doing it’s weird act?
I thought I was old enough to not be turned off by pragmatism.
Cut it out.
I would love to hear what made Bill Clinton a good president. Yes, he won two elections, which makes him a good politician. But what really were his substantive achievements? And why, looking back in time, can I remember nothing of substance about him, except his sexual misconduct, his perjury, and his incapacity to make policy that was effective? Granted, he had a good economy, and managed not to make a mess of it, but this strikes me as thin gruel for even the most diehard Clintonist(a). Linked to this, I keep hearing that Hillary is a feminist, or experienced, or competent,but again, I see little or no evidence of substantive achievement. Suppose, for a second, that Hillary does become president (an event which strikes me as about a 15% probability), what really can we say we know about her? And do we really want the hideous, dysfunctional exercise in suburban kitsch and legalese that is Bill Clinton’s personal life back in the White House, representing Democrats?
I don’t suppose anyone happens to know if Hilzoy has access to her e-mail when traveling?
She only informed me late last night, too late for me to reply, that she was coming to Andy’s memorial service in Colorado Springs tomorrow, asking if I was going.
I wrote her first thing this morning to try to coordinate, but apparently she wasn’t reading e-mail, or whatever (it was before she posted here later today), and by now she’s long since in transit, she she said she was flying out around now, so as to not risk problems with a late flight.
Unfortunately, while I’ve worked out ways around other obstacles, I still have no info on how to get to the “Soldiers Chapel,” which I can’t find any trace of existing at Fort Carson, though I’m entirely sure it does (I may end up calling the base), and I have no idea what to do to get there from the Greyhound station in Colorado Springs, and have yet to get past this problem.
Being able to reach Hilzoy tonight would help greatly, and possibly prevent my not going (I’m kinda leery of spending over $100 and ~10 hours transit time only to be stuck in the Springs, unable to get to the Chapel in time; neither do I want to pay for a cab, unless it’s pretty reasonably priced), but I have no idea if she’ll be checking e-mail while traveling (I don’t recall her mentioning doing it before, or owning a laptop or tablet or blackberry or whatever, but I just don’t know), or any other way to reach her in time.
I doubt anyone else does, but I ask anyway. I apologize that I’m also going to post this on another thread.
Thullen, are you planning on going? Any interest in lunch in Colorado Springs after 12:35 p.m. (when the only possible bus arrives; the memorial is scheduled for 2:30; I have no idea if that leaves much time for even a quick bite)??
For what it’s worth, here is John’s post, and here is Chait.
It only takes 10 extra characters to make a link.
pointy-bracket a href=”[TEXT]” pointy-bracket
“<" and ">” are the “pointy-brackets.” (This may not come through, even though I’m using the proper code for those characters, and they appear in preview.)
It’s real brain surgery.
Sorry Gary, all of my contact with hilzoy is email.
Gary:
I’m pretty sure I e-know some people in that area, so I posted at my LJ directing people here.
See also John Cole’s post below the previously linked one.
Why do non-linkers want the terrorists to win? Why do they hate American links?
Thanks, Dr. Science, and Sebastian.
This is also another of the moments when I recall why phone books were invented, and I’m ever so thankful that they’re obsolete for cell phones, although I also have no idea if Hilzoy even has a cell phone (I don’t, but then I have no life, unlike most people).
I also was thrilled to learn this afternoon, after a friend stopped by and knocked on my door to tell me, that my incoming phone service has been giving out “this number is disconnected” message all week; on the plus side, they told me it would take three days to fix it, and then called back a couple of hours ago to say it should be working again, but that explains why I’ve had no calls all week, and that really screwed up some things.
Oh, and they told me I’d get no credit for the outage, because I hadn’t informed them.
Clearly I hadn’t realize that I’m expected to call myself every day, from another line, to make sure that my incoming service hasn’t been disconnected, while my outgoing service remains fine. I’m just so remiss in my duties.
Also, drat, no time to get a haircut now. Oh, well.
Gary, Soldier’s Memorial Chapel is at Fort Carso, 6333 Martinez Street. Google maps or mapquest can show you where it is.
Sorry I can’t help any more than that.
Okay, not to bore everyone with frequent updates, or blognap the thread, but I’ve finally found this.
The Fort Carson information line says all operators are busy, and puts you on hold; I don’t know what happens after twenty minutes, but I may try again.
Unfortunately, it’s after 5 out here, now, and thus I can’t reach the Chapel office, now that I finally found an address and phone number.
And I have to leave here by 8:15 a.m. tomorrow morning to catch the only possible bus. So I probably won’t be able to reach them before leaving.
I guess I’ll just have to take a leap of faith, and trust that I’ll be able to reach the chapel by phone from Colorado Springs, once I’ve gotten there, and that there’s an affordable way for a civilian to get from the Greyhound bus station to the chapel. I guess. At least I have an address and phone number now, which makes a big difference.
Instant results! A friend says:
Supposedly, according to this, the Soldier’s Memorial Chapel is located at Building 1500, 6333 Martinez Street, Fort Carson, CO 80913-5117. Here’s the google map.
Checked Greyhound and their bus runs too early. There are several cab companies that service Fort Carson, but I don’t know the rates.
“Checked Greyhound and their bus runs too early.”
I’m sorry, I’m not sure what you’re referring to; the only I’ll be taking leaves Denver at 11:00am and arrives at Colorado Springs at 12:35pm; it’s the only possible one, as the next earliest leaves from Denver at 7:35 a.m., and it will take me about 2 1/2 hours to get to the Denver bus staion; the next later bus arrives in Colorado Springs after 7 p.m.
Do you live in Colorado, John? Or are you saying you thought about travelling here from elsewhere?
I don’t see anything objectionable about that flyer. Except production values.
What I meant is Greyhound runs from Colorado Springs to Fort Carson, but leaves before you get to Colorado Springs.
Not in Colorado. If I was I would try to get there and give you a ride.
“What I meant is Greyhound runs from Colorado Springs to Fort Carson, but leaves before you get to Colorado Springs.”
Ah. I hadn’t thought I remembered you saying anything about living in Colorado, and thus my confusion. I hadn’t realized — it didn’t occur to me to check over such a short distance — that Greyhound might run between the Springs and the Fort. Thanks muchly, and again to Dr. Science and all.
There appear to be at least two Colorado Springs Transit buses that go into Fort Carson, but unfortunately their maps and schedules are quite uninformative for someone who has never been to either Colorado Springs or Fort Carson, and their “travel planning” software is “Coming Soon.”
The only phone number I’ve found so far is on their “Contact Us” page, where it helpfully says: “The City’s staff is always available to answer your questions in more detail. Please call 385-CITY (719-385-2489)….”
However, it turns out that “always” in Colorado Springs unsurprisingly means “not after 5 p.m. or before 9 a.m.” I guess nights just don’t exist in Colorado Springs, which must be convenient for some.
Alternatively the writers of that page do not understand the meaning of “always.” (Hint to you guys: it is not, in fact, identical to “sometimes,” or “during work hours”: get an editor.)
So whether that 30 or 33 or another bus will get near the Chapel remains a temporary mystery to me. I will think positive, and not about how irritated I’ll be if I spend ~$60 (Greyhound’s price is cheaper if you buy a non-refundable ticket, so my estimate has gone down) and 8+ hours in transit only to tour downtown Colorado Springs.
Oh, well, it’s not like I have anything better to do, really, and if worse comes to worse, I’ll have seen some Colorado highways I’ve never seen, and gotten some book reading time on the bus, preferably without a small child kicking my seat from the rear, a baby throwing up on me on one side, and someone else falling asleep on my shoulder on the other.
(Yes, I’ve done too much bus traveling when I was younger, including at least three trips from the Atlantic to the Pacific and back again, and plenty of trips half as long; I’d be just as happy to never ride a long distance bus again, now that I’m no longer remotely as flexible and healthy, but, again, it’s utterly trivial in context. So I’ll try to maintain a no worries attitude.)
Gary, when you get there (I’m thinking positive) know that a lot of us would like to perceive you as a representative for all of us. Since I now know the time of the service, I will make sure to spend some time as if I were there.
They had to outlaw nights in order to keep the demons in check.
Okay, one more semi-rhetorical questions: is it normal for transit authorities in small American towns (keep in mind that I grew up in Brooklyn, so to me, Seattle is a small town, let alone the Springs; anything under 10,000,000 people strikes me a “small” by way of being a “city”) to not have public telephone numbers for schedules and directions?
Because I’m pretty surprised that I can’t find one on this website.
Their “customer service” page just gives an e-mail address. Hidden at the “Hours Of Operation” gives an administrative number.
But a number to ask about schedules or directions? Seems like nada.
Boulder has a terrific bus system. I know not everywhere does, to put it mildly, but an entire transit system with no public phone number? I live and learn.
Alternatively, I’m posting this so someone can triumphantly and indignantly point out the actual number to me, while lecturing me on what a fool I am to not find it. I’ll take that.
Oh, and I’ve e-mailed a Springs friend, who will call me soon, and I hope may have some helpful info.
Apologies again to all for any threadjacking by me.
Thanks, KC; I’d totally forgotten that, er, “fact.”
It’s a shame some of those folks don’t realize that if you grow up in a big city, you develop an immunity to demons, from the constant exposure. It’s the same principle as how vaccines counteract viruses by being made of virus.
So we big city kids grow up nicely demon-immune most of the time, whereas rural folk are terribly susceptible to demon-infection, based on their lack of exposure.
The best way to keep out those nasty demons would be to either: a) move immediately to the biggest and most demon-filled city you can — for the sake of the children; or b) begin a program of exposing your kids to small demons, building up their immunity, then exposing them to larger demons, then larger, and so on, until they’re more or less totally immune, after considerable ultimate exposure to the very biggest and most evil demons.
It’s the only way to be sure.
Do you mean this one: Phone: (719) 385-RIDE #4
Sorry, probably not right one.
They do show two route to Fort Carson, but it requires a transfer at some point.
Good luck tomorrow Gary. I hope you don’t have trouble or get stranded. I’ll be with you in spirit.
This post was actually the most dispassionate case I’ve seen put on in the blogs acknowledging that HRC has been subjected to some unfair shit but that Obama is a better vehicle on a personal level for a realignment election. I guess for me the question remains, relignment for what? Granting all the symbolic value Obama holds, and all the power of his unity talk, how committed is he, really, to a progressive and liberal program? If you judged by the emphasis he places on those values in what he talks about, the answer would be, not much. Obama COULD answer doubts like mine by going after HRC strongly on the Iraq issue, as the post does, but he has really chosen not to do so. I’ve also found Edwards and even Clinton to be more aggressive on health care and economic stimulus than Obama has been, and I really can’t forget the wrong-headed emphasis on the Social Security crisis. Perhaps Obama finds himself (or thinks he does) in the box of the African American progressive, ie, he wants to do liberal things, but our country’s fucked up stereotypes surrounding the Angry Black Man prevent him from making the Villager types nervous. I’d really like to be for Obama for the reasons the post gives, but he has to give me and the rest of us affirmative reasons to do that; he has to make the case and do more than mouth platitudes like hope and unity. I’ve been an Edwards guy the whole way but always thought of Obama as my fall back because he seemed (see Iraq) to be more progressive. So far at least, however, he hasn’t done much to make that appearance any more real for me, and that is a real and troubling failure of his campaign. He’s an enigma to me, and I’m still waiting to figure out what he’s really committed to and would go to the barricades for, if anything.
One reason not to go after Clinton so strongly on the Iraq issue is that it is an area that Americans have pretty strong doubts on. I don’t know the poll numbers but I get the sense that Americans are very ambivalent about precisely what we should do and what we should have done. To go after Clinton on this issue is to force a lot of others to reexamine what they thought. While I don’t think this is a bad thing, no one has ever been elected president by making the American people feel guilty.
John, Steve, all: Hilzoy and I will certainly both represent the blogging community as best we can, though I imagine that will involve sitting quietly on a pew, listening, and little more. But we’ll think of you all thinking of Andy.
If I can’t find another way, having travelled all that way, I’ll pay for a cab from Colorado Springs to the Chapel — assuming they let cabs onto the base, which I have no idea if that’s possible or not, given security precautions.
Otherwise I’ll take a cab to the base entrance, present myself, do my best to talk myself in (bringing my two photo IDs, although I see my passport is now expired, and I’ve always found it bizarre that most government agencies reject an expired ID, as if somehow you were no longer that person: is there a rationale for that as regards counterfeiting, or is it just bureaucratic dumbness?), and then try to find a way to the Soldiers Chapel.
(You’d think soldiers could defend against their apostrophes being stolen, wouldn’t you?)
(I don’t suppose they pick up civilian hitchhikers on military bases, as a rule, do they? I have no idea.)
What the hell, if all else fails, I’ll sit vigil at the base gate in Andy’s memory for a while, and then go home.
Sheesh. Wrote that last one over an hour ago; been on the phone, and didn’t realize it didn’t post.
Had a chat with my friend in CS. Learned how problematic he thought the bus transit to the base seemed to be; oh, well. Will still find out for myself.
I did discover a CS transit phone number, for the record: Phone: (719) 385-RIDE
More to come.
The demons are cold, they need bodies, they long to come inside. People let them in in two different ways. One is to be sinned against. “Molested,” suggested Linda. The other is to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. You could walk by sin—a murder, a homosexual act—and a demon will leap onto your bones. Cities, therefore, are especially dangerous.
From KC’s link upthread. Somehow I missed this the first time around.
I don’t know who “Linda” is, but she sounds like William Burroughs crossed with my Italian grandma.
I think we should each knit a demon a sweater so they won’t be so cold and they’ll leave us alone.
Thanks –
Hilzoy and I will certainly both represent the blogging community as best we can, though I imagine that will involve sitting quietly on a pew, listening, and little more.
Am I the only one who thought ‘live blogging?’
Sorry, straining for laughs is all I got. If there’s a guestbook, make sure someone signs ‘Obsidian Wings’.
My Quest For Transit Info has succeeded!
It was a true hero’s journey, requiring much listening to of demonic Muzak.
The #30 bus to Chiles Avenue and Nelson Blvd should do the trick and put me within a few block of Soldiers Chapel. (Which CS Transit Info couldn’t find any info on, either, ha. But the helpful woman was able to find bus info via the address I gave her, after calling her dispatcher twice. Yay, CS Transit Info, even if they do take 20 minutes to get to you after holding.
Now I must set out on my journey to destroy the ri– oh, sorry, wrong story.
LJ, if you had any trouble finding the actual article, since the old link is broken, it now seems to be behind a paywall, alas. However, here is another copy of the first half.
Sorry, I meant russell, not LJ.
I should have something to eat, and try to relax. I hate last-minute planning.
(I hadn’t realized either Hilzoy or any of the family were coming to Colorado Springs, and also, I’d frankly blocked out for the last couple of days that the memorial was today; it wasn’t until I got Hilzoy’s email this morning, which was the first time she mentioned anything about it at all, that I suddenly realized it was tomorrow, and I started doing the rest of what needed to be done to find out if getting there was fully practical, so nobody to blame but me. Although knowing Hilzoy was coming prior to this morning would have been helpful. But she’s had three trillion more important things to think about.)
(I hadn’t yet decided if it was something I wanted to go to if I wouldn’t know anyone there at all. Other than the obvious person, in spirit, who won’t be chatty.)
“Sorry, straining for laughs is all I got.”
Fine by me, and what Andy would want.
“If there’s a guestbook, make sure someone signs ‘Obsidian Wings’.”
Hilzoy is obviously the appropriate person. Besides, if I did it, no one could read my handwriting, anyway.
But I have no laptop or tablet or handheld, or even a cell phone. And presumably if Hilzoy has portable internet access, I’d actually hear from her tonight, so I’m guessing not.
I could try pretending my shoe is a phone.
Maybe not.
If people would like to all focus on telepathically letting Hilzoy know she should call my publically listed phone number RIGHT NOW, though, and it works, that would be great.
LTC Niksch informed me via Blackberry a few minutes ago that he’ll “speaking as the family spokesman…and escorting his parents…please find me afterwards.”
Good luck, Gary. I hope you make it.
Hilzoy’s case against Clinton
Interesting essay by hilzoy of Obsidian Wings about why she’s not supporting Hillary Clinton. Speaking of which, Greg Palast did some old fashioned muckraking on HRC last May.
Telepathy works!
No, actually, it was e-mail. Turns out Hilzoy does have internet access, as she just emailed me from the Springs; we’ll meet in Colorado Springs tomorrow, and navigate from the bus station to the Chapel together. (Together at last! — as foretold.)
Now she’ll find out just how relatively inarticulate and stammery I am when I’m not composing in writing, and how dumb I sound when I can’t look up numbers and facts and cites on teh internets. Oh noes!
I am here, in Colorado Springs. Travel: so delightful.
It’s very cold here. Sort of the way it used to be in Boston, in my youth.
But there is internet in my room, which is not a coincidence, since that was my main criterion in choosing a hotel. Sigh.
John Miller, you had it right at 08:53 PM.
And in more weather news, it’s a balmy warm 39 degrees F. here in Boulder tonight.
Tomorrow night — when I’ll be traveling home — the weather report for here is 9 degrees and snow. Lovely.
But we bring you our Colorado weather reports in stereo.
Which reminds me, for no good reason other than that I saw it the other day, of Merv Griffin’s gravestone.
I don’t think I’ve ever written here about the weekend I spent in the Cleveland, Ohio bus terminal, along with a couple of thousand other stranded people, and a bunch of Red Cross workers and their friends, Ms and Mr. Coffee and Doughnuts, three decades ago, after the Ohio State Turnpike was closed for two days due to blizzard.
Not that that’s forecast, or remotely apt to happen here. I’m just feeling nostalgic for long distance (not that this is remotely the distance of NYC to Detroit, which was that trip) bus travel during snow.
And now, I hope, good night. If I post again tonight, damn the insomnia.
But now the forecast for tomorrow night says 8 degrees. It’s dropping as I watch.
I knew I should have bought a decent used winter jacket.
Do you really think advocating that an editorial cartoonist should be fired because a bunch of us strongly dislike a particular cartoon is a great idea, in principle?
Sorry for the delay Gary, didn’t mean to not respond. This is why I don’t comment here much (or anywhere) anymore, not enough time to comment and then follow up.
Anyway, Redstocking’s possibility regarding Oliphant’s true meaning aside (although it’s quite possible that I’m not smart enough to note such a subtlety), I think that editorial cartoonists should be treated the same way that we treat talk show hosts, sportscasters and scientists who use their “pulpits” and perpetuate rascism. Are they not typically fired? Oliphant is indeed an icon, but he didn’t just cartoon something that I strongly dislike, he used his “pulpit” and perpetuated sexism.
And, I absolutely do not think that I should have veto power over political cartoonists or anyone else’s opinions (actually I already do, I can just not read them) in fact I’ll fight for them, but there’s a difference between biting political satire (and Oliphant’s stuff is generally directed in “my” direction) and perpetuating sexism. He crossed that line and most people who do that pay for that mistake with their job and reputation.
PS. Stay warm tomorrow.
If I read the polling on democratic candidate vs republican candidate playing to win means endorsing Edwards.
Obama campaign playing to win in NV. Looking forward to the end of the primary season.
TalkLeft is for Clinton? Thanks for the laugh.
I am an Edwards supporter too dutchmarbel. He’s been tested a lot more thoroughly than Obama, but not as well as Hillary.
People keep harping on Hillary’s experience but I don’t think you are talking about the relevant metric. The most important part of being President in general is dealing with the media, the most important part of being a Democratic President or Presidential candidate is coping with a right wing noise machine that is going all out to destroy you.
By that standard Hillary has about 15 years experience, Edwards has about 1 year, and Obama has maybe the equivalent of a month.
Merv is poking Johnny Carson in the metaphysical eye with that gravestone.
Carson said “I’ll be right back” would be his epitaph.
Gary (and Hilzoy):
I’m sorry. I didn’t catch the end of this thread until Tuesday morning.
I won’t be attending Andrew’s service. I hate funerals, to be blunt. Plus, I’ve got a wretched cough/flu thing going on.
But for those two items, I would have driven up to Boulder and picked you up, Gary. But, if you get stranded somehow, call me (I’m in the Denver book) and I’ll come to the rescue.)
I may not do links, but I can drive.
Say hello and goodbye to Andrew for me.
Coming in late to the discussion. It’s great that Gary and Hilzoy are in Colorado.
As for this thread, I think it is interesting to contrast the discussion here with some of the comments to Publius’ earlier post callilng for no more Clintons.
There, I compared a Clinton candidacy in the general election to putting sodium into water. My comments were not that well received (Hilzoy’s were much better received which implies a certain groupthink).
Hilzoy is right in the “big picture” of her post: that nominating HRC is not in Democrat’s interest. Which is why I hope she is nominated . . . although I kinda like Obama . . . dang it’s hard being a Republican these days.
Anyway, I now bolster my opinion with a visual example!
Sullivan posted this not long ago and I had to laugh.
Actually, bc, you followed on Crimso’s comments, so your complaints about groupthink are a more refined example of playing the victim card. At any rate, you said in that thread
You can argue she is electable, like Nell does, but arguing her electibility is not an issue simply doesn’t make sense. It’s not like it’s a true matter of principle and the Democratic party would be betraying its ideals by not electing her (or am I wrong on this last point . . . .)
I don’t really understand why you aren’t heralding the fact that there seems to be a majority here arguing for Obama, which, if I have read you correctly, should be taken as the Dems (at least here) as refusing to betray their ideals. Unless you are making this comment merely to throw sodium in the water…
lj: lol on the sodium comment. I fixed my link but it was read as spam and didn’t go through. It’s a WWII video on throwing sodium (HRC) into a lake (Republicans in the general election). Lots of flames.
you followed on Crimso’s comments,so your complaints about groupthink are a more refined example of playing the victim card.
Huh? I wasn’t looking for sympathy nor did Crismo’s thinking affect my own. I remember having similar thoughts to Crismo before I posted. More to the point, my position remains unchanged while the general tone amongst liberal posters here has changed. Maybe that is due to recent events, maybe to the fact that the voice is Hilzoy’s. You decide.
I don’t really understand why you aren’t heralding the fact that there seems to be a majority here arguing for Obama . . .
My “true matter of principle” comment was tongue in cheek. I AM somewhat heralding the fact that the majority are arguing for Obama as a sign that Dems are coming around to my way of thinking. A lot of the support for Obama among Dems is precisely because he reaches such a broad spectrum of voters, even appeals to some Republicans, and causes no reaction when thrown into a Republican lake.
The latter point was in the earlier thread deemed “irrelevant” by some posters. Iowa seems to have changed that.
I’m an independent in my early 30s, and I didn’t follow politics very closely in the 90s. I did, however, come away with a sense that Bill Clinton was sleazy.
I am fed up with Republicans, and so I have been following the Democratic primaries closely and with great interest. I can now say with confidence that the Clintons, both of them, deserve their reputation. Their swift-boating and race-baiting have been over the top. I don’t know if they learned it from Karl Rove, or vice versa, but they come from the same school of politics. I hate that school. It’s bad for America.
Now that I see what all the fuss was about, there is no way I would want these people in office. I could vote for Obama, and I could even vote for McCain, but I would never, ever vote for a Clinton.
Again, since we have neo/newbies with us, Here is a handy guide to HTML tags. Here is a super-quick explanation of how to link.
I’m in favor of links as opposed to typed URLs, but I can understand why not everyone uses them.
(And in a case of a throw-away comment, a block quote or a link seems a bit superfluous.)
1) In order to post links, one has to copy the URL and manually paste into one’s response.
2) HTML works for this blog. Other blogs and forums use [ as the delimiter of tags. (Really nice blogs and forums have buttons to automate tags!)
3) It’s critical when using ANY tag to use Preview to check for closing. Tag leakage is a pain for all concerned!
A generalized and largely baseless sense that Bill was sleazy was exactly the impression that the Republicans through the Republican -owned MSM wanted you to have.
So don’t be fooled. He had an over active sex life to which Hillary was apparently accomodated . He was never in the same league for sleaze as Nixon, Reagan, or Bush. Not even close.
Brilliant and insightful post; I am sorry that I am coming to it late. I have had this exact same thought. Hillary is probably not as bad as she has been made out to be, primarily by the Republicans. However, there does not seem to be enough time this election cycle to undo the fifteen years of damage to her reputation.
If she were clearly the better candidate in the Democratic field, then reputation rehabilitation might be worth the effort. As the post points out, however, Clinton, Edwards and Obama are essentially the same domestically, while Clinton seems the most hawkish internationally. Also, despite my cynicism, I would rather vote for hope this November. Perhaps in another eight years Clinton would be in a better position to run for president, as more of her Republican enemies have left the scene (one way or the other).
I think it’s actually even simpler than Hilzoy makes it out here (though I also share the sentiments of the post):
Because she’s so well-known and so polarizing, and because the media (albeit unfairly) is so obsessed with her, any campaign featuring Hillary Clinton is very likely to be mostly “about” Hillary Clinton. Is the country ready for a president with two X chromosomes? What will Bill’s role be? Were The Tears real or feigned? What was the deal with TravelGate? And so on, ad nauseam, ad infinitum.
This is not good for the Democrats. Given the demonstrated disaster we’ve endured through Bush’s years of misrule, there’s an opportunity here to thoroughly repudiate that vile mutant strain of Republicanism–to hold whoever the Republican nominee is to account for the failures of his predecessor, and to tie those failures not to Bush’s stupidity or incuriosity or arrogance… but to the underlying tenets of their ideology.
Adding in the element of Obama specifically, here’s a guy (and I’m a supporter) who has risen in life on his own considerable merits, who hooks into the best stories we tell about ourselves as a nation (land of opportunity, with an unmatched capacity for self-correction when we screw up), and who could be a transformative political actor. And we’re going to cast him aside for Hillary freakin’ Clinton?
The blindness and vapidity of so many Clinton-supporting Democrats of the rank and file, and the sheer dishonesty of her surrogates and institutional supporters, have been my biggest disappointments of this campaign cycle. I hope it’s not too late to avoid the disaster of her coronation, but I’m not optimistic.
To wonkie, Re: Bill’s sleaziness.
With all due respect, I’ve been paying attention these last few weeks. If anything the MSM has been covering for the Clintons (why no coverage of their massive under-the-radar swift-boating of Obama on abortion?)
Maybe the Clintons have gotten worse in the last 8 years. Maybe the Republicans were right about them all along. I don’t know. But I do know what I’ve seen in this campaign. They leverage misinformation, fear, and anger to help themselves, even if it means leaving voters divided and in the dark. It’s despicable. I want so much more for my country.
Since the concept of “punishing” the repubs for what they’ve done to HRC has been raised, and the concept of HRC alienating dems has been raised, and anecdotal evidence seems welcome on this thread:
I’m a 43 year old white woman who has never voted for a Republican once. I liked HRC in the nineties and read her book “It Takes a Village.” I thought the Repubs who hated her were sexist weirdos.
Now, If HRC is nominated, I will vote for WHICHEVER crazy Republican freak is against her in the general. I do this as punishment for the events of this last week. Bill’s lies about Obama’s Iraq position, and the campaign’s lies over the Johnson statement [saying he was talking about Obama’s community organizing] have pushed me over that edge. She is foul. Yes, so are quite a few of the Rs, but they’re the devil we know, not the devil we think is on our side.
Phoebe, if it were possible to punish the Clintons without punishing the rest of us, I might agree with you. But I’m certainly not going to risk the possibly irreversible damage to the country that another four years of rule by the scum who currently control the Republican Party would do. I guess I shouldn’t tell HRC that, though.
Well I’m certainly not minimizing the sleaziness of thhe current Clintonn behavior. I just think it pales to nothing compared to Iran/Contra, Watergate, the KStreet Project, or the smear machine which launched lie after lie toward the Clintons throughout thhe 90’s withh the complicity of thhe MSM. Another example of thhe coruption typical of Republicans politicianns is the pattern of Republican Presidents filling thhe government up with people who are incompetennt and/or corrupt (annd I mean FILLING UP, too. Not just a bad egg here anndthhere, top to bottom appointments of people who are eithher there to serve the innterests of special interests grouups or there onnlyy because of money thhey gave thhe party.) Heckofajob BBrown was a standard tyupe Bush appointee.
Also The Repubican party has engaged in illegal and unethical campaign tacgtics in elections going back to thhe Nixon administration, and the bad practices have been promoted from the top down. The robocalls of 2004 are just onne example. If you find this Clinnton stuff offensive I really donn’t knnow how you could even consider voting for a Republican.
I hope I didnn’t say youu weren’t paying attention. I do thinnk that the attention you pay should include the recent past. I’ve been paying attention since the 70’s and this stuff is annoying annd not what I want from Democrats but it just isn’t even close to the stuff which has been standard opporating procedure from the Republicans for decades.
Bill Clinton is compulsive sexual predator and a borderline rapist. Hillary covered for him for years and participated to the hilt in the destruction of the reputations and lives of several women. The idea that she is revered as a champion of women’s rights is laughable.
How anyone could want to place these two deeply sick people back in the centre of things is utterly bewildering.
Obama is an extraordinary man and an extraordinary candidate. He has a first class temperament and a first class mind. You just have to look at the quality of people advising him. Fort example, Samantha Power, who won a Pulitzer for “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide”. Watch her on Charlie Rose. Compare her with Jamie Rubin, a thoroughly nasty, arrogant slime ball who has been desperately trying to become famous on British TV since the Clinton years (he has failed.) He has returned to conduct conference calls with reporters, trying to cast doubt on Obama’s position on the war.
How anyone could even consider voting for someone as craven as Hillary is shocking.
Wonkie: I have no doubt that there are sleazy people on both sides. I hate Karl Rove politics, and voted for John Kerry. But I’ve also seen Clinton politics, and it’s no better.
I’m an independent for a reason. I vote based on the candidate, not the party. I don’t condemn all Republicans for what some have done in the past, and I’m not condemning all Democrats for the behavior of the Clintons.
Thanks for coming back bc, I thought I might have been too sharp with my comment.
But not meaning to be oversensitive, this
The latter point was in the earlier thread deemed “irrelevant” by some posters. Iowa seems to have changed that.
suggests some hypocrisy on the part of people discussing this, which I don’t think is correct.
On a quick glance, I see that many of the people who are most active in the more recent threads were silent in that thread, but I’ve not been the closest follower of this debate, so I can’t say for certain. I agree, Iowa and now NH certainly seems to have sharpened everyone’s thinking, but I don’t think that requires one to posit a change in philosophy or stance.
I know the general perception is that OW needs another conservative regular. But I would appreciate a genuine, enthusiastic Clinton supporter. I don’t qualify though I am supporting her because none of them are speaking out on the most important issues and I trust her more on feminist issues. But the vitriol of the attacks on her bothers me, because what are people going to do if she wins the nomination? Is there any possibility some of your readers support Clinton and are too intimidated to delurk?
Redstocking Grandma: I have to say I don’t think it’s a good idea for the blog to pick up people based on ideological quotas.
We should find people who write well, who reason soundly, and — hopefully — honestly sticking to those criteria gives us the ideological diversity we need.
And if it does not give us diversity (because we cannot find clear thinking people who believe certain things), then we have something else which is just as good: consensus!
I know sometimes people persuade one another, and so there’s only so much you can gather from consensus on the blogosphere. But I would at least like to not structure things to make it impossible for there to the things that most of us agree on.
Redstocking, most of the vitriolic anti-Clinton stuff is coming from people I’ve never seen before. Some of the comments look like they could be from people who search for blog posts talking about Clinton and paste in their rants. I don’t think it’s fair to blame us regulars for that sort of thing.
Redstocking Grandma: I suspect the reason it’s hard to find a lot of strong Clinton support on blogs like this is demographics. The mostly young and/or educated demographic that frequents these blogs is not the current target of the Clinton campaign. They are going after the poor, less educated, Democratic base that sticks with the familiar and doesn’t check facts online. I suspect once they’ve gotten the votes they need from the base, they’ll try to re-unite with the political blog crowd. They’ll most certainly do it by demonizing the opposition, whoever it may be.
For the record, I arrived here via link from Andrew Sullivan. I suspect there is a lot of activity on political blogs these days, and a lot of people (like myself) are disgusted by what they’re seeing and need to vent. It’s healthier than throwing the remote through the TV.
Our host says some of the faux-Clinton scandals must be substantive, since even a broken clock is right twice daily. It’s ironic he uses the cattle futures example, because there’s next to nothing there. The Clinton’s hooked-up with a commodities wiz through a common acquaintance. This commodities expert was on a major tear, making massive amounts of money for several clients. He would continue making huge profits hand over fist until after well after Hilary bailed out, when losses and his own business irregularities brought the whole show crashing down. In Andrew Sullivan’s TNR days, there was an article by rightish type James Glassman making the best case the Clintons were unethical. Glassman admits the most obvious type of malfeasance – the broker rewarding a favored client by cherry-picking random trades – did not occur. The profile of Clinton trades, rising and falling with dizzying gains and losses – was the exact opposite of the cherry-picking scenario. Glassman is reduced to saying that the Clintons were so far out on a limb that IF they hadn’t panicked and bailed, and IF they had been caught with the losses they skirted, then he, Glassman, believes that he, the broker, MAYBE would have covered for them. And that’s it. That was the whole of Glassman’s “corruption”. Yes, Bill and Hillary should have gotten a margin call during some of their profit valleys, but the broker wasn’t treating the couple any different than his other clients. And Hillary certainly did weaseled slightly when the “scandal” emerged, but that is all to the very bottom of the story. Why do I belabor this? Because here we have someone who KNOWS most of the Clinton scandals were pure fabrications still falling for/peddling another bogus saga – and that’s worth spelling out in detail. Because I share his anger over how the Clintons have been maligned, and I think people on the left are much more likely to toss there own overboard – often just for the gratification of (just) appearing “even-handed”.
“It’s ironic he uses the cattle futures example…”
Who is this “he” of whom you speak?
Looks like Romney won Michigan by a noticeable margin. Much better than a McCain win.
Looks like Romney won Michigan by a noticeable margin.
Must have been all those Kos cross-over votes. 😉
Wow. That’s got to hurt…
According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and “uncommitted” is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is only major candidate on the ballot.
Oops. That was supposed to be a quote.
hilzoy: I assume from your question “he” ain’t a “he”. Knowing nothing of this blog personages, I glanced about briefly to confirm gender, but soon lapsed lazily into the preconception easy to the English language writer. That faux pas aside, I still insist on my point. Your wikapedia stuff is all very good, with it’s somber statistical analysis of commodity trends, but it ignores statistics rather closer to the ground. In fact, Blair was making massive amounts of money for his clients while ignoring niceties of margin calls, BEFORE he began trading for Ms Clinton. He made huge profits for his other clients (and skipped their margin calls) WHILE he traded for Hillary. He continued those practices for his remaining clientele AFTER the Clintons got nervous & dropped out. It was those facts, easily documented and very hard to ignore, that led Glassman to accuse the Clintons of the hypothetical “corruption” I noted above. Which brings me back to my accusation against the mythical mister hilzoy: That you, while condemning mistreatment of the Clintons — a mistreatment perpetrated by right-wing sleaze, msm voyeurism coupled with petty malice, and left wing indifference — managed, at the same time, to perpetrate a prime example. And did so — dare I say? — with the most casual of indifference. Broken clock indeed……
Hmmm, I’m not following all this closely, but what I find interesting about the wikipedia link is that it is not contested. This is not to suggest that uncontested means truth or falsity, especially in regard to Wikipedia, but that HRC is not a passionate choice. Of course, this is not a surprise, given that she had been running on the notion of inevitability, but it sums the problem, separate from any right wing smearing, which is that HRC doesn’t generate the excitement that Obama. As one editor notes in the talk page of HRC’s political positions “But except for lots of quickly-corrected vandalism, the HRC articles have been remarkably stable for some period of time now, so I’m kind of loathe to re-architect them.” This seems to speak more to the problem than trying to claim that hilzoy herself is overcome with unwitting bias.
Is it OK to change the subject? I wonder what effect a Bloomberg run could have on the race. Who would vote for him? (Besides Joe Lieberman, I mean, if McCain doesn’t get the nomination.) The whole Unity 08/Bloomberg thing is mindboggling to me.
grb: Personally, my favorite piece on the cattle futures thingo is this one. You plainly think I’m wrong. That’s your right. However:
First, my main point was not that this story was true, but that it will be brought up again if HRC is nominated, and I believe that if it is, Democrats will respond defensively, rather than intelligently. I do not think this is true of candidates Democrats do not think have been the victims of 15 year smear campaigns. I tried, at least, to make it clear that I was not endorsing this particular story, and that I did not mean to imply that no comparable story might emerge about someone else; just to talk about our likely reactions.
Second, you and I obviously differ about the cattle futures scandal. But I don’t see that the facts in that case are nearly clear enough to justify your claim that I repeated a “smear” with “the most casual of indifference”.
It may be obvious to you that when someone with no experience in this sort of investing makes truly extraordinary profits, is allowed to maintain her account without anything like the normal collateral, etc., etc., etc., everything is all above-board, so much so that when someone writes that it’s the one story from the 90s where trouble is most likely to lurk, you can not just disagree, but impugn that person’s care and her motives. It is not nearly that clear to me.
According to the Fox exit polls, in the Democratic primary tonight, Clinton took 25% of the African-American vote and “uncommitted” is getting 69% of the African-American vote. Now remember, Hillary is only major candidate on the ballot.
Even though she’s winning, this has got to be troubling news for Hillary. Look for her campaign to start going negative on Uncommitted.
lj:
suggests some hypocrisy on the part of people discussing this, which I don’t think is correct.
I agree regarding individual posters and therefore I can’t really call hypocrisy. I am assuming the absence of the previous vocal posters equals agreement with Hilzoy. Maybe that’s not true. But they’re not posting as they were. It’s more than a little ironic even if the overall change in tone is due to the campaign.
Here’s something to consider:
What hilzoy didn’t get was that some of us Democrats (by the 1994 elections and Republican Revolution I had changed registration to the Democratic party because the style used by the Republicans at the point I found sleazy and disgusting in its own right, and they were moving in a direction I couldn’t go with an increasingly theocratic, religious right agenda) were provoked to bad reactions because of a sense of the Clintons’ sleaziness. Style matters in campaigning and politicking. It says something about character to my mind.
I don’t hold the AUMF vote against Clinton personally. I can forgive a lapse in judgement in my friends. I can even forgive one in the nominated candidate, or the elected president, if I have reason to believe that there’s real repentance. But electing a president is not just about policy and who gets to lead. It is a message to the world, a message to coming generations, and a message to ourselves. This is important and I will do what I can to make sure we don’t get this one wrong by nominating Clinton. And, since I’m voting in California where there’s a 15% cutoff without instant runoffs, that means voting for Obama over Edwards, unless Edwards is polling over 15%.
cabinet
cabinet exposed information.