Related Articles

21 users responded in this post

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url
mygif
malakim2099 said on March 25th, 2008 at 8:47 pm

My main concern, at this point, is that if Hillary can’t win (and she really can’t), she’s going to take the Democratic Party down with her, leaving Obama with a pyrrhic victory that won’t be enough to beat McCain in the general election.

Oy. Time to search eBay for openings in their Vancouver and Toronto offices, I’m fearing. :/

ReplyReply
mygif

I’m not sure what she could do, Malakim… Though I have no doubt that that Vichy-Dem/Corporate Stooge James Carville has a ton of ideas to make Obama’s life difficult.

ReplyReply
mygif

Agreed, Mr. Bird. Agreed.

ReplyReply
mygif

Hey, Hillary, ya know why you wouldn’t have belonged to Obama’s church and had Jim Wright as your pastor? Because you’re fucking white! Were you not listening to your rival’s speech last week? About the racism, and the history, and the anger? Hel-looo? You went to a lily-white everybody fold their hands and don’t fart too loud church. You went to a church where people didn’t come in the door completely oppressed and pissed off and wanting to let off steam. You’ve spent the last 35 years in the privileged enclaves of ivy league and political elites. Obama may have been teaching at the UC, but he stayed with the same church for 20 years. That means the community that church belongs to. So shove your opportunistic self-righteousness bullshit!

Thank you.

ReplyReply
mygif

From my point of view, Hillary Clinton is, for almost all intents and purposes, a Democratic Party version of George W. Bush–someone who uses massive exaggeration, distortion, and misstatements about their opponents, their qualifications, and their policies to get their way, because the end always justifies the means where their own desires are concerned.

Someone who believes that, if you repeat something often enough, it automatically becomes the “truth” in voters’ eyes (and the media).

A divisive lightning-rod who is flat-out *loathed* by a large percentage of the country, and is arguably more harmful than helpful to the rest of the party, not just for the Presidential election, but also in terms of providing coattails for candidates for other offices to ride on.

Someone who seems to believe that actually executing Mutually-Assured Destruction is a *winning* tactic.

And someone who therefore should most certainly not be President, let alone a major party’s candidate for the office.

(As for the Bosnia situation: If you’re running primarily on your “experience” and your opponent’s lack thereof, and *every* time you provide evidence of your experience it turns out to be an “accidental” exaggeration or misstatement–Ireland, S-chip, Bosnia, etc.–that’s a pattern that shows that you are absolutely *never* to be trusted–not something we need in yet another Presidency in a row–and is evidence that your core reason why people should vote for you is largely or entirely a sham, so “I made a misstatement; I guess that makes me human” should not even BEGIN to fix that damage. And yet, many people eat it up, hook, line, and sinker.)

ReplyReply
mygif

I get the feeling Ms. Clinton thought this was going to be a lock, both the nomination and (to a lesser extent) the upcoming election. With the Reupblican party slowly collapsing under the weight of it’s own corruption, and the havoc it’s wreaked on the nation, she likely figured that a message of hope and change would resonate perfectly, and cement her place in history. Poor Hillary. To have such a perfect opportunity sundered by some intelligent, eloquent upstart… man, it’s no wonder she’s going into supervillain meltdown. Now it looks like she’d eat a live baby at the Super Bowl halftime show if she thought it would help her chances in the least. The fact that, to my knowledge, a good deal of Obama’s funding comes from the little people must have her loathing the American public a little more each day. That said, I don’t think she’s hanging on out of sheer tenacity – there’s still a spoiler vote in there from the superdelegates, and I don’t think she’d be going to these lengths unless she believed they could be counted on. I’m expecting to be highly disappointed when she gets nominated, actually.

ReplyReply
mygif
Genevieve said on March 26th, 2008 at 12:45 am

Agreed with everything above, including the fears about Hilary dragging the Democrats down; people seem to have enough hope initially for the change Obama can bring and what his presidency would represent where they really get excited about and dedicated to voting for him. But with all the BS Clinton & crew cause, as well as the shiftiness about her “experience”, plans, etc. that for reasons of (possibly involuntary) self-inflicted ignorance and trust due to personal issues surrounding gender equity a lot of women are buying into, you end up with division within a group that should really be united for seeing through BS.

Another thing that pisses me off is that several “Anti-Bush” citizens are buying into the bumper-sticker thing where when Bush leaves office it is the “End of An Error” (Era) and we will all be miraculously saved. And, this will be my first election and all, but from my perspective, I’m thinking, “Uh, aren’t my taxes still fucking paying for WWII? And my kids are going to be paying for fucking Vietnam? So my grandkids are still going to be be paying for this bullshit. This isn’t the end of anything.” It’s very frivolous and naive and… irresponsible to think otherwise.

WHAT THE HELL DEMOCRATS. WHAT THE HELL HILARY.

*exhale* Thank you for this. I really needed to hear (well, read) this from someone today.

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah, Hillary wouldn’t have stayed in that church for twenty years. But she stayed with her philandering husband for three decades, which calls her own judgment and character into question. And why? For power?

If the Clintons lose the nomination–and yes, it’s a Billary thing, it’s always been a Billary thing–they lose control of the party, and they get relegated to the dustbin of history. Never mind that under the Clinton/Terry McAuliffe stewardship of the Democrats the party lost both houses of Congress, scuttled Gore’s chances in 2000 due to scandal fatigue among the electorate (altho’ Gore ran a lousy campaign too, which didn’t help), and couldn’t unseat Bush in 2004 despite his dismantling of the Constitution, the breaking story on Abu Gharib, and the growing unpopularity of the war. In other words, the Democrats who benefitted the most from the Clintons in power were the Clintons.

They transformed the party into Lite Republicans sucking at the corporate teat, knowing that their core constituencies of labor and minorities didn’t really have anywhere else to go, and exploited the constituencies’ dependence on their noblesse oblige. They turned the party into craven do-nothings more concerned with getting re-elected than with offering any kind of resistance to the GOP. And the sad thing is that even now, as the Clintons are determined to destroy the party to save it, that too many Democrats are afraid to oppose them. Or worse, they’re okay with Rovian slime tactics as long as it’s on their side. The Clintons are assholes, but they’re their assholes.

I second Aardy’s observation that the Clintons are Democrat versions of Bush: secretive Machiavellians who will spin reality to suit their ends (because we need them to tell us what “is” is), and who value personal loyalty above duty to, I dunno, the common good, maybe? Or public service? I’m surprised the Obama campaign hasn’t hit them hard on this, and really bring it home to the voters: do we want another 4-8 years of this kind of reckless, self-serving divisive bullshit? I know that if Hillary somehow finds a way to steal the nomination, I will quit the Democratic party, because their continued control of it will be intolerable to me. And frankly, I’d vote for McCain in the General, because I don’t think she should be rewarded for the tactics she’s pulled–and this despite my being a lifelong progressive.

ReplyReply
mygif

It has reached that point. Big sigh.

This warned her, quite well. She obviously didn’t care:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23601041/

That is a perfect example of the anger and disbelief that we are feeling right now. Power corrupts…

ReplyReply
mygif

It’s the new perfume – Desperation, by Hillary Clinton.

ReplyReply
mygif
Daysaver said on March 26th, 2008 at 2:22 pm

There is so much here I would like to respond to.

It boils down to this – I’ve been a Democrat all my life. I watched the 2000 election as it was stolen (though Gore’s decision not to let Mr. Clinton campaign for him was a bad one) and in 2004 I watched the Republican Slime Machine turn a John Kerry, an actual war hero, into a coward in the eyes of the American public.

I wasn’t happy with Gore for dropping the ball on his home state. I wasn’t happy with Kerry for not fighting the slander harder. And I am becoming less and less pleased with Mrs. Clinton and Obama as this fight goes on. But I am still a Democrat, because I sincerely believe Barack and Hillary are superior choices to the guy who wants to keep us in Iraq.

Jeremiah Wright comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely absurd. You think America commits atrocities during wartime? As bad as it’s been – and it has been bad – the USA’s actions don’t hold a candle to what Japan did. And I am not just referring to Pearl Harbor. I don’t care what color Rev. Wright is. I don’t care how many doctorates he has or how many people he’s preached to. Comparing our greatest national tragedy to dropping the atom bomb is utterly unfair and, more importantly, highly unethical for a widely respected leader.

That said, Wright’s not the one running for president.

On another point, what is this ridiculous trend of comparing The Clintons to Dubya? Let me lay it out for you in the most simple terms I can think of – The Clintons, despite any and every ciriticism you can possibly heap upon them, are not responsible for the deaths of 4000 soldiers and over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. George W. Bush is a heinous war criminal. Nothing the Clintons have ever done can possibly compare to that.

A vote for McCain is a vote for more pointless murder. Despite this senseless bickering in the Democratic party, whoever wins the nomination is the last, best hope for peace.

ReplyReply
mygif

Daysaver

You can’t possibly believe 9/11 was America’s “greatest national tragedy”. Compared to, say, the Civil War (Or Slavery before it and Jim Crow afterwards), or any number of events that predate 9/11 in American history that day looks a whole lot less tragic.

And please don’t tell me dropping nukes on civilian targets is somehow less evil because the Japanese weren’t saints. Is there even any point in playing “who suffered the most”? What do you get for winning?

ReplyReply
mygif

Jeremiah Wright comparing 9/11 to Hiroshima and Nagasaki is completely absurd.

If that was the sole basis of the comparison it would be, but in context, where Wright mentions the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a list of American military actions where war was conducted against civilians and non-civilians indiscriminately – which is, you know, his point – it really isn’t.

You think America commits atrocities during wartime?

Er, I know America commits atrocities during wartime. Even if you want to skip over the atom bombs and Dresden and My Lai and Abu Ghraib, there’s still the atrocities committed during the first Gulf War.

On another point, what is this ridiculous trend of comparing The Clintons to Dubya?

Firstly, I compared her campaign to one orchestrated by Karl Rove, which is different. That having been said, it’s a matter of plain and simple dirty political tactics: hypocrisy, a sharp tendency towards negative campaigning, and lying that is both stupid and pointless. (The Bosnia thing is making her look like a complete idiot and it looks like it’s sticking, not least because it’s unfortunately hilarious.)

A vote for McCain is a vote for more pointless murder.

Certainly it is, and Hillary is a superior candidate to McCain. So, for that matter, would John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, or even the odious Joe Lieberman be, and should Hillary manage to squeak out the nomination, I would tell people to hold their noses and vote for her. But we’re not choosing on the basis of “Hillary or McCain.” We’re choosing on the basis right now of Hillary or Barack Obama, who is a manifestly superior candidate in many respects.

ReplyReply
mygif

If that was the sole basis of the comparison it would be, but in context, where Wright mentions the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in a list of American military actions where war was conducted against civilians and non-civilians indiscriminately – which is, you know, his point – it really isn’t.

Have you heard the things the civilian population was encouraged to do to soldiers if Aliied soldiers had had to land in Japan

Er, I know America commits atrocities during wartime. Even if you want to skip over the atom bombs and Dresden and My Lai and Abu Ghraib, there’s still the atrocities committed during the first Gulf War.

And what atrocities are those? All I really know about America at war is that whatever we do we’re still a lot better than the countries we fight.

Firstly, I compared her campaign to one orchestrated by Karl Rove, which is different. That having been said, it’s a matter of plain and simple dirty political tactics: hypocrisy, a sharp tendency towards negative campaigning, and lying that is both stupid and pointless. (The Bosnia thing is making her look like a complete idiot and it looks like it’s sticking, not least because it’s unfortunately hilarious.)

There hasn’t been a modern cqampaign that hasn’t involved dirty tricks.

We’re choosing on the basis right now of Hillary or Barack Obama, who is a manifestly superior candidate in many respects.

His wife wasn’t president for eight years. The US was in very good shape during Clinton’s years and I’d happily welcome 4 or eight more years of that style politics.

Is no one worried Wright might drag Obama down? That was a great speech he gave last week, but there’s plenty of political columnists out there who are willing to do things like point out you’re stuck with your family, you choose your church. And his wifes comments.

I’ll probably vote for Obama or Hillary but there’s plenty of people who’ll figure that with a big chunk of the world angry at us we don’t need to elect someone who represents them to lead us.

ReplyReply
mygif
Jason B. said on March 26th, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Have you heard the things the civilian population was encouraged to do to soldiers if Aliied soldiers had had to land in Japan

So, it’s okay to kill civilians if their government “encourages” them to do unpleasant things?

ReplyReply
mygif

And what atrocities are those? All I really know about America at war is that whatever we do we’re still a lot better than the countries we fight.

Firing on retreating troops, bulldozing enemy troops in trenches and burying them alive, etc.

The point isn’t “America is better.” The point of Wright’s speech (which you can read online in full) is that regardless of comparatives, we all owe ourselves a moral duty to consider how we treat those we consider enemies.

The US was in very good shape during Clinton’s years and I’d happily welcome 4 or eight more years of that style politics.

That would be great, except that the Nineties aren’t coming back. Deal with it.

ReplyReply
mygif

What is this, some sort of thoughtful debate on politics? We’re on the Internet! This conversation has been way too polite and respectful :)

On your counterpoints, Mr. Bird:

I must admit that I will simply disagree with anyone who claims the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren’t justified. A full-scale invasion would have ended up wiping out the Japanese almost entirely, because their government was exhorting the citizenry to fight to the death. I realize it’s over six decades later and those of us (me included) can’t really understand what that kind of war is like. But from what I’ve read and what I’ve heard from the WWII veterans in my family, the truth is the A-bomb was really the best way to make it stop.

The comment about comparing the Clintons to Dubya was actually directed at Spike. However, I feel my point still stands. While I expected (or at least, hoped for) better out of the Clinton and Obama campaigns, they are not on a Rove scale. Rove committed treason when he outed Valerie Plame. Treason is absolutely unforgivable. I don’t think anything Barack or Hillary or their advisors have done or will do is on the level of nation betrayal.

I voted for Obama in the primary and I think I probably still would now. My point is, and always seems to be, that no matter what kind of shenanigans are coming out of the Democratic side, it’s just not as bad as the Republican alternative.

ReplyReply
mygif

You know, I wonder at this point if Hillary wouldn’t rather see McCain win so she can make another run at the office in 2012.

ReplyReply
mygif

Yeah, it’s over for Hillary. Can we (not Mr. Bird, but some of the sycophants) not gloat over the corpse?

ReplyReply
mygif

p.s. while Obama’s close relationship with Wright should be scrutinized, the Republicans get away with association with a large number of rabidly pro-Israel, anti-Arab, homophobic pre-millenialist white evangelical pastors. White people aren’t, for some reason, afraid of those hatemongers, but they’re afraid of a black man who is fed up with a broken world. It’s a media goldmine.

Does Wright go too far? Definitely, and I’m not saying that we crucify white evangelical pastors who say unpopular things either, but Obama is getting a lot more heat than any of the Republicans (from mainly moderate mainline Protestantism) who pander to pro-Israel, far right evangelicals.

This is one of my big problems with Hillary. She had a chance to stand up for her fellow candidate, but didn’t.

ReplyReply
mygif

[...] “My pastor never said anything controversial, mnyah-mnyah-mnyah.” Or, as I vented at MightyGodKing the other day (see, not avoiding well at all): Hey, Hillary, ya know why you wouldn’t have [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note: Comment moderation may be active so there is no need to resubmit your comments