Why Am I So Afraid

Why am I so afraid that the Democratic Party is shooting itself in the foot?

The Dems are far from perfect--in any time--but here we are in what has to be a Democratic year and it looks again like we are self-destructing.

We have two great candidates--one a hard working, never give up eager beaver, and one an inspiring, heart-leapingly brilliant stallion. Both have their merits. Both care for what Democrats are best at caring for--working people, children's and women's rights, financial realism.

Both acknowledge the health care crisis, the environmental depredations of the GOP, the huge lurking menace of a war that costs 12 billion dollars a day and gives us nothing--unless we are war profiteers or blow-yourself-up fundamentalists. Both are poised to take back the country from the plutocrats and their endless tax cuts for each other.

And yet we have had great candidates before--think Al Gore--and lost to the low-level conniving, smearing and swift boating of the GOP (Grandiose Old Plutocrats).

The GOP stands for nothing today but looting the national treasury for the rich. George Dubya Bush once addressed them as the "haves and have mores"--clearly he is one of them--but maybe he will have less now that the Carlyle Group is running out of money. Maybe he'll have a little rachmones for the have-less and have-nots, though I doubt it.

If anyone in Washington read history, they'd understand that any empire that spends more in war than on its people eventually goes down in flames. The Persians, Greeks and Romans proved it--see Herodotus--and the British, French, Belgians, Dutch and Germans proved it all over again in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. But does anyone care?

Apparently not. It's a rule of history that when an empire gorges on guns and forgets butter, that empire winds up on the scrap heap of history.

Dubya could have learned this at Yale had he not been drunk or stoned all the time and figuring out ways to avoid going to 'Nam.

But he doesn't know and doesn't care. He thinks, "The surge is working." Dick Cheney and Condi Rice tell him so. And now McCain echoes them. And our idiot corporate press--which has no time to read or think or dig for information (too busy getting pix of Kristen-Alexandra's tattoos) doesn't give a shit either. Leave that to the book-writers. That's safe enough since Americans don't read--especially not big thick books about history.

Meanwhile our two clever candidates have been sucked into the rigors of campaigning. They're tired. Dog-tired. The stallion makes heart-stopping speeches. And the beaver just beavers along. remembering how she won over upstate New York when everyone called that impossible. And called her a carpetbagger. And the stallion is drunk on his own rhetoric. Why not? It's great rhetoric.

We need beavers and we need stallions. Beavers get the work done. Stallions inspire us. And they both have limitations. Stallions have fragile legs (think Barbaro). And beavers are nothing without their teeth.

It's not a matter of choosing between inspiration and hard work. We need both. We need to be inspired and then we need those who will never give up till they execute the inspiration.

Any fool knows that. The Democratic Party ought to know it too. And the sooner they bring the beaver and the stallion together, the better off we'll all be. There is no choice here. There ought to be no ego, no genderizing and no racializing.

Americans are neither black nor white. We are all as mixed as Brazilians. We are a honey-colored race--with Africans, Europeans, Asians and Native Americans intermingled in our DNA. That's the glory of America. If Dick Cheney is genetically related to Barack Obama, what more do we need to know? DNA only goes so far politically.

So let's stop talking about race and gender and let the beaver and the stallion both serve our country--in their own inimitable ways.

Comments

[apikores]

It occurs to me that "stallion" might not be the best way to refer to Obama...

[nohobear]

"Beaver" and "Stallion"?????? You have got to be kidding.

ok, I'll play along. Your "beaver", aka Hillary the rodent, (also the state animal of New York), is undermining the foundation of the Democratic house. In her quest to build her dam, the steady flow of anti HIllary runoff from both right wing Republicans that hate her, and angry Obama supporters that now hate her, is building up to flood level proportions. When the dam breaks, it will not only swamp democratic chances of regaining the White House (bad), it will also drown the beaver's political future (good). After the flood waters subside, the vultures (McCain and the Republicans) will descend to pick over the carcasses of the democrats, and what's left of the Republic.

[Hematite]

We don't NEED either of them. We're not children who need to be protected by parental politicians. Our political system in no way is devised to advance the most talented leaders. Obama is not a one-in-a-million candidate, but maybe one-in-one-hundred. I suspect that several of my own friends would make better presidents; I wouldn't vote for Hillary to head a jury.

[lincat]

First of all I have to disagree with you that the stallion and beaver need to work together. the beaver has done so much to try to discredit the stallion at the cost of anything. Next, the stallion has done more than inspire, he has never given up and he and his campaign have worked their asses of running an honest grassroots organization, something that the beaver knows nothing about. Next, I feel stupid refering to Hillary as a beaver and Obama as a stallion so I'll quit doing that. Finally let me just say that Obama does not need help from a woman whose campaign has practically acused him of not loving his country and has compared him poorly to McCain. So don't be afraid, Obama is a good man,he has a lot of good people behind himand he will continue to work hard because he knows that we expect that of him..

[JudeLaure]

I'm totally withyou lincat. Screw the beaver and stallion allegory.
I will not vote for HIllary if she wins (because of all her underhanded, race baiting ways).
I would rather not vote at all or choke on my reservations and pull the lever for McCain. In my book, that vote would be just like voting for Hillary.

[presto]

If you "choke on your reservations" and help elect the Republicans you will help skyrocket the body count in Iraq and pave the way for a Supreme Court disaster that will, in the not-too-distant future, have a major impact on your life. If "your book" is telling you that a vote for Clinton is equivalent to a vote for McCain, you need to start reading more advanced books.

[Vik]

Who says that Obama does not work as hard as Clinton? In fact he outworked her badly in Iowa, which is why he won. He has more legislative accomplishments than her, which shows his ability, and he doesn't need to make up accomplishments like she does about her role in Ireland, Kosovo and Bosnia.

He is the stallion that works as hard as a beaver.

[HuffJob]

and of coarse he has his VP ready in Rev. Wright who no doubt will put him over the top even though he was bull shitting us about NAFTA.

[BOBZILLA]

No reason to let something silly like, say, the FACTS interfere with your HRC lovefest at this point.

[flycatcher]

No, Richardson would be his VP nominee. This is his effort to convince the Democratic leadership that an Obama ticket can attract Hispanic voters.If they're anything like black voters (>90% voting for Obama), then Hillary had better think fast.

Richardson's an idiot, by the way.

[rosalala]

keep on going...yo­u've got my vote
rose

[Hufffan]

A Stallion is a male horse that has not been castrated. Stallions are effective equine athletes at the highest levels of many disciplines, including horse racing, horse shows, and international Olympic competition.


Beavers are semi-aquatic rodents native to North America and Europe.The­y are the second-largest rodent in the world (after the capybara of Brazil which grows to 4 feet and weighs as much as 140 lbs).

I do not imply anything other than to give some helpful footnotes to Ms Jong.;)

[Leota2]

I continue to be offended as Obama is rendered the rhetoric candidate.
Even though he graduated top of his class at Harvard and was president of the Law Review---hard work. Was a Chicago south-side community activist---very hard work, state representa­tive----mo­re hard work, and the ONLY African American U.S. Senator-----uh . . . . . good work if you can get it?
I will not denigrate Ms. Clintons HARD WORK as first lady. And I trust that her years in the senate have seen her be as hardworking as Mr.
Obama. But the thought that these two will somehow come together after
all the venom that this cycle of primaries have wrought is naive. As a Dem ---- it saddens me, but; there it is.

[PopeRatzo]

"And I trust that her years in the senate have seen her be as hardworking as Mr.Obama."

If you look the record over carefully, you'll find that's not the case. The only work Mrs Clinton has done is preparing for her campaign for the presidency and helping George Bush get into and stay in a disastrous war.

[Bekahre7]

Right on Leota2! People keep ignoring Obama's accomplishments -- and the lightening speed at which he made them. With the help of the American people, think of how quickly and effectively he could implement change in this country. It would be amazing!

Hillary has deserves accolades for what she's accomplished as well. But the campaign she's running damn near negates them all. It is truly sad for her.

OBAMA '08!

[PioneerKing]

Ms. Jong:

Your beaver won't stop until she has gnawed the stallion's bones to the quick. You have supported Sen. Clinton in all of her perfidy and divisiveness. As such Sen. Clinton's campaign of personal destruction will be your reward. So, please do not look any further than your closest mirror to find what ails the Democratic Party.

[englishprof]

Excellent! The only cure for the party is for a swift demolition of the Hillary campaign by the superdelegates. They need to do what Richardson did. If enough of them do this, she will be finished, as she should be. She has clearly presented herself as divisive, possessed of bad judgment (her enabling of the Iraq invasion is all we need to know), lying, self-deluded, and self-centered. I hope like-minded folks will ask their superdelegates to reflect the lopsided popular vote as well as Mr. Obama's lead in pledged delegates, and put her out of her misery. Neither she nor her husband have the class to end their farce on their own -- so it's time for the superdelegates to end her campaign. This will free Mr. Obama up to concentrate fully on opposing Mr. McCain -- which he can do far better than Mrs. Clinton, anyway.

[civitat]

This is one of the more tasteless columns I have read. Is the sexual innuendo (beaver and stallion for goodness sakes) intentional? If I, a female lawyer of Hillary's generation, ever run for office, save me from feminist friends who call me a "beaver." More important, this is a story line that doesn't fit the facts. Hillary is incredibly hard working when it comes to campaigning and responding to attacks (like those related to Bill's sex scandals). The hard facts are that she has accomplished relatively little of substance in her public life: Health care reform failed miserably, and she has passed little legislation in the Senate. Per year in public life, Obama has accomplished more than Hillary Clinton. If he's a "stallion," he's one who has born plenty of burdens and finished plenty of races. Hillary''s failure to accomplish more, finally, is not due to her gender. Yes, there is plenty of sexism in the world. But what about Madeline Albright, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Pelosi, Condoleeza Rice, and hundreds more? These women have different political views and records, but they are all much more accomplished than Hillary Clinton. As feminists, we should be looking to women who have accomplished *real* change--not to someone like Clinton who has spent much of her life flinging mud back and forth. I can't wait to vote for a female President some day, but it will have to be one of the many, many women with better potential to lead. Meanwhile, Obama is a terrific candidate. If Democrats don't want to lose the November election, it's time to leave Hillary's mud-slinging behind.

[OtayPanky]

Thank you.

As a man of your generation, I'd be THRILLED to vote for a progressive woman of great character and accomplishment for POTUS.

While there are no doubt some misogynists out there - and some racists too - flinging the charge of woman hating (or for women, self-hating) at those of us who are NOT enamored of Hillary is baseless slander...­more mud-slinging, as you put it.

What I find encouraging that that, just as Barack said, the historical sexism and racism in the US is not a static situation. Today, even in red and purple states, as well as blue ones, we see women stepping up to the plate as senators and governors, as well as congresswomen and state representatives. Hillary is by no means the last woman who will have an opportunity to run for POTUS - and I hope the next one is a damn sight better than her, so I can support her in good conscience, whether she's my candidate of choice, or not.

[zjemi]

Don't be swiftboated and don't talk about race? But what if the swiftboating is about race, Erica? Seems like a contradiction to me. Haven't you been listening? As for race not mattering, easy for you to say, isn't it?

Maybe Hillary would like to be Secretary of Health and Human Services when Obama is president, since she cares so much about those things. That would have them working together, or did you have another picture in mind, Erica?

[GoLeftGoDeep]

-- We have two great candidates--one a hard working, never give up eager beaver, and one an inspiring, heart-leapingly brilliant stallion. --

nice try in setting the narrative -- Clinton as hard working and Obama as inspiring. But Obama is hard working one, as wel as inspiring, and your attempt to imply otherwise denigrates his life time of experience and hard work.

Cllinton argues there are two good candidates with a life time of experience -- she and McCain. Bill Clinton, advocating solely for Hillary, says it would be nice for voters in the general election to have two candidates who love the country. Either argument disqualifies her from any legitimate claims that she is a great Democratic Party candidate.

Hillary Clinton's naked ambitions don't wear well. She is not a great candidate. Given her out and out lies about running form sniper fire when she anded in Bosian when the video clip has her greeting a smalll child and others, she simply cannot be trusted for anything other than her ambitions to excuse any conduct in her own mind.

I once thought highly of both Bill and Hillary. Today, disgust at their willingness to tear the Democratic Party apart and to poison the well if she isn't the nominee so she can run again in 2012. Neither she nor her supporters fool anyone.

[shano]

Obama make the news, Hillary follows-twas always thus.

Obama made two major speeches this week, one on race/religion and another on Iraq/foreign policy. These two speeches won over Bill Richardson.

Lets see Hillary be rewarded for effort instead of being. Act like a leader, for once in your life Hillary, then you would earn my respect. Otherwise, you will need to drop out with dignity in June, or we will have the superdelegates vote in June. One way or the other we will have a candidate in June.

Because to let the loser in this primary contest dictate the terms is ridiculous. Obama must wear down McCain over the summer. For the good of the party, Clinton must begin to understand basic math and respect the will of the majority of American Democratic voters.

[ginnypoo]

Bill Clinton was asked specifically about a general race between Hillary and McCain....­so nothing he said had anything to do with Obama....h­e was asked about Hillary and McCain in the general, the questioner didn't include Obama.....­but this is being used by Obama to hurt the Clinton's.­..delibera­tely misunderstanding then calling Bill Clinton, a 2 term President is dispicable, uncalled for and shows what kind of garbage Obama will pull to win. He has called people we as a country know are not racists in any way and tried to paint them as racist simply to win.......­Jesse Jackson didn't call his opponents racists, he disussed his plans and dreams f what he wanted to accomplish­....how is it that this great UNITER is calling great American Presidents racist, and none of you are outraged. You know the Clinton's are not racist, and you let him get away with this. There is a post on this site that explains how the question was asked and you all act like you know what happened.

[GoLeftGoDeep]

I disagree ... I saw the entire clip ... we reach diametrically different concusions ... probaby because you give Bill Clinton the benefit of the doubt while I do not. Bill Clinton is probably a genius ... his words do not spill out of his mouth without the precision he intends ... this coupled with Hillary's attacks that she and McCain have a lifetime of experience while Obama has one speech in 2002 end any benefit of the doubt for Hillary's campaign ...

then there is the matter of her representation that she distinctly remembers landing in Bosnia and having to run for cover during sniper fire when the retrieved video shows her walking off the plane with her daughter to a reception on the tarmac, incuding a young girl ... either she has something dramatically wrong with her memory or she is dramatically misrepresenting the facts ... either of which disqualifies her in my book, with the caveat that I'd vote for her in the gen if she prevails -- unlike her supporters here who insist they'll vote for McCain ... tells me everything I need to know about such people

[shinybear]

This post triggered an acid flashback in me.

Beavers and stallions?

Hillary is nothing without her teeth?

I'm at a loss really!

[mactig]

What very strange metaphors! But this has always been the Clinton/Rove putdown of Obama - just words and inspiration. The reality that you come to discover the more you look into his record and life story is that he is just as hard a worker and as much of a policy wonk as Clinton is. So while these are her strengths, he can match her in them. BUT can you in your wildest dreams ever imagine Clinton delivering a speech of the depth and complexity that Obama did on Tuesday? Can you imagine her delivering it in a manner that lifts up and inspires the Nation and the World? NO! With Obama you get all that Clinton has to offer plus so much extra.Supe­rdelegates need to follow Bill Richardson's lead and acknowledge this. And you do not get the horrible dynastic entitlement evidenced by James Carville's 'Judas' remark.I know it's technically legal but I certainly know that a no longer elected official (Bill Clinton) having the power to put such pressure on elected officials(Bill Richardson) has a bad feeling about it. Unhealthy nepotism run riot!

[RaiderGreg]

The situation is hopeless. Obama supporters are foolishly unrealistic to think he can be elected President in November. But if Hillary is nominated at the convention because opinion polls clearly show the futility of an Obama candidacy, she'll be blamed for the death of the Dream. To win in November Democrats need young independents, African Americans, Reagan Democrats, and baby boomers sick of Republican abuses. The Republicans can use the media to paint Obama as a Black Liberal Politician and McCain as very different from Bush. If Obama is nominated the Republicans win by a landslide. If Hillary is nominated she can't win without Obama supporters' votes, and they hate her.

[CBS]

I don't hate Clinton...­.I just would not vote for her. Why? Because they played the race card. "inexperie­nced." "too young," "not ready, should wait his turn," These are all coded subtexts used in The South as excuses to not hire Blacks. The Clintons have done everything short of calling Obama "boy." But we heard it anyway.

[RaiderGreg]

that's what I said

[dawlishgal]

All of the polls I have seen indicate that the Obama-supporters are far more tolerant of the other side and far more party-loyal than are the Clinton-supporters. Very few Obama supporters say that they won't vote for Hillary if she is nominated (although that could change if she keeps behaving the way she has been). Many of her supporters are a different story....t­hey are ready to drop the Democratic party in a petulant flash if they don't get their own ways......­they, like she, feel that she is ENTITLED to the presidency as a reward for something (what?). They are furious that just when they thought they were going to get their woman (any woman, no matter how unqualified or nepotistic) into the White House, a black man came along to snatch it away from her. I don't think there is huge racial animosity there, at least there wasn't in the beginning.­...it was more like the clash of the underdogs.­...Hillary is THEIR underdog, and they are very angry that another one is challenging what they see as HER preordained right to the presidency. THEY, these rabid Clinton supporters who, like Hillary and Bill, will say and do and threaten almost anything to get her elected ...they are downright frightening.

[RaiderGreg]

I'm just saying that Obama can't win in November unless this country experiences a total metamorphasis, and this should be evident by the beginning of the summer. But the only other alternative to a failed Obama candidacy is hillary Clinton,. She is so hated by Obama supporters, plus all the republicans who hated her alreaady-- she can't win now either! Do you disagree ?

[lindaqqq]

On what grounds do you think Obama cant win the general election?
Up until recently I would have voted for Hillary if she was the nominee, not now. The more I see of her and Bill the more disgusted I get. They are willing to throw the whole democratic party under the bus to get her the nomination.
Obama is about we the people, Hillary is about Hillary

[liveandlearn]

obama is willing to throw the votes of nearly 2.5 million voters in michigan and florida into the trash to win. MAKE NO MISTAKE, OBAMA IS A POLITICIAN!

[AndrewInToronto]

One of the aspects of voting I have found fascinating is watching the returns coming in for each of the primaries on NPR (check out NPR.org Elections 2008" section for details) has been the number of voters who come out for the Republicans totalled. Frequently I have found that they have equalled only the totals for Clinton or Obama (depending upon the state) alone ! I am curious to see how this plays out in November come the presidential vote because I have a hopeful feeling that Obama is going to be the next president of the United States.

[CBS]

The Dems do NOT have 2 great candidates. They have ONE and his name is Obama.

Hillary is paranoid, secretive (that goes with paranoia,) deceptive, boring, hackneyed, stuck in the last century, ego inflated, bombastically self-aggrandizing, and not fit to have the power of the presidency.

Watch for more and more articles about how the Clinton Administration set the stage for the current mortgage and financial debacle that is now occurring. The deregulation and schemes for "growing the economy" were hatched during their administration and are coming to fruition now with help from the Bush Administration and its pack of fools.

[RaiderGreg]

This is an example of the problem. I didn't realize that the Clintons caused the banking crisis. For a woman with no real experience, she sure gets blamed for alot. And it is unseemly that she has a high opinion of herself, her being a female, of course-- she should know her place.

But how do Clinton's policies differ from Obama's? What proposals does she support that are the same as the Republican policies?

Personality aside (I've never met her myself) Why is she so dispicable?

[alee21]

Hear hear. The Obamaites are really scary. They remind me of witch hunters, or maybe even the Inquisition. Guilty until proven innocent. Gosh, maybe I hit the nail on the head. We are witnessing modern day witch hunting. Let's fly in the face of reality and facts. Why don't the Obamaites actually do some independent research and analytical thinking before they spew forth the de rigueur Obama rhetoric that everything wrong with today’s world – trade deficits, Iraq war, terrorism, racial hatred, economic recession – is because of Hillary, her supporters or the Clinton administration.

Obama is the most divisive candidate in recent memory. He pushes the race/victim card whenever he thinks it will help him to win. And nobody can criticize him because we would be racist, not progressive, not forward thinking, relics of the past. But, if we vote for him, we will be absolved of our sins, whatever he thinks they are.

Is this what an Obama presidency would look like? I think I will opt for a McCain presidency – the worse of two evils.

[shano]

Yes, Bill Clinton deregulated the banks in 1999. The neocons simply built on his opening.

And NAFTA has been more than a dismal failure, it has caused widespread migration in Mexico because of food prices and abusive slave labour. Dont think you know what NAFTA caused unless you have seen the maquilladoras on the border. The factories, using what amounts to slave labour at $6.00 a day (the cost of living in Mexico is almost the same as in the US), and the pollution caused by these factories reaching the beaches of San Diego.

Clinton, yes, Bill Clinton. Both huge mistakes and a version of corporatism most on the left refuse to see.