The Clintons had the opportunity four years to put support behind the Democratic candidate for president, John Kerry, and essentially did not. Instead Bill went on a book tour which basically overshadowed Kerry's campaigning. This is not to say that the lack of support was why Kerry lost, but it was easy for some of us (the ones who didn't vote for Bush) to see what the consequences of four more years of Bush could bring. Even then I felt Hillary was willing to see Kerry fail so she would get her shot in this election.
But now thanks to Barack Obama all is not going as planned for the presumed Democratic candidate. So all bets are off. If she can't be the party nominee, then it's "scorched party policy". She'll ruin the Democratic party's chances out of spite. Because Hillary Clinton cares about one thing only...her own political self-preservation.
No one ever said that the Clintons weren't corrupt. Even they didn't say that. The only questions were 1) Were they less corrupt than the Republicans and 2) Did they combine at least a modicum of compassion and interest in the public good with their corruption? Back in the 90s, I felt that, on balance, Bill Clinton was openly compassionate, and that his corruption did not fatally taint his administration. At any rate, he did not GLORY in corruption as Reagan and Bush 1 and their advisors did. I also felt that after the Reagan Revolution (excuse me, I meant to say Reagan Devolution), triangulation was the only way to get anything done, and so they did it.
But Hillary Clinton seems to have learned the wrong lesson from her Senatorial success. The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles. As a result, it now appears that Clinton and McCain stand together on one side of a divide, and Barack Obama stands on the other side of that divide. The divide is between the inside-the-beltway ruling class, who can see no reason of any kind that they should give up the power they have accumulated and the avenue to wealth that it represents, and the citizenry of the country, who in every poll insist that the country is headed in the wrong direction. In the last week, Clinton has put herself on McCain's ticket, attacking the change that Obama promises and seems poised to deliver (whether or not he can remains an open question), and promising more more more of the same of what we have had for the last thirty years. More of the same is exactly what almost everyone does not want, but Clinton tells us everyday in every way that that is what we will get -- what we have had is what she touts as her "experience". What we see in her campaign is that we will get the same old same old with an added measure of chaos.
Clinton, of course, is not Cheney. Dick Cheney is the mad master of corruption, a person who literally doesn't know what integrity is. But Hillary is too smart not to know, and she has made up her mind to shelve her integrity for the sake of ambition. And let me be clear what I mean by corruption -- I have no idea what her financial gains have been over the years, and I don't care. What I mean by corruption is any and all support of the criminal policies of the Republicans while calling herself a Democrat, in order to gain power.
Some weeks ago, I wrote a Huff post about a remark Bill Clinton made, that if Hillary became the nominee, the presidential campaign would be exceptionally "polite". We now see that he wasn't joking. Both Clintons are in favor of the status quo, and will fight tooth and nail to maintain it. They are surrounded by advisors who both literally and figuratively are married to the Republicans. They are, indeed, now part of the "vast right wing conspiracy".
One of the key questions about the Democrats since the 2006 elections is, where do their loyalties really lie? Time and again they have failed to stop the Republicans, or settled for a little populist embroidery around the edges of policies that by and large serve to increase the power of the Republicans. Their excuse, which is growing thin, is that they don't have the power to confront Bush. Hillary Clinton is now showing their real agenda -- preserving the status quo at the expense of the military, the taxpayers, the economy, world peace, and the rule of law.
Obama is not a known quantity. I have seen him one time and listened to one speech, and I was reasonably impressed by that speech. But Hillary Clinton is a known quantity. If you like the world that the Bushes and Clintons have made in the last twenty years, then you should by all means vote for her. But as of this week, I don't see her as the person I want answering the red phone.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I am a 48 white woman that supports Senator Obama.
I am not following him blindly as some in the media would have everyone believe.
I support him because of his character and integrity.
I believe he is a loving family man and has never cheated on his wife like Bill Clinton has repeatedly cheated on his.
I support him because he has taught the U.S. Constitution in a university.
I support him because he believes in the U.S. Constitution and he will uphold the U.S. Constitution.
I support him because he has done everything he should to be transparent.
Senator Obama has released his tax return, ear-marks, and has come out and told the details of Mr. Rezco. Clinton has NOT shown America her recent tax returns, ear-marks, Clinton library donors, etc.
As far as the issues in this election both candidates plans are very close - BUT Clintons does have that MANDATE for health insurance - a mandate that is not on the government but on the AMERICAN PEOPLE to be FORCED to purchase insurance or they will be FINED an amount of money for not doing so.
To me the choice is clear - I WILL vote for Senator Obama, and NEVER for Clinton.
So the choice is between a preacher/senator we know too little about and an ex-president's wife we know too much about. On the Republican side we have Bush 3. Why is my heart sinking fast?
You heart is sinking fast because you want it to sink. Proof of that is the way you put your choices in front of you. The way I see it is: if you don't like what you know "too much about" Hillary, but you think the "too little" you know about Obama looks good, then go with the too little. And research to make this "too little" a little more.
Change doe not happen with someone who has experience in change, because if he got that experience, he would have already brought change. Change happens with a fresh mind who wants change and us ready to figure out what to do to make it happen. I trust that Obama is willing to figure out the details of bringing about change, but Hillary already knows which details will kill change.
Also, dare I mention hope?
sufi66-
You can go to www.barackobama.com
once you get there click on the ISSUES tab at the top of the page and read about his plans.
On June 28 2006, Senator Obama spoke in Washington at the Call to Renewal Conference sponsored by Sojourners.
Here is a link to the 5 part video:
http://youtube.com/user/GoooObama08
The link above to his Faith/Politics speech is a must see.
I hope that help you understand a bit more.
If you feel you know too little about him, perhaps you should take the initiative to find out more. Examine his legislative record in detail. Read his books. Try consuming more than just sound bites.
Exactly. Senator Obama has been remarkably open about his past -- both his personal life and his political life. He has made sure that the public has access to his tax returns, earmarks, real estate paperwork, etc. Go to his website and do some reading. It's very easy to find out what you need to know. Try doing that with Clinton and you'll run into a brick wall.
McCain and Clinton, merely a meeting of minds!
Soul mates, nothing more ominious that that!
I've always been skeptical of authority, and certainly always questioned government, which is perhaps why, unlike many other Democrats, I don't see Billy-Jeff Clinton as a "great President" much less a "hero of the Party". What made Billy-Jeff look a lot better than he really was can be attributed to being sandwiched between two Bush presidencies and to his skill at deflecting attention from the most horrible achievements of his term.
It is ironic that the whole "blue dress" episode defined the latter part of his second term and that it enabled the subsequent election to be close enough for the Republicans to steal, but while this may have been disastrous for the Party, it was pretty much a boon for Billy-Jeff personally. It wasn't a "government crime" in the sense that it didn't involve malfeasance in connection with his actual functions as President, but it did manage to obscure the fact that his actions as President had become disturbingly noxious.
For instance, when faced with the possibility of becoming a lame duck because of losing control of the houses of Congress to the Republicans, and therefore not being able to advance anything resembling a Democratic agenda, he simply resorted to so-opting th Republican agenda, and triangulating against both parties in Congress... Against the Republicans to claim credit for the policies, and against Democrats to get them passed. Great for his personal PR, not so good for America.
Let us never forget that it's under Billy-Jeff Clinton that America first dared to sink to such actions as "rendition for torture" and Iraq disinformation. Do I believe that Billy-Jeff sincerely thought such things were good, and in the interest of America? No. But the abandonment of any sense of decency in how the nation conducts its "secret business" kept the neo-con wolves at bay on his right, and the saber-rattling and gloom and doom of impending war worried and distracted the Democrats on his left, preventing them from loudly clamouring for some attitude correction in his behaviour and agenda.
So then, in the aftermath of all this and during a time of shameless Republican exploitation of the 9-11 disaster, how can we be surprised that Hillary Clinton began to operate in the Senate very much like her husband had operated at the end of his second term? With her presidential ambitions as her only guide, what could she possibly care about the blood that would be spilled and the economic destruction that would ensue? Why be surprised that she's running a campaign very much as if Karl Rove were at the helm? After all, he won an awful lot of campaigns, and the only thing that matters to Hillary Clinton is "winning", no matter how much the country may lose in the process.
I am appalled that there are still Democrats who can support the Clinton candidacy. They are saying to the rest of us Democrats who want change that we should shut up, we should go with someone that will do whatever it takes to win, we should forget about renditions, torture, criminal wars, corruption and all our stupid little concerns for the rights of citizens. We should only be concerned with "winning" and therefore become more like Republicans.
That is the real argument they are making, and it isn't one that we're prepared to tolerate. If the Democratic Party co-opts the agenda and behaviour of what was once the Republican Party, then the Republican Party will be pushed further to the right. And it is already intolerably ensconced far to the right beyond anything permissible in a XXIst century developed nation that calls itself "civilized".
That is why I personally cannot tolerate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, not because she's female, or because she's annoyingly shrill, or because she wears pantsuits, as her followers would have you believe of all who oppose her. We oppose her on Democratic principle.
Well said DJ.
Molly Ivins on why she would never vote for Hillary.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0120-30.htm
Molly speaks to us even now.
And Ms. Smiley echos Ivins well thought out writing.
Thank you.
"The lesson she has learned is that Republicans such as McCain are more her friends than Senators with progressive principles."
you're close: i think "we" have learned that it's hillary who is more of a friend to republicans such as mccain than to senators or "we" citizens with progressive principles.
If Hillary is at the top of the democrat's ticket, she will need to find a running mate that will help win the White House and unite the country. The perfect running mate for Hillary that is truly guaranteed to have wide spread appeal and offer the best chance of success for her against McCon is....
Nancy Reagan!!! ;)
She is...
1. Mrs. Ronald Reagan - with the ultimate name recognition for republicans
2. More experienced than McCon in the White House, with 8 years next to the man who answers the phone.
3. More experienced in executive governance than Obama - 16 years total with Ronald, and the equivalent of Hillary's.
4. The beneficiary of the 12th republican commandment: No republican will ever ever ever vote against anyone named Ronald Reagan. Heck, she might even get McCon's vote!
5. A woman. NO ONE at this time is imagining TWO women on the ticket - this will blow everyone away!
OMG, the MSM and Hollywood would have the biggest all time field day with this!
But I think it is more likely that Hillary will continue to contribute material for the keynote speaker at the republican convention.
"INSIDE THE BELTWAY RULING CLASS" just happens to be re-inforced by the endorsements of none other than terms unlimited gentlemen such as Ted Kennedy, also John Kerry, the very-well known family of JFK, even Jesse Jackson could be considered the "establishment" group of insiders.
Obama keeps pied-pipering them into his camp. It doesn't seem like he could offer much change with his donors and endorsements coming from that "beltway ruling class."
Could you be a little more abstract? The examples of Hillary's "unscrupulousness" overwhelmed me.
Obama on the other hand, he's the anti-politician, right?
That is exactly what I was thinking, dannyS! Thanks for saying it. The Hillary hatred is palpable. It makes me want to vote for her even more.
Perfection! Yes! Yes! Yes! My goodness, if I were to just now write a blog, I could only hope that it would zero in on the heart of the matter nearly as well as your commentary here. Thank you Jane Smiley. You are spectacular! I'm going to buy one of your books this week.
LOVE this piece ... maybe that's because I agree with absolutely everything you've said, but I think it's also because you said it so damn well ...
Okay, you win the award for the first to respond to an attack on Hillary. You are quite a supporter of Barack afterall. Let's put things in perspective, we went to Iraq to get a Hussein out of office, it's ironic we want to put a Hussein in the White House. If Barack Obama is all about change, he should have started by changing his name.
The heat of political discourse that is lambasted in this Post is what American politics is all about. We need more of this exchange of democratic views in a democracy. It's a shame that our democratic congress has forgotten how to be engage in Democracy. Whenever I turn on CSPAN, I see only a few people in the house. Compare that to Parliament, where in England, it is not uncommon for people to call each other names. I can't believe that every time anyone says anything disparaging in this race, it's a sign that that candidate is wrong for the job. Are we Mice or are we Men and Women with thoughts and opinions?
Are you serious? This is so wrong on so many levels. Why would a person who has promised to engage the Muslim world in dialogue (rather than war) send that kind of message? Why would a candidate who is preaching that we're above the petty, small-minded, and racist attitudes of the past do such a thing? And why in the world should anyone have to change their given name?!!? (I can see the headlines now--"Obama changed name just to get elected"--just another conniving, ambitious politico.)
Also, Bush/Cheney did not go to Iraq to get rid of Hussein--they went to get a foothold in their oil fields.
We already know about Obama's double talk on the Iraq war. If the war is still popular today as it was when he said he approved of Bush handling of the war, he'll be pointing to his votes in the senate rather than that speech he gave in 2002 while he was still an obscure politician.
Well, you know Obama lumped McCain and Hillary as having poor judgment. He claims to oppose the war. But that's not the same as Kucinich saying he opposes the war. He's empty claim gained traction with the voters though. But it won't if he became the nominee.
It's Obama's undoing that he finds himself on the opposite side of the other candidates when it comes to national security. He claim is empty and he has no experience whatsoever.
Obama should hold everyone who voted for the authorization accountable, and that includes many of his superdelegates. I'm surprised those superdelegates haven't caught on to being called having poor judgment.
Unfortunately, you either don't know or don't care for the truth. Hillary said that Obama's whole campaign was based on one speech, thge one he made while still in the Illinois congress, before he ran for the U.S. Senate. (He also made a wonderful speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004, expressing his views on One America without the divisions that conventional politicos like Hillary play on to the detriment of our nation.)
That can be contrasted with Hillary and other conventional politicians who in 2006 still couldn't oppose the war. (Check what Molly Ivins had to say about that.)
One of the reasons for our having such bad leaders in thius country is that our media has such short memories. Most Americans are not full time issue trackers. We have families, jobs, and other things to think about. But when a politician so misdrepresents his (or her) record, they should remins us of it. Without that honesty is not a problem. Hillary claims to be a decision maker. Then why was she still with Bush on the war in 2006? Why did she ever support him on it in the first place? And why support his desire to attack Iran? Obviously she is not cut from the same kind of material as Admiral Fallon. Nor is she able to put country aqbover self interest as he did. His casreer is now over, but in all likelihood, he prevented an extension of the war. Clinton stood with Bush. Obama didn't.
That short memory is on exhibit with NAFTA, which Gerorge Herbert Walker negotiated and Democrats opposed. Bill drove it through Congress with Rep;ublican help and Democratic opposition. Hillary was there helping him sell it. She was still boasting of that in 2006. Now she is taking the same stance as Obama. And using a false leak (against the law even if it were true!) by a very conservative Canadian administration to harm Obama (as the PMO itself said when it offered an appology and correction, after the Ohio voting, which was largely ignored by our media, the same that had jumped on the false story before Ohio voting.
In health care there seems to be little difference in the programs they seek, but Clinton's would be a boon to insurers. We should note a related issue. When Clinton attempted to develop one before , she failed badly. Her program was developed in backroom meetings with who knows whom, much like Cheney's energy policy! Special interests knew how to attack it because they had beenm involved in its development. It was dead in the water before it was out. Obama proposes to deverlop his in the open so we all can see who and what is involvced. Hillary, whose campaign is funded by the lobbies Obama refusad to accept funds from, hass made no indication that she will change her approach. Big difference ignored by our media.
And why do you think Murdock came away from that famous breakfast with her to become a prime fund raiser? Has he become a Librul?
And what about those attacks like Plagiarygate? Why is such silliness trumping real issues, and -- if we must spend time on them, why merrely quote the attack refusingt to put forth the facts exactly? Why, when the issue was raised, not put her more numerous "plagiaries" up for view even iuf he didn't bother attacking her in that way? Are the media so lazy that they can't look at anything unless she points it out to them?
And when speaking to a Black audience in California, she said that Latinos were taking their jobs. Why was that not part of media reporting in Latino areas? The media has reported racial ploys by surrogates when they might seem helpful. (Why do you think they were made?) They have kept ignoring Hillary's lateness in repudiating them. But here is something any allert analyst would notice: there is too much of that. She picked those surrogates. Her selections were based on their similar thinking with and loyalty to herrself. And wehen a pasttern is repeated, it shoulkd be seen as significant.
Then there is the before and after comments about many issues not excluding the Michigan vote. What she called meaningless befrore became fair and swignificant when she fell into desperation afterwards.
But those super delegates and the DLC represent an old problem. Obama represents a vital new thing.
We've seen that before too.
http://www.cnn.com/2006//POLITICS/01/20/ivins.hillary/
The past and the future!
I get that people are passionate about Obama--and hell, I voted for him--but I don't see the beef with Hillary's campaign at this point. So she's pulled out all the stops and is throwing the kitchen sink around in order to win--it's a little embarassing, but girlfriend managed to make a bit of a comeback. You have to admire that. The "red phone" ad was a bit silly--but hey, it worked.
The Clinton's are tenacious--but I don't see how they're being "unscrupulous" by running silly red phone ads. People get WAY too sensitive during these campaigns. Didn't the 2004 election teach Democrats that we should perhaps take this election stuff with a grain of salt (if only to preserve our sanity)? George W. Bush won the last two elections. This isn't a rational process we're talking about here.
Did you actually comprehend just the first paragraph of this essay? Just the first three sentences of that paragraph? How about just the title alone? Perhaps you simply won't get it. And George W. Bush was *awarded* the first election and barely was elected the next.
TRULY, HILLARY IS DISPLAYING SOME CHEAP TACTICS AND STYLE. SHE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE IN HER STATEMENTS AND NOW IT DOES SOUND THAT MAYBE SHE IS STANDING BY MC CAIN,. I DO THINK SHE IS ALL MIXED UP! THE MORE SHE TALKS, THE MORE SHE SOUNDS LIKE A POLITICAL HACK. BUT, IF I HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN HER AND MC CAIN - I'LL VOTE FOR HER - REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING THIS COUNTRY. I PREFER OBAMA, THOUGH. CANDIDATES LIKE HIM ONLY COME EVERY 100 YEARS. HILLARY, STOP IT !
Well written and very true. Obama may be an unknown quantity; however, watching the debates and the race, I would rather back someone who has morals rather than the Clintons.
Loading comments…
In a candid interview via satellite from China, Olympic...
Update: Keith Olbermann had Rachel Maddow on "Countdown" Tuesday night to celebrate...
UPDATE: A day after Roseanne's blogs from below...
"How honest are we if we tell the truth most of the time &...
Obama's been to Hawaii. We're moving...
I've read the comments. I know what some of you think. Yawn. It's not a story. He's not...
LOS ANGELES — Barack Obama is getting praise from Nashville, courtesy of one...
The New York Times' Kit Seelye is backing up NBC's Andrea Mitchell, who reported on...
NEW YORK — The suspense didn't quite compare to the identity of "Deep Throat,"...
Stuttgart - For most of its 10-year history, Daimler's (DAI) Smart car division has had...
Posted March 9, 2008 | 03:16 PM (EST)