I'm Already Against the Next War
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.
Loading comments…
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
Tell the truth and shame the devil Jane Smiley. You are one of the most insightful comentators on the Huff.
This latest blunder by Hillary, patting McCain on the back at the expense of Obama and the party's chances of winning in November, is inexcusable! Howard Dean needs to have a meeting with the Clintons and slap some sense into them, if he has any guts at all.
But Jane Smiley and the rest of the Dems that are confusing the Clinton's policy goals with their idiotic and desperate campaign tactics, need a wake up call to Nader's campaign in 2000 where his mis-guided mantra was "Gore and Bush" are the same.
On the important issues of the day, Health Care, tax cuts for the rich, the environment and foreign policy the Clintons and Obama are twins and McCain is 4 more years of Bush.
This battle between Obama and Hillary for the nomination should be a total referendum on the last 7 years of Bush and Cheney and their supporters' unprecedented, corrupt and incompetent abuse of
power.
But instead it has become a liberal cat fight exposing the flaws and weaknesses of Hillary especially ,and Obama. Limbaugh was laughing all morning about it on his radio show.
How can the Democrats be so out of control at such a critical time? Do they even deserve to win with this pathetic display of their inability to lead in these dire times?
Obama and Hillary are getting so much media time they should be shouting at the top of their lungs
a litany of Bush failures and lies, and McCain's endorsement of them. Instead they are creating Republican talking points and boosting McCain's credibility. Dear Ms Smiley, you're an excellent writer but you don't know anything about politics if you even suggest that the Clinton's are the same as McCain.
A vote for the Clinton's = A vote for McBush...because she can't win in a GE and such a vote diminishes Obama's chances.
Jane Smiley, Congratulations on this true profile of Hillary Rodham Clinton.
There is not the slightest doubt that Hillary Clinton has shown her true colours with her sleazy, smear campaign against Barack Obama. Hidden behind a fake façade of self glorification we discover the dark side of an ambitious individual who will use every dirty trick in the book to disparage her opponent. Hillary Clinton went as far in bestowing praise on McCain and demeaning Obama when she stated his qualification for the presidency was based on a speech he made in 2002!!
In spite of this, Obama has displayed the dignity and respect expected of a presidential candidate, which, in my opinion, are the qualities deserving of someone expected to be the future Commander in Chief.
Hillary has proven she can not be trusted. She has a sense of grandiosity, she is paranoid and can be extremely ruthless. If she is incapable of organizing her own campaign, how could we possibly expect her to make those important decisions? She does not belong in the White House nor the Senate for that matter.
HartlessBeast.....
You are obviously happy to find something... something to hate.....and you are not a lover of the Democratic Party and its outlook.....right??. However you are claiming that Hillary participated in a smear campaign against Obama. Well you are the first person in America to make that claim. You are making the 1,000,000.01 false accusation against Hillary to justify your support for Obama. Not even MSNBC's Keith Olbermann or Chris Mathews...are willing to go that lying route.
This has been the method that Obama supporters have used to sell his campaign to working and middle class Americans.....It did not work in Ohio it will also fail in the Penn State.
I have doing phone banking in Miss. and Penn. Every Obama definite supporter, can't recite ONE issue or policy that Obama believes in or has talked about long enough for them remember.
They just know he mentions Change...and Unity....how it is going fit or how it will work, they have NO clue.. How is he going to stop our economic slide........NO CLUE...... They however, know that Hillary is a scamp..a b****h, a wife of a womaniser,...she has twenty toes.... she wears bloomers... she picks her nose....etc..etc.... There is nothing substantial about the argument to believe in Obama.
It is for that, and other reasons, the Democratic superdelegates will overwhelmingly nominate Hillary as the democratic candidate for President......Brother Obama will be nominated as Vice President ..notwithstanding what brother..Al Sharpton may try to scare the Party's leadership with..suits..marches....blackouts.....misbehaving...bad behavior..but our country is too much in a critical suitation for Hillary run this country successfully from the BACKSEAT.....That's where Barack will get his teaching. WE ALL KNOW..... Who are gonna call to fix the mess we are in ...?? ...Hillary of course!!
Hillary Clinton is not fit to be president. John McCain is not fit to be president. If Barack Saddam Hussein Obama bin Laden isn't fit to be president, as you insist, then what a sorry mess we're in. How did it come down to these 3 clowns, soon to be 2 clowns? I guess I won't vote for the Democratic presidential candidate...again. I haven't voted for the Democratic nominee since 1980. I've never voted for any Republican for any office. What a world, what a world.
You are ranting too much. You sound like your candidate:Hysterical. If the Superdelages crown the queen, kiss the presidency good bye. Countless Independets vill vote for McCain, and Obama supporters will stay home. Sister Monster will go back to New York
Stop drinking Kool Aid, and try to be better informed..
I love to hear my own feeling echoed back to me in Print. THANK YOU SISTER!!
I thought we Americans were tired of the last 7 years and the corrupt Admin. Why are there people not thinking about this and continue to vote for The Clinton's? Do they have amnesia are they not thinking?? We have the opportunity to have a fresh start. Why are we allowing The Clinton's to continue to mislead? Do our 55 + 60 +ers just want a woman in the WH at any cost?
in case it has escaped your notice, george w. bush has been president since the supreme court decided to stop the counting of votes in florida in december, 2000. he is neither bill nor hillary clinton. bill clinton managed to balance the budget, appoint competent heads of departments, and advance the cause of peace at certain hot spots in the world. george bush decided to do just the opposite of everything bill clinton did. now hillary clinton wants to get to work on undoing the damage bush has caused. go, hillary!
Dennis Kucinich wanted to undo the damage Bush has done and would have done it if the Democrats had stones enough to vote for him. Electing Clinton to fix the damage Bush did is like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping head wound.
Correction please, 'the damage bush' and hillary have caused. She voted for the disaster so she has to accept it.
claudiam. Don't try to make this a generational issue. I am going to respond to you as if you are a rational person, though your post implies the opposite. As I recall the present rape of Iraq by our country was started by the current president, George Bush. Neither Hillary nor Bill started it, but spread a glow of righteous care for truth and justice by for example, stopping the fascistic Serbs from slaughtering the Muslim population of Bosnia. Bill Clinton aggressively pursued the range of important issues in good government, the environment, infrastructure, civil rights and race relations, welfare reform, education, and a host of others. He engineered the elimination of a montsrously huge government deficit created by, no surprise here, a Republican name Bush Sr, father of Bush "aka the "madman" Bush Jr , and turned it into a angelic huge surplus. He put a responsible, competent face on government and made an honest person with a respect for decency proud to be an American. He was and remains enormously respected by governments around the world. By all accounts from what I see, Hillary learned a huge amount from this genius who is yet her husband. She sashayed into the US Senate as a newcomer resident to New York state (which by the way is where she is elected from - you obviously have a very limited knowledge of the subject that you foam at the mouth about and say unfair, malicious things about). She shows signs of being able to carry on her husband's legacy of fair, decent, intelligently presidential conduct and performance, though I doubt anyone will ever match the seeming magic that her dear husband achieved in his 8 years as our beloved President.
I suggest that you switch to a Republican blog site because that is where mean and stupid people usuallyl wind up.
"No more Clintons, no more Bushes" is my mantra. Unfortunately Obama hasn't thrilled me as a Senator but the Senate isn't much of a place to shine or get much accomplished as a newbie so he's done a good job with his own PR if nothing much else. Both HRC and BO pissed me off with their nonleadership on Iraq and FISA but they're what we've got.
But I'm sick of listening to the Obama crowd getting all pissed at the Clintonistas for attacking their golden boy while responding at least as viciously in kind - but failing to recognize their own viciousness. The first and nastiest attack of this campaign came from Michelle Obama with her Barbara Bush-quality comment on Hillary not being able to keep her own house in order. That stunk.
I'm voting for Obama and I'm hoping that he's half as good a president as Bill Clinton was. Too bad for HIllary; she had the chance to lead and she chose to play it safe. Obama's done the same but less offensively and he's a stronger candidate against McCain.
Back in January, what seems like a lifetime ago, I felt that the Democratic Party was blessed to have a slate of well qualified, decent candidates, and felt that I could support whomever garnered the nomination.
As the contest headed past Super Tuesday I began to feel a bit squeamish about what I felt was the MSM's attempts to inflame, create controversy, and generally try to return the contest to a Inside Politics Mud Wrestling Contest which they are more comfortable covering. I was somewhat concerned about the tactics of th Clinton campaing but gave them the benefit of the doubt, especially after their pledge raise the tone of the debate. I supported Barack Obama but felt that I could still hold my nose and vote Hillary in the fall.
NOW, I would not vote for this cantankerous, Sybillian, deceitful, political Hack, if she were running for Dog Catcher.
She is more like Bush than I could have imagined, and exemplifies the slash and burn, anything to for political power ethic that was advanced by Karl Rove.
She surrounds herself with Clintonistas and showers them with blind loyalty to the detriment of her common good. Brownie Anyone. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552134/
She develops policy in secrect meetings with lobbyists from from the same industries who have a vested interest in the outcome. Cheney Energy Policy meet Hillary Healthcare.
She has the same cajones as Bushed with which to send her advisors out to make statements that on their face are incredulous in their falsehood. Just the fact that they can go into the marketplace of ideas with some of these absurd constructions, reminds me so much of the Bush Administration and those poor saps that they sent to the rostrum with those inane propositions. How many times have you seen a Dana Perino Briefing and it just make you go WOW, this is my government I am so ashamed. (and YES i said ASHAMED)
They must think that the American People are Idiots . . . Maybe they are right.
I am done with these lying bastards, all of them.
Jane... first time to comment on this website. I'm a conservative republican in Houston. I'll just say to you what I've told my friends on the left and the right here in Texas... political corruption has no special relationship with any particular philosophy or political party. Corruption is ingrained in the human condition. It's not liberal, conservative, republican or democrat. Is every politician equally corrupt? No. But when it comes to the life blood of politics, money mixed with power, corruption tends to envelope political philosphies and institutions regardless of who controls the White House or Congress.
Which is why Barack Obama is such a breath of fresh air. In his appeal to the people of the United States he has garnered over a million people who have given under 200 dollars for the most part, to further their interest.
As opposed to a couple of hundred millionaires pumping up hundreds of thousands, one way or the other, of dollars to further their monetary interest.
Who wins?
If the people who are motivated to give money are backed by ten times that number who would like to donate but have been ravaged by the economy and vote. Well it looks good for the people FOR A CHANGE.
Actually, Hillary's even worse than I thought. I found out this weekend that she gave secret testimony during the Iran-Contra hearings. What about? Well, the airport, or one of them, into which Ollie North and his friends (Hello, Elliot Abrams!) flew their cocaine was in Mena, AR. When Hillary was working at the Rose law firm (with Jonathan Pollard, of all people) in Little Rock, she helped set up the use of the airport for the CIA's drugrunning. Nice, huh? I also found out that two teenage boys were murdered near the airport, apparently by the CIA or its friends, likely for seeing something they weren't supposed to. I'd be grateful if someone would pin down Hillary on if she's ever worked for the CIA and what she did for them.
Hillary 's IRS forms please.......
Well stated Houston54.
This is about as lucid an assessment as I have seen. Anybody who is sick of the corruption and arrogance of the Clintons and the Bushes would agree.
I am so disappointed that we Americans are losing our sense of balance..are again doing the thing we love to do best ....mindlessly hate ...without rationality.........Ms Jane ..please where is your objectivity... It is not necessary to misinform..... George Bush won the first time......because we lambasted Al Gore to the point , where Americans lost their vision and gave away their vote and support to somebody except Al Gore.
Now we are doing the same ..we have been making poor choices since 2000. We should be able to understand Hillary's point..comprhension is an American trait.. To clarify:......she made the point to the military people....."John McCain and I are the two people who have had the most exposure..or experience..or at least a threshold of what is necessary to gain your respect , as opposed to my rival in the democratic party...Barack Obama.......Can't she make that point..??
Does it mean that she will rather allign her policies with McCain. than Obama......that's Bullnonsense and rather infantile...to make that analysis......(.because he alligns his policy to hers.)........My mother will say very devious attempt to put down a remarkable woman......However....If Obama is so loved.... why can't his supporters..be truthful.....?? I know the reason but won't say at this time......stop the bad American past time...of....."we have to hate something"......I just checked the millionth ridiculous reason to hate Hillary ..a record even GWB... did'nt come close.to....shameless don't you think?
Hillary Clinton as president would be all too likely to keep tens of thousands of US soldiers in Iraq for years to come, even though the Iraqis themselves want all US military forces withdrawn now. The "inside-the-Beltway" consensus is a continuing feeding frenzy, with the US taxpayer getting it where it hurts; the dollar will continue to drop against the euro as oil prices rise in response to the flood of dollars created by gargantuan budget deficits.
Obama's record shows he won't do a damn thing to stop the war
1. He has voted in the Senate to continue funding the war.
2. As head of the committee on Afghanistan he has refused to have a single hearing, somewhere he could have had a real impact.
I couldn't have said it better myself; Jane. As I have said; the world is watching. The world is not wanting the status quo, they want hope from a country that was admired in the past. Barrack is the only person who can truly bring change.
When you listen to Barrack, he is a man that is OPEN to opinions from ALL sources.
Hillary scares the hell out of me.
She can't even control her campaign. I can hear her now when something catastrophic occurs: Billy what should I do.
I do not want the next president to be open to suggestions from the GOP.
The people of the rest of the world have a tremendous stake in this election. They want to again be able to trust us in business (our economy will improve), trust us diplomatically, trust that we won't continue ignoring the Geneva Convention, trust that we will stop indiscriminate spying, trust that we will have a balanced policy with respect to Palestine, trust that we will not agree to start preemptive wars, trust that we will try to be a humane nation again. Trust is not something the world can have in the Clinton's.
Come now, Ms. Smiley, surely you've heard of the Obama surrogate, his economic advisor, telling the press in England that the man she was working for had no intentions of "immediately" withdrawing from Iraq -- any more than Hillary or McCain. NONE of the three has any such intentions. Politicians remind me of the old perfume commercial: "Promise her anything, but give her Arpege." The same little white lie is at work with the presidential candidates: all of them know that it would be impossible to withdraw all of our troops from Iraq in 2009. We've become so accustomed to our pols lying to us that we expect it and vote for the one who isn't lying on some of the other issues, or whose position on the issue they're lying about is, well, somewhat the lesser of lies. But if you'd been paying attention, Ms. Smiley, you'd know that Obama is no better than Clinton when it comes to plans for handling the future course of the Village Idiot's War of Choice. Get over it, hon!
Of course we've heard this one, along with all the other anti-Obama spin sent out by the Clinton camp. What his "surrogate", rather a foreign policy adviser well-versed in the vagaries of world events indicated was that a President Obama would not base his plan for ending the attack of Iraq on less than up to the minute information, obviously not available to him now. Clinton has said over and over that she would base her plan on information she would gather as President from her military advisers. Somehow for her that is good policy and for him it is disingenuousness? I guess we need two Democratic dictionaries.
Here is the actual Samantha Power quote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/progs/08/hardtalk/power_06mar.ram
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What he’s actually said, after meting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you – at best case scenario – will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month. That’s what they’re telling him. He will revisit it when he becomes president.
He is the only candidate among the Democrats [...] who actually has a responsible withdrawal plan that entails focus on the effects of the withdrawal plan on Iraqi civilians.
What we can take seriously is that he will try to get US forces out of Iraq as quickly and responsibly as possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you had actually listened to the interview you would have discovered that Obama actually does intend to get our troops out of Iraq but he cannot promise what the situation on the ground will be like in January 2009.
It appears your gripe with Obama is that he is NOT willing to lie to the American people about the war in Iraq and the truth is messy. For you to try to take his admission of the reality on the field and spin it around 180 degrees to impugn his intent to withdraw is ridiculous.
What could she have possibly have said that you would not find objectionable? Should she have lied and said we are sticking with the 16 month plan regardless of the situation in January?
"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."
Unfortunately Jane, your definition is the beginning of a revolution, not an act of governing. I guess that is the difference between a journalist and a politician. A politician must have the Time - Resources and Access in order to be able to govern. I happen to think that is at least as honorable a profession as Journalist. I happen to love your work but I'm afraid that I come down on the opposite side of the fence to you on this. Bill's comment on "polite" I consider to be a "lawyer" comment that relates to the "polite" mode versus the "common" and "vulgar" mode in the language. I'm afraid that I have yet to hear Obama not use "agest" posturing. His words are as filled with "code" for "inadequacy" of the aging as the stories about "Hillary's" story about racism and religion. Anyone fooled by such such nonsense deserves to be fooled. On the other hand you should all be very afraid of McCain's Preacher whose followers consider anyone who would make peace in the Middle East to be the Anti-Christ. Perhaps what we are seeing here from you is a little Anglophilia. But I can deal with it. I still admire your writing and thinking but not on this. On this I think you are naive. REH
Funny how it's Hillary's folk who keep talking about the inability of senior citizens to vote in caucuses. Isn't THAT an ageist remark?
The only ones who MIGHT have trouble are in nursing homes; and I'm sure those candidates who WANT senior citizens to vote could arrange mass transportation and help for them to go to the caucus.
I will not vote for any candidate for any U.S. office, who would bring socialism into our Republic.
We have five parties. 1) The Media Party (Interchangeable with the Socialist Party.) which promotes their chosen two. 2) The Democrat and Republican Parties, both of which like McCain. 3) The Independents, who now ignored, could be the determining factor come November???
States constitutions are being ruthlessly hammered by Socialist policy making. They laugh at us dummies for wasting our time and money trying to find someone to represent our constitutional legislative process. For with their skills at usurping such... they boldly march on.
Even the intelligent amongst us Americans, sit back, sigh, and mumble "Oh well. Nothing I can do. We'll be under China's rule soon."
Meanwhile, there's a bunch of us slugs whose daily fight is with those who are stealing America's land and water. Why? We have a duty to stop these land and water thieves and keep America's soil bringing forth the essentials. It's not only a matter of national security, it's an act of ultimate compassion towards mankind.
Environmentalists, partnered with our federal government and the European Union, tell us they're trying to save the last great places on Earth. Do they not know that sweeping vistas of fallow land will not feed the starving child, or provide clothes and warm shelter for our poor and hungry? More chilling is the thought...they probably do know. After all. To control a nation, you take away their food.
Huffington Post bloggers, do you sit with those who sigh "Oh well?" Or will you join with us slugs and help stop the land and water thieves?
If the later, here are some wholly affective things you can do right now: Call, email or write your county, state and federal representatives, and educate them on the fact that solid science does not support Al Gore's CO2 theory; demand a moratorium on any ESA listing (includes Polar Bear) proposed water and landscape bills; ask them to eliminate LOST, and either separate the 66% nutrition off the farm bill budget and make that a free standing bill...or correctly name said bill The Consumer Farm Bill.
Do these things, only - if you want to help stave off socialism and world hunger, feed our poor and hungry, and keep America safe.
Thank you.
In short, get rich now and screw your children directly out of their heritage.
Silknspark - I think you lost your way.
BatedBreath,
Could you please state the "why" behind your speculation.
I'm always learning.
Thank you.
you deserve to be seriously flamed. i'll refrain as a courtesy to all people who've read their (one) book and are now self-described experts.
DoctorDoctor,
Who deserves "to be seriously flamed?" And what exactly does that mean?
Thank you.
Jane,
All great except that you are at the forefront on politics. Surely you know more about Obama's record than one speech. Don't tell us only what you disdain, but also what you are for as well.
Also your idea that Sen. Clinton is now part of the right wing conspiracy is a bit of a stretch. Although I agree that she is well on her way in that direction, unfortunately.
Great post.
The only criticism I have is that Hillary Clinton's tactics are not "Bushian."
Dubya doesn't have enough brains to pour piss out of a boot (even if the instructions were written on the heel), so he hardly deserves the intellectual for this kind of sleaziness.
The tactics are, IMHO, more aptly called "Rovian."
Her tactics are neither Bushian nor Rovian. Her tactics are Nixonian.
Jane,
No matter who you vote for; it won’t make a bit of difference. Our government has run amok with the extant corruption. What we need to do is to get rid of everyone, start from scratch and get back our government. We the people no longer have a voice.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
