"McClinton" (The Empire Strikes Back) vs. Obama (Bill Foster Provides A Glimpse of an Obama Presidency)
A not so subtle series of statements by Hillary Clinton this week that she and John McCain had lifetimes of experience to bring to the presidency, but Barack Obama had only a single speech*; and, that she and John McCain passed the Commander-in-Chief test, but Barack Obama did not, signaled not only a shift in campaign tactics but also showed what this campaign for the heart of the Democratic Party is really all about.
By aligning herself in two critical areas with John McCain against Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton was sending this message: the "elite", the establishment, the military-industrial complex will ensure that the two major party candidates are in cahoots with them. Sure, they will each have their own different, but overlapping, networks and interest groups. But, the permanent two-party, elite establishment, speaking sweet words but really cutting very sweet deals for insiders, will prevail. And, with McCain echoing Hillary's attacks, she now gets a three-fer: Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and John McCain going after Barack Obama. The Empire Strikes Back!
The Clinton campaign has flailed about looking for a message, a slogan, a reason for her candidacy. "Experience", "Change", "Experience to Bring Change", "Solutions", "Ready to Lead", almost every week there is a different slogan. But, the real message of "experience"is that she -- like McCain -- is part of the establishment and will defend it. That is what her alignment with McCain is all about.
Who takes more lobbyist money than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat? Hillary. Who has more lobbyists in positions of power in the campaign? McCain. Who defended paid lobbyists? Hillary (at the YearlyKos convention). Get the picture?
Here is the establishment's game: once Barack is out of the way, the battle is between two different parts of the establishment, two overlapping groups that, while they fight for ultimate power, are never very far out of it even when the other faction takes over. It is musical chairs where there are as many chairs as people.
All versus Obama. While the mainstream media focuses on whether Barack is nasty enough, or how he will pull off "bipartisanship", Barack's backing of Bill Foster provides a glimpse of how a peoples' president, with intelligence, a gift to inspire and modern technology can change the entire game on behalf of the American people.
Barack Obama -- not Hillary Clinton -- actively, with TV ads, supported Bill Foster's attempt to win Dennis Hastert's (former Speaker) seat in the House after Hastert's resignation. Supporting Foster so openly was a risk, as it could have (and we know, would have) been used by the Clintons to raise doubt about Obama's ability to rally support. After all, one thing Bill Clinton did not have was coattails -- he lost the House for the first time in 40 years, and it remained in Republican hands for 12 years.
Bill Foster won a seemingly unwinnable seat, in a very Republican district. It will only take 10-or so of those to start making Congress (Repubicans and Democrats) start serving the general welfare not the lobbyists. That is not bipartisanship in the old sense. It is creating new, supermajorities by breaking the hold of the establishment has on both party elites.
Nor is this even radical. President Eisenhower, a 5-star general, Republican, warned the country about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in his farewell address. Regrettably, the biggest danger most politicians responded to was the risk of being ousted for not playing along, not exactly what Ike had in mind.
One great example of a transformative potential is Earth Day. Twenty-million people came out of their homes to stand up for the planet. WIth that spontaneous show of support, the movement's leaders identified the "dirty-dozen" Congressmen that were biggest supporters of the polluters. Seven (7) were defeated. The remaining 5 got the message. Despite Nixon's opposition, the seminal environmental laws (Environmental Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act) passed. That's why you and I can drink our water, and breathe our air.
And, that was before the internet, and the netroots, and Facebook, and MySpace, and YouTube!
That is what Obama vs. "McClinton" is really about.
*what is more insulting, to be called a "monster" by a campaign operative; or to have your Senatorial colleague and opponent herself state that your entire life's experience, all you are, is one speech?
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
Obama is simply proving that he is a politician like all the rest of them. The implication that Clinton made is accurate. Aligning her with McCain is not. Simply projecting onto Clinton everything you hate about the republicans is dishonest. You know she will great for the environment. Many of the environmental issues like Kyoto, power plant regulations and setting aside land to be protected have been unwound thanks to Bush.
So please nail Bush since only god knows exactly what he has done. Slamming Clinton on issues where both are aligned as well as with many on this board does no one any good.
I agree with everything you said except the part about Bill Clinton not having coattails. Are you kidding? How do you think his wife got to where she is now? Do you really think Hillary Clinton would've been elected Senator or be considered for the nomination of the Democratic party had she not been married to Bill?
We will Organize the Grass Roots to stop Clinton.
Clinton may have almost half of the Democrats in her corner now. What she fails to understand is that her disgusting 'Rovian' campaign style has assured that she will have half of those democrats voting against her in the General Election... should she slither her way into the nomination. If you doubt this... understand full well that this is not politics as usual anymore. This will be assured destruction for Mrs. Clinton - and she and her supporters will be the pariahs of the Democratic Party... what's left of it.
Mark my words.
Obama's speech against the war in 2002:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUV69LZbCNQ
Spot on, great article. Keep it up!
I mean this genuinely, what exactly makes Obama different than Clinton and "less of the same"? He still believes in the government solving problems, and still supports (or sponsored/co-sponsored, I forget which) legislation that mandates a portion of our tax dollars going to the UN, was against gun banning before being for it (and against it again) as he told a few mid-western states...
So I ask this in all seriousness, how is he not another cookie-cutter politician?
You said: "He still believes in the government solving problems..."
That's not quite it. Obama believes in returning the government back to the people so that it'll represent them instead of lobbyists for corporations. Obama is less about "Vote for me and I'll do a, b and c for you", and more about "Vote for me and WE'LL do a, b and c together".
It's that WE that makes Obama different and attractive as a candidate.
He understands that if people want a government that works for them they must be involved in the process that determines how that government will look. People have to get active in their local and state political parties, campaign for good men and women who represent their interests, stay politically informed and educated, talk about politics among one another, keep in contact with their representatives, and finally and most important, ACTUALLY VOTE.
Obama is about bring Americans back into the political process to take back their government.
His opponents this year want Americans to vote for them and then get out of the way.
I'm all for the guy preaching (it's what politicians seem to do the most), but is he preaching with something to back it up?
Here's what I'm saying. In the course of his campaign for presidency he's already lied to many mid-western states, backing away from one policy only to return to it when most of said mid-western states had decided their caucuses/primaries. He's already headed/supported legislation harmful to American citizens. And yes, his position is a top down one that the federal government should be more involved in problem solving nationally, rather than the state and local governments (consistent with how he has treated Illinois with Chicago politics dominating the rest of the state). All of these are traits he shares with Hillary and McCain.
So while he makes one claim (that "we" part), he's proven so far to be another politician based on his actions in this campaign.
Is he really that different, then? What am I missing?
Exactly on the money Paul! This should be required reading for Superdelegates (at least)! Kudo's
Note that Obama is the only candidate who has succeeded without the backing of a former president's political machine. Hill has Bill, and McSame has the Bushes. Obama has five big-name opponents who have been in the public eye for decades, and he's WHOOPING them! Way to go, Barack the Giant Slayer!
Now ain't that the truth?
It makes me wonder why Americans cannot see what is truly going on here. How can we allow someone so mean, so hateful, so devious, such a liar, and so psychotic to run our country? To me, that's like shooting ourselves in the foot!
She could get us all killed if someone does something that she doesn't like. She can't even run her campaign without scrutiny. How can she run the country?
Empire is exactly the right word. The elite of the corporate empire would be more than delighted with either mccain or HRC. They are status quo - opposed to change.
I posted the following yesterday to Jane Smiley's entry. My theory as to why HRC does/says the nonsense she does.
"She believes - as do so many in DC (neocons and DLC members especially) - that people are just not smart enough to deal with the issues that confront us. In their disdain (maybe "pity"?) of common people, they haven't the slightest twinge of conscience for resorting to the tactics of karl rove which successfully showed how you can appeal to the basest of human instincts and con massive numbers of people into doing and believing things that are simply outrageous.
"It's OK to resort to those measures because they deem themselves the ONLY people who can keep it all together. There are so many behind-the-scenes games going on non-stop, "normal" people wouldn't be able to get control of their bowels if they had the slightest inkling of their enormity and viciousness. They believe they can take that battleship and get it to turn a little bit so we can do better in this nation - because they know all the players and know all the games. If you don't understand those players, you will surely proffer the end of our nation.
"Billary believe they are justified to do and say whatever they want because the game is sacred. Anyone who challenges the game of world corporate empire building is "naive" or "radical" or "crazy." They may be right. But the thing that they've wrongly fooled themselves into believing is that most of us, as the famous movie line says, "can't handle the truth." The reality of our condition right now, dear Clintons, is that we can't handle the LIES any more. We can't afford - literally and figuratively - the games and the lies any more. Now get your useless asses out of the way so we can try to fix this mess."
You're right on the money. To paraphrase what Harold Meyerson wrote in The Washington Post a month or so ago, Hillary Clinton, like her husband, is probably well-suited to being a Democratic president in an era of conservative dominance -- someone who can fend off the right-wing's worst assaults on government, make a few incremental improvements here and there, and coopt some of the other side's policies (NAFTA and welfare reform, for example).
By contrast, Barack Obama is the only candidate whose election has the potential to end the era of conservative dominance and transform our whole political dynamic for the better.
Both candidates' performances in the primaries and especially their messaging (Obama's "yes we can" vs. Hillary's "threshold"), have only reinforced this fundamental truth. Little changes if she wins, a lot changes if he does.
C'mon America. This is like a zombie flick....when you know what to look for, it is pretty easy to see who has gone over to the wrong side, who has turned sour on the people, who of the candidates is saying with a chanting mind-voice "brains, brains, brains". So, who got bit by the zombie? Lieberman has staggered around in public, the signs all-too-obvious, for a long long time. Whether it's the jewish lobby or other monied interests, once they get their bite on you it is all over.
HRC is showing unmistakeable signs for years now. We have to get better at spotting this. Our only real choices against the lobbyist and corporate powers were Edwards and Kucinich and possibly Paul. The best remaining candidate is Obama. Like another Huffpo author (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-grahamesmith/the-monster-a-loyal-clin_b_90632.html)
I did my level best to support the Clintons. For years and years, including the last 8. I have nothing against her womanhood or a woman leader. If a 'best qualified' woman made it to the general election I would be an automatic voter for a Dem woman and possibly a Repub woman. The Repub woman is a long shot, there really is no difference between a rep. woman and rep. man. But still, to break the cycle of testosterone and hamfisted and violent man-govts. it would almost be worth it.
However, HRC DISqualified herself. She sucked corporate teat until the bell went off and the light flashed disqualifying her. We cannot let the corrupted, zombified zone of the Left capture the prize. We cannot let the clear will and hope of america to be strangled and bulldogged and hijacked. Hell, there are a LOT of republicans who will vote for obama. Maybe they hate HRC, but I think in their guts they won't vote for her because they know it will be same old business. The same business that has been abusing the repub rank and file for 8 years. Humiliating them. Making them poorer. Laying waste to all their sound talk and responsibility mantra. They want change too. Something honest, something honorable. The hard tasks addressed. Even if they wished the Right would win, way down deep they know we need a truer path. And they will not vote for HRC, perhaps from ancestral loathing of the 90s - and in many cases because they know the Israeli-Fascist-Corporate wing of America will still be in full-stride under HRC. Nothing scares ALL americans more than another 8 years of Boosch-clinton-Boosch-clinton. Except HRC lovers. They seem oblivious to the Mark of the Zombie.
I want to make an appeal to all of them. From someone who has been firmly on your side for a long time. Let her go. She's been bitten. Your TEAM identity is with US....the people, the progressives....not some loyalty to the Clintons. They have a great life. Healthcare til they die. Pensions. Book Deals, tons of corporate cash and a jetset lifestyle. SPeaking engagements until they are too old to take a stage. Let them go. They do not need vindication. They are not forced to live under a rock. People look back on the Clinton Era fondly when compared to Boosch. Let it go.
Great analogy, great visuals, and a sound, logical conclusion.
But the best part is your user name.... tremendous.
Now ain't THAT THE TRUTH! Good going my learned DickTator friend! I loved every word.
Wow, what a shock. Another article villifying Hillary Clinton and putting another halo on Seantor Obama's head. With reagrd to the Foster scenario, I think that had more to do with the fact that the open congressional seat was in Senator Obama's home state of Illinois. It was not some cooment about the state of the Democratic party or their candidates.
How about instead of wasting your time toy just wittle it down to the essential message of your blog.
Hillary very BAD
Barack very GOOD...
see less time and you get the essence of your message across...
Another day, another whiny victimization post with illogical counter-charges from pbarba1969...
All these guys guys posts are about how great Senator Obama is, and how bad Hillary is. Show me a post of his that isn't biased toward Seantor Obama.
Hahahaha, what else is new. A substantive, nuanced look at why Barack Obama would be a better choice for the Democratic nomination. The comments from Clinton supporters that follow: "you're villifying Clinton" or "you're a misogynist." Care to directly attack any of the valid points made in the above post? The silence is deafening.
How about facing the truth for a change! Hillary is BAD. Barack is GOOD. Now!
Barack may be the outsider now, but remember that Clinton was once an outsider, too - he pushed his way in, and he got co-opted on the way in - as virtually every politician does. Are there any real mavericks? Do the people ever really rule? Except for a brief time in the People's Republic of Burlington, VT, and their unrepentant socialist (small s) now-senator Bernie Sanders, all outsiders get co-opted. And is that a bad thing? America is more stable, freer and richer than any other country on earth. Yes, the elites do too well compared to the rest of us. But the stability inherent in a "permanent" government of non-elected elites who shift a little here and there in response to prevailing winds is worth a lot. Just ask people who have lived elsewhere? Perspective, perspective, perspective.
So, if B.O. gets in, expect the elites to suck him in, too.
The post and the comments of DickTater and aabbey are substantively more penetrating than most of the back and forth one reads on the blogs. You bring to the foreground the question of whether the political system of the USA, in the manner that China has historically absorbed invaders, must inevitably turn outsiders into insiders by assimilating them into a vast, interlocking military-political-corporate structure where party and "wing" identities are superficial. It's a good question. The factor that makes Sen. Obama different thus far is that he has risen to the top via a cyber-roots network. This enduring structure will give him an extremely swift and powerful means of mobilizing his supporters to lobby their representatives in Congress to vote for persons and laws that further the agenda he sets. I'm an example, having gotten an email from the Obama net asking for contributions to the campaign of Bill Foster. I promptly sent him $100 via the Foster page. However, if President Obama loses the trust of the people, his network loses its effectiveness. In other words, he is accountable to the people who bring him to power. That is where the current Presidential race gets interesting.
Yes, and I think he is enough of a man to be accountable for what he represents. I just hope the "masterful elite" will not try to harm him because he "cannot" be persuaded to join the mire!
Only if he is "weak-minded" like the ones already in there now. I see no weakness whatsover in Obama. I see strength that is deep within. He has the fortitude and good upbringing to stand on his own two feet to send the devil back to the deep.
God will win in the end!
You have made a strong and well supported argument in line with why I support Barack Obama. In many Western countries the 'rugged individual' is lauded, therefore it is not surprising that people focus on individual characteristics/accomplishments as indicative of a potential president's inherent value as a leader. Its a nice idea, but a crock basically - any leader is only as good as the team that surrounds her/him, and that counts for national leaders such as presidents as much if not more than anybody. Thus Obama's strengths - he is an excellent team player, knows how to inspire, to rally, to demand and to give credit to those that work alongside him, makes him the best person for the job IMO.
Having read all that I can on both candidates - both Obama and Clinton undoubtedly have their fair share of strengths and weaknesses. Their shared popularity attests to that. I fervently hope that on balance the superdelegates consider Obama's stronger; but these are smart and savvy people. They will weigh the 'competition' from all angles, and will no doubt select the one they believe will be the most likely to bring about a Democratic white house. That after all is their job, no matter how we might wish to sway them with compelling arguments or 'shoulds' in support of our favorite. The end of year elections will attest to whether their selection is a good one. I for one am glad the responsibility for the outcome will now rest with them.
Thank you for a great piece. Americans need to wake up from this comma and pay attention. Strop this political con from happening. My anger is at the neanderthals who are funding and supporting this evil couple. The Clintons are monsters and will not hesitate to destroy anyone for the sake of power. If Hillary cvan't get it, no democrat will. Stop giving these thugs donations. Let them use their ill-gotten wealth.
I am so annoyed with Hillary for these comments. How can anyone who holds a Democratic Party membership support her after she endorses McCain over Obama? She is turning into another Lieberman, that is just a pretend Democrat that really only cares about herself.
Again she didn't endorse John Mccain. She simply said that this is waht the republicans are going to use against him in the fall. And you know what? She's right. People will vote for a candidate who has the experience and the know how. He doesn;t have either.
The Obama people would rather say Hillary sold them out, to justify their position about supporting Obama or nobody, when in fact she didn't. Hillary is playing smart politics and giving the Obama supporters a preview of what they can expect in the fall if he gets the nod.
Well, a lot of people ARE voting for Obama. Or don't you read, just react? You can have your smart politics.
Pbarba1969, Your comment ignores the general strategy and tactics the Clinton campaign are using in the past week or so: they are arguing that Sen. Obama is ready to be VP but not President. Every analyst out there who isn't part of the Clinton campaign agrees that she clearly stated that she and McCain are ready to be C-in-C but Sen. Obama isn't. That's a de facto endorsement of McCain in a match-up against Obama. Now, Sen. Clinton's female supporters would view her taking the second spot as a case of sexism, a senior female demurring to the a junior male. Sen. Obama's black supporters would view it as racism, the black guy has to give up his seat for the white lady (which in less grave circumstances would be the polite thing to do). But, the Vice President is a non-entity unless his name is Dick Cheney. Sen. Obama's more mature, insightful, and committed supporters would view him doing this as evidence that he really isn't what he claims to be, a politician whose constituency is the people, not the powers that be. And Sen. Clinton would shock the heck out of me if she would take the second position on the ticket if it were offered (which, in any case, no one in the Obama camp views as an intelligent move because she would hurt his ticket- the people who argue that Obama can't carry the big blue states ignore the fact that every Democrat can carry the big blue states). Sen. Clinton is sending a wave of messages that are intended to humiliate Sen. Obama and tell him to get back in his place. She is hoping that the Democratic Party leadership will buy into this line of thought and pressure Sen. Obama into accepting the inferior role on the ticket. She also hopes to subliminally influence the voters in Pennsylvania to perceive Sen. Obama as the lesser of the two candidates. It will be interesting to see if it continues to work as well as it did in Ohio. Here are the reasons her attitude toward Sen. Obama is offensive: 1) She's behind him in delegates but is trying to sell the idea that he should be second on her ticket. 2) She knows that as VP he would be a bystander in any significant action that takes place. 3) The de facto endorsement of McCain and other lies, distortions, and tricks she has pulled have undoubtedly infuriated everyone on Sen. Obama's team, hence the "monster" comment from the mouth on his informal advisor, Ms. Power, who btw is a highly respected woman who has succeeded in the men's world of foreign policy studies and who has stood up for the persecuted and oppressed people of the Third World (including writing a book about Rwanda that skewers the Bill Clinton administration for cowardice and inaction). If Sen, Obama took the VP spot, every serious supporter of his would lose all respect for him; and, more significantly, he could not stand to look at himself in the mirror afterwards. He would be much wiser to remain in the Senate in the event of a Clinton nomination and continue to lead his national cyber-roots movement from that position.
So by your logic.... Hillary should throw Obama under the bus herself, because he's going to face GOP attacks later? That is the most backwards logic I've ever heard. She called John McCain more qualified to be president in a DIRECT QUOTE that can be used OVER and OVER and OVER again come November.
What happened to the HRC that said "all that matters is beating the Republicans"? Oh, wait that was when she was "hillary the inevitable." I guess she forgot about that.
Remember when Hillary was running for Senate in 2000 and her GOP opponent didn't release his tax forms ahead of the race? What did Clinton have to say then?
“Congressman Lazio is clearly playing peek-a-boo with his taxes,” said Hillary Clinton’s spokesman, Howard Wolfson. Oh, but I guess she forgot about that too.
Loading comments…
Posted March 10, 2008 | 05:12 AM (EST)