What Does It Mean When Kos Accepts Clinton
"We may decide she's not our first choice, but she's not a bad choice." - Markos Moulitsas, August 4, 2007
It was a surprising thing for Markos, the founder of DailyKos the most widely read political blog, to say. He made that statement just before the candidate forum at YearlyKos in Chicago where Hillary Clinton gave her take on lobbyists. First, by insisting that the money she takes from them doesn't effect her vote- which is the equivalent of saying voters are stupid. And then by defending lobbyists- "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like or not, represent real Americans," she said. "They represent nurses, social workers and, yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people."
OK. Hillary Clinton is the Democrat for lobbyists. At least we know where she stands on that one.
She's also the Democrat who blames the failure in Iraq on the Iraqis, stating that our troops did their job but the Iraqis didn't take advantage of what we had done for them. As if the situation in Iraq can be blamed on anyone other than the people that got us into this war.
I realize Hillary has changed her position significantly on Iraq, if not on the Iraqis. She finally regrets her vote for war (yes, it was a vote for war). But the Netroots is supposed to be about standing for something. This movement, this rejection of politics as usual, rejection of politics by the corporations for the corporations, is supposed to be about something. I recognize we're about healthcare and we're about not being George Bush, and we're about the environment and a woman's right to choose. But we don't need a movement for those things. The Democrats already had the DLC for those positions. The Netroots, the new activists, came from a rejection of Democratic triangulation. Progressives were tired of being talked down to and taken for granted and tired of the way business is done in Washington, namely, by business, and the lobbying groups bought and paid for by business.
I also recognize that Markos is not suddenly supporting Clinton, just saying the Netroots might come around to her. He wrote a strong post criticizing Hillary as recently as October 8.
A prominent blogger once told me that the Netroots was immune to flattery. He was either lying to me or he was lying to himself. Nobody is immune to flattery. It's not a bad thing when Hillary Clinton shows up at a blogger candidate forum, but it doesn't mean that much. Especially if she's going to stand on stage and defend lobbyists.
As Hillary solidifies her lead (though it's a long way from over, remember Howard Dean at this time in 2003) leaders of the Netroots are beginning to position themselves not as for Hillary, but as not against Hillary. Back in February Hillary seemed an unacceptable candidate for Markos. Now, some bloggers, worry perhaps that a Hillary victory will leave the Netroots powerless. Others, like Markos, might just believe it's important to support the Democrat, whoever she is. I've met Markos. He's a nice guy with a lot of integrity. He's also a Democrat to the core and is likely to strongly support whoever wins the nomination. But Hillary is a bad choice. The primaries aren't over and there's no reason to move in that direction.
The other day Patrick Buchanan stated that "A Giuliani victory means right retains power but loses its soul." Progressives need to recognize the same thing about Hillary Clinton.
Follow Stephen Elliott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/the_rumpus
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
Excellent article Stephen!
Appreciate you writing what many of us have been thinking.
kos is leaning Dodd, but I've noticed that he hasn't closed the door on anyone.
I get the impression that his first choice would have been Obama. Lately, he sounds disheartened. kos might have a little of the idealist left from the last election when he was an avid Howard Dean supporter. He felt terribly let down by that election. I think, when Obama makes a mistake (which is rarely), kos takes it harder than some and it shows up the next day as a criticism of Obama.
Unfortunatly, over time and watching with open eyes I have come to resent Hillary as the Democrat's mirror image of George Bush in drag. When she was First Lady the Republican smear machine turned me so far against the Republican Party they will never have my vote no matter how good their candidate may be. Anyone who associates with a party so bent on control and against their emmployers, using hate, phoney press conferences, and malignant neglect I can never trust.
I don't know what changed Hillary, maybe she was always lik this I would like to think not. However her interests exist now only to herself and those of her Masters. The most frightening thing besides the fact she will be like Bush unwilling to change course no matter how wrong that course may be is that she is SO much smarter then Bush, but then power corrupts, absolute power..... There will be no change should she be annointed, only a continuation of a 2 family dynasty/monarchy with the queen succeeding the king. We have better than just two ruling families. Isn't that what our Founding Fathers and ancestors struggled so hard to achieve for us?
I couldn't have said it better! If she wins it will simply show that the people are once again going to get the "shaft" while corporations bring in the huge profits.
While many are willing to "accept" her as the nominee, many more of us are not. The game plan is to make everyone think it's a lost cause for anyone but Hillary, but as was pointed out in the article, look where Howard Dean was at this time.
It ain't over till the last vote is counted, and the dem party has to come to it's senses and see things for what they really are. If not then this country will continue on in the same mess we are in today. Sad, but true.
Thank You Stephen! Thank You! I worry that the lust to win (as if she's a guaranteed winner) blinds many on the left to who Hil truly is. This is particularly hard for someone like me who is unaffliated and uncomfortable in either camp, but is looking for a reall leader for the country. Someone who isn't simply pandering but truly working to make decisions and form alliances that can help our country at home and abroad. I truly am hoping for REAL change to help pull me out of the disillusionment the political system of the past 10 years have caused. She is not the answer! I hope by the new year, people begin to awaken to that.
Again THANK YOU!!!
My first blog post (I've been busy), so be patient. I am a soldier. I am a sergeant in the infantry. So, I've seen what Hillary's choices have meant on the ground in Iraq. You know the obvious and gruesome details. Visit your local VA over the next generation. Now compound that horror twenty times and you'll get a feel for a "hospital" in Mosul, or a "clinic" Diyala. Or, god help you, a morgue in Baghdad. True, this is largely George Bush's quagmire. Fair enough. But Hillary voted for it and Barack opposed it. And kids who don't blog, or read the Times, or even know what the YearlyKos is are dying and being maimed. Please don't forget this.
But, if that isn't good enough, let's think about crass political practicality and "electability." Because, before I was a soldier, I dipped my toe in politics and this is what I remember: Bill Clinton, allegedly the best politician in the party in the past generation, received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992. In 1996 only 49%. You really think Hillary can equal Bill's best? You think she can win Montana (as Bill did in '92) or Kentucky? Please. She is UNELECTABLE. At least Barack would have a shot in places like Georgia and Virginia.
Phew...just wanted to get that off my chest. I refrain from discussing politics at work (for obvious reasons). I may be going back to Iraq. I remember 7NOV06 as one of the best days of my tour. I have a hard time believing that next November will give me the same hope if we nominate Hillary. Hope this wasn't too long...
The fact that Hillary Clinton is the frontrunner and KOS is capitulating (resistance to the Queen is futile) says a LOT about the relative lack of influence the netroots has on national elections.
Yes - money is the root of all evil.
Former presidents and first ladies have lots of power. And a Hillary prez will give the Clintons MORE power and more corporate power.
Kos could lose his corporate sponsors if he steps on the Queen's toes.
It says far-lefties like Kos don't stand for any principal, rather they just agitate and want to be heard
Today CSPAN rerun wensdays USA finacial hearing (0 / 0)
Today i watched the rerun of a CSPAN hearing on america's finacial future.
They said we have spent 16 yrs of the vietnam war or 2 koreas and that is if we just stopped spending right now.....
Our dollar is so low and the chinese (or the investors in china , whoever they are) hold most of our debt.
Its such a shame we have a group of politicians who have taken us to such an extreme.
Yes there was one man who knew it would cost us billions but maybe Barack should have said trillions.
I am a nam vet and it took us 20 yrs with low priced oil for america to get out of debt.
Our future is in the toilet because of those who supported this war.
the netroots have acted just like the msm in being spineless with Hillary.
I have lost respect for them when they simply would not call Hillary on the carpet for her various bad behaviors. They simply ignore it and pretend she is not that bad.
They know the netroots as a whole and the progressives cannot stand this woman. We may dislike her more than republicans do.
But, the frustration of the netroots 'names' in falling down on holding Hillary to the same criticisms and letting her off with a free pass on so much is what is destroying alot of credibility.
What Does It Mean When Kos Accepts Clinton?
Duh, it means they have decided that Clinton is the best candidate to defeat the Republicans.. anyone tells you otherwise is selling something... likely as not the product is hot air.
Yeah, yeah yeah. The triumph of low expectations. Whoopie doo.
Kos has said Hillary is our WEAKEST candidate.
Read this and tell me if it looks familiar, because it should. Then read this quote, and then notice the year during which it was written:
(quote)
“A clique of U.S. industrialists is hell-bent to bring a fascist state to supplant our democratic government and is working closely with the fascist regime in Germany and Italy. I have had plenty of opportunity in my post in Berlin to witness how close some of our American ruling families are to the Nazi regime…. A prominent executive of one of the largest corporations, told me point blank that he would be ready to take definite action to bring fascism into America if President Roosevelt continued his progressive policies. Certain American industrialists had a great deal to do with bringing fascist regimes into being in both Germany and Italy. They extended aid to help Fascism occupy the seat of power, and they are helping to keep it there. Propagandists for fascist groups try to dismiss the fascist scare. We should be aware of the symptoms. When industrialists ignore laws designed for social and economic progress they will seek recourse to a fascist state when the institutions of our government compel them to comply with the provisions.”
- William Dodd,U.S. Ambassador to Germany, in a letter to F.D. Roosevelt, 1936
Sound familiar? It should, since the children and grandchildren of the men involved in the attempted coup of FDR in 1933 are the very men (and women now) doing their damndest to bring about a fascist regime today. I suppose the apple never falls far from the tree, eh?
Hillary Clinton is one of THEM. If anyone can vote for this Fraulein after finding out what she's REALLY about, along with her REAL loyalties, s/he should get his/her head examined. She is POISON.
Don't be fooled by the party she's associated with, because BOTH parties have been infiltrated by neocons. That's why they're such flailing idiots on the House/Senate floor: It's all just a fussy charade. Face it: The days of partisan loyalty are OVER.
DailyKos is managed by astro-turf, nutroot, professional political hacks.
The grassroots of DailyKos are tread upon by the political hacks who run the DailyKos.
MarKos is a former Republican and has nothing to do with progressive causes.
Markos is getting while the getting is good. He's not particularly concerned with anything else.
I would completely disagree.
DRAT AL GORE!!! Enough with these piss poor Demcorats, save Kuunich and Edwards.
AND GORE WAS A PART OF IT TOO
Much has been written about the use of the War on
Drugs to intentionally disenfranchise poor people and
engineer the centralization of political and economic
power in the U.S. and globally, including an explosive
rise in the U.S. prison population. The purpose of
this story is not to repeat this fundamentally sound
thesis. For those who are interested in more on this
topic, I would refer you to my article and audio
seminar “Narco Dollars for Beginners” as well as
Michael Woodiwiss’ book Organized Crime and American
Power (University of Toronto Press, 2001) and their
associated bibliographies.[49]
U.S. Vice President Al Gore,
Harvard trained supporter of significant increases in
enforcement and private prisons.
(Photo Courtesy Wikipedia)
http://www.dunwalke.com/10_Clinton_Administration.htm
besides he had lieberman with him and he surely hasn't changed enough for me to trust him
THANK YOU. As of 2005 he was in the "nosebleed section" of the Council on Foreign Relations, right there with David Rockefeller (who needs to kick off already) and Bill Clinton.
They've deleted Al Gore's name from the list of CFR members in Wikipedia, which:
1) Says something about the CFR's future plans for Gore (late entry to race? stealth neocon?)
2) Means the CFR people know we're on to them
Gore is a globalist, just like Hillary and Bill. Deep down he's not even a nice person, though he does have a nice TV/Movie presence.
Gore is in favor of NAFTA, the NAU and everything associated with the move toward government. If you like the thought of that, sure, draft Gore.
Just a little gossip: The only person from the White House the Secret Service hated more than Hillary was Al Gore. And they really hated Hillary, so just imagine Hillary's politics and personality in a man's body and . . . (shudder) Both of them elitist, unappreciative, rude and downright nasty. I elaborated on this tonight chez moi.
Fire Rahn Emanuel, and I'll think about it. Otherwise, come' on . . . who do you think you're fooling? "The Fix is in . . ." and I am not part of it.
...She[Clinton] blames the failure in Iraq on the Iraqis, stating that our troops did their job but the Iraqis didn't take advantage of what we had done for them.
As if the situation in Iraq can be blamed on anyone other than the people that got us into this war.
In one word: Yes. U.S. policies contributed greatly to collapse of order n Iraq. But to say that people who went out of their way to ethnically cleanse and murder their neighbors are not responsible for their actions is the height of Hypocrisy and biased judgment.
Besides it provides an example of an imperial and paternal viewpoint of the conflict.
As if Iraqis are student ignorant children who have to listen to uncle Sam to wipe their noses.
Once USa leaves Iraq Iraqis will figure out on their own what they want. Probably they will decide they want a civil war for awhile.
And then a Hussein-clone will emerge and they will live happily ever after.
The tragedy of this whole situation is that Saddam knew as soon as the WTC collapsed that his rule was doomed. He would have surrendered peacefully rather than see his country demolished. The entire Muslim World was banging down the doors of the State Department pledging complete cooperation in order to avoid what they realized was inevitable armed conflict with the West.
But the United States was committed to using 9/11 as a justification for a series of preemptive military incursions into the Middle East. Our government intentionally derailed the diplomatic process and portrayed it as futile. Iran and Syria were willing to recognize Israel in order to avoid what has happened to their region. And we turned them away.
The Iraqi people didn't want this. Their leaders didn't want this. Their military didn't want this. But America did. We wanted to radicalize the Middle East. We wanted to vilify Islam. We wanted to create Hell on Earth to feed our craving for a sense of moral superiority.
And now, in a classic case of projection, those who oppose this disastrous foreign policy are accused of seeing a silver lining to our failures in Iraq. As if the objective all along was not to bog ourselves down in a futile and endless military pork barrel. The whole neocon/neolib agenda is to profit from failure, destabilize the world, feign incompetence, and bankrupt the American Dream.
"U.S. policies contributed greatly to collapse of order n Iraq." Wow, quite a limb you are going out on there.
Say, if some huger-than-us power wiped out our entire law enforcement system, we'd all just hug and get comfy, and calmly have one of our sensible elections, wouldn't we. Because we're so civilized. We're Americans, damn it. We only do that to other countries.
Keep defining that moral high ground, Hillary.
Kos may well be the most widely read political blog but that does not mean that it worth reading. I tried to read and post there several years ago and it was worse that tne bad old days of Newsgroups. Rather that a true political discourse it is ranting, insults, and namecalling. Very Childish, but it seems that a lot of people now days think that is what politic is.
The other disqualifier to Kos is his position on the Iraq "war". He has been wrong again and again, and then denies he even took the positions he did.
So if Kos supports Hillary, she should be known by the company she keeps. Oh, the she is Hillary.
I will never vote for Hillary becuase she should have known "then what she now knows". I did and I am just a working guy with no special access to inside information. In the fall of 2002, the CIA was leaking like a seive that they did not know if there were WMD in Iraq or not. A collection of BushI advisors publically called for a negotiated solution to the WMD "crisis". There were red flags all over the place. At that time Debka was reporting that advance troops were already in Northern (Kurdish) Iraq preparing for invasion.
Early on I gave George Bush the benifit of the doubt. I believed that his old man at least tried to beleive that he was an honorable man. Likewise I was willing to believe that George Bush the Son just lied to himself about him self. Now it is clear that he is Liar to the bone.
I will at this point give Hillary the same benifit of the doubt, but I am leaning toward the Bush-Lite Liar to the bone version.
Kos just likes to see his name in the paper and is not much more substanial than that.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
