I originally started this post as a reply to a comment on the thread Hillary is starting to get interesting.
Louisianagirl wrote:
(From the Merrriam Webster Dictionary)
1 : a bony or chitinous case or shield covering the back or part of the back of an animal (as a turtle or crab)
2 : a protective, decorative, or disguising shell
Hmmmm…
A protective, disguising shell.
Precisely my point about her for several years here on the left blogosphere.
Watch.
Read on for more.
Hillary Clinton is that rarest of all beasts, a highly skilled, subtle and professional leftist politician.
YOU know…the kind that gets elected.
The kind that lies its ass off in the pursuit of power.
Makes compromises that prompt left-wing observers to think that the tightrope dance is going to fail. Or that said politician has finally sold out.
But gets to the goal in some sort of position where things get can still done.
Not Pollyanna pie with ice cream on top.
Just the art of the possible.
She is FDR.
She is Eleanor’s revenge.
Watch.
I am more convinced with each passing move towards her goal…and I have been watching intently from NY State since she first went after her Senate seat…that she is a political genius. The coalition that she has built in NY, the fences that she has been able to mend with Republican conservative voters and powers-that-be in the red upstate regions (using tactics that ranged from the neverending schmooze through the flat-out wielding of political and media power) are snapshots of how she is going about her larger campaign now.
It worked here, and it will work nationally. People seem to think that NY State is some bastion of liberal dominance, but it reality it is a perfect picture of the country as a whole. A huge rural/small city/working class white state with one pocket of mildly leftish minority/middle-upper middle class white suburban/urban professional/academic strength in the NYC area.
19 million people in the state. Only 8 million in NYC proper, add another 3 million or so in Nassau and Westchester counties, the real NYC suburban/bedroom areas that are within NY State. And NYC itself is “conservative” enough to have elected in succession the abominable clown Rudolph Giuliani and the truly dangerous Michael R. Bloomberg, who resides to the RIGHT of Giuliani and has almost unlimited personal wealth and brains.
Given these indisputable facts? Hillary Clinton has absolutely DOMINATED the political process here for over 6 years.
She won her Senate seat 55% to 45% in 2000, and 67% to 33% in 2006.
In 2002, just to establish the REAL (relatively un-Hillaried, not yet hip to Bush/pre-2006) NY State attitude, the buffoon party hack George Pataki won in a three way gubernatorial race by 50% against 33% for the Dem (A Dem crook hack named Carl McCall who would have lost by more if he hadn’t been black) and 17% for the Independent Party candidate Tom Golisano, who is the billionaire founder of Paychex (the second-largest payroll processor in the United States) and a so-called “Libertarian.” Whatever the fuck THAT really means. But basically a white, right-wing money guy from as upstate as it gets.
Buffalo, NY.
Rust Belt Central.
To make a complicated story simple, in a state where 67% of the vote went to right wing gubernatorial candidates in 2002, 2 years BEFORE that vote Hillary Clinton won by 55%. Add the anti-Bush surge (he only real surge Bush has ever seen in any facet of his life besides an occasional cocaine rush.) in 2006…a surge which is only going to grow in the next year and a half…and she won by the same percentage that voted thoroughly right wing here in 2002.
67%
In national politics, I believe that 67% is referred to as a landslide. Being given a mandate. A green light. And I believe that Hillary Clinton plans to drive THROUGH that green light. At a safe, sane, politically intelligent pace as is her wont.
Her talent.
Supported by solid majorities in both houses of Congress.
Watch.
This is going to get VERY interesting.
Betcha.
Is she perfect?
No.
Of course not.
But she IS damned good at what she does.
Watch.
Horse players have a saying.
“Class tells.”
Watch.
Given her competition…from both parties…she is the class of the race.
Obama? Giuliani? McCain? Gingrich? Romney? Edwards?
Only Obama has equivalent political talent (Political talent. The art of making the right decision in order to win. A gift. Like all talent.), and he is a baby in comparison. A talented rookie.
She is already an All-Star due to her work with Bill plus her two (nationally prominent) wins in NY State and in my opinion she is destined for the Hall of Fame.
Watch.
She will win a Presidential election by roughly the same percentage that she won in the 2006 NY State Senatorial election, given the current popular antipathy to Bush and thus to the Ratpub Party in general.
A thoroughly earned antipathy. On the evidence.
Watch.
Class tells.
Watch.
And…stop kvetching.
It’s a done deal.
Live with it.
We could do MUCH worse.
And we quite possibly will do much worse if we keep sniping at her from the left.
Bet on it.
Enough with the kvetch. Do you REALLY think that Edwards can win in 2008? I don’t. Do you think that Obama has the politcal maturity to make it all the way? LOOK AT HIM. Every third step is a mistake. He needs seasoning.
Watch.
She is in already.
And Eleanor Roosevelt..prophetess that she was…is spinning mightily wherever she currenly resides.
“YOU GO, GIRL!!! You GO!!!”
Watch.
AG
As you must…
Later…
AG
her ear. She doesn’t hear her voice very well, and that could hurt her. Hillary is a boring and brilliant policy wonk, and there is nothing wrong with sounding like that, and coming off like that. She needs to stop trying even a little to be like Lizzie Dole or Oprah Winfrey.
I also think her political inabilities were pretty clearly put on display with the health care plan debacle of the early Clinton days.
But perhaps she learned from that (y’ can’t please the insurance companies, don’t even try next time) and decided to go back into her shell until 2009. I hope you’re right, cuz the nation needs a ton of leftism, and the money parties aren’t going to consciously allow a leftist to be elected.
She isn’t a leader. I agree with everything you say about her, and I think that she would make an able president. The problem is that the United States is a deeply wounded nation after the beating our Constitution has taken for the past six years. There are a lot of sick and injured psyches out there, and there are a lot of very tough decisions up ahead that result from the truly catastrophic ones taken by the Bush administration. People are going to have to sacrifice, and they are going to have to be willing to sacrifice to get this country back on track.
For all her many gifts, Senator Clinton does not have that capacity to create the kind of trust that can get the United States over the hurdle we now have to jump. I wish her all the best, but she is not the best candidate for us at this time. She would have been fine last time out, before things became as bad as they have become; it’s either too late for her now, or too early. But she is not the right person. We now need someone like FDR who can speak directly to people, to make them feel they are part of a community. She can’t do it. It’s not in her genes, hard as she may try. Obama and Edwards can do it. And we need someone who can.
Actually…who better to heal than a woman?
I’m serious.
Maybe the U.S. has finally overdosed on testosterone.
I mean…we’ve tried everyting else…
AG
As far as I can tell she’s:
Bad on Iraq,
Bad on Iran,
Bad on Palestine,
No-go on medical marijuana, drug legalization,
Wavering on Choice,
A tool of corporate (banking, pharma, insurance) interests,
A hawk on military/military industrial spending
Voted for the Patriot Act(s),
and is generally pandering to the Right.
Just to name a few . . .
What was it that I’m supposed to like about her?
Imposter!!! What have you done with the real AG???
Do not expect me to fit into any pigeonholes, boran2.
I have been watching politics since I was about 4 years old. At the dinner table. With the rebel son of an early Irish Dem NYC mayor…my grandfather, the real “Arthur Gilroy”. And at another set of dinner tables with my OTHER grandfather, a Long Island Republican mover and shaker who tutored Eisenhhower’s campaign manager Len Hall in the ins and out of the political hustle.
Been in it at the practical, “I know which buttons get pushed” level since the early ’50s.
I know which way the wind blows, and I do not need any left blogosphere, minor league prognosticators to tell me, either.
It is blowing in Hillary Clinton’s direction.
BIG time.
She is a major league, professional All Star.
The class of this field.
She will NEVER make the “”ARRRGH!!!” mistake.
She will prevaricate until it’s too late for the right to stop her. And then she will do what she has meant to do since she was about 15.
Go left.
In as practical a manner as she can manage.
Watch.
The major fault of the left?
From time immemorial?
CERTAINLY in the U.S. over the last 100 years or so.
It eats its own.
Blah blah blah blah blah.
No one is ever good enough.
So smart it’s stupid.
So it goes.
Hitler understood this.
We should count ourselves lucky that we do not have a real, rabble-rousing political genius on the right with whom we must deal.
Count your blessings, boran2.
We could do worse.
Much, MUCH worse.
Bush is a joke.
NO one was laughing at Hitler.
Bet on it.
Not after about 1929 they weren’t.
AG
Because Stephens can’t “hang on” forever, I’ll accept your argument there as the most important reason to lay off Hillary.
I’ll work for another candidate until the convention, then accept and support a Democratic candidate. (And those who are tempted to stay home, take a look at the 5/4 decisions of the past two years–especially that whistleblower decision in my diary today–and tell me you can afford to sit on your butt or vote for Nader.)
Pidgeonholing was not my gist, merely surprise at the this post. She is now, apparently, the least of all evils currently possible, given these candidates. You haven’t been particularly kind to Hillary in the past. Now you give her faint praise. Again, surprising given your prior posts.
Actually, I HAVE been “kind” to her, especially since the campaign began in earnerst. When it was time to act, she acted. As I said above, I am much more impulsive than would be good for me if I were a politician, and I did think that we could have stopped this war in its treacks anytime after Howard Dean showed us the way. She obviously did not think so. I respect her political judgement. On the evidence.
So far…she is batting 1.000.
Literally.
Neither she no5 Bill have lost an election since 1980.
I wish MY record was that good.
I missed a note just last night.
LOTS of them.
Lost a gig I really wanted recently, too. (Didn’t press the flesh enough.)
So it goes.
But no one’s life is on the line when I fuck up.
The prrssure…
I admire her strength and her resiliency in the face of mortal responsibility.
I real;y do.
Many polticians are just too goddamnwd stupid and/or crude to feel that kind of pressure.
I do not believe that is the case here, however.
Do you?
Really?
AG
I could see that sentence making AG persona non grata at dkos, where to be ‘left’ is to attack Hillary.
I done BEEN persona non grata there since July ’05.
Proudly so.
You know how dKossers g;launt thewir early subscriiber numbers?
Well…I flaunt my early bannning date.
DKos went south in early 2005.At least…that’s when I saw it. I put it right to them, and was promptly DHinMI-ed and banned.
Punks.
Up and down the line.
Good riddance.
AG
Hillary’s not my first choice…nor my last. To me, she, Obama or, in fact, any of the Democratic candidates would be preferable to any of the prospective Republican candidates, and any of them would be a dramatic improvement over the corrupt and inept George Walker Bush.
As one of my senators, am reasonably pleased with the way she’s served New York in Washington thus far, with some notable exceptions (i.e. giving Bush the green light to needlessly invade Iraq, all for no good reason and all based on lies, even when all of the evidence clearly showed that at the time). Voted against her in last year’s primary, and voted for her in November against her lame Republican’t opponent.
If the presidential primary election were being held today, my vote would most likely go to either Edwards or Richardson.
Having said all that…my take on Hillary…she is not anywhere near as horrible as people love to make her out to be…either those on the far right who just seem to automatically despise everything about her or those on the left who find her…insincere. She doesn’t seem any more insincere to me than most other professional politicians. Having met her in person, she is actually quite an engaging person. Shrewdness is not a weakness in politics. On the contrary.
(Unfortunately, being shrewd or even insincere is something that most folks in this country seem to accept as standard character traits in those who are so ambitious as to want to be president (and nearly everyone who does is, almost by definition)).
It seems to me that one of Hillary’s ongoing political strengths is that her opponents continually underestimate her. She is truly shrewd in her ability to capitalize on both her own strengths and her opponent’s weaknesses simultaneously in a way that does not even necessarily seem obvious. She is truly a successful politician in her own right. In my humble opinion, she is neither the monster that many right-wingers claim she is, nor the complete “sell-out” that many on the left think she is (relative to other politicians, that is). Again…while she’s not my first choice and will likely not get my vote in the primaries, there’s not a single prospective Republican that seems at all likely to win my vote in a general election against her either.
Yeah, but…
Edwards?
i am sorry. He is a TERRIBLE candidate. On the evidence. He comes off plastic, and he comes off lame. American contemporary politics is ALL about image. His sucks. Sorry, but there it is.
Richardson?
No position.
NO “image”.
Too late to build one, too.
Clinton has been successfully creating (and recreating) herself in the public eye for amost 20 years now.
Obama? Natural image talent combined with a few years of good work in that department. Needs more time.
Hillary wins.
That’s all there is to it.
Short of a total meltdown of some sort…that’s all (s)he wrote.
Hillary in ’08.
Bet on it.
And…get used to the idea.
AG
Just because you like Hillary the best, doesn’t mean you have to dislike all of her opponents. In my case, while she’s not my first or second choice, that doesn’t mean dislike for her at all. There’s so much about her to respect, as outlined above.
Your comments about Edwards and Richardson just don’t ring true to me. Both of them, like Hillary, are all formidable, and each one of them perfectly qualified and capable to serve as president (and each of them far superior to the current mis-administration in Washington.
Edwards has faults, like everyone. At first he does seem to come across as shallow, but if you listen to him, he’s not. He is, in fact, the only serious presidential contender in either this or the previous election cycle to bring our country’s national shame of poverty back into the political conversation, even though that won’t necessarily earn him a lot of points, nor money, from some folks. He seems to have some depth of principle.
You may not have checked him out thoroughly, but, contrary to your impression, Mr. Richardson has comprehensive policy positions on all major issues and a true depth of knowledge and understanding, to the point where even Bush tapped him as the best candidate for high-level foreign policy discussions with North Korea.
Right now, my inclination is to support Richardson.
(By the way, served as a volunteer on Hillary’s first Senate campaign in 2000, but, because could not in good conscience do so last year. Will support her should she be the nominee, however.)
Imprecise writing on my part. Sorry.
I meant that Richardson has no position in the media sweepstakes, and I believe that it is too late for him to attain one.
Not that he has no policy positions.
AG
Edwards is by far the best at standing up for our positions. The recent broohaha over Obama’s funding statement bring that out. Hillary calls for Bush to sign the (restricted) funding bill but doesn’t frame. Obama lets Bush off the rhetorical hook. Edwards nails it and says if Bush vetoes, he’s cutting off the troops. He’s been great on every issue – the right positions and the right justifications.
I’m going to totally disagree.
Edwards has abandoned a career that could have made him a billionaire to become an advocate for public service. I think his image is ideal. So has Obama. These people live their politics. Obama has three times the government experience Bush did when he was elected.
They represent a totally different approach to government. They can’t be judged against anything previous.
I’ll take Hillary–someone said “caretaker.” In many organizations, when one administrator has been a total disaster, there is a tacit admission that the next one will be a triage doctor, just trying to repair and won’t move the system ahead much.
If Obama has three times the government experience Bush did when he was elected, then H. Clinton has three HUNDRED times the experience.
As if being compared to Bush in ANY respect is valid.
He’s just a front man. An empty suit. (There are those who suspect that Edwards might be able to match him in that department, anyway.)
Compare Obama, Edwards and Clinton in the governance sweepstakes.
No contest.
Triage?
All those people who oppose Hillary Clinton because “She’s too hard. Too tough.” (Subtext: “For a woman. It just ain’t right.”)
Make up your minds, Clinton haters.
Not tough enough?
Bullshit.
Not “inspiring” enough?
Give it a break.
She’s tough enough, on the evidence of how she handled Biill’s peccadillos and came out on top.
Inspiring enough?
Not the world’s greatest orator, I’ll give you that.
But she will “inspire” a victory.
Just as she has since Bill was first elected Governor of Arkansas.
Bet on it.
Rmember Thomas Edison’s words:
“Success is 10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration.”
She sweats the details.
Watch.
AG
& beautiful layout of the NY Electoral Landscape
Gives me something to mull…..
Mull on.
But…do NOT buy the MSM “She’s a divider” rouitine.
‘Tain’t so.
AG
a Hillary win would mean a Bush or Clinton in the White House for at least 32 and maybe 36 consecutive years.
I’m just not that into dynasties.
by the good reception afforded this post here.
Maybe the left blogoshpere is waking up.
The hipper parts, anyway. Dkos is a lost cause.
I hope so.
AG
I’d like to believe you’re right, I really would. But then I look at all the DLC hacks she’s surrounded herself with….
My frustration with some progressives is that they say “never Hillary” and don’t think realistically.
We desperately need a progressive who can win. Make your chart of issues. Then face it. All of the top 3 are plenty progressive. I’m uncomfortable with Hillary’s approach to the war, but only slightly and only when she stands in a room with Edwards and Feingold. I’m really comfortable with her intent to send Bill out to repair our relationships with the world.
So then you have the next really important criterion–electability. That’s not niceness, it’s control. Getting rubber chicken and handshakes for a year plus, and never losing your control (or carapace, if you prefer.) Obama is brilliant, but can he hold out without a big error? Edwards is a sweetheart, and I’d trust him with my country and my kids’ future. Is he too nice?
For all those who say “Never Hillary?” take the war off your chart and compare positions. You’ll pretty much see a draw. Then think of the next Supreme Court appointment–and take a deep breath.
The air may only remain breathable by one vote, folks.
she’s definitely third on my list. She is worse on Iraq since she’s now calling for an indefinite deployment with a laundry list of vague goals (didn’t we just learn something about that?), albeit at reduced numbers. Iraq isn’t the end-all of my political calculus, but it counts.
More to the point, Hillary can’t or won’t lead the public with a ringing call to a great goal. After the catastrophe of the Bush years, we need a president who can lead the country in a radically different and better direction. I think Hillary would be best as a “caretaker” president – one to polish up the executive branch when things are going pretty well anyway – like her husband, unsurprisingly.
Of course she’s vastly better than any of the Republicans and if she gets nominated we’d be crazy not to work for her.
I saw an interesting post on MyDD a few weeks ago. It showed some polling that indicated that, for the people who didn’t select Sen. Clinton as their first choice, she was often a second or third choice for the Dem candidate. This puts her in a good position – a lot of people support her, and a lot of people (those 2’s and 3’s) don’t have a problem with supporting her.
I have to admit, I don’t like her Iraq vote or positions. I think those positions will change a bit as time goes on – Iraq is an issue where the politicians have really lagged behind the people, and they will need to catch up or lose office. Aside from Iraq and some stupid stuff like video games and flag burning (which I think are so transparently designed to appeal to right-leaning voters), she’s fine policy-wise. At least to me. I’m still hoping, in vain, for Gore, but I’m happy with Clinton.
The Democrats have a really good field this time, and I hope we don’t wreck it by tearing anyone down before the primaries. I also hope that we don’t eliminate anyone out of hand – in 2004, I swore I’d never vote for Kerry, but ended up finding much to respect about the man. In the end, I was happy to vote for him. I suspect 2008 will be much the same.
AG,
You made a great case for Hillary Clinton being a very, very skilled politician. I’m not sure you made the case for leftist at all. I’m willing to listen.
Leftist.
I need a definition first.
Really.
Shining Path?
Cultural Revolution?
Fidel?
Malcolm X?
Trotsky?
Henry Wallace?
FDR?
Emma Goldman?
Sacco + Vanzetti?
Woody Guthrie?
Bob Dylan?
Lincoln?
Chavez?
Ahmadinejad?
Bin Laden?
Edwards?
Obama?
Osama?
Booman?
AG?
DHinMI?
Please.
I’ll tell you what I DO know about Hillary Clinton.
She is a professional 20th/21st Century American politician who has been intimately involved in winning campaigns on a state and national level for over 30 years.
BEFORE that, she was a young lawyer who instead of becoming a proto-yuppie…something she very easily could have done, given her Wellesley/Yale law degree education…worked on the impeachment of Richard Nixon.
She admired Saul Alinsky, but criticized his methods. Apparently…on the evidence of her entire life…agreeing with his socialist aims but not his outside-the-establishment tactics.
Here are some quotes from Ms. Clinton:
“I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.” Hillary Clinton, 1997
Nixon should have been impeached for bombing Cambodia
In Hillary’s opinion, Nixon was “evil.” [An office-mate during her time on the Watergate Committee] says that she believed that Nixon should be prosecuted or impeached not just over Watergate but over his conduct during the Vietnam War, specifically his order for the secret bombing in Cambodia, which she saw as immoral and even criminal.
Hillary’s Choice by Gail Sheehy, p. 90 Dec 9, 1999
She is most CERTAINLY committed to universal health care.
If you think that she does NOT want to get out of Iraq as efficiently and safely as possible, then at the very least you are underestimating her sheer political acuity.
“Leftist”?
Damned if I know.
Damned if I care, when you get right down to it.
I am a “leftist”. A proponent of radical solutions to systemic problems in this society. I am also a bad long-term liar, have trouble sustaining compromise, and am bored to near illness VERY easily. My own take on the solution to our problems?
Put every corporate thief in the United Staes in jail.
Line up the murderers who enforce their thievery against a wall and execute them. With live closeups on TV.
YOU know…enforce the law.
And I do not have a snowball’s chance in hell of being elected President of the United States.
On the evidence of my own genetically dictated character.
So it goes.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hands, DOES have that chance.
And of all the 8 or 10 possibilites on both sides…meaning those that have an organization that might even optimistically be considered capable of running a successful Presidential campaign…she is head and shoulders the best of the bunch.
She is a better “politician” than Howard Dean, who I admire mightily for standing up on his own two feet and saying “NO!!! We will not take this shit anymore!!!” 4 years ago and is the person who I believe is truly the saviour of the Democratic Party. But she is better than him. Meaning that she is more in control of her image. Her reactions. I have no doubt that she is so able to control herself that she will not crack during the campaign. OR during her time in office.
She has infinitely more experience than Barack Obama. She has thrust and parried with master national and international politicians and powerful business hustlers for 30+ years. and she is still standing. Obama? Still dealing with real estate problems brought about by unwise associations with local Chicago ward heelers. He needs…seasoning, at the very least.
Edwards? I am simply not convinced. He is the perennial sidekick. Robin to someone else’s Batman. In an image war…and that is what a national political campaign really is, just American Idol writ large…he has “loser” stamped all over him. Sorry. I am sorry for his personal troubles and I think that he says many of the right things, but I do not believe that he has the sheer gravitas to win.
Politics is a harsh game.
Plus…and this is a big, BIG thing as far as I am concerned…Hillary Clinton is a woman.
Not that I believe females to be any better or worse than males… I simply think that this society must begin to get more efficient in its approach to human ecology. MUCH more efficient. We allow so many of the fields of our population to lie essentially fallow. ALL “minorities”. Of which women are the largest. Let us use our human resources to the fullest in this Brave New World. Suddenly WE are the ones who are outnumbered and outgunned.
Check THIS out.
I do not have the search time today, but I recenty read an article that gave figures to support the above statement. China and India EACH have more honor students than the U.S. has kids in school. In other words, the top 10% of the students in each of those countries outnumber the entire school age population of the United States.
And we WASTE what human resources we do have when we do not give equal educational opportunities to women and members of racial minorities.
This is insupportable. The prison population of the U.S.? What percentage of that population was driven to crime by the nearly insane anger produced when an intelligent child realizes that the system has branded him and all who look like him as untouchables?
Ineducables.
How many billions are spent on the so-called “justice” system? On holding pens for the terminally angry.
And how many MORE billions are spent on the welfare system?
How many trillions or dollars are wasted every year?
How many lives?
One of the Presidency’s strongest components is symbolic.
Imagine if a Clinton/Obama ticket actually won. The two most dissed minorities, women and blacks, occupying the two highest positions in the land.
Now THAT’S some “leftist” shit right THERE, as far as I am concerned.
And it is a true possibility.
It is within our grasp.
If of course we can stop our fucking sniping.
We shall see.
Later. Gotta run…
AG
this is a great and legendary comment, and probably the best case that can be made for Hillary Clinton.
But it is still a triumph of cynicism over hope, of punditry over activism, and of ‘settling’ over achieving.
In other words, even if you are right, and you might well be right, we have every right to shoot higher.
Aim higher?
Or aim, shoot and fire at the fastest, most efficient speed that can be successfully performed?
I paraphrase William Burroughs here.
“No Toes” Dawson?
The really successful gunfighters of the American West…which simply means the ones that didn’t get killed…were those who managed to accurately draw, fire and hit their target consistently in the shortest possible time that they could efficiently perform that series of acts.
While their opponent was hurriedly yanking his gun out of the holster and spraying .45 caliber bullets around Dodge City, they calmly (neither in a hurry nor not in a hurry) drew, aimed, and fired.
And while ol’ No Toes was limping back to the café for another shot of ratgut to kill the pain, the pros were taming the wild, wild west.
She’s a pro.
Aim higher?
I aim to win, myself.
Steady as she goes…
AG
triumph of cynicism over hope is the fundraising numbers of Obama and Hillary. I want to know how they will govern, now that they have sold themselves out to every special interest imaginable.
I used to study music witha very wise man named Carnine Caruso.
Among many other things, he said…”You cannot practice a note until you can play it.”
If they do NOT take that chance, then they will not get the opportunity to govern at all.
Politics.
At its highest level.,..the art of the possible.
AG
on these blogs, but…
That’s CARMINE Caruso.
One of the few people I have ever known worthy of at least having his name spelled correctly by a habitually careless and rushed student.
May he rest in peace.
AG
Well, I guess you are a bit of a politician yourself.
You are the one the used the word leftist to describe Clinton and then you request a definition and claim not to care that whether she is or not.
I don’t care that she is a woman. I do care that she supported the war for a good long time. I do care that thousands of people died in the war. I do care that she has done squat on health care. I do care that she is waffling on woman’s rights. I do care that she doesn’t support fair trade. I do care that she is in the DLC camp and surrounded herself with the likes of Begala, Carville and McAuliff.
I do reserve my right to question candidates’ actions even if some consider that fucking sniping.
You made a case for Hillary Clinton. I don’t fully buy it, and I hope that you are not suggesting that there should not be a full discussion of the candidates’ positions and track records.
And I will flat out say that other people can do the pragmatic thing if that seems best for them. I am going to hold out for and speak out for what I believe is best. I may be wrong, but I’m tired of ever lowering my expectations.
I’d add that there is no possible way in hell that there will not be sniping, and a lot of it. All this talk of ‘things would be just great if we could all just stop sniping’ is not going to accomplish anymore than if people went to Iraq and said the same thing.
When assessing Hillary’s chances, you have to take into consideration her total isolation from the netroots and the new activist base of the party. It will arouse sniping because everyone in the netroots stands to lose if she wins. Dean will be out as DNC chair, gone is the 50-state strategy, the DLC model is redeemed and restored to the pinnacle of commom wisdom, no one will get jobs in the new administration, the blogging communities will have little further use, and no unity.
It’s a disaster. So, of course she isn’t going to get much support in the primaries, and everyone will be at a loss to maintain their credibility after the primaries if they try to turn on a dime and offer full-throated support.
It’s better that she not win because it will crush the progressive movement that has arisen in response to her appeasement.
A total disaster.
And it will have an effect on her electability.
You write:
Please.
Tell me where you get this information. Why you believe it to be true.
This is someone who has hustled EVERY area of the society. Without prejudice. In the search for real power. She is an INCLUDER. That is her strategy, and it is working.
She will just cut off the netroots base?
Naaaahhh…
She will not make it PRIMARY, no doubt.
And you know what?
On the evidence, she will be right.
Dkos is a hopeless mess.
Other blogs (Need I be specific?) are in full bore, compulsively masturbatory meta panic.
Still others are as rigid as a 6 day-old corpse.
This is one of the few…the ONLY one that I have found…that is still making much sense.
The much vaunted “netroots” has proven to be simply another incarnation of the old “Eat your own” white, middle class left.
So it goes.
Meanwhile…the pros just keep on triangulating.
And end up in office.
So that goes as well.
Just as it’s always been.
Watch.
The blogs?
They are good for one thing and one thing only.
As sources of alternate information.
POWERFUL sources that force the media to move or be scooped.
That’s it.
“Political” forces?
What was the name of that dKos candidate?
YOU know…the one who took over the Las vegas convention? Schmoozing all the nice middle class attendees with sushi and martinis?
Right.
Gone and forgotten.
I got yer political power.
Right HERE!!!
And here’s yer blogosphere, while I’m at it.
The dark and dreary so-called “Protest Pen” outside of the Boston Dem Convention in 2004.
So it goes.
Live with it.
Or…arm yourself.
Dassit, boss.
I’m outta here. for now.
Gotta go practice.
Maybe I’ll get a gig at the Inauguration Ball. Get Bill to sit in. Maybe he’ll even help me to score later on.
Oh BOY!!!
Later…
AG
You write:
You are the one the used the word leftist to describe Clinton and then you request a definition and claim not to care that whether she is or not.
Not a politician.
Just a sloppy writer.
Sorry.
You also write.
Where did I suggest that?
Talk about being a politician!!!
“When did you stop beating your wife?”
Same idea./
I AM writing about “her record”.
Over 30 + years of public service.
And I hope that I am right. That she hasn’t collapsed into middle-aged complacency and mediocrity. That she is…and has been…playing the system so that she can get into a position to DO something about it.
I suspect that 8 to 15 years of being privy to all SORTS of secret information about the real enemies of this country…no matter HOW valid the sources of their enmity may be…will “moderate” your [ositions a little. How many studies have crossed her desk sauggesting various ways that a prcipitous withdrawal from economic imperialist policies and tactics might cause a total meltdown of the system as it now stands? Perhaps the whole economic system of the world.
A GREAT “Great Depression”.
And look what THAT brought us.
Imagine THIS batshit crazy motherfucker with access to nuclear weapons and adequate delivery systems.
Power…besides tending to corrupt…must tend to sober one up a little as well if one has a good heart and mind, I’ll bet. Which I believe she does.
She’s running her game, to the best of her ability.
And I support her in that endeavour until convinced otherwise.
Feel free to disagree.
AG
Are you sure? Or is she the consummate politician in the election cycle?
I remember my sincere frustration that GWB won an election without saying anything. (In fact, the only policy statement I remember was something about having humility in international relations in one of the debates. He really meant that one!) But he won.
Yes, she’s my third choice too. I want someone with Edwards’ heart and Obama’s brain (ticket?) But I can’t stand the commenters who are willing to trash talk her in a way that will live on in the google world for the Republicans next year. On a scale of Edwards/Obama to Republicans, she’s way over there on the good guys’ side.
She certainly thinks it will help her win. I think, though, that in this election it will hurt. This is an election to call for tax fairness, universal healthcare, peace in Iraq, the Bill of Rights, etc., loudly and proudly because the Republicans have gotten so far from the American mainstream.
Hillary is IMO “fighting the last war”. She’s designed a campaign which is spot on – for 2000. But Bush has really changed the game by the combination of extreme divisiveness and poor stewardship. Obama and Edwards have tailored their campaign to the new reality – Obama is exploiting the desire to end divisiveness and Edwards the desire to fix things. Hillary’s playing to a country where most are basically content and just want a President who won’t muck it up.
Besides helping her win I think skill with the bully pulpit will be very important in actually running the country. It’ll take some ringing rhetoric to get a good health plan passed or substantially improve the tax system. Even if she’s really “hiding her light under a bushel” and can put out the great speeches she needs some practice.
We obviously agree on Hillary in the broad sense – she’d be a good President, just not the best of the big 3 candidates.
Curt…
YOu write:
Let me ask you a question.
Where do you live?
Do you get out much?
Do you travel through the majority heartland of America? Incognito, sorta? Like…so’s no one would really notice you if you went into a working class bar or K Mart or supermarket? If you were having supper in a middle class restaurant in a mall somewhere outside one of the excerable developments that have sprung up like poisonous toadstools outside of every major city?
Because,,,that statement above DESCRIBES the TV-ed out generation of ASmerica.
To a “T”.
“…most are basically content and just want a President who won’t muck it up.”
Yup.
There it is.
Is this a correct state of affairs?
Not in my opinion.
But is IS the truth of the matter, and any national politician who ignores this truth does so at the risk of total failure.
She is a realist pol.
Which is exactly my point.
A realist pol with a LONG hiotory of “progressive” tendencies and ideas.
I can bring myself to expect no more given the current stranglehold of the media over the psyches of about 98% on the American public.
She is PLAYING THE MEDIA.
That’s my impression, anyway.
And best of luck to her.
If not her…who?
Edwards?
Allowing a photo op to happen while he brandishes a hammer in his soft white lawyer’s hands, wearing a brand-new looking work shirt and a $500+ haircut?
And this is suppopsed to signify WHAT!!!??? That he is “for the working man!!!” Every real worker in America saw through that bullshit.
If indeed there are any of them paying attention.
This was as rancid a stupid pol trick as Bush’s posing in a flight suit on a carrier or McCain’s recent excellent photo adventure in a “safe” Baghdad market while wearing a flak jacket and surrounded by half the U.S. Army. I am sorry. Edwards has no talent. Mark him “over”. I tink the Rats would do him in faster than they got to Small K kerry.
Obama?
HE has talent.
But not enough experience in the ways of the machine.
Not yet.
As bad off as we are now, I REALLY do not want to sit here while he learns the rules for the first time.
Get a pro in there.
An All-Star.
Not a talented rookie.
The whole goddamned SEASON is on the line!!!
Please.
AG
This post has been up for over 24 hours and not even a single baseless accusation that AG is a paid Hillary operative. What the hell happened to this place?
They know I am too poor to be a paid operative of anything but the jazz world.
A good, serious young jazz tenor player wins the lottery.
There is the usual press conference.
The mainstrteam stuff.
Q- “What are you going to DO with all of that money?”
A-“Ohhh…I guess I’ll just keep playing until it all runs out.”
Yup.
AG
Not paid to operate, but oh so wrong, or at least a little too wrong for this early in the game. We’ll all get the chance to try and suck on which ever tit seems less evil to us in good time. Why get your evil on now? There’s plenty of time for that.
A little Lincoln for you Mr. Gilroy.
And a little of “The Shadow” for you in return, Mr. Rowhouse.
the clasasic intro to the equally calssic radio series.
Do you, Chris?
Really.
Can you speak with assurance about the “evil” of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama?
I cannot.
Not unless you consider our entire politico/cultural system as it is presently constituted ‘evil”. Which argument I would be happy to make for you, sir, as I have done many times on these left-ish blogs.
But aye, here’s the rub.
Got a better idea?
I don’t.
That being said…I most certainly CAN make an argument for the “evilness” of CheneyBush a & Co. On the OVERWHELMING evidence.
And I believe that I have made a good case for Hillary Clinton as the best bet to overthrow this evil.
If I am wrong?
At WORST, they still have to set up an entirely new supply line of middlemen, bagmen and thieves. SOME respite will be at hand.
And…. what evidence other than their political game playing do YOU have to present that would make one think that Clinton and Obama are just two more in a long line of murderers and thives in political drag?
Please present it. I am very curious.
Once again…aside from their maneuvering to get in a position where they can achieve real power. Without which manuevering…SUCCESSFUL maneuvering… and its concomitant rise to power we will be right back where we are now. Where we have been since 2000. A Democratic Party full of weak, prevaricating, half-assed candidates being out-hustled by the right wing noise machine. Do you think that either one of them would make the mistake opf picking JOE LIEBERMAN (!!!)as their running mate? (Nice work, Gore. Go peddle your papers.) Of lying down when swiftboated? Of conceding defeat on a questionable vote?
I don’t.
I am sick of knee-jerk negative liberals pot-shotting at hard working pols and proposing losers in their place.
And I will not stand for it anymore.
“We’ll all get the chance to try and suck on whichever tit seems less evil to us in good time. Why get your evil on now? There’s plenty of time for that.”?
Nice, Rowhouse.
‘Atta way to keep a good head on.
HENRY WALLACE FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Riiiight.
Or maybe…Kucinich.
Nice.
Later…
AG
ah…that’s bullshit.
Your argument is, when you boil it right down to the nub, and argument for the electability of Hillary Clinton. You make this argument based on a combination of history and prognostication. You’ve made a good argument in the past and in places in this thread. But it isn’t provable. And, it’s debatable.
One problem with her electability is that her nomination will invite a major left-wing third-party candidacy. And I don’t care if it is me or Markos or Michael Moore or Al Sharpton or whoeverthefuck. None of us has the kind of stamina to work for 10 months on a campaign that boils down to…they hate you, but vote for them anyway. We’ll curl up and die.
More importantly, since we carry only a minimum of influence, what makes you think Hillary Clinton is any different from her husband that picked Gore, or Gore that picked Lieberman?
If you want to argue that Gore has seen the light, go ahead, but Hillary hasn’t seen shit. How could they have misread the current climate in the Democratic Party so badly? Because they got comfortable. In New York, the Republican mayor is a Democrat, in the Carville’s house, the hostess is Dick Cheney’s former fucking aide. It’s money time. Influence time. All the time.
You wanna elect another Rudyard Kipling wannabe? Go ahead. Fax me your quarterly 401(k) statements. In the meantime, there is a party to remake. A party with senators like Sanders and Brown and DeFazio and Udall…so Feingold isn’t always left standing alone, holding his balls.
What does Hillary have to offer besides a win? And and where comes the certainty that she is the only one peddling victory?
You want a real win? The Clinton way…rejected. And a win. Both. That’s the prize.
You need to double down.
This is precisely why I support Edwards. With Obama we will receive more trianguation, more vacous pronouncments about faith and more DLC.
Yup.
Yup.
In politics, what IS provable until crunch time?
And history. History is “provable”, to some degree.
Here is what is provable, BooMan.
1-The MSM makes and breaks candidates.
Proof?
Howard Dean. No more need be said on THAT account.
We…whoever that might be…HAD a candidate. And “we” failed. Because the MSM and its corporate owners are more powerful than “we” are. Nothing much has changed in that department except the minds of the bosses. They now think that BushCo is bad for business, so it’s “Off with their heads!!!” time.
2-The right wing section of the PermaGov is flailing around at present, trying to find a candidate with whom they can live. With whom they can die more than likely, this time around. They run one after another up the flagpole, and nobody much salutes.
One’s too old and sick, the next is too crooked, the third is a stiff, personalityless cardboard cutout of a Mormon (The very word “Mormon” has always sounded to me like the names that the creators of Star Trek thought up for their nasty opposition races. I can see ’em now, fighting Spock and Kirk from their spaceships, all short haired and suited up, each with a small harem of Stepford-like cookie-baking ladies at their back and call.) and now they are reduced to promoting a bit player on a TV series.
Deep.
3-The MSM LOVES Hillary. Hell, man…they floated a TV series about her Presidency the year Bill left office. And it was a HIT!!! She has already screwed the fix in about 20 feet deep and extended the stabilizing hooks DEEP into the MSM meat.
Frankly, I do not think that there is a chance in hell that she will not win the nomination. There will be another rigidly controlled convention and a foregone queenly coronation. If Obama begins to mount a real primary challenge, he will be Deaned. Gently, because I do believe that she wants him on her ticket. I mean…he is GOOD! He brings eloquence and sex appeal. Charisma. JUST like Bill. And…he brings home the minority and youth votes at no great loss. The people who will hate him ALREADY hate Hillary. Who would NOT want him in her current position? One other thing that is EMINENTLY provable is that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s mama didn’t raise no fools.
Bet on it.
You want something else? Another choice? Someone who will rock the boat? NOW!!!
Me too, in my heart of hearts.
But the ONLY way that “something else” will happen this time…short of the 1.57% fuckup chance (Illness, 9/11 v.2, nuclear war, a Great Depression, famine, plague and martial law…YOU know. THAT shit.)…would be an armed uprising among the people. And you DO know that this is not in the cards here, do you not? A “people” that watches Kutie Katie Kouric (The Flying None
) and American Idol? I think not…
Or…a concerted effort to oppose Ms. Clinton from the left that gives rise to a third party movement strong enough to allow someone like Fred Thompson to be elected by splitting the vote. (Or…God save us…Bloomberg. “Move ’em out. Out out OUT!!! Got no ROOM for slackers in our great cities!!!)
President Fred Thompson.
Now THERE’S a scenario from hell if I EVER heard one!!!
Dick Cheney withg a double load of testosterone and a functioning body.
The Anti-Reagan.
A bad actor with a nasty streak.
And his wife, Twinky.
“Yassuh, boss!!!”
That is all that a really effective left blogosphere opposition to Hillary is going to bring.
Is that what you want?
Then go to it, BooMan.
I am researching near-Arctic Circle properties as we speak.
Later…
AG
the media didn’t like Dean but they didn’t scream like an African-tree monkey, Dean did.
That was the problem with Dean all along, and why I never trusted him and worked against him. I loved what he was saying, but he had no instincts. I knew he would blow it…eventually. Don’t blame the media. They couldn’t stop his rise. All they could do is make sure he was dead when he lost his mind and held a political rally instead of giving a reasoned concession speech and argument to vote for him in NH. Consider…
the Scream speech was the FIRST TIME most Americans had ever turned on CNN to see what Howard Dean was all about. Why? Because is was the night of the first caucuses…the first game of the season (who watches pre-season games? Fanatics).
It was Dean’s moment to introduce himself, make a good impression…show some class…show he can take a punch…that he has some damn sense.
What’d he do? He came out like Howard Beale and started talking to the only people in the damn country whose votes he already had…the activists in the ROOM. He was TeeVee. The shit was being broadcast.
Look…the media went overboard. No doubt. It was tragic. But he blew it. No one else blew it. Howard Dean blew it. And he blew it because he had no damn sense for the BIG PICTURE. The MEDIA picture.
But you can’t say that about Edwards and Obama. You can say it about Biden. Biden has no damn sense either. Plus he talks too much. Biden would be this year’s Howard Dean. Even if Biden were to best guy on the issues…he’d eventually self-destruct and bring down all his people with him.
The media is not going to be friendly to the Democratic nominee, no matter who that nominee is. But Obama and Edwards are very media savvy. Dodd is cautious enough not to self-destruct. Richardson is a seasoned pro. So, Hillary gets points for only one thing: the Clintons fight back and they fight dirty. None of this Dukakis bull.
You haven’t made the case, though, that Hillary is the only one tough enough to win.
You write:
You make my point for me.
I wrote:
You write:
But you can’t say that about Edwards and Obama.
I am sorry, BooMan, but I DO say that about Edwards.
here are some shots from his coming out party in New Orleans.
Nice idea.
TERRIBLE execution.
The beeper. Phone. Whatever.
The hair.
The bored, suspicious and distracted faces behind him.
The button down workshirt, fer chrissake!!!
With the sleeves rolled up JUST far enough to be neither effectively rolled up nor safe. Flopping around where anypiece of machinery could yank his little arm off. Working people know better than that!!!
Give me a BREAK!!!
Y’know how the bad guys can always spot a cop in the potboiler movies?
Yup.
The endless pol.
Fake fake fake fake fake fake fake.
Even if he is REAL, he’s fake.
He just cain’t h’ep hisself!!!
He has been posing SO long and SO hard as a successful lawyer that he has actually BECOME one.
Too bad.
Paint him gone.
No talent.
Obama?
Talented but lacking in experience. Which is why I am betting that he ends up on the ticket as VP. If he behaves himself and toes the centrist line in public, which judging from his recent pronouncements he is DEFINITELY doing.
Lacks experience?
Not sure who to schmooze or how to get away with it?
Mommy will teach him the ropes.
Bet on it.
Dancing With The Stars, v.2
Watch.
AG
Well, apparently someone is so desperate
for content that she cut and pasted not only AG’s diary, but many of the comments as well…I would imagine the accusations of AG’s paid status will be coming along soon..
My source tells me the Powers That Be<sup>TM</sup> want a Dem to bomb Iran and Hillary is the one who’s agonna do it. Well time will tell…
I think that your source is full of shit.
AG
I am just sick of the carapice… oh, it’s “smart” I guess but when does reality come in?
in the history of science, to use an example well studied… when reality comes in there is much “chaos” as illusion is overturned, and the “facts” people accepted whip around as the massless particles they really are, confusing the crew… and that is all well worth it.
I’m not on board for the “too clever” by half “built in apologia” politcs ever again.
I won’t be voting for hillary.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH …
… and somewhere, the military industrial complexes lobbyists smile.
the military industrial complex’s lobbyists smile.”
GOT to keep ’em smiling, Jack.
Haven’t been too gaddamned good at getting RID of the motherfuckers, now have we?
Got any practical suggestions in that department?
I am fresh out, myself.
AG
nope, enjoying breakfast in the ruins, that’s my plan now.
Begalas and cream cheese, I guess…
Bon apetit.
You gonna need it.
AG