So, it dispirits me when my blogging compatriot, Marco, is a Hillary man. As is the case with about 65% of my replies to his blog posts, this one ran a little long, so I transferred it over here.
In his post, Marco was talking about Michelle Obama (and the Obama camp in general) have reacted to The Clinton's attacks of recent.
But you know what? If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, you
can bet the Republicans will do this and much much worse. Hell, they’ve
already started bullshit rumors about Obama being some stealth terrorist or some
shit. They will probably be aided by a complacent media, always eager to
show they can take down a Democrat. So really, unclutch your pearls.
Get excited when the real mud starts to fly.
Okay, so, I'll agree with you on the whole oh "woe is me" reaction. It's working out for Obama though, the media is buying his framing of the situation, so that works for my man. I do however have a problem with the Clinton's "attacks". Some to most are unfounded bullshit. i.e. when they attack Obama for voting "present" on pro-choice bills that came up in Illinois. A little background on this and you'll see that was NARAL and Planned Parenthood's directive for these bills to vote "present" to force more moderate democratic members to vote yes.
The Rezco thing reeks of small time bull crap that the Clintons and any other person with a law degree running for office occasionally runs into. Add to that, Hillary was on the board at WalMart. So, who's worse? One slumlord or America's slumlord?
The excuse of starting baseless attacks against a fellow democrat just because someone in the other party would do it is bullshit. But then again, I guess that she used the same mindset when voting for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act (twice), and the Kyl-Liberman act.
And this brings me back to experience. This is the experience Hillary is touting. She's been hawkish as all get-out. Now, where is this coming from? Is this being an actual war-hawk? If so, Hillary is dangerous as president. We might end up in Iran or Syria if she follows this muse for real. The other possibility for the motivations to her experience is that she's an opportunist whose rhetoric matches the direction of the wind. That's not exactly leadership material to me. Either she's steps away from running with Joe Lieberman as her VP and making Iraq the 51st state or she's flaky as all get out.
I guess the most important question is, will she actually get us out of Iraq? Or is that just something she's saying to get into office?
Bill and Hillary are playing this scorched earth game, where there's no way that anyone else could get the nomination based on the impression that they wouldn't be there to help in someone else's general election campaign. It's them or no one. It's a chicky drive with the voters and the party, and it's shameful.
We're still boys Marco, I just can't get with you on this Hillary Clinton thing, sorry.
I did read your post about Amy Winehouse though. That shit is tight, I didn't want to believe it when I first heard it. A portion of me still doesn't completely believe it. But you should check out Sharon Jones & The Dap Kings, their new-ish album 100 Days 100 Nights totally owns the Winehouse record. Here's a little taste of awesomeness.
4 comments:
Of course we're still boys, and trust me, no matter which Democrat wins the nomination, I will become their biggest fan overnight. Just a few quick things...
One problem among many that I have with Hillary Clinton is that she assumes she should have the presidency based solely on her "experience" as a Clinton.
Can you read her mind? Can you tell me why Obama assumes he should have the presidency, then? Let's not forget ~8 years in the Senate. Let's also not forget that she had an office in the west wing in had a hand in major policy decisions. She's not Laura Bush. When she couldn't get universal health care through, she worked with Ted Kennedy and got the SCHIP program through. To characterize her time in the White House as Viera did is cheap and unfair, we all know it was much more than that. Could Tanya do my job by having been my girlfriend for the past few years? Absolutely not. But what if she was with me at work everyday, and saw how I did everything and we talked about it all the time and lived it and breathed it for 8 years? Is that experience completely worthless?
The Rezco thing reeks of small time bull crap that the Clintons and any other person with a law degree running for office occasionally runs into. Add to that, Hillary was on the board at WalMart. So, who's worse? One slumlord or America's slumlord?
Hillary Clinton was on the board at Wal Mart from 1986-1992. Sam Walton was alive and Wal Mart was absolutely nothing like the monster they've become. She is not responsible for all of Wal Mart's sins.
If Obama is running as the squeaky clean outsider (which he seems to be) then he needs to be squeaky clean. Regarding this statement:
The excuse of starting baseless attacks against a fellow democrat just because someone in the other party would do it is bullshit.
Wouldn't it be better to vet him as a candidate now when we can do something about it? Clinton is likely the most vetted candidate in history: she's been the subject of actual baseless attacks for 15 years nonstop. I disagree that Clinton is baselessly attacking Obama, I think everything she said has had basis in fact. Like I said at the Midpoint, she's not going around calling him a secret sleeper cell muslim terrorist, like the Republicans are already doing.
But then again, I guess that she used the same mindset when voting for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act (twice), and the Kyl-Liberman act.
Their voting records are strikingly similar since Obama entered the senate. Clinton didn't pass these bills on her own, either.
And this brings me back to experience. This is the experience Hillary is touting. She's been hawkish as all get-out. Now, where is this coming from? Is this being an actual war-hawk? If so, Hillary is dangerous as president. We might end up in Iran or Syria if she follows this muse for real. The other possibility for the motivations to her experience is that she's an opportunist whose rhetoric matches the direction of the wind. That's not exactly leadership material to me. Either she's steps away from running with Joe Lieberman as her VP and making Iraq the 51st state or she's flaky as all get out.
I guess the most important question is, will she actually get us out of Iraq? Or is that just something she's saying to get into office?
She certainly has been more hawkish than I would like, but in the end I think she knows that she can't stop this ridiculous war on her own. Again she's not alone in these votes. Obama has been right there with her, voting to fund the war. I honestly don't think she would start a war with Iran. She's been to my right and yours on foreign policy, but I think she's in the middle, where most of the country is.
There's one thing we know about the Clintons, it's that they govern to the center and that they are damn good at the business of simply running the government. I don't see them making huge reforms, but I don't see them fucking anything up either. They can fix the mess Bush left behind. In the end, I'm tired of getting beat because we run to the left. Ask President Kerry, President Gore, President Mondale, and President Dukakis how that worked for them. My main priority is getting the GOP out of the White House, and I think Clinton is the best person to do it.
I think we just have to agree to disagree as to the severity of Clinton's attacks on Obama.
it's working out for Obama though, the media is buying his framing of the situation, so that works for my man.
I'm telling you man, the honeymoon isn't going to last much longer for Obama. The media has been unbelievably nice to him, and that should scare you. Even the guys on the right have nothing but praise for him. There is nothing our political media loves to do more than build up a guy to superstar status and then tear his ass down in an ugly backlash. If Obama is the nominee when this happens, and he's not ready for it, it could be ugly.
I'll be honest with you, she's not my favorite candidate. (That honor, sadly, goes to the Magically Delicious and now gone Dennis Kucinich) I just think she's the most likely one to end this 8 year nightmare.
And let's say she wins and governs successfully for 8 years while Obama rises through the Senate ranks... Would anything be able to stop President Obama in 2016?
Okay, so maybe a few not-so-quick things. I hope blogger accepts all of this...
That Sharon Jones clip is sick! Love the bari sax. Looks like they would be a lot of fun live. Also, you should check out the unfunkked mixes at apostropher. I think you'd like them!
I'll clarify myself on the "assumes she should be president" thing. I'm no mind reader, correct. My take on this assumption just comes from the overall attitude of her campaign. That she's the only one who can take on the Republican noise machine. I find that hard to believe period. Not that she could beat them, I'm sure she could. Though I think she'd also solidify the Republicans like none of their candidates can. I find it hard to believe that any democrat, at this point in history is unable to defeat the Republican noise machine. If we can't do that, then that's on us, not the candidate.
And my characaterization of her voting record I think remains true and closer to her being an opportunist. By the time Obama was in office, it was allright to vote in a more liberal fashion, because she had won her second term, and clearly had her eyes on 2008. The Kyl-Lieberman act is profoundly troubling, though.
I realize that Hillary is a compromise of sorts for you, it's just too much of one for me. If she can be fooled by George Bush, as she says, (on the war), then she can be fooled by some other bamboozler who comes around. Or, as I said, she's just someone who rolls with the wind, no matter how deadly the decision. And to me that's more dangerous.
That's the key point to this whole thing. If one believes that this is the Democrats' year no matter what, then let's send someone to the left of Clinton up there. It's a matter of opinion, however, as to whether or not that will happen. 2000 and 2004 should have been Democratic whitewashes, but they weren't. I know that there were widespread allegations of fraud in both cases, but it shouldn't have even been close. I think Kerry and Gore both lost because of their campaigns. Bill Clinton left office with a 70% approval rating, and Al Gore wouldn't let Bill campaign with him. I love Al Gore, but one has to admit that he's a terrible politician. Of course he had the right ideas and was the right choice, but he just sucks ass at campaigning. Same for Kerry.
I look at Obama as a bit too green to take on the Republicans right now. I think that if he's bristling at what Clinton is giving him now, what's he going to do when the Republican attack machine revs up to full speed? Clinton has been their target nonstop for a decade and a half. They went through her underwear drawer, for fucks sake. I think she will slaughter them.
As far as pandering goes, yeah, she's a politician, and they all have to do that, even Obama. I just think she's smart enough to know that most of the country is in the center, and that's whose votes everyone needs to win.
In the end, like you said, the key point is whether or not the Democrats are shoe-ins for 2008. I would hope that my fellow Americans are as sick of the Republicans as I am, but I'm a pessimist, and the memory of 2004 is still burning my brain.
I just can't wait until we have a nominee so we can unite behind him (or her) to defeat those Republican bastards!
I guess I just feel that Hillary isn't a good campaigner. I get the same vibe from her that I got from Kerry. One of a long time politician who is caught up in the miasma of draconian party politics that don't matter to a large portion of the country.
And again, I just differ with you on the whole "attack" thing. Obama's reaction to her attacks (based on his speeches by the way his SC speech was great, and he didn't even mention the attacks) is based more on the primary is not the time to go negative on fellow democrats.
And I feel that the attacks on Hillary from Republicans, while roundly baseless and old-timey, will bring together Republicans more than anything an actual Republican could do this election cycle. Romney could fly like Superman and throw all the nukes (except ours) into the sun, and still wouldn't have the affect on the Republican base that a Hillary candidacy would.
I dunno, maybe I'm wrong, and I'm surely repeating myself by now. But that's just how I feel.
Post a Comment