It's no longer just the surname - the case against another Clinton
For a number of historical reasons, I started off this primary season as Anyone But Clinton. This had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton as a person or politician. It is simply my belief that 8 years in the White House is enough for anyone. The only way to fight deeply ingrained corruption and influence peddling is to prevent it from growing to begin with. Not allowing too much access to the concentration of power that is the POTUS, by limiting that access to 8 years, is really the practical answer in my view.
This is America which was founded on the principals of Republicanism, not on ruling families. That includes the Bushes, that includes the Clintons.
Already you can see how correct this notion of blocking dynasty-rule is. The Clintons are a strong unit, having already tried to bully, at an unprecedented level, the DNC through their wealthy donors. That's a serious sense of entitlement. And you can see the influence peddling of Bill Clinton growing the corruption in another Clinton administration in an exponential manner. Much as GWB was able to work the contacts GHWB made. The United States has relationships with the Saudis that are an admixture of both the personal and professional politics of the Bush family. You can see it influence foreign policy. Lastly, the long contact you have with the media will build up extreme contacts who tend to then act more as personal confidents and friends rather than the more impartial 4th estate role they used to play in American politics.
This set of dynasty mentality would tend to explain why both the Bushes and the Clintons tend to have a sense of entitlement, a sense of arrogance about their own insights, and a lack of outside opinions they seek. They are both simply too ingrained in the system to have a fresh perspective.
I believe that HRC cares passionately about children's health -- and some related issues. This is important. But it is not a full vision of America.
I've also been distressed by the type of campaign that Hillary has run. I do not believe in the 50%+1 strategy -- that's why nearly *all* states are currently disenfranchised in the general election. Unless you live in OH, FL, PA, etc, your vote is assumed either blue or red. That cuts off my vote. It cuts off my voice.
Short of having an incumbent, there has never been a more "obvious" choice of nominee in my lifetime. As much as I disliked the fact that people dropped out of even thinking about campaigning for POTUS once Hillary’s hat was in the ring, I understood the conventional wisdom behind it. However, instead of using that front runner status to define the campaign, to get a new vision of America across, to breathe a new life in the electorate, Hillary chose to go same-old, same-old. Her use of her political capital was simply-minded at best. Instead of using it to inspire masses, to push a bold, sweeping, innovative agenda, to expand her set of advisors, she attempted to used it to get just enough votes (and no more) to win.
She may know lots of statistics but she has shown relatively little imagination. All I heard about was "Universal Health Care". With her name recognition and money, she had oodles of time to get across broad plans for (a) energy; (b) water; (c) Iraq (including a complex geopolitical strategy beyond just where troops are located); (d) fixing the Dept of Homeland Security -- which is so broken, you can make a plausible case that you were safer before 9/11 than now; (e) making America competitive in the business community and redirecting investment dollars to US companies than start-ups overseas in China; and (f) applying America's ingenuity to problems of medicine and technology.
Yes, she has papers on her website. But that's not the point. She parses groups down to demographics. She has never spoken to the country, only to the individual groups. We all need clean water. We all need the benefits of stem-cell research. We all need an effective Dept of Homeland Security. Etc. She needed to make all of these issues campaign issues as well as health insurance.
So, instead of “I have a dream”, we got “I am a fighter”. She gave us "I'm a woman and so this is historic" and "Did I mention Universal Health Care?"
I can't think of any other messages from her camp that were positive, loud and consistent.
I do remember some other things, however:
a) spending multiple days on the word "pimping" (after getting an
initial apology)
b) mocking the other candidate
c) "as far as I know"
d) kitchen sink strategy
e) Tonya Harding strategy (which only serves to remind me that the Clintons are so 90s)
f) ranking the opposing party’s candidate higher than your internal party
opposition
In other words, she would rather spend the bulk of her time "fighting" (e.g. tearing the other candidates down via savvy media presentation) than focusing on policy and vision.
In short, Hillary Clinton campaigned on the notion of it being "silly season" year round!
Finally, the end-game of her campaign is very scary. All indications are that money is tight. It’s one thing to not pay your staff, it’s another not to pay merchants and small businesses, many of whom may have significant financial difficulties because they assumed the Clinton Campaign was a going concern and would honorably pay bills. This is not a way to lead by example. Moreover, to be a true executive requires you to have flexible thinking and deal with reality. Trying to rewrite rules or go back on your word (see MI/FL) is perhaps a way to deal with an election, but such tactics will fail when dealing with someone like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chávez or Hu Jintao or even Nicolas Sarkozy.
Independent of these statements, I am very impressed with Obama. He has the ability to lead via his ability to inspire. This, first and foremost, is the key to the executive office. We have some very difficult times ahead – Hillary will not be able to get the country’s emotions behind her with her style which tends to always polarize. Personality counts in leadership – it may sound unfair, but it is true.
Hillary represents the old way, business as usual. This is not the right time for that. We live in a fast, changing world where old ways do not necessarily apply. Obama has shown himself to be on record, saying unpopular things when it is uncomfortable – talking to the auto industry about milage standards, for example. And most recently, talking, in a transcendent way, about race in this country; in a manner that allows an open discussion. That is leadership: to move the electorate in the right direction. Hillary, in contrast, is about triangulation. That is not how to solve difficult issues. It's about convincing the other side, not giving up your point of view. (Yes, this must be balanced with compromise, of course, but as DF says, compromise is a tool, not a way of life.)
Obama may well be the Democrat version of Ronald Reagan. He could go directly to the people to pitch his case (making him far more effective). He can redraw the political map for the Democrats for a generation (much as Reagan did for the GOP).
Additionally, a comparison of Obama’s Senate record in his first 3 years in the Senate is more impressive than Hillary’s – and Obama didn’t come with special name recognition. And, I believe (note word) that Obama would have read the NIE if he were making the most "difficult decision" of his career.
So, while I started off this campaign season with a historic reason for looking beyond the Clintons, I have been won over by Obama (from temperament, knowledge, and style) and more concerned than ever about Hillary Clinton in the White House -- even if she *weren't* married to a former President.
So long as one can prevent their reptile brain from repulsing at the mention of Reagan's name, I do not see why people do not recognize that having a Reagan for the Democrats would be a bad thing. In fact, it would be a very, very good thing. I don't want any GOP clowns back in power for a long, long time.
March 31, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's funny is now you have Hillary supporters, the ones that misinterpreted Obama's Reagan remark of 6 weeks ago, talking in terms of HRC thinking in 2008 like Reagan did in 1976. (This is a poor analogy on many levels as you know from a previous post of mine, but never mind that detail!)
So I guess it's okay to speak of Reagan if you are a HRC supporter and not otherwise.
A little consistency inevitably leads to clear thinking!
March 31, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not getting any positive comparison here. History suggests Ford lost because of Reagan's '76 challenge. Are HRC supporters actually making a case that HRC's current tactics are a good thing for Democrats?? Sure, tearing down Obama so he loses might set her up for 2012, but does anyone believe that was a positive for the Raygun legacy? I thought it was just us Obama folks who were making this '76 comparison as a way to demonstrate how nasty primary battles can result in a loss in the GE (as was the case in '80).
March 31, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
assume the next president does a fantastic job for 4 years. what at the odds (s)he will be forgiven for predecessor's sins enough to be reelected?
I don't see it on intrade, but i wonder what the odds of a civil war are? (i'm sure they are very small immediately, but what about in say the next 20 years?)
March 31, 2008 2:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think odds are insurmountable that if McCain or HRC is a good president from '09 to '12, they will be re-elected, regardless of how much W. f'd us over or HRC f'd over Obama (should she get the nomination). No civil war coming over that. But read some of CT's other posts for an idea of what could cause a civil war. Hint: it won't be over politics. Or are we talking an intra-party civil war?
March 31, 2008 3:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Argh. What I meant was that I don't see why people think this would be a bad thing for the Democrats. I hope that was obvious.
March 31, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan led to the GOP majority for a generation. Wouldn't that be good for the Dem's?
Reagan could get support from people, even if it was against their personal interests. Wouldn't it be good to have a president who could convince Republicans and independents that they would all benefit from a national health care plan, clean air and water, and increased fuel standards? In the Illinois Senate Obama was able to the a progressive issue -- videotaping of interrogations -- and not only get it passed, but get the law and order factions to see that it was in their best interests. Now THAT'S leadership. Do you honestly see Hillary convincing people to leave their entrenched beliefs that work against their interests? I'm sick and tired of Hillary and Bill scolding me, shaking their fingers in my face, treating me as if I'm delusional and stupid because I don't agree with them, all the time. It's demeaning and insulting. I like a candidate who treats me like an adult.
And let's have our own media darling for a change.
Excellent post, well written. Been saying this for months.
March 31, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's amazing that some Democrats don't "get it" about Reagan -- even after 20 years!
Fortunately, Obama does!
March 31, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let's not forget that political brawling is what she termed "the fun part".
Very nicely constructed case, CT. I suppose the counter-argument to all this is that more cautious and less imaginative Dems actually favor dynastic succession. Or maybe they just feel if the Repubs could foist on us two Bushes, the Dems deserve to anoint two Clintons. That's scary (and quite lazy) reasoning, but maybe helps explain how some can overlook the litany of reasons you've enumerated for why Obama is a significantly better choice than HRC.
March 31, 2008 1:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was Bill who said that... and, for him, I do believe campaigning is the fun part. He is a true, natural politician.
Thanks. I wanted to get my myriad of thoughts down in one place so I could refer to them. I will be curious to see the response from those that favor Hillary, but looking at DF's recent mega-blog, it seems difficult for the other side to point to specifics.
March 31, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad, but true.
March 31, 2008 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I stand corrected!
Now I'll add "doesn't think things through" to my list... she sure doesn't look she has been having "fun", does she? And it's very dangerous to have big talk with little follow-through from a POTUS. We just saw this in GWB's administration!
March 31, 2008 2:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/an-attack-from-the-candidates-mouth/
March 31, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will be curious to see the response from those that favor Hillary, but looking at DF's recent mega-blog, it seems difficult for the other side to point to specifics.
--------------------------------------------------
Hillary supporters have no problem pointing out specifics. Its just in this Obama echo chamber they get ignored as you all just tell each other how right and smart you all are. Here's a specific for you. I have not seen anything as negative as this vile racist nonsense peddled by Jesse Jackson Jr by Hillary on the campaign trail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA
March 31, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see his comment as racist except that there were a lot of blacks (and white) affected by Katrina.
Here is another way to interpret his statements:
Hillary doesn't cry at the pain of others, only for herself.
This would tend to make one view Hillary as selfish. This is certainly not the first time that that claim would be laid at her doorstep.
March 31, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's how I took it. Sometimes it really seems like Clinton supporters are living in Bizarro World: Real racially-charged comments are just our imagination, but then they go off imagining racially-charged moments of your own. Your interpretation was exactly how I took it. Once could also ask, as you have, why in the hell Hillary Clinton hasn't been "fighting" for any of this stuff for the last seven years, but I guess that sort of question just makes too much sense.
March 31, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know that you're all capable of coming up with contrived cheap shots against Obama, but do you have it in you to provide any evidence in favor of Clinton?
How telling it is that another opportunity to do so is passed up in favor of once again telling us about Jesse Jackson Jr.
At the risk of abject arrogance, let me take this opportunity to speak for Obama supporters in general: We know what triple-J said. We get it, we don't see it the way you do and your interpretation is not convincing. Can we stop going over this now?
Of course, I'll probably just keep getting admonished for criticizing Clinton instead of talking up Obama (not that I don't talk Obama up as is evidenced elsewhere in this thread). Apparently those are the rules that I'm supposed to play by, but not the other way around.
March 31, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon, DF: you have love letters composed to you -- and they become recommended posts!
I, on the other hand, have become the object of affection of a buzzing bee, Louisville wanted to be a slugger (at me), and oceankat throw some salty comments my way.
I've polarized the audience.
Good heavens! I've become the Hillary Clinton of TPM!
March 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hah! Hey, I've got my haters too and you seem to be back on the charts with this one. What can I say? You know I enjoy your stuff! I guess it is kind of odd since we seem to agree and even say much the same thing at times.
March 31, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Besides, dembillc said this was "the dumbest post ever"! That's a huge compliment!
March 31, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I know that you're all capable of coming up with contrived cheap shots against Obama, but do you have it in you to provide any evidence in favor of Clinton?
--------------------------------------------------
Look DF this is a bunch of bs. After whining about how no one watched your precious little video when I did and posted a few paragraphs on it you ignored the post. Then in another thread I posted again and referenced your video and your only comment was I need to get beyond the democrat/republican dichotomy. lol.
Not that I give a damn whether you respond or not but don't try and pretend I haven't posted evidence in favor of Clinton or that others haven't as well.
I've been following this primary at least as closely as you and I have different interpretations just as you have your's. I don't find your interpretations convincing and you don't find mine convincing. Telling me I'm, "increasingly unhinged and begin grasping at straws" sure isn't going to convince me of anything. Except your lack of ability to engage in rational discourse.
April 1, 2008 3:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat,
Come and play with me, instead. I responded to your video, didn't it?
April 1, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here ... here !!!!
As much as I disagreeded with Reagans policies ... I never once felt ashamed of being an American ... GWB and (I hate to say it) Sen Clinton (with her bold faced lies!)embarrass and would diminish the power of the US Presidency!
March 31, 2008 2:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
George W Bush may very well have diminished the RESPECT for the office of the President both at home and abroad. I doubt, however, you would find any constitutional scholars or historians that would argue he didn't increase the power of the presidency by his blatantly unconstitutional power grabs. Signing statements, declaring he and his staff are immune from Congressional oversight. The power of the presidency has never been greater, much to our country's detriment especially given the poor character of THIS president.
March 31, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked Bill Clinton when he was president but he also turned out to be embarrassing. And that one has sticking power. That's a lot of years. I look forward to the enhancement of our national pride and our image internationally under and Obama presidency.
March 31, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
People all have their interpretations of events and as much as the many Obama supporters on this site pat each other on the back doesn't make them true. It was the negative campaigning of the Obama campaign that was a factor in moving me to Hillary when Edwards dropped out of the race. It was his gay bash tour and Jesse Jackson Jr's lying and vile attacks that turned me off his campaign.
While I think your connections to the Fl and MI revote and diplomatic relations with Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chávez to be rediculous one could easily turn it around. Obama would not find it so easy to lawyer up and shut up Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chávez as he did with the voters of Fl and MI. Whining about some erroneous interpretation of the rules won't help. He won't be able to fix a mistake with them by simply claiming it was "boneheaded" like he did with Rezko. One might hope that in his dealings with them his judgment extends beyond, "my instinct was to believe him."
What I find most astonishing is the belief among Obama supporters that he will somehow unite and inspire the country. He has been unable to do this with voters in the democratic primary. Even now when Hillary's chances are so slim its still likely that she will win some of the final states. Not only don't I see any evidence that he can unite or inspire the country I doubt that he could even win the general if it wasn't for the disasterous Bush presidency and 100 years of war McCain as an opponent.
March 31, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I consider it a good sign that as the days go by once reasonable Clinton supporters either flip to Obama or become increasingly unhinged and begin grasping at straws. This is a fistful. Hold on tight.
March 31, 2008 6:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesse Jackson Jr isn't my favorite Obama surrogate. I'll give you that.
About uniting the country . . . the question is, what's the standard of comparison? 60/40 is about as united as we get. If you get 60/40, you aren't doing too bad. And I'm confident Obama can do that, because easily 60% of the electorate has a "favorable" view of him.
Do you expect HRC *ever* to get 60/40 -- in a positive direction? Her underlying positives at the moment are less than 40% of the electorate. I think it's 37% or 39% in the latest NBC poll.
I'm hearing fewer and fewer pro-Clinton arguments from the Clinton team; increasingly, they're just anti-Obama arguments.
March 31, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know where you get the impression that Obama is the person responsible for the lack of a second vote in MI and FL. From what I've read, Obama has repeatedly stated that he'd honor whatever the DNC came up with. It was MI and FL themselves that decided that they couldn't afford / pull off a fair re-vote. Several concerns were mentioned: how to pay for it; how to keep people who voted in the Republican primary from casting "mischief" votes in the Dem re-vote. In the end, these delegates can't fairly be seated as that would be rewriting the rules that both Obama and Hillary agreed to.
March 31, 2008 8:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a realist, I have no doubt Obama had his surrogates pointing out flaws in re-vote proposals and eventually pushed to have them squashed. My question is, "Why shouldn't he?" In my opinion that's just good politics. Make positive statements, i.e. "I'll follow the final decision of the DNC," and work behind the scenes like a true pol to have the rules interpreted and complied with in your favor. That's the type of politician I want running our country, one who can appear above the fray, while being in the thick of it getting things done. This requires finesse, and unfortunately Ms. Clinton lacks it. She is capable in the trenches, but it is also obvious that she is in them.
March 31, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ocean kat,
You bring up Rezko. You will notice that in my post, I never once brought up scandals or gotchas on Hillary Clinton (though there are many).
Let's be adults about this: politics involves lots of people and lots of money. There is to be expected a certain "error bar" in contact at various levels with people that aren't your typical suburban dwellers. My standards are relatively simple: be transparent, don't lie, and admit mistakes, don't knowingly get involved with bad stuff, and don't repeat mistakes.
You can be upset with Rezko all you like, despite it being a specious charge, but then I wonder how you inconsistently forgive Hillary on far more questionable issues (Hsu, wealthy Chinese waiters, etc.)... and the secrecy of her tax returns. Yes, these issues are out there, but I don't even have to use them for me to get a bad feeling about Hillary in the White House.
Despite the fact that the Rezko case holds no water (don't use the Tribune as the source for that, use the fact that the Clinton Campaign couldn't find an angle where it could make it stick -- and you know they were looking at all the angles), your comments could also apply to the cocaine use of Obama. He admitted it, said it was wrong (which is a politic thing to say, although I doubt he has used it in years), and dealt with it head on. This is fine for me.
Take Bill Clinton: "I didn't inhale". Yes, Bill isn't running, Hillary is, but I'll bet you Hillary tried the dread weed back in the day. Has she been transparent? No. This, in fact, hurts her as it opens her up to a potential gotcha later on.
She hasn't even been able to admit her Iraq vote was a mistake.
So, these are the issues of my post. No one on this site has said Obama is perfect, and the Messiah meme is from the Hillary/FNC side, not the Obama side. Yes, Obama is popular. So was Ronald Reagan. So was Bill Clinton. I don't recall supporters of either of those two men being called a cult. Polls indicate that a lot of people want Hillary in the White House because they want Bill Clinton back. And yet you never hear of the "Cult of Bill Clinton".
Also, please go back and review the MI/FL situation. All candidates agreed that these delegates shouldn't be seated. Edwards and Obama were honest enough to pull their names from the MI ballot. To talk in terms of Obama whining either means you are deliberately or unintentionally ignorant of the facts. Indeed, it is Hillary Clinton that is trying to go back on her word.
Lastly, please recognize that many of the voters for Hillary in the open primaries have admitted to voting for her as a result of encouragement of Rush Limbaugh. When Obama pulls GOPers in, it's without a negative attached to it.
This, in and of itself, should help explain a difference between the two campaigns.
I hope this helps clarify things.
March 31, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post and great responses to comments, CT.
March 31, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Laura! I follow your posts in general, so I appreciate your comment.
March 31, 2008 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may seem a small point to some, but I absolutely love Obama's candor on this subject. We have got to stop lying to kids about drugs. It's absolutely ridiculous. How goddamned clueless can you be as an adult to have forgotten what it was like to be that age? Kids simply will never believe what we tell them about drugs as long as our fundamental positions are based on lies. I don't understand how so many adults can be so stupid as to think that they will be believed.
I sure didn't believe the bullshit. My parents actually lied right to my face and told me they never did any drugs. Well, being the skeptic that I am I was forced to ask how in the hell they would know anything about drugs. So, guess what you do then? You find out for yourself. We get so scared that kids will do drugs that forget that our best weapon is honesty.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love my parents. I think they did a fine job in many ways, but even they didn't have the strength of character to make the right call on this. That Obama does says a lot to me. I mean, my parents were just raising kids. They weren't running for President. This guy truly has the gumption required to risk telling the truth and that's huge to me.
March 31, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's too bad that
"That was the point"
hasn't taken off as a phrase because it does express so much of Obama's desire for transparency.
From this post, DF, you were apparently a tough, inquisitive little kid.
What a shock.
March 31, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guilty as charged. I can't say that it's always served me well, but I've pretty much been like this since I was wet behind the years.
Thankfully, my mother is still quite sane after all of these years and I make sure to do plenty of nice things for her these days. :)
March 31, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant post Clearthinker. Like you I was an "Anybody but Hillary" Democrat at the beginning; not at all pro-Obama. If anything I was looking for Gore to throw himself into the fray. When that didn't happen I began listening and paying attention to the other candidates. Because I live outside of the US my focus was more on foreign policy and macro-economic policy. Biden or Edwards seemed the best challengers to HRC, but I wasn't convinced that any of them were the real deal. Early on when everything was about healthcare plans I largely tuned things out, partly because I have been fortunate to live in 4 countries that all have universal healthcare, so feel less passionate about that as a domestic issue since I don't live it. (As an aside though, I can say that in all four countries it works better than the US system I experience when I was there...)
Obama sealed the deal with me from Iowa on. HRC's NH tears made me, a middle-aged woman, cringe. Ick. I gave money to Obama's campaign the next day. His performance since has done nothing but reaffirm my choice. He's a thoroughbred, and I mean that in the true sense of the word given his mixed-race background; he represents the best characteristics and instincts of both races, black and white. Not perfect, but he has the real potential to deliver on what he promises. I believe that. I believe him.
HRC is plenty smart; she certainly would show up to work as President (moreso than Bush) but she is a political "Borg" who lacks imaginiation (as was mentioned before on this thread)and will always turn to triangulation, misspeaking, and divisiveness to try govern. I saw how effective that was in her husband's administration.
I hope that the next 10 states politely say "thanks for your time and all of your dedicated efforts until now Mrs. Clinton, but unfortunately the job is already filled..."
March 31, 2008 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still marvel to hear people say that Obama "went negative". I think by this they really mean what I mean by mud-slinging, and he didn't do that. He drew direct, honest contrasts between himself and HRC. He drew attention to her record. If you're going to call that 'negative', then I think that you need to draw a line between that and 'mud-slinging'. And I think you need to consider this: any time that someone is drawing a comparison between a thing or person that they favor, and one that they oppose, a comparison will be drawn that is 'negative'. It's inevitable, or the comparison is useless as any kind of decision-fostering.
But muds-slinging, like the known-to-be-fake Clinton accusation of Obama's campaign on NAFTA, is not. And the Clinton campaign has been all over that.
March 31, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will give Hillary this. She is doing a masterful self-destruction of her own campaign. And she is doing it creatively..... methodically dipping into the Republican arsenal and preemptively reducing all the stockpiled ammunition which the Republicans would have hoped to have used later against our nominee Obama.
March 31, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
CT- Exactly! Inspirational credible leadership is primary. In a discussion with a friend about the election I stated that honestly none of the candidates could genuinely promise to deliver on any of their proposals, but a truly inspirational leader is what is needed as the head of state before substantive policy can be achieved. Unless of course you have an imperial presidency with a submissive legislature or a super majority. That scenario doesn't seem to work too well with unscrupulous and disengaged presidents, however. The candidates agendas simply give us an idea of their priorties, their conduct a measure of their character, and their records and campaigns their effectiveness. With Obama you get ingenuity thrown in for good measure. The one area in which the executive can be most effective and least encumbered by partisanship is in foreign relations and I believe Obama will go far in repairing the diplomatic atrocities of the last several years if not the last several decades. I saw Bush in a press conference with the Australian PM the other day and the poor guy looked like he was about to dash out of the room screaming. The PM, not Bush. Thanks for the post.
March 31, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dumbest post ever.
What was it you did not like about the Clinton years? The Peace or the Prosperity?
March 31, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
The blowjob.
March 31, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't want yours....I will take it.
March 31, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
To add: Not because his personal life was anyone else's business, but for distraction is caused, both in the Clinton Administration and to Gore's candidacy.
The Telecom Act, courtesy of the Clinton years, was also a regrettable and basically disastrous policy act.
March 31, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, which part was bad..the peace or the prosperity?
March 31, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hard to decide. Both were equally deplorable.
March 31, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Telecon act is particularly grievous. Interestingly, Al Gore was behind a lot of the effort to make sure the Internet was free of control.
As smart as Clinton was on a number of things, it's surprising how little he really got into technology, especially considering his base and the economic bubble he saw. He wasn't a technology president -- that's for sure.
March 31, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
typos...
March 31, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"What was it you did not like about the Clinton years? The Peace or the Prosperity?"
The blue dress and the dot.com bubble
March 31, 2008 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not rich enough to own stocks so ......dot com bubble wasn't on my radar...
March 31, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, there were great things about the Clinton years:
a) smaller government
b) more fiscal responsibility
c) more left-leaning judge appointments (including the Federal judges
But let's not go overboard. As people note here, there were many issues, including Clinton shooting himself in the foot with his dalliances and lying. This essentially destroyed his second term (all the more tragic because it was such a trivial thing) and also caused the office of POTUS to suffer.
The second term of Clinton was so bad that Gore felt he had to run away from it's record.
So, while Hillary may claim that it took a Clinton to clean up after GHWB, I would claim it took a Clinton to give us GWB. (No, I will not put all the blame on the 2000 election on Bill Clinton -- but it didn't help, either.)
As far as peace, the Clintons didn't have a great track record on the War on Terror and things weren't so great in parts of Easter Europe.
One wonders how much more Bill could have done had he not been distracted by blue dresses and the meaning of "is".
And, although I voted for him twice, I still shudder that he can look directly in the camera and lie about not having relations with that woman.
That's the kind of behavior you'd expect from our current President (lying, not the philandering).
However, all this is besides the point. That was then. This is now. The world is different. And the Clintons have had
a) 8 years of the White House to "get corrupted" by the system
b) 7 years of HRC in the Senate to continue to play to special interests (building upon the special relations that only a POTUS can have to begin with)
This is the point of my blog. It's better for the country to distribute the power, to keep it from becoming concentrated. And, especially in this case where the Clintons are no better than the Bushes in influence peddling and strange-bedfellows.
No, this is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not for ruling and privileged clans.
The Clintons have had their turn. It's time to broaden out and look beyond them.
March 31, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton Presidential Pardons.
Do not forget that last great spasm of Clinton corruption as they were leaving the White House.
Why has Hillary not been asked about that.
Her Brothers lived with her, and were paid hundreds of thousands by convicted drug lords in an effort to purchase Presidential Pardons.
Marc Rich bought a Presidential Pardon while on the run from Justice.
Ask Hillary about that, Media. Do your job.
March 31, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that you Sean?
March 31, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care about Rezko. But if you're going to make specious connections about Clinton's attempt to get a revote in Fl and MI and her ability to engage in diplomacy with Chavez and Ahmadinejad, which I find ludicrous, I see no harm in pointing out that similar connections could be made about Obama and his ability to handle negotiations.
I don't need you to tell me to take another look at the Fl and MI situation. I've followed it as well as you. The difference is I'm willing to look at the whole situation not just the aspects that favor my candidate. The notion that Obama and others removed their names from the MI ballot out of some alligence to honesty is hogwash. So you need to take another look. You can start here.
http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264
Funny you should bring up marijuana. As usual obama has been talking out of both sides of his mouth on that issue. Back in 2004 he claimed to be for decriminalization. At another point he compared pot to morphine saying there was little difference between the two and he wanted strict controls so its use was restricted to just medical marijuana and not those who just felt "tense." Then on national TV during the debate when asked to raise their hand if any candidates disagreed with Dodd's proposal to decriminalize pot Obama and most other candidates raised their hand. After the debate his campaign released a memo stating he favored decriminalization but misunderstood the question. Later they retracted and said they do not favor decriminalization.
You know, clearthinker, maybe its you who should be following this campaign a bit more closely. Personally, I don't care much about Obama lying about his views on pot. The public is stupid on this issue. Its just disingenuous to attack Clinton on this issue when Obama's been playing politics with it just as much as she has.
I hope this clarifies things enough so that you can glean a few keywords for google and fill in the gaps in your research. Good luck.
March 31, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ocean kat,
You've missed my point:
It is not specious to bring up MI/FL and international negotiations. The point is that while Hillary may be able to game an internal systems (the DNC) inside the US because of her connections, she can't game international systems.
It's clever to always try to rewrite the rules, but it's essentially impossible to do that when dealing with foreign powers, especially when the dollar is weak and the US doesn't have as strong an international respect as it did before the Iraq War.
The issues of pot are interesting. I guess if you want to play the "flip flop" game, we could talk about Hillary and driver's licenses. Personally, I find arguments about drug use specious in general (as I think you agree). I would classify the flip flop from Hillary on driver's licenses and immigrants more important... but not important enough to give as a reason why I wouldn't support her candidacy. Issues of energy and water and the devalued dollar are far more critical. Again, trying to have an adult perspective here and not play "gotcha" games.
Hope this helps.
March 31, 2008 5:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its your opinion that Hillary has gamed the system and is attempting to change the rules. The facts don't back up that opinion. Obama supporters can make that claim and simply look only at that part of the rules that back up that claim but ignoring those rules that contradict it doesn't make them go away. You can be sure that Ahmadinejad will know all the rules and Obama will not have stooges among the Iranian mullahs to push his agenda.
Personally I think you know that no one is trying to change any rules nor is it possible to change them. Both Hillary and Obama are attempting to use all the rules to their advantage. Hillary is using the rules that allow for the states to submit a plan for a revote. The MI plan was approved by the DNC as being acceptable under the DNC rules. Obama is using his stooges in the MI legislature to stop that revote. But I could be wrong. You could be ignorant of those rules.
I certainly don't think a discussion of the politics of pot laws is worth much time. I didn't bring it up. You were the one who wanted to talk about it. Interestingly enough you thought it was worth discussing when you thought it helped your guy and hurt Hillary. Now that it turns out that Obama has been flip flopping and lying about the issue it suddenly becomes specious. I guess you should have done a bit of research before you decided to attack Clinton over the issue. Or at least paid attention to the debates and the follow up on them in the newspapers. Or better yet how about you just bring up the subjects you think are important rather than dismissing them after they fail to further your agenda. If you hadn't tried to play gotcha with the pot issue I wouldn't have been able to play gotcha back at you over it. Try behaving a bit more like an adult and less like a partisan hack and it will be more likely that we would have an adult conversation.
March 31, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat:
Go back and review why pot came into the conversation:
I was talking about Obama's cocaine use and compared it with Clinton's "I didn't inhale" comment.
As I said, it was interesting you brought up a claim of a flip flop that Obama made... but you didn't respond to my pointing out the Hillary definitely flip flopped on national television viz. the driver's license issue.
Oh, well. One of the more interesting things to see on this particular blog is who is out of control and emotional and who can have a reasoned discussion.
For what it's worth, Oceankat, I have never thought ill of you. I look forward to our next discussion.
March 31, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politicians pander. Its an inevitable part of the election cycle given the fact that about 45% of the population has no more education than a high school diploma. If you hadn't brought up Clinton's pandering over the pot issue I wouldn't have brought up Obama's. I'm sure you aren't going to change your vote over Obama's pandering on national TV over pot. I'm not changing my vote over Clinton's pandering over driver's licenses.
I too find it interesting which of my points you decided to address and which you decided to ignore. Such is the nature of dialog on the web.
March 31, 2008 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone please elaborate on wanting another Ronald Reagan? I can understand that he was a communicator, which we have in Obama, and I he started the era of republican rule, which I would like to see for the Democrats, but I thought he was otherwise a mediocre president and even something of a joke.
I always suspected that Pat Buchanan was really pulling the strings, and also that Reagan's Alzheimer's began much earlier than it was first reported. So if you're saying communicate and build a Democratic coalition, I say YAY!. But what more can there be?
March 31, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reagan wasn't not a mediocre president in terms of moving the electorate to places that most people didn't think they could go. He was so convincing that he got many blue-collar workers to vote against their own interests!
Building a Democratic coalition hasn't been done since 1932 -- this is not a trivial thing to do.
In fact, the Clintons' strategy of triangulation ended up diluting the Dem point of view to the point that there currently is no real coalition.
I want the Democratic nominee to have the smoothness of Reagan. He was also able to sway a hostile congress, simply by scaring them that he would go directly to the electorate... which he did!
I don't think a single person here wants Reagan's policies which include: spending like no tomorrow and trashing the energy program set up by his predecessor. He did, however, move the tax code into a more manageable level -- and this did affect a good portion of the middle class. We will all note, I'm sure that trickle down was really voodoo as GHWB said and eventually disowned by David Stockman.
I also would not like the President's spouse to be so involved in Government (as Nancy was during the 2nd administration -- using I Ching readings to schedule meetings and appearances!).
I do like the idea of smaller government -- strong but without bloat. Too bad for the Reagan worshippers that it took a Democrat (Bill Clinton) to make that happen.
March 31, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey brother, not sure what you were doing during the 80;s but reagan was brutal. The recession of 81-83 was one of the worst in the modern era. Real wages were stagnant, unemployment was so bad the labor department had to change the rules to limit the time people were counted as "umemployed" so that the actual numbers didn't go up.
We got to spend billions trying to destroy legitimate governments in Central America. Witness the killing of many many innocents there along with priests and nuns.
He tried to destroy the union movement in the US and illegally fired gov't workers in the FAA over a strike.
He armed Saddam Hussien to fight the Iranians. He armed Osama Bin Laden to fight the Russians. He was going to build a big shield over the US so we couldn't get bombed. He said that trees polluted more than factories did.
He backed the British over and over in their illegal takeover of Northern Ireland. He doubled the amount of money we spent on the military while telling lower income americans that they were bums.
All in all...yeah the Great Communicator was a real peach of a guy.
March 31, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
You forgot that ketchup was a vegetable.
Again:
Policy vs Style
Most of the other folks here understand that point. I can't quite figure out why I can't make it clearly to the remaining few!
March 31, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kay.
For the 1,034th time. Clearthinker hates Hillary Clinton. He SAYS it's because of many factors, the most important being he doesn't want 'another' royal-type family running America.
Point taken. I'd even agree.
But he never stops there. No. He has to prove--by anything BUT "clear" thinking, that she is evil, extraordinarily so.
Why?
Cui Bono?
The only group that benefit from "clear" thinkers constant, relentless, and rather unoriginal and repetitous recital of Hillary Clintons perceived evilness is, the GOP.
I'd take anything this poster says with a rather large grain of salt. When PINO (progressives in name only) say things like "doctors are left-leaning," or ascribe inhuman qualities to otherwise human persons, using talking points straight out of GOPUSAs website, that's is when it's time to step back and ask "why?"
I'm pretty sure I know why. I'd just caution others to remember, Obama is likely going to win the nomination. Fostering and encouraging hatred is not a 'progressive' trait, nor is ignoring facts like Hillary and Obama's voting record are nearly identical.
When people start arguing a 'Reagan' is what Dems need, I gotta step up and say, "are you NUTS?!"
Reagan was an actor, an empty shell, a liar, and corrupt as they come. No, sorry, but no, the Dems DO NOT need a "Reagan, and I thank the gods that neither Obama or Hillary are one of those.
Don't endorse hate. Tell insidious hatemongers exactly WHERE they can stick theirs. I'd hope it would be some colorful expression concerning their nether regions.
Thank you. That is all I wanted to say.
March 31, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Republicans never bring up that Ronald Reagan traded Arms for Hostages with the the Ayatollahs, and send Oliver North to Iran with a bible and cake. Now they want to blast Obama for saying that he would be willing to talk with the Iranian Leaders, openly.
Reagan also mined the Nicaraguan ports, which was a violation of International Law and a Violation of the US constitution.
I agree with you that either Hillary or Obama are far superior to that second rate script reader, who set his daily schedule based on the orders of Nancy's Astrologer. Faith based indeed!
March 31, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed liam. NO way either one of them are anything remotely like Reagan. Good god. what a bad flashback.
Great guy was pushing money on the illegal gov't that was running El Salvador that oversaw the killing of priests and nuns. This country went wacko during the 80's. Catholics voting for a joke of an actor that was paying people to kill Catholics...How I hateed that asshole.
And the topper is creating Manuel Noriega and then having GHWB go get him once he told Reagan/Bush that he was going to spill the real beans.
Drug use and drug movement into the US and into African American Neighborhoods went quickly up at this time as well....
March 31, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're agreed, Liam.
I've said some mean things to you.. I just want to offer my sincere apology.
You've never let your dislike for Hillary over run your common sense. I appreciate that.
March 31, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Little Bee,
I have never said anything hateful about Hillary nor have I called her evil.
I have said that she has not risen to the occasion of her front runner status. I have said I grew very concerned and disappointed by her campaign.
Finally, I believe if I were the GOP shill you claim, I would be encouraging people to vote for her (a la Rush Limbaugh).
I am saddened that you don't see a difference between Reagan's policies and Reagan's inspirational style. Again, no one here, least of all me, wants to see Reagan's policies. (Although he did have some decent ideas about spending, which he violated by a trillion dollar deficit -- of course Bill Clinton (a Dem) was able to get spending under control, so is Bill Clinton a GOPer now?)
Some of us where want a Dem with Reagan's inspirational style.
In the same way that the GOP has aspired to find a candidate with JFK's youthful energy.
One hand = policy
Other hand = style
Repeat: Policy vs style. They are two different things.
I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm trying to be clear for you.
Now, in addition to Obama having a great style (perhaps the best since JFK and certainly the best since Clinton), he has some very good ideas as to policy. I hope he expands on these ideas should he become nominee and can stop fighting a 2 front war.
I'd be curious for you to take each of these subclauses and back them up. I never said "doctors are left-leaning" for example. But I am curious as to the motivation that you ascribe to me. Care to spell it out?
And do, pray tell, explain to me what a progressive is. Is Hillary Clinton a progressive by voting for a flag-burning amendment? Life is so confusing these days for some -- especially with lots of labels thrown around. FNC loves labels. Does that make you a FNC viewer?
Of course not. I'm just teasing you to make a point: A little precision if you please. Thank you in advance, little bee.
PS My name is not Kay.
March 31, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief. You are arrogantly sure of your audience, aren't you. Always a mistake that GOP trolls eventually make. You folks always suffer from hubris. No, sorry, you aren't smarter than the average TPM reader, in fact, the opposite. Lets see what you posted. Shall we?
Hum, I even noted it at the time, and posted a link blowing that assertion to Hell. (Yesterday, or the day before. Such a short memory...Dude!) See, I took you down on a couple of your more insidious and outrageous assertions, yet you didn't even acknowledge that (which an honest player would have done), and now you are attempting to deny it. You actually engaged in ad hominems, a fact which amused me quite a bit at the time. If Hillary did this, you'd be purple-faced, or at least, your character would.
No, sorry, You've had a free hand for too long. Time to call you and your sort out.
March 31, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wrote:
and that is clearly not what I said.
Do you know what "e.g." means? I stand by my quote. I actually know many private physicians who are registered Democrats. They were not happy with Hillary's proposals. There are other left-leaning individuals (hence the need for the e.g.) who were not happy with Hillary's tactics on that one, including other very left members of Congress. In fact, even Obama points that out.
I suppose, however, that makes Obama a troll for the GOP.
Why is it that your message is "don't hate" and yet it is you, little bee, that keeps calling names and slinging labels?
I do appreciate, however, how carefully you follow my posts. I will include you in my known lists of readers... you join the distinguished ranks of bloggers like DF and Gman08.
Sadly, I did not see, apparently, all your responses to my comments - I guess I don't follow you as closely as you follow me. I know, this looks to you like a vast right (or is it left?) wing conspiracy, but sometimes it means I have other things to do.
I find it fascinating that I have become one of your pet causes. It's very interesting -- I wonder why in particular do I deserve your love and affection like this. Many other here are also not enthralled with Hillary.
Are you a fan of Rodin, perhaps?
But, do not worry, little bee, I have no intentions of trying to swat you. I sometimes find your buzzing even soothing.
March 31, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't flatter yourself. I took note of you about two days ago.
My ex used to work at the San Jose Museum, and I walked through the Rodin (Stanford) Garden there. Lovely.
I am appreciative of 20th century art until round about 1948 or so, after which fine art died. (Don't believe me? try MoMA.
I suspect an attempt a change of subject, which I'm generally willing to do. Why not?
Are you, perhaps, a Dos Pasos fan? Perhaps not.
I am.
March 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not out to change the subject, but I do wish you would take a closer look at the other half of the 20th century -- after all, if you say you are a fan of 20th century art up until less than a 1/2 way point, well, that's a bit scare:
Try the following:
Jackson Pollack
Willem de Kooning
Neil Welliver
Philip Pearlstein
Alex Katz
David Hockney
Of course, if you want to reinforce some of your present ideas of art (given that you don't like things post-1948), you will enjoy Tom Wolf's book: THE PAINTED WORD.
I also suggest you track down Dan Flavin. Keep an open mind. It's quite an experience.
It's terrible that the San Francisco area doesn't have a really decent museum, at least something akin to the Los Angeles County Museum of Art or the Norton Simon. Unfortunately, by the time was the West Coast was established, the major art museums back East (Met, MFA, MOMA, and the Art Institute) has a veritable monopoly on major works.
You might even find me buzzing around such places.
March 31, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
My roomie at CalArts showed me the place Pollock died. Does that count? She grew up in Chico, like he did.
Believe me, I likely know more than most about the artists you mentioned. than you do. I had a formal education in 20th Century Art. See, I value "craft" which is why I'm a commercial artist, (where it still exists), although I have availed my services, gratis of course, for local Arts establishments, both private and public.
If you went around MoMA, or better yet, The Yale Gallery, you'd CLEARLY see the death of fine art. Picasso mocked it. So we "artiste" students mocked him. Now they mock you, which amuses me.
It's really all in good fun.
March 31, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's always amazing to me when someone feels like that "know" you on an anonymous blog. I had such hope for you, little bee. But apparently, I've touched several nerves -- and you had to pull out -- tah-da! -- credentials!
In your opinion, you mean. And such a blanket statement. I'm sorry you can see nothing wonderful in the art produced in the last 60 years. So much wonderfulness and it escapes you. Very sad. Very reactionary. In fact, way to reactionary to be progressive.
Louisville will be disappointed... you aren't one of his side!
I do hope you've read THE PAINTED WORD... I know you would enjoy it. It speaks to your very thesis.
March 31, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, CT, credentials, which is why I know you're full of it. Just my way of letting you know.
It's so funny how you consistently blow by when someone disproves your bullshit, as if they hadn't.
Apparently you don't really want to talk about 20th Century Art. The painted word is hardly an education, in fact, it's a minor piece on a fascinating subject. I'll be here if you ever study up.
I think you'd better explain again how your own quote that doctors are left-leaning, wasn't. That was a semantic masterpiece, pity I provided a link. No reasonable person can construe it in your tortured manner. Here's a clue, if it takes 5 paragraphs to explain a dozen words, you're full of shit. That's Semantics 101. (Yeah, I took that in my junior year.)
I bet you're in Sales.
I'm on Louisvilles side. He's aiming to get the GOP out. We both doubt that's your intent. Funny, isn't it.
March 31, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ugh. You're welcome to your opinion, of course, but this reminds me of someone I know who says the same thing about music. Classically trained musician. It's all about the "craft" and never the "art" (which is weird, because it seems like you still want to be an "artiste" and not a "craftist"). As such, this person deplores pop music because it doesn't meet the classical standard.
Here's what Frank Zappa said about "classical music":
Of course, classical musicians hate this because it robs them of all of their "legitimacy" ("Who are all these peons who aren't listening to Baraque?! They know nothing about music!"). Ironically, this friend of mine doesn't even know who Frank Zappa (or nearly any other influential pop musician) is because Zappa doesn't bear the "classic music" standard. Anyone who wants to tell me that Zappa wasn't a musical genius just isn't listening. The guy was a prolific composer.
And so it goes in the world of art. Picasso said fine art died? So what? Fuck Picasso. Whoa, did DF just say that? You bet I did. Who is Picasso to define the parameters through which I express my experience? Hero worship, appeals to authority: I reject it all. In the words of Adam Savage, "I reject your reality and substitute my own."
But so it goes in the world of art. At any given moment in time there's always an avant-garde that thinks they've found "it" and that "it" has to be protected at all costs. Then you have the people who are perceived as trying to destroy "it" because "it" confines them in a way that doesn't really allow them to express themselves (the real purpose of art, IMHO). Of course, the avant-garde is always composed of people who were late to the party and the irony is that the people who constructed the "it" that they're trying so desperately to protect were really the same kind of upstarts that they perceive as threats or ruiners of the sacred "it"! Truly bizarre. Even Picasso, it seems, was not immune to this. Neither was Louis Armstrong. He though Charlie Parker sucked. Called him incomprehensible and said what he played sounded like "Chinese music", whatever that means. I wonder what old Satchel Mouth would say now.
Coming back to my friend, this person has now realized that there is little opportunity in the world of classical music and is now actively trying to carve out a career as a pop musician. Sadly, my friend has been living in a musical bubble and has no knowledge of popular music. Zeppelin? Who are they? Hendrix? Heard of him, but has never heard him. My friend can compose a song like nobody's business, but is woefully underwater when it comes to self-expression because the only acceptable standard of music has been so tightly defined.
It's not like Zappa didn't understand or appreciate classical music just like many people can appreciate both Picasso and, say, Cy Twombly. I know I can. But let's not forget that Picasso started out with very traditional fine art. His early drawings are clearly masterful in this respect, but then he destroyed the standard only to try and lock it up again as an old man. As Vonnegut would have said, "So it goes." But as Sonny and Cher said, "The beat goes on."
Like it or not. :)
March 31, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'm familiar with Freudian slips, but Freudian mispellings?! I'm seriously laughing at myself pretty hard right now. This was completely unintentional.
I swear. :)
Baroque Obama for President!
March 31, 2008 11:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What did Zappa think of John Cage.
Pop music?
Your friend was a snob.
The eqivilent of "Fine" art to "everyday" art is John Cage to
Jimi Hendrix. IOW, we probably agree..
No, is not music or art or anything.
You remind me of a guy with a little knowledge. Kinda dangerous. May be why you're so popular with the ladies.
April 1, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bummer, lil' bee, you missed the fun of music as well. And to think that Hendrix was of *your* time!
For someone so Green, you are awfully reactionary and rigid in your tastes.
Which is fine... but... let's not be so sure of ourselves, okay? I've sent your insights on me to a few friends and we all had a good laugh at your "perceptions".
It's springtime, lil' bee. Enjoy the night air.
And as the husband of your candidate told us all: Chill out.
And I say that with love to you.
April 1, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your friends?
What is this? An appeal to your friends authority?
Relying not on your own credentials, but some nebulous "others."
This has become quite a joke.
You have yet to address anything I've said, but it's been fun being the object of your holier-than-thou attitude and your ignorant snobbery.
Oh dear, I called you ignorant. Well, I'm sorry, but that is obvious to me.
I sure hope I've at least given people some reason to read what you say a little more carefully.
My work here is done.
:)
April 1, 2008 8:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
You obviously do not understand the meaning of "appeal to authority":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority
In short: I'm right because I'm an "expert", not because my argument makes sense.
April 1, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zappa on Cage? Fortunately, he was asked that very question:
http://home.online.no/~corneliu/curmudge.htm
You'll notice he's not pre-occupied with issuing decrees about what does or doesn't qualify. That's the contrast I was drawing.
As I've pointed out, the key distinction here is that one person is trying to narrow definitions in order to shore up their "legitimacy" (see: Power, concentration of) and the other person is pointing out that the self-appointed Emperor is naked. Zappa wanted people to come up with their own ideas. Imagine that.
Interesting that you completely missed ct's point about flashing credentials on anonymous web forum. Your ignorance here is twofold. First, there is absolute no way to authenticate any such assertions. Second, even if we could authenticate them they represent nothing but an appeal to authority. So you've said that fine art died. So what? Who are you to say? Who was Picasso to say? Is he "God" of all art? Are you? Freeman Dyson did some brilliant work in quantum mechanics, but he also has posited some seriously weird stuff. See Dyson's sphere or Dyson trees for an example. Deifying people, including yourself, doesn't win the argument. No matter how many credentials you can slap after you name, at the end of the day everyone is still a fallible human being. Maddening, isn't it?
Interesting as well that you're hung up enough on your opinion and credentials that you immediately assume that you're the smartest, most informed person in the room. Is this double-standard completely lost on you? We're supposed to bow to you credentials and yet you assume that we have none? I thought you were smarter than this.
It's even funnier that my point flew over your head so completely that you jumped right into the tiger pit by insulting my assumed lack of knowledge and then calling me "dangerous". As I said, the "in" crowd always perceives those outside as dangerous just like artists that don't go to art school to get "credentialed" earn the label "outsider artists".
My friend is a snob, eh? And what are you? My friend will be fine in the end because my friend is actively working to explore the world outside of the classical music bubble.
Classifications always make us comfortable, but where would you put Joe Satriani? How about Aphex Twin? What about Miles Davis? Is Bitch's Brew jazz or rock and roll? Both? Neither? More importantly, why is it so important to label it? I can tell you that it's far more important to the people who want to have power over what is and is not "authentic" than it is to people who are interested in the music itself.
Or, try this experiment: Go listen to a Mr. Bungle album and then tell me what kind music that is.
I'll gladly accept your small-minded insult because I know exactly what you really mean by "dangerous". As Maverick said to Iceman in Top Gun: "That's right! Ice... man. I am dangerous."
April 1, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you should see what he says in private, DF.
Ah... I feel like you and I are the last ones at the party, so I can respond to you and few will see this revealing response.
My little gift to you tonight.
;-)
April 1, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to know what he says in private! I have a book that he wrote the forward to called The Deep, Hot Biosphere by Thomas Gold. I'm guessing you've probably heard of it, but it's about the abiotic theory of petroleum origin. I know that I said some of his ideas are weird, but I don't mean that in a bad way at all. New ideas always seem weird. In fact, one of my friends basically called me an idiot and laughed at me for reading Gold's book and trying to consider it with an open mind. The sad part was that I was soliciting his opinion because I respect his scientific knowledge.
Do you know him? Are you him? Obviously, you might not want to answer either of these questions, but it might come as a surprise that I'm sort of terrible at picking up on hints and I'm intensely curious about the true meaning behind the winky.
Either way, it's always fun to chat with you.
April 1, 2008 3:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not him. Don't over interpret the winky.
But I have met with him on multiple occasions.
Of course, I'm flattered that you will believe me on this anonymous blog. Apparently, and ironically, I don't need credentials with you... which is precisely the reason you believe mine!
Science is the most difficult subject because you must always be an absolute skeptic and yet keep an eye out for the unexpected at the same time.
If you haven't read it already -- and I suspect you have -- read GENIUS by Gleick.
Now, shall you and I discuss painting next? ;-)
April 1, 2008 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, after I replied I thought better of reading too much into it. And you're as right about credentials here as you were above. I've read Gleick's Chaos, but I still haven't gotten to Genius yet, although I'm a huge fan of RPF. Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman! is one of the funnier books I've read in my life. The guy was insanely comedic and just altogether brilliant. I'm still working on American Theocracy, but I'll put Genius on my list.
Unfortunately, I've got to put myself to bed for a change, but maybe we can work it into the next thread. Perhaps workerbee will have chewed over some of the discussion tonight and will join in as well.
April 1, 2008 5:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was a little fawning given you'd just reamed me on the same subject.
But such is the power of innuendo.
I have a quote for you.
"All hat, no cattle."
April 1, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
The difference, that you still don't get, is that clearthinker is not trying to appeal to his own authority by flashing credentials to shore up his point. It really doesn't matter whether I believe him or not. See the difference?
April 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I see you making some pretty ridiculous exceptions.
BTW
Is downright creepy. It's ceertainly an appear to some type of authority, un-named, of which the poster assumes you are in awe of. I'd be insulted if anyone said that to me, really. If you want to make all sorts of exceptions and conditions for some posters and not others, that will ruin your credibilty.
Don't say I didn't warn ya.
Peace.
April 1, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Small-minded insult? by saying we probably agree?
Methinks the gentleman protests too much.
If you want to get into a discussion about how atonal music is "art," that's fine. I don't mind a little atonality, but there needs to be balance.
John Cage appeals to a very small group of snobs who think they know more than anyone else about what constitutes "art."
Clearthinker appears to embrace that concept. I don't.
Broad appeal is part of what makes Art, "Art."
April 1, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, small-minded at least a little insulting.
Art is art is art. Music is music is music. What I object to are elitists who want to dictate what is and is not to others. It's that simple.
April 1, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
So clearthinker tells me to look at a laundry list of contemporary artists, I explain I'm familiar with them, and that's an appeal to authority?
Maybe in your world, but in my world you are being exceptionally unfair.
I gave my reasons for my feelings on modern art (it's craft, or lack of). No one addressed that. Instead you piled on and told me I was some kind of snob, but that's actually what you're being. Elitist, really.
What would you do if someone presumed to tell you to look at art you weren't merely "familiar" with but actually studied?
Would you mention you studied it?
I think you would.
Now I'm quite used to things being exceptionally unfair around here. That's fine, no one ever said it should be, but I'm under no obligation to pretend you're being even remotely reasonable.
The only one that "appealed to authority" around here was clearthinker. A hinted at but never stated one, no less. Pretty crooked and dishooest, IMO. Stating one's credentials is just that. I did so plainly.
You can spin, but a fair reading of the conversation, such as it was, would render your conclusions a bit suspect. I think you are impressed by clearthinkers rather blatant hinting and name dropping. I'm sorry, stuff like that doesn't impress me. I tend to suspect those that do of arrogant self-importance, and I think there's cause for that here.
I think you're the better thinker and poster, by a long shot. So your harsh words made me feel a little sad.
O.K.
Now I'm over it.
:D
April 1, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, a bunch of academics will tell you that Picasso killed art... his work answered more questions than it asked.
I used to enjoy Picasso... until I discovered Matisse. But as you so eloquently point out: all art is new in it's time.
It's not surprising to me that someone supporting Hillary would also cling to the comfortable and familiar of the past in art. Which is not to say you can't appreciate art from before 1950, but to make a blanket statement that it died since then... well... that's just so akin to saying that you have to elect Hillary because moving forward to the future with a new person can just be so.... scary.
I mean here we have workerbee arguing 35 years of experience to me...and she is entitled to her stake as resident art maven. Because she worked very, very hard to get to this point.
Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
As DuChamp would say, workerbee provided us with a ready-made.
Well, maybe DuChamp wouldn't have said that. But I bet Rrose Selavy would have.
Apparently the lil' fuzzy bee doesn't know to whom she converses... but you, DF, saw this at least once before when my other insights were challenged.
Tonight, I'm willing to play to that audience of one... since I know you are reading this, DF! ;-)
As you say, "The Beat Goes On...."
Or more exactly, as Melanie said:
April 1, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny. Of course, the world is a scary place when we become overwhelmed with undeniable uncertainty, but this is why FDR told us that there's nothing to fear but fear itself. Or, as Dennis Leary put it, "Life sucks. Get a helmet."
Because no one is getting out of here alive, so at some point you just have to dig in and set to work:
Since we're well into the quote-fest (probably my fault somehow!), I'll leave you with one more from one of my all-time favorite sources of quotable quotes, the late stand-up comic, erstwhile prophet and perennial Texan William Melvin Hicks:
Yeah, you might say that I'm a dreamer... but I'm not the only one. :)
April 1, 2008 1:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you quote someone a little more contemporary?
DuChamp , LOL, how ironic....
Apparently, I've challenged your authority on a subject you seem unable to defend very well.
Surely given that I "don't know who you are," is the most blatant appear to authority yet.
I told you I had a formal education in 20th Century art, which is why I see through your BS. You've only hinted at your supposed "greatness," and that of your "friends. How utterly unclear can you be? How snide?
I must say that 100 years from now, people might still remember DuChamp for his artistic and purposely anti-artistic contributions.
I doubt the same will be true of you.
April 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks worker for confirming my thoughts about CT. Smelled like a republican.....for sure he is a clinton hater.
March 31, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did workerbee confirm anything? Or did the bee merely echo your thoughts, Louisville, and you took that as a sign of fact?
I've yet to see where I have "hated" Hillary. Does not wanting her in the White House mean that I hate her? No. In fact, I think my post is fair and balanced. (By the way, I hope you catch the video posted here where Rendell lets the love flow on FNC...)
However, let's take this to conclusion: why would a GOPer hate Hillary more than Obama?
Is it because FNC hates Obama, but Hillary loves FNC?
Or is it because that I know that you know that I know that you know...
Well, you can see my point. 20 years of the Clintons and Karl Rove have all made us too clever by half.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar after all.
Yes, that's a Freudian reference.
But I do thank you, Louisville. It was in answer to your question that prompted me to post this blog which apparently a lot of people seemed to find stimulating in various ways.
March 31, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clear, Don't know any democrats..and I know A lot...that think Reagan was anything but a B actor that took the role as President and did an F job.
March 31, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't stop fools from being fools ct. So go right ahead. Its just your discussions bear eerily to ones that I have had with Republican Business people that I know for the last 20 years. Assumed you were dem..but probably not. Not that it matters seems DF is an Independent..whatever that may be. Carry on don't let sanity or reality get in your way
March 31, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah! We have a purity test from Louisville!
Let's review: Louisville is for Hillary Clinton, who is to the right of Obama be several metrics, and so if I post in favor of Obama or not in favor of Hillary, that makes me a member of the GOP.
By the way, I'm not sure what your point even is: are you simply trying to judge my statements via some source? I could be a member of the Green Party for all you know... or a Libertarian.
How does this change what I wrote?
I will say one thing: neither the little bee nor you have actually addressed my post. Instead you have addressed me. And anyone that happens to agree with me are either Independents or fools.
Hmmm... and anyone that has voted for Obama live in states that don't count... and... hey! I'm beginning to see a pattern here!
March 31, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for confirming my suspicions that your world view suffers from absolute bifurcation.
March 31, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh.. that's odd. I kind of thought you smelled like a Republican.
March 31, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what does the fair-minded DF think of someone continuously referring to me as "Little Bee" denotes, exactly.
I don't see a whiff of anything condescending about you. I'd like to think we share a knee jerk reaction against it.
The right wingers on CSPAN Sucks like to refer to me as "little Bee." For obvious reasons. Their store of vinegar is rather low.
This poster likely knows me from there, and I've likely run across him before. Either there or at the old CSPAN community.
Obviously not anyone too noteworthy, or I'd remember.
{shrug}
I stand by my original post.
cui bono?
April 1, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again, workerbee.
I'm sorry you took office at "Bee" and "Lil' Bee". I meant them as terms of endearment, your avatar is cute and fuzzy.
But no matter, from now on you'll be a workerbee to me.
Now I have a question for you:
Why is your buzz on me always wrong?
April 1, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I'm "always wrong?"
Well gee whiz, using "little" in front of someones handle is considered demeaning and insulting in most of the known world, unless one is refering to a young child.
Don't tell me that isn't abundantly "clear."
You take disingenuousness to a whole new level, buddy. At least when I call someone out I do it forthrightly , without any backhandedness.
Backhandedness is your modus operandi. It says a lot about you. So do your little veiled hints at your own supposed greatness.
I find that rather common and distasteful, but I'm an honest broker. Your behavior has led me to believe you aren't.
Now why don't you go drop some more names and give the impression of being someone you're not. I see others here lap that sort of nonsense up.
I don't.
Regular people are much more impressive than sneaky wannabees.
April 1, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nuts! When I wrote "office" I meant "offense".
A typo... unless you are going to be a busy bee and come up with a deep meaning that I think of seeing you at the office.
April 1, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Honestly? I think it's a little more innocuous than you going around telling people how stupid they are because they have a contrary opinion. I mean, it's apparently cool for you to loudly announce that ct hates Clinton and to tell me that I'm a person with "just a little knowledge". It seems like you're just reacting to a previous experience with a very obvious riff on your avatar and it doesn't seem like clearthinker is really being as rude to you are as you're being rude to clearthinker.. or me for that matter, but I forgive you. And I'm not even a Christian! The weirdness continues...
April 1, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, we'll have to diasgree.
I had no idea I needed forgiveness. It seems to me I wasn't the only one being insulting, but hey, I forgive you, too.
I still think art died half a century ago, John Cage doesn't write music (Zappa agreed, in case you missed that,) and clearthinker is a troll.
No one seems to be able to make a clear case as to why that's wrong, but we sure managed to get far afild from that. I don't wonder why.
April 1, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The" Bee, and "Little" Bee.
LOL
Just like the right wingers on CSPAN sucks.
:)
ooopsie
March 31, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bee:
I would hope that, as indicated in your avatar, you have a left AND a right wing!
March 31, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
:D Well, I call 'em like I see them.
Obama is to the right of Hillary of several other metrics.
So what?
There isn't a spits worth of difference between them. When folks get so bent to the right that they advocate NOT voting for the Dem nominee, i'd say it's their selfmade zealotry that compels them to fly way to the "right." Which in this case is "wrong."
A libertarian? Could be. Especially as you tend to savage populist platforms like Edwards.
Certainly not a Green. Too polite. :)
March 31, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm... perhaps this is the reason that Hillary ranks McCain higher than Obama?
Well, now I am Red... from blushing.
March 31, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has said she'd support Obama, if he won. Several times. I see no reason to doubt she'd do so. I'm afraid I don't believe she was endorsing McCain. Herself? Well, yes, but that's what one expects from any Presidential candidate. Singing their own praises is SOP.
I hope the red isn't some sort of Mildew. I was a little upset at the way they uncrated the Rodin sculptures at the Museum. It was an old part of the building, and it was like a cross between being in an art warehouse, and the sublevel at Cal Arts.
Not an optimum place for such Loveliness, but I understood they could charge for a "sneaky" view. Charge more for the "sneakiness," no doubt.
To think it used to cause me some umbrage. How silly, considering.
You know, things like extending Iraq for 100 years, or invading (illegally, no doubt) Iran, then maybe Venezuela--why not?
'Cept, I think that scenario can be avoided. Easily.
March 31, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
My, my little bee, I just noticed that on your profile, you write:
So are you saying you are not polite?
March 31, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obviously. Don't tell me you haven't noticed.
How genteel of you.
March 31, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course.
And?
Asking the MSM to live up to their status as the forth estate is like asking a Clinton to eschew power.
Politics is all about chips. Hence the reason "official Washington" exists in the first place.
What we are really going to fine out this election cycle is IF the political system in America is already too corrupted to be salvaged.
March 31, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fortunately, we don't have to ask Hillary to do anything. We get to tell her.
With our votes.
March 31, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is always hope. If the country is true. I think, in the end, we are.
Note the year.
Welcome to the New Gilded Age .
March 31, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Purity test? Yeah.....When I talk part politics I want to be talking to people in my party. If your not....well I will see you after we have a Nominee....
March 31, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it mean to be a Democrat?
Humphrey was a Democrat... so was Richard Russell... and J. William Fulbright... and George Wallace... and Jerry Brown.
What does it mean to be a Republican?
Reagan was a Republican... so was John Anderson... Nelson Rockefeller... and Sam Brownback... and Lincoln Chafee.
You see?
March 31, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
And to think that I keep hearing Clinton supporters lamenting over an "echo chamber".
Sigh.
April 1, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? Worker....Green party? Can I ask why your wasting your time on Democratic Party Politics?
March 31, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Louisville, you *are* consistent and I like consistency!
Well done, sir!
March 31, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I reregistered as a dem for the primary, and voted for Edwards, although he had recently dropped out.
I plan to reregister after the Presidential Election, but the Green Party is kind of er, immature here. Lots of infighting. Kinda like Democrats.
:)
Anything but more GOP.... ABMGOP, pity it doesn't work. It mighta caught on.
No, I didn't vote for Nader. Lots of common-sensical Greeens didn't.
March 31, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does the big D do a closed primary in CT?
April 1, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, yes they do.
April 1, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well when people are bitching one way or another about a candidate I just hope the hell they are at least reigstered. At this level I would hope they have opened their checkbook for the Party and not just their Candidate. Otherwise, whats the point in arguing?
March 31, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I admit I haven't been as generous as I used to be, But I do phone banking and things. My daughters n=medicine is very expensive, and oil has been killing me. I'm praying it will warm up. 150 gallons of heating oil is running over $500.00. Last Year it was more like $350.00, so what kind of increase is that.
I wish I could "open my cheeckbook" more, but as I don't care which Dem candidate gets the nod, I won't likely be volunteering until August.
Is it OK with you if I keep informed until then?
I'd like your permission.
Kinda.
March 31, 2008 11:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh my god....just register
March 31, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since the sun has long ago set in the East and before this blog falls off the Recommended Page, in the tradition of DF, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who participated in this lively exchange.
It was always interesting to see the tenor of the discussion and appreciated all the comments, both friendly and... er... ummm... not so friendly.
It's all good.
March 31, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why not register now. A check to your local or national party would help. If you give me where you are I can hook you up with your precinct captain that I know can sure use your help. This year is going to be especially important with help at the polls to make sure people aren't turned away on credential problems. Plus if we had workers at polls the whole Limbaugh BS could be put to rest.
March 31, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a registered Dem I'm in Middletown CT, and on the sublist for Middlefield poll workers.
Bunch of fierce old ladies, my 80 year old, former town tax-collector neighbor, among them. (FORMIDIBLE old ladies. Solidly entrenched. The heart of Democracy) My ex still lives there and my name is still on the deed.
:)
You don't need help in Connecticut, but I'll be on call during the general.
I meant I'll reregister Green after November, Probably.
March 31, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clear, last but not least. I don't agree with your lists. Believe wallace ended up becoming a republican or at least his wife ran and won as one I think. Lester Maddux was a democrat too. All despicable racists to be sure......but the party is as much about a platform as people.
PS - didn't like a one that was on your list either. Though Jerry Brown did date Linda Ronstadt so that is pretty high in my book.
March 31, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will not bother to read your moronic post as this is a Obama blog, but please tell me which of the things in the Clinton years that you did not like?
Was it the Peace or the Prosperity?
Fool, you've been given the old Obama Okey Dokey.
April 1, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
dembillc, I replied to you specifically.
Please read above.
Apparently being called a "moron" by you is quite an honor, so I thank you.
April 1, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry to hear about your oil situation, workerbee.
That situation will get much worse. Much worse.
You may want to read more about it here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/fly-gets-it-wrong-its-the-ener.php
At least we agree that energy is going to be a critical issue going forward.
April 1, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
ClearThinker
Very nicely written.
My sentiments exactly.
Increasingly similar echoes from friends and acquaintances are resonating in the public's perception of Hillary.
On the advice of her political handlers, I believe, Clinton overplayed her hand. What I do not understand is why the party aficionados are not weighing in to stop the gutter-snipe politics. Moreover showering praise on McCain, HRC is not doing herself nor the party any favours.
Some will tell you gutter-snipe politics work -- perhaps they used to, but they seem to be backfiring. The past two days several people have told me they voted for Hillary during the primary, but would not do so again.
I prefer Obama's unique style of hitting back by using humour. For example Hillary's red phone ad: Obama rhetorically asks his audience, is Hillary trying to imply I won't answer the phone? Of course I would, but I would not wait for 6 rings before doing so! He effectively diffused any negative impact it might have had by making people laugh at such a ridiculous insinuation. Obama is clever that way. The voters get "it."
Hillary is a fighter no doubt. That being the case I would rather her fight on moral principle and her merits rather than employ gutter-snipe tactics against Barack while praising McCain. She is taking a harder hit for making fallacious claims re: Bosnia, NAFTA, Ireland, SCHIP notwithstanding. More importantly deceiving the public Hillary broke the bond of trust.
As a consequence her stature and support are evaporating.
I want to trust and respect the next President; Hillary fails on both accounts. IMHO.
April 1, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments, serena! Nice to have some company while I sweep the floor and gather the cups and glasses now that everyone moved onto the next party at TPM...
As you can see, everyone either agreed in principle or threw out aspersions. Very little middle ground. For the most part things are pretty civil which was cool.
I, too, am finding groups of friends who were once for HRC now rethinking everything afresh... and it's because of her style and how she's run things the past few months. It wasn't that long ago she was "inevitable"!
April 1, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
EXACTLY!!
*S*
April 1, 2008 5:47 AM | Reply | Permalink