Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream
Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream
by TOM HAYDEN
[posted online on April 22, 2008]
My wife Barbara has begun yelling at the television set every time she hears Hillary Clinton. This is abnormal behavior, since Barbara is a meditative practitioner of everything peaceful and organic, and is inspired by Barack Obama's transformational appeal.
For Barbara, Hillary has become the screech on the blackboard. From First Lady to Lady Macbeth.
It's getting to me as well. Last year, I was somewhat reconciled to the prospect of supporting and pressuring Hillary as the nominee amidst the rising tide of my friends who already hated her, irrationally I thought. I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore.
At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an antiwar force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus.
But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set.
Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all.
To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are.
To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?"
She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents.
Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.)
All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach?
It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist.
It is abundantly clear that the Clintons, working with FOX News and manipulating old Clinton staffers like George Stephanopoulos, are trying, at least unconsciously, to so damage Barack Obama that he will be perceived as "unelectable" to Democratic superdelegates. It is also clear that the campaign of defamation against Obama has resulted in higher negative ratings for Hillary Clinton. She therefore is threatening the Democratic Party's chances for the White House, whether or not she is the nominee.
Since no one in the party leadership seems able or willing to intervene against this self-destructive downward spiral, perhaps progressives need to consider responding in the only way politicians sometimes understand. If they can't hear us screaming at the television sets, we can send a message that the Clintons are acting as if they prefer John McCain to Barack Obama. And follow it up with another message: if Clinton doesn't immediately cease her path of destruction, millions of young voters and black voters may not send checks, may not knock on doors, and may not even vote for her if she becomes the nominee. That's not a threat, that's the reality she is creating.
Clinton's people have clearly chosen the Rove-Republican model of political discourse, in that whenever they say something on the national news, it pisses off or turns off most of the people, decreasing the potential turnout so that their narrower appeal to their own faction will have a greater effect. Who was bringing more new voters into the process? Obama. That's why the Clinton/DLC faction has tried to suppress the turnout with gotcha politics, cheap personal attacks, and ever-present allusions to the race of their opponent. This has been Republican tactic for the last 30 years.
This, the texture of politics, more than respective positions of Obama and HRC, is why HRC needs to have the figurative stake driven through her heart-- her media and consultant scumbags, at least those who pretend to be on the Democratic side, will have to get a job. And she can go back to being a junior senator from New York, if she still wants the job.
If I lived in a state where there was some doubt about the outcome in November, I would hold my nose, cross my eyes, and vote for HRC if she somehow lies, connives, and bribes her way to the nomination. But since I don't, I won't give her any reason to thank me.
April 23, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. Shouldn't you be making your wife scream?
April 23, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neo-Con, Chicken Hawk Glad makes an appearance.
This guy still supports the vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, and also supports Hillary's threat to "obliterate" over seventy million men, women and children.
April 23, 2008 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sound disturbed.
April 23, 2008 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that you did not deny being a Chicken Hawk War Monger!
April 23, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody believes that except you.
April 23, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you're a war monger. Don't know about your personal service record, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on chickenhawk. But your support for nuking Iran pretty much qualifies you on the other count.
April 23, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt. My support for Hillary's statements about Iran was in the context of a response to a nuclear attack by Iran on Israel.
April 24, 2008 6:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now Billy Glad goes to the Neo-Con play book, and trots out his Non-Denial Denial.
He wrote that he supported the Invasion of Iraq, still supports it, and he supports Dr. Hillary Strangelove Clinton's threat to "obliterate" a nation of seventy million men women and CHILDREN. For the record: when Billy Glad was asked why he has not joined up, and gone to fight in Iraq, he said that he was supporting them from here.
That is the well known War Whoop of the Chicken Hawk War Monger.
April 23, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what? Some democrats are hawkish. Some think the neo-cons have the right idea on foreign policy. They think that voting to authorize Bush to use military force in Iraq was a good idea, even knowing that Bush had to lie about wanting to use military force as a last resort to get enough votes. They think that the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, pushing us closer to preemptive war with Iran, was a great idea (as did every single Senate republican). They think that tough talk about obliterating Iran with nukes is just what a presidential candidate should be threatening.
Hillary is the natural candidate for democratic hawks like them, and they're entitled to their preference. When Hillary doesn't get the nomination, they'll follow Lieberman over to McCain's side.
April 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes they will, and some, such as Billy Glad, are already on that side, but are just trying to pass as Hillary supporters for now.
Hillary has endorsed John McCain for Commander in Chief ahead of a fellow Democrat.
Hillary is the New Lieberman.
April 23, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scoop Jackson was the original neocon. Progressive on social issues, conservative on national defense. So it wouldn't be unusual to have a "neocon" Democrat stay in the Party. The Progressive on social issues part kind of got lost in the rhetorical shuffle over the years, probably starting when Reagan used the cold war and massive defense budget to destroy social programs and undermine the institutions the Domocratic Party had worked to create since the '30s. Now the neocons are pretty much in the Cheney mold. I'm not.
April 23, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let us distinguish between hawkishness and lunacy. Pro-Iraq invasion Democrats are not merely hawks, they suffer from Bush-Cheney misguided delusion.
Obama is not a pacifist; he just picks his wars a little more carefully.
April 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, that was actually a pretty great one-liner. Simmer down, Liam, we've already won.
April 23, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
uhh... that reply was in reference to Billy's "Shouldn't you be making your wife scream?" comment. Thanks, TPM.
April 23, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy's mad because his boyfriend is not making him scream. Sooky sooky now.
April 24, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
But it wasn't even your post! Tom Hayden didn't mind my comment, why should you?
April 24, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I reposted his article because I enjoyed it. Obviously, I did not enjoy your snide remark in reference to his title.
April 24, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
SHE MAKES MY DOG BARK!
I totally agree with this "dude". Screaming wive's and barking dogs are the best indicator yet that this candidate is unfit for POTUS! But just to be sure let's keep our eye's on the migration habits of the Cerulean Warbler. Any change there could spell trouble for our Barry!
Sincerly
Bill Richardson (former Hispanic)
REMEMBER : Donate your spare "Change We Can Believe In" to ease the suffering of Harvard student loan deadbeats.
April 24, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another clown.
April 24, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
My avitar can kick your avitars butt so If I were you I would stop pointing your finger at him.
Fair warning. He's as dangerous as you are vacuous.
April 24, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your avatar obviously has no cardio, therefore it wakes up in the hospital with bruises.
Step off clown.
April 24, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
IT'S ALL SUMO SOYBOY!
Bring it to the ring you bitter baitin waffle eater! I'll spank you in front of your family and make you howl like a new born aardvark!
NOW GET THEM PANTIES DOWN!!
Sincerely
Deliverance Dingleberry
April 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
to Mr Glad:
Shouldn't you be listening to HRC bed time tales of bravery under fire? or how her father was actually Gen Curtis Lemay who taught her how to bomb people back into the stone age? or how HRC brought health care to all?
Sad but true, she has become a monster as her desire for power and recognition has overwhelmed her.
April 23, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ultimate guilt-by-association card that Obama, and the media as well, has been kind enough not to play is that Hillary would allow the philandering, manipulative triangulator back into the White House. I'm perplexed at how the media and most Hillary supporters have seemingly managed to perceive her as purely independent of him, as if he would not have undue influence on her presidency.
When the Ayres thing came up, I was hoping for Obama to ask, "What impact will this have on the way I would run the country? You think I'll be more....what, exactly?"
Whereas in a future Clinton Administration, it's quite likely that Bill will be a major distraction, and will also be advising Hillary not as a disinterested other but as one who owes a lot of favors and is still seeking favors through the work of his foundation. Given their relationship she will be less likely to reject his advice in order to either 1) keep peace in the family, or 2) help Bill benefit in some way at the expense of the public.
It seems off limits these days as well to examine the interests that are backing each of the candidates at this very minute; don't these speak as much to "what kind of President you will be" as whether or not you shared a board seat with a University Professor who happens to have committed terrorist acts 40 years ago?
April 23, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom: The mistake you're making is your assumption that because someone supported the political causes of the 1960s, as Hillary certainly did many times, they cannot condemn the methods used by the most radical groups of the era like the Weather Underground. Many people of that era who supported the broad causes of ending the Vietnam War and promoting social justice at home drew the line at bombing civilian targets. Despite the certainty of anyone's cause violent methods are simply beyond the pale and counterproductive to the cause. This is something that Gandhi understood, but William Ayers never did.
It's also an entirely separate thing to think that all people including black nationalists deserve a competent defense than it is to attend a church for 20 years whose leader has stated without evidence that the United States created the HIV virus and that the September 11th attacks were part of the "chickens coming home to roost" because of the United States' foreign policy.
Do you personally agree with the statements of Jeremiah Wright or with all the actions of the Weather Underground? And if you don't, what is wrong with a candidate for office in 2008 saying that although she supports many goals of the 1960s she does not associate herself with the most radical people from that time?
April 23, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed... "because someone supported the political causes of the 1960s, as Hillary certainly did many times, they cannot condemn the methods used by the most radical groups of the era like the Weather Underground."
However, it's not fair then for Hillary to condemn Obama as somehow being supportive of those same radicals. He was 6 or 8 years old!
Also - Ayers was tried, convicted, did his time, and now is a productive (although still far left) member of society. I would bet that when Obama first met him, he didn't know that Ayers had been a member of the Weather Underground.
So - if we are to give Clinton a pass on her OWN radical past, can't we give Obama the same pass on his associates (not his own) radical past?
April 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Soy, saounds like you been sitting in Rev Do-Wright's church for a few years yourself, don't try to tell us you never heard any of those remarks either.
If he never heard a scream, how would he recognize one.
If Hillary hadn't gone a bit negative, she would have won by 70/30 min. BHO owes her one.
April 23, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a Native American, I know that blankets laced with Small Pox were used to commit genocide against indigenous peoples. As an African American, I also know of the Tuskegee Experiment, where Black men were allowed to die from infection of Syphilis over a 40 year period. And as a well-read student of life, I know that the United States had one of the biggest Chemical and Biological Warfare programs on earth -- and that it intensified it's focus precisely during that tumultuous period of the 1960s/early 1970s. So with all of that said, was AIDS created by the U.S. gov't. It's a distinct possibility. Is there proof? No. Is there proof the other way? No.
Regarding Rev Wright, I suggest you go to Youtube and listen to his 9/11 speech in full context. He was basically saying violence begets violence. So are you suggesting that the United States did NOT practice horrendous violence around the world prior to 9/11?
If that is your premise, then you, my friend, are delusional.
Finally, no, I may not agree totally with Reverend Wright's assessments. But I cannot judge him solely based on looped snippets of You Tube videos.
However, what I find totally hypocritical is the fact that Gov. Rendell, Hillary Clinton's biggest Pennsylvania supporter, passionately praised Louis Farrakhan in 1995, and that the MSM media chose not to really cover it. And Hillary Clinton has nothing to say about it? Not a peep?
In my book, that means Hillary has just as much connection with Farrakhan as Obama did through Wright. And for that not to be properly understood points to a real double standard in this campaign! I guess the bottom line is it shows how absolutely two faced Hillary Clinton and her whole camp is!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html
April 24, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
DUDE PLEAE STOP TALKING FOR ME!
I just got Rev. Wright sedated and your jabbering is going to wake him up. Just leave him to his $1.8 million dollar house in his all white neighborhood where he can hunker down and hide from his hypocracy.
Thanks and keep that Afro-American Indian Hate bottled up until the General!
Sincerely
B. Hussein Obama
April 24, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
hate or facts? I know you're confused. Go on a diet, fat boy.
Pudgey the whale, go eat a cake.
April 24, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'M EATIN CAKE ALLRIGHT!
Off your kitchen counter! Your wife said she can't get you off that darn keyboard long enouth to shag the nag so I'm programing your Tivo to Gomer Pyle USMC and stovin your stash with pubic hair.
Now get home forin I get some funny ideas about your Teddybear.
Yours truly
Apollo Creed
April 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Scoop Jackson was the original neocon. Progressive on social issues, conservative on national defense. So it wouldn't be unusual to have a "neocon" Democrat stay in the Party.
I suppose, and if that doesn't work out for you you can always follow "neocon Democrat" Lieberman's example.
Now the neocons are pretty much in the Cheney mold. I'm not.
In terms of foreign policy, however, Hillary is in the Cheney mold. And if you think not, then list a few votes she's made that didn't side with the Cheney/Lieberman neo-cons.
April 23, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lieberman might be a good example, but he has a different agenda. He supports the occupation. I don't.
Did you know that Cheney opposed the occupation? The Powell/Rice faction persuaded Bush to occupy Iraq. Cheney wanted to knock the government nd army down and let the region pick up the pieces.
April 23, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
More Billy Glad Bullshit. Now he is lying about Dick Cheney's Iraq War record. Cheney was the guy who put Rumsfeld in place, and fought to keep him there. Rumsfeld called the shots on the Invasion and occupation. Cheney/Rumsfeld were the ones that cooked the Intel in order to gain control of Iraq. Cheney has never said one word about wanting to end the occupation.
I think we all have learned now, that Bill Glad is a Neo-Con Chicken Hawk War Mongering Troll. Good lord, he is now even trying to spray perfume on Dick Cheney of all people.
Nice to know that Bill Glad sees Hillary as the next Dick Cheney. Be still my heart!
April 23, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Cheney didn't want the occupation it was only because he thought he had his white night in Ahmed Chalabi who could ride in and take over as a new "Pro-American" government and we could just get out. Of course Chalabi was full of shit and been playing our VP and the neocons for years so that he could make a power grab. It was only after it was obvious that the Iraqis weren't interested in him that the Bush & company had to create this occupation as a quick plan B.
You can shift blame to Rice & Powell, but it was only because the Neocons bet the farm on the wrong guy and didn't have a plan B from the start!
April 24, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could be right about Chalabi, but Bush had already decided to occupy before he invaded. He was persuaded it was the right thing to do by Powell and Rice.
April 24, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything to end the occupation. She's supported Feingold-Reid, for example. Bunch of stuff at her site. And don't forget, Cheney and Lieberman have very different agendas.
April 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe that's because they stop reading when someone starts a sentence with, "Dude ..."
April 23, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm there - tell me how.
April 23, 2008 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wright was taped stating he believes the US government is responsible for AIDS. First, I'm not sure why this is a relevant comment coming from a minister in a sermon. Second, only a radical who is out of touch with reality would believe something like this.
April 24, 2008 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I do. Because I haven't just seen the 12 second, dishonest fucking sound bites that Clinton cut in such Karl Rove style that I swear he's working for them.
Rev Wright is a minister of God in a mainstream Protestant Christian Church and if y'all and the Republicans keep trying to crucify this poor man, there ultimately will be hell to pay.
I mean that - people will only take so much and this persistent disgusting smear has got to stop.
You either read 20 years' worth of his sermons - I mean you read the sermon for every single fucking Sunday that Barack Obama attended and we can talk. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a Republican propaganda troll.
April 23, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he wasn't there for the good ones.
April 23, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you can back that up and unless you know exactly what Rev Wright said every single goddamn time Obama was in church, I'm not taking that shit anymore.
STFU about the man - he's 80 years old and has spent his entire life serving God and his country to his utmost. He was a fucking Marine before he was a preacher - what you have you done?
Any of you who want to judge him - what the hell have you done?
and who the fuck raised you - wolves? Didn't you learn to respect people that age who had given service of that caliber their entire lives?
It's just sickening to see this character assassination based on nothing.
April 23, 2008 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama said he wasn't there for the good stuff.
April 23, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why waste good posts on Billy Blad? This child thrives on abuse. The more he gets abused the happier he gets.. so just leave the child alone. On to more meaningful debate.. please!!
I find it so amazing that Hillary could sink so low in such a short space of time. It wont surprise me if in the long run we discover that she does have some mental issues lurking in the back ground. She acts and talks that way to me.
It is important for all to note that Hillary really does not even deserve this level of discussion on these boards. After all, Obama is the front runner and should therefore be occupying the debate.
Let's join Obama and look ahead to McCain and leave the lady to join Billy Bad and the Lieberman crew
Cheers
April 23, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is the nominee.
You can look at any permutation of the possible numbers and Obama is the nominee.
April 23, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
MY AVITAR WANTS TO DATE YOUR AVITAR
Is there a vacant comment thread we could meet and get this handled?
Hurry, my wife will be home any minute.
April 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're avatar needs a hot bath and a stalk of celery.
Moreover, a cranial boost.
April 24, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
TED NUGENT CALLED, HE WANTS HIS SHIRT BACK
Har! ...slurp...gurgle....droool
I always like that one cuz da homeboys don't know nuthin bout Ted.
Now go get me a pack of Kools buttchin.
Sincerely
Lead Singer for Lynyrd Skynyrd
April 24, 2008 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
A truly erudite post. Like your wife I used to scream especially when she started to employ the hysterical laugh, which had a tinge of madness at its edges. Now, I simply turn off the tv, come here and read all the good stuff folks like you say about The Good Senator Obama. Then I go over to youtube and listen to some of his speeches. Then I let Jon Stewart have a go on the tv.
The young man who starts his comments with 'dude' is only attempting to throw a few bricks at logic. The slime machine will not work, NOT THIS TIME.
April 23, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
BSoy, I feel your pain. I almost punctured my husband's eardrums the other night in response to some shit thing she said about Obama (I think it was the Farrakhan reference during the debate). I have never had such a visceral reaction to a politician. She's abhorrent to me and I can't wait to see her rendered irrelevant.
April 23, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's abhorrent to me and I can't wait to see her rendered irrelevant.
If there's a silver lining to this long, drawn-out nomination process, it's that the longer she stays in, and the more she pulls stunts like endorsing McCain over Obama, the more party insiders she pisses off. And the more party insiders she pisses off, the less likely it is that she'll ever again have a serious chance at anything higher than Senator from New York. She may truly render herself irrelevant, as far as presidential ambitions go, before this is over.
April 23, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've done a few of those screams, too. During the debate, at several points, I actually hit the pause button and turned to my boyfriend and said, "did she really just say that? Please tell me she didn't just say that!"
Last night, he made me stop watching election returns and put in a movie, just to salvage either my sanity or his eardrums. ;-)
April 24, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Hillary is an opportunistic liar. The fact that Gov. Rendell praised Farrakhan in 1997, and that there's actual video of this, and yet Clinton has nothing to say about it is astounding. The fact that Hillary Clinton can say "Screw Em" about white working class people, and many of them still vote for her is astounding. The fact that the Clintons pushed NAFTA through, and that Hillary specifically pushed for it, and yet unemployed or underemployed, minimally educated, working-class whites in Pennsylvania would still vote for her is absolutely astounding!.
There is really a sickness in America, if people are buying Hillary's bullshit.
April 24, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
And don't forget, Cheney and Lieberman have very different agendas.
Okay, when I feel the need for a finer-grained taxonomy of warmongers I'll be sure to get your input on that.
April 23, 2008 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's called being involved and informed. If you were involved and informed, and by involved I mean actively engaging the decision makers, think tanks and analysts who frame the argument instead of ranting in a blog, you know that the Cheney camp tried to persuade Bush to depose Hussein, look for the wmd and get out, leaving someone else to pick up the pieces. Colin Powell was the author of the break it and own it theory that eventually prevailed. The Cheney approach didn't involve nation building and spreading democracy to the ME, although I'm sure he backed that publicly after the decision was made.
The tragic irony of the situation is that everything ended up where it would have if Bush had followed Cheney's advice. Except thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would not have been maimed and killed.
But it's equally true that no one would have been maimed and killed if the invasion hadn't taken place in the first place.
April 24, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I also thought this was going to be some kind of sado-lesbian-voyeur thing. Unfortunately it wound up being a well reasoned and well researched political essay. What a waste of an interesting headline!
April 23, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How Hillary Makes My Wife Scream! would have been a great article. (How do you bold?)
April 24, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
More Billy Glad Bullshit. Now he is lying about Dick Cheney's Iraq War record. Cheney was the guy who put Rumsfeld in place, and fought to keep him there. Rumsfeld called the shots on the Invasion and occupation. Cheney/Rumsfeld were the ones that cooked the Intel in order to gain control of Iraq. Cheney has never said one word about wanting to end the occupation.
I think we all have learned now, that Bill Glad is a Neo-Con Chicken Hawk War Mongering Troll. Good lord, he is now even trying to spray perfume on Dick Cheney of all people.
Nice to know that Bill Glad sees Hillary as the next Dick Cheney. Be still my heart!
April 23, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not all that exercised about Hillary's behavior in attacking Obama. That's merely a case of dirty politics. Not nice, but part of the game. What's beyond the pale is Hillary's willingness to vote to support wars in order to show her toughness. She voted to start the war in Iraq merely because it served her political interests--at least so far as she perceived them. She now threatens to "obliterate" a country of tens of millions--once again to demonstrate her toughness, that is, her readiness on Day 1 at 3 am to murder millions to show how ready to be tough she is. If she wants to attack Obama, OK. But to treat millions of human lives as mere opportunities to show her toughness, that's unacceptable. This is a gangster mentality to participate in murder and to threaten murder for one's political ends.
April 24, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the alternative if Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons?
Maybe making it clear that such an attack would lead to their destruction will cause Iran to slow down and think about what they achieve by pursuing nuclear weapons. NATO and SEATO put a lot of countries under our nuclear umbrella and made it possible for them to forego their own nuclear programs. Maybe a Middle Eastern Treaty Organization of some kind would slow proliferation in the Middle East.
April 24, 2008 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
One country has Nuclear Weapons, The other does not.
Hillary warned the country that does not have nuclear weapons, that if they attack the nation that has nuclear weapons, then she will us our nuclear weapons to "obliterate" all seventy million of their men, women, and CHILDREN.
What will she do if the nation, that now has nuclear weapons, is the one that attacks the country that does not have Nuclear Weapons?
If you love Hillary's Insane Saber Rattling, you must adore the two terms of Bush's Cowboy Diplomacy.
Dr. Hillary Strangelove Clinton is now channeling George W. Bush.
April 24, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Bionic Soy, for reposting Tom Hayden here at TPM.
April 24, 2008 1:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's what makes the echo chamber the echo chamber.
April 24, 2008 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm practicing a tongue-in-cheek echo chamber.
You're practicing the echo chamber in the echo chamber in the echo chamber. Deeeep echo chamber. Might create deafness.
;)
I do like your take on the world, except when you're trying to obliterate parts of it...
April 24, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're kindly welcomed.
April 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, BionicSoy. Your article looks really cool when scrolled through at high speed. It looks much more interesting than most of the other articles I scroll through without reading.
April 24, 2008 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. That's what you do if you're a Hillary supporter.
April 24, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yet, here you are. How does that make this an echo chamber? Is anyone preventing you from posting? Nope.
Continue.
April 24, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow Otto, you fit the profile: dumb Hillary supporter.
If you don't like to read (or can't, which is a distinct possibility) OR if it gives you a head ache,
you can start your education with an audio book.
In fact, Obama's two books are a good place to start.
April 24, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really should fully source an article, especially when you paste the entire thing, including a link and the publication/site. Pasting the entire thing is usually considered a big no-no even without full sourcing, it's simply the bare minimum to give full credit.
It's from The Nation @
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080505/hayden
The following is from their "terms of use" @
http://www.thenation.com/about/terms_of_use.mhtml
April 24, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies to "the Nation" magazine. Obviously, I didn't post this for any other reason than I liked the article -- As most people here post articles for other people to read.
April 24, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
out of the loop certainly seems in the loop to me. Well said.
April 24, 2008 5:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
your wife highlights the real problem with Hillary. People don't just disagree with her -- they find her repulsive. With Bill caught lying again this week publicly over the race card fiasco, you can only conclude that these two are both sociopathic liars. It's hard to imagine why anyone would vote for Hillary. Honesty is apparantly not a criteria for their presidential candidate.
Hillary would be doomed in the general election. Conservatives who aren't very warm to McCain will come out in droves to vote against her, and a lot of Democrats will vote McCain. Those that disagree with McCain don't find him dislikeable or repulsive and will have no negative motivation to prompt them to vote.
April 24, 2008 7:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I've said in previous posts, all three Clintons need immediate therapy.
No White House until there's clearance from the Nut House.
April 24, 2008 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this Jane Fonda's , Tom Hayden?
April 24, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes.
April 24, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever notice that when she lies her eyes get REALLY big?
April 24, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I have noticed this, and she looks all around the room. Eye contact tends to be a real problem for her when bullshit flies from her upper lip.
April 24, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
THE CURE FOR BIONIC BOY
If we work together we can put an end to her "bullshit". It is going to require some cooperation. First you need to stop impersonating a Democrat and lieing about having a wife. We all know that no woman would marry a bed soiling whiner like yourself.
Lastly get a dog and beat him every day. You'll feel better and the dog will have a home.
thanks for tyring
Dr. Laura Schlessinger
April 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Fat Suit,
It's not MY wife, you nitwit.
It's the writer's wife.
I know it's tough for thoughts to travel up and down that fat neck of yours... but how about a little more effort.
April 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me thinks fat suit is Milo Buggeroff w/ avatar and same ole bile spewing.
April 24, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
PLEASE STOP LOOKING UP AT MY PEE PEE
Pounding your pillow until you fall asleep may assuage the guilt for thinking gay thoughts but prolonging the agony by attacking us Gomers with your pseudo sophistic hillbilly hate speech just gets us laughing and we know how that spoils it for you!
Now go make me a sandwich.
Sincerely
G. Pyle, USMC
April 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I make your wife scream because your wife is a bitter, bitter person.
April 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This reply next to the that avatar is so, well, hilarious!
April 24, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto dope.
April 24, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bionic Soy--
There is a lot of hatred in your wife's screams. A lot of harsh, extreme leftist, I-want-it-my-own-"superior"-way nastiness that is not the attitude of the truly enlightened.
It's also the bossy, first-in-the-birth-order, know-it-all, me-first, gimme-gimme attitude.
Both of you take a chill pill, and then vote for Hillary...
April 24, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
ditto again dope.
April 24, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just read that one-third of the veterans who served in Iraq suffer post-traumatic shock after returning home and an alarming number of them commit suicide each day. Tell your wife to scream about that. And if Hillary should somehow win the nomination, tell her to hold her nose and vote for Hillary in November. Assure her I will be doing the same if Barack is the nominee.
April 24, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tom Haydens wife is yelling cause she has to look at his fugly face every day. Wouldn't you? Why you think Janey left.
April 24, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary and her minions on this site are full of excuses about why she "should" be winning the nomination. Sad thing is, she's a loser. Plain and simple. A Loser... a very bad one at that! That's not the whole of it either. She is emotionally disturbed about all of this, too. I think it started with Bill and his infidelities.
It's not enough that the policies she's supported over the years are losers, she has to go out there in front of the electorate and publicly whip herself for her shortcommings as a wife, a candidate, and as a legislator.
It's not enough to go down alone, either. She needs the "billy glads", the "fogu2"'s, and other chicken-hawk pussies to go down on her while she flogs herself publicly. She cheers them on to join her in her twisted public display of "cutting"... much like an emotionally disturbed teen would encourage others to join in on slashing their limbs with razor blades to release pent-up frustrations.
It's a sick floorshow of destruction and self-retribution that requires a cast of perverted pole dancers to accompany her to her glorious orgasmic explosion of shame, guilt, and inevitable failure.
Pathetic, yet quite amusing... In a clinical sense.
Here's a clearer picture of her political state from KOS:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/24/132833/040/170/502238
Take note Clintonistas. You are enabling her. You will be to blame for her self destruction and future institutionalism. If you have any mercy you will stop this charade and get her some help.
April 24, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
""It's not enough to go down alone, either. She needs the "billy glads", the "fogu2"'s, and other chicken-hawk pussies to go down on her while she flogs herself publicly. She cheers them on to join her in her twisted public display of "cutting"... much like an emotionally disturbed teen would encourage others to join in on slashing their limbs with razor blades to release pent-up frustrations.""
yet another fine example of the Obama's quality support network and their grasp of the process. Don't some of you people who support him ever get tired of this drivel out of your group?
April 24, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, some of do. See my post below.
April 24, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's "...some of us do." Many, most likely. You'll notice quite a few TPM Obama regulars who aren't even spending a moment on this thread for exactly that reason.
I don't judge Hillary based on some of here extreme partisan supporters. Par for the course in politics. A few people will always let passion overtake them. I hope you won't do the same.
April 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, I'm having real trouble today. "Hope you'll do the same," as in, not judge Obama or all of his supporters based on a few who can't reign it in a bit.
April 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same reaction when Obama appears on TV... it's like listening to Rev Moon.
ANY voter who "say" they are supporting Obama who say they won't vote for Hillary (and visa versa)... well, their level of ignorance will be showing. I invite both campaigns to straighten up the idiots who are supporting them.
The only "choice" for a progressive, liberal or moderate is going to be Hillary or Obama. I might have to hold my nose to vote for Obama but I will do it because the consequences of getting McBush as president are too dire to imagine.
April 24, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is the enemy. As is her drinking buddy John McCain.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/NYT_Senators_Clinton_McCain_held_vodkadrinking_0728.html
And hence she will get no vote.
April 24, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
LISTEN UP PORKRIND BREATH
I don't drink with women. And stop sending me Hersheys Kisses. I got a wife. Audition CLOSED. Got it!
Sincerely
J. McCain
REMEMBER: If you run out of soyboy just grab some spare "Change We Can Believe In" and head for Wholefoods!
April 24, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I agree. Although, for me, Hlillary is making it worse and worse as we go along. Not only will I have to hold my nose but I may also need to be inebriated.
For both Clinton and Obama supporters, may I suggest toning it down a bit? There's a real good chance that some of the people you're responding to are Republican trolls who's sole purpose is to breed divisiveness. They pretend to be Clinton or Obama supporters. Think about it, isn't that the best way to win in November - divide and conquer? Don't take the bait. (They probably get paid by the response anyway, so why feed the trolls at all? Put them out of a job already!)
My fellow Obama supporters need to start embodying the principals of Obama's campaign; be inclusive and see the humanity in others, or if you can't, just keep cool and move on. Same for Clinton supporters. We're all gonna need each other this fall. Take a chill pill, go read "It Takes a Village" or "Dreams for my Father", and come back when you're ready to build a winning coalition instead of tearing the house down from within.
April 24, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
True enough LNAB, she's just doing it in very very self destructive manner.
April 24, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
In fact, Hillary is campaigning for McCain right now. So how can I vote for that brand of lunacy?
April 24, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for being so blunt.
I grow weary of the same tired arguments. You regurgitate, then move the goal post, then regurgitate, and so-on, and so-on.
Let's us just agree to get something that's completely obvious, to anyone but you, out of the way:
YOU LOSE. We don't like her brand of politics and you can't handle it. The reason I get so loud-mouthed about it is that there seems to be a lot of stupid "folks" out there that think that you can continue to change the rules every time things don't go yer damned way. It is my suggestion that YOU begin to look in the mirror at the block that's on your shoulders. I have legitimate reasons for supporting Obama and the best you can do is call me a "dreamer" and deny that there is people like Rev. Wright who have suffered injustices and may have some anymosity as a result. I am offended by your insensitivity, and you will bear the brunt of your own stupidity for denying what is as plain as the dumbassed look on your face right now.
Take your candidate and get on down the road. We've seen her ass and your head is in it!
Again, My apologies.
April 24, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take it easy. If you let it get personal than you're losing perspective.
April 24, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO APOLOGY NECESSARY
You are absolutely right! That grumpy menopausal gasbag two faced Pelosi should have that head in her ass examined!
Sincerely
Centerpunches Mom
April 24, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang, I'm having real trouble today. "Hope you'll do the same," as in, not judge Obama or all of his supporters based on a few who can't reign it in a bit.
April 24, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah...
Let's reign it in, you guys.
That means you Rev Wright, people might judge Obama based on you losing "your" perspective--something that's completely subjective and personal to you and your life experiences.
Right Daddy?
April 24, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink