Democrats, Primaries etc - Since I'm not sure where to put this one

[Big Magilla]

I liked the way Hillary kept on about health care despite the moderator trying to bring her back on topic. I didn't like the way she kept harping on Obama's use of Deval Patrick's catch phrases. It just made her out to look petty. Her classy end comments were not a concession, but seemed to open the door to one not so far off as we might think. If she's smart she'll drop out before she's forced to and make a deal with Obama to do so in exchange for his support of her health care program, perhaps even securing a promise to be his Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.

[Sabin]

Oh, I agree, Akash. That's why I'm almost fatigued. This head-butting between Obama and Clinton while the Republicans sit back, sit back touching their emaciated fingers together under their Visigoth hoods like that Star Wars Emperor: "Yes! Yesss! Destroy each other more!!!" The Democrats have done what they've always done: The Republicans' dirty work. Look at 1968, that great year of change and revolution and look what it yielded. Well, that's what we're going to get. John McCain will trump the competition because he will do what they couldn't and effortlessly: appear decent, civil, and strong. Hilary or Obama?...Joe Biden is out and I'm down for either one. Even if I'm sick of them at this point.

I'll say this for Barack Obama...I have not watched all the primaries especially not the ones terribly recently but he did not say or do anything illuminating that I could see. I think he probably has a better chance of winning the election than Hilary Clinton but I'm incredibly disappointed in this great American speaker and leader to see so much work done for him. I will vote for him over McCain obviously for the domestic changes that I think he can bring but he has not amazed me this go-around. Is he biding his time? I almost think that with this competition that would be far too shrewd of him to have so much faith that he could best Hilary Clinton without putting on his game face but I've yet to see Obama sweat or rather any degree of effort.

And I'll say this for Hilary Clinton...there was so much grumbling about her teary-eyed "I have so much opportunity for this country"-nonsense, which is false obviously but proved revelatory. Interestingly enough, David Mamet pointed out that she didn't say America had so much opportunity within it but that it needed her to coax it out. Was it real? I mean, no. Of course not. But it set a new tone for her campaign and honestly the rest of her political career. More on that in a moment. The note on which she ended in Texas was classy. Was it real or not? When it's classy, it doesn't have to be. Fucking classy. Say what you will about debating the merits of Hilary vs. Obama but in terms of reinvention and surprise and adjusting opinion and turning a campaign into a fucking three act narrative, there's no comparing Hilary Clinton to Barack Obama. Obama maintained hype. Hilary Clinton made her own fortunes through connivery, reinvention, hard-work, and a lot of fairly brilliant moves.

Is this a good thing to pay such attention to how much she changed from the beginning of the campaign to the end? Don't like they just become different people when they take office? Does any of this matter? Should we be complimenting such hunger for approval as Hilary has done? She worked her ass off and that I'm impressed by. I did not see that with Barack Obama.

And she'll be the president eventually. Women live longer than men and Bill doesn't have many years left in him. If he has ten, I'll be astonished. There was a New Nixon. This year, there was a New Hilary. Eventually, they'll be a New Clinton. Not a New Hilary.

[Akash]

I liked the positive way the debate ended and Hillary deserves the credit for that. But I think her campaign will end soon.

It might, but I still don't think anything she said was a concession. I think she's far too shrewd and ambitious for that (this is not a negative, mind you). And really, there's no absolute reason for her to throw in the towel yet. And she knows that. Anyway, the sooner her campaign ends, the sooner we can talk about how McCain is totally gonna beat Obama for the Presidency. Yup, that's my prediction. Four more years of Republican war-mongering and ass-hattery (and I only say four cuz I don't think that guy can make it to eight).



Edited By Akash on 1203657069

[Akash]

Democrats who look back fondly at the Clinton years and pretend they were perfect (rather than just more competent than the Bush years) are as silly as white conservatives who talk about the 50's being so wonderful. The answer "yeah, if you weren't poor, or black, or a woman, or gay" totally applies to both.

LOL. Seriously. But outside of this board, the delusions about the Clinton years are far worse. I've met Democrats all over the campaign trail who even now (New York, New Hampshire, Virginia...you name it) will say things like, "With Bill Clinton there was no bombing other countries" or "Bill Clinton did so much for gays/blacks/women."

I don't know what alternate universe these people were living in (and no, these aren't just the misguided opinions of straight white men) but it sure sounds like a nice place. How can I get there?

[kaytodd]

Debate was far more substantive than I thought it would be. Of course my expectations were low. I did not note any real blows landed by Hillary or any gaffes by Obama. Hillary needed Obama to humiliate himself but he did not accomodate her. He looked like he was in command. I liked the positive way the debate ended and Hillary deserves the credit for that. But I think her campaign will end soon.

[Akash]

Even though I didn't vote for her, I actually thought Hillary Clinton came across really well in tonight's debate. I don't think it's quite the subtle concession speech liberal publications are making it out to be -- everyone here at The Nation is going apeshit, ranging from enthusiastic "she knows it's over!" to bittersweet, "Aww, she's conceding" -- but either way, her final words and that well earned standing ovation made her seem more honorable than she's seemed throughout this whole campaign (blame her lousy husband and his low attacks for potentially helping to sink her once formidable ship).

Good for her. If she does lose the nomination, at least she'd manage to go out on a high note, which is more than one can say for many unmemorable exits on the Republican side, especially her old New York nemesis Rudy Giulian and his deliciously pathetic tail-between-his-legs scamper-away. Funny how the media (ok, Maureen Dowd) tried to drum up a Rudy vs. Hillary smackdown in NY in 2000 and then again for the Presidential nominations of both parties in 2008, and in both cases Hillary emerged as the winner or near-winner while Rudy had to leave with no fanfare. For that alone, I thank her.



Edited By Akash on 1203656275

[Steph2]

Steph, I don't see Sonic as some sort of Hillary groupie at all. And I am certainly no fan of Hillary, even less so with the way she and Bill have behaved since Obama became a serious challenger. He is just pointing out the other side of the argument on the issue of Hillary's vote for the authorization in 2002. He is critical of her when he thinks it is called for. And he certainly does not say she was on the side of the angels when she cast the vote on the authorization. And it is good to raise questions about Obama at this point.

Of course it is. And I don't think Obama is the best choice we could get either, and I'm often weary of my peers who so easily fall for his empty rhetoric or who think there's a substantial difference between him and Hillary Clinton (there isn't). Questioning any of these people is fine but if you looked back over the past couple of months, Sonic Youth has been completely one-sided in his attacks, irrationally hateful towards Obama (I have my suspicions why) and he's taken Clinton propaganda to new dizzying heights. It all began when he kept hounding Damien and myself about what Hillary's vote "really meant" and he hasn't let up. And now according to him, all the lefty publications supporting Obama and criticizing Hillary have just "drank the Kool Aid." Please. Give me a break.

If this isn't the Criddic of the Left I don't know what is. Though, to judge from Sonic's positions, he's hardly Left. Criddic of the Center? Criddic of the Moderates? Criddic of the Stuck-in-the-Past?

Democrats who look back fondly at the Clinton years and pretend they were perfect (rather than just more competent than the Bush years) are as silly as white conservatives who talk about the 50's being so wonderful. The answer "yeah, if you weren't poor, or black, or a woman, or gay" totally applies to both.

[flipp525]

He is just pointing out the other side of the argument on the issue of Hillary's vote for the authorization in 2002. He is critical of her when he thinks it is called for. And he certainly does not say she was on the side of the angels when she cast the vote on the authorization. And it is good to raise questions about Obama at this point.

I agree with kaytodd. Questioning the presumptive frontrunner at this stage in the game is healthy and necessary, no matter how much momentum and charisma he/she supposedly has.



Edited By flipp525 on 1203627649

[kaytodd]

Steph, I don't see Sonic as some sort of Hillary groupie at all. And I am certainly no fan of Hillary, even less so with the way she and Bill have behaved since Obama became a serious challenger. He is just pointing out the other side of the argument on the issue of Hillary's vote for the authorization in 2002. He is critical of her when he thinks it is called for. And he certainly does not say she was on the side of the angels when she cast the vote on the authorization. And it is good to raise questions about Obama at this point.

[Steph2]

More tomorrow. I've only scratched the surface. I haven't even gotten into what was in the actual "authorization".

Ugh. Please, spare us. You're as tiresome as you always were. Just post a link to that picture you have of Hillary hanging over your bed that you jerk off to every night, and we'll get the point. You're as bad, as dodgy, and as single-minded as criddic is with George W. Actually, you two have a lot more in common than you think. And not just the fact that you're both sort of on the same side in this debate.

And voting to fund a war so that the men and women WHO ARE ALREADY THERE aren't without protection -- and don't have to suffer unnecessarily because some politicians looking to further themselves politically placed them there -- is NOT the same thing as voting to authorize a war in the first place. And you damn well know it.

And please stop acting as if Hillary had no choice when it's been repeated over and over again (though I'm sure it bothers you to hear it) that Obama spoke out against the war when it was unpopular to do so, and that people like Kucinich and Ron Paul voted against it anyway. So either they had more information than Hillary, or more of a conscience. And neither one says very much about her.

[criddic3]

I don't recall that in 2002 three-quarters of Americans believed Saddam was responsbile for 9/11. I don't think three-quarters of Americans ever believed that. What they may have beleived was that Saddam was in his own way a threat as dangerous as Ossama Bin Laden, but I dont think most people connected the two despite the administration's efforts to make us think so.

Click on this link, and be frightened. Be very frightened:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

And that poll's from September of 2003!

Five months into the war, yes. I could be wrong, but as I remember it, after the weapons of mass destruction were proven not to exist, those supporting the war were looking for other reasons to justify it, which is when many started to believe the 9/11 conenction.

They didn't need other reasons to justify it. If you read the Authorization for Use of Force Against Iraq, you will find quite a list of reasons given. It was never only about WMDs. It's just that it was the most talked about rationale, one that was backed up by the previous administration's policy of regime change in Iraq.

And, no, after it was revealed who actually did the attacks on 9/11, I think the idea that Saddam Hussein had any major role in it kind of evaporated for a lot of people including me. I do not think the administration was making that link, but I agree that they did make a link between Hussein and some terrorist groups, as the evidence showed that he there were attempts at an alliance in the past. People who make the argument that the Bush administration made up all these falsehoods to justify their actions are doing just what they accuse Bush of. They didn't need to make anything up. History had plenty of evidence to back up their position without resorting to lies.

[Akash]

Heksagon, I think everything that has been posted here speaks for itself. You can do your own research into Obama's past as a community organizer, and even look for his earlier views on Palestine and Israel (early meaning before he became a viable Presidential candidate and thus has to do this ridiculous dance that they all have to do, including Hillary) to see how he may not be the best choice for progressives (that would have been Kucinich, maybe even Edwards), but he's definitely marginally better than Hillary.

Despite what some have said on this board, practically every progressive publication has begrudgingly chosen Obama over Hillary and real progressives aren't as blind to the awful politics of the Clinton years either -- this is not to say that the Clintons aren't preferable to Bush or any other loony Republican in recent years, but they're not "liberals." And to rewrite their history as anything other than a disappointing (but certainly, competent) event of centrism is to surrender to delusion or deceit. Also, not every liberal/Democrat/progressive journalist is a "liar" just because they're unwilling to parse language carefully enough to further a pro-Clinton agenda.

And for the last time -- just so we're clear -- I'm not thrilled with Obama either. These two choices suck and they have more in common with each other than they do with say someone like Kucinich. But he is the lesser of two evils.



Edited By Akash on 1203621312

[Big Magilla]

Sorry Magilla, but you're seriously misremembering.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

I don't blame you, though. I wish I could block that period out of my mind, too.

(Okay, it was two-thirds of the public, not three-quarters. But the point remains.)

I guess I went from finding it difficult to believe that so many people could be so gullible to false remembering that they weren't.

[Heksagon]

Well, if the article below is true,

And there's the rub. Much of it isn't. There's a lot of stretched truth, untruths by omission, and flat out lies in that article.

That is usually the case with this type of articles, yes... I didn't include that sentence for nothing.



Edited By Heksagon on 1203620563

[Sonic Youth]

Sorry Magilla, but you're seriously misremembering.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=5051

I don't blame you, though. I wish I could block that period out of my mind, too.

(Okay, it was two-thirds of the public, not three-quarters. But the point remains.)