I'm pretty sure we're not going to see nonsense like this from either President Clinton or President Obama. Even if neither winds up really governing the way I'd be happiest with, we'll no longer have a policy guided by a knee-jerk aversion to pragmatism.
« John Edwards, An Appreciation | Main | That's More Like It »
Why I'll Take Any Democrat
30 Jan 2008 01:13 pm
Comments (21)
I'm pretty sure we're not going to see nonsense like this from...President Clinton
I wager a bet on that.
"..I'll Take Any Democrat".
I would never have guessed.
I'm firing up the Stir Crazy (yes Mr. Y some of us do use popcorn poppers; they make better popcorn and the microwave stuff costs more and rots your lungs) and coiling up on the couch in anticipation of Professor Sullivan weaseling his way out of pro-McCain posturing and toward the allegedly odious Mrs. Clinton.
I used to think I would take any Democrat. I can't believe I went from "anybody but Bush" to swearing I'd never vote for Hillary Clinton, but that's what happened. I've voted for phonies in too many elections. Say whatever you want about Obama's qualifications; he's not a phony, and he showed that a non-phony can be nationally viable. After tasting that, and especially after Hillary's "Obama wants to marry Ronald Reagan" routine in S.C., she's officially dead to me. If she's the nominee I'll either vote McCain (i.e. against her) or stay home. Depending on what's going on that day.
Actually, this is not the most prominent example of Bush Administration stupidity. That would be Bush's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressing New York City's Council to BAN possession of devices that detect nuclear, biological or chemical threats, unless the devices were licensed by the police. To ban, e.g. sensors like Geiger counters.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/opinion/30omullan.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
In other words, we should depend solely upon the Bush Administration to give us TIMELY warning of danger -- the Administration of the Hurricane Katrina response, the wide open border at Sept11 + 3 years, the unnecessary Iraq War to seize nonexistent WMDs,etc.
For some reason ,that Administration shows no inclination to license/register firearms.
The DHS doesn't want us to panic. The only thing that causes me to panic is the idea of my fate being in the hands of the DHS.
If she's the nominee I'll either vote McCain (i.e. against her) or stay home.
What about Nader? He sounds like just the kind of person to appeal to you: totally clueless and indifferent to the prospect of 4 more years of Republican malfeasance.
"Why I'll Take Any Democrat"
I am trying to get to where you are, Matt, but the Clintons' behavior of late has been so disappointing that if the election were held tomorrow, I'd vote for McCain. This is the first time I've come anywhere near even considering voting for a Republican, but I am that angry. Hopefully if/when the Clintons win the nomination I can revel in their turning their Rovian, slimy tactics on the GOP, but right now, watching them use them against such a promising, inspiring and talented Democrat is just too much to bear.
she's officially dead to me. If she's the nominee I'll either vote McCain (i.e. against her) or stay home.
Bill, I too prefer Obama to Clinton.
That said, I really disagree with that statement.
The fact that Clinton does annoying things sometimes IS NOT counterbalanced by the likelihood of more wars, higher deficits, and a continually deteriorating health care situation under a President McCain.
Please, think about people who really have skin in this game, even if you are fortunate enough to be able to afford viewing politics as theater.
Amen Bill, amen. I've also gone from "Anybody But Bush" to where I'd seriously consider staying home.
And Matt, you won't have to worry about these types of shenanigans from a Hillary Clinton administration, because there won't be one. If she wins the nomination, the McCain administration will be setting policy come 2009.
Hey, Loiuse and Bill, can we send you two (and your kith and kin) as the advanced force to Tehran. Do you even know where that is?
I'm pretty sure we're not going to see nonsense like this from either President Clinton or President Obama.
I'm not so sure. Clinton has been pretty touchy about her statement laying down preconditions for talking with certain nations, now that Obama is going after it.
[linked in comment to next thread]
.
There's no need to vote for McCain or stay home, people-- just write in someone you like or abstain from the presidential ballot only, because lord knows the downticket Dems will need all the help they can get if HRC's in the top slot.
I know it sucks, and for the first time in my life I'm glad that my general-election vote won't count. But if I was in a swing state I'd suck it up on election day... then sit on my hands as the RWNM reassembles over the next four years.
Maybe, just maybe, the hand-slapping of Khalilzad is for show? That he and the State Department knew exactly what they were doing, and the whole thing is a good cop/bad cop routine?
That makes a lot more sense to me.
some of us do use popcorn poppers; they make better popcorn and the microwave stuff costs more and rots your lungs
Not to mention--deep frying squirrels in a micorwave doesn't work real well . . .
The fact that Clinton does annoying things sometimes IS NOT counterbalanced by the likelihood of more wars, higher deficits, and a continually deteriorating health care situation under a President McCain.
This is what the Clintons have always counted on.
And they have gone beyond annoying. They are damaging the party to further their own ambitions.
Bill Clinton saying of Obama crushing victory in South Carolina, well Jesse Jackson won here. Nice.
Hillary's cheezy moves in Michigan and Florida, basically giving the DNC the finger. That's not hardball, it's pathetic. It's saying the American people are dumbasses who don't pay attention, and yes they're right for the most part, but I'm torn about voting for that kind of contempt for the rules if forced to. It's behaving very Republicanesque.
I was persuaded by Frank Rich's column that Hillary as the nominee will supercharge the rightwing and sweep McCain to victory.
Ealier, I believed that Republicans dislike McCain too much because of immigration, etc for him to beat Hillary.
But after witnessing the Clinton's recent behavior, I am now convicned they will only infuriate and motivate the right more than ever.
Obama, on the contrary will use the Jedi Mind Trick on Republicans like David Brooks.
How many times do I have to point this out?
You are NOT avoiding "more wars" by voting for either Clinton OR Obama over McCain.
All you're voting for is LATER wars rather than SOONER wars.
McCain will attack Iran the first year he's in office, for Christ's sakes! Maybe the first six months! He'll be pushing to throw troops into Pakistan in his first year, as well - Bush already is. And of course, NO troops will come home from Iraq in his first, second, third OR fourth years.
However, Hillary and Obama will fart around for the first year or so, trying their notion of "diplomacy" - i.e., "my way or the highway", just like Bush - without understanding the Iranian position - and then end up attacking Iran in another year or so after they build up some sort of bullshit "coalition of the willing" out of Britain, newly-neocon France, and the Germans or whoever.
The same applies to Pakistan. Either Clinton or Obama will try to bully Musharraf into allowing US troops more freedom to attack the Taliban and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan. Musharraf will resist because he knows this will merely accelerate his fall from power and increase radicalization in his country. Neither Clinton or Obama will understand this, and the end result will be US troops mired in the FATA territories trying to - as Obama put it, stupidly - "take the fight to Al Qaeda".
The end result of either a Clinton or Obama administration is going to be MORE WAR. Get that through your head.
Obama just MIGHT be possibly less likely to attack Iran IF he gets clued in by "Serious People" in the military or FP crowd that Iran has to be bargained with, not just "coerced via diplomacy", and that Iran is NOT a threat to ANYBODY.
However, even there, I doubt he will be clued in on Pakistan because most of the people who will be doing his cluing HAVE NO clue about Pakistan themselves and how to deal with Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They don't understand that Afghanistan is already as lost as Iraq is - and that Pakistan is on the same road and that cannot be reversed by anything the US can do. It especially cannot be reverse by any US MILITARY action.
Clinton, due to her being under the control of AIPAC and Israel, is a lost cause in the Iran issue, and is equally clueless on Pakistan as Obama.
Things don't look good on the foreign policy front from any of these people. The same mistakes Bush made will be made by any of them - if not the same degree of corruption and dishonesty.
"This is the first time I've come anywhere near even considering voting for a Republican, but I am that angry. "
Surely everything done in anger is completely lacking in foolishness. Let us all let anger be our guide to a happier, more beautiful tomorrow.
I don't like her either, but voting Republican is cutting off your face to spite your nose.
Why I'll Take Any Democrat: Every liberal Supreme Court justice is over retirement age.
Comments closed February 13, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Well there goes Khalil's Medal of Freedom. Can't be seen talking to those devil Persians about the possibility of peace. Might cause us to miss out on a fun neocon war.
I'd vote for Uncle Elmer's Blue Tick Hound before a repub at this point in time.
Posted by nightjar | January 30, 2008 1:27 PM