Okay, watching an extended dialogue on MSNBC about the Churchillesque awesomeness of John McCain serves as an excellent reminder that even though I have strong feelings about the Clinton-Obama matchup, I don't really have a serious problem with either contender. The ensuing months of watching the press kiss McCain's is going to be painful.
« Rhode Island for Clinton | Main | Ohio for Clinton »
The Real Enemy!
04 Mar 2008 10:31 pm
Comments (31)
What's weird is that it was Olbermann - who usually is better about stuff like that. I thought he was going to make the Bob Dole comparison, which seems more apt.
Over on CNN, Wolf Blitzer sold McCain's locking up of the nomination as "huge and historic." I didn't count, but he repeated that many, many times.
What if there were a way to make the media do their job? Wouldn't that help MattY avoid several painful months?
One excellent way to make the media do their jobs is to give them competition. If volunteers do the jobs they refuse to do, they'll be forced to either do their jobs or lose viewers, readers, and visitors.
And, it's actually fairly easy to do the job they won't do: go to campaign appearances, as the questions they won't, and then distribute the responses via Youtube and similar sites.
So, for instance, MattY could encourage his readers to go ask real questions, like this one for McCain. Or, MattY can try to come up with the best question he can for him.
Of course, don't expect to see MattY start encouraging his visitors to do this, since it might encourage people to go ask Obama/Clinton real questions, the kind they can't answer. It'd be great if MattY or other lib bloggers could put what's best for the country ahead of partisanship, but I'm not expecting it.
My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends My friends BOMB IRAN My friends My friends
I care about character and will never vote for Hillary. The same thing that makes her repulsive is the same thing that makes McCain appealing.
Obama v. McCain means to mean of character. Hillary, who'd sacrifice the Dem party for her Narcisscism has shown she cares only about herself.
this is GREAT NEWS! for HILLARY CLINTON!!!
Hillary is the older of the two Democratic candidates at 60. Since Nixon, Dubya is the only Republican candidate for President to be under age 60.
Since Hillary has come out and said she's closer to McCain than to Obama, she agrees with me that it's unimportant which one wins if that's the choice. And I will vote accordingly.
McCain is just going to be floating over the ugliness that will be the democratic primaries over the new couple of months. The more bitter it gets, the more votes he'll get from the losing side. The more the democrats will look like they're squabbling over petty stuff. Meanwhile, McCain will get equal time in the press without having to worry about dealing with attacks from his flank.
Good night for republicans. TS, democrats.
I also miss idiotic. Great timing and a funny blog.
Woo-hoo! CNN calls Ohio for Clinton.
Barack is bleeding.
-----
And The Real Enemy is anyone who attacks universal healthcare with Harry & Louise ads, be that Barack Obama or John McCain.
Maybe "the media" should call out Sen. Straight Talk on his propensity to tell baldfaced lies as a matter of routine, such as the two that he dropped during the Florida debate when confronted with his own remarks, once by a voter's email.
And when Romney demanded an explanation for McCain's calumny about him at the Simi Valley debate, McCain just lauged at him.
Yeah, he'll do.
Kiss McCain's what??? Come on Matt, we need details.
And The Real Enemy is anyone who attacks universal healthcare with Harry & Louise ads, be that Barack Obama or John McCain.
and since nobody in the current race has done that, your point is?
MY: "ensuing months of watching the press kiss McCain's is going to be painful."
Wow.
But I do not dare explore this issue tonight.
Somerby today is tactful, but clear.
Jack Welch says hi (h/t Petey.)
Things will get ugly going forward. Some of us care about actual policies more than.....
"Somerby today is tactful, but clear. Jack Welch says hi (h/t Petey.)"
Wow. That's a great piece.
I'd have at least slightly discussed GE's pre-Welch history too, but that piece is still pretty damn great.
I know how you feel on UHC, Petey. Those moments in the debates were just painful for me to watch.
But it seems that we get exactly the reverse dynamic on foreign policy, with Clinton attacking sanity from the right. Add in the head-to-head numbers against McCain and the slimeball that is Mark Penn, and you get the reason why this werewolf got himself selected as one of Obama's delegates to the Travis County Convention tonight.
Jesus (no pun intended). Somerby says the papists are out to get Hillary. It's not very clear, because he takes about 114,000 words to say it (I forgot what a clumsy writer Somerby is, especially when he's pissed), and it's certainly not tactful. It is sort of funny, in a sickly fascinating way. Come on, Petey, you're better than that.
I will retire from my Petey-baiting to get some sleep soon. These GE light bulbs provide such a soothing glow though, it's hard to turn them off.
"and you get the reason why this werewolf got himself selected as one of Obama's delegates to the Travis County Convention tonight."
I disagree, but respect your decision. The Edwards folks who moved to Obama are still OK in my book.
Being for Edwards in 2007 was a no-brainer. Deciding between Clinton and Obama in February was a much trickier choice.
At the end of the day, well thought out UHC legislation with a compliant Congress is the kind of moment that comes down the pike once every 30 or 40 years. Getting it signed trumps everything else in my book.
It ain't easy expanding entitlements. When the moment comes, you drop everything else.
Well Petey, I always suspected that getting UHC passed "trumps everything" in your books. Now you admit it. Including, obviously, the ongoing series of war crimes and atrocities that we are committing throughout the world.
You sad, sick, monster. I hope you can spare a thought for the many Iraqi (and, by then, possibly Iranian) children whose murder you have been complicit in as you take advantage of your UHC.
I like your argument, Petey -- we've both read each other make it many a time.
But I don't have confidence that Hillary will be able to pull it off in the way I hoped Edwards would. Sure, the Senate calendar is generally favorable. But I don't see her as being able to (1) help us generate the downticket Senate gains we need or (2) mobilize enough popular support for her plan to drive positive press coverage and intimidate GOP Senators. And that's all assuming that she (3) beats John McCain and (4) Mark Penn doesn't tell her to ditch the health care plan in another move to the center. She also hasn't endorsed anything like (5) a badass populist plan to sell the proposal by denying Congressmen and Senators health insurance if they don't pass it.
That's all why I'm not convinced that Hillary gives us a particularly good shot at UHC. I'm eager to be proven wrong, of course, but I don't think the pro-Edwards UHC arguments carry over to Hillary.
"You sad, sick, monster. I hope you can spare a thought for the many Iraqi (and, by then, possibly Iranian) children whose murder you have been complicit in"
Had Obama voted any differently than Clinton on Iraq since he got to the Senate, you might have a case. But both voted for funding the war and against timetables before the Presidential campaign started, and both voted against funding and for timetables once the campaign was underway.
Are you a sad, sick monster yourself, supporting a candidate who's voted the same way as Clinton on Iraq?
"Well Petey, I always suspected that getting UHC passed "trumps everything" in your books. Now you admit it."
I've been quite clear since my original candidate Edwards dropped out (a candidate who was to the left of both Obama and Clinton on Middle Eastern foreign policy, btw) that I was moving to Clinton on the basis of UHC. It's been no secret.
And if you weren't supporting Edwards, I guess you were a sad, sick monster last year as well.
You sad, sick, monster
Suddenly I have this image of Puff the Magic Dragon, with a really bad cold.
"But I don't have confidence that Hillary will be able to pull it off in the way I hoped Edwards would. "
Sure.
I agree with you on 1), 2), and 5). It's definitely a harder road for her because of those factors.
On 3), I think the electability question between her and Obama is basically a wash, even if Obama is better for downballot races.
On 4), I have no fear of that scenario. Clinton's own political future is aligned with getting the Edwards plan passed. It's going to be a priority for her because it's in her interests.
But 1), 2), and 5) are not unimportant. It's why the decision between Clinton and Obama was a tricky one.
At the end of the day, the chances for success aren't as good as they'd have been with Edwards leading the band, but they're still good enough to make me hold my nose and wander into that camp. That one piece of legislation would be enough of a game-changer to make the whole enterprise worthwhile, imho.
Petey,
You can criticize me & my politics on a number of grounds, but your comments kind of missed the boat, which you would realize if you read any of my other comments.
My support of Obama is reluctant, because I don't think that there is a HUGE difference between his policies and Clinton's w/r/t the hegemonic project. But what conditional support I do give him is based almost entirely on the fact that he has (in contrast to Clinton) displayed at least a few glimmers of sanity on said issues. And you know as well as I do that the issues in question go well beyond votes on Iraq since he entered the senate.
But certainly, in theory at least, one could, I suppose conclude that, on foreign affairs Clinton and Obama are precisely tied, and then vote for Clinton on something else, without being a monster. But that isn't what you said - you said that UHC "trumps everything." Not "trumps everything except the ongoing war crimes we are committing throughout the world, except I think the candidates are precisely tied on that issue."
As for Edwards, I don't agree that he was notably to the "left" of Obama and Clinton on foreign policy. He said some things which were very good on that topic (eschewing the war on Terror terminology), somethings which were appallingly bad (even more bellicose on Iran than Obama). I was undecided during the period when he still had a chance (really they all suck IMO), but rest assured, if I HAD been convinced that he was better on foreign policy. he would have gotten my support. IMO that issue truly does trump all, and I mean all.
And I still recall your arguments from 6 months ago about how important it was for the Democrats to talk tough on foreign policy - if I remember correctly, you were defending Edward's appalling remarks vis a vis Iran. (Or was it some of his appalling remarks vis s vis Israel?) Your cerdibility on the issue is less than zero.
Re: You sad, sick, monster. I hope you can spare a thought for the many Iraqi (and, by then, possibly Iranian) children whose murder you have been complicit in as you take advantage of your UHC.
If John McCain is elected you'll have a reason to whine-- except that there will be no universal healthcare either. The idea that either Democratic contender would make war on Iran is ludicrous. The country is going to demand a phase-out of our Iraq involvment and both Democrats will comply (McCain, being a stubborn SOB, and infected with NeoCon delusions, will not), if only because their domestic plans will demand the freeing up of $$$. And at the end of the day it really is "the economy, stupid" that's going to elect our next president.
The need to counter or compensate for the love reporters show McCain makes Hillary's whine about how negative her coverage is, if true, another excellent reason not to want her as our nominee.
You sad, sick, monster. I hope you can spare a thought for the many Iraqi (and, by then, possibly Iranian) children whose murder you have been complicit in as you take advantage of your UHC.Petey has been pretty consistent in saying that Dems should sell out the country on the war because he thinks it will give us more liberal domestic policies. Basically: the LBJ strategy... a strategy that sent the Dems into the presidential wilderness for 20 of the next 24 years.
Whatever her merits, electing Hillary Clinton allows Bush to announce how proud he is that the American people have decided to stay in Iraq and how proud he is that we have a candidate who supported Kyl-Lieberman. Electing Obama is like spitting in Bush's face on the issue. Which do you want?
My attitude, Petey, is that Obama's coat-tails get more done in Congress than Hillary's principles.
Plus, you know, there's the whole problem of funding UHC with a large war to pay for.
Of course, Hillary may try her best to alienate Obama's supporters between now and her exit from the campaign (NC in May, perhaps) but we shall see.
Murder-suicide.
Comments closed March 18, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Republicans are the opposition. The media are the enemy.
-- TP
Posted by Tony P. | March 4, 2008 10:36 PM