My estimation of Hillary Clinton has gone way down over the past six months, but we Obama fans still have a long way to go before we can match the likes of WorldNetDaily's "How Hillary will lead America into hell".
Gone Too Far
04 May 2008 08:30 am
Comments (48)
We're all a little dumber for having read that.
My favorite part was when he was talking about how a Republican in the White House inspires kids to be sunny and moral, and a Democrat inspires them to be nihilistic and lawless. I kept wondering, is he going to ignore the problems of today's children, or blame their problems on someone else besides the president? Of course he blamed someone else.
Here's another good one from WorldNetDaily, about how Christians will be systematically imprisoned if Hillary Clinton is elected President:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58781
Nuts. The guy is a fullblown whacko.
Of course, it's not George W. Bush's fault that we have so much moral depravity now. It's the overarching influence of Bill Clinton. But what about Bush's responsibility as "father" of our country?
That site is and always has been completely insane.
Today in the "Krugman is a hack file": Will Krugman reject and denounce Hillary when she attacks economists in general over the gas tax?
"This Week" opened with heavy focus on Clinton's gas tax plan. She insisted the plan could help drivers- "I'm not going to put my lot in with economists."
Or, instead, will he explain how this proves Obama is worse?
Yes, she's clearly gone too far for people like Matt - pointing out the all too obvious flaws in his idol, Obama. How dare she engage in politics...
I'm sure Syd Vicious Blumenthal was emailing this one to all his buddies.
They, Clinton & Republicans, do not want people to feel Hope or Inspiration! They have no weapon against that! So they belittle Barack's talent or Gift for inspiration & hope! Shame on them.... Barack had to "remind" us who he is because the Republican-controlled Media & Clintons tried to re-define him and confuse us as to who Barack really is!
People are finally waking up. They do not want to be fooled again -- into another Iraq War (Iran & Hillary oblitration comment), higher gas bills (when they promised Iraqi oil would fit the bill), failures of Govt on the home front (Katrina/ Bridges/tainted food and products), loss of jobs and jobs going over seas. This country is in a mess and the Same old Characters doing the Same Old Thing is not the Answer!
Barack "Investing in People"
BJD, Is Cowboy Bebop really as great as I'm told?
Hillary can't catch up with Obama in the delegate lead and Matt's hardly the only Democrat her behavior is pissing off. She'll never have the chance to lead America anywhere, but she's definitely sending the Democratic Party Hadesward. If her kamikaze campaign really does succeed in crippling Obama, I wonder if the party will nominate Gore or Edwards?
The first presidential election I followed closely was the 1952 contest between Stevenson and Eisenhower. Even at the tender age of 16 I was well left of center. I would have voted for Stevenson if I could, but innumerable conversations with the customers in my dad's clothing store convinced me that Stevenson was not the right candidate for small town America. Somehow FDR was able to ingratiate himself with what people now call the white working class, and Harry Truman, of course, was their kind of guy. Stevenson wasn't. He was an upper class reformer, and he suffered the usual fate of upper class reformers. I think Obama has the same problem. It's really too bad that Matt and so many of the posters in this thread can't see why people like me might feel that Obama is a weak candidate in a general election, even though he's superior to Hillary Clinton (my opinion) as a thinker and a person.
I wouldn't say "gone to far," but gone in very much the wrong direction. A Hillary presidency would be every bit as much a disaster for the United States as the linked piece argues, but for very different reasons.
Stan,
It isn't so much that we can't understand why you feel that way, it's more that we can't understand how you fail to see that The Monster has electability problems of her own, without Obama's strengths. And that, in addition to that, her only path to the nomination will make her unelectable in the fall, even apart from her inherent electoral weaknesses.
Though maybe more to the point, we can't understand why you would want such a suck and morally deformed creature in the white house, even apart from her electability problems.
A Hillary presidency would be every bit as much a disaster for the United States as the linked piece argues, but for very different reasons.
I agree. I see her campaigning like a Republican, echoing the policy proposals of Republicans, sitting down and making nice with Republicans like Richard M Scaife, and I wonder what Democrats see in her. Oh, and she supported invading Iraq too.
Part of her Health Plan is to require the harvesting of non-essential organs (e.g., one kidney, one eye, half a liver, one lung, both testicals) of Americans and sell then to the Chinese as a way to balance the trade deficit.
Seriously though, the true extent of the racist McCarthyism that has been a part of her and Bill’s campaign is beyond shameful and has yet to be fully understood or absorbed by many. Her current war mongering over Iran and her lies about the Iraq vote are also beyond the pale. They have no ethical core. They are disgusting.
Her and Bill’s legacy has been sealed and it is not a pretty one. It is hard to see how she and Bill repair the damage and how she can ever be an effective colleague in the Senate or a force in the Democratic Party. With the campaign still red hot, no one is noticing, but when the crowds and balloons and contributions and interviews stop, she and Bill will find they are blackballed and shunned by many of their former core supporters.
Andrew Sullivan has joined the list of those that see a joint ticket. I sure hope not, and I hope there is a movement to stop it. She has disqualified herself for any leadership role.
Obama should cause a split within her ranks by leaking a decision that he will pick Wesly Clark as his VP.
Hillary should cause a split in the ranks by announcing that she will pick John McCain as her running mate. Then Obama will have to shut up about how he's going to capture the McCain vote. Does anyone else remember Matt Groening's Life in Hell? You can't lead people to where they already are.
LarryM, I don't think Hillary Clinton is a monster. She has an honorable record of working for progressive causes, and I don't buy the notion that she introduced race into the campaign when she made the banal comment that the political experience of Lyndon Johnson was as important as the inspiration of Dr. King in passing the civil rights legislation of the mid 60's. When I said Obama is better than she is as a thinker and a person, I didn't mean to say that she's bad.
Now, if I may say something about your thinking, I feel that you're a moral absolutist. I know people who said the same kind of stuff about Gore in 2000 that you're saying about Hillary. They voted for Nader, and look what happened. I felt the same way about Edmund Muskie in 1972. I supported McGovern, who I still feel is a great man, but he was an awful candidate. I want to win this election, and you want to be morally pure. That's the difference between us.
He was an upper class reformer, and he suffered the usual fate of upper class reformers. I think Obama has the same problem.
And a lot of us see that Clinton has the same exact problem. I'm still scratching my head at how 'Hillary Klintoon', she of It Takes A Village and the Million Mom March, will win over those salt o' the earth folk from hardass war hero Straight Talk McMaverick.
But what about Bush's responsibility as "father" of our country?
Does this make the 1st president Bush the "grandfather of our country"?
aleks,
If sarcasm was a rattlesnake, you'd be dead.
Wow.
Here's a quote from the article with one substitution made:
"What I'm saying is, Kim Jong-Il is like the father of a big family, and who he is and what he is – his spirit – affects everyone, like the sun. It's a radiant energy that directly shines on people."
All that "father" stuff -- it's like the naked wingnut id on display.
The part about how President Hillary would make people go out and try to infect themselves with HIV truly sets the wingnut bar to new heights.
He was an upper class reformer, and he suffered the usual fate of upper class reformers.
It's funny how the upper-class anti-reformers (Reagan, Bush 1, Bush 2, and now McCain) seem to do just fine.
Oh, and if you read the WorldNetDaily link far enough, note that after 25 years of development, SDI has still not developed enough to protect anyone, so if it brought the morning sun of glory into his life, it was just through magical thinking, not reality.
I feel that you're a moral absolutist.
Setting aside other disagreements, if you had read any of my prior posts you wouldn't make THAT particular charge. If that were so, I certainly wouldn't support Obama, who, despite a number of good qualities, and being somewhat less hawkish than The Monster or The Madman, is, on the whole, still an enthusiastic supporter of the hegemonic project.
As for the rest - I notice that you don't even address my main point, which is the Monster's unelectability. I haven't seen even a halfway convincing response to this argument from any Monster supporter.
Regarding whether she is a monster or not - It's a mystery to me how people can favorably weigh her decent record on one or two "progressive" causes against all the rest, including, but certainly not limited to, (1) support of an immoral war, bellicosity towards Iran that will lead to war, and in general a bloodthirsty foreign policy that can best be characterized as "like Bush, but more competent;" (2) a view of presidential power that can most acurately be characterized as Nixonian, only more so; (3) campaign tactics that make Karl Rove look like a good government reformer by comparison; (4) a capacity to lie to the American people far beyond the mendacity of the median politician; and (5) betrayal of dozens of "progressive" causes, as exemplified by her enthusiastic support of that abomination, the bankruptcy "reform" act.
I can concieve of only three ways that informed people can look at all of that and still support The Monster. (1) They agree with her on that stuff, in which case they are moral monsters with whom no dialog is possible; (2) they are pure partisans with no principles aside from a desire for power; or (3) they have a variation of Stockholm syndrome.
I'm guessing from your posts that you fall in category three, which is the reason why I'm having a civil conversation with you. If I beleived that you were in categories one or two, I'd have been content with a "fuck you and burn in hell" comment, because that's all that those animals deserve.
LarryM, what will you do if Hillary wins the nomination? For that matter, what will Matt, Kos, Josh M, Airianna H, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere do? I expect that you'll all sit the election out. If enough Democrats follow your lead, we'll have the joys of George Bush's third term. Maybe it's my age, but Kant's command
“let justice triumph, even if the world perishes by it” strikes me as unadulterated bullshit.
LarryM, what will you do if Hillary wins the nomination?
Not to speak for LarryM, but I suspect he'll do like the rest of us: jump on our pink unicorns, and fly off into the vermillion sunset.
One of the more irritating characteristics of the Clintons and their supporters is the refusal to accept responsibility for anything. If the campaign runs a thoroughly negative and superficial campaign that preys on racial prejudices of voters, and in doing so divides the party...not their fault!
LarryM, what will you do if Hillary wins the nomination? For that matter, what will Matt, Kos, Josh M, Airianna H, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere do? I expect that you'll all sit the election out.
The vast majority of the Obama supporters in the progressive blogosphere were originally supporters (even if unofficially) of a different candidate. Those Kucinich, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and even Gore supporters have PROVEN their willingness to put aside their preferences and support a different candidate for pragmatic purposes. They don't need to be lectured to by the likes of Team Inevitable on the importance of putting party and country first.
If enough Democrats follow your lead, we'll have the joys of George Bush's third term.
First off, given what I just wrote above, if this is true it says more about Hillary than it does about Democrats.
Second, why not make a prediction whether it is true or not? Maybe because, if it is true, then it seriously undercuts Hillary's supposed "electability" argument. If large chunks of the party will sit out in November if Hillary successfully knee-caps Obama, then maybe we shouldn't chose her.
In any case, Hillary won't be selected. The Wright firestorm, while damaging to Obama, has largely run its course and Obama is not -- to the chagrin of the Clinton campaign -- irreparably harmed. Hillary could still destroy him, but only by fatally tarnishing herself in the process. The party would need to draft a candidate that could heal the divisions: Gore, Edwards?
I don't read or follow A. Huffington, but I really can't see Matt, Kos, or JMM not voting for Clinton in the general. It's a preposterous and unfair charge. My opinion of HRC isn't *that* far off of LarryM's, and OF COURSE I'd vote for her in the general.
Ah yes, the Wright debacle is all HRC's fault!
Never mind Hussein's own repeated 180's and outright lies on the issue.
And Obama just keeps giving. I especially love his inability to articulate why he subjected his little ones to Wright's venom all their growing up. He can't say that he and Michele didn't take the scamps to church but then...
And today on MTP he condemns HRC's pledge to respond with full force if Iran nuked Israel and then said the same thing just carefully avoiding the word nuke.
The man is such a fraud!
And once he's away from his teleprompter he just babbles incoherently.
But since he has and is copying so much of the Bush style perhaps he needs to fitted with a receiver so that his handlers can simply feed him the appropriate lies, yes?
Did anybody else think that piece read like an Onion editorial? What else but satire could contribute to the public sphere by starting out from "The Great Father" thesis?
JTHB: Let me preface this by saying that I do not believe that the Clintons are racists (although we all have our prejudices).
But it is the height of denial for Hillary supporters to pretend that Hillary's campaign hasn't been working overtime trying to convince the media and the superdelgates that Scary Black Man can never win in November because He Is The Other. No, they aren't racists. They just want to save the party and America from falling victim to those who are.
It has been clear for months that the Hillary campaign never thought they could beat Obama by running to his left. Before the primaries began, Obama's strength was whites, independents, and disaffected Republicans. The Clintons had the black vote. I suspect that Penn and Bill Clinton realized that, unless the game changed, it was far more likely that Obama was going to pick off the black vote than Hillary was going to pick off the independent vote.
In short, Hillary was never going to win unless Obama became "the black candidate". So they made a risky political calculation: Give up the black vote by painting Obama as the black candidate and hope that Hillary could win over enough over the crucial [not] white blue-collar vote to balance out Obama's gains among the black community.
Again, I don't think this is racist, though it is deeply cynical. But it is reality. Pretending that this Wright situation just happened to blow up while Hillary was desperate to tar Obama as unelectable is a little much.
Somehow I knew another round of the Obaba-Hillary war was going to break out in this comment thread.
Anyway, thanks for the link, Matt. It's nice to see the fundamental non-rationality of conservative positions so frankly displayed.
space, you're right. Hillary's campaign is deeply cynical. Which is not news. Her whole campaign has always been about hopelessness; this is what politics is, and what it's always going to be. (Was it E.J. Dionne who had a column about her campaign being the equivalent of clubbing baby seals?)
As a cynic myself, I've always had sympathy for this view. Having said that, I think she's lost, and we're stuck with Obama.
@ Stan,
What long term good does winning the election do if 8 years from now we are right back where we started?
Bill delivered a great 8 years to our country, but because of his politics and the manner in which he carried himself, we ended up with Bush in 2000. And look where we are now.
It is not about being "morally absolute", it is about bringing a real and lasting change.
space, I'd like to see some proof before I agree that the Clinton campaign is racist. What are the names of the Clinton operatives spreading racist material? You're overstating your case. Less politely, put up or shut up.
djw, I never said the liberal bloggers wouldn't vote for Hillary. Instead, I said in an inarticulate way that I can't see how they can support her in their posts if she wins the nomination. If they did, they'd look like fools.
Finally, I think everybody should read the article by John Harwood in today's NY Times about Republican attacks impugning the patriotism of Democratic presidential candidates and the unwillingness of the Democrats to fight back. It explains why I don't support Obama. I've seen calumny after calumny about him circulate in the right wing media and the public, and I don't see him responding. He reminds me of George McGovern, a great man, as I said earlier, who refused to answer attacks on his patriotism by contrasting his heroic service as a bomber pilot in World War II with Nixon's safe rear echelon position. I like Obama, I'll vote for him with pride if he's nominated, but I simply don't think he's tough enough to win against the present day Republican party.
Like I said, I'm a cynic. Reading Phil-bo's post, my immediate response was a snort of derision
"how Christians will be systematically imprisoned if Hillary Clinton is elected President"
If I thought that was true, I'd probably actually vote for her.
Whoever wrote that article doesn't realize that Hillary is a member of "The Family" - exactly the sort of right wing Christian cult that they probably believe SHOULD be running the country - and probably IS running the country, if the list of Senators in it is correct.
It will be interesting to see if the book on that cult - and Hillary's involvement - which comes out this month gets picked up by the MSM and Hillary starts getting the same questions about her religious affiliation that Obama has gotten.
You'll have to apologize for reading "I expect that you'll all sit the election out." as if you meant what you said.
But your new position is just as lunatic. You've selected three hard-core anti-purists and accused them of excessive future hypothetical purism. I can see why you'd rather do this than defend your initial claims, but it's a pretty unpersuasive strategy.
In what sense? Hillary has gone way up especially in the eyes of those who just discovered her strength and toughness, Obama has gone way down when before he was only up.
Well, I'm actually pretty darn cynical myself. That being said,
(1) Even if one were to conclude that the level of viciousness and dishonesty exemplified by The Monster was typical (it isn't), there is something particularly appalling about the form of political dishonesty and viciousness employed by the monster. Everything (and I mean everything) is right out of the movement conservative textbook. Even apart from he substance of her positions (more on that below), The Monster is doing everything she can to legitimize movement conservatism as a political movement. Kind of ironic, given that the movement conservatives have done so much to discredit themselves through misgovernance. Ironically, I am pretty far off the reservation on many "progressive" issues, but one area in which we ostensibly agree is the need to utterly destroy movement conservatism as a political movement; those vicious thugs deserve to be on the scrap heap of history along with the Soviets and the Nazis. Yet The monster uses their tactics and their message in such a way as to greatly strengthen their hand.,
(2) But of course the monster isn't typical, the current debased level of our politics, while not without precedence, isn't typical, and we can do better. Yes, some Obama supporters, with their visions of politics as some kind of gentleman's game are painfully naive and ignorant of history. But so are the cynics who think we can't do better than that evil, stinking piece of garbage Hillary. My god, look how low we have sunk? Hillary fucking Clinton? At least Nixon, beneath his slime, was a man of subtance. But Hillary?
(3) Finally there is the substance. From her extreme hawkishness to her support of the bankruptcy bill to her lockstep support of the oil industry - I could go on for pages and pages - not only isn't she any kind of recognizable "progressive" - I could live with that - she supports the worst excesses of the current system,.
Of course, what's really going on here is that you have some people who like the hegemonic consensus, the national security state, corporate giveaways, etc, etc., etc., and for those guys Hillary is their candidate (or McCain, take your pick).
And then there are those who don't want all of tha. Those people either oppose The Monster, as they should, as she shares no of their values, none at all. Or they whine about how we can't change anything. Sure, some realities of politics will never change, see above, but history shows loud and clear that, on issues that count, real change does happen when we have the balls to make it happen. But instead, like an abused woman who stands by her man, you stupid fucks cling to The Monster. Sure, she'll seel you out on 95% of the issues you care about lie to you, sleep with your enemies, but at the end of the day you stupid fucks have so little faith in your movement that you'll support her anyway, just like the abuse victim who stands by her man. You all make me sick.
Oh, and what will I do if she manages the one in a hundred chance she currently has to steel the nomination? Well, of course I won't vote for the animal. My only decision will be whether to vote third party, or to vote for The Madman as a way of accelerating the decline of the United States. Because if this country, after 7 years of Bush, manages to nominate The Monster and The Madman as its presidential candidates, we are not only truly fucked, but it will be evidence that the system is broken beyond repair.
I agree with the premise, but ...
I do know that she would drive me to drink (more), and that can't be helpful.
--
LarryM: Y'all gonna love this article:
Clinton Camp Considering Nuclear Option To Overtake Delegate Lead
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/clinton-camp-considering_n_100051.html
My favorite part was that the 12 years of Bush presidencies never happened--we went from Reagan to Clinton and are now contemplating more Clinton, with no intervening father figures.
Ha, ha Hack, you really are a fucking instigator.
Yeah, I read it, but what you don't realize is that at this point nothing from that evil creature surprises me. Heck, if I learned that she was supporting her campaign by murdering children and selling their organs it wouldn't surprise me.
Also, if you read that article closely, you'll see that the prerequisites to that plan to be successfully put into operation are extremely unlikely to happen.
Besides, if she does manage to steal the nomination, I'll at least have the consolation of seeing the Democratic party go the way of the Whigs.
You read it here first: Tuesday, 10 point Obama win in NC, virtual tie in IN, and the trickle of supers to Obama becomes a flood.
If I were trying to convince somebody that Hillary Clinton is unworthy, I'd emphasize her willingness to do what's expedient:
her vote for the Iraq War and her speech justifying her vote, her talk about obliterating Iran if it nukes Israel, her pandering on gas taxes, her apparent willingness to get lovey-dovey with Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife. I'd then go on to suggest that her lack of principles might well land us in another unnecessary war or another sellout by the government to the plutocracy that runs our country. I'd contrast that with Obama's honesty and his capacity to bring out the best in us. I'd also say that if you judge each of the candidates by the effectiveness of their campaigns, he wins by a knockout.
I'd argue this way because I think the purpose of a debate is to convince the other guy to change his views by presenting a reasoned argument. To LarryM, the purpose of conducting a debate is to express your rage. Different strokes for different folks.
David Kupelian sounds and looks like Warren Jeffs.
Stan,
No one who comments on this blog, or reads the comments, is honestly undecided about the race right now. And the format isn't exactly conducive to sophisticated argumentation.
So, yeah, for me "the purpose of posting blog comments is to express your rage." YMMV. Though despite that, I do sometimes engage in the quixotic practice of reasoned debate - heck, some of my comments in this thread even qualify (interesting how Stan ignored the reasoned arguments and instead focused his ire on the invective).
LarryM, in fact, I am kind of undecided. I like Obama as a person more than Hillary for the reasons given in my 10:13 am post, but when I look at him I see the latest of a long line of honorable Democrats too decent or too clueless to stand up against the Republican attack machine. I'm open to reasoned argument against my point of view.
Unfortunately, you're unwilling to supply it. Here's one of your more restrained sentences: "Though maybe more to the point, we can't understand why you would want such a suck and morally deformed creature in the white house, even apart from her electability problems." When you write stuff like this, you're implying that the person you're arguing with is a moral monster for even thinking the way he does. I don't think it's an effective way of arguing. Chacun a son gout, as we used to say back in high school.
The most interesting thing about the linked article is how it does not include a single mention of the current two-term president and his shining moral influence.
I think I have finally "gotten" Hillary's (current) campaign strategy. She's running the Bush 2000 campaign--trying to win independents by blurring the differences between her and the Republican.
Stan,
LarryM, what will you do if Hillary wins the nomination? For that matter, what will Matt, Kos, Josh M, Airianna H, and the rest of the progressive blogosphere do? I expect that you'll all sit the election out. If enough Democrats follow your lead, we'll have the joys of George Bush's third term. Maybe it's my age, but Kant's command “let justice triumph, even if the world perishes by it” strikes me as unadulterated bullshit.
To me, this argument has been the most annoying thing about the primary. Someone writes it every week or so. Republican trollers? Hillary fans?
If Obama loses, it will be because of Hillary's negative campaign. She should have conceded after that extended run of primary losses when it was apparent her chance at the nomination was a long shot. Instead Hillary and her supporters act in an unbelievably selfish manner (Florida and Michan shouldn't be disenfranchised???) which increases the chance of McCain winning. Well done.
And you have the gall to lecture us? So yeah if Hillary's nominated, I'll sit it out because I've been lectured one too many times about how it would be childish to sit it out. Fortunately I don't think it will come to that point.
| 
Heads in the Sand
My favorites were the bits about the president being like "the father of a big family," and "the supreme national leader."
The "founding fathers" would stab their eyes out with plastic sporks if they could read that.
Posted by JH | May 4, 2008 9:15 AM