"... she didn’t endorse their ad against General Petraeus..."
Nor did she disavow or condemn it.
Posted by Bagley at September 14, 2007 05:38 PMThrow MoveOn under the bus? Seems a bit much to describe the mild statement she gave as throwing MoveOn under the bus. Especially when you threw MoveOn under the bus yourself, Steve. She disagreed with them. So what? Oh, that's right, it's not politically acceptable to say what you think, or even to have an opinion, if you're a politician's wife. You're right, Elizabeth should be more like whatshername, Larua. Thank God Hillary played it smart and middle-of-the road. I'm sure Bill will be circumspect enough to not have an opinion.
Posted by Julie at September 14, 2007 06:10 PM
Wow Julie,
I guess you are not incarcerated! I am so happy that you right of habeas corpus has been restored!
Are you also allowed to now sloganeer in the local shopping mall?
Regards,
bagley
Posted by Bagley at September 14, 2007 06:14 PMBesides, Steve, I suspect that the left blogoshpere may have been in agreement with your original opinion, that the ad did no good for the left and felt that the less said, the better with regards to Giuliani's hysteria. In other words, it's preferable to let the ad die a quiet death. Well, Rudy too, for that matter.
Posted by Julie at September 14, 2007 06:24 PMAnd once again, Julie is responding to her own comments. What was that I posted a few days ago:
It also appears as though Julie likes responding to her own posts. This would be considered unusual behavior for anyone not a member of the "reality-based community."
Aww, Julie, you do not want to play?
P.S. " Well, Rudy too, for that matter."
How very progressive of you.
Posted by Bagley at September 14, 2007 06:31 PMSay, Steve, thanks for the bandwidth.
I will leave this forum now....and more importantly, this thread: I am sure that Julie has a lot to say to herself.
Night all.
Posted by Bagley at September 14, 2007 06:43 PMThanks for this astute comment. One problem on the left has been that it hasn't stood up against rightwing attacks on Democrats it views as centrist.
For what it's worth, HRC's questioning of General Petraeus moves me yet another step closer to supporting her for the Democratic nomination. She continues to impress me, though I hated her husband and had little respect for her as a de facto part of his administration.
But what are we supposed to do to help her in the face of Adolph Giuliani's attacks?
Posted by kaleidescope at September 14, 2007 06:59 PMCan only speak for myself - Rudy talks and I yawn. Can't really fathom that he's going to be the GOP nominee. That would require some serious backpedling from the Dobson crowd and without those voters, Kucinich could beat Rudy.
As MoveOn was formed in response to the impeachment of Bill Clinton, Sen. Clinton could be seen as having benefited from their efforts in the past. What a shame she chooses to distance herself from them today.
Posted by Marie at September 14, 2007 07:19 PMSo if MoveOn decided that assassination was the way they were going to push their agenda HRC would be compelled to support them in that endeavor because they founded themselves as a reaction to her husbands impeachment? Aren't we trying to get the influence of special interest groups out of politics? But you seem to be supporting a quid pro quo relationship. HRC should support MoveOn, no questions asked, because 'she benefitted' from them in the past?
Posted by snark at September 14, 2007 08:13 PMsnark - that's worthy of all those people that accused people like me of being Saddam lovers because I opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Hillary wants to have it both ways: the aura of being liberal while she hugs the GOP and supports the war. I never trust such people, particularly when I have a handle on which way they really lean.
Posted by Marie at September 14, 2007 09:07 PMThis Bagley character certainly is a douche bag.
Perhaps MoveOn could have just quoted Admiral Fallon, he of CENTCOM leadership, who called Petraeus, and I quote, an "ass-kissing little chickenshit."
Ooh.
Hey, did you see the big story about Boehner's "small price" comment on CNN? Me neither...because as far as the MSM is concerned, only liberals say stupid things.
It's rigged, people. Wake up.
Posted by RAM at September 14, 2007 11:36 PMScore "0" for the so-called "principled Progressives ". ;(
Posted by JoeCHI at September 15, 2007 04:17 AMI didn't accuse you of anything Marie. I just asked a question based on your own words. You wrote, in essense, that MoveOn should expect the support of HRC because of, according to you, some past support that she has garnered from them. How is that any different than saying that she should support big business because she got some benefit from them in the past?
It is you who seem to want it both ways.
Posted by snark at September 15, 2007 04:20 AMfact is ..petraeus is a shill for this administration..that's his fucking job for christ sake...the american people are paying with their blood and money the policing of a civil war..nation building..because of oil...in a just world we would never have invaded and occupied..a sovereign land..but the world is not just..and this administration is living proof of that...hillary called that liar on his credibility...gods bless her...they are all liars in this administration..from day one with the theft of an election...hillary runs against rudy..she'll peel him like a grape..
Posted by dennis at September 15, 2007 05:08 AMNo, Snark - Hillary is just like half the Dems in DC; so scared of the GOP that they expend a lot of energy trying to appease them. Instead of acting like the courageous, bold and loyal Dixie Chicks who hung together in their dark days but "Not Ready to Back" if that's what it would take to restore their career. And they came back stronger, more creative and bolder, and where is Toby Keith now? As Natalie Maines proudly wore on her t-shirt while her career was in shambles, FUTK.
Hillary was on the wrong side in 2002, is still on the wrong side and won't get on the right side if she makes it back to the WH. And when the rightwing goes after them again and should they successfully land another punch, she'll play the victim role again. Suspect the Dixie Chicks would rather die than do that.
Posted by Marie at September 15, 2007 05:33 AMThe Human Rights Campaign? Oh, yes. The group who angered many in the LGBT community when they endorsed Joe Lieberman over Ned Lamont. Now there's a group aligned with the status quo. I wonder where they stand on marrying a family member?
Posted by Christopher at September 15, 2007 05:37 AMIs this a bellweather for how much support HRC can expect from the netroots in a general election campaign?
Yes. She and her "team" are quite well aware that she is not a popular candidate with the "netroots". She doesn't care, and she has bags of corporate money and lots more where that came from, apparently.
Team Clinton doesn't think the Dem candidate needs energized progressives to win, that the Repub brand has become so toxic that we'll kill ourselves to elect a corporatist, Wall Street, AIPAC-lovin' Dem. We shall see....but don't expect the progressive volunteerin' of 04 with her at the top, I say.
Many will see a HRC Dem candidacy as the end of the line for all their political hopes. A signal that it's simply time to await the then-inevitable economic and environmental train wreck bearing down on us. A sign of no possibility of actual change, however much she gasses on about "change".
So no enthusiam is going to be generated for her candidacy among progressives at any stage, IMO. She's a figure of the failed past, and represents a compromised future. Like most of these party bigwigs, she doesn't seem to care, she's sure that SHE'S THE ONE. I guess we'll see what ordinary voters think at some point, they sure seem to say they'll vote for her in polls.
Posted by euzoius at September 15, 2007 06:37 AMAs Natalie Maines proudly wore on her t-shirt while her career was in shambles, FUTK.
As far as I could tell, her career was never "in shambles." The Chicks sold out shows and people kept buying cds despite the radio stations refusing to play their songs.
Posted by iamcoyote at September 15, 2007 07:10 AMI've been thinking about the difference in the effectiveness of the "General Betray-us" ad and the mockery of "Mr. Wide-stance Craig". I think it boils down to the quality of mockery:
Quick definitions (mockery)
noun: humorous or satirical mimicry
It would be interesting to study mockery and mimicry from a psycho-social perspective. I'm guessing that humor should be involved, and also that the victim/subject has been the source of the action or statement that is being mocked.
Craig gave us the weapon himself, "wide stance", which turned out to be a gift to those who would mimic and mock him. The MoveOn ad just doesn't provide the necessary elements to bring off the art of mockery because there was nothing humorous to mimic.
I don't understand the controversy. Petraeus did "betray us." What's the fuss? Americans certainly seem to be sensitive about political language when it comes from the Left. But from the Right? No problem! Fire at will!
Posted by Ralph at September 15, 2007 11:52 AMThe first sentence'Rudy attempts to go straight'should do it.
Posted by gordy at September 16, 2007 02:15 AM