Nice try again Eriposte;
Really nice article. Do you think that a few inbred morons in our country will stop the dems during this election cycle? At this point I am sure Billary will win. But if Obama wins; those inbred morons will have a chance to distinguish Obama the American; from Osama the Arab who directed attacks on America. Those inbred morons, excuse me, "people" would never vote for a black man or woman anyway. So what is your point?
They would vote for Billary and not for Obama?
I'd like to point out that at least three of the main bloggers (Kos, Aravosis, Huffington) were all REPUBLICANS during Bill Clinton's first election (and some even during the second).
Each of these people personally LOST to Bill Clinton. Therefore the personal grudge is most likely there, along with the knee-jerk reaction to want to beat the Clintons.
In addition, Obama has a huge following of 20-somethings. 20-somethings rule the net and they hit pages and increase ad revenue. Profitability is the most important thing.
Yes, I'm saying that certain progressive bloggers are on a powertrip and have become, shall we say, a bit corrupt. Can't help feeling that way after the Moveon travesty, the crap that goes on ignored at DailyKos etc, etc.
Posted by me at February 2, 2008 11:10 AMAngyman,
If you can get over your anger for a second and actually read my post - see where it says "reality check that applies to both Clinton and Obama supporters"? My point is that it is going to be tough for a woman or an African American to win in some parts of the country.
Posted by eriposte at February 2, 2008 11:28 AM"Me",
That's a bit harsh. I don't think Markos or John are in any way corrupt. Some of the netroots and bloggers who are supporting Obama are well-meaning people who are viewing the Obama campaign through rose colored glasses and the Clinton campaign through dark colored ones. History is being forgotten because of that. That's all there is to it.
Let's not perpetuate disunity amongst the netroots by making harsh judgments against each other.
Posted by eriposte at February 2, 2008 11:33 AMYES!!! It's astonishing to me that such recent lessons are being forgotten.
Unity is a two-way street, and the other lane is closed. Every time a republican says they're "taking a good look at Obama" the hair stands up on the back of my neck. They're looking to see if he can be played.
Posted by merciless at February 2, 2008 11:35 AMThe Obama supporters are looking more and more like the Paul supporters the closer we get to Super Tuesday. I'd have had openness to Obama in moving over from Edwards, but it's been evaporated by the cultish behaviors of a large contingent of the Obama-ites.
Of course, for me, it's not just Obama's cultish followers. It's not just that Obama is dumb enough to think the Republicans can be negotiated with or that they'll work in a "bipartisan" manner. It's that Obama is the candidate of "feel good" platitudes but lacking substance. Sort of a hybrid between Ronald Reagan's feel-good campaign's and Kerry's "I'm not bush, flowers for everyone."
Posted by Moses at February 2, 2008 11:35 AMThat's a bit harsh. I don't think Markos or John are in any way corrupt. Some of the netroots and bloggers who are supporting Obama are well-meaning people who are viewing the Obama campaign through rose colored glasses and the Clinton campaign through dark colored ones. History is being forgotten because of that. That's all there is to it.Let's not perpetuate disunity amongst the netroots by making harsh judgments against each other.
Posted by eriposte at February 2, 2008 11:33 AM
I don't agree. I think they need to get over themselves. I think they need to hear the criticism because they've got some issues. I used to participate at Daily Kos during the 2004 Presidential election and about a year after. Even had some diaries in the Top-10.
However, a few years ago I left DailyKos because I think they are corrupt. They started out well-meaning, but now they look at themselves as King Makers and the purveyors of THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. I watch their behavior, and that of the Freepers, and, frankly, I don't see a lot of difference in the pathology even though the core beliefs are different.
What I saw happening was that if you didn't kow-tow to the orthodoxy set by a narrow group of people on every issue, you were troll-rated into oblivion by this little cadre of Pavlovian supporters. If you spoke out against that, you followed.
So I left and as my horizons expanded, I pleasantly discovered there are a lot of blogs a lot better than the Daily Kos, yours for instance. Also Orcinus, Pharyngula, Crooks & Liars, TBogg, FireDogLake, etc.
Now I look at DailyKos as the Free Republic of the Left offering little but frothing-at-the-mouth group-think. My wife still reads, but even she's tired of the noise-to-signal ratio and limits herself to bondad, darksyde and a few others who stay above the fray. And she stays completely away from the comments, finding them pretty much useless.
Posted by Moses at February 2, 2008 11:53 AMOf course, for me, it's not just Obama's cultish followers.
For me it's not just the cultish Billary supporters.
Good TimesTM and UnityTM
Hillary's centrism?
Posted by phidipides at February 2, 2008 12:10 PMIt's interesting to me that the people who most fear terrorism and another terrorist attack are people who live in areas least likely to be attacked. Target-rich areas, such as NYC, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, vote democratic. What's up with that?
Posted by CG at February 2, 2008 12:16 PMMoses:
I am also a former Edwards supporter. I just dont like the Pro-clinton slant to many of the comments. Like everyone here, I love my country passionately. I dont like what I see going on in our country right now. (from an ill-advised war to the education of my kids). Now I want change. Unfortunately, Edwards is out of the race and Clinton offers more of the same. My only choice is Obama.
And I will donate, volunteer and organize like never before to try and make that happen. I want to pass on a better country than we have now. One that is not possible under another Clinton presidency...been there, done that.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 12:22 PMeriposte, thank you for being one of the brave bloggers out there who have the guts, intelligence, and sanity to tell us the truth. it's people like you who make me proud to be a dem!
Posted by nance at February 2, 2008 01:00 PMI just dont like the Pro-clinton slant to many of the comments.
And yet earlier, you said "I for one enjoy our exchanges because I get to hear a point of view that I dont agree with and so to you." So much for "as healthy and American as apple pie," I guess.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 01:01 PMIt is funny that regulars at this blog are complaining about the bias at other progressive blogs.
Posted by at February 2, 2008 01:16 PMFunny? No, it's tragic.
Aravosis is the worst, and Josh Marshall isn't far behind him.
Angryman, what do you think a Hillary Clinton presidency with a Democratic Congress would be like? Do you think that a Democratic Congress would go looney like the the Republican Congress did with Bill Clinton?
Obama's vote, when he votes, doesn't differ that much from Hillary's. So saying Hillary is more of the same sounds like a cop out. To me, Obama seems like more of the same. The same risk America took when it elected the person they would most like to have a beer with rather than someone who thought deeply about issues and was willing to change his mind.
Posted by SeaMBA at February 2, 2008 01:38 PMMarkL, that's Patrick - he's a well-known troll, no sense in bothering with him.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 01:46 PMseaMBA:
Let’s say for the sake of argument that she does win the nomination and gets elected. What do you think will change?
Hillary has nuanced and parsed her words on the war so much so that no one knows what she is going to do. Everyone on this blog knows the War was a mistake; has she ever acknowledged that it was a mistake? What happens with the next war?
She voted for NCLB, now she is against it and criticizing Ted Kennedy for helping to shape a bad program. If NCLB was so bad, why the heck did she vote for it?
Lobbyists currently set the agenda in DC now; do you think that will change? Do you think the special interests who are giving her wads and wads of money are not “expecting payback”? (John Edwards)
Do you think the voices of Americans will be heard anymore than it is now? Do you think anyone on the blog gives a crap about having coffee with either of the nominees? We just want a functional government that somewhat listens to the wants and desires of the people of this country rather than catering to a select few. We want a president who is not a liar.
Having been through Bush/Clinton/Bush I know that things are not going to change. We are just trading one set of special interest groups for another. If you can convince me that Hillary will do anything differently than she has in the past; I will be glad to come to your side.
In the meantime I don’t trust the BUSH FAMILY OR THE CLINTONS. She is going around the country saying she is going to change things! Yeah, change for BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH and CLINTON again. Makes perfect sense to me.
I don't the hate Obama campaign. I've been around for a long time. Supported Barry Commoner for President. Remember him?
There is a really good reason the many people on the "left" support Obama and those in the middle too. First, he is willing to fight for America, not just for his narrow range of friends, such as the Clintons and the conservative New Democrats.
Obama may be moderate on some issues, he is also far to the Left on others. He doesn't run away from taxing higher incomed people whereas Hillary won't even raise the social security level so that more wealthy people will put more into the Federal Govt's primary source of borrowing against its continued deficits that are pumped up by Bush et al. Also, he is opposed to Hillary's forceing lower middle class people to pay for negligable coverage for health insurance, Instead he is trying to lower the costs. (Hillary is accepting major donations from Big Pharma and Health Insurance companies instead). Obama has suggested lowering taxes upon the hard pressed lower middle class and raising them on the winning class that's having a free ride on health care (3 percent or less of their wealth going for health care while the average is 17 percent of average wealth i.e. gnp). Anyone thinking health insurance premiums will go down by making younger people, self employed low income people or others in the 30 to 50 K a year to pay 17 percent for corrupt health insurance companies that only cover maybe 60 percent on average for health care costs when one becomes injured or sick (a friend who is fully insurance found out the hard way that's all they'll pay for thousands per year premiums....
Obama understands the middle class as he himself isn't that removed in income from us, While the Clintons with their close association with wealthiest hedge funders and investors are looking to screw the middle class like Republicans do.
We know that Bill Clinton refused to fight the Republicans and their mouthpieces even when they were trying their best to ruin him and any Democrat in power. He avoided bold proposals and tried to mitigate his opponents with mild manners and lies and supported deficit reducing low income growth proposals for working class people while protecting the very wealthy and selling the Lincoln bedroom besides to high rollers for 'access'. Then losing Congress and reducing Democratic proportion of the electorate during his administration shouldn't leave Democrats with a sweet taste for the Republicratic Clintons.
So we need a charismatic and flexible leader who can articulate and persuade the majority of Americans. I don't think either Clinton can do that.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 02:09 PMI don't Get the hate-Obama campaign....in last post.
p.s. it reminds me of the hate-McCain campaign on the Right.
Posted by datadave at February 2, 2008 02:14 PMThis is for Clinton supporters:
Please explain what her vote to authorize WAR had to do with have to do with Hillary voting to authorize the war?
I am being honest with this question. Seriously.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 02:23 PMsorry about previous post
When Wolf asked Hillary about her vote for the war; what did she mean about Saddam Hussein being a megalomaniac competing with Bin Laden?
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 02:28 PMAs usual - it's not the substance that annoys me, it's the delivery eriposte uses. No argument with the content.
I read though regional profiles like these, which are only 1 step above stereotyping, and I get a feeling that 3/4's of the reason people like a candidate is because, "they're like me."
Which would be a problem for the families of privilege that make up the gross majority of our political candidates. That is unless you can say you've been a fuck-up in one way or another in your life. And we're not talking about a couple of blowjobs - you have to do something pretty dumb for months or years.
Posted by idiosynchronic at February 2, 2008 02:48 PMidosynchronic:
I am the angryman...what are you so pissed about? Spell it out. Don't let the conversations here in this blog bother you. The people here a good people with their own opinions and this is a forum where we debate. We all love our country; we just have different ways of seeing things, which is ok. Ultimately we will have to come together for the common good.
Pick out a statement you disagree with and blast the crap out of someone with facts or your opinion.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 02:58 PMHey idio - looks like we've got ourselves a new host! And he's not at all condescending to "newbies" like yourself... And they call us the borg. Sheesh.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 03:32 PMThanks coyote:
I don't consider you last statement cynical at all. Maybe you can answer the question so I can blast you out of the water:
When Wolf asked Hillary about her vote for the war; what did she mean about Saddam Hussein being a megalomaniac competing with Bin Laden?
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 03:57 PMHe might not be so angry if he was here way back when Id threatened to kick my ass.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 2, 2008 04:01 PMTIKI, when did idio threaten to kick your ass??
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 04:08 PMWhen I said the gay folks should wait till after the election to participate in the White House Easter egg hunt in force with signs tacked to the kids. As usual, it freaked out the Godbots.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 2, 2008 04:16 PMWhen Wolf asked Hillary about her vote for the war; what did she mean about Saddam Hussein being a megalomaniac competing with Bin Laden?
I think she meant that after 9/11, Saddam might have wanted to "compete" with bin Laden to harm the US so that he would look even cooler than bin Laden. I thought she was just saying that there were concerns there and it would have been naive to assume that Saddam was harmless.
Posted by CG at February 2, 2008 04:17 PMI forgot about that, TIKI - you cad!
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 04:20 PMI think you have to win elections first to get your progressive changes.
Just got off the phone with a sexy sounding Hillary for President chick. That's 8 phone calls, a visit to the house, several mailers including an invitation to hear Bill at ASU.
Obama's peeps are still MIA in Tempe, Az.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 2, 2008 04:32 PMCG:
We are now expected to believe that Hussein was in a race or "competing" with bin Laden for his country to be attacked? Because after all, this is after we had attacked Afghanistan and routed the Taliban. That doesn't make sense to me. Does it to you?
The point I am making is that it was a mistake to go to War. It was a mistake to give Bushy a blank check. It was a mistake not to demand that we wait for the UN inspectors to complete their work. It was a mistake not to demand to see the PLAN OF EXECUTION and EXIT STRATEGY. Plain and simple; it was a mistake and she refuses to admit it. Is that right or wrong?
We don't agree 100 percent with each candidate, but to me this is a BIG DISAGREEMENT. More than 3600 kids are dead/50,000 plus injured. I know most Americans don't give two craps about our solders, but many paid the ultimate price. The injured returned back home to be treated like crap by the very country who sent them to war.
Bottom-line. I want to know that if something like that comes up again, Hillary will not put our soldiers in harms way by parsing her way through it.
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 05:08 PMI'll bet anyone $10 he had that pre-written, just waiting for someone to take the bait.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 2, 2008 05:32 PMObama's peeps are all over us here in MA--I've had two phone calls and one door visit. Nothing from Hillary. I blogged my interaction over at the other place. I'm planning to vote Obama but I hate, hate, hate the love fest and the blind adulation. I think eriposte's diary is spot on--the world isn't going to stop turning for obama and, in fact, he and his supporters are massively weak in that a large majority of them *have no idea* what they are voting for other than a beautiful speaker and a vision of hope. After the Republicans get through with him during teh general election I reckon a good quarter of his support--including most of the hypothetical independents and "obamacans" will, in the words of the late lamented steve gilliard "forget to vote for the black guy" or even more perniciously in some ways *outright reject him* because they think he's a muslim, they think he's a liberal, or whatever. he's not selling an accurate vision of who he is as a progrsesive to the right wing and they are going to be angry if they find out he is, in fact, progressive or if the republicans *call his damn bluff* and force him to take actual liberal positions.
aimai
Posted by aimai at February 2, 2008 05:39 PMOn the same topic as the original post (I think), see
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-kennedys-are-endorsing-obama.html
for a funny, sad but true take on what conservatives might do if Obama is the nominee
Posted by Amelia at February 2, 2008 05:40 PM"sexy sounding Hillary for president chick."
Posted by at February 2, 2008 06:55 PMCoyote you owe me $10 bucks. How do I collect?
Make no mistake Hillary and Bill will win the nomination. Don't believe me, check the polls. It is just a few of us who wish that things would be different this time. We are tired of the SOS from the same friggin people. We elected a new congress last year, what did we get? Did we get justice for all of the things that have been done by the Bush Administration? NO, we got the SOS. It is you who are dreaming and are "pie in the friggin sky".
aimai:
Speaking of Crap waiting on them. Wait til you see the crap the Repubs have waiting for Billary. They are equipped with cartoons, sing-along’s, more scandals (Courtesy of BUBBA), and so much crap that as I said before will make even Rove blush. It is unfathomable how much conservatives hate Hillary. It is a visceral thing like throwing wild dogs a bone. You think we have problems here; you haven’t seen anything yet!
Save these words for reference in the fall.
Here is a little taste for you: www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_gI-_wQvQY
Posted by angryman at February 2, 2008 07:01 PMWhen Bill Clinton won in 1992 there were scores of Republicans skittering away from Washinton who were dirty with Iran-contra. G.H.W. Bush didn't pardon them all, and he didn't pardon himself. Bill Clinton didn't go after any of them, nor did the Democrats in Congress.
Who is going to go after the most criminally corrupt administration in the history of our country? Clinton? No way. Obama? Unlikely. I don't even think that Edwards would. Kucinich might have, but then maybe he doesn't know better.
Understand that the permanent government is now above the law. It has been for forty years.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at February 2, 2008 07:06 PMBob:
I can only assume from you comments that we should look for the most corrupt individuals to fill the halls of our government. Well hell, why didn’t you say so! I am definitely on the Hillary bandwagon now. Cue Bubba and his scandals and the rest of the corrupt crap that follows the Clintons. All you guys had to do was just explain the friggin rules to me…now I understand.
Be it known that Bob just converted me hallelujah!!
Among the Democratic candidates, I think that Clinton is the next-to-worst choice. Problem is, Obama is (to me) the worst democratic candidate (I would have preferred Dodd.) All this aside, Clinton or Obama are still 100 times better than ANY republican candidate.
Posted by jwrjr at February 2, 2008 08:57 PMDon’t be surprised if John endorses Hillary after Super Tuesday. Like John, she is a life-long Democrat with strong Democratic values. Obama is a Obamacan Republican. It’s time for disappointed Edwards people who lean toward Obama to cash in their 5 cent can of hope and get informed about his politics. This explains why corporate media fawns over Obama: The Audiology of Hope: Dogwhistle Economics
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/the-audiology-of-hope-dogwhistle-economics/
Compromising with Republicans, as Obama is too willing to do if he is president, will be just another crushing boot on the neck of lunch bucket Democrats who John and Hillary champion. Glenn Greenwald explains it: What “bipartisanship” in Washington means
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/index.html
It is odd that the "progressive" blog sites are so willing to agree to go along to get along, Broderish bipartisan talk. This was the group that during the summer and fall was baying for Nancy Pelosi's blood and were more than willing to see Cindy Sheehan take her house seat. Now they are able to overlook praising Reagan as transformative and say the Republicans were the party of "ideas" for the last 15 years, which would encompass the G.W.Bush years. They've fallen in love and nothing anyone can say will dim the image of the beloved in their eyes.
I have no problem at all understanding what Hillary plans to do once in the WH. She's been consistent and detailed in her speeches and on her web site. I want most of all a president who offers competence. The problems facing the next administration are going to be more difficult that a few computer keyboards missing their "W"s.
Posted by arwe at February 2, 2008 09:42 PMI wonder if Obama's inclination to adopt a theme of Unity and Bi-Partisanship has its roots in his experience in the Senate? The rules of that body make it possible for 41 Senators to obstruct a lot of business, and since we're not likely to get to the point where either party has a strong enough majority to ram legislation through, the only way anything can be accomplished is if there is a certain amount of meeting each other halfway.
I don't buy into the 'kumbaya' approach to politics, but I'm starting to think that Obama has figured something out. As long as we remain fiercely partison and intractable, it's difficult to address major problems.
Posted by swamp thing at February 2, 2008 09:50 PMBoth should appeal to Republicans; they're both DLC and equally pro-Corporate.
Posted by Tampa Student at February 2, 2008 10:56 PM"When Wolf asked Hillary about her vote for the war; what did she mean about Saddam Hussein being a megalomaniac competing with Bin Laden?
I think she meant that after 9/11, Saddam might have wanted to "compete" with bin Laden to harm the US so that he would look even cooler than bin Laden. I thought she was just saying that there were concerns there and it would have been naive to assume that Saddam was harmless." Posted by CG at February 2, 2008 04:17 PM
Actually, it goes back to before the 9/11/01 attacks. During the 90s there were essentially two major powers within the ME where the anti-Western forces were concerned, the secularist Hussein and religious Osama. Each man competed to be seen as the modern day inheritor of Saladin and Nebuchadnezzar within the Arab/Muslim world. Which btw was one of the main reasons the idea of Saddam ever giving over to Osama any bi/chem/nuclear weapon was so laughable right from the outset, they hated each other didn't trust each other and indeed Saddam's militant secularism helped provide a buffer against the radical Islamists in the region. The invasion of Iraq was a massive strategic blunder, in pretty much every possible way, including on these grounds given that Iraq is now home to far more Islamic militants/extremists getting valuable training in urban warfare thank to the occupation of Iraq. Not to mention turning Iraq and Iran from enemies to friends via the Iraq Shia dominated government.
In any event, that is what the competition comment HRC made was clearly referring to, and it was real/valid. Because of that rivalry while Saddam would not have given over his weapons to others it was very possible he might try something to help regain stature back from Osama after he became the hero of the extremists of the region with the 9/11/01 attack, so it is a fair consideration for someone in her position to have to consider (presuming he had the weapons capacity, I thought he might have stashed old bio/chem weapons but nothing more than that myself and therefore nowhere near enough of a threat). I wouldn’t have delurked except this is something I've seen from a lot of people appearing to be unaware of, I'd guess in no small part because terrorism especially Islamic terrorism wasn’t on their radar screens pre-9/11/01. It was on mine from the mid 90s onwards, especially after the first attack on the WTC, so I was well aware of the rivalry between the two men for several years prior to the Iraq invasion. This is because I was born in the middle of the Cold War, born and raised in a known first strike target, causing me to pay close attention to foreign affairs on international politics where it affected matters military. There were also many military people in my family plusa one high level intelligence connection who was one of my closest relations and closest emtionally of all my family, and it was true both ways from my birth to their death nearly a decade ago now, leaving me with something of a security issue mindset to my perspective on life. I am sorry I do not provide links but I have never mastered the knack of that within comments, so I try to leave enough keywords for people to search/google for themselves. I’m sorry I do not have more to offer than this on this subject, but I hope it is of use/value to those wondering about that comment.
I hope this helps explain why this was a particular concern and a reasonable one even taking into account the clear pre-existing horniness of Bushco for confrontation with Iraq/Saddam. It wasn't because Saddam was suspected for no reason in this context; it was because he already had a long history of this direct rivalry/competition with Osama well before the 9/11/01 attack which made the possibility of one to come from him to regain face as it were a very real threat scenario providing his capacity to do so existed. It was after all whether he retained the capacity that really was the question, that if he wanted to and had the means was clear that he had the will to do so, anyone that will use chemical weapons against both foreign and domestic (civilians/families no less) foes is capable of anything morally. That is why getting inspectors back in was seen as so crucial at the time in not just America but elsewhere in the world too. Which in turn I might point out is the context the AUMF was originally in, and while I agree HRC was wrong in her vote it was not because it was the wrong thing to do in that context from a security perspective but entrusted to the wrong people. Unfortunately though they were the properly legally mandated people according to the Constitution and she represented a State which had born the brunt of the 9/11/01 attack and like everyone else in the aftermath pledged unreserved trust/faith in the CinC on the foreign policy because of that attack. I would ask those that hold this so much against her and her unwillingness to "apologize" and do a sackcloth and ashes mea culpa to consider that she has reasonable grounds for thinking/feeling this way.
She also has clear reasons to be very angered by the way that trust a year after 9/11/01 was abused and breached and she is a woman that strikes me as able to bid her time until she is in a proper position to decisively strike against her enemies, incuding/especially the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy she was clerly so accurate in describing in the 90s. That on the Monica thing it was the one thing they were actually right about happening, even though they were wrong on respective motivations (it really honked Starr off that Monica wouldn't budge from claiming she was the sexual aggressor in establishing the relationship he clearly had issues with women that knew what they wanted in this area, a trait many conservatives in NA appear to share) of the involved parties which of course completely undercut their argument that this was anything other than a private affair and not reflective of his ability and competence/judgment when it came to governing and therefore while tawdy and ethically smudgy not something that rose to impeachment standards, not by a long shot. There was no abuse of position/power or harassment here except maybe from Monica going after him and not from him chasing her, even if he was the President. Something the American public clearly agreed about despite the differing views from the beltway village who still cannot understand why Americans don't detest/hate the Clintons like they do. These enemies btw I don't think are so much her fellow Dems but the GOP leadership and infrastructure of core believers and especially Bushco. I have never understood the reasoning of those that believe she will once she has the top Executive power in the land not use all the legal means at hand to go after these people after all they have done to her and her family, especially given the massive damage they have done to America in the past seven years. That there is clearly a great desire with the public/electorate for examination and prosecution of those that turned America from a rule of law nation to what is essentially no better than banana republic with the way Bushco has disregarded the US Constitution and 200+ years of legal precedent is evident even if not reflected by the beltway village. Unlike the 90s the GOP has been conclusively proven to be the ones that do not respect the Constitution and the rights of Americans far more than the Dems ever have by their giving free reign to Bushco for so many years.
Sorry about the dense writing format, it is unfortunately the way I think, speak and write, a by-product of being severe ADHD and how I learned to work around it. I only ask it be noted I am not a partisan on HRC's, I have no voting stake in this election and personally as long as it is a Dem that wins in Nov I will be content, although I really want to see the movement conservative infrastructure exposed and dismantled, it's example has spawned a replicant in my country and it currently has control if a minority government, and the more yours is exposed for what it is the faster the destruction of the credibility of our variant. I suspect just having a Dem in the Oval Office will go a long way to exposing the damages done whether there is an aggresive prosecution followed or not and that should be enough given the damage by this governing "philosophy" they have done to yours and ours replicated here by putting us in risk of Geneva Convention breeches regarding detainees (If not actual ones, although that has yet to be fully confirmed, the military it seemed acted on its own despite the policy to prevent it from what we can tell so far while the government lied to us about it, sound familar anyone?). So a Dem is my only necessity, so I only examine this race from that perspective, and I have to wonder whether HRC's answer in the debate the other night will resonate far better than the talking heads and partisans and Clinton enemies (as in will always see the Clintons in the wrong regardless, not merely disagreeeing some of the time and others conceeding they are in the right) think it might, both in the primary and general.
The GOP has become a rogue operation, and I for one do not believe it will fight less this year because it is divided and bitter internally, I think that will only make the aggressiveness and tone that much worse because they feel desperate (with cause too, which will only make it that much more potent a sensation/emotion). Desperate/cornered humans tend to act badly to begin with, and considering the character of the type of people under discussion I expect that to be an understatement this time. I do think whoever wins has got to be able to fight and fight hard for the rest of the year to the election, anything less will invite being walked all over, especially with a media that has not been willing to support Dems it likes past the primaries in many Presidential cycles now. The GOP have practiced total war in politics for a long time now, and while they are on the ropes at the moment they are far from truly defeated, and I do not see the sense in making peace with the enemy prior to defeat, not when they practice total war against their fellow citizens. I will say I have some problems with the core message of the Obama campaign on that point. From everything I have seen in closely watching the GOP evolve since the mid 70s to now I best compare the current situation to a wounded animal, not mortally so yet but serious enough to have it worrying about it. The level of desperation that tends to engender is no small thing to be worried about, and we humans are as much animals as anything else, something we forget at our peril.
Yes, I know, I am a long winded tedious read, I apologize again for that and hope the blog operators of this place do not mind that I have done so, especially as this is I believe my first comment ever at this blog even though I have been reading it for a bit now. If they do I shall of course respect that in the future, I do not wish to cause trouble/problems. I would note/plead though I was on topic and not trying to divert the thread in my own defence...:)
Posted by Scotian at February 3, 2008 12:11 AMcool....I liked the word "delurked". Creative and intelligent.
hey, I've done this writing on comment posts thing for more than 10 years. It's just a waste of time except for keeping mental juices running when you're in a not so intellectual job like mine. A very small fraction ever is influenced by this stuff so don't waste too much time as I can prove it with my messy apartment being neglected as I write here. It's fun but not a heck of a lot of influence. I don't know any influential people who read much of the bloggosphere. They're just too busy.
I don't believe ADHD is a life threatening illness and surely I got it too. Scotian, I am just suggesting make more paragraphs, keep one main idea per paragraph and have at it.....There's a lot of good ideas there.
That idea about the GOP being an enraged wounded animal is especially vivid. But I am having a hard time seeing what good another Clinton would do in office. She, I think, is the better half though. But to have the same staff as Bill did as evidenced by Sandy Berger being on board and other types will just give ol Rush and friends more fodder to diminish Democrats and weaken another Clinton Administration.
I give less than even odds that Obama will get the nomination but I hope he does as he'd bring fresh blood and ideas desperately needed by the Democrats. I give either Democrat only even odds in a match up with either McCain or Romney. McCain's probably got the nomination imo.
good luck, scotian, and keep writing.
Fuck the Clintons.
Posted by Brian Bell at February 3, 2008 04:21 AMBB: I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of submitting your comment to "Rate My Poo.com".
I think it just might garner the Grand Prize in the political category this month.
Keep up the thoughtful and brilliant work and there could be a Pulitzer on the horizon.
Posted by TIKI AL at February 3, 2008 07:07 AMPS, I changed it to all CAPS for an even more POWERFUL STATEMENT. OK if we split the prize money?
Posted by TIKI AL at February 3, 2008 07:21 AMTIKI, how kind of you to submit on BB's behalf! Such expressions of civility and deep thought should be shared and appreciated.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2008 08:47 AMJust call me "The Uniter".
Posted by TIKI AL at February 3, 2008 11:37 AMI think there should be an entitlement program offering free psychiatric care to all of America's white males.
I'm not kidding.
Posted by Copeland at February 3, 2008 01:53 PMPeople like this would never vote for any Democrat anyway. The reason why Obama will withstand the attacks is because the media will paint virtually any personal attack on him as racist. Therefore the republicans , particularly John McCain will probably attack him on the issues and keep the racial stuff underground. That said the Clintons have decades of scandal for the GOP to go through and they will face virtually no penalty for unleashing the dogs on her. Better still, most conservatives need to hear little more than her name to get riled up. Obama is the more electable pure and simple.
Posted by GOPhunter at February 8, 2008 10:41 AM