Thank you for such a superb, informative post! I hope you will cross-post it everywhere so that a maximum of people can see it.
Posted by Radiowalla at March 29, 2008 10:03 AMMe too, Hillary!
Posted by Obama at March 29, 2008 10:17 AM"...she has been tireless in finding ways to help the downtrodden, especially women and children..."
I am very certain the women and children of Iraq will be extremely impressed with her tireless efforts to help downtrodden women and children elsewhere even as she was, for eight long years, wholeheartedly supporting her husband's genocidal Iraq policy of regime change by population strangulation. And I am sure the women and children of Iraq - especially the women - are very impressed with her deep and abiding concern for helping them by acting as one of the strongest Democratic cheerleader's for Bush's depredations on Iraq.
And I am sure her tireless efforts to help downtrodden women and children means a lot to Palestinians, as they have seen her 100% uncritical support for every one of Israel's murderous and criminal efforts to starve and bomb Palestinians into oblivion.
And Lebanese women and children were ever so grateful for her tireless efforts back in 2006 while she was giving her full support for Israel as it put them through day after day after day of hell.
Sorry, but Hillary doesn't give a damn about women and children unless they are the "right kind" of women and children.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 10:38 AMShe should support micro credit because she supported increasing the number of Americans who need it ...and TANF definitely increased the number who need it, but Hill only accepts successes from her husband's administration when it comes to women and children. After taking $210,000.00 from banking industry lobbys she came out in support of Bankruptcy Reform(TM) that eventually became law. Folks stuck with a few million in healthcare debt probably need some micro credit. And lets face it, micro credit is a much better alternative than banking regulation promoting fairness in lending practices and encouraging business investment in disadvantaged areas. It's that "vision" thing.
Posted by phidipides at March 29, 2008 11:12 AMThanks for the links and a great overview of the whole issue! We need to get the word out on these things!
Posted by Frenchdoc at March 29, 2008 11:20 AMThe Clinton years were ones of incredible prosperity with dramatic reductions in poverty rates and the first meaningful growth in real income in a long time. That is *despite* the bad welfare bill.
In the 1990s both Bill and Hillary Clinton fought against the Bankruptcy bill - Bill vetoed it twice, at least once due to HRC's advice. She voted for a version of it in 2001 but that version never became law. The version she strongly opposed in 2005 is the one that became law. I've written about all of this in previous posts.
However, I understand that according to The Clinton Rules facts don't matter, so carry on.
Posted by eriposte at March 29, 2008 11:23 AMYou know, I cannot recall even once - NOT ONCE - hearing a single syllable of concern for the horrific effects on women and children of either her husbands' or George W. Bush's policies and actions in Iraq.
We have seen Iraqi women go from being the most highly educated, independent, and privileged women in the Middle East to the most oppressed, and she has, apparently, not given it a single thought, let alone expressed any concern at all.
As for the effects on Iraqi children of her husbands' and Bush's Iraq policies - policies of which she has been a leading cheerleader - it has been beyond devastating. In the area of education alone, those policies and actions have robbed two entire generations of Iraqis, particularly female Iraqis, of any meaningful education. So now the country that in the '70's and '80's had one of the highest literacy rates, and the lowest male-female literacy differential in the region, has reversed.
Is Hillary even AWARE of these results of policies she supports? If so, she either does not give a flying rat's behind, or it is too disadvantageous to her political career to address.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 11:25 AMEriposte: It is about results. I don't really care what politicians care about or think about or get excited about. I only care about what they accomplish or at least make significant attempts to accomplish.
I am sure it is possible to shoot the shit with Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton for hours on end about all the wonderful policies they support and all the wonderful people they know, etc., etc. But who cares if they don't take significant ACTION and move these things down the road?
Bill Clinton was President for 8 years! But NOBODY would reflect on his Presidency and conclude based on the people that he hired and the initiatives that he actually made that microcredits was a major tool that he advocated for developing counties or even rural parts of America.
After Katrina, did Bill or Hillary Clinton take the opportunity to hold hands with Yunus and advocate for more creative financing solutions to rebuilding the Gulf Coast? Or did Bill, instead, hold hands with Bush pere and defend Junior from the bumbling incompetence that was on display? I remember the latter. These things matter.
Over the past decade have either Bill or Hillary Clinton mounted a shred of a defense on behalf of George Soros, one of the greatest supporters of classical liberalism of our age and, not coincidentally, a massive supporter of microfunding through his Open Society organization? No. They have pretty much sat back as the GOP has demonized Soros.
Whenever I hear the Clintons or their supporters whining about their treatment by the press and the GOP, I think of nothing so much as Martin Niemöller's famous poem.
Posted by space at March 29, 2008 11:47 AMOops! Looks like I spoke too soon when I said the Clintons never defend anyone. Here's Bill defending the "moderate" John McCain.
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about. John McCain has been the posterboy for the Neoconservatives for about 15 years now. He is not a "moderate". He is a certified whack-job. If Bill Clinton thinks that a McCain foreign policy would involve ANYTHING that Yunus would approve of, he needs to be hit over the head with a 500 lb. copy of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine".
Posted by space at March 29, 2008 12:03 PMShorter Obama supporters response to this information, basically channeling Krugman from yesterday's article...Come on eriposte, Everyone basically knows Hillary tortures puppies and eats babies.
Not one of them actually refuted or responded directly to what you posted here....they all changed the subject and then went on to complain why she didn't do more or nearly enough for other things that they feel might have proven to them that she was sincere enough in her efforts and doesn't torture puppies or eat babies.
Posted by emal at March 29, 2008 12:10 PM
emal: If you are referring to me, I assure you that you are mistaken. The frequency with which the regulars on this site assume that anyone with a differing opinion is an Obama supporter is comical. My take on both candidates is fairly similar to that of Lambert. Although he, apparently more risk averse, leans away from the less predictable candidacy of Obama and towards the more predictable (but hardly encouraging) candidacy of Clinton.
And I fail to see how pointing out that after 8 years, Bill Clinton didn't actually do anything significant to advance the implementation of microfinancing is changing the subject.
Posted by space at March 29, 2008 12:39 PMeriposte,
If you use all caps along with the bold typeface people will be more likely to read your article and understand your ideas.
Regards,
Bagley
Posted by Bagley at March 29, 2008 01:02 PMemal,
Your apparent assumption that everyone who is critical of Hillary Clinton is an Obama supporter is just silly. I, for one, don't have much use for either one of them, and don't much care which one gets the nomination. Unfortunately McCain is, if possible, scarier than Bush, which leaves those of us who are not enchanted by Hillary or Obama in a very dire situation. There are no good choices, particularly for those of us who care about foreign and military policy in general, and the Middle East/Muslim world, and most especially Iraq in particular.
Whichever way you turn, Iraqis are screwed for the foreseeable future. None of the three main candidates has any intention of abandoning what Hillary calls "America's military as well as political mission" there. The only differences are in how, exactly, they intend to continue pursuing the "mission". Either way, what is in the best interest of Iraqis - especially Iraqi women and children - is not even on the map.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 01:19 PMEmal,
I am not aware of any known cure for CDS, but I hear there may be some remedies we can import from Bangladesh :-)
Naturally, the Obama campaign can refer to McCain as a maverick and straight-shooter and the Republican party as a party of ideas and Obama can pay homage to the great Republicans of yester-years and use every right-wing talking point in the book (in a Democratic primary no less) and it reflects someone who doesn't believe in the status quo and is the Greatest Change Agent since Jesus. However, according to The Clinton Rules, it is not the best thing in the world for the Clintons to have *ideas*. Ideas! Pffff. Who the hell cares? The media and their apologists certainly don't.
In contrast, it is only acceptable according to The Clinton Rules that the Clintons can be subject to broad denunciations of their mindset (via some excellent mind-reading) using misleading clipped semi-quotes from Always Accurate and True news articles (especially coming from one of the best apologists for the corporate media I have seen in our comment threads).
I have to say though that I find the latest edition of CDS pretty fascinating. "The Clintons didn't defend George Soros"! Cute. Of course, Soros on the other hand clearly took the leadership in the 1990s, he being the Greatest Gift to Mankind and the Most Important Man Worth Defending, in staunchly defending the Clintons from the fraudulent media and GOP machine with his self-made billions and thereby made it possible for the Clintons to actually get people to focus on irrelevant things like policies, microfinance, etc. rather than the Most Important Topics of Whitewater and Lewinsky and Wag The Dog.
Posted by eriposte at March 29, 2008 01:43 PM...made it possible for the Clintons to actually get people to focus on irrelevant things like policies, microfinance, etc. rather than the Most Important Topics of Whitewater and Lewinsky and Wag The Dog.
Policies? Well, at least Wag the Dog keeps the focus off of the greatest hits of the neoliberal Clinton administration. Bring me some microloans!
Posted by phidipides at March 29, 2008 02:40 PMShirin,
Do you realize that both Obama and Clinton were not my first or even second choices for the nomination and that I have mentioned several times (as has eRiposte and others here)that I will support and vote for the nominee no matter who wins it. I think each of them has strengths and weaknesses and neither is perfect for me. But like you, I too have felt that either of them is infinitely better than McBush. So you and I are pretty much in agreement on many things.
Now, I have a very slight preference toward Senator Clinton that has actually grew since the process began mainly due to the fact that Democrats are condemning the Clintons and Hillary as if they are or were as bad as the same tired and worn and rightwing talking points would make them seem...and I disagree.
I still have yet to see how even mildly acknowledging that the Clinton's (or Hillary specifically) did something positive (yes believe it or not they didn't always torture puppies and eat babies like the rightwing and now many prominent A-list bloggers would lead you to believe) doesn't necessarily mean you're an avid supporter of hers or even them or that you're against Obama. But that seems to be the atmosphere any positive post of Senator Clinton (or critique of Senator Obama) brings from people who are supposedly supporters of the Democratic party.
I personally used to think that the Clinton's media treatment and Ken Starr-like investigations were a reason not to vote for her because I thought that it would just be a repeat of old narratives and conventional wisdom...and subsequently blur the real issues we should be discussing (war, economy, healthcare, jobs, recession, mortgage and financial mess)..now I'm not so certain because I've heard it all before and to be honest I'm turned off big time by it especially when I see fellow democrats do the same exact thing...in other words its tiresome and I think backfiring...I myself think that is what has happened to me.
Lastly, btw, you do know and realize that neither candidate (much to my chagrin) has not actually provided any or much leadership on the issue of Iraq these days from the current situation to moving forward and out of there now...I mean their voting records on funding, timelines, etc are both very similar. So to me that speaks volumes of BOTH of them...and not in a good way for either. If either one of them were to act as a leader on this issue right now I'd be with them in a heartbeat...but it doesn't seem to be happening....sigh. And as for the initial War vote, I voted for John Kerry who basically acted the same on the Iraq War issue as Hillary so to me (and only me) it's not a reason not to support her.
Posted by emal at March 29, 2008 03:10 PM"If either one of them were to act as a leader on this issue right now I'd be with them in a heartbeat..."
Wouldn't that depend on the direction in which they were leading? And that is just the problem for me. Both of them have presented very deceptive statements on their "withdrawal" plans, which are only withdrawal plans in the sense that a rapist removing his organ halfway is a withdrawal (pardon the vulgar, though extremely appropriate, analogy). And what is even more distressing is that people hear them say things like "I will begin to withdraw combat forces within 60 days of taking office", and don't bother to think about what that actually means, or asking "what then"? If they did, they would know that neither candidate has any intention whatever of ending the combat mission there, and they would know it because both candidates have described the "mission" of the "residual" troops they intend to leave, and that "mission" is primarily a combat mission.
And listen carefully to the way they say what they say. Oh yes, Obama has said he will build no permanent bases in Iraq - well, that is technically true because he won't have to since Bush already built them. But where do you suppose Obama will house the 50,000-75,000 troops he plans to keep in Iraq for the foreseeable future? Does anyone really believe that he will pull them out of the multi-billion-dollar, extremely well-appointed miniature American towns Bush has built there (complete with recreation facilities such as miniature golf courses, and American food establishments), and put them in tents in the middle of the desert?
And so on and so on.
They are politicians ergo they are liars. All of them.
"...as for the initial War vote, I voted for John Kerry who basically acted the same on the Iraq War issue as Hillary so to me (and only me) it's not a reason not to support her."
Hillary could be forgiven for her initial vote approving the invasion of Iraq. My problem with her includes her entire history in regard to Iraq, plus the fact that she was almost as enthusiastic a cheer leader, both before and after the vote, as Lieberman has been. She did not change her stand on Iraq to any significant degree until it became obvious that she had no chance of winning the primary unless she did. Even now she refuses to take responsibility for her part in the destruction of Iraq, and the horrendous humanitarian consequences that have resulted from her more than a decade of support for policies that span three presidencies.
The bottom line is that no matter who wins, nothing significant will change for Iraq. Iraq has I knew it - as anyone knew it, or wants to know it - is finished forever. The only hope for Iraq lies in a quick, rapid and complete withdrawal of all official American presence, and that's just not going to happen.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 04:03 PMPS Not only will Hillary not take responsibility for her part in the crimes against Iraq, as far as I know she will not even ACKNOWLEDGE the horrible, unspeakable consequences to Iraqis of these crimes. As I said earlier, I cannot recall ever at any time hearing her say a single word about her husband's policies, or the Bush policies she has so happily cheer lead, have meant to Iraqi women, or what their effects have been on Iraqi children. I have not heard a syllable from her about the millions of refugees and internally displaced Iraqis who would be in their homes now had the invasion she encouraged with her words and her votes not taken place. And of course, she has not mentioned either the estimated 1.3 million Iraqis whose lives are ended forever thanks to the policies she has supported, not to mention in excess of one million Iraqis killed by her husband's policy of regime change by population strangulation.
And I wonder whether, when she visited her daughter at Standford, it ever occurred to her to say hello to the disabled orphan daughter of revered Iraqi artist, Leila Al Attar. The daughter, a talented artist herself, was partially blinded by the same American bombs that killed her mother and father, and destroyed much of her mother's irreplaceable work when Bill Clinton decided to flatten a few Iraqi neighborhoods in order to "punish Saddam" for an alleged - and extremely improbable - plot to assassinate George H.W. Bush. Oh yes - and Leila Al Attar and her husband were not the only civilians killed in that bombing, they were just the only famous ones.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 04:20 PMShirin, will agree to disagree with you on the Leiberman comparison among many other things here. But also, um you haven't acknowledged if Senator Obama has taken the lead or spoken to that girl on any of these issues that you seem to hold that Senator Clinton needs to have done.
I can see this is going to lead no where fast because you are intent on moving the goalpost and never actually praising Senator Clinton for anything she does. But more importantly even though you say you don't care for either all your post are why Hillary either didn't do enough, should have done more than she did and why she's bad, but I rarely see you holding the same standard for Senator Obama and that is what irks me the most. I have no problem that you think Hillary's never going to be good enough or do everything perfectly the exact way you think she should. For that matter I don't ever imagine either candidate as doing everything perfectly the way I want and expect them to. But for some strange reason you (and many many others) never seem to hold the other democratic candidate to the exact same standards (with moving goalpost) you hold Senator Clinton. And that is the problem I have with much of the commentary coming from the left blogosphere. It's one sided and one way.
For instance I for one recently heard Senator Obama said Hillary should stay in the race as long as she wishes...if true...Good for him! Good move. See it's not hard to do it. And I won't even move the goalpost although I am angry at his supporters including Dodd and Leahy who said she should quit now.
Look I'm under no illusion.... neither candidate is perfect...but I'm not expecting them to be. But I am expecting the same standards to apply to both candidates from the people on the same side of the aisle and that is not happening.
Posted by emal at March 29, 2008 04:58 PMEmal, Senator Obama, of whom I am not a fan, was not in the White House urging Bill Clinton to "punish Saddam" based on very dubious allegations by flattening a few Iraqi neighborhoods. Hillary was. Therefore, if either of them owes anything to the disabled orphan daughter of Leila Al Attar, it is not Obama, but Hillary and Bill Clinton. They are the ones who killed her parents, destroyed much of her legacy, and destroyed her eyesight, thus robbing her of what was once a promising career as an artist. Obama was not even involved in national politics at that time.
As for Obama, I say less about him because there is less to say, and I guess that speaks to his having less experience. Am I impressed by his boasting that he did not vote "yes" to authorize invading Iraq, and that he made a speech against it? Not at all. He was not in a position to vote on invading Iraq at all since he was not in the Senate, and he himself has admitted that he doesn't really know how he would have voted. As for his speech against invading Iraq, that might be a bit more impressive if his voting record as a Senator were consistent with that speech, but it is not. His voting record is, in fact, virtually identical to Hillary's.
I am also not impressed with the fact that prior to becoming a presidential candidate, he actually showed some support for the Palestinians, and yet all that has turned 180 degrees since he has been running for the nomination.
Try to understand, please, that when it comes to matters involving the Middle East in general and Iraq and Israel in particular, Hillary Clinton has a very clear history going back nearly two decades of enthusiastically supporting and even urging policies and actions that are wrong, criminal, and do terrible, terrible harm to human beings, and women and children in particular. And she has not ever acknowledged the victims of those policies and actions she whole-heartedly supports and urges. That is very personal to me. She clearly considers military force to be a legitimate instrument of foreign policy, and that is anathema to me.
That does not mean she has never done a good thing in her life, it just means that her record on issues that matter to me is crappy, to put it nicely, and I have a right to point that out.
As for Obama, there is much that remains to be seen, therefore there is less that can be said either positive or negative, but for the record I am no more enthusiastic about him than I am about Hillary.
Of course, that won't satisfy you, will it?
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 05:24 PM"your post are why Hillary either didn't do enough, should have done more than she did...you think Hillary's never going to be good enough or do everything perfectly the exact way you think she should."
If that is what you have gotten out of my comments, then I have failed utterly to make myself clear.
This is not about how Hillary didn't do enough or should have done more. It is about her ACTIVE support of criminal policies and actions that completely predictably do widespread, and irreparable harm to human beings, especially women and children, And, yes, I have also commented on her complete failure to her complete refusal to even recognize that there are millions of victims of those criminal policies and actions.
As for the daughter of Leila Al Attar, my point was that in a very real way Bill Clinton, at Hillary's urging and with her full support, killed that girl's parents, destroyed much of her legacy, and robbed her of a promising artistic career. Leila Al Attar and her daughter are only two of millions and millions of Iraqis whose lives have been snuffed out, or otherwise destroyed, due to policies and practices that Hillary Clinton still defends. I doubt she has ever given so much as a passing thought to the human consequences of those policies and actions, and I do not doubt that as President she would undertake similar policies and similar actions with equal disregard to their human consequences. THAT is why Leila Al Attar's daughter in Palo Alto is worth mentioning.
For the record, my impression of Hillary Clinton is that she is attractive, personable, deadly smart, thinks quickly on her feet, stays very well informed on issues, and is one very tough cookie in a negotiation or confrontation. All those are qualities I see as positive in a President. And they are not enough to convince me to support someone who holds some basic principles that I find anathema.
I think she has also done a hell of a job of holding her family together and raising her daughter under some very challenging circumstances. Good for her! That doesn't mean I have to support her.
From all accounts she has been a very good Senator for New York. Also laudable, also no reason for me to support her as President.
As for Obama, I cannot get excited about him either way.
I voted for Edwards in the primary, although he had withdrawn. I had no illusions that he would do everything exactly the way I would want him to. I had no illusions that he has ever been or would ever be "perfect" - whatever that means - and I had strong reservations about him in a number of respects, but I felt he was someone I might be able to support, if not whole heartedly, at least enough to vote for him without throwing up.
I do not feel that way about Obama, and I do not feel that way about Hillary Clinton.
OK?
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 05:44 PMShirin...okay...got it.
Imo, you're an idealist (and there's certainly nothing wrong with that at all). However in my mind in a world full of imperfect human beings and even worse, imperfect politicians, finding a perfect candidate that fulfills or lives up to all your own expectations may be unrealistic and very difficult...unless maybe if the candidate is yourself. I guess I'm a bit more pragmatic and willing to accept and even tepidly support a candidate, some flaws and all. That said, I know you said you'd support the eventual Democratic nominee too so there's an area of agreement.
I mostly just want to make the point again that I want all the candidates held to the same set of standards consistently regardless of party or wing of the party they hail...whether it impacts them positively of negatively. Just be consistent and fair when applying the standards. That's mostly what I am worried about and typically what I feel the mainstream media and pundit world does so poorly and fails at miserably. But I think this problem isn't just limited to them these days. I see the left blogosphere (which imo was mainly borne out of the msm pundit world failures)doing the same thing now (not necessarily you but certainly many others). And that is not good. Because they lose their credibility and reputation and become the very thing they rail(ed) against the msm doing.
For some reason I think we may be talking past each other here and I'm not trying to. You've certainly clarified some things with your comments to me and I appreciate it. My point above is one I stand by.
As I said, you and I have agreement. Most importantly at this point agreeing to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter who wins it with the realization McBush needs to be defeated. I'd like to leave with our common goal and on that positive note of agreement. thanks.
"Imo, you're an idealist..."
Once again, if that is what you have gotten out of my comments here, then I have failed to make myself clear.
If I were an idealist, I could only support Dennis Kucinich, but I have not, and while I understand those who do, I cannot join them for purely practical reasons. I voted for John Edwards, despite some serious reservations.
Refusing to support a candidate who has consistently urged and supported policies and actions that are criminal and immoral, and have done unimaginable harm to human beings, some of whom are part of my life, is not being an idealist, it is being true to oneself. Expecting that a person with a nearly two decade history of urging and supporting those kinds of policies and actions will, as President, continue the pattern, is not being an idealist, it is being realistic. Refusing to support someone who is likely to implement policies and actions that one believes are morally and strategically wrong, not to mention criminal and unspeakably harmful is not being an idealist, it is being an honest human being.
"However in my mind in a world full of imperfect human beings and even worse, imperfect politicians, finding a perfect candidate that fulfills or lives up to all your own expectations may be unrealistic and very difficult..."
If that is what you have gotten out of my comments here, then I have failed to make myself clear at all. I do not support Hillary Clinton, not because she is imperfect, but because, based on her record and her own statements and announcements, I have very realistic negative expectations as to what she will do in regard to matters that are most important to me. I do not support Barak Obama because I have similarly negative expectations of him, based on his own record and his own statements and announcements. I reluctantly supported John Edwards because I believed the results were likely to be less negative in the matters that are most important to me. What part of that sounds like an idealist who is looking for perfection in a candidate?
"I guess I'm a bit more pragmatic and willing to accept and even tepidly support a candidate, some flaws and all."
No, I guess that the "flaws" that I find intolerable are "flaws" you are able to tolerate, that is all.
"That said, I know you said you'd support the eventual Democratic nominee too so there's an area of agreement."
Actually, I have not said that.
"I mostly just want to make the point again that I want all the candidates held to the same set of standards consistently regardless of party or wing of the party they hail...whether it impacts them positively of negatively."
I'd like to see that too, and in fact, that IS what I am doing. I have, in fact, abandoned a couple of my former favourite blogs partly because I could not stomach the blatant double standards they are displaying in their zeal to support their candidate of choice. It is downright embarrassing to see the frenzy on both sides.
"For some reason I think we may be talking past each other here and I'm not trying to."
I know you are not trying to, and I apologize if I have displayed frustration at you over my failure to make myself clear.
"
As I said, you and I have agreement."
Actually, we don't. :o} I have not said I would support whatever Democrat is nominated. I don't know at this point how I will vote (except that it will not be for McCain), but I doubt I will support either Democratic candidate. Voting is one thing, supporting someone is quite another.
"I'd like to leave with our common goal and on that positive note of agreement."
Let's just leave with a common understanding that for some of us it is a terrible dilemma, plus our mutual conviction that McCain would be a nightmare that could make Bush look decent.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 06:54 PMShirin, Sadly I should have not even responded and may end up regretting this one too...I realize in many ways now we're light years away from each other on many more things. You've clarified yourself just fine. You can analyze my every comment and every word in the detailed way you do (contract lawyerly way I'd say-not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm just not up for that here as I get enough at work)..and then interpret/and even imo misconstrue every little nuance the way you do well, then I'm really not your type of person at all here. I'm not really into such word games for every comment I make here on a blog like this. I take full responsibility here for my words, opinions and totally blame myself for getting locked into this type of discussion that takes away from the main post and my main point. I definitely should have known better.
Please Have a goodnite and take care.... Good luck with your decision(s) and/or vote.
Posted by emal at March 29, 2008 08:04 PMemal, I am sorry you think that is what I have done. Oddly, I feel as if you have been the one who has been analyzing and misconstruing me! So, there you have it. It seems we have a failure to communicate.
The bottom line is that for you Hillary Clinton, while not ideal, is an acceptable candidate for President, whereas for me she is an unacceptable candidate for President. A lot of people seem to think she is practically perfect. And quite a few people feel as I do. None of these positions is necessarily illegitimate, and it is perfectly reasonable to discuss differing viewpoints, and disagree.
You are not going to convince me that I should support Hillary, and I have not been trying to convince you that you should not. I have merely been trying to explain the reasons behind my point of view. Maybe I did not do a very good job, but at least I tried.
Posted by Shirin at March 29, 2008 10:53 PMHey Shirin, (if you check back)
It was never my intention to try to convince you to vote for Hillary...ever...I tepidly support her myself, but it was very obvious from your first post in this thread (and past commentary at this blog) how you felt about her and that you weren't supporting her. I may be dumb but I'm not stupid. No my sole point continues to be that there's a different set of rules and expectations for her to be held accountable for as opposed to say the other candidate remaining in this race even in the left blogosphere (see my first comment it sums it up). As eRiposte noted many people call it CDS. And as I said in subsequent comments it doesn't mean you have those rules but many others that post here certainly do.
Sorry for the miscommunication...and once again I wish you good luck with whatever you decide to do in the upcoming election. Peace.
Posted by emal at March 30, 2008 06:38 AMThe successful small business my husband and I own made the transition from "micro" to "small but substantial" thanks to a Clinton Administration microloan program -- that, at a very critical time, provided the modest sum we needed to buy out a supplier and expand to the next stage. A sum far too modest for any bank to consider lending.
All the products we manufacture are made here, in the US. We are still only a small business, but we make a big contribution to the success of many other small businesses -- suppliers, sub-contractors, individuals offering professional and specific technical services. And while we do not have a large staff or are able to offer a lifetime career path to most employees, we are proud of the fact that our business, just over the last 15 years, has helped provide an important first step to a better economic future for many poor and working class young people -- by helping support their efforts to earn degrees or technical credentials, or by providing valuable training, technical skills and business experience that gave them entry to long term, lucrative careers. Most of our past and present employees come from working poor backgrounds. Some are minorities. Two lived on the streets when they first started working for us. One was the survivor of 11 foster homes. Two, one a young man from an economically depressed rural area in West Virginia the other from Gambia, were supporting themselves, attending school, AND sending money home to help support their families while working with us.
So that small loan has had a substantial ripple effect and positively impacted the lives of many people.
Right now, I am receiving treatment for breast cancer -- which my doctor, an Obama supporter (mostly because of Clinton's vote on the war) tells me is 100% curable because of Hillary; during her brief time with some control of health care policy she made sure that, for the first time, significant funds would be devoted to research into women's health care issues.
I can't think of any other politicians who have in any way had such positive, concrete affects on my own life.
Which doesn't mean I am uncritical of the Clintons. In fact, Hillary was far down on my list of "favorites" (and certainly behind Obama) when this campaign started out. But, it does mean that I abhor ugly characterizations of these two people who have devoted their lives to public service, and achieved much of merit -- things that have genuinely changed and improved people's lives.
Why their fellow Democrats, elite liberals especially, can't give those achievements any respect is really beyond my understanding.
Perhaps because they have more disdain for the "people with needs" for whom such policies are vitally important than they are willing to admit?
Posted by esmense at March 30, 2008 07:29 AMRichard Mellon Scaife ...she talked to this monster...really how many excuses are there left to give?
Posted by jesse at March 30, 2008 07:46 AM"my sole point continues to be that there's a different set of rules and expectations for her to be held accountable for as opposed to say the other candidate remaining in this race even in the left blogosphere"
That DOES seem to be the case to a great extent. If you want to see the flip side of that - big time! - check out http://noquarterusa.net/blog/ where Obama is the anti-Christ and Hillary can do no wrong. The double standard there is as blatant, and even moreso, as it is in reverse elsewhere. I find it all quite distressing, and I wish both sides would apply the same standards. I fear that in both cases they are doing more for McCain than they are for their chosen candidates.
Posted by Shirin at March 30, 2008 08:53 AMComment by John C.
March 30th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
OBAMA EXPOSED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://thedemocraticdaily.com/2008/02/28/its-about-time-sean-wilentz-on-obama-playing-the-race-card/
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
PASS THIS ON TO OTHER BLOGS PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
jesse --
"Richard Mellon Scaife ...she talked to this monster...really how many excuses are there left to give?"
Is this the kind of thing that really concerns you politically? You must lead a very charmed life with few real responsibilities.
Do you really think health care, ideas to create and stimulate business and provide jobs and opportunities for ordinary Americans, issues pertaining to war and peace, the education and the welfare of children, etc., should be put on the back burner because of made up controversies that don't in any way affect the real life of the country?
Give me a break. Dislike whoever you want to dislike. But don't mistake ranting about personal peeves and prejudices for political discussion -- or for anything that remotely approaches what is required of you as a citizen in a democracy.
This is an election. Not American Idol.
Posted by esmense at March 30, 2008 10:01 AMI liked this post a lot. Solid description of Clinton's background and positions, and none of eriposte's unfortunately common sneering remarks about "Saint Obama". Is eriposte finally taking his/her own advice not to beat up on fellow Democrats? One can only hope.
Posted by joeldanwalls at March 30, 2008 07:56 PMThis is an election. Not American Idol.
Wishful thinking, I am sad to say. If anything, this election reminds me of American Idol with the MSM and the more popular left blogosphere doing a great imitation of Simon Cowell.
I desperately miss the days when the election process was about issues that affect my life and those of all americans. Now it's all about who's hot and who's not.
Posted by kacey at March 30, 2008 07:58 PM