A Rant

This has been building up for a long time, and is directed a wide number of people online, rather than anyone in particular.

Just looking at the comments to a post of mine from earlier today reminds me just how ugly a place the blogosphere might be during the Presidential primary season. I am generally an optimist who believes that you can engage just about anyone online in a reasonable discussion. However, whenever I bring up Hillary, I honestly can't believe how many idiotic progressives there are who will clearly stop at nothing in order to assist the long-term Republican goal of making sure that no potential Democratic leader has a favorable image nationwide. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the level of stupidity and denial of reality who many progressive who trash Hillary Clinton in particular. As much as many people on the left would like to believe, the right does not have a monopoly on idiocy. I honestly think I am reading FreeRepublic sometimes when she comes up. There is absolutely no way I am voting for her in the primary, but I simply can't believe the number of patently false, easily disprovable arguments many "progressives" use against her no matter what evidence is shown to contradict said arguments. I have written about this before, but I am now of the opinion that there is simply no evidence that will ever convince a small but vocal and anti-social chunk of the netroots that she is anything short of the AntiChrist. Even if she is the nominee, these people are going to close the triangle on Clinton in exactly the manner Republicans desire, and Tom Tancredo, or Bill Frist, or Condi Rice, or whoever will be the next President. As long as there is no shortage of Democrats who are willing to say the same things about Clinton as Republicans do, anything Republicans say about her will be reified in the established news media, and the narrative against her will be forged in steel (this is exactly how the Lieberman wing of the Democratic party destroyed the left in the 1990's, by the way). For the love of crap, if you are going to write against Clinton, do so in a way that Republicans never would. Good arguments would include her being too hawkish, too insider, too centrist. Bad arguments would include her being too ambitious, having too much baggage, being unelectable, and being too insincere, since that is the narrative Republicans have long sought to tie her with. Then again, I don't even know why I am bothering to say this, because the people who froth at the mouth against Hillary in our comments probably honestly believe that there is no difference between Hillary and Tom Tancredo.

Absolute fucking morons. I am not going to come within several miles of working or supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries, but I will not, ever, repeat Republican arguments about a fellow Democrat, especially when such talking points are designed to tear down Democratic leaders. We might as well just start saying that Howard Dean is an incredibly angry member of the far left who will say anything that comes to his mind, or that Al Gore is a pathological liar with no personality and nearly insane. If you say that Hillary Clinton an insincere, overly ambitious, scandal-ridden woman who can't get elected but will say or do anything in order to get elected, you are exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean. If you can't recognize that, then you will do nothing but drag the progressive movement further down the festering rat-hole that we seem to perpetually find our electoral fortunes mired in. If you can't recognize that, I will also tell you, now that we are only eight months out from the start of the primary season, that I don't want you coming within several miles of making a comment or writing a diary on MyDD. This is one blog where Republican narratives will never be reified.

Tags: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, idiocy, netroots (all tags)

Comments

127 Comments

Re: A Rant

Let's play a thought experiment.  What if I did think she was willing to do anything to get elected?  How should I criticize her for that trait?

I don't necessarily think that, but I'm wondering how to make these arguments.

by Matt Stoller 2006-03-06 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

What I'd say is that such arguments are legitimate if they're backed up with specifics, and aren't just sloganeering.

(But it's not my diary.)

by Adam B 2006-03-06 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Get off your high horse Matt.

People want change. That doesn't mean going back to where we were before where we are now. It means change.

So what? We're no longer allowed to disagree with Hillary Clinton or you will call us idiots? Compare us to the Free Republic? Or worse, to the DLC?

There are legitimate gripes against Hillary. I'm sick and tired of having other Democrats tell me who to support and who not to support.

I don't support her. I guess that makes me an idiot.

by JackBourassa 2006-03-06 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Another thing Chris (i'm sorry Matt - I used your name instead in the post above):

Is the blogosphere here so us mindless progressive can just fall in line with whoever the DC establishment tell us to? Or are we here to challenge the DC establishment? Is this just some game to you or something? What about principals, do those matter? Or would that make us too much like the Free Republic too?

Instead of ranting - refute the arguments made against her. Otherwise, shut up.

by JackBourassa 2006-03-06 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

You appear to be misundertanding Chris' point.  He is saying criticize fairly and honestly, for real things, and be factual, but don't just echo Republican criticisms.  And it's not smart to tear her down in ways that hurt all of us if she becomes the candidate.  Republicans winning again hurts all of us.

by davej 2006-03-06 02:30PM | 0 recs
Rant...this all misses the mark

Just something extremely disturbing I have noticed.  Many on the left have looked at the Republicans and have learned the lessons that morality, truth, ethics and the rightness of your cause will not guarantee you a place at the table.  They have learned that cutting your opponents down, pouncing on them and finishing them off is quick, efficient and will show result in getting your agenda advanced.  They have learned that some people must be removed from blocking the paths to power, and if they refuse to move, they ought to be crushed.  They have learned that all enemies must be crushed and there is no middle ground.  It is the flip side to the animal the right wing has created, a vicious beast that cannot be stopped easily.

I find this all extremely disturbing, it has nothing to do with liberalism, it is left wing but not liberal.  But honestly, I don't see a way to deny this kind of force taking root.  It is rewarded at every turn and there is no sense of the common good to hold it back.  There is a new militancy brewing within the left and if it becomes strong enough, liberalism as we knew it, the liberalism of the Great Society and the New Deal, the Liberalism of Eugene McCarthy, Ted Kennedy will be dead.

We should be afraid, we are becoming a part of this mindless beast created by the right, an unthinking animal, without a care in the world, that never gives the benefit of the doubt, that never shows pity or mercy.  We are losing control of our minds.

That said, Hillary represents the flip side.  She believes in nothing except her own sense of personal destiny.  The world is HER oyster, not ours.  Here we are, between nihilistic self indulgence and the bloodlust born of a desire for revenge and vendetta.

This isn't how its supposed to be. I am an American.  I believe in our ideals.  This kind of situation makes me want to throw up.

by pjv 2006-03-06 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Rant...this all misses the mark

How are criticisms of Hillary "repeats of Republican talking points?"

The reason I took such offense to Chris' rant was because I was one of those, in the previous post, whom he seem to criticize. I brought up the fact that if Hillary wins the nomination we will lose three potential big issues: the war (because of her blind support of it); corruption (because her husband, when President, had his own problems - Chinese coffees, Lincoln Bedroom, and Marc Rich, where he seemed to exchange favorable consideration for campaign cash); and finally, Social Security, because Bill Clinton openly supported private accounts. These are not "republican talking points," these things happened.

If Hillary Clinton can not defend herself against legitimate issues such as the ones I, and others, bring up against her - and instead bring up a lame defense like how people are "repeating republican talking points" - how can she expect to win anything? Because I guarantee you these issues will be brought up in the general. And no one will care if they are "republican talking points" at all.

I suppose I think the patented response by Hillary supporters to any kind of criticism as being "Hillary-haters" repeating "right wing talking points" is just plain lazy. That way you don't have to defend her record - or lack thereof - and/or explain the issues being raised.

Sticking our head in the sand won't win us anything in 2008.

by JackBourassa 2006-03-07 04:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Rant...this all misses the mark

WE HAVE ENITRE FIELD OF UNELECTABLE DEMOCRATS!

And why do you think that is?  It's because of Democritics like you!

Just to quickly refute your criticisms:

First, Hillary has spoken out against the execution of the Iraq War SO MANY times, and is more critical by the week.  She may have been wrong to vote for it, but she is one of the few Democrats that has a record that is right on Defense!

Second, Even if some people remember the unfounded corruption accusations that you paroted, they certainly admit that Hillary was separate from her husband's political affairs, as she was pretty busy trying to "secretly concoct" a plan for all Americans to have healthcare.  Moreover, Hillary has demonstrated the highest degree of integrity as a U.S. Senator, and has served Republican and Democratic New Yorkers.

Finally, forget social security.. Medicare is going to be the issue if any in the coming election.  President Clinton might have considered private accounts, so long as the gov't promised benefits to seniors and had a surplus to pay for it.  That is no longer the case, but, if portrayed in context, this could help Hillary to appeal to younger people who doubt that social security the way it is won't be there, and fear that Democrats and Republicans won't be able to work together to fix it.

The truth is we have one of the strongest field of Democratic candidates in decades, and the Republicans know it.  That's why they attack every Democrat possible, while we sit back and "refute" the criticism like you suggested, instead of hitting back.  We have George Allen who has no major legislation that he has sponsored, is one of the most conservative senators in Congress, and backs the Bush Administration every chance he gets.  Then we have Rudy Giuliani, a pro-choice liberal lawyer who won't be able to work with Repbulicans in Congress with a record of only mayoral experience, huge values/morality scandals, and a corrupt protege of Bernard Kerik as his top law enforcement official.  Then we have Mr. McCain, who is against torture of enemy combants, but wants to send more U.S. soldiers to get their heads blown off by IED's.  He panders to the media, straddles the polls, and backs all of the Bush administration's blunders.  On top of that he is aging, has hot fused temper, and has no real vision for America's domestic future.

How about we promote all the Democratic candidates, so that they are all electable, and then let the voters decide for themselves which Democrat is the best.  Let's use all of our energy to point out how pathetic the pool of Republican candidates is, and try to bring some of them on board with our Campaign for Change.  Our vision is out there, and our policy ideas will be introduced once we are able to stop the bleeding of country brought on by the Bush Administration.

The only thing that's wrong with the Democratic Party is that too many democrats lack discretion and solidarity.  Push the candidate you prefer rather than attacking the one you don't.  That is something Republicans do, and "there's a better way." TOGETHER, AMERICA CAN DO BETTER, AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOGETHER WE WILL DO BETTER!!!!

by StraightShooter00 2006-03-07 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

davej,

Maybe you can provide a list of "legitimate" things we are able to criticize Hillary Clinton on - maybe an official dossier can be provided by the Clinton campaign itself. That way we can avoid being called idiots in the future.

Because as I recall, I did provide examples of why I oppose Hillary - and so did many others. Yet Chris, still found it reasonable to describe us as idiots.

Which incidently, is also playing into right-wing talking points about people on the left as these radical crazies.

Hypocricy, it's a beautiful thing.

by JackBourassa 2006-03-07 04:26AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

So what? We're no longer allowed to disagree with Hillary Clinton or you will call us idiots? Compare us to the Free Republic? Or worse, to the DLC? I'm sick and tired of having other Democrats tell me who to support and who not to support.

You wrote exactly what went through my mind when I read "The Rant". For two years we've had "Liebermanlives" calling us all kinds of names (Idiots, morons, loonies, crazies, Lieberman haters, etc.) if we don't support the DLC policies of Joe Lieberman, and now were going recieve the SAME treatment if we don't support DLC Hillary either? I'd like to be able to decide for myself what type of Democrat I support to run my party, and DLC Hillary ain't it.

by William Domingo 2006-03-07 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
I think the criticsm should be directed at the specific action she is taking at the time, and not work to develop a larger narrative surrounding her.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Ok, and how should I present my empirical hypothese that Hillary's image and persona is quite cold and that she therefore is an easy target for Republican (just like Kerry)?

My biggest problem with Hillary is the unelectable issue. I don't think I'm prejudiced. She is not very folksy and populist and what we need right now is a populist face of the Democratic Party to win back working class males. Hillary just ain't gonna do it.

When considering who to support in 2008 one must not only look to the issues. Hillary is not just wrong on the issues, she is the wrong person to front the Democrats at this period of time.

I would prefer Brian Schweitzer, obviously, but he's not running. Now my choice is between Clark and Feingold (because of his brillant stance on the issues), with Warner as a longshot.

by Populism2008 2006-03-06 02:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
"my empirical hypothese that Hillary's image and persona is quite cold and that she therefore is an easy target for Republican."

I don't know. In fact, I don't even know how to begin explianing what is wrong with that phrase. You do know what empircal and hypothosis mean, don't you?
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

When I said "empirical" I did not mean "scientific" (to my knowledge there hasn't been any studies of Hillary's appeal in political science, yet). I meant that from my observations of this country, and the experience of talking to people about politics, my impression is that Hillary turns people off.

Especially white working class males. But you didn't engage with that part of my post. Tell me: which white working class males are going to vote for Hillary Clinton? Which Southern males?

by Populism2008 2006-03-06 10:08PM | 0 recs
"Hypothosis"

means nothing in the English language.

"Hypothesis", however...

(Gimmie back 2 posters.  There's too much to digest on this site).

I miss nerdy-number Chris and drive-by-poster Jerome. Mean Chris is mean.

I can't keep track of this.

by NCDem 2006-03-07 03:33AM | 0 recs
I'm just curious, but..

by what possible evidence are you making this claim?  I have been both amazed and annoyed by Clinton--more annoyed than anything.  But there is absolutely no question in my mind that she is very gifted in face-to-face interaction.  She has--and it pains me to say this--the same gift that W has, maybe even better.  Her face lights up when  she sees a complete stranger--it's amazing.

In front of a room, I agree. She comes across like death warmed over.  But 'unelectable.'  You know who was unelectable?  Al Sharpton.  I have met tones of people who say wonderful things about Clinton and tons who say nothing and tons who say terrible things.  Kind of like...well, Bush.  Who got elected twice.

She's my Senator, so I vote for her in that ocntext.  In 2008?  No.     But I agree with Chris.  There are bad habits that need to be dropped before we head into the primaries.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-06 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm just curious, but..

Can't she just not run?  I just don't want to have to go through it.

I hold her responsible for hurting Gore in 2000 and I'm sure Gore and his people do, too.  The last thing he needed was that Hillary senate race sucking up money and attention and getting the people who really hated the Clintons fired up.  How the nation has suffered for Hillary Clinton's ego.

And she botched that healthcare initiative as badly as Bush has botched his Iraq war.  Yes, she has a lot in common with Bush:  they're both incompetent, proven incompetent.

by Rowena 2006-03-09 04:47PM | 0 recs
I like questions like this

Seriously.  Let me respond, first, with another question:

Do you think Clinton would, say, push an old lady in front of a bus to get elected?

Do you think she'd eat raw pigs intestines to get elected?

Do you think she'd convert to Islam to get elected?

Personally, as someone who actually listens to you folks with lots of experience in election campaigns, it would be helpful if you just said what you think she--or anyone else--is willing to do to get elected, rather than use that generalization.  

My sense is that when someone says Clinton is willing to do 'anything,' what they mean is (1) oppose withdrawing our troops from Iraq and (2) pretending to be a devoted Christian.  And those annoy me, too.  

Anyway...it's a good question.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I like questions like this

Well, extending the occupation of Iraq is ensuring the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of people. I'd rather she killed a few people with her bare hands than kill however many with her policies.

by Left for the Left 2006-03-06 04:10PM | 0 recs
not exactly

Extending the occupation of Iraq just ensures that Americans will somehow be involved in more deaths.  The deaths will happen anyway.  At this stage, there's no stopping more death short of deus ex machina.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-06 04:32PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Are we not allowed to say that Biden's a pompous, boring, embarassing assinine windbag?

by Rowena 2006-03-09 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I think you would be more productive, and less liable to create misunderstanding, if you engage the arguments in the thread, or point out which ones you think are counterproductive, directly.

Why?

Because that's the only way you can teach effectively.

You won't persuade the rabid, but more people read than comment.  That's your audience.

You asked recently for help in maintaining your connection to the "netroots" as you become more established as a front pager, etc.  

This comment comes in that spirit.  A front page rant may feel catahrtic, but it does not teach very well, because it's a scarrteshot way to address comments that could be addressed more effectively directly.

Just my two cents.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-06 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
I can't really engage in arguments in many threads. I am making an exception this time becaue of the virulent nature of this post, but generally speaking if I engage with people in the comments who are just ranting and raving, then I actually end up legitimizng those people.

Not being able to do that is actually one of the few frustrations of being an influential blogger.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 01:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Hmm. . . I see your point.

The if your best teaching opportunity comes with a front page post, I think it would be better to position the material as a mini-strategy seminar, which is what you do when you're really writing your best.

See, I cite your work elsewhere in the blogosphere (my community following is principally at FDL and I link to you often for our community).  I support your work and typically agree with it.  I also wrote my own comments in some disagreement with your earlier post.  

I had to work, based on ym experience with you and my trust, to get through your "rant" to try to sort out if I was one whose writing was the subject of your ire.  I don't think I was, but I'm not sure.

My point is, people like me are people you probably want to keep engaged.  I'm patient, I like you and I trust you, but not everyone has a doctorate in psychology as I do.  They won't go through your rant with [erhaps the same level of care I did.

My point is, this was not your best post.  Take a deep breath before you rant; keep your friends on your side.  You're a great writer and thinker, and you can make your points without the "rant" baggage which can feel like a personal attack, maybe hitting targets you did not intend to hit.

Thank you for responding to my note.  Take my thoughts with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-06 01:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

BTW: I will coordinate a 90 person seminar with Chris as the speaker and attraction if we can just cover the costs.

Yes there is 'Free Conference etc" but that is very hard to get questions in coherant manner. Maybe $10 a person for a much more professional facility.

And both email and live questions for Chris after he has made his main presentation.

Any takers? First public taker has to be Chris himself! Let us know here, Chris.

Email here for others.

by BigDog 2006-03-06 02:00PM | 0 recs
confused

I don't quite get this comment.  Did I miss something?  How does it flow from the parent comment?

by Pachacutec 2006-03-06 02:26PM | 0 recs
Re: confused

More than one person had commented on Chris Bowers power as a leader and a teacher. This an offer of an easier more effective format for doing just that.

by BigDog 2006-03-06 03:54PM | 0 recs
I doubt that...

"recently" he asked for help in maintaining his connection... as he become(s) more established as a front-pager...

Chris has been a front pager longer than any current front-pagers here (Jerome excluded).

by NCDem 2006-03-07 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
Chris, now you know how I feel when Lieberman gets ransacked by the progressives in this, and other blogs. Day after day, I have to put up with idiots who when they hear the name Joe Lieberman, their blood pressure goes through the roof.
   Oh by the way, the Lieberman wing of the Democratic party didn't destroy the liberal wing, the country told both the left and the right to just stick it.
    Tell you what, I'll tone down the Hillary bashing, if you and others do the same for Lieberman. Deal?? Call it a cease fire.
by liebermanlives 2006-03-06 12:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

it will never happen.

by aiko 2006-03-06 12:38PM | 0 recs
Lieberman has plenty of real flaws

I don't have to go to his character/personality. He has made moves that have hurt the party when it matters and has used Republican talking points against the Democratic Party. So I PROUDLY associates myself with the "idiots" trying to get rid of Joe.

Hillary on the other hand is someone that does not inspire me. Sorry but its true. Still I don't use Republican Talking points about her( cold , lesbian, oportunistic etc... ) because they are lies and a crock of shit spewed by some rightwing hatemonger.

Point Chris made is completely valid and does not rehabilitate Liebermans image. Bashing Hillary or any Democrat with Republican talking point(lies) is helping the Republicans.

by KosTexasliberal 2006-03-06 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman has plenty of real flaws

Kos, the only reason you don't like Lieberman is because he isn't you. Bush is the problem, not Lieberman.

by liebermanlives 2006-03-06 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Lieberman has plenty of real flaws

Joementum and Hillary both support the war. If they believe in it, then they are wrong. If they don't believe in  it, then they are evil. Either one should keep them (and all other warmongers) out of the running.

If we cannot oppose one of the great evils of our time in the ballot box, then we will have to oppose it everywhere.

by Left for the Left 2006-03-06 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I have no problem with Liebermans views, I have huge problems with him attacking other Dems and kicking the legs right out from under them.

by pjv 2006-03-06 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

How is having too much baggage, a trait that the Party never wants to see in any candidate, a bad thing to say. And Chris since I'm the one who said it LOUD and CLEAR...engage. Why is that wrong?

Do you honestly think that they, the Opposition, doesn't have every moment of tape of her sitting in a vault ready to be re-cut and taken out of context?

How is bring that political reality up anytning but just that...a political reality?

Illuminate me. We've coresponded. Worked together...tell me how speaking an obvious truth is wrong.

Should I simply be quiet...do you think they don't already know more than we do? Remember the stakes are higher for them.

by BigDog 2006-03-06 12:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
Frist, specific to Clinton:

Because all of the baggage against Clinton was trumped up by Republicans in the first place. And, oh yeah, she weathered the storm against it incredibly well. Do you seriously think that Republicans have new lines of attack against Hillary Clinton that we didn't hear at some point over the last 15+ years? Their entire direct mail empire is predicated on attacking Hillary Clinton. I have a feeling we have already heard what we are going to hear about her, and I have also noticed that she remains popular despite that. No other Demorat has survived the Noise MAchine as well as she has.

Now, more generally speaking:

If we critcize Demcorats who might become our leaders for beign scandal ridden, then we are doing exactly the same thing Republicans will do agains tthat person. Period.

If you want to turn away from a Democrat because s/he may have a scandal problem, do so because you honestly think it is a real scandal problem and because that scandal problem would prevent that person from governing well, not from being elected. And even if you think that, don't say it in a way that would be so similar to how Republicans woudl say it.

That's how I see things.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Chris you miss two VITAL points and one historical point:

Vital 1. It doesn't matter what all the Democrats think. We have to have Republican voters too to win and it would be easy to demonize her visually with just enough bullshit to make it another 50/50 election. Is that what you want...another election that can be screwed to the walls?

Besides the Democratic Party made it clear in her early years that she wasn't popular at all. You have to step back to see the forest. Yes we've seen all the tapes etc. And it almost brought down ONE president. Don't you think it would be used again, completely out of context and with no substance, to smear a candidate?

Vital B. When you say "we" you are talking about us activists and professionals. Don't you think the constant never ending repetition of the Bullshit would have an effect on the public? We don't talk about the low turn out's. We don't talk about the lack of enthusiasum the average Democratic registrant has for even voting....we talk within ourselves about ourselves. Take a bigger view and wonder what the guy/woman who doesn't read much and only happens to view the commercials can imagine if the commercials are neverending? You are stuck inside the Blogsphere and not thinking of the average registrant that doesn't vote to begin with....those are the people we have to reach and we can't do it while fighting off the enemy at the gates at the same time.

Historical Point 1. The SwiftBoaters used crap over 30 years, not 15 but 30 years old, and all of it gone over and over and over again years and years ago....and destroyed a nominee.

15 years may seem like a longtime to a young pup like you but to a guy that watched Kerry's Congressional Hearing's....15 years isn't long at all and I bet is fresh in LOT's of people's minds.

Is the crap is either case true?

Doesn't matter. What matters is preception of realtity and the money necessary to market that preception of reality. And the Republicans have proven better than us at that. So....why give them the target?

by BigDog 2006-03-06 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

"You have to step back to see the forest."

Whoa!  First of all you owe me $5 for that.

Now if Hillary becomes the candidate, it certainly counters your argument that "the Democratic Party made it clear in her early years that she wasn't popular at all."  If that's the case you don't have to worry about her becoming the candidate, right?

You seem to be saying that because the Republicans smeared the Clintons, Hilary shouldn't run.  Well they smeared Carter, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc.  IT'S WHAT THEY DO.  Remember how Kerry would be a better candidate than Dean because he was a war hero?

So this is just not relevant to Hillary's qualifications to run.  There is NO DIFFERENCE in their use of smears on her or anyone else.

by davej 2006-03-06 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Sorry...the early years was an example of how the ebb and flow of sentiment goes. Guess I didn't say it well.

Gore didn't get SwiftBoated. or Smeared much....he didn't have much to get either about. Bad memory my man. They slaughtered him on his own presentation.

Dukakis was smeared based on a factual decision and the worst advancing teaming in the world when then allowed him to pose on that goddam tank. He screwed himself on that one.

Carter didn't get smeared. No material. He won. He lost the second when it turned out he was a lousy micro-manager of the WH and policy AND got caught in an impossible situation AND was up against a very charismatic oppoponent.

Bill Clinton got attacked a lot...and earned it...but had the charisma and the wife to withstand it. And the opponent who was pretty easy to beat.

But why give them hours and hours of tape when we don't need to. We have a deep field of qualified contenders...not just one.

And what pisses me off the most?

Why the hell are we talking about this instead of winning the 2006 Congressionals when we can take back the House and direct what ever investigations we want? That's where we should be putting our energy. The rest is bullshit. The House first. Then the WH. That's why Clark and others are only talking about 2006 and nothing else.

Too many are too busy raising their warchest.

by BigDog 2006-03-06 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
First--we are not ready to break the national deadlock yet. We just don't have the capability in our political machine. Althoguh I do agree that we need to get beyond the idea of winning by 2-3%, we aren't ready to do that yet on the Presidential level. Obama could do it. Obama isn't running. Before his divorce, I believed Feingold could do it. Now, I don't know.

Second, the next realignment isn't going to come from Repbulicans anyway--its going to come from Indycrats. Bush has an 82% approval among Republicnas, and a 29% approval among Indepdents. Where do you think the majority of our new votes are going to come from?

Third--participation in the process is actually very high right now. In fact, it is at a thirty year high. So I don't that what we are saying is somehow driving poliitcal participation down. I think that what we are saying is driving it up.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 04:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Kerry didn't respond to those attacks, Hillary does appear to know how to respond and get past them.

If we're going to be pointing out that a canidate has a lot of baggage that's going to be used against them then we also need to look at how well they've dealt with deflecting attacks in the past and how charasmatic they are. If someone has a lot of positive personality and they're a passionate take no shit kind of fighter then the acceptable baggage limit for them should perhaps be higher.

by Quinton 2006-03-07 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

You go guy!

Look around.  I see plenty of front page posts here and on kos by bloggers who rant and rage against all kinds of dem mainstream stuff.  from liberman to edwards to hackett to mfume to you name it.

what's the difference?

bloggers like to rage....

by aiko 2006-03-06 12:36PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
The difference is very simple. If the rants repeat Republican tlaking points, then they are bad. If the ratns don't do that, then while the rants may not necessariyl be prodcutive, I don't really see how they are hurting us.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 01:14PM | 0 recs
I'll Be Voting for Hillary Clinton

in the Primaries and in the General Election.

by ROGNM 2006-03-06 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Am I just supposed to say that every Democrat would make an outstanding nominee?  

HRC is going to draw strong responses because she is the best known likely candidate and half the public thinks she already has the nomination.

I think HRC has certain traits as a candidate that will make it easy for Republicans to mount a campaign against her.  This says nothing about how good a President she may or may not be, but am I just supposed to keep it to myself two years before a primary vote is cast?

You wrote that you won't work or vote for her in the primaries, so, clearly, you have concerns.  How are we supposed to discuss them, or make others understand that other candidates would make better nominees if we discuss candidate warts?

by danielj 2006-03-06 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant
"Am I just supposed to say that every Democrat would make an outstanding nominee?"

Yeah, or something similar.

But that doesn't mean you can't criticize candidates. It just means that you can't feed the Republican narrative about any candidate. If you are going to cirticize Demcorats, criticize them in a way that Republicans never would.

That is going to mean that you must say any Dmecorat would make a good nominee, because saying that they wouldn't is something Republicans would say about them. Even Dean's early rants against the party caem abck to be a problem, both for his campaign (if you run an anti-insider campaign, the insiders will eventually try to take you down) and for Demcorats in the general election (his California speech, for example, reified the narrative that Democrats in general don't stand for anything, even as it positioned him as a Democrat who did). And I say this as someone who will stick with Dean until death, and as someone who is looking for an outsider in 2008.

It is tricky and complicated, but remember htat blogs like MyDD are not just places where we are casually discussing ideas over coffee. This is a very public place read by droves of reporters and politicos. Bringing messages here that repeat what Republicans are saying about other Democras is indeed very dangerous.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

"It is tricky and complicated, but remember htat blogs like MyDD are not just places where we are casually discussing ideas over coffee. This is a very public place read by droves of reporters and politicos. Bringing messages here that repeat what Republicans are saying about other Democras is indeed very dangerous."

I have to admit this is not something I considered before. But where do we stop? Is it not giving in to the GOP by self censoring? I don't know, shit I just feel depressed now.  

by Citizen80203 2006-03-06 02:07PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I thought the entire point of blogs was the free exchange of ideas that flowed in 2 directions.  Or is a message machine to control the masses and to trick the media into writing stories?  Maybe there is a reason the left wing blogs have stagnated in new readers.

If I want to tell HRC supporters to kiss off, the blogosphere is where that ought to take place, it has a place here.  Oh yah, HRC supporters, you can blow me.  Hillary is a tool, she is only interested in Hillary.

As far as the media, they are all a bunch of whores, they don't give a shit about what is going on.  This country is in crisis and they sit there with their thumb up their ass.  They work for corporate America, that is who pays their rent, they do not work for the people.

by pjv 2006-03-06 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I don't think we can worry about open debate and censor our conversations to do PR for the movement to a establishment media audience.

If we are an online think tank, then we can't also do PR.

If the media want to pull out evidence for Dem or progressive dissent from sites like this, then that will be due to a bias they already possess.  Since the bias is preexisting, they will pull out something anyway.  

I don't think we can worry about that, excpet insofar as we do the things we do to push the media to adopt fair narratives.  You do that well on the front page, and others of us in the blogopshere fight the same battle on other fronts.

If we are open source politics, then we are open source politics.  Rather that cower in fear from that, we should shout about it as a strength.  because it is.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-06 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

A-fucking-men!

Constructive criticism is good, but the Republicans are right, we are going to spend 40 years in the wilderness if we are going to  waste our time with completely unproductive attacks on one of our own....damn, some progressives can be so childish sometimes.

Personally, I won't vote for her in the primary either...I'd like to see Russ Feingold, but if Hillary is the nominee, I will feverishly support her.

by benjamin 2006-03-06 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Also agree, though let's not start "progressives can be so childish" meme. That's all we need.

I think there is no clearer example of the power of the media, and the Republicans skillful use of it, than the extent that we have internalized the right's talking points about Hilary and made them our own.

by thief 2006-03-07 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

How are we supposed to discuss them, or make others understand that other candidates would make better nominees if we discuss candidate warts?

by danielj on Mon Mar 06, 2006 at 05:41:17 PM EST

Here's a way...productively and not engaged in personal attacks.  I'm not saying that you do that, just a lot of progressives in general.  I personally don't think we're going to win back Congress this year or in 2008 with a radically progressive agenda.  It's going to take time to move the country back to where it should be...I'm thinking in the FDR administration.

by benjamin 2006-03-06 12:47PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I agree that you're unlikely to get through to any of the committed haters, Chris, but I just wanted to say I understand where you are coming from and I wish we could be better.

The online community seems unable to make it through ANY sort of contested primary without an unbelievable amount of yelling and mud-slinging.  I guess this is the Democratic brand.

by Steve M 2006-03-06 01:01PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

When I read your posts, it is obvious that you have delved into the political atmosphere more deeply than many of us ever have or ever will - and that you are proud of it.  It also feels to me as if you wear that as a way to sneer down at some of us who do not fully buy into your arguments.  When the flap occurred regarding Hackett, at dailykos, kos wrote a diary encouraging us to more or less remain sane - think of the bigger picture, etc.  My gut reaction to that was - good point, if you don't later on give me that lecture regarding Hillary.  Personally, I don't care how many polls I can see - I still think she's very polarizing and I would be very unhappy if she's the one who gets the nomination.  That said, I think your intelligence can waft down on those of us less well endowed if you dampen the rant a bit.  

by Dyana 2006-03-06 01:06PM | 0 recs
and to add

With the publication of Crashing the Gate, you may be getting new coomenters, those becoming newly engaged.  Overall traffic might not go up, and you could still have new eyeballs here.

I think, Chris, you get frustrated when people seem not to have absorbed the months of collective history and consensus we'vre developed here and elsewhere.  You don't like to repeat yourself.  But teaching and building a movement is repetition.  You'd better accept that or change your role, because you will go nuts otherwise.

This is not to say there are not negative, irrational people who make a habit of venting spleen, less interested in building a movment than in, well, ranting.

But since you're all about building a movement, you need to talk past them, and not let them get to you, while patiently repeating necessary ideas to the persuadable.  Are you up for it?  Do you need a vacation?  

Take one if you need one, because we need you for the long haul.

by Pachacutec 2006-03-06 01:27PM | 0 recs
Re: and to add more

Absolutely.   And I would add, that in the original post, Chris could have added some positive things that we can do.

Instead of saying "don't follow the republican talking points", say "if you see your fellow bloggers using republican talking points, please correct them immediately so that we can progress as a party and win."

Or something like that.  Otherwise, good post.

by Jude the Obscure 2006-03-06 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: and to add more

This post has me irritated.  I don't need YOU or anyone else talking against the audience this blog receives.  I could just turn on the TV or go to redstate, whatever.  IF, as you say in the chapter of your 'Get This Party Started' - you want to mobilize people - you're not off to a great start.  Insulting the people who do view this blog - whether or not they agree with you - isn't building a movement.  Personally, I believe it's counter productive to rant as you did.  

by Dyana 2006-03-06 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: and to add more
Whot he hell are you talking to? Niether I nor the person you replied to wrote Crashing the Gate.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: and to add more

It was a mistake in my reply - but fyi, it wasn't me who mentioned Crashing the Gate.

by Dyana 2006-03-07 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

But Chris, Hillary is insincere and overly-ambitous.

I have my political connections and people talk and everything I've heard about Hillary is that she's in it for herself.  

She voted for the Iraq war to seem "centrist" and "tough on national security" in an effort to bolster her moderate cred to run for President.

That answer she gives about her vote ("there wouldn't have been a vote") is garbage.  We all know she and many other Dems did it to serve their own political ends.  

I think she's "unelectable" because of that vote, I certainly won't vote for her in the primary or the general. Why should we compromise our principles and vote for the least worst?  

She is nothing short of Lady MacBeth.  Period.

by dayspring 2006-03-06 01:14PM | 0 recs
Seeing Inside Others Heads

Politicians all have large egos. They are ALL in it for themselves.

But realistically, we cannot know what is inside the heads of others.

by Andmoreagain 2006-03-06 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I'll save Chris the burden of responding and just repost what he said (with a minor edit):

"Then again, I don't even know why I am bothering to say this, because the people who froth at the mouth against Hillary in our comments probably honestly believe that there is no difference between Hillary and [Lady Macbeth].

Absolute fucking morons."

dayspring said: "I have my political connections and people talk and everything I've heard about Hillary is that she's in it for herself."

Sweet mother of god. Go back and reread what Chris said. And then again. And again. If it doesn't penetrate how completely unproductive your comments are, even if they are genuinely held:

"you are exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean. If you can't recognize that, then you will do nothing but drag the progressive movement further down the festering rat-hole that we seem to perpetually find our electoral fortunes mired in. If you can't recognize that, I will also tell you, now that we are only eight months out from the start of the primary season, that I don't want you coming within several miles of making a comment or writing a diary on MyDD. This is one blog where Republican narratives will never be reified."

Let me spell it out for you:

Chris said: "Good arguments would include her being too hawkish, too insider, too centrist."

Your complaint about her choice in the vote would follow a "good" argument.

Chris said: "Bad arguments would include her being too ambitious, having too much baggage, being unelectable, and being too insincere, since that is the narrative Republicans have long sought to tie her with."

Which would include your attempts at mind-reading and figuring out her motivations for voting a particular way.

Mind-reading = Republican narrative.
Addressing the substance of her positions = Good argument.

by Anonymous Blogger 2006-03-06 01:57PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I am a liberal and I won't vote for her either.

by pjv 2006-03-06 09:52PM | 0 recs
my objections to hill

are not personal or repetitions of rnc talking points.

mainly, and i am sorry for her, i am not holding her responsible for it, but she has such high negatives and baggage coming from bill's campaign/administration, that even my wife's 2 year old twin niece and nephew could swift boat her out of the running.

secondly, she is, as far as i've heard, still in big favor of the iraq war.  if that's changed, please let me know, but i can't in good conscience vote for a person who voted for the war, and continues to support it.

sorry, that's where i'm at.  but i don't believe that those opinions are knee-jerk reactions to rumor and innuendo.  

by skippy 2006-03-06 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: my objections to hill
", but she has such high negatives and baggage coming from bill's campaign/administration, that even my wife's 2 year old twin niece and nephew could swift boat her out of the running."

Skippy, this seems to be predicated on a couple of false assumptions. First, the notion that she has "baggage" coming from Bill's admin would assume that Bill was unpopular. He wasn't. He approval rating averaged int he high 50's during his second term.

Second, the notion that anyone could Swift Boat Hillary at this points seems even less likely to me. Hillary has been rpeatedly subejcted to a series of attacks that would make the Swift Boat campaing seem like clean politics, and she has come through the other side of it still very popular.

She has survived the Nucleat Swiftboast, and isn't a comparative unknown like John Kerry. Seriously, what new attackt hat would destroy Hillary would your wife and two year old daughter come up with? We all heard it all about her a thousand times already.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 02:01PM | 0 recs
Re: my objections to hill

skippy, this seems to be predicated on a couple of false assumptions. first, the notion that she has "baggage" coming from bill's admin would assume that bill was unpopular. he wasn't. he approval rating averaged int he high 50's during his second term.

not necessarily (that the notion of baggage would assume bill was unpopular).  the clintons have baggage, whether deserved or not.  baggage which is still hurled around by the chattering class.

i'm not saying it's morally correct, but it is a fact, many people disrespect clinton because he got a blow job.  sorry, but it's true.  and many also disrespect hill just for "enabling" him.  i'm not saying that's my position.  i'm not saying it's an adult way of looking at things.

i'm saying it's there, and along with other scandals (whitewater, vince foster) even tho those scandals are not real, those scandals will follow hill into any campaign.

also, it's my wife's neice, not daughter.

and, just because we, meaning the left side of blogtopia (and yes, i coined that phrase), have heard it a hundred times, doesn't mean it would not resonate with america.

also, you didn't really entertain my objection about hill's vote on the war, which i think is an even bigger problem for progressives than any "baggage" perception the public would have with her.

by skippy 2006-03-06 08:34PM | 0 recs
What I've noticed is that Hillary campaigns

using the same things that worked for Bill

Frankly, that is so last century

I like when politicians use the internet to get their story and information across. Feingold comes to mind in this respect.

She is going to need a large war chest to buy an ad campaign to rehabilitate her negatives. If she started paying attention to the netroots those ad campaign bills might not be looming so large.

Ultimately, I think she believes she knows what a successful Presidential campaign looks like. However, like generals who are always fighting the last war and are unprepared for the next one- she ignores the netroots to her peril

by merbex 2006-03-06 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Whew

As a lifelong Dem I will support who ever is nominated!

Forgive us for our fears Chris.

Without an super primary, most of us are left sitting on the sidelines with NO CONTROL in the primaries. I thought it was a discussion on the negatives of the early front runners, not a irrational fear fest. I stand corrected.

by Citizen80203 2006-03-06 01:26PM | 0 recs
See "Chris the hardbalz Matthews" today

It is going to be "hang Hillary around their necks" come November, LIKE OR NOT. So how do we counter this?

by Citizen80203 2006-03-06 01:44PM | 0 recs
Re: See "Chris the hardbalz

That only works for freepers. I guess they aren't planning on running on any issues. Besides, I would rather have Hillary around my neck than the Emir of Dubai and Bandar of Saudi as my national security team as the GOP is going to have to have.

In the 2000 election here in GA, they tried that in the senate race. It was all about Hillary. I didn't work. Why would anyone think that it would work now with the GOP collapsing under numerous scandals?

by Ga6thDem 2006-03-06 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re: See "Chris the hardbalz

Well, I hope you are correct but I think you are wrong. As of now, the GOP will barely hold on to both houses.

by Citizen80203 2006-03-06 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re: See "Chris the hardbalz

Well, I don't disagree that the GOP may barely hold onto both houses but I don't see the Hillary issue working for them. Has it ever worked for anything other than fundraising? I know it makes the GOP base empty their pockets and wet their pants but I haven't seen where it translates into votes.

by Ga6thDem 2006-03-06 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Chris - I agree 100%.  I will be flogged for this but I like Hillary although I am not supporting her for President.  

I think the Dems in general need to air their grievances in private a little more than we do.  When we do air our grievances publicly, we should stick to issues and stay away from personal attacks and anonymous quotes in the paper.  

I am not much for copying Repubs but putting up a united front in public is something they do very well and it helps them at the ballot box.  We could learn something from that rather than following our usual tactic of forming firing squads in a circle.

by John Mills 2006-03-06 02:21PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I am sick of airing my grievances in private.  I voted for Nader in 2000 as a protest vote.  Did Dems hear me?  NO.  In 2002 when I wanted them to stand up and fight Bush they didn't hear me.  In 2004 I got used.  The party is deaf half the time, if it takes some loud and obnoxious words, that is what I am going to do.

It is time.  It is time, for what I don't know, but it is time.

by pjv 2006-03-06 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

We constantly air our grievances publicly.  See the article a few weeks ago where Chris Dodd et al were bemoaning Dem message problems.  See the articles with anonymous sources criticizing Howard Dean.  The list goes on and on.

Compare that with the Repubs after their leadership fight b/w Boehner and Blunt.  Everyone came out as a solid, united front and you haven't heard a peep publicly from them since.  I can guarantee there are all sorts of complaints going on behind closed doors but they understand that you damage the brand when you complain in public.

We don't get that.  Would you buy a car from a company that tells you its cars suck?  How can expect people to vote for a nominee who half the party says sucks?

I believe in primaries and people should work hard for their chosen candidates.  However, once a nominee is chosen, we need to rally behind that candidates and try not to snipe at them in public.

The last 5+ years have shown how bad Repub policies.  If you don't see that 99% of the Dems are better than the Repubs, then I don't know what to tell you.

by John Mills 2006-03-07 04:54AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Republicans also go the extra mile to make sure their base gets taken care of.  Dems routinely screw their base over, CAFTA, Bankruptcy Bill, The Patriot Act, the Iraq War and so on.  The bottom line is that we have a 'base problem'.  The base is pissed off.  In routine polls, Dems are often as harsh as Independants or Republicans on their own party.  The reason is they are pissed off at them.  Asking the base to sublimate their will, to go against what they believe in is a recipe for the base underperforming.  That should suprise no.  It should suprise no one that some Lefties won't take it anymore.

by pjv 2006-03-07 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

The thing is, this is where citizens, progressive, liberal, Democrat, whatever, have to hold parties and people accountable.

I have worked for years in grassroots issue-based politics.  I have worked on the state and national level with this, on issues like clean energy, the environment, civil rights, economic justice, etc.  One major long-term thing is that when a person does what you want, you do right by them.  You thank them officially.  You get it out in the media, news or editorial page or whatever.  You make sure people know they did good.  You do right by them by working with them on something else.  You do right by them by making sure that their base or those who might support person X who are among your own constituents (who would care about that particular issue) knew what person X did so that the official gets praise, support, and aid in their work and future campaigns.

And by gosh by golly, if someone f'ed up in office and did the "wrong" thing, we would make sure everyone who mattered knew, and made sure that not voting for or doing what we wanted would be something that would disable them.  We'd let their base know how they f'ed up (if the base was likely to be with us).  We let their constituents know, especially those who had a vested or even marginal interest in what we were doing.  And we got it out in the public through the media, calling their asses out.  

One idea is that if someone did something that was against what we were advocating, it would become a political liability, in that we leveraged power and opinion and influence in ways they needed.

One of the reasons Hillary can't win the general election is that she is a walking political paradox.  To the majority of Americans and especially the "center," she is the uber-liberal.  To the progressive, liberal activist class, she is someone who will not inspire their passion to get out and do the field and grassroots work it takes to win these days.  Field and grassroots is now the biggest difference-maker in national elections.  So Hillary can't win because of that.

Now if the Dems nominate Hillary in '08, it is important for long-term growth and development of the party and especially the influence of the progressive parts of the party that she not be worked for by the passionate ones.  It is about accountability to the people who win these elections that the party needs to right itself (no pun intended).  What's great for the Dems is that if they finally learn to be badasses and not let the right brand them, they are free to be far more liberal and progressive than what they are now; the American public actually favors that kind of stuff (especially on back-pocket and quality of life issues), and it will get the activists and die hards working to win elections.  

Or maybe I'm wrong and working hard for Hillary '08 will engender some political taste in the DLC Democrats for the progressive wing as necessary to win elections.  But perhaps I can either a) remind you of 1993-2001 or b) sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

I can't get out and hit the pavement for (or take a year off of my life to work fulltime on the campaign staff of) Hillary Clinton in '08.  And I will have a clear conscience knowing that if enough people like me do the same thing, 2012-2024 will hold many different things for the Democratic Party, all positive.  I just hope and pray that 2008 holds that and Feingold, Gore, Clark, or Edwards gets the top spot of the ticket and one of the others the VP nomination (or Brian Schweitzer for that matter).  Allowing the Dem "elite leadership" to run roughshod over what the rest of the party rank and file want and need, and what's best for the country is like allowing another Bush to take the oath of office.

by rickman 2006-03-06 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I fell exactly the same way, the more I read on this thread, the more frustrated I get.

by pjv 2006-03-06 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

The weird thing about all the abuse that Hillary gets on MyDD is that it doesn't persuade anyone to change their mind. Hillary has virtually no support among the netroots. Why bother attacking her?

And yet she tops poll after poll. Which just shows that the netroots does not have the level of influence that it aspires too.

As Chris has pointed out Hillary is the establishment candidate and the netroots tends to favour outsider candidates. But trying to win a democratic primary as an outsider is incredibly difficult - as supporters of Dean discovered.

by kundalini 2006-03-06 02:36PM | 0 recs
Misreading polls

Polls measure a lot of things.  Mostly, at this time, they measure NAME RECOGNITION.  That accounts for much of Hillary's support.

NAME RECOGNITION brought us King TURRDEATER himself, George Matzobrain Bush.  All those voters saw those polls, and SHAZZAM!! The name of the former president was on it.  So, they endorsed it, and here we are, 6 years later.  Very sad.

by dataguy 2006-03-06 04:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Misreading polls

Yes name recognition. Would that be the same name recognition that gives her a huge advantage over other candidates in the primaries?

Or perhaps the same name recognition that could win her the presidency?

Most people don't pay an enormous amount of attention to politics. Name recognition is an asset.

by kundalini 2006-03-07 01:39AM | 0 recs
Yeah!

It worked so well for Joementum, didn't it?

by ElitistJohn 2006-03-07 02:32AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Nice sentiments.  Wish more would've heeded them during the 2004 elections.  Living in the Bay Area, I can't tell you how many "Republican-Lite" crap-fests, backed with no data, I had to endure.  I personally don't like Hilary in the primaries, but whatever.

by mattgabe 2006-03-06 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I have to say that I'm a bit confused.  I went back and looked at the earlier post and I did not see the "Hillary hatred" I expected to given Chris's rant.  Am I missing something?  Chris, usually I like all of your posts, but I have to say that if you are going to write a post which is this inflammatory, you should really cite specific comments as evidence as I am having a hard time picking out any specific comment which matches up with the critiques you've leveled.

by Stahlsworth 2006-03-06 02:45PM | 0 recs
Make their heads explode

Hell, I'd vote for Hillary in a primary and hope that she'd win the nomination just to watch Timmeh! and Tweety's heads explode on national televsion.

You know why? Hillary Clinton has a genuine record of accomplishments. You can bet that she'd be competent, too. Compare that to the last five years.

by Michael Bersin 2006-03-06 03:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Make their heads explode

I have since cut my cable subscription but who can ever forget Tucker Carlson eating his "shoe" on Crossfire. He made a bet that her book wouldn't sell a million copies and lost. Her appearance on the show was magnificent.

by misscee 2006-03-06 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I will not vote for Hillary.  I am either voting Green or not voting at all if she is nominated.  The primary basis for that is her support of the war, which inexplicably continues.  Last I recall, she was calling for more troops in Iraq and I haven't heard her say anything differently.   I also think that she would have a hard time being elected, but I really don't care as much about that issue.  The Democrats who went along with Bush on the war are going to have to answer for it, just as those of us who were out protesting and getting screamed at and called traitors promised at the time.  It is time for Lieberman, Clinton, Biden, Feinstein and the rest of them to pay the piper.  You seem to be comparing the Dem/Republican competition to support of one football team over another.  The Al Davis "Just win, baby" formula has its limits when you are talking about people getting bombed into oblivion.

by steve expat 2006-03-06 03:23PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Yes! We ought to oppose the warmongers in every party. Why do we criticize Republicans for supporting the occupation - and forgive Democrats for the same?

by Left for the Left 2006-03-06 04:29PM | 0 recs
There are other issues

And if a Republican is able to take two modearte/libearl Supreme Court Justices and replace them with two far-right wingers......

you will be to blame (under that scenario). Congrats.

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-06 05:39PM | 0 recs
As far as I know free speech is still guaranteed

in this benighted nation.

Thus if I feel I have something pertinent to say about HRC or anybody else I will speak up.

As for the rest of the comments on this "subject" feels like most have been taking lessons from Stalin.

Hope I did not make a mistake in buying "Crashing the Gate"; just got it today. Will let you know.

In closing I want to emphasize that if it's just about getting elected without a truly progressive, progressive not liberal, agenda you'all can count me out.

by Pericles 2006-03-06 03:31PM | 0 recs
So Chris

Where does that place my point? If Hil gets in, we enter our third decade of two family rule.

Three fracking decades of the same two bloodlines. We laugh at Third World Countries for that stuff (Peronistas, anyone?). Ecatly when should we drop the pretense of democracy or being a Republic, and just call it an Aristocracy or Oligarchy?

Maybe we could follow the Clinton Resoration with a second Bush Restoration (ala, Jebb).

Personally, I think a democracy degenerating into dynasticism (and not just this...the ever incrasing number of legacies in Congress as well) is an extremely valid point.

by ElitistJohn 2006-03-06 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: So Chris

Bingo, that is my reason as well.  I've met Hillary, very briefly, and found her to be very nice.  She invited me to walk with her so she could sign my poster.  When she got outside, I saw her posing for pictures with random people.  Personally, it'd be the opportunity of a lifetime to really meet her, spend time with her. I'm sure she'd knock my socks off.

As for her voting record, she isn't Ben Nelson, and she isn't Joe Lieberman (she may support the war, but it doesn't seem like she undermines us the way Lieberman does).  She also strikes me as the most competent politician we have.  Nothing specific, she just has an aura of toughness.

I'll support Hillary as much as I can if she is the nominee, but Feingold is my dream nominee at this point, and I'll stick with him until someone else is officially the nominee.

by One Hand Clapping 2006-03-06 03:52PM | 0 recs
Re: So Chris
I didn't think that your point was the sort of attack REpublicans would use. Obviously, considering that Bush was their nominee for two cycles now, I don't think that your criticism fuels their narrative.

I actually think your criticism could be a winner, since it takes a shot at Bush too.
by Chris Bowers 2006-03-06 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant- Gore/Edwards 2008 Ticket

I have great admiration for all of the potential 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates
1)Hillary Clinton(NY)
2)Al Gore(TN)
3)John Kerry(MA)
4)John Edwards(NC)
5)Wesley Clark(AR)
6)Bill Richardson(NM)
7)Evan Bayh(IN)
8)Joe Biden(DE)
9)Russell Fiengold(WI)
10)Mark Warner(VA)

all of these candidates I can support in the primary and in the general election. However I am less inclined to support Hillary Clinton(NY),John Kerry(MA),and Joe Biden(DE). The reason has to do with the fact they come from the Northeast Region Which is a Solid Democratic Territory. I would support a candidate who comes from the South or Midwest Region
1)Al Gore(TN)
2)John Edwards(NC)
3)Wesley Clark(AR)
4)Bill Richardson(NM)
5)Evan Bayh(IN)
6)Russell Fiengold(WI)
7)Mark Warner(VA)

Evan Bayh(IN) and Russell Fiengold(WI) are both Washington D.C insiders which is a liability for Democrats. Mark Warner(VA)lacks foriegn policy experience. In a post 9-11,post Katrina world- Foriegn Policy experience is a necessity.

That leaves us
1)Al Gore(TN)
2)John Edwards(NC)
3)Wesley Clark(AR)
4)Bill Richardson(NM)

Wesley Clark(AR)has not held any elected office. Bill Richardson(NM)is an ideal candidate to be on the 2008 Democratic Presidential Ticket based on his resume but are voters ready to vote for a Hispanic Presidential Candidate.

That Leaves us
Al Gore(TN)-the Former US Vice President under Bill Clinton,and the 2000 Demcoratic Presidential Nominee.
John Edwards(NC)-the Former US Senator, Former 2004 Presidential Candidate and 2004 Democratic Vice Presidential Nominee.

What do you guys think of a Al Gore/John Edwards Ticket. Al Gore as the 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidate, John Edwards as the 2008 Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate.

Gore and Edwards are both Southern Democrats- last 3 Democratic Presidential Candidates were both Southerners. Gore and Edwards were both on a the National Ticket. Gore in 1992-Vice President,1996-Vice President,and 2000-President. Edwards in 2004-Vice President. Gore and Edwards are populist Democrats and both can balance each other based on Strength and Weakness.

Gore's strength- experience.
Edwards's strength- personal appeal- Edwards has a charming personality.

by CMBurns 2006-03-06 03:48PM | 0 recs
Yeah...

I think the carrot works better than the stick on this one.  But I feel your pain.  

Republican talk is bad.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-06 04:16PM | 0 recs
100% Honesty

Here's why I don't support Hillary though if thats what we ended up getting I would fight.

I DON'T WANT TO PUT IN THE INCREDIBLE AMMOUNT OF WORK TO OVERCOME SUCH A PERVASIVE AND ESTABLISHED RIGHT-WING NARRATIVE FOR SOMEONE WHO IS TOO HAWKISH, TOO CENTRIST, TOO INSIDER.

She's not worth it to me.

There ya go.

by MNPundit 2006-03-06 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: 100% Honesty

by fight, I meant "fight for her" in the general.

by MNPundit 2006-03-06 04:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

There's evidently something I'm missing here.

When I read,

Just looking at the comments to a post of mine from earlier today reminds me just how ugly a place the blogosphere might be during the Presidential primary season. I am generally an optimist who believes that you can engage just about anyone

I went there expecting to find the sort of nasty thread they regularly get over at Kos: where they take some nitpicky non-germane point, start tit-for-tat troll rating, questioning parentage, all that.

Like two Trotskyite groupuscules c1970 going at it, who hate each other far worse than the capitalists.

(Scoop gives you the visual clue that the text is usually scrunched up against the right edge of the screen!)

It's not there. Nothing like. No way.

Everything's on topic, polite-ish, no-name calling. What I'd call a discussion. (That Post ombud Deborah Whosit might call it nasty - not many with wide experience of politics online.

Then I read this thread. And find that what's being suggested in that bloggers and commenters should self-censor not the OT nonsense I mentioned but genuine arguments about the merits of particular Dem candidates.

The reason (if I'm understanding this right): journos and GOP hacks might be lurking and picking up tips about how to smear candidates; or impressionable swing voters might visit the site and have their minds polluted by trenchant argument.

On the first, if people criticising candidates use GOP talking-points, they're not giving anything away to the enemy. (And journos will have memorised them already.)

On the second, how many swing voters come here? Not many, I suspect.

Those factual questions aside: what is this blog for? Is it to be an organ for Stepford Dems to exchange uplifting party-approved words that work?

Or for Dem-leaning thinking folks to discuss what's on their minds, politically speaking?

Of course, if the consensus is that what this should be is a twelve-step group-cum-Pravda, that's fine.

Doubt I'll be stopping by, though.

by skeptic06 2006-03-06 04:28PM | 0 recs
Matt Stoller takes a different view, it seems...

Right after writing the post above, I go to this thread, to find Matt Stoller saying:

I wrote a piece a few weeks ago called the House Leadership Vacuum, and I'm going to expand on it in a future post.  The gist of the post was that the House leadership and most of the House Democratic membership is rudderless, insidery, and useless.

That sounds dangerously like a GOP talking point to me!

(The fact that it's also a broadly fair assessment should in no way stop TPTB from expunging Matt's thread from the record, surely?)

by skeptic06 2006-03-06 04:43PM | 0 recs
"Play by the rules"? Soitenly.

For the love of crap, if you are going to write against Clinton, do so in a way that Republicans never would.

I agree. Allow me to add in my input as to why I will not vote for her:

Sen. Clinton is a Republican.

As per the statute of limitations, no GOP loyalist would ever consider saying such a thing out loud. And yet her voting record in the last few years certainly backs up my position.

by Geogriffith 2006-03-06 05:37PM | 0 recs
Re: "Play by the rules"? Soitenly.

Geogriffith, that is completely counter intuitive, completely insane, and yet it rings true to me.  I don't know how that works but it does.

by pjv 2006-03-06 10:17PM | 0 recs
Fact Check Time

Way to make statements without doing any research whatsoever!!! It's so great to have Dems like you who just throw out accusations without anything to back it up!

Check it out. How many Republicans are more liberal than she is? None. Are any near her? No.

So how is she a Republican? She isn't. You just have a mindless knee-jerk reaction to the name.

Reminds me of the Republicans. Are you sure it isn't YOU that's a Republican?

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-06 05:45PM | 0 recs
That was directed to Geogriffit

That was directed at Geogriffith. Sorry for hitting the wrong "reply" link.

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-06 05:46PM | 0 recs
In anticipation of your counterpoints

One, yes, I can name several issues that make her a moderate Democrat, rather than a liberal Democrat. Being a moderate does not make one a Republican.

You aren't really like a Republican. My point is that you need to be careful about throwing out accusations, or you become like those you're fighting against.

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-06 05:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Fact Check Time

It was tongue in cheek.  Read the post again, it is really funny.

by pjv 2006-03-06 10:20PM | 0 recs
Ehh

Sorry. I really don't think it's particularly funny.

by mikeinflorida 2006-03-06 10:27PM | 0 recs
Give Us a Break, Chris

You seem to think politics is all about issues ... or something.  HRC cannot win for a dozen different reasons.  Pardon me if I don't want to go over the cliff with her.  Christ I knocked on doors in 1972 when McGovern made his $10,000 for every household suggestion, or whatever the hell it was; I've expunged it.  So don't tell me I'm GOP.  Get your head out of ... those polls you are always reading, and apply some damn sense of observation.  Want to lose 65-35?  Keep telling us not to oppose HRC every way possible.  

by tuffie 2006-03-06 05:45PM | 0 recs
He's not saying that you are GOP

He's saying that the 'unelectable' meme was ordered, paid for and launched by GOP strategists.  Nobody is implying that by being against HRC anybody is suddenly a Republican.  For goodness sakes.  He says explicitly that he would never support HRC.  

The post is about taking control of the debate on our terms--our terms, not theirs.  

Bowers agrees with you that HRC is not the candidate--he agrees.  Please see that.  The issue is how we talk, the habits we pick up along the way--the danger of letting GOP communications strategies 'infect' our debtes during the primary season.  This is a real danger.

It's a solid point--if you're reading in Bowers' post any suggestions that he thinks you are a Republican--don't.  It's not about that.  

C'mon.  Everybody just needs to see the simply logic in this post.  It is exactly the opposite of a call to issues--it's a call to take control fo the debate on our terms.  Period.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-06 06:10PM | 0 recs
Re: He's not saying that you are GOP

Hillary Clinton IS unelectable.  I don't know that many people that get switched on by the idea of Hillary Clinton as President.  Listen to the posts, a significant portion of hard core, rank and file members of the Democratic party won't vote for her.  He candidacy would be an affront to those people.  Without them, she cannot win.  Not only that, her candidacy would be controversial within the party as a result.  She will divide us and as a result weaken us.  

I won't vote for her, I tell you that.

by pjv 2006-03-06 10:28PM | 0 recs
the question isn't whether you'll vote for her

The question is whether you are willing to talk to anyone in any other way than you are now--that's it.  The fact that you think I am arguing in favor of electing Hilary Clinton is the problem--not her positives or negatives.  

All I'm saying is please try to see Bowers' larger point.  If you truly, truly want a Democrat to win the Presidential election in 2008, then you should be willing to listen to other Democrats' concern about the power and influence of the GOP communications machine.  

by Jeffrey Feldman 2006-03-07 02:29AM | 0 recs
Re: the question isn't whether you'll vote for her

No, Hillary should suck it up and support us Dems.

by pjv 2006-03-07 07:01AM | 0 recs
Perfectly Stated

I can't add any more, amen!

by epv72 2006-03-06 05:57PM | 0 recs
A

Men

by NCDem 2006-03-06 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

If you say that Hillary Clinton an insincere, overly ambitious, scandal-ridden woman who can't get elected but will say or do anything in order to get elected, you are exactly the same as DLC losers like From or Reed who happily repeat Republican lies about Howard Dean.

Good. Fight fire with fire, I say.

Look, it isn't as if Bush or the rest of the wingers pulled any punches against McCain in 2000. Winning the general election means running the best candidate, and running the best candidate means using any means necessary in the primaries to make sure a subpar candidate doesn't get there. What you're trying to get us to do is hedge our bets. That kind of risk-aversion is exactly what got us into this mess. You should be careful before accusing anyone else of being a DLC loser.

In football terms, you want to play not to lose when we should be playing to win. The question "What if the best candidate doesn't win the primary?" should never even enter into any of our heads. There is no "What If": if we end up screwing Hillary's candidacy up, I don't give a shit. Bet it all, go for the brass ring, leave everything on the table, and do it right now. That's what Karl Rove would do, and that's the only way we're ever going to beat him.

by rhealdeal 2006-03-06 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Let's be honest.  She's a conservative Democrat, who spent a lot of time kissing up to Likud and Sharon.  She voted for the war.  She wants to increase military spending (you are aware that you already can't afford that military, eh?)  She spends her time worrying about violence in videogames and pandering to moral majority types.  She is a DLC democrat in all the worst ways.  It's not that she's ambitious - I'd be dismayed if a politician wasn't, within limits.  It's that she's got lousy bloody policies.

Hilary would be a better President that W (of course, a ham sandwich would be better than W).  She would also be a better president than McCain.  However, she would still be a lousy President.  Nor do progressives owe her anything more than a nod and a vote.  She disavowed progressives, and progressives shouldn't spend any time helping her.

They shouldn't, I agree, help Republicans against her by specious criticisms.  But I'm not taking rhetorical bullets for Hilary.  She decided she doesn't like people like me, that she doesn't want to represent people like me, and I heard her loud and clear and take her at her word.  I won't help her enemies swiftboat her.  But I won't bleed for her either, since she's indicated she won't spend one cent of political capital for progressive or liberal causes.

You dances with the one that brought you.  Hilary has indicated she wants to go the ball with the DLC.  Good for them, but progressives owe her squat.

by Ian Welsh 2006-03-06 08:44PM | 0 recs
A good point

Chris:

A very good point, and thanks for making it.  

I'm not a Hillary acolyte by any means, but I'm satisfied, for the most part, by her record as my Senator.  That doesn't mean I agree with every position she's taken (especially regarding the wr in Iraq), but I think she's generally done a good job representing the interests of my state.  

I don't support her for President, and feel that it would be a mistake for the party to nominate her.  (I do think she can serve an extremely useful function by continuing to draw fire and attention from the right, so other candidates can slip beneath the radar.)  If, however, it should come to pass that she is our candidate, I will support her fully and with very real and whole-hearted enthusiasm.  I think she'd make a good President, certainly better than anything the Republicans can offer up, and my country will be much, much better off with her in office than 4 or 8 more years of Republican devastation.

I'm certainly going to run her down.  Not only does she not deserve it, but while there's a possibility she may be our candidate, I'm not going to help the opposition to sully her.

My reasons for not supporting her have much more to do with tactical and strategic choices than they do with any inability on her part, and those considerations clearly don't rate her being slagged off by people in her own party, especially when it just refloats Republican crap.

The problem, I think, is that generally there is a lot of anger on the left side of center, for clear and obvious reasons.  The anger is, of course, completely justified, and it can serve us well to fuel us and move us forward.  But it can also be misdirected when it's aimed at people who are, after all, important parts of our Democratic coalition, and who we badly need to be able to work with.

There's also a certain way of thinking within the progressive/liberal/Democratic world in which self-satisfaction is more important than either getting things done or getting people elected.  Some folks would rather be right (and self-righteous) than be pragmatic and practical.  They'd rather have a pure progressive progrsm scuttled than contribute to a compromise program which moves things forward in a progressive direction.  That's just ass-backwards, in my view, and elevates ideology over progress, an attitude that's prevalent among our opposition as well.

I think a lot of Hillary-bashing originates from that warped impulse.

Anyway, thanks again for the post.

by Ed Fitzgerald 2006-03-07 12:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I am totally, thoroughly, absolutely opposed to Hillary. I would do anything to stop her, since she has not one liberal bone inside her skin.

I find Hillary to be completely acceptable, principled, and competent.

Most everyone else here seems to still live in a Newtonian universe. That was a great place. But that was then and this is now. I live in a quantum mechanical universe. all points of view are in a state of superposition. A "particle" can be both "true" and "false" until it is "detected." This is not "flip-flopping" -- it's only an acknowledgment that some things necessarily must exist in an indeterminate state until they arrive at a point of "detection."

You have know about this stuff if you want to live in the real 21st century. Check out:

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/view s/QuantumStatesRetina.html

by blues 2006-03-07 01:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

mu

by Purple Foxglove 2006-03-07 03:05AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I do actually say things. I don't just leave comments like "mu."

by blues 2006-03-07 03:46PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

i was expressing respect for your higher thought processes, an affirmation.  if only more people would transcend we would all be the better for it.

http://int.kateigaho.com/jan04/zen-mu.ht ml

by Purple Foxglove 2006-03-07 04:19PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

Well thanks! I can hop now, and my pin feathers are definitely showing. And the sky looks real big up there. Of course, I one chance in 10 of not getting snatched by the cat. But that sky is awful pretty.

by blues 2006-03-08 09:23AM | 0 recs
Whoa !!

I thought Chris could never get angry.  In many ways, I agree with Chris.  I don't like Hillary either but even among a small group of friends (a small percentage are Rep supporters) I never mention why I don't like her, and just leave it as my personal preference, just like those chemistry thingy.

My one and only public comment about her, when polled as to which candidates I like and why, is that "her position is fluttering in the wind".  But, that's just my impression, I'm not a know-all and I don't keep track of every single thing she does.

The one reason I don't really like to have her as the Dem candidate is due to her statements after the trip to Iraq. If she goes on a fact-finding trip and comes back with the wrong conclusion, that does not say much for her judgement and we have seen what people with bad judgements do in the last few years.  [we all know that the troop interviews in Iraq are staged for people like her so I can give her another "misled" excuse here but I can't say that I'm thrilled.]

However, I don't believe in a "my way or the hi-way" approach to politics, i.e. similar to Bush's "either you're with us or you're against us" doctrine on international diplomacy.  If I disagree strongly with someone on one issue, that doesn't make that person my arch-enemy because even on that one issue, more facts will come in later to validate either mine or his/her position.
And, of course, there are many other issues that we need to tackle if we are going to get out of this mess.  Is is not the only issue and it is a very fluid situation.

Anyway, I can wait for the perfect candidate who not only agrees with me on all of my "hot button" issues but who can get the majority of Americans to agree with him/me as well before I bother to support anybody or any parties.  But then I can also wait for all the moons and stars to align behind my ears also while being so confident over my absolute correctness.

by Calvin V 2006-03-07 02:36AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

THANK YOU CHRIS BOWERS for this important comment.

Ralph Nader tried to suggest that his 'pure' version of politics was more important than winning in 2000. That perspective maintained Ralph's political purity, and helped to bring us the Bush Administration.

Hilary Clinton has many admirable traits and also has positions that I do not agree with. That's true for Harry Reid, for Nancy Polosi, and for many other Democrats I would nonetheless support.

My hope is that the Dems will find the most outspoken, most progressive candidates in every district. My hope is that the Dems will find a Presidential candidate I can support without holding my nose.

But I do not think it serves us to complain about the absolute puritiy of every candidate on every issue in every campaign. We're all doing the best we can - and so are they.

by MS 2006-03-07 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

I'm glad she wants to do anything to win.

Does that "anything" include voting with the Republicans to "prove" her moderate credentials with Republican voters?

by William Domingo 2006-03-07 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

DEMOCRATS ARE ONLY UNELECTABLE WHEN DEMOCRITICS DO THE HARD WORK FOR THE REPUBLICANS!

The truth is we have one of the strongest field of Democratic candidates in decades, and the Republicans know it.  That's why they attack every Democrat possible, while we sit back and "refute" the criticism instead of hitting back!  Let's use all of our energy to point out how pathetic the pool of Republican candidates is, and try to bring some of them on board with our Campaign for Change.  Our vision is out there, and our policy ideas will be introduced once we are able to stop the bleeding of country brought on by the Bush Administration.

What do the Republicans have to offer? George Allen, who has no major legislation that he has sponsored, is one of the most conservative senators in Congress who is pro-corporate power, pro-war, pro-gun, brought to us by the radical religious right-wing, and backs the Bush Administration every chance he gets.  

Then there is Rudy Giuliani, a pro-choice liberal lawyer who won't be able to work with Republicans in Congress since he only has mayoral experience and no conservative convictions.  He also has a huge history of values/morality scandals, and a corrupt protege of Bernard Kerik as his top law enforcement official.  

Finally, there's Mr. McCain, who is against torture of enemy combatants, but wants to send more U.S. soldiers to get their heads blown off by IED's.  He panders to the media, straddles the polls, and backs all of the Bush administration's blunders.  On top of that he is aging, has hot fused temper, and has no real vision for America's domestic future.

The only thing that's wrong with the Democratic Party is that too many democrats lack discretion and solidarity, and "there's a better way." How about we promote all the Democratic candidates that we believe in until they are all electable, rather than attacking the one we don't, and then let the voters decide for themselves which Democrat is the best.  For the progressives, we have Gore, Kerry, and Biden, for the Blue Dogs we have Feingold, Edwards, and Hillary, and for the centrists we have Vilsack, Bayh, and Warner!  So if Gore can win, then how can any of these candidates not be electable.

TOGETHER, AMERICA CAN DO BETTER, AND WHEN THE DEMOCRATS ARE TOGETHER WE WILL DO BETTER!!!!

by StraightShooter00 2006-03-07 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Down with DLC Dems

There is a growing backlash to the "Republican Lite", sell-out to the corporate interests, DLC crowd, and I'm one of them.  The drumbeat is somewhat being led by progressive author and radio talk show host Thom Hartmann, who regularly decries Hillary and Co., as much as he does the fascist "Reich-wing" that is in control.

Hillary used to sit on the BOD of Wal-Mart for goodness sakes.  Her former law firm represents(ed?) anti-worker, anti-union corps. like Tyson Foods.  How much more in the pocket of everything most of us who are truly liberal hate does she have to be before we call her on her double-dealing.  I think the last straw for me was her introduction of a flag-burning amendment.  This was just totally gratuitous.  It will not get her any votes from the people that that sort of this is important to - the unthinking and reflexively jingoistic - and it certainly does nothing to endear her to her "liberal" base.  I can't help but remember the loud booing of her by NYC police and firefighters she received when she appeared at the "Concert for New York" right after Sept. 11.  You had to be watching the live broadcast to see it, VH1 edited it out of later editions.  She is truly loathed by working class white males - still a group that any successful Presidential candidate has to get a substantial number of.

From what I've seen of her performance the past several years in the Senate, it might be best for the party in the long-run if she loses her seat this year, and with it all the momentum for a Presidential run.  Of course I also think that DINO's like Leiberman need to go as well.

I'm sick and tired of progressives being told we need to pull our punches in order to have a chance.  I think our best chance is to stand with the growing legions of have-nots, which most of you will probably belong to someday, whether you think so or not.  The right has done a brilliant job of turning those who work for a living against each other to fight over the crumbs, instead of questioning those who are truly wealthy on their right to their fortunes.

Support Bernie! Sanders for the U. S. Senate.

by 1truthteller 2006-03-08 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: A Rant

That's not a rant, Chris:  it's an apologia.  And, come November 2008, it may be a eulogy for every progressive who became so terrified of losing another election that they bubble-wrapped the Democratic front-runner for the primary season and mailed-in the election that followed.

Who cares if we echo a few conservative criticisms?  They may have fashioned the noose, but she willingly put her head through with her ridiculous stance on Iraq, flag-burning, etc.  She has terrible political instincts.  She will never be able to reconcile herself to the people who reflexively rally around these positions, and every attempt further alienates progressives who see any capitulation on these issues as anathema.

Let Hil take her lumps, explain if she can, and be battle-ready if she survives.  If she--or her apologists--quakes under the shadow of right-wing invective, how on earth do you expect to withstand the real beast?
 

by winfield12 2006-03-08 12:14PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads