Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable

So we know the nominating process is almost over, and Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee. There is a 90% chance it will be Barack Obama as the nominee this year. He may win this election, because not only do the current issues favor him, the issues which were once used to demean black people like him, and galvanize white support for the Republican party, like crime, welfare, and the death penalty have been neutralized and taken off the discourse table on the national political scale. The Democratic Party is now trusted on economics, after having its economic legacy near destroyed by Jimmy Carter, and while even tho the Bush economics are really bad, the American people are more likely to trust us not just because we can complain about Bush, but OUR party has had a President to show what good economics, like balancing the budget and keeping the dollar strong look like.

Peter Beinart wrote a great piece in Time which says what needs to be said:

...As it shows Clintonism the door, however, Obama Nation should remember something: without that pair from Arkansas, it wouldn't be here. The 1990s weren't always pretty, but for Democrats, they were deeply necessary. Because Bill Clinton threw his body into the line, wrecking the Republican Party's intricate defenses, Obama today has the political room to run.

For starters, Clinton deracialized American politics. He didn't deracialize it completely, of course. But knitting together a coalition of blacks and whites is easier today because Clinton restored the Democrats' credibility on economic issues and took three of the most racially toxic issues in U.S. politics--crime, welfare and affirmative action--off the table.

When Michael Dukakis ran for President in 1988, crime was perhaps the biggest issue in the campaign. It splintered his coalition, pitting blacks who saw the death penalty as racially unfair against blue-collar whites who demanded a hard line against crime and too often associated that crime with blacks. Today, by contrast, roughly 1% of Americans say crime is their top issue, and no one even knows what Obama's position on the death penalty is. For Obama, that's an enormous boon, and Bill Clinton deserves a lot of the credit. His policies--especially his bold proposal for 100,000 new cops--helped bring down the crime rate. And by embracing the death penalty, he eliminated one of the GOP's best wedge issues. That embrace was ugly at times, as when Clinton flew back to Arkansas during the 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally retarded man. But it was politically shrewd. And because Clinton did it then, Obama doesn't have to now.

Clinton also removed the word welfare from America's political lexicon. In the mid-1980s, when pollsters conducted focus groups with Reagan Democrats, they found that when they talked about government help for the needy, voters saw it as welfare: taking money from whites to give to undeserving blacks. That attitude was hugely unfair, but it was a political reality. Clinton changed that when he reformed welfare in 1996. By making it brutally clear that people who didn't work wouldn't get much help from Washington, he made it harder for Republicans to tag Democratic antipoverty programs as handouts to "welfare queens."

...The Clinton presidency restored the Democratic Party's reputation for economic management, which Jimmy Carter had nearly destroyed. By almost 20 points, according to the Pew Research Center, Americans today trust Democrats over Republicans to guide the economy--a huge boon to Obama in what looks like a recession election. Obama owes much of that advantage to George W. Bush, of course. But he owes some of it to Clintonism too.

If Clinton had been more principled, if he had been less of a panderer, if he had tried to be purer than his political opponents--if, in other words, he had been more like Obama--he might have opposed the death penalty, vetoed welfare reform and unambiguously defended affirmative action. He might also have gone with his liberal base, not Wall Street, and chosen economic stimulus over deficit reduction in 1993. And had he done those things, Barack Obama would probably not be in a commanding position to become the next President of the U.S. So as they bid Clintonism goodbye, Obama fans should show a little gratitude. If Bill weren't the person they revile, Barack couldn't be the person they love.

I hope you Obama supporters remember that. For all of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton's faults, they restored our party's credibility that Carter destroyed, and neutralized the racebaiting issues like crime, welfare, and death penalty the GOP once was able to use. Those issues are no longer used against Democrats, which is why they fight now for elections, and had to steal an election in 2000 even after a bogus scandal, losing the popular vote. They only barely beat us in 2004 because Kerry didn't do what Clinton told him to do on gay marriage: triangulate, and he also ran a horrendous campaign. Yes, the third way was very necessary to getting elected in 1992 so we could take the GOP issues away and end the era of Republican landslide elections, because this is politics, and sometimes, one cannot stick to principle and win. We didn't need a repeat of 1988, with Willie Horton and being soft on crime. People voted for Bill because they didn't want Bush back, but didn't want another Jimmy Carter either. Triangulation was VERY necessary as it helped to ensure for future elections, and give Bill Clinton a commanding victory against Bob Dope. This is why no matter who you supported in this primary, we MUST honor the Clinton's political greatness.

PS: don't use the Perot myth, exit polls show the pro-abortion pro-gays anti-Nafta candidate took equally in both '92 and '96. And being moderate is not why we lost in 1994, those were congressional scandals, and the GOP only kept Congress past 2002 because of 9/11. Dems got back seats in 1996, 1998, and 2000, a record.



Display:


Wow (2.00 / 1)

An actual admission that Barack Obama wil be the nominee and is favored to win in the GE.

Never thought I would see it coming from DiamondJay... I'm almost speechless.


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:07:54 PM EST

I agree... (2.00 / 2)

...we owe much to Bill and Hillary.


I'm Ready For A Good Old GOP & John McCain Ass Kickin'!!!
by hootie4170 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:10:38 PM EST

Senator Clinton (2.00 / 1)

and President Clinton are very important people, who are not just good Democrats but heroes.

They've done strange things - I don't particularly like the Somalia incident, the Bosnia accidents, the renditions or the secrecy over every little thing, whether it be tax returns or senior thesis that don't show anything wrong...

But for every odd thing, there's a hundred right things - a balanced budget, peace and prosperity, the Brady Bill, the judicial appointments and the ability to speak to foreign countries and build respect to the point where I go to a foreign country and they'll say - man, that guy Bush is a douchebag; why don't they have someone cool like Bill Clinton back?

That happened in New Zealand; New Zealand of all places.

So they'll be important. And there's a chance she'll be Vice President and potentially, even President.

And I think anyone who wants to throw them under the bus would do well to remember they have done a lot for us and that it's important to remember the positive too, not just the negative.

One last thing: I believe Senator Obama would be where he is, regardless. There's only so long America will tolerate the Republican party and while we threw that away in four short years after Nixon, it takes some hard learning on the American people's part to realize the Republican party is the party of crooks and lies that cost thousands of lives.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:11:17 PM EST

Gee, you managed to get a LOT of stuff in there.. (2.00 / 2)

Especially when you consider Clinton's 70% approval rating.

I like the way you leave out the conflicts in which the GOP screwed things up, but mention the positive things Clinton did in an artificially negative way.. (by all accounts Bosnia, Kosovo were positive - they saved lives. And neither country had oil! Wow!)


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gee, you managed to get a LOT of stuff in ther (2.00 / 1)

An approval rating is meaningless - Reagan's approval rating and his ranking is higher than President Clinton's in almost every Presidential ranking.

He was still a terrible President; so don't condescend down to me.

I listed things that were good. I can remember the speech he gave where he said "Simply zero", discussing his balanced budget - it was the first in ages but I guess that's artificially positive.

Or the Brady bill was artificially positive.

Or the peace and prosperity where the middle class expanded.

But I guess I have to turn this into a discussion about Republicans.

Get it through your head. I don't give a shit if it's a Democrat or Republican - people do bad things and Bosnia, Rwanda and Somalia were bad. Renditions were bad. He could've ended their use but he accelerated it.

I said for every negative, there was a positive though.

But take something positive and turn into an attack.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, you're wrong (2.00 / 2)

Reagan's approval rating was not higher than Clinton's, nor do I think he will rate higher than Clinton with historians. Right now, we have a right-wing that needs to idolize him because he's all they've got. But they won't have idiots like Chris Mathews to carry their water forever, and when history makes its unfiltered judgement of Reagan's presidency, it won't be kind. His administration was the disaster that spawned GW Bush--Bush's two terms were really nothing more than the logical conclusion of Reagan's two terms, with Clinton's terms being the only thing that helped mitigate the magnitude of the disaster we have now.


by bouvougan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

As I recall, renditions started under Bush (1.00 / 1)

another inaccuracy..

A very impressive spin effort, though.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: As I recall, renditions started under Bush (2.00 / 0)

You recall exactly wrong.

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/extraordina ryrendition/22203res20051206.html

This article doesn't squarely hit it, but it does reference the origin of the program.

"The current policy traces its roots to the administration of former President Bill Clinton. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, however, what had been a limited program expanded dramatically..."

You are incorrect, and you've insulted another poster by accusing them of spin when they correctly stated a known historical fact.

Please retract and apologize or I will find more sources and beat this horse to death.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:39:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not sure about Bosnia. (none / 0)

I know more than a few innocent serbs who will never support a Clinton (not my opinion, theirs) because they hold the Clintons and Albright and a bunch of others responsible for the deaths of their friends and relatives.

I'm not sure if that war was worth it or not... if there weren't other ways to ensure the safety of the bosnian people and keep Milosovic in check. But there are plenty of people who hold a personal animosity towards the Clinton's for bombing Serbia.


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's what I don't get. (2.00 / 1)

I can't list a few negatives and a few positives and give thanks. I get criticized for it.

It's really starting to make me want to go on a troll-rate rampage.

But I won't.

Fuck it. I've seen Architek acting like this in almost every diary.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's what I don't get. (2.00 / 0)

"Fuck it."

Oh, so we'e quoting Oreilly now? I knew you were a republican troll.

/snark


by DPW on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:55:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"innocent serbs"?!!! (2.00 / 1)

The Serbs slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people before Bill Clinton stopped them.  And they were prepared to slaughter hundreds of thousands more.  That's not exactly "innocent."


by dbrown04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "innocent serbs"?!!! (2.00 / 1)

Yes...Milosovic and his military. There were plenty of people living in Belgrade who had nothing to do with what Milosovic was up to. Are you saying people who voted against that government, who spoke up against it... are you saying their responsible for everything Milosovic did?


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:00:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I didn't say that (none / 0)

You can't oppose the termination of a government that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people and is bent upon killing hundreds of thousands more and consider yourself innocent.  Bill Clinton gave Milosovic plenty of opportunity to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in the Balkans.  Milosovic didn't take it.  Clinton worked on the problem for five years before he resorted to a military solution.  Clinton also had to live with a million dead Rwandans on his conscience.

So I'm afraid I don't think that your innocent Serbian friends that opposed the bombing of Belgrade are so innocent.


by dbrown04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:18:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No, I didn't say that (2.00 / 2)

My innocent friends also opposed the Milosovic government, quite aggressively. In fact plenty of casualties in the war were among the resistance within Serbia.

I'm not saying Milosovic wasn't a bad guy, or that his army didn't deserve to be attacked by our forces.

I'm saying that we also killed a lot of innocent people, civilians in Belgrade who were collateral damage. People who to this day didn't appreciate seeing their homes destroyed and their families, friends and neighbors killed.

These were people who had nothing to do with the situation in Bosnia, people who in many cases had never been to Bosnia. They were killed too.

This doesn't mean that it wasn't the right thing to do... all I'm saying is that I'm not so sure. That there is some gray area here, that this isn't such  black and white situation.


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

moral clarity (none / 0)

Its hard to imagine a situation more clear from a moral perspective than the bombing of Belgrade.  It was a path blazing moment for the use of U.S. military power.  The threat was immediate, hundreds of thousands of lives were at stake and the U.S. had no strategic interest.  Clinton's motives were purely humanitarian.  Unheard of behavior for a military giant.


by dbrown04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:23:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: moral clarity (none / 0)

but, but...no one named Clinton has humanitarian interests....they are all evil, they should be nice and weak like Jimmy Carter...


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:41:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bosnians love Clinton (none / 0)

they think he saved their lives..

Ive heard that several times. Last time was only two months ago, AFTER this Tuzla thing came up.


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly (none / 0)


by dbrown04 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:11:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not sure about Bosnia. (2.00 / 1)

I'm not sure if that war was worth it or not...

Really? It seemed pretty worth it to me. It was a purely humanitarian military intervention -- something we should applaud, in my mind.


by RP McMurphy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:04:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not sure about Bosnia. (2.00 / 1)

A humanitarian intervention that involved a massive bombing campaign. The largest bombings seen in europe since WWII. That killed thousands of innocent people.

I'm not saying it wasn't worth it... just saying I'm not so sure.

Might there have been other means to contain Milosovic? Did we need to have massive bombings on civilian targets? Could we have used more strategic artillery to contain the situation?

These aren't absolute yes or no issues... there are plenty of grey areas here.


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not sure about Bosnia. (none / 0)

After the siege of Sarajevo and the slaughter of Sebrenicia there was not other way.  To be frank Serbia got off quite lightly considering the crimes of the government and the genocide being perpetrated.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not sure about Bosnia. (none / 0)

Well I'm not entirely convinced that "there was no other way".

I think there were other ways... just probably less convenient. However, I don't think we necessarily did the wrong thing. But that's just a difference of opinion and no one can be absolutely sure about what could have been.


by Tatan on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lets just say (none / 0)

that after Sebrenicia, the "being nice to Serbia" option was off the table.  


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Isn't this appropriate in a weird way.. (none / 0)

http://www.gilscottheron.com/lyrevol.htm l


Universal healthcare IS a Democratic value
It's been defeated
Obama has the best $PIN that money can buy.
by architek on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:13:03 PM EST

3 things (none / 0)

1: On the technical points about the issues, he may very well be right

2: I just have to personally say that I don't revile Bill, I revile Hillary specifically and independently, but this point need not be fleshed out further.

3: Fair Use guidelines? Anyone? You cannot simply reprint an entire article without the author's permission.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:13:33 PM EST

That's what I was gonna say...... (2.00 / 2)

It is wrong to just simply copy and paste an entire article - and simply providing a link to the source does not make it OK.

Why does it seem like the rabid Clinton supporters are always doing this? There have been several diaries by alegre that are nothing more than entire articles or (even worse) Clinton campagin press releases disguised as unbiased news copied and pasted to spread the latest anti-Obama smear.

It's intellectually dishonest, and it says something about this site's lack of journalistic integrity that diaries like this are allowed to reamin up. This wouldn't happen at any other single Dem blog I can think of.


by Deano963 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:19:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 things (2.00 / 3)

I'm the opposite, I don't trust or like Bill and never could. He sold out gay people and poor people and humiliated his wife over and over again - and couldn't even stop hurting her after she started running for president and needed him on his best behavior. She, on the other hand, I will always believe is deeply liberal and afraid to run on it. I think she would make a fantastic Supreme Court justice, free of elections and triangulation.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:26:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 things (2.00 / 1)

he didn't throw gays under the bus. Thats ridiculous. Saying that is throwing Bill under the bus. He threw away his political capital after taking office trying to get them to openly serve in the military if they chose. The military, and BOTH parties in Congress stonewalled Clinton. THATS why he compromised.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:49:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary is the real progressive hero (2.00 / 1)

If I had to choose between the Clintons, I'd take Hillary every time.  She's the one who has fought all the battles worth fighting.  But he gets all the glory and she gets all the blame.


by dbrown04 on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 things (2.00 / 1)

My issue with Hillary is personal. She introduced a bill in the Senate which would have taken away my freedom of speech rights, and those of my collegues, for cheap political gain. I cannot forgive that, but I don't expect anyone who doesn't work in my industry to feel the same way.

Bill on the other hand, had his pluses and minuses, but since none of them impacted me directly, it is harder for me to hold him accountable for any specific error. It is easier for me to judge the overall record.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:00:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 3 things (2.00 / 1)

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are well liked in the gay community.

Anyone who knows anything understands what the DADT policy fiasco was all about. Clinton came into office thinking that he coud simply change the military's anti-gay policy with an executive order, much like Truman did for african-americans. The gay community and others thought the same thing.

However, Clinton and the rest of us got an education when he attempted to end the anti-gay policy. He found that the rules against homosexuality were written into the Military Code of Conduct -- which is the sole responsibility of the Congress. He could not, by executive order, change the policy (as was done to racially integrate the military). It would take Congress rewriting the Code for that to happen. And "sweetie pie" Democrats like Sam Nunn were dead set against gays in the military. (A reason I won't vote for a BO/Nunn ticket). So people like Nunn in league with republicans killed the effort to change the policy.

So Bill Clinton proposed DADT as a way of at least getting people to end the anti-gay witch hunts.

The policy ultimately didn't work. But at least he attempted something and spent a huge amount of poitical capitl for gays like me. I will be grateful always.

As for DOMA -- he signed it because not to do so would have gived impetus to the anti-gay fundamentalists and republicans to push for an amendment to the Constitution which would have been an even harder thing to overcome.

So Bill and Hillary are OK with me and with a lot of other gay people.

He didn't throw us under the bus and I trust Hillary much more to carry forth policies which will benefit lesbians and gays than I do any other candidate.


by cuppajoe on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:27:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

Because Bill Clinton threw his body into the line, wrecking the Republican Party's intricate defenses, Obama today has the political room to run.

Uh huh. That's why we just struggled through years of Republican rule which is only coming to an end through their OWN incompetence.


John McCain hates terrorists, except the ones that hate women. Those are just swell.
by terra on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:27 PM EST

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack (2.00 / 1)

Hillary has been redeeming herself in my eyes in the last couple of days.  Now, if only Bill Clinton could redeem himself, but is not doing a good job by continuing his message of having Florida and Michigan be counted as is when Obama was not even on the Michigan ballot.  Let's be real.  Is it really fair to count Michigan as is?  Really?


by Spanky on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:24:33 PM EST

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (2.00 / 1)

"For many Obama activists, Clinton's brass-knuckles campaign confirmed everything they had always suspected about Hillary and her husband: that they're cynical and ruthless, the detritus of an era in which Democrats sold out their ideals to get elected."

That is an untrue statement for this Obama supporter.

I've always liked the Clintons.  I thought Bill was one of the modern era's greatest Presidents.  His Presidency was certainly still the best in a generation--though his competition is only Bush, Bush, and Reagan.  I was glad when Hillary ran for and took the New York Senate seat.

I hated Ken Starr, I hated Newt Gingrich.  The Clintons' enemies were my enemies.  I thought the scandals of the 90s were nothing but a political witch-hunt.  I defended Bill Clinton's legacy to all the conservatives who would listen to me, well after it was a popular thing to do.

I rooted loudly for the Big Dog when he went on Chris Wallace's show and defended his record on terrorism.  I pointed out that Clinton did more to stop Bin Laden than Bush ever did.

I've been an Obama supporter since the day he announced his candidacy, but until Iowa, I had accepted the fact that Clinton was going to win the nomination.  There was no way she could lose--her advantages were insurmountable.  But that was okay.  I'd support Obama as long as he stayed in, then I'd support Clinton all the way to the White House.

But then the tables turned and Obama won Iowa and came in second in New Hampshire.  And then he won South Carolina and fought to a draw in Nevada.  Suddenly, it became clear that he just might win this thing.

And then Hillary Clinton, too closely following the cynical and incompetent advice of people like Carville, Wolfson, and Penn, began running the most arrogant, destructive, poorly-run, mismanaged campaign in recent memory.

I'm in the same boat as Keith Olbermann.  I used to be an admirer of Senator Clinton.  I would have gone to the mat for her in a heartbeat, had she not allowed her ambition to destroy her.

I may forgive her for that, someday, but it'll take some contrition that she hasn't come close to showing yet.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:28:37 PM EST

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

I'm 24, by the by.  Not all young people were snoozing through the 90s.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:39:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

I hope you didn't sleep through the 90's. Most 8-16 year olds have lots of energy.


by J Rae on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:50:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

As alien as the concept might be, some people are actually interested in politics before they turn 18. :P  Why as a matter of fact, I seem to recall a story not too long ago about an 11-year-old who sold his bike and video games to donate the proceeds to the Clinton campaign.


Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics
by BishopRook on Fri May 16, 2008 at 11:18:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

An article like this is a bit too little too late.  After this election anyone under 25 will think that the 90s was the worst of the worst. They already think that babies have been thrown onto the street from welfare reform.

After insulting the Clinton presidency for months someone finally figures out that "tragulation" is just another way of saying "working across the isle" "bipartisonship". Wow it only took almost a year.

If I sound a bit pissed, well yes I am. I haven't talked to anyone in a week (face to face that is) that is changing their vote from Clinton to Obama.
They are changing from Clinton to McCain.

Yup a bit frustrating.

And now the "Make up Diaries".


by J Rae on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:34:53 PM EST

Weird. (2.00 / 2)

Cause I have an aunt who voted Senator Clinton, hates Senator Obama and actually called him a "nigger" who will vote for him in November.

I didn't know my Aunt very well until I got to know her after she said that but she has some very prejudiced feelings.

If someone who is actually racist can vote for Senator Obama, I think people who have very little reason to dislike him will see the light of day.

It happened when Dean, Edwards and Bradley lost; they eventually went for the nominee.

But we'll see.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:39:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weird. (none / 0)

You do know that most people NEVER use the internet, right?
There are about 75% of the population who get their news on CNN, CBS, NBC ect. To them McCain is older experienced and not too bad. They think of him as kind of fatherly.
They won't see your youtube clips, they won't see where he called his wife a C**t and they probably don't worry to much about the SCOTUS.

These people aren't weird they are average people.


by J Rae on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:48:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Last time I checked, it was the online (2.00 / 1)

community that was saying they wouldn't vote and as I just mentioned, the last person I expect to vote for Senator Obama offline, would be voting for him in November.

The reality check is once they're done tying McCain to Bush, it'll be more like 1992 and less like 1980.


Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"
by Lord Hadrian on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:56:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

Yep.  Blame us for doing much the same as your side did.

We all got heated.  No one group can be fairly blamed to the exclusion of the others.

As your candidate's husband likes to say, politics is a full contact sport.

You gonna get hit.  How're ya gonna deal with that when it happens?  This is a fucking scrimmage!  We're on the same team.

I look back on the Clinton administration pretty warmly, though with some misgivings.  That's true, by the way, of every single administration I look back on fondly.  Nobody is perfect, and nobody has ever done everything the way I would have wanted.  That's not an insult to Bill Clinton.

If you honor what the Clintons have fought for, you'll do as they ask, and vote for the nominee.  If your hurt feelings because people younger than myself aren't showing proper respect, well, either you'll get over it or you won't.

I'm doing you the courtesy of plain explanation.  I'm not going to sugarcoat things at all.  People in their twenties have some legit grievances with Bill Clinton, and huffing and puffing as to how we think he's the devil or some such foolishness is as insulting to us as you've accused us of being to you.

If I've wronged, if I've offended, if in my zeal to go to much the same place as you wish to go, if I have transgressed, I am sorry.

And if you can't accept my apology, if instead you'll respond with anger and vitriol, let me say this:

As your brother, figuratively, I will wish you well with whatever the hell it is you do with your life, but I'll think you're a freaking idiot and childish to boot.  Internet message board posters are not the responsibility of either candidate.  Senators Clinton and Obama aren't lurking, and nudging people into being offensive pricks.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:48:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Respectful disagreement (none / 0)

I honestly don't see Bill as the savior of the Dem party. His reign was terrible for many of us who consider ourselves progressives. grass-roots activists, or, in general, occupants of the left-flank of the Dem party.

I think the only reason that leftists have a rising voice again is the web. To the degree that this has forced the last Dem candidates to sound more progressive, that's a good thing.

Bill's greatest contribution imo is that he completely kept the Republicans off their stride for a while. Of course, he did it by co-opting their positions on many issues, but it was a shrewd tactical play. (And the present primaries notwithstanding, the Clintons are nothing if not shrewd political operatives.

But to the degree that Bill held the Republicans at bay, and the the degree that Hillary helped Obama be a better candidate (and I think she certainly did that) I thank and honor them.


by PhilFR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:44:12 PM EST

Re: Respectful disagreement (2.00 / 1)

would a second Bush I term and Dan Quayle terms been better for "progressives?" or grass roots activism? I doubt they did those things in the late '70s and '80s.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectful disagreement (none / 0)

Of course not. (BTW - Why do you put progressives in quotes? Seems to suggest that it's not a real bloc.)

But if someone like Tom Harkin had won the 1992 primary instead of Clinton, I think the country might be a better place today.

But that's ancient history. What we need is victory in November.


by PhilFR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectful disagreement (2.00 / 1)

Bush getting re-elected would not have been good. Tom Harkin would have had a very hard time because he was a Senator with a long record, being that Congress also had a high disapproval in 1992, along with Bush I, Bush may have been able to do what Harry Truman did: label Congress "do nothing," blame them, and Tom Harkin too. 1994 would have happened 2 years earlier, along with Bush's re-election. He could have made it a referendum on Congress, instead of Bush, as Clinton made it. Also, being that Perot cost Clinton, not Bush that election, Tom Harkin may have been more vulnerable, because Perot was also an outsider railing for outsiders, and Harkin was an insider, putting him at a chance to lose votes to Perot. Also, Harkin would have been painted as liberal like Dukakis, which never stuck to Clinton. nominating him would have been a disaster.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:05:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Respectful disagreement (none / 0)

Well, none of us knows what would have happened. That's why "alternate history" novels have a following.

But never underestimate the power of a good populist message. That cuts both ways, of course. Harkins, Edwards (to a degree) and creeps like Pat Buchanan all fall into the populist mode.

Now, have we EVER had a really populist and/or progressive president? I can't think of one from 1950 onward, and my knowledge of prez politics before that is far from perfect. Of course, the system HATES those who side with the public over entrenched interests, so I wouldn't be surprised if we've never gotten a Tom Harkin (to use an example in the WH.)

Note: I consider neither Obama nor Clinton progressive populists. Whatever... they're better than a poke in the with a sharp stick, or McCain.


by PhilFR on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:14:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

there's no reason to deny it. (2.00 / 1)

I know a lot of people like to paint this as an epic battle between good and evil (with good always being represented by whoever a particular person says is good).

But Obama and Clinton are both on the same side.  They are both fighters for the same causes; OUR causes.

The Clintons did some very good things for this country.  They've also done some things during Clinton's presidency that weren't that good.  

But they have been a big part of our team for a long time and they still contribute a great deal.


by DawnG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:56:21 PM EST

Re: there's no reason to deny it. (2.00 / 1)

I wonder how these same Obama supporters will react if Obama get elected and begins to govern. Will they be as damning of his compromises as they are Clintons or will they be willing to let some things go in order to have the ability to accomplish part of their agenda. It will be interesting. Will they hold Barrack to the same standard that they are currently judging Bill by? Or will they forgive him?


"Do you know the difference between a War Story and a Fairy Tale?"
by RedstateLib on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:16:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's no reason to deny it. (2.00 / 1)

Depends what he does post-presidency. If he hits other Dems below the belt while his wife runs for Pres, I'll bet most of us turn on him too :)


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:18:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: there's no reason to deny it. (none / 0)

you guys turned on Bill far before Hillary ran for President. Forever, the DailyKos, DU, and others have called Clinton a "republican President," bashed his policies, and claimed that he hurt the party. This would be happening if Hill weren't running.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:08:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's not put the cart before the horse. (none / 0)

You are inviting disaster that may or may not ever happen.

If it does then I say go for it.  We shoudl be EVERY bit as critical of our dems as we are of republicans.  Keeps them honest.  Keeps them in line.

But dont' make assumptions about how he will govern because you really don't know.


by DawnG on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:46:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

Did Bill and Hillary really sold out their ideals to get elected?


by hienmango on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:05:58 PM EST

Fair Use! (none / 0)

Seriously, if the diarist refuses to obey Fair Use guidelines, this diary must be edited/deleted by the admins.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:11:28 PM EST

Re: Fair Use! (none / 0)

PS. Editing out the first paragraph but leaving in the other 6, from a 7 paragraph article, is insufficient. 3 paragraphs MAX, and they shouldn't be continuous. You need about 1 paragraph to make your point.


John McCain wants to make abortion illegal
by Lost Thought on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:20:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

Here's the deal: Bill Clinton served his purpose during the time he governed. After the Reagan Revolution, we simply couldn't go back to the 1960's. Conservatism was in ascension and if we wanted to retain political power, we needed to moderate ourselves. Bill Clinton was a very successful embodiment of that. Like Tony Blair in Great Britain, Bill Clinton developed a "Third Way" philosophy. I don't begrudge Bill Clinton for that -- in fact, I applaud him for doing the best that he could. He'll never be considered as politically-influential as Reagan, any more than Blair will be regarded as as influential as Thatcher or Nixon as influential as FDR. The good news is that Bill Clinton governed effectively and held the line and now his era of defensive liberalism is over. But let's be clear: Obama's ideology is a lot closer to Bill Clinton's than a lot of people think. The difference is that Obama has a different model of political organizing, will be governing in a more progressive era, and, frankly, has more political courage.  


by RP McMurphy on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:24:00 PM EST

Peter Beinart? (none / 0)

Is that the chicken hawk, Iraq-war loving, Iran saber-rattling, Peter Beinart, DLC sycophant?

There is a lot to like about the Clinton Presidency.  But I don't have to hear from that loser Beinart.  He has less than zero credibility.  A good rule when you see his byline is to move on to the next article.


"We live entangled of webs of endless deceit, often self-deceit, but with a little honest effort, it is possible to extricate ourselves from them". -- NC
by Trond Jacobsen on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:26:18 PM EST

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

Insult Carter for being right, and almost visionary.  But unpopular, and bad politically.

And applaud Clinton for dragging us into the mud, but being popular and good politically.

No thank you.

I accept that people have to do some distateful things in the name of politics.   But with the Clintons distateful was the rule more than the exception.  There is only so much coddling of Republicans I can take, and Clinton exceeded it.

Carter changed the direction and tried to change more, and had to deal with the immediate backlash for it.  Clinton went along with bad policies, that resulted in long term harm.  He was just lucky the effects were never enough at one time to show.


Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. ~ Sun Tzu
by Tumult on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:33:51 PM EST

Re: Just Remember Who Made Barack Obama Electable (none / 0)

carter, visionary? Double digit inflation and letting the Sha into the US so as to give our hostages 444 great days under the Ayatollah, visionary? I don't think so, and neither did America. That is why Reagan got elected and re-elected in landslides, and Bush I beat Dukakis. All they had to do was compare their opponents to Carter and they got landslided.

Please, Clinton did not drag us thru the mud. That is why our electoral vote average spiked big time from before his presidency to even the two elections after it. Coddling the Republicans, as in destroying Gingrich, destroying most of the contract, and landsliding them in 1996, which made their candidate have to run as a moderate in 2000? They HATED him precisely because he smashed the Reagan coalition to bits. He took away the entire Northeast and West Coast, both of which they previously had a monopoly on. They had to fight for the White House because of him, no more free passes.


"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States
by DiamondJay on Fri May 16, 2008 at 10:13:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Who really made Barack Obama electable? (2.00 / 1)

Me, silly.

And my brother.  And my wife.  And my mother.  And my father.  And my stepfather.  And my stepmother.  And my sister.  And my brother-in-law.  And my sister-in-law.  And my friends at work.  And my friends in church.  And millions of others who have voted, given, worked, called, and talked.  

Who made him electable?  These people:

During the month of February, for example, [Obama's] campaign raised a record-setting $55 million--$45 million of it over the Internet--without the candidate himself hosting a single fund-raiser.  (Emphasis added).

Who made him electable?  The people -- the same people who will get him elected.  


Obama leads the popular vote too
by kellogg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:37:08 PM EST

Sorry, but (none / 0)

Bill Clinton didn't fix crime. Demographics fixed crime.


by amiches on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:37:49 PM EST

You know a diary's way wrong (none / 0)

When it includes the phrase "Peter Beinart wrote a great piece . . ."


Obama leads the popular vote too
by kellogg on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:38:37 PM EST

The first pro-Clinton diary that I have (none / 0)

ever recommended.  Kudos, man.


by Dumbo on Fri May 16, 2008 at 09:54:15 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.