to two terms--and his wife--have been trashed now for well over a year, over the most trivial bullshit and minutiae one could imagine. During the 1990's, the Clintons showed that Democrats can not only WIN (novel concept for our party....), but can govern successfully and competently. And it might surprise you, but there are legions of us who are fond of these two people, and love them. We will always carry a part of them in our hearts. And we are livid at the way they have been treated by a bunch of know-nothings, who babble about "hope" and "change", but don't know squat about policy or governing.
As opposed to the GOP--who practically venerate their ex-Presidents--liberal Democrats cooked up garbage all primary season to tar the Clintons as racists and crooks.
So instead of nominating proven winners, we will now go back to the days of McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry. In the WORST year imaginable for Republicans, Barack Obama is at best running even with John McCain in most trial heats. Once the slime machine starts with their ads, Obama will be taken out and beaten like a red-headed stepchild; watch his negatives go through the roof. It's wrong, but we've all seen this movie before.
Do all of us centrists a favor: just don't wonder aloud come Novemeber, "how COULD we have lost AGAIN?" You've been warned over and over again. And frankly, those of us who have volunteered year in and year out at the precinct level are just tired of seeing these losers get nominated.
First off, there is no evidence that the diary's author is racist. I too have opposed Senator Obama, but it's based on what I regard as a thin resume, and less-than-impressive qualifications. I had the same concerns about John Kerry in 2004, but was never called a racist then; unfortunately, people have questioned my motives this year. Whatever.
But more importantly, why do so many people in this neurotic party become all apoplectic when Clinton supporters talk about taking this entire matter to the credentials committee in Denver? Shouldn't conventions be more than just a four day infomercial? It's no wonder very few people watch these things anymore.
Nancy Pelosi--looking more grim and depressed than even Michelle Obama--told interviewiers Friday that she "would not allow this fight to go to the convention". Bold talk from a Speaker who can't even get a meaningful anti-war proposal through Congress.
Many of these Obama supporters were around in 1980; I'm just curious: were they this indignant about Ted Kennedy taking HIS fight to the Democratic Convention??? His only ostensible purpose in doing so was to publicly snub and embarrass the President of the United States on the convention podium...and he did it for everyone to see.
I'd like to hear Bob Shrum--a major figure in that effort--tell us why he thinks it's so important that this race end this week...why it just CAN'T go to the convention....
Sounds like more double standards to me....a woman needs to shut up, fold her tent, and be ladylike in ending this thing quickly...
Kennedys on the other hand, are fighters, dammit! It was just great that Ted fought on to the 1980 convention (btw, he had roughly 1000 delegates to Carter's 2000....his position was nowhere near as strong as Senator Clinton's is today)
After a while, he turned into a one-trick pony: EVERYTHING was about the greed of corporate America, and how the little guy is getting screwed.
There are plenty of abuses in the business sector, but there are also lots of great companies...like John Deere, Caterpillar, Apple, and so on. Edwards just seemed to lump them all together. By the end of the campaign, he was sounding like George Wallace, minus the racism.
More importantly, the anti-NAFTA drumbeat is getting a little old....in the most recent GDP report, our exports grew faster than any other sector...and really saved the country from going into recession! As the Candadian foreign trade minister wrily noted in a public statement during the NAFTA dustup in March: "Knowlegeable observers should inform Mr.Obama that Canada is the United States' largest supplier of crude oil...perhaps he would prefer to get one billion barrels of oil each year from Hugo Chavez..."
That statement was a real body slam on Obama (Canadians don't suffer fools easily), but the message was clear: loose the anti-free trade rhetoric. It's a bankrupt philosophy economically, and globalization is here. Embrace the future, not the past.
1) John McCain opposes a federal constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriage...one of many stands which haven't exactly endeared him to his party elders. Give me one example of Barack doing something at odds with Democratic Party orhtodoxy.
2) I live in Tucson...in 2006, Arizona became the first, and only state to ever defeat a state constitutional ammendment which banned civil unions. Again, I have to wonder how if Barack has ever done anything which entailed risk to his political ambitions.
Your comments are spot on, and I will try to keep an open mind. Frankly, I was for Mike Bloomberg until he declared that he wasn't going to run. And then I drifted back to the Democratic party, choosing Hillary as the lesser of two evils.
In that vein, both of these presidential aspirants voted for the recent Ag giveaway, and endorsed our country's bankrupt ethanol policy. This policy is exacerbating the hyper-inflation in commodities, especially the cost of grains...but who cares? Archer Daniels Midland, Monsanto, etc., are getting their share.
SO--does Barack understand what the concept of "famine"? Is he aware of the food riots occurring every week now, in the poorest of countries, such as Haiti and Indonesia? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt...he probably isn't even aware that this is happening. Ignorance is bliss.
How would the new Democratic hero explain away his support of this country's ethanol policy? I don't agree with many of John McCain's ideas, but at least he had the balls to denounce this boondoggele...BEFORE the Iowa Primary.
Bill Clinton's speech while campaigning in 1992 at a gay function in LA ("we don't have a single person to waste") was the first real outreach to our community by a Democratic presidential candidate. In the past, there was the typical assumption, "where else will they go?", after which we got a wink and a nod.
Beyond that, people questioned why President Clinton tackled the gays-in-the-military issue during his first week in office. His answer was beautiful for its honesty: "because I made a promise". After he was stonewalled by Sam Nunn and Colin Powell, he came away with a compromise that is scorned to this day by knee-jerk and limousine liberals. But bottom line, anti-gay hate crimes have decreased over 700% since 1993, and there have only been six court-martials. Which proves again: lofty rhetoric is wonderful...but real policy changes are what impact people's lives. However, such changes take a lot of effort, and doing your homework.
President Clinton knew how to do important things which entailed political risk, and often expended his political capital. It's unbelievable that the stuff being thrown at the Clintons during this campaign--by the Obam-orons--is far worse than anything ever dished out by Newt Gingrich or Tom de Lay.
You may understand how to file tax returns, but apparently--like Barack--you don't understand the macroeconomic impact of raising the capital gains tax...raising this tax will DECREASE the amount of revenue taken in by Uncle Sam.
Charlie Gibson tried to explain this to Obama in the now-famous ABC debate, which Obama partisans squealed was so unfair. It was embarrassing, as Obama tried to follow Gibson's explanation of how the capital gains tax works...but he was clearly out of his depth.
This is Obama's similarity #1 with W: an intellectual laziness that prevents him from getting into the details of policy. He'd much rather talk about the "need for change", and being a messenger of hope. The dustup over NAFTA--when the Canadian foreign trade minister basically called him an idiot---was equally painful to observe. Obama went grovelling trying to smoooth things over, but it was too late.
Similarity #2 with Bush is more disconcerting...Obama has this intransigence that prevents him from changing once it's clear that he has fucked up. On the Capital Gains issue, he continues to recommend raising the rate from 15% to 28%--even after being shown that such a move will aggravate the federal defecit. Like Bush--instead of saying, "OK, I was wrong"--he continues with his wrong headed policy, mumbling something about how someone who profits on Wall Street should pay a higher rate than a secretary. This is comparing apples and oranges, i.e., the ordinary income tax with capital gains.
Many of us are OK with raising the top marginal rate, which is what you're probably thinking about when you say you're willing to pay higher taxes. However, even that is a somewhat questionable thing to do during an economic slowdown, another area where Obama seems to draw a blank.