• You can't force the insurance industry out of business at the drop of a hat.

    Why not?

    (not to imply Obama's plan does this, but it should.  Mandates were always the worst thing about HRC's plan; they are a political poison pill that serves purpose beside than keeping the health insurance industry on ill-deserved life-support)

  • comment on a post Obama folks: Stop the hysteria! over 6 years ago

    and professional ones.  To me, Ickes, McAuliffe, and Wolfson represent everything that was wrong with the Democratic party--people who despite good (or at least decent) motives and ends, use the methods and means of Republicans to achieve them, and do so poorly.  They're the reason we were branded as inauthentic elitists for years, if not decades.  While I would cut them a lot of slack for the times they lived in, they've clung to those methods in these changed times, using them against our likely nominee rather than adapting or stepping aside.

    I have a lot of sympathy and patience for Clinton's private supporters, and to a slightly lesser degree HRC herself.  But her hired guns, the people who caused her campaign to be both mediocre and ugly?  For them I have none.  Live by the sword, die (figuratively!) by the sword.  I hope they never work again on a national level; maybe they could find some use to society running some deep-red state campaign.

  • Thinking that the GOP has a chance at NY or CA when the GOP president has a approval rating of 25% and the economy is tanking is profoundly and unrealistically pessimistic.  Period.

  • on a comment on Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    I almost threw in something about that, but my post was getting a little long and I'm more than a little out of my element here.  I do feel that feminism often fails to explore how nuanced sexism can be--they way it hurts some women more than others, and benefits some men more than others.  I'm love to read a feminist piece that explored how and why that despite all their advantages, men fill the lowest rungs of society--prisons, homeless populations--at hugely disproportionate numbers.

    Of course, there's a good chance that those subjects have been dealt with and I just don't know it.

  • on a comment on Punching the Frog [Update] over 6 years ago

    I think much of this is generational, as you said.  For seventeen years there have been more women in college than men.  That proves nothing, but it is indicative--younger people simply haven't experienced as much sexism as older people have and probably still do (since they continue to interact mostly with people in their own generation).  Obama's support amongst young women, which is substantial, is not because younger women are blind or willfully ignorant.  It is because they are the beneficiaries of all of feminism's struggles.  Shouldn't that be celebrated rather than ignored or condemned as naive?

    And yeah, there's been sexism in the campaign.  You'd be stupid to think it doesn't matter in both coverage and votes.  Of course, when you at once maximize sexism and minimize racism you lose a lot of credibility.  I mean, jesus, did you see the exit polls from West Virgina?

  • there if she does the right thing when the voting ends.  At the very least, she'll have influence over the platform.  Ideally, she'll get to pick out a few cabinet positions and get guarantees of support for her legislative goals, whatever they may be.

    I'd love to see her on the Supreme Court, even if that is a pipe dream.

  • I do wish she'd dropped out after Wisconsin; sports metaphors aside, it would have been nice to avoid all of the ugliness of the last few months.  But since she's had one loss and a roughly equal number of ties and wins since then, I don't blame her a bit for not quiting since then.  What, was she gonna quit after winning Ohio or Pennsylvania because she didn't win by enough (even if she didn't)?

    But I hope she doesn't take it past the last vote. She played a good game, even if it sometimes looked a little obsolete next to Obama's.  The score's been close, and HRC doesn't get enough credit for that. But it isn't close enough to justify overtime.

  • on a comment on Likely blowout in November over 6 years ago

    It's one thing to say about 'bittergate,'  "he shouldn't have said that, that was a big gaffe, this is proof that he's not ready for the prime time."  He shouldn't have, it was, arguably it is (although personally I disagree).

    It's another to take the out-of-context interpretation and treat it like the truth, going so far as to base predictions of future behavior on them--all while ignoring Obama's personal faith, which he came to while comfortably upper-middle class.

    FYI, when your ship is sinking and you cling to the life raft because it's all you have and all you have control over, it doesn't mean anything bad about you or your life raft.  It means your ship is sinking.

  • on a comment on Likely blowout in November over 6 years ago

    Well I think it would have been hard for any Dem to win in '04.  The electoral landscape was a minefield, which is why the scrubs came out--John Edwards the one-term Senator, Kerry the caricature.  It would have been reasonable for HRC--the biggest name in the Democratic party at the time, beyond Gore and ex-presidents--to take a rational look at the way things were and decide it would be better for her career and arguably for the party/nation--to run in '08 instead.

    I also, personally, think that HRC is terrible general election material in general, so I do agree with you that she would have had at least an uphill battle in '04. The nomination would have been hers for the taking, though.  She would have destroyed Bush in the debates.  And if she had managed to beat him in the general, she probably would have made a great president.

    Anyway, on to the last point, did those four years in the Senate really matter?  Did she accomplish anything notable?  What sort of relevant experience did she gain?  Does "30 years of experience" really sound that much less impressive than "34 years"?

    All that being said, you can't blame her for keeping her word if she said she wouldn't run in '04...  still, though, I doubt the people she promised that to would have minded if she reneged, and goddamn did we ever need someone like her in '04.

  • And there's no doubt books will be written on every aspect of the campaign.  I bet even the high school history books will give a couple sentences to the incredibly close nomination fight between the first woman and first black candidates with wide appeal in 2008; hell, they way they write the books nowadays they'll probably get half a chapter.

    But when the away team makes two more touchdowns than you in the first half, and after halftime you hold them scoreless and make a couple field goals, you still lose.

  • And his only hope is a Democratic base as divided and unmotivated as the Republican one.  Is that what they mean by synergy?

  • Man, Obama really isn't the candidate for you, is he?  You've run completely out of hope.

    After 8 years of Bush, can't say I really blame you; I just wish you weren't using your cynicism to lash out against our likely candidate.

  • You said it better, though.  I don't think most people would find that racially or sexually offensive, but here?  The people who brought us the outrage over Obermann's "two people enter one person leaves" or Obama's "periodically when she's feeling down," as well as uncountable other hits, should step more carefully,

  • on a comment on Likely blowout in November over 6 years ago

    HRC will still be a Senator, in a Senate that will, with any luck, have a decent majority.  Even if BHO wanted to veto a health care plan sent up to him from Congress (which I very much doubt), it would turn a huge part of the Democratic base against him if he did--he wouldn't dare, especially in his first term.

    This is the sort of thing the legislative branch is supposed to do.

  • on a comment on Likely blowout in November over 6 years ago

    I think most of us know; HRC's combination of economic liberalism, insider experience, and (recent embrace of) conservative identity politics, to say nothing of her ability to inspire and mobilize women, would have made her the most electable candidate in 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, maybe even '88.  She has perfected the politics of being a Democrat in a Republican-dominated nation.

    Fortunately, and in my opinion at least, we don't need those politics anymore.  Every imaginable metric is against the Republicans and it's time to swing for the stands.  She should have ran in '04, when we needed an experienced trench fighter--and, by the way, the fact that she didn't have the courage to take a shot at it then makes it much harder for me to feel sorry for her now.


Advertise Blogads