As Health Care Fails, Clinton Approval Soars

After a week where we watched Obama give away the public option (as Senator Feingold said he'd always intended),

pushing back health care reform for years,

a week where he also gave away billions and billions more of our tax dollars to the bailed out banks,

a week where he raised the debt ceiling to new obscene numbers (give aways to bankers and fake stimulus bills that benefit insiders are expensive!)

aint it good to know that so many Americams feel the same way that I do about a woman, who if she were our President, would have done NONE of those things...

-----

From Politico and my old bud Aemon Javers:

http://dyn.politico.com/members/forums/t hread.cfm?catid=1&subcatid=2&thr eadid=3437369

A new poll of avid news watchers shows that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has a much higher approval rating than the man she once campaigned against and now works for, President Barack Obama.

In the poll of 800 registered voters who are self-identified "news watchers," Clinton had a 75 percent approval rating and a 21 percent disapproval rating overall. Obama, in contrast, had a 51 percent approval and a 45 percent disapproval rating.

The poll was conducted by the nonpartisan Clarus Research Group from December 7th to the 12th, and it asked for opinions of the top Cabinet secretaries and White House officials. Its finding on Obama and Clinton mirrors that of earlier polls - in October, for example, a Gallup poll found that Clinton had become more popular than the president.

Clarus president Ron Faucheux said one reason for Clinton's high poll numbers is her high approval among Republicans - numbers he said position her well to run for president again in the future, if she chooses. Clinton had 96 percent approval among Democrats, a healthy 57 percent approval among Republicans, and 65 percent approval among Independents. Obama was nearly as popular among Democrats - 93 percent - but his numbers among Republicans and Independents fell off dramatically, at 19 percent and 33 percent respectively.

Clinton's Republican numbers are striking, given how intensely disliked she has been in the past among GOP voters. In fact, part of Obama's appeal to Democratic primary voters in 2008 was that he was more likely to be able to bridge the partisan divide than Clinton, who was by then a well-known figure dating to her time as first lady in the 1990s.

Among other major administration officials, Vice President Joe Biden had a 50 percent approval and 41 percent disapproval rating; Attorney General Eric Holder and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius both posted 41 percent approval and 35 percent disapproval; Presidential Adviser David Axelrod scored 38 percent approval and 36 percent disapproval.

----------------------------

It seems that Buyers' Regret and Remorse is in full evidence.


Tags: buyers regret, Hillary, obama (all tags)

Comments

97 Comments

i know...

i haven't been around in a while. but i see, yet again, why things are circling the drain. feh.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 06:43PM | 0 recs
*whoosh*! n/t

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 07:02PM | 0 recs
SInce you are new

you might want to know that CG supported HRC ardently during the primary and has been balanced and pragmatic in her approach to Obama ever since.  Making up shit about people here, and forcing them into your dichotomous cliches doesn't do much for your credibility.  I know, I know, you don't care what we think because we're all a bunch of dittohead kossack low-info fanboys.  But then why are you here?  Civil arguments representing a variety of perspectives generally receive real hearings here.

This is just sparring, from what I can tell.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 04:16AM | 0 recs
Write a diary that is

substantive in content and constructive and tone and yo will get a different response from me and from others.  But your whole game is based on self-aggrandizing taunting.  Take a little responsibility.  You want to be respected, compose a respectful diary.  And I called you a liar because you lie about me and others.  I;m not whining about that.  I'm calling you out as you deserve.  The fact that your a priori premise is that you are a righteous victim is nothing more than a tired rhetorical trick.  All you want, by your own admission, is to tell us that you have told us so.  So now you have told us.  What else are you trying to accomplish here?  You're certainly not providing relevant "info" to educate us.  Your details are nothing more than cliches asserted as facts.  If you want to convince us otherwise, you need to radically modify your approach.  But you don't.  You don't care what I think or what I believe.  You'd rather just dismiss me as a tool.  So again, what are you trying to accomplish here?  And if you are such an experienced and connected political operative, why do you have so much time for these petty shenanigans in the first place?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: screw that!

Bark however you want and I will respond as I see appropriate.  But drop the crap about me impeding you in any way.  Nothing I have done has had any effect on your unproductive bile and the unbridled animosity with which you have introduced yourself as Ludwigvan to this blog.  Your cliche ad hominem insults and derisive slanders leveled at everyone from your opening chord seem to be flowing just as you choose.

As for my autumn, I taught two courses and wrote a dissertation chapter while raising two children. Now I expect you to insult these endeavors as inferior to your political valor and to suggest that they somehow mean I have less right to engage in political debate than you.  You have been suggesting that you have more of a right to express your opinions than anyone else up and down this thread while crying victim.  It's a very odd way to promote free speech and participatory politics.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: god your dense

i didnt go looking for you -

you came whacking at me -

Actually, posting on a blog invites participation.  So, by definition, you initiated the contact.  As for the "whacking," that's all your diaries seem interested in doing, so I pointed that out.  You seem to think that this makes me the aggressor.  But all of your diaries have been aggressive.

calling my opinions lies and my own bio - bullshit.

and then cry that it was I who has mean to lil ol' you....

bs.

Can we have even a smidgen of precision here?  I didn't call your opinions lies, I called your post morally bankrupt.  You responded by lying about me having inhabited your cliche view of Obama supporters on this blog who interacted venomously with Clinton supporters.  It's a lie and I will continue to call it so.  As long as you stand on this, it shoots your credibility to hell and I will continue to point that out.  And I suggested that this kind of behavior calls the credibility of your bio into question.  That stands as well.  I shed no tears because of you.  But I will continue to confront your dishonest and unproductive bile as long as you keep spewing it.  You lied about me.  You've lied about others.  Your posts comprise a hodge-podge of cliche taunts.  If you want different responses, write different diaries.  If your continue with these diaries, which is your right, I will continue to respond in this manner, which is mine.

heres the best remedy, why not just stay away from me?

i gave you an out - a chance to apologize - you didnt take it  - so really, why dont you just "piss off'  and stay out of my diaries and away from me?

If you don't want me to participate in your diaries, post them elsewhere.  It seems very strange to demand that I stop participating and then cry that I am impeding your participation.  Post however you want.  I will respond as I deem appropriate.

or dont you have any kind of self control or discipline?

(its obvious you desire to control others - the question is can you control yourself?)

I have no desire to control you or anyone else.  But you have no right to a free pass.  If you don't want to correspond with me, stop responding to my comments.  But I will maintain my right to confront your posts as I see fit.  I do so according to site guidelines.  Please feel free to contact the admins if you think I have done anything that violates them.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: you think i read that?

Yeah, reading other people's posts complicates your cliches and lies about them.  I wouldn't expect you to actually engage anyone in particular.  That would be ethical.  Better to lump us all under the cliche umbrella.  But what then do you actually seek here?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: you mister

I certainly take issue with your diaries and comments.  But I'm not the one hurling cliches and insults in all caps.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Check it!

I feel very, very confident that had Obama not been elected President, he would be extremely popular today!

But set that aside.  Let's engage with the logic of this diary for a moment.  Had Hillary been elected, is anyone under the illusion that she would be polling anywhere near 57% among Republicans?  They are programmed to oppose, they are programmed to hate.  There is no Democratic President who could enjoy bipartisan support given the state of the country right now.

And look, I adore Hillary, but she certainly would have disappointed us - maybe in the same way as Obama, maybe in completely different ways, but they all disappoint.  Cmon!  This is as unproductive as it gets.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: productive is

Plenty of Dems ran away from Bill in 1994.  Was he a terrible President?  Did we screw up royally by nominating him?

by Steve M 2009-12-16 07:12PM | 0 recs
They dropped because of the economy

You're some seriously deluded clinton worshipper, you know that? And you accuse the Obama folks of drinking the kool aide.

Your attempts to reignite the primary wars here will not be successful.

Polls go up and down. Obama's approval is the same as Clinton;s approval at this time in his Presidency.

This healthcare bill will pass, and once again, in a few days, all the Obama supporters will be laughing at you and reveling in your bitterness.

You lost.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: They dropped because of the economy

The incarnation of the health care bill that we have currently had better not pass or the only people laughing will be the insurance lobbyists and the Republicans.  

by jrsygrl 2009-12-17 03:01AM | 0 recs
Re: btw

But I don't understand how you can claim with any confidence that Hillary never would have done this or that.  You seriously think her Treasury Department would have been staffed much different from Obama's? (not that the Citi thing isn't complete manufactured HuffPo bullshit anyway)

by Steve M 2009-12-16 07:16PM | 0 recs
The guys a troll

He just appeared, as they seem to do when Obama's in a pickle, claiming to "know the Clintons"

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 07:35PM | 0 recs
Re: The guys a troll

I don't question this poster's bona fides.  He has a long history here as a raconteur.  I think he might even know what Bill's distinguishing mark is.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: no, Im not saying it would have

Bill wouldn't have tried to balance the budget in the midst of a financial crisis.  Come on, he knows economics better than that.  Different times call for different solutions, the Clintons are pragmatists and get that.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 07:37PM | 0 recs
Hillary would have been different how?

Based on the courage she showed on the Iraq war vote or her bumbling incompetent campaign?

I hoped that with the weight of history and the gravity of the situation we are in on his shoulders that Obama might rise to the challenge and actually live up to the rhetoric. Now I know how Obama would have voted had he been a US senator during that war vote. He would have voted just like Hillary. Like Hillary he's Just another corporate shill and spineless Democrat.

We needed an FDR we got another triangulating Democrat. The disgusted voters will punish the party for failing to change anything. What a wasted opportunity. It's a tragedy for the nation.

by hankg 2009-12-16 11:47PM | 0 recs
Check it yo!

Whoomp there it is!  Hill-dog is all that and a bag of chips!

by JJE 2009-12-16 07:06PM | 0 recs
I hate these kinds of threads

because it always subject Hillary to ridicule and insults from people like Shaun Appleby and those Obama fanatics.

Can't we just leave her out of it?

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 07:14PM | 0 recs
I'll keep the ridicule to her primary supporters

who just can't get over it.

I supported Obama through and through, but I never disliked the Madame Secretary.

This is a troll thread. It is meant to stir the pot and cause dissent amongst democrats.

This guy just appeared out of nowhere.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 07:37PM | 0 recs
I'll keep the ridicule to her primary supporters

Spare me your drivel. Obama supporters have done more to divide Democrats than the Republicans.

I don't want me to relive the Primary war.  You Obama supporters are a bunch of hyenas and I'm done with that.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 07:40PM | 0 recs
Check the title of the diary

and then complain about why this thread is all about her.  There was obnoxious behavior enough to go around during the primaries as well as honorable and principled supporters of both.  But PUMAs (a minority of Clinton supporters) took the negativity to a whole new level of obnoxious and delusional bile production.  

I don't begrudge HRC for taking SoS at all.  In fact I wrote a diary in support of her nomination (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/11/21/935 49/376).  But if she understood what was so clear about Obama as well as the PUMAs, how do they justify her taking this position instead of remaining in the senate to fight the good fight?  Either she is nowhere as prescient as they are, or she is part of the problem.

And for the record, I don't believe for a second that if I were a professional political operative with ties directly to the Clinton circle I'd spend as much time as LV spewing unproductive bile on a relatively marginal blog.  So Mr. Beethoven is either an out and out fraud (we already know LV's an opportunistic liar on several accounts) or an irresponsible incompetent abdicating any professional credibility.  I, on the other hand, am both the Queen of Belgium and the inventor of an actual functioning cold fusion reactor that has been sabotaged by the coal companies.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: such bs

I am in no way impeding your "pov." I called you a liar and continue to do so for making shit up about everyone who disagrees with your mode.  I don't pretend it was "clintonites" who went ugly in the primaries.  They did go ugly.  Both campaigns employed tactics I am uncomfortable with.  But a candidate who did not couldn't succeed in contemporary political culture.  I idealize neither of them and I demonize neither of them.  I made a critical choice between two complex political figures.  How entertaining that you cannot even begin to conceive that anyone could have a nuanced view of either Clinton or Obama.

Look, I make no bones about it.  I think you are poisonous.  I don't think you promote dialogue and debate.  Making "I TOLD YOU SO" your central message does not do this and I think you are smart enough to know this.  It's exactly what a punk bully thug does.  So I question your motives as well as your mode and will continue to do so.  I don't expect you to like it.  But let's be clear, I oppose you.  I am not silencing you.  Call it an attack if you want.  I consider these diaries an attack on civil discourse and on the possibility of productive political action.  

Now tell me more fairy tales of how you invest hours a day in spewing sanctimonious bile that doesn't begin to resemble substantive political discourse while "working 2 state house races and raising $ for one freshman congress critter." And for the record, I never said you currently work for HRC.  I pointed out that you repeatedly claim to be connected to the Clintons.  You are the one who accuses me of working for Obama.   But I get that that's not a real claim, just a way to dismiss my opposition to your crap.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: as if!

Caps don't make you any more compelling.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: FAN BOY - CONTROL FREAK - WANNABE CENSOR!

Please take a drink of water.  You seem to be in distress.

When you post an opposing point of view, you are expressing your rights.  When I post an opposing point of view, you accuse me of trying to control and censor you.

Who is interested in control and censorship here?

As for fanboy, I recognize the cliche, but fail to see how it applies.  Where have I expressed such an attitude towards Obama?  There are things I admire about him and things that make me skeptical.  Same with the Clintons.  I think many of the criticisms regarding his failure to lead effectively on HCR are on point.  I am not convinced he couldn't have gotten a better stimulus package through.  And even during the primaries I understood that his policy inclinations were to the right of mine, as were Clinton's.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: is there any chance

you can even go without having the last word?

is that even possible for you?

lets see...

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:28AM | 0 recs
Well okay then!

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: she wont notice...

Just stop.  Obama is doing a fine job deflating the party on his own.  there's no need to inject Hillary in this.

She's Secretary of State and doing a damn fine job IMHO.  That's all I need to know.

I don't want to revisit the Primary War again.

by FilbertSF 2009-12-16 07:42PM | 0 recs
Ah, the intellectually dishonest crowd

But you'll always have "what could have been" to our "what is". It's so easy.

And no, GOP troll, no one is calling your heed to rupture the party.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:50PM | 0 recs
Check it!

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-16 08:42PM | 0 recs
limited edition...

goonies PUMA's. gotta get me a pair.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 08:47PM | 0 recs
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG

There needs to be a rare thread rate of "3: bitchin'" just for posts like that

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:57PM | 0 recs
That's funny.

I thought it was Joe Lieberman causing all this trouble. You're the one making this all about Obama.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:59PM | 0 recs
Link

And Read Paul Krugman's column today:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12 16/illusions-and-bitterness

Krugman's been an Obama basher for a long time.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-17 09:49AM | 0 recs
Re: im fine with the Party

you foreigners? not very librul of you.

can it with the hillary stuff, its pretty easy to whiff what's goin on over here. and i think you dragging her name through your crap should warrant you as a HR on sight.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: again, pardon me.

what jokes do you get? or perhaps you had another incarnation here?

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 08:52PM | 0 recs
I'll try some red state ones

Let me see...

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:56PM | 0 recs
Okay, you're not a troll

You're just crazy.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Check it!

by NoFortunateSon 2009-12-16 08:56PM | 0 recs
Check it!

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-16 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Check it!

man - have i missed your awesomeness.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Check it!

Haha nice to see you too!  I just realized this is the same dude that constantly repeated "it's sad, so sad" over and over back in 2008.  "John Wesley Hardin" and a bunch of other monikers.  Too funny!

by thatrangeofshadesbetweenredandbluestuff 2009-12-16 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Check it!

heh - good times.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 09:21PM | 0 recs
right...

Funny, but it seems to me that Obama consulted Clinton regarding HCR (why would he not?), and she advised him to do everything she didn't do back in 1993 (do everything in secret and have the White House take the lead).

So, as far as I am concerned, HCR is so difficult a job that neither Clinton nor Obama could take it on in toto, and both Clinton and Obama realize that the best course for HCR is to get an imperfect bill passed, and that reform is going to take years to accomplish using this bill as a platform, or Clinton is a conniving, backstabbing, blood-sucking succubus who uses her supplicants to attack those who get in her way.

And I don't think for a second that Clinton is a conniving, backstabbing, blood-sucking succubus.

by Khun David 2009-12-16 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: right...

The idea of doing everything the exact opposite of those mean old Clintons was more an Obama idea from the primary days.  The narrative that it was all Hillary's fault for insisting on writing the bill in secret was always oversimplistic and I'd have trouble believing Hillary bought into it.

It's really kind of amazing how the history books got written as though the Clintons screwed that one up when it was really a story of unified Republican opposition and a few Dem committee chairs who cared about their egos a lot more than health care.  And obviously, if anyone had doubts that you can't simply reverse the Hillarycare process and get butterflies and sunshine as an outcome, this year's events serve to prove it.

From everything I've heard Hillary is a complete nonfactor in the current health care debate.  She has a different job now and it seems to keep her quite busy.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: right...

It's really kind of amazing how the history books got written as though the Clintons screwed that one up when it was really a story of unified Republican opposition and a few Dem committee chairs who cared about their egos a lot more than health care.

In other words, nothing different from what Obama faced this year.  

And you illustrate my point:  both Obama and Clinton's husband faced nearly impossible jobs getting any sort of HCR passed.  

by Khun David 2009-12-16 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: as ed mcmahon used to say -

You failed to read the snark I wrote...

But it is obvious that for you, it is all about the primary wars, that Clinton vs Obama are the end all and be all of WHAT IS WRONG WITH EVERYTHING AND HAD CLINTON GOTTEN THE PONY SHE DESERVED ALL WOULD BE WELL.

by Khun David 2009-12-16 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: no, its all about 2010

Thanks to Kennedy, we got Reagan.

by Khun David 2009-12-22 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: right...

It's really kind of amazing how the history books got written as though the Clintons screwed that one up when it was really a story of unified Republican opposition and a few Dem committee chairs who cared about their egos a lot more than health care.

which is exactly the current problem, so if Obama MUST overcome unified Republican opposition and committee chairs with overinflated egos or he's a failure, doesn't that make Clinton a failure too?

by ND22 2009-12-17 04:53AM | 0 recs
Re: right...

I didn't know there was any dispute that Clinton failed on health care!

by Steve M 2009-12-17 05:47AM | 0 recs
Well

you sorta did dispute it

It's really kind of amazing how the history books got written as though the Clintons screwed that one up when it was really a story of unified Republican opposition and a few Dem committee chairs who cared about their egos a lot more than health care.

Wouldn't it be both then? That he screwed up AND that it died by unified Republican opposiiton and ego.

by ND22 2009-12-17 05:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

What I'm saying is, the fact that you failed at something doesn't necessarily mean you could have succeeded if only you'd approached it differently.  My view is that Republicans pulled off an amazing coup by not only defeating the bill but also keeping their fingerprints off the defeat by pushing the narrative that the Clintons bungled the whole thing.

by Steve M 2009-12-17 06:14AM | 0 recs
I agree with this

by ND22 2009-12-17 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Well

Republicans are exceedingly good at message control.  This political strength depends upon an ethical weakness.  Both their political mode of operation and the vision they promote includes little tolerance for diversity.  If Clinton supporters have been proven correct about one thing, it's that Obama's aspiration to be a democratic Ronald Reagan rests on a faulty premise.  Reagan could engage democrats to support him both because of his often civil and amiable demeanor, but because those he was trying to engage were democrats, open to both diversity and complexity.  This potentially leaves democrats in a bind.  We face the challenge of pursuing inclusive and egalitarian policies through a mode that expresses this same disposition.  But out political opponents, by and large, display the opposite disposition.  Progress toward a more egalitarian, inclusive, and tolerant society, which would thus be more just as well as more creative and productive, may ultimately depend on less inclusive and tolerant political behavior.  Obama's bipartisan aspirations are failing not because he is insufficiently reaganesque in demeanor, but because the corollary targets of his outreach are constitutionally incapable of functioning like Reagan democrats.  He might be able to find votes among those who habitually vote Republican.  But as for legislators, if they were culturally capable of working with Obama they wouldn't have gotten that far in their party.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: lord

It's about as plausible as anything you wrote.

by Khun David 2009-12-16 10:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 2 repeat

Is everyone who does not agree with you or accept your assertions automatically an "idiot" in your view?  Seems like it.  Way to be persuasive.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:08AM | 0 recs
Re: no

If I have done this over and over in your posts, then you should have no trouble producing an example where I made something up and produced it as holy truth.  You, on the other hand, accused me of attacking Clinton supporters with venom and of supporting Obama uncritically with religious devotion.  You cannot support either of these, though you indeed invoke them as holy truth.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: as if wasting any time on a punk

I didn't call you a liar from the get go.  That too is a lie.  But I'm glad you saw so many great gigs at that legendary venue.  Spent many good hours there myself.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:45AM | 0 recs
Re: welll...

Wrong.  I never called you a liar until you accused me of slanders so I would fit the cliches that are the currency of your posts.  I indeed responded from the get go to your antagonistic and petty diaries by pointing out the moral bankruptcy of such impulses.  I stand by that.

Do you really expect to elicit civil engagements here or anywhere else with such diaries?  I don't believe you do.  I think you like the attention, and that is why you keep responding to me with the same cliche insults and lies.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I DONT WANT YOUR ATTENTION

Every time you respond to my comments you are looking for my attention.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: try being specific

Well,

Obama and Clinton meet at cabinet meetings daily.  There is no doubt that Clinton, being the strong woman she is, would not let Obama know what she thinks.  Unless you think she is the shrinking violet that Colin Powell was.

by Khun David 2009-12-22 09:21AM | 0 recs
check it! ni how kai lan.

by canadian gal 2009-12-16 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: check it! ni how kai lan.

My little girl loves that show!  You make my heart super happy.

by Steve M 2009-12-16 09:26PM | 0 recs
Alas

we will never know.....

but

those of us who are/were ardent Hill supporters probably will always believe she would have done it better. But we really don't know. My personal belief (based on nothing) is that she would have taken a different approach with the stimulus money - putting it towards a comprehensive energy plan to create jobs and that HCR would have probably been tabled until AFTER the results of that started to improve. In doing this, there would have been some momentum from the stimulus-job creating plan. But again, who really knows?

She is doing an excellent job as SoS, no surprise here and I am (and have been) okay with the Afghanistan decision because both HRC and BO have said all along that the real fight was there (not Iraq). Having been to this backward, tribal country, I understand that if we left the taliban would simply take over. But what I'm most proud of that Hillary has accomplished during her tenure is her stance on gay rights. From ensuring State dept benefits for same sex couples to denouncing hate crimes world wide.

Still - I give Obama a solid B for his accomplishments and the tough job he has had. He has done a good job attempting to turn the economy around, tho' we still don't have jobs - the mess he inherited is insurmountable. I hate the current HCR bill, but I applaud him/dems for getting this far and something is better than nothing because with something - you have something to work on to expand. With nothing - you get voted out and sent home. Obama and Hillary have done an outstanding A+ job of bringing back international diplomacy. Obama is a gentle man. He is not a "fighter" - but I thought that was the appeal he had and what his supporters liked? right?

My issue with him is that because he is a quiet, composed, eloquent, peace-seeming man - he appears to lack fight and passion on the issues that matter most to progressive dems. Hillary does not have these problems and most of us that support/supported her know she has no trouble getting her hands dirty and wading into a fight.

In the end, the poll is good news for Hillary and for democrats in general. It opens the door for her to continue as a separate entity from Obama even though she is part of his administration and advises him. Overall, Dems should rejoice in this news because it means Independents and Republicans are not throwing out the baby with the bathwater and see her as separate than Obama.

IF the economy comes back, and by that I mean jobs start coming back - then I think Obama will do fine and be reelected handily.

by nikkid 2009-12-17 05:34AM | 0 recs
Oh my...

...a nuanced post!  Such things seem positively endangered around here this week.

If I had more time, I might take issue with one or two points.  I'm a bit less forgiving of some of these moves and think that, regardless of the different dispositions of the two most prominent democratic leaders, we need a very vocal left flank, one not stuck in the most petty cliches of last year.  But the tone and approach of this post is just what we need.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: who made YOU the arbitor

I never have claimed to be the arbiter of what can be said.  I express my opinion on what represents a helpful contribution.  I think I am well within my rights to do so.  Why are you trying to silence me if you respect diverse opinions and the right of others to offer them?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: hey pal

I think your assertions lack credibility, given your mode of operation, and doubt them.  I call you out on explicitly lying about me.  I am well within my rights to do both.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: why are there always lil men like you

Don't fool yourself that the antagonistic drivel you call your "diaries" merits or even can elicit civil and substantive engagement.  You want civil engagement, write a civil diary.  Otherwise drop the posturing ruse.  You have offered nothing here, in your diaries or your comments, that amounts to anything more than posturing and taunts.  I call them like I see them.  Proclaiming yourself as a giant among dwarfs will not bring you the response you claim to desire.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: amazing

I haven't rated a single one of your comments.  Other trusted users can corroborate that if you wish.

I'm not censoring or silencing you.  I know you think you get a lot of mileage out of this victim act.  But such false accusations will not stop me from responding.  I suggest that your repeated demands that I stop responding represent more of an effort at censorship than my comments that oppose you.  Opposition and disagreement are not censorship.  If you want to live in a free society, people are going to differ with you.  I differ with the basic approach of your posts and will continue to express that.  If you don't like it, go home to a PUMA site where censorship ensures you of cheers and fellow pissers of vinegar.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 08:50AM | 0 recs
proof

hey pal (0.00 / 1)

youve called me a liar in both my arguments and my personal life.

your not in "your rights" to do that

and if you think thats a "helpful contribution' - youve got a screw loose.

by ludwigvan on Thu Dec 17, 2009 at 12:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent | Reply to This | ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:
fogiv     0

I'm sure this will not inhibit you from lying about me hide-rating you.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: you - or your other net censor wannabe allies

Guilt by association.  But not by my association with anyone else.  Rather by your association of me with someone else.  If I associate you with linguine do I have the right to pour marinara over your head?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: no, im just saying

Given that one of us is commenting and the other is rating your comments, I'd say that we have very different approaches to you.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: cant stop can you?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: amazing

The hiderates are from me, and they are deserved per the guidelines for this site.  I will continue to hide every comment you post that contains a personal attack on another user.

by fogiv 2009-12-17 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: have you hidden the ones

Calling you a liar is not a personal attack when you in fact lie about others here.  You lied that I attacked Clinton supporters with venom.  You lied that I hide-rated you.  That makes you a liar.  Stating a fact is not a personal attack.  Suggesting that your posts are morally bankrupt is also not a personal attack.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:13AM | 0 recs
Re: god!

If you don't care that I exist, why do you bother to insult me and lie about me?  Why do you beg me to let you spew your bile without response?  What are you trying to accomplish here?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: ibid

I will continue to oppose you, no matter what silly names you call me.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: oppose me?

I'll stop when I choose and continue to "speak" when I choose.  That's how free speech works.  Have you grasped this concept you continue to invoke yet?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: get you get the hint

Sop being a jerk and I will.  In the mean time, as you exercise your right to be a jerk, I will exercise mine to call you out.  

It's truly fascinating to me at this point that you whine up and down this thread, and in andre's diary as well, about free speech while demanding my silence.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:01AM | 0 recs
Re: duty calls

Are you admitting you have been wrong or commenting on your compulsion to hurl insults at me?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: youi just cant stop can you?

its like impossible isnt it?

you have no self control (or dignity) whatsoever....

wo

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: im all for you writing

But you ARE a liar.  By definition.  You assert as a fact that I attacked Clinton supporters venomously.  When I denied it and demanded that you substantiate this slur, you refused and repeated this lie.  That makes you a liar.  I also think that calling me a "fanboy" functions as a lie.  I've seen you hurl similar slurs without any basis at others in all these threads.  That makes you a liar.  You don't like being a liar?  Stop lying.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: wow

Seems pretty clear that between us, it is you who expends imaginative energy on everything but what is written here.  I am responding directly to your posts and behavior on this blog.  No need for recourse to imagining what your life must be like beyond this.  Now, which behavior indicates external issues?  My motivations for these comments can be clearly ascertained from the content of your posts.  No need for fantasies.  Nor does this attempt to obfuscate change anything about your odious posts that you seem absolutely unable to defend.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: wow

If you are so distressed, just stop responding.  I can stop as soon as I like.  It's you who seems incapable of ending it.  You want this to stop?  The stop if you can instead of projecting this inability onto me.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

we'll tag team you.

by QTG 2009-12-17 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: wow

You misunderstand something fundamental here with this proprietary notion you have about your diary.  When you post a diary here, you address everyone who comes to this blog.  Within the site's guidelines, it represents a free and open space.  If you don't want me to respond to your diaries, don't address them to this community as you are addressing them to me as a participant in this community.  If you don't want me to respond to your comments, tough.  But if you respond to mine, it's ludicrous to demand that I not answer.  Isn't free speech what you have been crying about?  You have been posting blogs that I find ethically flawed and offensive.  Your right to post them, my right to respond.  When I responded, you directed the general hostility of your diary specifically at me and began to lie about me.   Now you have been begging me to leave this diary.  You have no right to do so.  Free speech, right?  And you respond to me with all kinds of personal insults that have nothing to do with anything I have written.  My home life and salivary glands have nothing to do with the dispute between us.  It's just more disgusting and unethical behavior and I will continue to point that out.  Whether you like me or not is up to you.  But you actually don't know me.  I don't imagine I would like you very much if I met you either.  So what?  All of that is irrelevant.  If you want this to stop, then stop.  Continue to spew bile and I will confront you for as long as I wish.  

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 02:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I can stop as soon as I like......

Hmm.  Not going to respond in kind.  But you are clearly having difficulty.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 02:46PM | 0 recs
Re: maybe you are drooling on yourself...

Again, what do my salivary glands have to do with anything?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 02:47PM | 0 recs
I think some folks are not getting the point.

HRC made a decision and commitment to FULLY SUPPORT President Obama. Thus she took his offer to join his administration as SoS. She is part and parcel of the administration.

by louisprandtl 2009-12-17 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: I think some folks are not getting the point.

So what?  She's immaculate.  Because she is infallible, she does not admit fault.  She requires no defense because she is a priori innocent.  And any criticism is evidence of a critic's character flaw.  Smart and good people support Hillary without pause or qualification.  So if you criticize her or implicate her in anything even ambiguous, you cannot be smart or good.  You know the drill.

I have no quarrel with HRC in particular, as you know.  But she is a central figure in an administration that is doing things I oppose.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 06:56AM | 0 recs
Re: i 'll take and agree with one point

PUMAs don't argue that they are smarter than everyone else?  You don't consistently claim to be smarter than everyone else?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: GOD NO!

I'm not so sure why you believe me to be interested in your evaluation of my intelligence.  It seems an odd assumption.  If you are trying to persuade others that you are smarter than me, they can judge for themselves quite well, though again, I don't know why they would find this germane to anything.

But let's be clear, I do not attack you by calling you a liar first and foremost.  I only began to call you a liar when you started lying about me attacking Clinton supporters, which is nothing more than your ad hominem invention.  Even in this bullshit troll thread, I have made some substantive comments, which you have only responded to with more bile.  This seems to convince you of your superior intelligence.  I hope you are getting a charge out of this.

And while you are doing this, may I ask how those house races you are supposedly working on are doing?  Do these "candidates" know that you spend your time on this crapfest instead of trying to get them elected?  If you are indeed working on any campaigns, the minute they find out how much time you have put into this unproductive garbage, I imagine you'll be looking for new work.

Now, I admit that this begs the question of why I am spending time on this.  I'll anticipate that reasonable question and explain that I am waiting for my dissertation committee's response to the chapter I submitted.  I'm writing on the construction of English nationhood through Renaissance poetry and homilies that imagine London as some form of Jerusalem.  I need their comments to revise for a fellowship application and am avoiding grading a stack of undergraduate essays.  So I'm doing this a bit.  Then I will get back to that.  But if I were working on a democratic house race, I cannot imagine I's have time for this today.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 07:43AM | 0 recs
Re: yes she did

Who here contests your right to have your own opinions?  I contest your mode of presenting your opinions and your motivations, as well as some of the opinions themselves.  Do you contest my right to do this?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: go write your own

When I choose to write diaries, I write them.  When others choose to comment, they do.  There is ample precedent for both.

But why do you exhibit this compulsion to tell me what to do while accusing me of trying to control you?  The two don't work very well together do they.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: cant stop can you?

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: cant stop can you?

and you dont see this as a problem?

oh my.

by Strummerson 2009-12-17 11:03AM | 0 recs
This has to stop!

A quick review of the diaries I posted throughout the 2008 primary campaign would show that I was an unabashed Hillary Clinton supporter.

After the primaries ended, I was upset that my candidate lost.  I thought Hillary would have made a great president, and a certain part of me still believes that.

However, it is past time for folks to move on.

These post-mortem diaries about how Obama is failing and how Hillary would be doing a better job is serving no one.

Let's put a stop to it and stay focused on the current, pressing issues of the day.

by Andre Walker 2009-12-17 08:16AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads