I've heard insider justification of Hillary's drive-by support for Ned Lamont (while Bill torched him on Larry King) to the effect that Ned was an unprofessional rookie and therefore did not merit support.
In support of this unprofessional rookie label came primary night. What happened primary night?
Ned appeared on TV with Al Sharpton standing behind him on the dais.
Some Clinton people may not have been so impressed with Sharpton back then.
It's amazing to me to see how many commenters are personality/candidate partisans rather than progressive value partisans, independent of candidate affiliation.
There's so much sloppy thinking, cant and misprepresentation of Matt's writing in this thread it's rather breathtaking.
Matt wants an end to the American political default position of imperial "privilege," the belief that we haaaave some right or duty to impose our will around the world with force, rather than use force simply to defend ourselves.
Richardson has articulated a position consistent with that, so he gets props. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have not, though on a scale of 1-10, with 10 as high (anti-imperialist), Edwards is not perfect (7?) but edges out Obama (5?), whose stock is falling a little, and Clinton is near the bottom (1?).
The purpose of writing about this stuff is to make a public argument about the role of the US in foriegn policy, a discussion that is not really happening today. I happen to agree with Matt on all these fronts. This is what a progressive movement does: put pressure on the party and its high profile candidates to transform the conversation from one dominated by the Georgetown foreign policy elites.
I've made no statements in public in support of any candidate. I'm hanging back, waiting to see whom I may like most. I certainly know who's been pissing me off, but I've been keeping that mostly out of my blogging, except when our candidates enable GOP talking points or policies. I've donated no money to any of them.
Matt is exactly right. Those of you who are taking public sides for one candidate or another need to start holding your chosen one accountable. The elites condescend to you, and if you allow yourself to be used, then let's just admit we don't care about the things we have been saying we care about.
I don't believe our candidate supporters actually don't care, but I do believe it's time to wake up and push the party through these candidates. Smoke 'em out: what do they believe? What will they do?
That "nappy headed hos" line of his is an old one he used regularly in the 90's, back in the same time he had Bill Clinton on his show and let him rehabilitate hgis image going into the New York primary. I was in grad school in NY at the time and had a 35 minute drive in the morning to campus, and I used to listen to Imus back then (I know, I know).
If he has since toned that line down to the point that its reemergence garnered notice, ok then. He's still an old time racist and anything done to bring him down is a good idea. This is also another good opportunity for the netroots to jump on the bandwagon in solidarity with grass roots African American progressives. Message: Imus and especially Bernie McGuirk (sp?) are old time racists whose time has long since passed.
I might also suggest putting pressure on the New York Mets, whose games are boradcast on WFAN, and whose marketing and branding have really taken off through propelling people of color as stars. Willie Randolph is their manager, Jose Reyes a star, Pedro Martinez an (injured) ace, and their farm system is outcompeting the competition in recruiting players from Latin America.
David Wright is the great white cover boy (and a great young player), but the Mets have a strong brand investment in the new face of New York under General Manager Omar Minaya, and pressure on the Mets in order to target WFAN, as well as WFAN adverstisers, could all make big news and publicity in New York.