8
Maybe Lambert & Crew Can Answer Me This …
I think I pissed off Lambert and the Corrente crowd over the Ramengate post. I’m pretty sure I made my new pal Shystee uncomfortable. For that I apologize - it’s just that all the stuff about Obama supporters being the ‘creative class’ and ‘Obama fan boys’ and ‘elitists’ who don’t care about poor people started getting under my skin. Plus Lambert’s whole re-enactment of the Four Yorkshiremen sketch was funny to me. And the latte-sipping insults were very much an outing into wingnut territory.
I also want to thank Leah and Shystee for sticking up for S,N! over at Corrente. I tried to register to comment over there, but it didn’t take.
I do support Obama, as I’ve said before. Just not very zealously — I would very-very-with-a-grin-on-my-face-happy-happy-fun-time pull the lever for Clinton if she gets the nomination. As I’ve also said before. I literally made my choice for Obama on the morning of the California primary. Not because I’m an out-of-touch idiot who didn’t do his homework, although I am often that. Rather, it was because I liked both of them enough against the Rethugs in the general election that I couldn’t pick between them. Also, I had a good friend who I knew was voting for Hillary, so I figured I’d toss my vote Barack’s way to even things out.
Amazingly, my opinion back then hasn’t really changed much. I like Obama’s chances against McCain a little better, but I think both could clean the floor with him. I would be happy to have either as president.
This blog, unlike Corrente, has not been particularly fervent in its partisanship for either candidate, although my guess is the majority of the regular posters support Obama. I actually don’t know who Clif or Jillian or Travis endorses. Seb supports the Oktoberfest Party for all I know. HTML Mencken could be writing in Gore Vidal. Sadly, No! Research Labs is for a straight falsifiability ticket, barring the unlikely appearance on the national scene of a strong anti-kerning crusader. The point being, primary stumping is not precisely our preferred wicket in these parts, though comment threads do tilt very strongly, almost exclusively to Obama.
We have two very strong candidates to end the nightmare of the Bush years. And that makes me happy. At the same time, I have no illusions that either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton is a particularly progressive candidate. I’m not such a naif that I think most of the policies I would prefer under either of them wouldn’t get watered down and centrist-ized to the point where I would grumble and moan and start attacking them from the left. I have no doubt, for instance, that either Obama or Clinton would find some way to drag us into a new war. It’s what American presidents do and it ain’t gonna change. Their main advantage over McCain is that he would drag us into two wars.
As HTML Mencken says, ‘both candidates are corporate whores.’ That’s just the facts. On the other hand, I’m getting too old and tired, and I’ve been around the election block enough times, to really put a whole lot of energy into trumpeting that depressing reality to the high heavens anymore. We’re getting a centrist who tacks to the right as our presidential nominee. It’s just the way this country works. The progressive, game-changing stuff will trickle up to the political class from the grassroots, not the other way around. I no longer think that’s as terrible a thing as I used to, because the stuff worth doing gets means-tested at the local level, in the neighborhoods and towns and cities, weeding out the crap and bringing the cream to the national theater. It could be worse. We could live under the Burmese junta.
The other point worth noting is that the Dems may give us a centrist waffler, but the GOP will give us an insane person with one hand on the lever to the bomb bay doors and the other jamming the maxed-out credit card of our national debt into Corporate America slots that give worse odds than an arcade claw machine and charge a thousand-point vig.
There are areas where I think Clinton and Obama have advantages over the other. I like Hillary’s health care plan. I like Barack’s pledge of $10 billion a year for five years to bring the health care information systems and records in line with existing standards. I like Hillary’s plans to expand National Science Foundation funding and grants. I like Barack’s commitment to network neutrality and ideas for transparent government. I like Hillary’s toughness and practical nature. I like Barack’s charisma and ability to bring new voters into the process. I like Clinton’s experience and I like Obama’s freshness.
It’s like an old politician once asked me, ‘Why do I have to pick between the Israelis and the Palestinians? I like them both. I want them both to have peace.’
I want peace, or a relative facsimile thereof, for our country. I want a competent technocrat as president who will appoint Roe-supporting justices, fill the bureaucracy with competent people who never had Bob Jones University as their first, second, third or 10,000th college choice, who will not shit on the Constitution too runnily or gather Straussians in underground star chambers to trade the latest torture porn hot off the presses. Obama and Clinton are our sole shots at that.
Have Obama and his supporters fucked up and been nasty and divisive and shitty at times? Yeah. So has she and so have hers. Both deserve to be raked over the coals when they sling Rovian mud at each other or blatantly and unconstructively break the 11th commandment or fling race and gender cards around or talk about obliterating Iran or invading Pakistan.
But here’s what I don’t get and maybe Lambert et. al. can help me out. On the one hand, you guys notice every wart on Obama’s face, which, again, is perfectly fine. And yet you are stunningly blind to any on Hillary’s. And really, they’re not hard to miss.
It’s like you project the entire long history of progressive discontent with centrist, party hack Democrats onto Barack Obama, again, fine, but then you turn around and somehow project Dennis Kucinich onto your own candidate. Who is Hillary Clinton. I repeat, Hillary-fucking-Clinton. Who is a real person, with a real legislative record, not some doll you can put overalls on and call Working Class Hero Hills! Now with Gas Tax Holiday Grip!
So I have to ask: why are you doing this? And really, I want to know, because it looks very much like Obama is going to be the nominee and I hope you all come home to support him. Or to turn things out and attempt to be a little more gracious, what do Obama and his supporters need to do today to get you into this car?
UPDATE: I’m glad I got most of the above stuff off my chest. But I also think my apology to Lambert and Corrente will be read as more than a little back-handed, and they’d be right. It’s hard to completely unsnark oneself. But I really do want to mend fences and I want to be clearer about this, so I’ll just ask: What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you? I honestly want to know, because I just don’t get it.
Clif adds: For the record, I am for the candidate that has the best chance of beating St. Bar-BQ. At times the polls have given that edge to Hillary; at times, to Obama. One thing, however, is certain: I will be voting for the Democratic nominee in the November elections. I have, it seems, posted more things here ridiculing attacks on Obama than on Clinton, but that is only because Obama seems to have the wingnut-o-sphere so exercised that every time you turn around somebody is saying something preposterous about Obama. It’s hard not to take a hit on that “comedy crack” pipe as somebody said over at Corrente.
Righteous Bubba said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:34
I can’t believe this! You are denying Obama’s divinity right here in his temple!
Ooh, I am going to burn so much incense at you…
Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:34
D. Aristophanes, if you think either Clinton or Obama are “centrists” than you’ve been off your meds for too long my friend.
Homosexuals are aids monkeys said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:43
You know nothing of economics or political science you dumbfuck. Everything you have said about the economy is bullshit as is your assesment of where Obama and Clinton stand on the political spectrum. A centrist is one who is in the middleground “hence CENTRIST” between Conservatism and leftism. Not marxists who want to redistribute wealth and expand state power. You like most other people on this blog are fucking clueless.
Jacob Singer said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:45
Just so very well said, D.
If I may call you D., that is. I don’t mean to presume.
Marsupial said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:52
I don’t think we need to worry too much. Other than people who are into this Limbaugh ‘chaos theory’ BS, I really doubt that there are that many Clinton supporters or Obama supporters that are going to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn’t make it through the primaries.
Seriously, for what? Spite? That makes sense: I wanted Hillary, but Obama won, so now I’m going to vote for the craziest, most senile, war-mongering, right-wing motherfucker I can find, just to PISS YOU OFF! I don’t think there are that many people willing to destroy everything they stand for just because they want revenge any way they can get it. (Clear-thinking people, anyway.)
My wife & I have been big Hillary fans since we first heard of her, defended her to everyone, supported her, and backed her campaign at first. But, she lost us, which is amazing. Still, as you said, if she is the nominee I will gladly vote for her without a second thought, and I bet most Hillary supporters feel the same way about Obama — regardless of what MSNBC’s polling says.
Jacob Singer said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:52
Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”? Tourettes? Limited frontal lobe activity? Conservatism?
Just curious.
Matt Weiner said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:54
Four Yorkshiremen sketch
We dreamt of living in corridor!
So awesome….
Max Power said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:56
Fighting on means never having to admit you were wrong. Ask the President ’bout that.
It’s been a long and divisive fight. Some people went into this without an exit strategy, and it looks like they are going to stay out fighting long after the outcome got decided.
Matt Weiner said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:57
Why would you follow your own post, which ends with the salutation “my friend”, with one that contains the insult “you dumbfuck”?
Because he’s John McCain?
Jacob Singer said,
May 8, 2008 at 6:59
Something I’ve always wanted to say:
Weiner for the Win!
Ben said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:11
This must be that post-wrapping-up-the-nomination-reconciliation I keep hearing about. Well done.
Fast Eddie said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:13
DA, I think I know exactly where you’re coming from, because when this whole thing started you could have put “Obama” and “Clinton” in a hat and whichever name you pulled out would have been fine with me. I liked Dodd best, but I knew he had no chance. Anybody but McCain has been my guiding principle from the start of this election, although admittedly the rest of the Republican field was pretty distasteful too.
And I’ve seen Obama’s warts. I used to drive my wife, a huge Obama fan, crazy, because I just couldn’t get all that enthusiastic about him. I didn’t like his conciliation-above-all rhetoric, he wasn’t liberal enough for my taste, and I didn’t like the fact that he won’t occasionally get down in the policy weeds and demonstrate a sharp grasp of the details. All those things are still there and still bother me, but no candidate is perfect. Then Clinton fell behind, and the attacks started. Obama can’t win. Obama isn’t as qualified for the office as McCain. Obama isn’t a Muslim “as far as I know.” Obama is an elitist snob who looks down on the rest of us on account of his fancy-pants book-learnin’. Liberals hate regyuler folks and are destroying the party. Ignorance is strength. And so on, to the point now where I don’t think there’s a right-wing meme about liberals that she hasn’t embraced and french-kissed at some point over the past month. And given that my goal here has been Anybody but McCain, it’s kind of distressing to me when the second-place Democrat is going McCain’s heavy lifting for him against the first place Democrat. So I became an Obama supporter.
Now he’s the nominee. Complain if you want but this primary is over. Threaten to go vote for Ralph Nader; hell, go vote for him, or for McCain, or just stay home. President-elect McCain thanks you for your support. The thousands of soldiers who are going to die for President-elect McCain over the next four years, the thousands more who are going to be seriously wounded and/or watch their standard of living continue to plummet to unacceptably poor levels might not thank you so much. Ditto for the poor saps who are going to get themselves waterboarded over the next four years at whatever gulag we pick to replace Gitmo. The working class folks who aren’t going to see a dime of economic relief for the next four years won’t like it, but the mega-rich folks who are about to see their precious Bush tax cuts made permanent will be sure to put you on their Christmas card lists. And when Stevens and Ginsburg retire or otherwise leave the bench, I’m sure you’ll all be satisfied with whomever President-elect McCain will appoint to replace them.
The best part is, this is all because a sizable minority on the left and left-center would rather lose than risk electing a candidate who is not absolutely 100% undeniably and incontrovertibly perfect in every way, shape, and form. Of course, those people on the left and left-center can’t agree on what the perfect candidate would look like, so that’s a lost cause from the start. But still, better a thousand years of Republican rule than four years of a Democrat who might not be everything we want despite the fact that he’s light-years better than the Republican alternative.
So hey, Talkleft and Corrente and the rest can keep directing their most vitriolic attacks at the Democratic nominee if they want; there’s certainly no reason they have to stop. But let’s not pretend we’re helping anybody other than McCain, OK?
Fast Eddie said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:15
ARGH, “doing,” not “going.”
I feel shame.
comsympinko said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:16
Who could have believed the MSM would do its utmost to pit two semi-centrist self-righteous narcissist assholes against one another long enough to generate some serious ratings and for the general public to forget Neanderthal Conservative McSame’s seeming infinite series of politically expedient policy reversals?
It’s not like elections and war drive ratings or anything.
Joe said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:16
First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it. Put the message out on matchbook covers or on the back of grocery receipt paper - the ones with with all those coupons.
We have two politicians fighting for the nomination. Flames erupt when either side pretends they’re something more, or need to be more to matter.
The worse of our *initial* choices when this primary began is better than the best the GOP had to offer. Something is working.
Jrod said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:21
I’m just getting really sick of hearing about elitism, which has somehow been defined as drinking OJ and thinking that $30 is not much money. The fact that these accusations of elitism always come from the well-fed, if not the outright rich, does nothing to improve my mood.
Seriously, if you’ve spent a month barely surviving on spaghetti (without sauce) by selling your plasma, then I’ll listen to you tell me what’s elitist. Otherwise, shut your fat fucking mouth.
It’s insulting to be told that I’m an elitist because I’m unimpressed by the possibility that Clinton might save me $30 if she gets her bill passed and I spend a couple thousand on gas and the planets align. People who are so broke that $30 is the difference between eating and starving need more help than thirty fucking dollars. I’m an elitist because I notice that? Fuck you.
KC45s said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:27
Wow. A mature blog post on the Clinton-Obama slugfest. I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf. Kudos. Or is it elitist to use that word? Okay, sorry. Thumb’s up.
Hoosier X said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:32
Hey, Haam,
You got anything a little more convincing than that? Something with a semblance of coherency or civility or common sense or honesty or decency?
No?
Well, I guess you don’t need any of that when all you want to do is repeat the conservative media talking points over and over.
“Obama is unelectable.”
“Obama is unelectable.”
“Obama is unelectable.”
It just gets truer and truer! I bet you’re all tingly just hearing the growth of its trueness.
t4toby said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:36
I can’t disagree with anything you said, which makes me mad.
What say you, Jonah?
Rightwingsnarkle said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:47
If this gas tax thing actually becomes real, I’m not waiting to accumulate $30 - I’m spending my newfound wealth as it happens, 18 cents at a time.
Jrod said,
May 8, 2008 at 7:56
Maybe the federal government can make a deal with Maruchan. One free ramen packet with every gallon of gas! Choose between beef or chicken flavor; nothing elitist like mushroom or shrimp.
Jon H said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:11
Joe wrote: “First, Any one who wants to criticize the “creative class” ought not to blog about it.”
And has no right to complain when ‘difficulties ensue’ the next time they seek a new site design.
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:17
You know, I really wish we had a proportional/parliamentary system in this country sometimes. Just so that assholes like Haam could see what a real leftist or Marxist looks like. And so that the 2% of asshole fascists could have their Asshole Fascist party and have 2% of the votes, and not hijack a whole fucking party.
Accusing Obama or Clinton of being far left is just ridiculous. Shit, I liked Gravel, but more realistically, Dodd. Then Edwards. Finally, in California I voted for Obama. I’ve got misgivings, but I liked the idea of getting someone in who at least looked different and wasn’t the wife or the son of a former president.
Democracy truly has yet to take hold in the USA.
Hoosier X said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:18
This is a really good question.
Please try not to phrase your answer as a conservative talking point.
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:20
And may I say - GODDAMMIT - I’ve been reduced to drinking fucking BOXED WINE fer Crissake!
This is a goddamn travesty - And I’m better off than a lotta people out here.
protected static said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:21
Waiter? Could I have another troll? This one’s only half-baked…
protected static said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:23
To steal my own line, Haam wouldn’t know a Marxist if one rammed a red flag up his ass while bellowing “Arise, ye prisoners of starvation” at the top of their lungs…
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:27
right - the discourse in this country has been shifted so far to the right that fucking anybody to the left of … ahh fuckit - HTML’s covered that many times.
Free Mumia.. whatever.
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:29
actually - Fuck Mumia - he probably did kill that cop.
Leonard Peltier on the other hand….he might have a case.
Stemler said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:41
really 30 bucks? I still have a hard time grasping that there exist people somewhere who will absolutely die unless we rush to save them 30 fucking bucks. I mean, if that’s really the case than it’s gonna inevitably happen anyway so why should the rest of us fuck ourselves over just to keep them floating for another two months?
On a side note, are these same people bitching about immigrants doing their jobs for less. Because, really, if 30 bucks a month is life and death you should damn well love the opportunity to make 2 bucks a day for 10 hours hard labor.
Vic said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:47
“Creative”. Now there’s a character flaw if I’ve ever heard one.
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:47
Oh man- like the comedian Doug Stanhope (sp?) said - If you’re complaining that an illiterate peasant with no shoes stole your job - You’re such a loser that you should be fucking too ashamed and embarrassed to tell anyone - much less get all vocal about it.
dAVE said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:50
Oh and how about the last debate, where the man of the people Charlie Gibson tried to corner that “elitist” Obama on raising taxes on the hard working middle class families that made between $200,000 and $250,000 a year?
Stemler said,
May 8, 2008 at 8:54
Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.
Wise old Asian martial arts master / philosopher / waitron said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:02
“What is it about Barack Obama that is such a deal-breaker for so many of you?”
Ah, young grasshopper - there really are no answers; only more questions.
Who ordered spring rolls?
DB said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:10
I just want to know how this person’s supporters can seriously attack the “creative class.” How in the tank can you get?
themann1086 said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:14
I believe the line is “starvlings from your slumber, arise ye criminals of want.”
So said my communist chinese friend in high school anyway.
Thers said,
May 8, 2008 at 9:48
I’m still mad at everyone for not writing in Gus Hall. Sellouts.
Johnny Coelacanth said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:04
Perhaps this is projecting my own miserable, institutionalized racism on Hillary supporters, but I imagine (and strictly just imagine, no proof) that the problem with Obama is that he’s Teh Black. “Of course, I don’t have a problem with it,” they would say “but there’s just no way that millions of blue collar white people are going to vote for him.” Hence, the post-vote emphasis on Hillary getting the white vote in North Carolina.
Even if I am close to the truth, I further imagine your average, Caucasian, Clinton supporter would never, ever, ever say that in public.
Incontinentia Buttocks said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:24
Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.
Not that I probably have to say this but: Bullshit.
I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.
Kathleen said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:28
nice post, DA. At the risk of undoing your good work, much nicer than deserved.
Kathleen said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:30
oh and you beat me to it, IB. Total bullshit.
Hoosier X said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:38
Are you suggesting that there are people in the world who, in talking about the salary of a college professor, would just simply pull numbers out of their butts?
yeah yeah said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:57
You owed lambert no apology. You were spot on in your first post (and the follow-up), and he knows better than to think that you’re mocking the poor. Unfortunately, the primary has driven him to play the victim early and often. I’m hoping that when the nominee is determined, corrente will return to its regularly scheduled programming.
98% likely that Obama gets the nomination, and Hillary will endorse him immediately. Hopefully that helps salve the wounds of disappointed Hillary fans.
Me? I voted for Edwards.
GODDAMMIT YOU GUYS ALL SUCK EDWARDS WAS THE BEST AND HILLARYBOTS AND OBAMABOYZ ALL SUCK YOU GUYS ARE FUCKING TERRIBLE THEY ARE SUCH PHONIES ONLY EDWARDS REALLY CARES ABOUT PROGRESSIVE POLITICS SO I’M GONNA VOTE FOR MCCAIN JUST TO SPITE YOU REALLY REALLY REALLY.
Useful, huh?
Just Alison said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:18
Hi everyone, and let me briefly derail the conversation once again by thanking y’all for the messages of sympathy. I think I’ll have to head down to the animal shelter sometime soon, because Luschka has turned into a limpet - at the moment she’s resting comfortably on one arm (mine) on the desk, while I try to type with the other.
Oh and Smut, Abbys in general are loving and well-adjusted animals: you went wrong by naming her after a flibbertigibbet, and she had to live down to your expectations. Qetesh, on the other hand, was named after an Egyptian goddess, and was suitably regal/godly/good with sand.
I had named the Burmese Luschka because a friend told me it was the pet name that Vita Sackville-West used for her lover, Violet. Imagine my surprise on discovering this information: Google is no longer my friend. At least Lushy doesn’t act like a bile duct, ancillary or otherwise.
I feel like I’ve just seen a black rhino or Tasmanian wolf.
Then you’ll be an orphan on that one, friend, because there ain’t never been no sich animal as a Tasmanian wolf. Tasmanian tiger, yes, but I’ve never heard of the Tasmanian wolf.
Ack, but wait: this Wikipedia page refers to both names for the graceful (and, sadly, extinct) Thylacine. Well, we live and learn.
Park Menn said,
May 8, 2008 at 11:31
Plenty of deal-breakers.
-Obama did not walk out of Reverend Wright’s sermons.
-In 2000, an untested Republican candidate promised change and the American people got shafted.
-He can’t win real people.
-He’s offering false hope.
-He gave a speech on the Iraq war, even though actions speak louder than words.
-We don’t want change you can Xerox.
-He’s run a campaign right out of Karl Rove’s playbook.
-He’s trying to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan.
-Obama is not a Muslim, as far as we know.
-He’s an elitist.
-He opposes a gas tax holiday, like economists who don’t care about the interests of ordinary american.
-He can’t win big states.
-The mainstream media is against Hillary Clinton.
-He doesn’t have the experience to answer the White House phone at 3am.
-He can’t stand the heat and should get out of the kitchen.
-There might be an October surprise with Obama.
-He’s won’t be ready from Day One.
Shame on you, Barack Obama! Who do you think has what it takes?
-Park Menn
justme said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:05
fixed.
Bob said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:08
The nomination was Clinton’s birthright and Obama stole it. And I’m not being snarky. Just expressing the disgust I’ve felt over the last few weeks as Clinton’s supporters have become more vocal and more desperate. He “stole” the nomination; he “played the race card” by - I guess - being African-American; he’s a “frat boy” and “born to privilege” (my personal favorite - a mixed race kid raised by a single mother - now that’s what I call privilege!)
Seriously DA, you’re missing the point. There is no legitimate argument against Obama. He’s slightly more centrist on domestic issues but far less hawkish then AMUF/blast Iran into the stone-age Clinton yet turn to any pro Clinton blog or comment and see if it isn’t described as if not the beast, at least the neighbor of the beast. And you’re asking for rational, reasoned opinion. From Lambert??? Don’t hold your breath.
Btw – all quotes above are direct quotes from pro Clinton blogs – and no, the “frat boy” quote isn’t from Tom Schaller.
Chuck said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:38
I disagree that “we have two strong candidates.” The strong general election candidate is long gone. Neither of the two left standing, with their high negs, would have a strong run against McCain, but I prefer the candidate of wonkish specificity to the candidate of vague notions.
Anyway, first off, your guy had better:
- get damned specific, damned soon,
- lose his naiveté about reaching out to Republicans (wasn’t he paying attention when Clinton, of necessity, tried that with the Republican Congress?),
- lose his nostalgia for the Reagan years which, like the Bush years, were only good for the moneyed Ruling Class,
- stop merging the good Clinton years with the horrible Bush years and describing the whole 16 years as one long train wreck, and
- reign in his Brownshirt disciples.
Major Woody said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:40
Stemler said,
Chucky Gibson is a bit of a hack, but really he was talking about college professors, who make a shitload more money than they want you to think they do. Hell even a community college part timer with years of experience and a PHD will make 80k a year, so 80k * 2 = 160k, not that far off.
#
Incontinentia Buttocks said,
May 8, 2008 at 10:24
Not that I probably have to say this but: Bullshit.
I’m a full-time, tenured faculty member with an Ivy League PhD and a decade of experience teaching at a flagship state research university. And I don’t earn 80k a year, and almost certainly won’t anytime in the foreseeable future.
Where is this community college where part-timers make 80K/year? I’m all over that! Well, I’m not at any fancy Ivy League university or anything, but I am at a major state university, and I can confirm what Incontinentia is saying. Of course, we elitist professor types are pretty dumb when it come to salary negotiations and such, so maybe we’re just suckers, and all our colleagues are pulling down the big bucks and laughing at us. My “salary negotiation” when I was hired went literally like this: Chairman: “Well, the most we can start you out at is 48K per year.” Me: “Really? Wow! OK!”
Your field has something to do with it too. I’m a professor of environmental science, and we don’t make what law profs or medical school faculty do, by a long shot. Hell, I’m at the point where, if I need to get much more dental work, I’m going to have to whore myself out to some Exxon think-tank to “prove” that global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory. On second thought, nah, I’d rather be toothless.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:46
Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:
1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.
2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out
3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ’sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’
4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).
5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ’supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain - the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then - Clinton won the late deciders.
6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.
If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.
Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?
We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.
Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:48
Speaking for me only, but probably many others as well:
1.) I supported John Edwards because he really did offer a bold and progressive vision, and in his grasp of the humanity of the people who get brutally rolled over by the economic policies that too many Democrats support.
2.) Clinton and Obama both had a chance to earn my vote once Edwards dropped out
3.) I rode the unity pony for a while, totally enamored of the Obama candidacy and convinced that Hillary represented old “DLC” politics (unfortunately, Edwards egged this on, albeit perhaps unintentionally). I still admire Obama’s general stated approach to foreign policy (a little more humble, talking more) but he still hasn’t even addressed torture, which is why I tend to find him a bit unreliable. So yeah, I rode the unity pony for a while, until I realized — shock — I care about real, tangible issues, not just ’sending a message’ or ‘changing the tone in Washington’
4.) Senator Clinton was consistently and publicly taking more progressive policy positions than Senator Obama and sticking to them when pressed (Elizabeth Edwards has pointed out, just to use one example, that the notion that Obama’s proposed health care solution is ‘universal’ is a joke. Add to this his bewildering insistence on pretending their is a Social Security ‘crisis’ (literally shitting on the blogs who worked so hard to dispel that myth, including TPM who now is so in the tank for Obama it affects the coverage), a refusal to rule out further privatization of the military, praising Reagan but lumping the “Clinton and Bush years” together in the most monstrous conflation I have ever heard, accusing the Clintons of racism and sending a message to the fanbase that the name Clinton is synonymous with racist ideas (another massive falsehood, despite their flaws and triangulation they have always been on the right side), sexist attacks on the Clinton campaign and accusations of ‘kitchen sink politics’ that Hillary has been very graceful in not firing back at, REFUSING to speak out on her fellow candidate’s behalf in response to the unfair and completely biased and sexist treatment of Clinton in the media (while decrying ‘racism’ among fellow Democrats at every turn) despite the fact that Hillary tried to make perfectly clear eight times that the Muslim smear was horseshit (after that they finally squeezed “as far as I know’ out of her and the blogs ran with it).
5.) The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day. The Left Coaster has described this interesting relationship between the left blogs and the MSM to beat down Hillary as “the great convergence” — a convergence of interests, really. And every time I hear an Obama supporter dismiss concerns about electibility, I wonder just how long they have actually been following U.S. politics. Some of my family have succumbed to what are obviously the basest of smears and lies against Obama, and they are strong Democrats. You can’t just wish this stuff away thinking Obama is going to ‘change the system’ or ‘change politics’ — he’s not, because if he had we would have already begun to see it. There’s nothing fundamentally new about charismatic personalities that attract a fan base. But that kind of fan loyalty is fickle, and your ’supporters’ will turn on you in a heartbeat, trading up for their new favorite (i.e. John McCain - the American President America has been waiting for — at least you know where he stands!). Look at the numbers with regard to who voted for Obama vs. Clinton a month ago through early voting versus voters since then - Clinton won the late deciders.
6.) Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite (I know you aren’t used to hearing this term being applied to Sen. Obama, but that’s what you get for not expanding your reading list), especially one who promises little to nothing in return for our vote. Many things are pretty out-of-touch and elitist about Obama and his campaign, but since much of the blogosphere is essentially ‘elite’ and upper class themselves, you are blind to it! Bill and Hillary always did get it, and Obama does not. By promising to create this ‘new coalition’ Obama is simply trying to tempt us with political power. But power for what end, if I might ask? Try as I might, I still cannot fucking figure out what ends Obama has in mind, much less which ones he will defend in public.
If I might offer a constructive criticism to liberals and progressives in general, it’s that it is a mistake to assume that just because Karl Rove tries to exploit your candidate’s weaknesses, those weaknesses must necessarily not exist. And to all the folks who think “REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY” stop for a moment to consider the reasons why exactly the reverse might be the case.
Yes, shock, a great many people that I have talked to are ready to walk if we are asked, once again, to sit down, shut up, and stop demanding progressive policies. As for myself, how exactly am I supposed to defend our party to anyone when I don’t believe it anymore myself?
We’re prepared to walk because we believe in something, and it’s much larger than Hillary Clinton.
Just go read some of the more pro-Hillary blogs, like maybe here:
http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913
In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’ It’s a fraud, and I’d rather not have the lasting legacy of the 2008 campaign be that we blew it on an empty vessel of faux ‘change.’
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:58
Here’s another question: which Presidential candidate would be more likely to filibuster telecom immunity (if either)? Think about that…it would be a good test.
Or maybe this one: which president will be more likely to investigate war crimes and rampant lawbreaking in the executive branch, and which one would be most likely to call a true & let them regroup?
These are valid arguments, and they are no less driven by fear than Obama supporters’ desire to end the primary as quickly as possible.
One last thing — and this may seem small but here it is — Hillary said she would not quit, that she would fight to the end, and she has and probably will. Isn’t that what we want, someone who will fight to the finish and make sure every vote is counted, and do it with enthusiasm, passion and grace? She is accused of ‘pandering’ but in a democracy don’t we sometimes, uh, want to get the candidates to commit to things that we want even if they don’t? And this brings us back to the double standard on ‘pandering,’ of course…
Bob said,
May 8, 2008 at 12:59
Shit, I didn’t expect my proof to come so quickly. I post at 12:08 and the very next post: Chuck @ 12:38 opens with “your guy”, followed by the absolutely false claim that Obama has “nostalgia for the Reagan years…” (no – he said Reagan’s presidency was a transformative one – that’s a perfectly true statement – and in no way, shape or form does it say the transformation was positive – noted Republican Michael Berube has pointed that out), and, finally, referring to his supporters as “Brownshirt disciples.”
Seriously, DA, this is your crowd your expecting serious dialogue from?
bernarda said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:02
I too will vote gladly for Obama though I have long be a Clinton supporter. I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.
So far among blogs that support Obama, I mostly see two arguments for him: he speaks well and he raises a lot of money. Hardly a political program.
ice weasel said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:04
My message to all the Hillary fans.
Go ahead, “vote your conscience” or whatever you want to call it. You’ll get what you deserve.
If you really notice no difference between *any* dem candidate and Taint John of BBQ, then you won’t mind serving under him, in Iran. And probably several other places.
Now get over yourself. This election is about a lot more than your pet issues or your favoured candidate and if you can’t see that I can’t help you.
There’s an old saying that misery and poverty is the standard of the human condition and the brief times when humans manage to rise above it are the exceptions not the rule. It’s a bleak outlook but it’s difficult to deflate sometimes.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:12
But again, Obama should ask for our votes if he wants them — he assumes that everyone who isn’t going to wouldn’t have in the first place. Wrong.
Try some more progressive policies, or is that too much ‘pandering’ for Obama to stomach? How about having a landmark speech about health care, one that in the process points out what a crime it is that you have to pay for medical care in the richest country in the world, or what an easily preventable tragedy it is that people die because their insurers arbitrarily decide not to cover an operation? He could come out and explain that he really wants truly universal care but that he thinks his plan is the best we can achieve in one or two years, and it won’t end there. I’d like to be proven wrong, but I’m betting he won’t do anything like that, and the wakeup call is when you start realizing that maybe he doesn’t really care or hasn’t thought about it because he’s so caught up in being a Serious Policy Wonk who listens to the Heritage Foundation as much as anything. Or maybe he’s just afraid to even acknowledge that we want to redistribute wealth from the powerful and the well-off to the people in need. At least Clinton freaking *acknowledges it* even if she doesn’t outright promise to go after single payer right away.
John McCain panders to his base because he needs their support to win. Guess what, Obama needs ours. And we’re a lot harder to fool. He needs to be competing for our vote, because I have news for you - I am one of the ones who would be out canvassing for him if he had thus far lived up to a fraction of what once seemed to be limitless potential. But sometimes what you see is what you get.
Just Alison said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:18
Win or lose, it seems to me that a lot of us are not ready to pull the lever once more for a pandering, Republican Lite
Pull yer lever for whatever floats yer boat, Iris. But puh-leeze, don’t pretend that a vote against Obama, should he win the nom-nom-nom, is a principled vote.
Here’s how I see it: the vote in November will be between a crazed, half-senile, wholly warmongering, privileged idiot who knows fuck-all about anything and will doubtless start World Wars IV, V and VI, and a semi-conservative. What can any principled progressive do, but hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.
Jesus Fardling Christ, no-one’s asking you to get “Obama Makes My Nipples Hard!” tattooed on your forehead. But a mature and responsible person would realise that there is not, and never has been, a serious contender for the Presidential Throne who was even slightly progressive (okay, maybe Carter. In some ways).
So in the absence of Teh Ideal Progressive Candidate, responsible and mature folk will cast their vote for the least worst, recognising, of course, that it is the least worst and not the best that they’re voting for. They don’t stride around bleating about how Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) fails to be the Bestest Ever Progressive Candidate.
Max Power said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:28
“I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”
I think he is. Obama’s got a strong line in bell-ringing jabs, and he’s quick to deliver them.
It’s been a key part of his platform from the start. He’s always argued that if you want to take on McCain over the Iraq War, for example, you’d better be able to distinguish yourself from him. “I voted for the war before I was against it” is a weak argument. “I’ll bomb Iran” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. “I’m for the gas-tax holiday” is a weak argument, if your opponent is McCain. Voters prefer the real thing over Dems running as “Republican light”.
…although Hillary would still win against McCain in November. He’s a weak candidate, and it’s a bad time to be from the incumbent side.
She’s fighting hard now because the Dem nominee WILL BE the next president.
Scott said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:35
A lot of folks commenting at Shakesville yesterday said they were going to vote for McCain because Kos is an asshole, and it’ll be all Kos’ fault anyway. And that Obama is going to ban abortion. And if you tell them that’s crazy, it only means that you yourself are crazy.
I’ve had to take so very many crazy-ass blogs off my Favorites list in the past few weeks…
Jim said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:39
OK, I thought about it for a while. The answer is ………….. Chris Dodd.
He endorsed Obama. Do you then dismiss Chris Dodd as an unprincipled charlatan?
Well, sort of a meaningless question. Neither candidate has taken any sort of meaningful action on that front.
I’d say the closest we come is Sen. Leahy - he was fairly vocal about changes to the War Crimes Act two years ago.
He endorsed Obama.
I think these are both entirely meaningless issues on which to decide a presidential election - unless your point is that John McCain would be a nightmare on either issue.
Finally,
Man, I’m sick of this shit. I’ve seen it adopted as an attack on Obama, but I wouldn’t be surprised if somebody raised it against John Edwards or Hillary Clinton or anyone. This is such an empty fucking trope.
There are campaign websites, with issues sections.
They’re free! You can read them anytime, even at 3 a.m. or your lunch hour at work, or on a library computer terminal if you can’t afford a computer!
To complain because a candidate is not presenting these issues to you in hour-long speeches, or in 30-second ads, is just lazy.
El Cid said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:42
It should probably be kept in mind that there will be different subjective viewpoints between now (MY candidate is / is not winning, YAY / I wil nevr vot agin) and the actual general election (OMFG after 8 years of Bush Jr we may get ‘nuther Republican / cannot survive).
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:43
Max Power said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:28
“I don’t think that Obama is really equipped to deal with Rethugs.”
The best way to deal with the Rethugs is to kick even more of them out of office in November of 2008 than in 2006.
For this task, I am convinced Obama is well equipped.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:45
This is more than being asked to vote for the lesser of two evils, this is being asked to nominate someone who isn’t even that proud to be a Democrat (he is post-partisan) and someone who really does believe in Democratic values, even if flawed and compromised.
I’d also like to direct you here:
http://hominidviews.com/?p=1504
And here:
http://hominidviews.com/?page_id=1160
Go ahead and stick your head in the sand if you want. All I can say is we’d all be a lot more likely to support Sen. Obama if we at least thought he represented our basic message, but for the life of me I can’t figure out what he stands for other than talking to our enemies more and ‘changing the tone.’ Remember, I was leaning towards Obama early on. Not a good sign, folks. The most I’d do is sit the election out, but not everyone detests conservatism like I do or knows the shift (or was it really a shift?) McCain has undertaken from his former status as a ‘maverick.’ And if you’re willing to hold your nose when you vote for the lesser of two evils, why not go ahead and vote for Hillary since she has the most progressive policies?
The only case you all have that Clinton has run as “Republican lite” is based on distortions from the media about Clinton ‘taking the low road.’ Her policies are certainly more, shall we say, pro-corporate than Edwards, but Obama isn’t even trying. He expects us to fall in line because we have no other viable choice and I’m just saying I know a lot of people are tired of being threatened. Won’t the Democrats in the Senate fight for Roe v. Wade? Won’t they stand for us on torture? It’s blackmail, pure and simple, and it won’t work this time.
Justin said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:48
I see, so she’s just power hungry, but Obama “really wants to make things better.” This is an odd mix of mind-reading, sexism and true-believerism.
El Cid said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:50
I actually had to fight against a lot of Clintonian / DLC Democrats who were actively fighting for a Republican agenda and against anything I supported.
Although Obama may not scream every day what an awesome party Democrat he is, he is (a) not the founder and leader of an organized group (i.e., DLC) which has declared its political goals to undermine liberals and labor; and (b) seems to me a great deal less likely to be a hardline fighter against pushes for liberal and progressive bills by the Congress, as HRC would be.
JGabriel said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:51
HAAM:
Believe it or not, that’s traditionally / historically been the definition of ‘liberal’. So I guess you’re the one who’s fucking clueless, HAAM.
(Sorry, all. I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but the idiocy was just too blatant to ignore.)
.
David Coverdale's Pinched Anus said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:52
Iris stood in the front of the mirror when she said all that and made little, self-righteous “fist-shaking” motions at certain key emphasis points.
RandomObserver said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:52
What bothers me in all this is the almost total reliance on right-wing talking points. In the end the person who benefits the most from the Republican message is the Republican candidate. Isn’t that obvious?
If Hillary wins the nomination she’s going to be portrayed as elitist, and half her supporters will be former Obama supporters, that damn “creative class.” (lol) The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.
Latte-liberal is right out of the GOP playbook, and that’s exactly how *either* Democratic candidate is going to be charicatured. Why give the right-wing ammo?
Obama and Clinton? Where were all these true progressive purity-trolls when Dodd and Kucinich were still in the race? Oh yeah, I forgot, Kucinich believes in UFOs and Dodd looks old. Silly me. We couldn’t support them but now we have to fight to the death over which identical twin can maybe save those of us with cars $30. Even if that fight tanks our chances in the general election.
Why is anyone still talking about this horse-race bullshit? Nobody has anything new to say. Yeah yeah, Obama supporters are all yuppie fags and Clinton supporters are old harpies. We got it the first thousand times.
What possesses anyone at this point to think “wow I’ve got some really novel thoughts about Obama and Clinton that I just have to share with everyone”?
Seriously? Can anyone answer that?
TR said,
May 8, 2008 at 13:53
In other words, Barack is not ‘entitled’ to the nomination because the party elites see him as ‘oh-so-hope-inspiring.’
Wonderful strawman you created there. His claim to the nomination comes from the fact that he’s won more votes and earned more delegates — you know, from the party non-elites.
Scott said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:02
Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.
I’m very, very tired of that.
Bob said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:05
Iris: You’re right. Let’s see to it McCain gets in. I mean, there is an upside. Before the insane right wing ideologues he appoints to the Supreme Court are able to do much damage he’ll have started WW III anyway, so what difference will the repeal of Roe v. Wade make?
That’ll show us who’s boss. A damn fine plan and one any liberal can be proud of.
Black NASCAR Star said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:05
The continued amazement of the Obama campaign, including Obama himself, that the stupid bitch won’t quit (TM) continues to become more insulting every day.
Erm … it is mathematically impossible for her to win now, even with FLA and MICH, unless she wins all the remaining states by 90 percent of the vote.
Are HRC supporters among those liberal academic elites who contend that math and science are nothing more than “the dominant belief systems of the economic patriarchy.”
Blue Jean said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:09
The last thing anyone should be doing is giving weight to the notion that Democrats are elitist. The last thing anyone should be doing is decrying the educated and creative as uncaring and untrustworthy.
Obama already did that when he said blue collar folks are “bitter” and “clinging to their guns.” I winced out loud when I heard that, because I knew the GOP would jump on it. If anything, Hillary saved us with the working class when she denonced that comment. Lesson One in Dem Politics; If you don’t want to be attacked with GOP talking points, then don’t give them ammunition.
I think that’s the least we can expect from a GOP nominee.
Though I agree mostly with Iris, I’ll vote for Obama for the sake of party unity. He’ll need it since he’s pretty much lost the blue collar folks already.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:11
If we felt this way, many of us wouldn’t be voting for Hillary, as many of your criticisms are well-taken. But that’s not it. You compromised too soon, and now you’re lowering your expectations every day and defending Obama’s completely non-universal health care reform plan. It’s about the issues, and these are issues of no small import. We’ve been through this before, asked to sit down and shut up and we have — but Barack doesn’t seem to think he needs the ‘old coalition’ anymore, because he’s changing the nature of politics. God, how fucking naive can we be? Oh wait, I can’t call Obama naive because that would be playing the race card!!!
Our Dem leadership is getting ready to pass telecom immunity for mass warrantless domestic surveillance, Schumer is already lowering expectations on health care, and Obama scoffs at the idea of taxing rich people. We should just sit down and shut up and vote for Obama because he makes a tingle go up Chris Matthews leg (and many progressives’, apparently)? Because if we don’t the Dems will let the Republicans take away our rights? If Obama does his work he could convince me, and I told the campaign that when they called. Who wants to bet, though, that he won’t? Because it would alienate the former Reaganites…
I sincerely hope that Hillary keeps fighting and pulls this one off by whatever technical means she can. Almost 50% of Democrats have voted for her, you’ll have a hard time convincing me that this is overriding the “will of the people” If this doesn’t happen, Obama either panders to the base or he loses. Simple as that. And he may lose even with our support. I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done. It will certainly be historic, though not in the way we had hoped.
Blue Jean said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:12
Also, I’m tired of hearing Clinton supporters tell me that if I support Obama, I’m a sexist pig, and if I criticize Clinton in any way, I’m a sexist pig, and if I say anything vaguely pro-Obama, I’m a sexist pig.
As tired as we are that if we say anthing pro-Hillary, or criticize Obama, then we’re KKKers who get a kick out of toasting marshmallows on burning crosses?
RandomObserver said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:14
Are these joke questions?
Neither candidate would ever filibuster telecom immunity. They both had their chance and declined. Senate Democrats won’t stand for us on torture, we know that for a fact, that’s been proven beyond all doubt. Neither Obama or Clinton voted on Mukasey by the way. We don’t have to speculate on these things, they are well-established by history.
Jim said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:17
If you really want to convince anyone about anything, stop scolding them - particularly about something they presumably put some thought into.
Bob said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:19
Blue jean: Thank you so much for noble willingness to vote for the centrist candidate who beat your centrist candidate in a nearly year long campaign. You’re a real trooper.
DA, really man, this is what I meant - Obama the elitist who was saved by Clinton, as were we all.
Still waiting for that calm, rational explanation.
Matt T. said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:20
I hope you all feel better about yourselves when it’s said and done.
Knew we’d be hearing this. “We could’ve won if it hadn’t been for you damn kids! We’re only doing this for your benefit, you know.”
Bah.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:22
The nastiness, in my view, started with one simple thing: the Obama campaign deliberately chose to play the race card against fellow Democrats in South Carolina. Unfairly but as part of a deliberate electoral strategy. Big mistake; we take that charge somewhat seriously, you know. So yeah, I — a proud liberal — am tired of hearing how racist I am because I point out that Obama really is kind of a newcomer to the scene, and that maybe he isn’t experienced to know what we’re up against.
Anne Laurie said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:23
Y’know, I think I may have commented here long enough that I won’t be instantly mistaken for a “Hilbot drive-by hitwoman”, and for the record I will state AGAIN that I’m voting for the Democratic candidate be that Obama, Hillary, or a left-handed wide receiver to be named later. But seriously, Obama’s claims to the presidency are no less and no more legitimate than Hillary’s, okay?
As Aristophanes so eloquently explains, both Barak and Clinton are party-hack “centrists” whose allegiance to the (D) column keeps them from sinking to the nadirs of xenophobic militarism that the (R) column stalwarts demand from their candidates. Barak has the advantage (I’m told) of being New! and Inspirational! and possessing a patent on Hope!!! Hillary has the advantage of having been on the national radar a lot longer. Neither of them have run Ghandian campaigns so far, and Clinton’s advisors have made far more and worse messes in public. And Obama’s been fortunate in his enemies, because frankly “This time, it’s different!” has trumped “At long last, it’s our turn!” So, one way and another, it looks like Obama’s going to be the Democratic nominee that I will be voting for six months from now.
Which doesn’t mean that I believe Obama’s going to be my friend, or even that I would want him to be. The minute he gets the nomination, if not sooner, he’s going to start disappointing us. By the time he sits down in the Oval Office, he’ll have “betrayed” some portion of his fiercest constituency. He’s a politician, and that’s what politicians do. I don’t know which supporters he’ll sell out first, but from what we know of his career I can safely predict that his deepest core principles involve maximizing the political career of one Barak H. Obama, so he’ll have pissed off a lot of his “base” by the time he gets around to crushing my dreams for a better America — I hope.
Although if Obama ‘Reaches Across the Aisle in the Spirit of Bipartisan Comity!!!’ and taps Willard Romney for his VP, I may have to reconsider.
Bob said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:25
iris @ 14:11
It’s really this simple: McCain or Obama.
Take your pick - barring death or major scandal one of those two will be taking the oath of office in Jan. 09.
If you’re ok with McCain - more power to you. Hope you don’t care about Roe v. Wade, peace in our lifetime, the end of torture, tax cuts for the rich, etc, etc, etc.
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:27
This is not good.
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
Although I haz college degree, I must go off to work. As a number of posters at Atrios said, they had to put on their white faces and go work hard.
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:29
It’s nothing personal, but I am at pains to point out that Hillary and her supporters put up with this daily. Everyone seems to have been calling for her to drop out of the race since the Iowa caucuses, and women are made to feel as if they have to apologize for voting for a woman because, you know, we just want to get past those icky gender politics. It seems to me that everyone is allowed to play gender politics EXCEPT Hillary and her supporters, but it’s just played from the opposite side. Go try and defend Hillary over at Daily Kos and see what it gets you…
Doodle Bean said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:31
Nice post, D.! Can we get back to teh snark now?
RandomObserver said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:32
How is supporting Obama a “compromise”? Maybe some people just like Obama better.
Ask a few hundred thousand dead Iraqis and another 4 million refugees about their health care. On my blog I have a picture of a kid with his leg blown off above the calf. Who’s paying for his health care? “Universal”? No.
Hillary has never fought against telecom immunity, and was the LAST one to weigh in on it. She only made a statement on it after being repeatedly pressed and after Obama had already done so. (Who himself only weighed in on it after being pressed repeatedly)
You appear to be living in some sort of fanatasy-land where Hillary is leading on issues like telecom immunity. In reality she’s bringing up the rear. She has shown zero leadership on that issue, zero leadership on torture.
That’s what makes me scratch my head about all this. Look at the records of Obama and Clinton. We aren’t talking about Dodd here. Clinton and Obama are not civil liberties crusaders, they aren’t fighting tooth and nail against torture or telecom immunity, they aren’t fighting to close gitmo or to restore Habeas or to stop extraordinary rendition. Neither of them is doing jack shit on any of these issues.
You need a serious reality check. If we’re counting on the leadership of Clinton or Obama on these issues we’re fucked.
I don’t care if you support Clinton, but can you find some reasons that make sense? Telecom immunity? The fuck?
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:33
How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?
Quick pointer: Just because Rove tries to smear your candidate with something, does not mean it is 100% false. The key is turning your weaknesses into strengths, not ignoring that the weakness exist and painting your opponent as racist for pointing them out. Jeez.
javafascist said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:34
Happily. But she will not be an option (unless you happen to be in one of the remaining 6.) To all her supporters, I’m truly sorry your candidate didn’t win. That sucks. I know because I’ve spent my adult voting life supporting the person that loses: in both primaries and general. Perhaps this will help ease the pain as you pull the lever for Obama in Nov. By voting for Obama you will be making the following people cry: Doughy Pantload, Red State, Freepers en masse, the architects of the Southern Strategy, Pam Oshrey (probably be more of a shriek), Michelle Malkin, the krazy k-lo korner kids, etc…
Arky H8r of VürdPress said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:34
Kinky Friedman said it best:
Fuck ‘em and make ‘em eat Fruit Loops.
His Grace said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:35
Yeesh. Clinton supporters. I don’t get you. Yes your candidate is smart, successful and would do well in the general election. But Barack Obama is not the antichrist anymore than Clinton is. I think that in certain areas (e.g. foreign policy for Obama and Health Care for Clinton) one candidate would be better in the White House than the other. Overall? Not really. Either will have (if we are fortunate not to have a 3rd term of Bush) a huge freakin’ mess on their hands that will require all of their energy to even begin to repair.
I keep hearing about the whole ‘electability’ argument. Which is stupid, because it can be argued that BOTH candidates are unelectable. Also, when the Clinton supporters complain that Barack Obama can’t win working class whites, hispanics or older women, (and that’s the key to November) they neglect to mention that Clinton has difficulty winning Obama’s coalition. You know, the youth vote, African Americans or people with higher educatoin… people we EQUALLY need to win in November.
Also: Yes Obama’s more rabid supporters wanted Hillary out of the race in February. Why? Because she lost 11 contests in a row and at that point it became mathematically dubious for her to win the nomination through a pledged delegate total. So her campaign started arguing that certain states didn’t count, that Michigan and Florida should be counted as is, (even though they broke the rules, Obama didn’t campaign in either and wasn’t on the ballot in Michigan) and that the supers should decide based on ‘electability.’ Just a question Hillary supporters: but if your candidate had had a narrow but clear pledged delegate lead in February and Obama’s camp started suggesting such things, wouldn’t you feel that he was attempted to win by crook what he couldn’t win at the ballot box?
I apologize for ranting, just I don’t get it. Neither candidate is a saint. Both can, based on polls, win the darn thing. Each does better with their respective constituencies, each brings something to the table. Yes, both could lose it, and both have weak spots. Anyone who thinks the fight for November is going to be easy is out and out crazy. The Republicans know how screwed they are, hence they are at their most dangerous.
The idea that either nominee is so terrible and so awful and so out of touch with (insert core democratic constituency here) that you would want to enable (through either inaction or action) a third term of Bush is flat out insane.
/rant
LauraJMixon said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:35
I may be coming to this discussion too late, and feelings may be running too strong for me to have any impact, but I’m going to try. I’m a Clinton supporter who thinks Obama has plenty to offer as a candidate, as well. Though I think issues matter more, I get a thrill when I ponder how historic this race truly is. The idea of a presidency that might make a true dent in the racial divide in this country, and heal some of the wounds of our past, is huge.
What has gotten up my nose is the overt and appalling misogyny in this primary, which leaves me and many other women feeling pretty much thrown under the bus. Violet at Reclusive Leftist captures it here.
I don’t agree with Violet about not voting for Obama. I think we all do need to come together, ultimately. And the misogyny doesn’t excuse the racism that has come from the Clinton side of the infosphere. I’ve been appalled and embarrassed by some of the things Clinton supporters have said and done.
I must defer to my friends of color with regard to the level of racism they have experienced as directed at Obama — I’ve certainly seen evidence of things that have made me angry on his behalf. I don’t think it benefits any of us to try to weigh whether Clinton has experienced more sexism than Obama has racism.
But the overt, blatant misogyny directed against her during this campaign has made me just sick to my stomach. In that context, getting a patronizing lecture about how all us Clinton supporters need to fall into line doesn’t sit very well.
Furthermore, it bothers me when Obama supporters assume that because I support Clinton, I must be racist. I spent a lot of time thinking over my choice, before I settled on Clinton. I have good reasons for it, which you may disagree with, and I’m willing to discuss them, but don’t expect to change my mind by insulting me for my choice.
Michael Dietz said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:39
The last time I gave a rat’s ass about who was going to wind up the Democratic nominee was whenever it was last possible to think of John Edwards as a genuine contender. Since then, from my perspective, it’s been all show. If I’ve had any sort of preference between the two crypto-rightist Establishmentarians currently on offer, it’s for Obama, merely on the grounds that he’s the more talented politician: Hillary has never, ever looked comfortable on the stump, and my guess is that natural (like, ironically, Bill) plays better in the general than sweaty.
So from this relatively impartial position, I have to say that I’ve been really surprised and dismayed to see bloggers (Lambert, Susie Madrak) who I’ve considered reliably, even eloquently, leftist go off the deep end in these last couple of months. I don’t understand it either–I also don’t see it to the same degree on the Obama side (though I also never touch the orange Satan’s site). When somebody like Lambert does this cute “creative class (cough)” bullshit–which can only be a sniggering way of suggesting that Obama supporters are all big big ‘mos–we’re in the Twilight Zone of political discourse. I no longer read either Corrente or Suburban Guerilla, after having read them for years. It’s not because Hillary love offends me (OK, it does, a little, but so does Obama love): it’s because their politics seem so driven by their class (or other) resentments, whatever they are, that it’s embarrassing to watch. They’ve abandoned intellectual honesty and squandered their credibility because of some visceral dislike of (some caricature of) Obama support, and they won’t get it back.
Justin said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:40
No, I’m just choosing the lesser of two evils, as some here have advised. What I’m saying is that Hillary is eminently more sensible of the threat to our republic, to the general welfare itself, that the conservative movement poses. So Hillary has compromised her principles in favor of political survival? Duly noted and acknowledged. But so has Obama - and I refuse to stand idly by and watch anyone paint him as some sort of progressive savior when he’s not whatsoever. He threw his own pastor under the bus after a supposedly ‘offensive’ speech and a press conference - how long will it take him to throw the rest of us under the bus? At the end of the day, all issues considered, I suppose I just have a little more faith in Hillary to not give up so easily.
RandomObserver said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:40
Nobody has to apologize for voting for Clinton. What gets my goat is threatening to not vote at all if Clinton doesn’t win. That’s just silly. Not voting makes it easier for McCain to win, and from a logical perspective it makes no sense, period.
It’s just a dressed-up version of taking your ball and going home.
I’m not a huge fan of either candidate, but I’ll vote for whichever one wins, because quite frankly to do otherwise would be fucking stupid.
JGabriel said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:41
Anne Laurie:
Which, to be fair, is probably a quality we want in the presidential candidate - at least during the general election.
At least, in that situation, one would think ‘winning’ is roughly equivalent to ‘maximizing the political career’.
.
atheist said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:41
Iris, all SadlyNauts,
We have to get beyond our ‘feelings’.
Some of us are supporting Clinton, others are supporting Obama. For full disclosure, I am one of those who support Obama. I know that there are very intelligent people who support Clinton for what are doubtless very good reasons. Obama appears to be winning at this point, though that could change.
The important thing, to me, is that we should not attack each other. The ‘Ramengate’ thing seemed to me to be very insulting to Obama supporters, calling us ‘the “Creative Class”‘ and ‘elites’ and other complete nonsense, and that is why it angered us. I don’t doubt but that Obama supporters have insulted Clinton supporters at some time, and if so I am sorry.
We, (Clintonite or Obama-ite bloggers) need to be the intelligent part of our groups and try to keep the attacks to a modicum. We don’t need a schism in the Democratic party now.
El Cid said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:45
You completely have to read economist Bryan Caplan in the NYT on why he supports the gas tax “holiday”.
Yes, it still makes bad economic sense.
But he supports it because he fears if something throwaway and symbolic like this isn’t done, the public may demand some actual solution and that would be worse.
You think I am joking
I am not.
Yeah.
Tell me again why I hate me, the working class, because I don’t support d*ckhead policies designed to help the poor, poor oil companies avoid burdensome populist reforms and allow the poor, poor dears to make up all that money that they lost when they went broke in the 1970s which I somehow never heard of?
Tell me again which approach is patronizing and arrogant.
Yeah.
His Grace said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:46
Ummm, Iris… if your candidate receives less than 50% of the vote, then how does that reflect the will of the people if another candidate gets larger than 50% of the vote? Wouldn’t Hillary winning through the super-delegates and/or seating Michigan and Florida as is without sanctions be something (if not exactly) akin to having the Supreme Court pick the winner?
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:48
Iris said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:33
How is Clinton pointing out her strengths among working class whites (but not exclusively whites) any different than if Obama or his supporters pointed out his strengths among African Americans and the “creative class”?
Let’s think about that one a while.
Not exclusively whites?: Those are exactly who was referenced.
“any different than if”: If is different from did.
Finally, Iris, saying “all the Archie Bunkers out there won’t vote for the n!gger so support me “* is something I never want to hear from a Democratic candidate.
*My paraphrase, and I think it’s accurate.
RandomObserver said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:52
I’ve honestly never heard anyone say this. Maybe I don’t hang out in the right places…I like to think that when people support a candidate it’s not because they are racist or sexist or “compromised too early” but that they simply like that candidate better.
I liked Dodd. I guess that makes me both racist and sexist. (But not ageist!)
As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced - yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.
Suicidal Zebra said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:54
Damn, and here I thought British Politics were divisive.
atheist said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:55
As far as the misogyny Clinton has faced - yeah. She’s faced a lot, and it’s kind of dumb how certain progressives haven’t seen that more clearly.
Some people liked this Saturday Night Live sketch where some black dude was calling Clinton a bitch, or something like that. I thought it was fuckin’ stupid.
Also didn’t like those “Vote Obama! Bro’s Before Ho’s” t-shirts.
JGabriel said,
May 8, 2008 at 14:57
I voted for Clinton in the primary, and will gladly pull the lever for Obama in the general - assuming he’s the candidate, which seems likely at this point.
Frankly, I’m perplexed by the hate/nastiness from both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide. Neither is a perfect vessel for our hopes, but the important point is that