I think it’s clear from my comments on the matter that I am not a big fan of Hillary Clinton. Although I was a big Bill Clinton supporter, I prefer Obama. I think she is arrogant and power hungry. I think my problem with her is that I believe she feels entitled to the presidency. A lot has been made on this blog and elsewhere about Hillary’s implied endorsement of John McCain as a person more qualified to answer that phone at 3am than Barack Obama. Hillary was wrong to do that – and I agree that her ad to that effect pretty much said that John McCain is a better choice than Obama.
Having said that, I also think that some of the vitriol directed at Hillary serves the same purpose. I won’t call it CDS, as some have pointed out, but it’s been pretty painful to watch the venom being directed at Clinton. If I was an outside observer, I would look at these posts, both here and elsewhere, and say to myself, “If she gets the nomination, then these people clearly wouldn’t support Clinton.”
Personally, I’m not a Clinton fan, as I’ve stated. But I think it’s time to tone down the rhetoric. You may not support her, but she would be a far better choice than the Republican nomination. In a climate where we’re almost always forced to take the lesser of two evils, I have no problem saying that. No question that Clinton brings a lot of this on herself, but the fact remains, I want a Democrat to win the presidency in November. I already know Clinton is ambitious. I already believe she feels entitled to the presidency. Even so, I’ll set that aside and support her in November if she is the nominee because she is far better than John McCain. I’m not scared of a Clinton presidency. I may be a little nervous about it. But I am scared of a McCain presidency.
Sure, sometimes I wish she’d shut up. If she’s not going to do that, then I will to a certain extent. It’s less important to me to criticize Clinton than it is for her or Obama to win in November. That’s hard for me to say because I love skewering politicians. And no, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t criticize her positions. It’s one thing to say Obama’s health plan is better (or not.) It’s quite another to call her a monster. Again, I would rather her win in November than any clown the Right could put forward. She is far better.
Update: And, by the way, even if she wins because she has more super-delegates, I will swallow that and happily wear a Clinton 2008 button!
cleek
i’d rather swallow the button.
oh noes! i’m directing venomz @ Hlry! calls teh interweb polices!
Michael D.
Maybe so. Would you rather say “President McCain,” however?
John Cole
I am pretty much in the same boat. Over the past eight years, over and over and over again I have stated, when the Republicans were ceding more and more power to the executive, “DO YOU WANT PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON WITH THOSE POWERS?”
I don’t, but Hillary is lucky that the only person I want to have those powers less right now is McCain. So I will enthusiastically support Obama, and should he not win (I don’t see how that happens, unless he was client #7, #8, and #10 in the Spitzer indictment), I will dutifully support Hillary.
The real upside of things is that no matter who the President is, as long as it is a Democrat you can guarantee the Republican minority will embrace oversight.
The Populist
I am not afraid of a Clinton Presidency even though it would be a bad direction for this country in the short and long run.
McCain scares me because he has become such a puppet of Bush style policies.
Obama intrigues me because he seems open minded and may allow us to start heading in the right direction. Sure, all these folks will have a big mess to clean up, but I see Obama as a true chance for a new direction.
Gus
Right on. I’ve said many times that I prefer the MUP, and I hate the way Clinton is running her campaign, but I will vote for her if I have to. A McCain presidency is a potential disaster.
zmulls
Man, this is spot on, and thank you. I’m increasingly leaning to the ‘O’ rather than the ‘C’ but will vote ‘D’ in November.
Most of my problems with Clinton have been with the way the campaign has been waged and how it reflects on her (what she’s willing to condone, sanction or order). I do not do not do not want Mark Penn in the Karl Rove seat in the Oval Office.
But she brings many strong qualities, not the least of which is her seeming ability to master the details of every policy question under the sun and speak intelligently about it. Whenever I stop to try to evaluate how I feel about her as a candidate and potential President, I have to spend a long time stripping away all the crap that’s constantly flung at her, most of which is unearned and not her fault — and then to try to factor that out of the equation. It’s no mean feat — I have to at least give her credit for standing firm and keeping her head high with what she’s had to take.
But that’s not a reason to vote for her (or against her).
I maintain that we have two quite strong candidates, each with different risk/reward equations, and with different strengths and weaknesses.
The deciding factor for me (in PA) may be how I perceive the candidate will affect the downticket races (and I suspect Obama will do better at that).
But if it’s Clinton vs. McCain (Iraq for 100 years, tell the Saudis to stop the bullsh*t, more Alitos on the Supreme Court, bomb Iran, how do I run this economy, lower taxes *again*, etc.), it’s an easy choice.
Michael D.
I do too. And that is why I support him, although I don’t believe any politician is going to have a profound effect obe way or t’other.
Still, while Obama might embrace a new direction, Hillary would at least be a detour.
Rarely Posts
Thank you for writing this. I agree, the rhetoric is beyond belief. I was just reading Andrew Sullivan who links approvingly to a New York Time’s opinion piece that makes the case that Hillary’s 3 AM ad is racist (something about mythological black men lurking in the bushes). Frankly, this kind of garbage disgusts me.
The Populist
Agreed Michael. Unless Congress becomes 75% Dem, Obama will still have a lot of convincing to do which could effect his ability to say he’s the “change” guy.
As long as he tries and is doing what’s best for EVERYBODY, I am sold.
Hillary lost me when she promoted McCain’s “experience” over Obama (may I remind many here that Obama was a state legislator…that’s much more meaningful experience than being the first lady).
I will vote for Hillary even though I’d much rather punch the Nader spot. I did that in 2000 and regret it, yet I wish Gore would have run a better campaign against Chimpy.
Mr Furious
I’ll grudgingly wear a Clinton 2008 clothespin.
cmorenc
I wouldn’t want the Republican nomination for dogcatcher, and I don’t have a case of the hots for a night with Hillary, so that’s not much of a choice there.
But if my third option is having winged monkeys flying out my butt the next four years, the first two start sounding better all the time.
zzyzx
I won’t wear a button or put a bumpersticker on my car, but I will vote for her. If you keep insulting people, they’re not going to support you.
Pb
I’ll be voting for Obama, thanks. Has Hillary passed the threshold where she can honorably win the Democratic nomination? Well, after she does, if she’s still “in it to win it”, I won’t be voting for her. Ever. As I said here a month ago. And no, before you ask, my non-vote won’t swing the election to McCain, thanks. Although I really appreciate all the concern.
Incidentally, has anyone pondered what the likely outcomes are here, given four years of an Obama, a Clinton, or a McCain administration, and presumably at least another two yers of a Democratic congress? I think the next four years are going to be very tough on any President, and thus, that the next President is likely to be a one-term President, with control probably shifting to the other party in 2012. I hope Obama can prove me wrong though, because of the three of them, if anyone has a shot at it, he does.
Michael D.
I’d rather punch YOU than the Nader spot.
Zifnab
Says the man who doesn’t actually have to vote for her. It’s a little easier when you don’t actually have to pull the lever. Just focus on the little (D) next to her name and try to blot out the rest. If John Cole can vote for Robert Byrd, I figure I have it in me to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Jake
Just wait until the GOP ShitFlinger 3000 gets to work. Clintonistas and Obamaniacs alike will forget their differences once the first wave of Rovetastic commercials hit the ‘tubes.
OT: I’m pretty sure Michael D. was a Republican. What, exactly, is in the Ballon Juice anyways? Would it work in aerosol form?
Thepanzer
Hillary would be a better choice for domestic policy than Mccain.
Foreign policy is a whole other matter. Yes, Hillary wouldn’t be as likely to follow in the apeshit legacy of Bush/Mccain but her views are very damn hawkish. Given that Bushco has wrecked our economy to the point that foreign policy decisions can easily influence economic recovery or full ZOMG! depression I’d be real cautious of viewing the big H as a substantial improvement over Mcold. She would just use the velvet glove over the iron fist. Her votes on Iraq and Iran are telling and unless someone can point a coming to jesus moment she’s still in the neocon light camp. A little bit of teh crazy is still too much teh crazy after 8 years of Bushco.
How bout we just elect Obama instead? MUP FTW?
Michael D.
I am disappointed that I can’t support the Democratic nominee with my vote in November, and I don’t know how your comment makes my point any less relevant.
Neal
Should Hillary somehow steal this fucker I will campaign for Write-In 2008.
I refuse.
libarbarian
I dont know. I am so fucking sick of Clinton now because I do NOT believe that she will truely support Obama in the general if he wins. I think she will publicly pretend to but work behind the scenes to undercut him. I seriously think she does intend to sabotage Obama if he wins so that, if he loses the general, she can say “see you should have chosen me” and run again in 2012.
Its like the Republicans proving they are right regarding government inefficiency by .. intentionally making government inefficient. She will prove she is right about Obama being unable to beat McCain by intentionally trying to hurt his chances of beating McCain.
I also think its somewhat crazy to think that Hillary will actually break with Bushs policies all that much more than McCain. She will not get universal health care because she has NO intention of crafting a bill that will pass through the opposition. She will intentionally create a bil unacceptable to Republicans knowing that they will filibuster or otherwise block it in comittee and allow her and the party to use it as a campaign issue in 2010. That is how she works. Her first priority is herself. Her second priority is helping her personal allies. Her third priority is her party. Her last priority is actually helping citizens by passing attainable legislation.
NickM
I think it’s extremely bad precedent to have 24+ years with the White House controlled by two families. And I think Hillary is a fear-mongering crypto-Republican who approaches being a monster. That said, I’ll swallow hard and vote for her in November if she’s the Democratic candidate. But I won’t like it and one of these days I’d like to vote for a Presidential candidate I actually like.
4tehlulz
One minute in Google
zzyzx
The main problem Clinton has is that her only path to the nomination involves floor fights and the convention isn’t until late August. There’s not enough time for everyone to forgive and forget.
She does have one shot. If she wins out from here on in (well strike one is tonight but never mind), I could see people flocking to her. However, if the vote becomes split with Clinton winning PA, WV, and KY and Obama winning NC, IN, OR, MT, and SD, I don’t see the path for Clinton
Wilfred
I’m with Neal. I don’t see what purpose it serves to tell Clinton whatever you do, I’ll still vote for you. That’s lemming politics.
The correct thing to do was to tell her at the outset that you wouldn’t stand for anything underhanded or devious. Instead, you do just the opposite. Not one comment here about her Ferraro’s comments about Obama being in the running only because he’s black!? That’s from one of her top advisers for fuck’s sake. People should vote for McCain just for that comment alone.
Saying you’ll vote for her no matter what just enables the worst kind of conduct and shit politics that you all say you don’t like.
Zifnab
I’m only saying that “I had to hold my nose and vote for her” isn’t quite the same as “I had to hold my nose and say I’d vote for her if I was an American.” We totally support your flag waving, but it just sounds kinda silly to bemoan the burden of wearing a sticker of your second-pick candidate when you don’t get to pick the candidate anyway.
I might as well bemoan John McCain winning the nomination over Mike Huckabee, as I have just about as much say in the matter.
Billy K
Hillary needs to stop sliming my MUP. Then we talk detente. Not before.
ntr Fausto Carmona
See, here’s the thing: In effect you’re arguing that Hillary can trample the Democratic nomination process and piss off half the party, but as long as she has a D behind her name you will still vote for her. I can’t agree with this, even if McCain is a hundred times worse. You’ve set the standard now that anyone can wrangle a Democratic nom by any means neccessary and not have to worry about any consequences simply because they’re a Dem. That way lies madness and George W. Bush.
As the saying goes: My party right or wrong: Support it when right, fix it when wrong. Voting for Hillary should she screw the party – or even voting for Obama should he do the same – won’t fix anything. I can’t go along with that.
cleek
i don’t think anyone needs to worry about what Mrs 1/50 has to say about elections.
ThymeZone
So let me see if I have this right:
We should “tone down” the criticism of the candidate who is out to tear down her opponent, the leading contender for the nomination, because OUR criticism (we, the people, not we the BJ commenters) of her would injure her as a general election candidate?
Um, do you read your posts before you make them? If this isn’t the most nonsensical proposal I have seen from a front pager here in three years, I don’t know what is.
She DESERVES the criticism. And more. And if she can’t take it as well as dish it out, I am starting to wonder if we wouldn’t be better off with the corpse of McCain in the White House for four years than putting up with that harpie.
Give me a break. We should back off, let her try to destroy the best candidate we’ve seen in the party for 48 years, so that she can grab her nomination unbruised.
One word: No.
Request denied. Next item of business, please.
zsa
MUP FTW!
I’ll vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination legitimately.
I have no idea what to do if Clinton manages to steal the nomination.
And I will not wear the wetsuits for anyone but Obama.
Michael D.
I don’t think anyone here would vote for her no matter what. BUT, if she is the nominee, and if she is running against McCain, then she is far better by any measure, no matter HOW she ran her campaign.
That’s just my opinion, of course. It’s not being a lemming, it’s being realistic.
Oh, and off topic, lemmings are so misunderstood. They do not follow each other off cliffs.
4tehlulz
No, I think “Bomb, bomb, bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” from the man himself makes it imperative that he lose the election.
Zifnab
You’re not voting for Clinton at this point. You’re voting for the letter (D) next to the President’s name. And under Gingrich rules, that’s a necessary step. When the alternative is a man who openly admits he’ll just veto spending bills for shits and giggles (because ZOMG! earmarks!) and basically grind the country to a halt if he doesn’t get his way, I’ll take Hillary over McPain just so we don’t have to go through another 4 years of bullshit. Maybe we can oust her in the 2012 primary or something. I don’t know. Politics is crazy right now, it could happen. But for the time being…
Tim in SF
Why go through the effort of trying to psychoanalyze her? Who cares what she thinks? You’ll never know for sure anyways.
I don’t care what she or Bill or Obamma or any politician thinks or feels. I care only what they do, and to a much lesser extent, what they say.
Shochu John
If Hillary wins this thing with either pledged delegates OR ends up with a popular vote lead in DNC sanctioned contests, I will grumble and support her.
If, however, Hillary loses both pleged delegates and popular votes and somehow manages to steal this thing with supers, which seems unlikely, I will be in Denver protesting the stolen election, along with a dozen people I know and, no doubt, thousands of other angry Obama supporters. Suffice it to say Hillary will not get my vote. Will it tear the party apart? Surely. Will we have to put up with four years of McCain? Probably. But the Democratic Party CANNOT think it can get away with this sort of crap. Yes, it’s their party and they can nominate whoever they want, but if that’s their attitude, they can also try to win the general election without the rank and file supporters.
I’ll take McCain for four years if it becomes clear that the Democrats need to be brought back down to earth. if the party is so broken as to have become the sole posession of the Clinton dynasty, it is hardly to be considered an effective opposition party at all. Better to clean it up and try again then let it rule in a corrupted state.
Michael D.
As painful as it is for me to say, yes. That’s what I am saying.
The alternative is John McCain.
ThymeZone
Goddamn you Walt Disney!
Again the Canadians blow the whistle on American mendacity!
Stop the pain!
bob
I am sick to death of the Clinton hate. For a lefty, there are many reasons to dislike Bill Clinton: NAFTA, GATT, WTO, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, refusal to recognize medical marijuana. EVERYTHING else thrown at him WAS A FUCKING LIE.
4tehlulz
Why does Canada hate Ameri….
Never mind.
Michael D.
Glad I am good for something!
Zifnab
See, that’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats. I am totally cool with you doing that, so long as I am allowed to nag you about it afterwards. But you can still stay in my party and I won’t make you sign any loyalty oaths to promise to vote for Clinton next cycle.
dougie smooth
I agree with ThymeZone. Clinton is fully responsible for the backlash she is receiving. To the extent it hurts the chances of putting her in the White House, well, that’s really her own fault isn’t it? The solution is not for us to stop taking issue with her tactics, but for her to stop using them.
dslak
The talk about Hillary potentially undermining Obama if he wins is just bullshit at this point, and ought to be recognized as such. So Hillary’s made some counter-productive mistakes during this campaign. That doesn’t mean she’ll sabotage her own party.
Even if she were to try, don’t you think word would get out among the muckety-mucks who were leaning towards Obama, and the Clintons would suffer for it? Think, McFly, think!
Tim in SF
Again with the anti-dynastic argument – one of the dumbest this cycle. Would you really turn your nose up at another Clinton economic recovery just because of the NAME of it? The last one was the biggest, best economic boom in our nation’s history, and you would say no to it because it has the Clinton name attached and you are tired of Clintons and Bushes?
I’m an Obama supporter and proudly so. I don’t like Hillary but this particular anti-Hill argument just keeps coming up like a weed. It’s a stupid argument. There are so many reasons not to support Hillary. Not voting for her because of her last name is moronic.
Elvis Elvisberg
I think she is arrogant and power hungry. I think my problem with her is that I believe she feels entitled to the presidency.
Well, granting all that for argument’s sake, who the hell cares?
We vote for politicians because they vote for and implement policies, not because of how we fantasize they would act if we met them at a bar.
And there’s no such thing as a power-averse presidential candidate.
I’m an Obama supporter, and I’m pretty irritated with lots of stuff Clinton has done during this campaign, but let’s be serious.
Wilfred
What about when Mrs 1/50 is one of Clinton’s big fund raisers? Combine her comments with Rendell’s and you get a picture of a campaign strategy for rural Pennsylvania, playing to the crowd that thinks affirmative action is liberal plague on honest, hard working white people. But McCain is worse, so it’s ok.
Incidentally, if anyone thinks that Clinton will be less of a war monger than McCain, go and read her Aipac comments – they are as belligerent as his. She’s a long time panderer to the Israel First crowd who will think nothing of spreading the earth with more dead brown people to show how tough she is. Who will complain?
cleek
right. Hillary =/= Bill. one “Clinton” is not the same as another.
so why’d you say this:
?
electing another Clinton doesn’t mean we’ll get another “Clinton” economy.
zsa
As far as Republicans go, McCain is not as shithouse, bugfuck crazy as most. A bonus feature is that he’ll be 76 in 2012. That’s pretty fucking old … he’s most likely a 1 term President if elected.
Plus, the country and the economy are heading into the fucking toilet. It’ll be interesting to see them actually try and pull things out. It’s ridiculous to see Republicans continually screw things up and then Democrats have to come in and make the country work again. They shit the bed … they should have to clean it.
So I’d take McCain for 4 years in place of Clinton for 8 years. I probably wouldn’t vote for the guy, but I won’t vote for HRC if she steals the nomination.
Jake
See? That soldier who threw the puppy off the cliff was just imitating his favorite Dizney movie.
ThymeZone
uh, no. The alternative is to let the process work.
She is the one who has abused it AFAIC.
What’s more, I think she will win the general no matter what happens before and during Denver. McCain is a disaster candidate, running for a party that is despised and broken, in a shitty economy that has BUSH written on it, against a war that nobody supports any more.
We don’t have to fear McPain. Are you telling me that we have to fear-monger a bye for Clinton and her bullshit so that she can out-fear-monger that Republican sonofabitch later?
What are you smoking?
Billy K
You seem pretty convinced The Clintons waved a magic wand and created economic prosperity.
ThymeZone
Not sure I agree. This America, where we are supposed to reject kings and queens … and dynasties.
If we can’t come up with somebody decent to be president, out of 300 million people, who isn’t married to a former president and pisses off half the population, we ought to be ashamed of ourselves, that is fucking pathetic.
p.lukasiak
Fixed for those of up who have been uninfluenced by 16 years of Hillary-hate in the media.
dslak
Does it count as fixing if you’ve rendered it unintelligible?
Thepanzer
Why are we spending so much time discussing Hillary winning anyway? Unless I went Rip Vanwinkle, Obama is still ahead in states, delegates, and known super-delegates. Seems like there’s a lot of un-needed vitriol on this issue given that Obama will likely be adding another state to the win pile tonight. Does the math for PA, even if she won it in total, put her ahead of Barack’s present and likely future wins?
MUP FTW!
w vincentz
I’ll vote for the candidate that initiates the war crimes tribunal on all the unpardoned from the present administration. Let’s follow the Nurhemburg precedents and regain credibility with the other countries that share the planet.
Shochu John
Tim in SF,
Disagree. The anti-dynastic argument is not based around a name. If there were a good candidate named Clinton or Bush that was not related to any of the previous Clintons or Bushes, nobody would hold the mere name against them. The problems with dynastic rule are:
1. It breeds corruption. Loyalty is to the dynasty, not the party, and certainly not to the country.
2. It breeds incompetence. Case in point, W. Woe is to the nation when the dynasties cannot find capable heirs.
3. It is self-perpetuating. Once those in power get it into their heads that this stuff works, they begin supporting dynastic candidates because they can win, unrealted to the actual capabilities of the candidate.
4. It’s anti-democratic. If the single greatest determining factor of who gets to rule becomes whether the individual was born into one of the two royal families, it starts to kind fo look like a monarchy doesn’t it? Or at least an oligarchy. I don’t think it is irrational to find this deeply disturbing on principle.
demimondian
I kind of fall into the middle. Not voting for her solely because of her last name is, indeed, moronic. Considering her last name, and remembering that we do reject monarchies and dynasties here, is rational.
tballou
Thank you for saying this. Hillary or Barack are a far cry better than McCain, and Hillary AND Barack would be even better! I really dont care which one is pres and vice pres, but from a logistical standpoint I think Barack would be a better choice.
It really bothers me that so many have pretty much nominated Barack for sainthood. Let us all remember he is a product of Chicago politics! Let us take off the rose colored glasses and get back to reality, warts and all.
Billy K
That’s “Hillary Fixed.”
cleek
examples please?
let us all quote Clinton talking points!
Billy K
because the final nails are being pounded in the coffin, and we don’t want Hillary supporters to cry too much. In other words, it’s pandering. Everyone knows The MUP has it in the bag, barring a meltdown.
ThymeZone
True, demi moore, but rational is not your best look.
4tehlulz
Fixed. lrn2tag
sean
why is it a bad thing that Obama is “a product of Chicago politics!”?? i want to win, dammit, and if it takes a Chicago pol to do it, i dont care.
dslak
Are Chicago politics really any more corrupt than politics in places like, oh, say Arkansas or New York?
The Populist
I’d rather punch YOU than the Nader spot.
Cool, I’ll vote for him now.
Dayv
I’m already settling by voting for Obama (or any Democratic nominee who isn’t Kucinich or possibly Gravel). Voting for Clinton would just be too much settling for me to stomach.
Former Democratic operative and current MSNBC political analyst Lawrence O’Donnell once said:
dslak
In elections where there’s not nearly so much at stake, I would agree with taking O’Donnell’s advice. For example, I don’t bear any ill will toward the 2000 Naderites.
If O’Donnell is correct, we should have seen the Democrats tilt leftward after 2000, since Nader supposedly cost them the presidency. We haven’t really seen that happen, or maybe it was just delayed until the 2006 congressional races. Here’s to hoping.
As for myself, I’ll vote for Hillary, should she win the nomination, but I won’t promise to enjoy it.
Chris Johnson
Clintonistas are freaking me out in this thread. “I’d rather punch you than the Nader spot”? “Another Clinton economic miracle?” This is worrying bad craziness.
You’re talking about ‘well at least the Republicans will embrace oversight’ while more or less hoping to render them impotent. What difference would that make?
With MUPpresidente, we probably would also get oversight from vengeful Clintonistas. To a point, that is actually desirable- about time Congress strapped on a pair, no problem if they have to actually oversee a Democrat in order to dare to do so.
My big concern that you are doing NOTHING to address is that if for some reason Hillary is given the nomination and beats McCain, she will continue or escalate the madness and there will continue to be NO OVERSIGHT. None. Absolutely no attempt to change course at all.
You’re mad if you think Hillary can attempt an economic miracle without wading in a sea of blood. It’s unacceptable. We have got to just get tough and accept that our time of being the holy roman empire is over, just as Great Britain is no longer an empire of sand and sea, just as Italy itself is no longer an empire. You don’t get to overrule history just because Bill Clinton’s wife wants to look good in red-state-land.
Dammit, get a grip.
And Michael, if you like Clinton, shut up. You can’t even vote and have no business threatening to punch anybody for not voting for her, even in fun. Do you not realise that we Americans are prone to say shit like that in all seriousness? Are you that much like us or were you making a funny?
Dayv
A candidate has to have more than the correct party affiliation to win my vote. They have to convince me. Hillary Clinton has not. Obama just barely has. I’m not sure if I’d vote for Nader (his 2004 campaign was an embarassment to all involved, and I expect little better this year), but I *will* vote, and if my “choice” is between Clinton and McCain, I will vote for someone who hasn’t a shot in hell of winning.
dslak
Thinking long-term, one advantage of a Clinton vs. Republicans fight is that both would be willing to defend their respective branches. Reasonable people can doubt whether Obama would effectively defend the power of his office from people who will be dedicated to tearing him down.
On the other hand, if you’d like to see a seriously neutered executive, the likes of which haven’t been seen since at least 1975, then that won’t bother you, as it doesn’t me.
tBone
Fixed.
dslak
Dont bully me, p.lukasiak!
Chris Johnson
HELL YES. How can people not get this? I see on second look that you get it- it doesn’t bother you. Good for you, you’ve been paying attention.
The executive branch does not get to defy Congress and the courts. I do NOT WANT Obama to ‘defend the power of his office’, I want him to use it as bargaining chips and trade it off for reforms he in turn wants to see.
PK
I will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. I don’t hate her and up until a month ago would have voted for her. But she has proved herself to be incompetent and power hungry! She has lost this nomination by any fair standard. She just does not want to accept it and the more talk I hear about her trying to get Obama’s pledged delegates the more convinced I become about her ethics (or lack thereof). This is not about hating Hillary! Imagine if she does become president-what then!. The republicans and the media are going to spend the next 4yrs digging up dirt on the Clintons. I cannot believe that the Clintons have been clean for the last 8 yrs. Anything however small is going to be repeated endlessly and magnified 10fold by the media. She will be out after 4 yrs. The Clintons have been a disaster for the Democratic party. Gore lost because people were sick of the Clintons despite the the prosperity of the ninetees!
Voting for Hillary is a short term gain for the democrats. Hillary is going to breathe life into the right wing machine which will come back after 4 yrs.
I hate George Bush , Mcain and the republican party, But I think voting for Hillary is more damaging for the country!
libarbarian
I see you can read minds. Sadly, I cannot. I am limited to my 5 senses, so I have to deal with thing like the fact that , empirically, her actions are indistinquishable from those of a person who was intentionally trying to undermine her opponents chances in the general election.
Since, unlike you, I cannot look into her head and see what she is thinking I have to constrain myself to theories that actually fit the observable evidence. Since every decision she has made is entirely consistent with someone who wants her team to lose if she cant be the star, while some appear to many to be inconsistent with someone who places the national interest over her own, I am going to go with the theory that best explains her observable behavior – that she wants Obama to lose to McCain if she does not get the nomination.
From where I am sitting, the ONLY possible defense she has is to say that she really does think that McCain would be better than Obama – because at least then she is upholding her principles and not cynically helping a candidate she thinks would be worse just to set up a run for 2012.
Go ahead and call it bullshit all you want. Its not surprising that Hillary Clinton, an established “Authority Figure” in the democratic part if there ever was one, has brought the latent Authoritarianism out of the 25%-ers in the Democratic party. Now its their turn to suspend critical judgement and simply accept the good will and pure intentions of their own Dear Leader.
Neal
Thank you. She’s NOT more experienced, she does NOT give a shit about anyone on this message board, she will lie through her teeth to get the power she so desperately wants just like she has been doing for as long as anyone can remember.
This isn’t fucking baseball where we root for our team, it’s about the future of this country.
She bitches about the media being so hard on her – are you kidding? Anyone else would be laughed out of town by now. She’s only still in this because of her husband’s name. That’s it. That’s how she got to the Senate. Duh.
I want a woman president – it’s past time – but not her. I want someone who has actually earned it.
I will not vote for her no matter what. There.
I feel better.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I don’t hate the Clintons, in fact I wouldn’t even particularly hold them to blame for being tough, hard-bitten, cynical and a bit on the ruthless side. If I’d lived through what they have, I’d probably be much less generous or open that they are. They really have seen just about the worst that US politics has had to dish out over the last 40 years, between coming into politics during the 1972 campaign, and the never-ending slimefest of the 1990’s.
The way I see it, there’s a natural progression that almost any political figure will go thru during their career. They start out young, idealistic, inexperienced and naive. As time passes and they fight one battle after another, those qualities decline and are replaced with realism, cynicism, toughness, ruthlessness, and hopefully some wisdom. This is like a political equivalent to the 3rd Law of Thermodynamics, if you define entropy as the ratio of cynicism over idealism, etc.
The thing about the Clintons is, they are just showing their age. Their idealism has been drained away over the years and replaced by toughness, etc.
But I think there is an optimal combination of these qualities that makes for a good leader. We need some of the idealism of youth (particularly the sense of being a public servant – not a ruler), combined with the toughness and experience of age. Our political leaders tend to improve with time during their careers, hit an optimal plateau in mid-career, and then decline with age. The last phase shows itself especially when they seem to have forgotten what or who they were fighting for, and just focus more and more on fighting and winning battles for their own sake.
That is how it feels with the Clintons – that they’re already past their optimal combination of idealism and realism, and are now on the down slope. Obama in contrast feels as if his best years are still ahead of him. But that is a feature not a bug, because it means he will improve in office, not decline. If he is elected in 2008 and then reelected in 2012 then we may be fortunate to have him hitting his optimal plateau for most of that period.
Jake
Most what? Guys who skull fuck kittens? Just remember that there’s a lot of room between less insane than BushCo and Mostly Harmless.
However, I agree that it would be amusing to watch the Repubs try to blame this mess on WJC or Negative Nancy but man would it be a bumpy ride.
dslak
Libarbian, it’s not unprecedented for a candidate to engage in tactics that would undermine the other in the general campaign. Without evidence other than “Hillary would really like to win the presidential election this year,” there’s simply no reason to assume that, should she lose the nomination, she will then attempt to sabotage the winner.
The Democrats have a history of plenty fractious primaries which didn’t result in one candidate attempting to later sabotage the other (I’m not saying this has always been the case), so the current situation should not yet be assumed to be anamolous.
LarryB
Brought to you by another person who is confusing the general for the primary. Right now, we’re in a fight for the soul of the party, so go with your heart! Come September, we’re fighting for the Courts, the legislative agenda, and the leadership of the federal bureaucracy. With those kind of stakes (as I’ve said before here) I’d vote for the Democratic donkey if she were the nominee.
Dayv
Brought to you by another person who is confusing the general for the primary.
No, brought to you by someone who understands that consistent tactical voting gets you the worst possible choices.
“Hey, we don’t have to be good candidates, we just have to be better than the alternative! This is so awesome!”
Graeme
If she tones down the rhetoric, I’ll tone down the rhetoric. Until then, fuck that power-mad, petty bitch and her sleazy husband.
Helena Montana
In my opinion, Hillary Clinton is no better than John McCain. I also do not believe that any Democrat is better than no Democrat at all. I don’t trust Hillary Clinton, I don’t like her, and I’m not going to vote for her. I don’t trust John McCain, I don’t like him, and I’m not going to vote for him.
Go ahead. Flame me.
ThymeZone
Um, let’s see, a guy who endures torture for the USA claims the chops to be president, approves of torture by the American government that is run by a guy who beat him in a primary by telling voters McCain had a black baby.
No, nothing at all crazy about that. Nuh uh.
Egilsson
“I think my problem with her is that I believe she feels entitled to the presidency.”
I’ve seen this little theme before, and I’d like to know the basis of it.
McCain has been plotting for the presidency since he was a POW. This is what ambitious people do.
What makes Clinton any different or more worth of contempt on this basis? Where has she ever said anything about entitlement?
dslak
People who think Clinton is not the Anti-Christ think that they can read minds, but they can’t. She really is the Anti-Christ, as anyone who can’t read minds knows.
qwerty42
I think the Republican party has jumped the rails. We have a torture president who has simply started a war he had no idea how to “win” – or even why he should start it. It was based on arrogance, lies and deceit. God only knows how may lives this immoral, unjust war has really cost. And his party has stayed relentlessly loyal (even as the country has turned against it). The thought of allowing these fools (liars, thieves, corrupt politicians, thugs, irresponsible clowns) to stay in power any longer is “too bitter to contemplate”. I’m for Obama, but will cheerfully vote for Hillary in November if she is the nominee. The election is for president, not saint, drinking buddy, best friend or anything like that. Unless the Republicans understand the costs that go with their mindless appeal to a deranged “base”, they will never be able to reform in any way. As far as I’m concerned, they need to be out of power for a while. I’m thinking a generation. And it starts this November. I agree there are things the Dems need to do as well, but this takes priority.
John S.
We reject dynasties here? Really?
And here I thought having two families preside over this country for 20 years while considering to hand control back to one of those same two families for another 4-8 years was antithetical to that concept.
Fascinating.
Chuck Butcher
I’d be glad to ratchet down the rhetoric supposing the Hillary quit playing Republican politics. What I won’t give her a free pass on is junk claims like First Wifery Experience and electability. That’s not going to happen because what my opposition to Hillary has been from the first doesn’t go away and is her operational mode.
She is a short term personal advantage thinker and much in the line of ethics and policy is easily kicked to the curb. The crap she gave the R’s to play with in her First Wife period demonstrates that. Not illegal, just real stinky. The fact that the R’s wound up the hate machine does not make that evaporate. Cripes, if you want a measure of a person you analyze what they do when not under scrutiny and how they react to pressure. Nobody was looking during her law career and she cut corners and took advantage of things that really shouldn’t have been. She couldn’t manage a restruture of the Travel Admin without making a shit storm. Managers get to shake up depts but the way they do it determines how it is perceived, she just played the autocrat. I give a rat’s ass about the R-hate machine BS, I care about the reality of it and some of you don’t. Well, when your candidate gets cut up for using the same thinking in a Democratic Primary you don’t get to be surprised except through willful ignorance.
Nov isn’t an issue of “my party right or wrong;” it is an issue of not being able to accept McSame. I have and will cross party lines in a vote and I’m way deeper into “official” Democratic politics than any of you I’ve been able to determine. Within the State Party machinery (and this is a damn big state) there is virtually no one that doesn’t know who I am. That doesn’t mean I’m universally loved or something but I am dug in pretty deep. My point is, when I tell you I will cross lines and that I won’t in Nov despite my unhappiness with Hillary I am not advocating “mprow.” One of the reasons I’ve dug myself in so deeply is to try to achieve a point where a vote involves a wink at some policies rather than nose holding or gag reflexes.
Damn, you’re going to have to wink at some things no matter where you stand. If you’re a gun totin’ lefty Dem like me you wind up doing a lot blinking on good days but it need not be retching. Most of you have less reason to oppose either candidate than I do. Most of you actually don’t give a damn about the BOR, just selected pieces of it. I DO, and these ain’t the folks for that. Neither one of them. I have to balance that against the absolute disaster of McSame.
Under the existing system no candidate is going to be a white knight hero, unblemished by life. The ones of you that are operating under that idea are due for a nasty fall. Your candidate won’t betray you, they simply cannot live up to your expectations and in Office they will have to deal with the system that exists.
Change there starts at the bottom, not the top. Yes, Obama has some promise at pulling more public to him than in recent history (4 decades anyhow) and even then much of it was illusionary. This could be a good thing or it could result in a lot of people running away once it plays out. you make those changes starting at the bottom where candidates are built, city councilor to state leg to gov/Congress to Pres. Simply cutting the head off the moster ignores that it is a Hydra.
Dean’s 50 State policy is a part of that and it is one reason Hillaryites don’t mind kicking the DNC to pieces. It is exactly NOT Terry McAuliff’s model. It may not be Dean’s object to destroy the “System” but it can easily be the outcome. Stamping your feet and quitting means a victory for that “system” it is how it thrives, by reducing the electorate most harmed by its existence. You cannot get your Hero in this decade but you try to minimize the damage to the country while you fix the works. You do not help elect a McSame in any fashion if you propose that the good of the country matters to you. If McSame and either of the Dems were similar, I’d not make this argument. They are not similar, other than being products of the system.
libarbarian
I never called her the anti-christ and I never even claimed to “know” what motivates her.
I just said, albeit sarcastically, that her behavior is entirely consistent with the theory that she is intentionally taking actions designed to hurt Obama in the general election if she fails to get the nomination.
Given that, and given her obvious intelligence and political experience, I find mere assertions that this is “bullshit” to be less than convincing.
But whatever, neither of us can really read her mind.
demimondian
Sorry, John. You know, we should never have elected that second Adams boy, and that second Roosevelt…God what a disaster.
orogeny
Kevin Drum on HDS
Of course, he’s probably just another one of those idiot Hilbots.
LarryM
I agree that those who would vote for Clinton in the general as the lesser of two evils should turn down the rhetoric against Clinton.
I, however, wouldn’t vote for Clinton versus the devil himself, so I have no intent to turn down the rhetoric.
Neal
We didn’t elect that second Adams boy. We elected Andy Jackson and the House of Representatives decided they wanted Quincy to be president. Jackson called it the “Corrupt Bargain” between Adams and Henry Clay. No one had a majority but Jackson had a plurality of both the electoral and popular votes. Back in those days, a majority was required. It was the election of 1824. Jackson came back in 1828 and won convincingly.
Funny, really, because Clinton never managed to get 50% either.
Oh, and that second Roosevelt was a cousin…and not a particularly close one – he was a fifth cousin.
Dayv
And don’t even get me started on what a disaster the first Roosevelt was.
Martin
She never planned to campaign past Super Tuesday presumably expecting that the nomination would have been handed to her by then. After Iowa, it became apparent that wasn’t going to happen and she slowly started to attack the process as being unfair to her – caucuses were unfair, MI/FL needed to be seated, and by diminishing the value of certain voters – first and second class delegates, states that matter, etc.
I have no problem with ambition, but it appears she assumed that this candidacy was her to take and when it wasn’t handed to her she attacked the process by which we decide as being biased.
To McCain’s credit, I haven’t seen that out of him. He’s fucked up a lot, but he never blamed the voters for his poor showing, he seemed to accept from the outset that he’d have to earn it, and he never accused the process of being biased.
MNPundit
Wow, the only post Michael D. has made on this site that is worthwhile.
Damn, nicely put!
Chris Johnson
Chuck Butcher- I’m listening to you a lot closer than I am to guys like “I’ll punch you” Michael. Let’s look at one of the things you said, which I heartily agree with.
Clinton is a short term personal advantage thinker.
As such, in the event that the dollar continues to collapse and our oil dipstick reads ‘get moar’, do you think:
she is MORE likely to get the passive acquiescence of the Democratic congress in expanding our wars to Iran, China etc., or
McCain as president will get exactly the same total submission that the Democrats have extended to Bush?
I really don’t give a shit if Hillary is a bad person, or feels entitled, or is a part of a dynasty etc etc. I am ONLY concerned with the prospect that, should she seize the nomination and then the Presidency, that she would be more capable of acting like John McCain than McCain himself would be.
Because you’ve said yourself she’s a short term personal advantage thinker who will be walking into Bush’s personal executive power and the expectations (frame) that Bush and his people have established for the Presidency.
I figure if Obama wins, as I’ve certainly tried to encourage, everybody cools off a bit and we don’t run amok on the world stage for the time being.
If McCain wins, the geopolitical situation almost demands that he try to run amok some more, and the hope is that a sufficiently powerful Congress can restrain him, since he isn’t actually a repub power broker in the mold of DeLay.
If Hillary wins, the concern is that she will run amok with NO attempt by the Democratic power structures to contain her, and this is arguably the worse of all possible scenarios. We cannot seriously expect the Republicans to be effective in containing her- though they will try, they’re crippled by scandal and for God’s sake, Rush has been campaigning for her and Bill Clinton appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show. The Republicans are seriously hurting their pretense of being Hillary’s opposition with this sort of gamesmanship.
You’ve got to think about the behavior of the whole system and experience has shown conclusively that we cannot have all branches of government marching in lockstep. The threat of Hillary is not so much her personal sins, as the prospect that her unprincipled self-seeking will lead her to out-neocon the neocons for largely economic and political reasons, with Congress _supporting_ her blindly.
OniHanzo
Personally I find the whole nose-holding discussion at this point hilarious. Hillary’s done one helluva job inserting doubt in Obama’s lead if it’s come down to people actually wringing their hands and saying “Okay, I won’t like it but I’ll vote for her.” On what planet is she a threat to him, much less a lock for the nomination?
Fuck that noise. She’s already sold a lot of you a bill of goods in even the consideration of it.
Subtle but effective.
Chris Johnson
OniHanzo- on a planet where the Democratic rank and file are corrupt, bend easily to power and connections, and capable of making staggeringly bad decisions.
So you can see why we worry :D
Brachiator
Great post. I don’t mind so much that Senator Clinton might be arrogant and power-hungry. But I don’t know if it is sufficient to say “any D in a storm” when Clinton hides behind her husband’s achievements as governor and president in order to claim a false competence, exaggerates her achievements (such as patently false claims that she was involved in Northern Ireland peace negociations), and shows that she is either constitutionally ignorant or deliberately deceitful with her distorted claims that Obama and every other presidential aspirant must be carried over some absurd commander-in-chief or national security threshold, like a blushing bride.
My fundamental problem is that she is obviously an intelligent woman, but she clings so desperately to a phony cloak of experience that I must seriously doubt her competence to be anything other than a senator. And having seen one phony mediocrity elected president (Dubya) and having dodged the bullet by seeing voters decisively reject an empty suit like Romney, I just don’t know that I can automatically say that Clinton would obviously be better than McCain.
It’s a political campaign. The rhetoric should be fiery and, hopefully, illuminating.
demimondian
Yup.
Now, you MUP-worshipping spittoons, when are you going to discover the One True Clinton?
Oregon guy
I keep hearing that Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Is this true?
If it is, that should be damning to both Bill and Hill.
I need a link or some source that isn’t a blog commenter saying it was so.
MaryS-NJ
Thank you Michael D. I’ve been lurking in the shadows here for most of the time, but have found the rhetoric increasingly depressing. I always counted on Balloon-Juice to be a reasonable mid-ground from the Orange Satan and other overheated progressive and conservative blogs.
I was an Edwards supporter, voted for Hillary in the NJ primary but liked Obama as well. Because I was agnostic about both Clinton and Obama for a time, I was able to see both their flaws and strengths. Neither one is a Saint but I don’t need a Saint.
To be sure, Hillary has made dumb mistakes directly or through careless words of surrogates, and used some bare-knuckled aggressive campaign tactics. In view of the assaults against her and her husband over the years I would imagine her MO is “the best defense is a good offense.” I’m not saying it’s right, but I can understand where it might come from.
These tactics, I think, are a mixed bag because it turns off people as much as it helps a candidacy, and if Clinton loses the nomination, it will certainly be due in part to self-inflicted wounds. If so, so be it.
That being said, the MUP uses his own set of questionable campaign tactics, but so far has the good grace of the pundit class. In my opinion, he’s very skillful at injecting race directly or via his surrogates and he’s made disingenuous comments about Hillary when it has worked to his advantage. But that’s politics.
I think the level of hysteria about Hillary is far beyond anything she’s ever done to justify it. I don’t know how much is due to sexism and how much is due to some lingering antipathy against Bill, but it is out of proportion to her alleged sins.
Case in point, the media treatment of Hillary over Steve Kroft’s question about Obama’s religion. Media Matters had another one today: Ignoring repeated statements making her position clear, NY Post asserted “Clinton hedged on whether Obama is a Muslim”. Of course, this was just one of many of these breathless media mis-reports about what Hillary said or didn’t in that regard.
I guess the point I’m trying to make is, I’ve given up hope of media objectivity but I’m glad to see some of my favorite blogs navel-gazing enough to question whether the rhetoric is over-heated.
Why? It’s risky to be sure, but Limbaugh is an entertainer with a large media audience. Why shouldn’t Bill use whatever platform he can find to get the message out?
As far as engaging the “enemy” I would hope that whoever our next president is, he or she will try diplomacy before deciding there’s no point in trying to reason with them and dropping bombs. Wouldn’t you?
Lavocat
How very nice. If Clinton wins the Dem nomination, I will ACTIVELY support McCain for president, and feel damned proud to do so.
Brachiator
I gave her the benefit of the doubt early on, but she has lived up to my early perceptions of her as someone who is intelligent, a quick study, but a policy wonk. Not officer caliber. She chose to be in the background, an advisor and counsellor not just because she was forced to by time and circumstance, but because it suited her disposition.
Her husband has to humor her that she is presidential, but I don’t have to.
More and more, when I think about her, I think about the line from the Heath Ledger film, “A Knight’s Tale.” Obama, and even McCain could easily say to her:
The importance of making the right choice for president, and for voting against McCain and the Republicans, comes into sharp relief when you consider some of the latest news (Top U.S. Commander in Mideast to Retire Early)
It is vitally important that we have a president who is not just playing word games about commander-in-chief “thresholds,” like Senator Clinton, or who feels that it is necessary to embrace the failed military policies of the Bush Administration, like McCain. Rather, the country absolutely requires a president who will appoint, listen to, support and understand the advice of our best military leaders.
fed_up
bzzzz bzzzzzz bzzzzz…another pointless MichaelD post about MichaelD. when will it end? LET MY PEOPLE GO!
Cassidy
Winning by super-delegate is not stealing anything. It’s the way the process works. Get over it.
Beej
So we don’t have to worry about what Mrs. 1/50 has to say? Well, the Clinton campaign has now sent out mailers accusing Obama of race-baiting because he-wait for it-broke his pledge not to use attack ads and attacked the Clinton camp for Ferraro’s comments! Am I wrong or is this just plain weird? Even if Clinton, by some miracle, does manage to win the nomination, does she really think a Democrat can win the White House without the black vote? And does she really think black Americans are going to be all excited about voting for her after this?
I think the person upthread who said this is calculated to play to Penn. white voters-basically the whole state between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia-is probably right, but my God this is a risky tactic.
Oh, and just for the record, I don’t think Obama ever promised not to defend himself when attacked. I think his promise was not to initiate attack ads.
James Probis
Oregon guy Says:
I keep hearing that Bill Clinton went on Rush Limbaugh’s show. Is this true?
If it is, that should be damning to both Bill and Hill.
I need a link or some source that isn’t a blog commenter saying it was so.
Will Rush’s website do?
Clinton was interviewed by a “guest host” to provide the barest fig leaf, but click where it says Mark Interviews Bill Clinton (no, really) to listen to it.
Tonybrown74
Oh, please! If you are going to actively support McCain for the general election, why don’t you just do so now instead of insulting our collective intelligence by stating this silly opinion of yours?
I freely admit to be a Hillary supporter, and yet, realizing that she will not be able to pull the nomination out, I will more than gladly canvass the land and volunteer for Obama in the general election. There is no excuse for voting GOP or sitting out in the fall.
It’s like it’s 2000 all over again, when people actually believed that there was no difference between the parties and people voted for that idiot Nader. Look how nicely that turned out, huh?
And now to actually say after all the shit that has happened in the last 7 1/2 years that you would vote for a republican for president?? What the f-ck is wrong with you?
Maybe in your own pretty world, you are allowed to debate politics in the abstract. For those of us who live with the real world consequences of the actions of our would-be leaders, this election is far far too important to casually dismiss with, “I hate her so much, I will say that I am voting for the guy from the other party!”
Justin
This is precisely correct. We aren’t just fighting to prevent our government from attacking Iran and keeping us mired in Iraq for 100+ years while we and our children go without health care. We’re also fighting to prevent more corrupt GOP operatives from becoming heads of federal agencies. We’re fighting to ensure that the Attorney General does his job instead of covering up for the President. We’re fighting to prevent the federal judiciary from becoming completely packed with conservative jurists that will roll back the Constitution from the bench.
The notion of voting for McCain if Obama were not to get the nomination is absurd, it’s basically saying you don’t give a shit about any of the major issues of importance to our country and are willing to piss our chances for change away so you can play gender identity politics. Polling shows that women generally favor the Democratic candidate either way–it’s men mostly that prefer teh manly man McCain over Clinton if given a choice. How revealing…need to prove your own masculinity much?
Every one here that thinks they “know” that Sen. Clinton is
“power-hungry” needs to think about this very carefully. What basis do you have for that? And if Clinton really does want to be President, how is that power-hungry but McCain trading in wives (and trading in his soul for the Republican nomination) is not? And has it ever occurred to you that New Yorkers honestly felt Clinton was a better choice than that wanker Rick Lazio? Why do you assume that it is only because she is Bill Clinton’s wife?
I knew that the Clinton Rules of journalism would kick in this year, but I was frankly unprepared for the level of misogyny that we’ve witnessed. The racism (GOP Muslim smear) I could have predicted, but this…I’m starting to realize that the entire smear campaign orchestrated by the RWNM against Clinton has been soaking in it from day one back in 1992. They called her “power hungry” then, too, for trying to get national health coverage passed.
I’m still something of an Obama supporter, but I can’t help quote Bill Clinton on this one to all the Obama Democrats thinking of going back to the dark side this fall if their man doesn’t win:
Shame on you!!!
Justin
“has been soaking in it from day one back in 1992”
it being sexism and misogyny, portraying Clinton as being “uppity”