Good morning!

Good morning Scarecrow!
Caw, caw

Good morning, Scarecrow.

Good Morning Scarecrow, I digg it!

Obama is not ready for prime time. As Scarecrow points out, to not see where the real source of divisiveness in the political discourse comes from is indicative of a very fatal flaw in his analysis.

mornin’ crow,
i don’t think obama’s worth going for. because lately, as his focus of differentiation, he merely says, in ways large and small like you’ve just outlined, that he’s not hillary.
i recognize he needs to cut into her poll numbers, but i prefer a candidate who simply says what he’s going to do, not who he is not.

Obama is a lite-weight and out of touch with reality. His command-of-the-obvious score (none) compares unfavorably with that of Tom Friedman (moderate), which is the worst slur I can think of.

Scarecrow, I’ve dismissed Obama because I think he’s too corporatist and is playing for power, not out of any concern for America. I’m supporting John Edwards, a populist (and about the only one who seems to have any understanding of what the not wealthy are going through). I believe the Iowa caucuses will not support Obama.

He may be trying to point out the fact that for many on the right, simply noting the existence of HRC has the effect of a red cape on a bull. While I think that’s largely undeserved, an artifact of the Rovian spin-machine, it is real. For that reason alone, I think she’s not the best candidate. (There are of course other good reasons (pro-war, corporate pandering, political dynasty, etc.) which have been amply discussed here and elsewhere.)

Edwards/Obama ‘08…announce now. Think outside the box….

Watching CNN this morning alternate between the bus depot fire in London and some “cover your butt” time for Armitage from yesterday’s time with the weird breather.

Which takes a mighty effort…being well known that Armitage’s butt extends to envelop his head….

The more I see of the beltway bozo class, the more I think of Chicken Run.

This is part of why I don’t like Obama, and why I’m losing faith with Edwards as well. With all of these valid targets on the right, they’re going to attack a fellow Democrat. It’s a darn shame, because I will not allow myself to vote for Clinton unless she ditches that crappy health care proposal and adopts one that makes sense, so I may have to do a write-in for the primary and the general election. The shame is that, as of yet, there isn’t a single acceptable Democrat among the front runners whom I can vote for.

Good morning, everyone.

Pach sent along this link to a WaPa article that suggests reasons why Hillary is seen differently from Bill.

ok, check out my bold and TRY to tell someone the republicans haven’t bought this man;

*He said . . . “we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office.” Translation: Clinton is divisive and there were problems the Clinton era didn’t solve.

sayyyy WHAATTTTT!!!!!!?????

holy CRAP

this country was held in the highest regard in HISTORY before this maggot in office did what he did, the middle class WAS thriving, national defense was STRONG, patriotism was HIGH, upper class was BOOMING, middle class was GROWING, lower class were being reduced, MORE jobs, BETTER PAYING jobs

natianal INTEGRITY and we were looked upon as a FAIR BROKER OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

ok, that’s IT, this man is another lieberman in training

“I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s,” a reference to the polarization of the Clinton years. don’t want to pit red America against blue America.”

exCUSE me

clinton had REPUBLICAN support as well as demoratic support, it was NEWT you moron that pit red america against blue america

I have had it with this turd

Obama spends way too much time criticizing democrats. He seems not to believe in a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. Every time he starts a sentence with “What democrats need to start doing…”, I cringe.

solai @ 15

Obama spends way too much time criticizing democrats. He seems not to believe in a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. Every time he starts a sentence with “What democrats need to start doing…”, I cringe.

he can forge a fresh direction but he needs to STOP using that “what democrats need to start doing” crap

he can go here;

“this is the direction progressives need to pursue if we are to take this country forward”

bing

using his “what democrats need to start doing” is running as a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is clearly saying he is not a democrat even though he’s running as one

Lindy @ 8

Scarecrow, I’ve dismissed Obama because I think he’s too corporatist and is playing for power, not out of any concern for America. I’m supporting John Edwards, a populist (and about the only one who seems to have any understanding of what the not wealthy are going through). I believe the Iowa caucuses will not support Obama.

Last poll I saw showed Obama closing on Clinton in NH, and it’s already close in Iowa. Clinton approval has been going down during the last three weeks of assaults, with Obama gaining most, Edwards gaining a little. My own view is that the last three weeks have hurt the eventual nominee, no matter who it is — and that’s separate from what the Democratic Congressional leadership has done to discredit the party.

I realize that driving wedges between the base and the leadership is part of the Republican strategy, so we have to be careful here — but our party doesn’t seem to be fighting back. We need a serious shake up at the top of the party, and soon.

perris @ 13

ok, that’s IT, this man is another lieberman in training

Made me think about Obama in a different way. (OK, I have known for awhile that Lieberman is Obama’s mentor, but didn’t connect these particular dots until today.) One of the favorite tools of the wingnuts is projection-accusing others of their own particular sins, and also of promising the opposite of what they will be. Remember it was W who promised to be a uniter, not a divider. Obama’s looking like he fits right into the wingnut category.

sorry for the long quote, but this is really on topic and important if you haven’t seen it before.

in september 2005, obama wrote his first diary at daily kos. it was about the senate’s vote to approve the nomination of roberts to the supreme court. obama had voted against the nomination (although he said he would not have supported a filibuster).

and what important topic does obama chose for his very first diary? he chooses to lecture us about our “tone” – that, apparently, is what he saw as the important issue. here’s an excerpt from his diary, “Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party“

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

two years ago i was willing to cut him some slack and hope that with more experience he would gain wisdom. very sad to see that has not happened.

His voice catches a little when he talks about Iraq, and when he says torture is never ok.

It seems a little rich for Obama to critcize Clinton for “triangulating” after some of the things he’s pulled, especially in pandering to the homophobes.

Also, if he thinks he’s not going to have to fight the same hyperpartisanship from Republicans and their media enablers if he’s elected, he’s living in a fantasy world.

I think that the substance of his criticism about Clinton’s Bush-enabling record is, for the most part, accurate, however.

He’s not ready for prime time. That a talented young man should be pushed into a race for the Presidency on the strength of essentially one speech to the Democratic convention shows how far our Democracy has come from establishing a sensible way of culling candidates for high office. Bush is the egregious example, and Barack certainly no Bush; but the point remains that he is one election cycle ahead of himself. He should have run for Vice President, like Kennedy did in 1956 when he was in essentially the same spot.

Our current method of selecting national candidates is one of the (many) things wrong with the way we have come to organize our politics. The primary system is counterproductive until we have reconstituted state parties that have real clout and can influence the outcome. Until that happens it will come down to money and organization at the national level, which means in the end, money.

Obama avoids the frame up of the questions asked of him. Russert spent much of his time trying to get a sound bite answer.

Will you raise taxes?….over and over again.

Scarecrow!

Is this the first FDL post with digg it?!
I think I got the digg it zed — or is it the zigg?

here’s a link on how it works pups, digg in
Digg It

i should also say that i think obama’s critique of clinton’s /national security / foriegn policy is right on and completely fair.

dmg @ 6

i prefer a candidate who simply says what he’s going to do, not who he is not.

Well said. And good post, Scarecrow.

I do have to agree with those that say Obama is not yet ready for prime time. When he is asked specific questions he looks as though he is trying to give a “universal” “non-specific” quotable answer. Way too much calculation, not enough knowledge.

Edwards on the other hand is an issue wonk. He really tries to get people to understand the issues. Last weekend I went to a town hall meeting with Edwards where he came back to an earlier questioner to add more information so that the questioner was satisfied. He looks people in the eye when answering questions and does not waffle on answers…a definite requirement here in NH

Also Kate Michleman and Cate Edwards were here. (Kate M. is just as wonderful as she always was… she is one of my heroes…and this from a male) Kate M. emphasized that even though voting for a women would be neat it is more important that we get the right woman. A women that is pro war, pro NAFTA, anti union, waffling on choice, in the pocket of the defense, insurance and pharma is the wrong woman, in other words NOT HRC.

Obama will probably make a pretty good senator for a few years if he can throw off the Lieberman yoke.

Scarecrow @ 17

I realize that driving wedges between the base and the leadership is part of the Republican strategy, so we have to be careful here — but our party doesn’t seem to be fighting back. We need a serious shake up at the top of the party, and soon.

our party leaders don’t need any help in driving wedges between them and me – they are doing quite well all on their own.

selise @ 28

Scarecrow @ 17

I realize that driving wedges between the base and the leadership is part of the Republican strategy, so we have to be careful here — but our party doesn’t seem to be fighting back. We need a serious shake up at the top of the party, and soon.

our party leaders don’t need any help in driving wedges between them and me – they are doing quite well all on their own.

Selise, you are wonderful! That ‘aint no freakin wedge that is a chasm.

Who’s translations are we reading here, yepsin or firedoglake…come on…don’t you think obama who is a constitutional law professor could be talking about papa bush prior to junior’s reign…the international law forbids preemtive strikes and “taking out” a sovereign country’s leader…so papa bush took out water purification infrastructure of iraq whereby countless iraquis were dying of diarrhea etc, (children and elderly mind you), thus the war on terror had to be created for junior to go after saddam which was before illegal and they know it…obama knows that, kucinich stated it at the last debates….clintons know that…but the stage was set with bushI and we are living the fruits of repeated damages to the iraqui people who are not terrorists…and that is just plain bad karma

Obama is growing in capacity. I’ve heard him speak before but never like this. He is letting his passion show thru. Guess he didn’t listen to all the old dem consultants.

“Not how to win, but why we should win”

Close Gitmo, restore habeas corpus. Not have another generation of Americans sent off to an unnecessary war. No more homeless veterans on the streets and failing schools. Extend health coverage to all. Deal with climate change and poverty. Gee is that so much to ask?

there are so many, imo, legit things to critisize about senator clinton – but divisiveness is not one of them.

Elliott @ 24

Scarecrow!

Is this the first FDL post with digg it?!
I think I got the digg it zed — or is it the zigg?

here’s a link on how it works pups, digg in
Digg It

Yeah I saw that too. I finally got around to signing up digg just a few days ago too, lol.

Would you please include Edwards speech? He’s my pick to win (and apparently, most everyone who visits FDL) and it would be good to promote him at every turn.

Thanks!

selise @ 19

sorry for the long quote, but this is really on topic and important if you haven’t seen it before.

in september 2005, obama wrote his first diary at daily kos. it was about the senate’s vote to approve the nomination of roberts to the supreme court. obama had voted against the nomination (although he said he would not have supported a filibuster).

and what important topic does obama chose for his very first diary? he chooses to lecture us about our “tone” – that, apparently, is what he saw as the important issue. here’s an excerpt from his diary, “Tone, Truth, and the Democratic Party“

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists – a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog – we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in “appeasing” the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don’t think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent. They don’t think that corporations are inherently evil (a lot of them work in corporations), but they recognize that big business, unchecked, can fix the game to the detriment of working people and small entrepreneurs. They don’t think America is an imperialist brute, but are angry that the case to invade Iraq was exaggerated, are worried that we have unnecessarily alienated existing and potential allies around the world, and are ashamed by events like those at Abu Ghraib which violate our ideals as a country.

It’s this non-ideological lens through which much of the country viewed Judge Roberts’ confirmation hearings. A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don’t think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession. Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee). While they hope Roberts doesn’t swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

two years ago i was willing to cut him some slack and hope that with more experience he would gain wisdom. very sad to see that has not happened.

Perfect quote, Selise. Thanks for the link.

karma couselor @ 30

don’t you think obama who is a constitutional law professor could be talking about papa bush prior to junior’s reign…the international law forbids preemtive strikes and “taking out” a sovereign country’s leader

yeah, but international law also forbids attacking another country except in self defense – unless it is ok’ed by the un security council.

so, he’d have to be talking about president clinton’s (and general clark’s) war crimes too.

karma couselor @ 30

Who’s translations are we reading here, yepsin or firedoglake…come on…don’t you think obama who is a constitutional law professor could be talking about papa bush prior to junior’s reign…the international law forbids preemtive strikes and “taking out” a sovereign country’s leader…so papa bush took out water purification infrastructure of iraq whereby countless iraquis were dying of diarrhea etc, (children and elderly mind you), thus the war on terror had to be created for junior to go after saddam which was before illegal and they know it…obama knows that, kucinich stated it at the last debates….clintons know that…but the stage was set with bushI and we are living the fruits of repeated damages to the iraqui people who are not terrorists…and that is just plain bad karma

Karma – I agree with you, with the exception that the ‘past’ he talks about goes even farther back than Bush 41. Also, I no longer voice my opinion here at FDL wrt the presidential election. It is futile and my energy is better spent on other things.

I think a lot of the “Clinton Fatigue” is really Republican attack fatigue. Other than Bill and Monica, there wasn’t anything I can think of that they did that was wrong. Whitewater was a completely manufactured scandal, thoroughly investigated by the Bush Justice Dept. before 1992 and rejected as worthy of prosecution, yet resurrected by Ken Starr and the attack machine. The problem is the right wing domination of the media; the “Good Germans” of the right wing; and the inability of the Democrats, because of the media, and funding, to effectively fight back. I think we need to immediately start a training program through the internet to prepare progressives to dominate arguments with conservatives; in order to sway those few that can be knocked off their pins and for the independents to see our arguments, and for the right wing base to stay home. Not an easy task, but achievable. Millions of us effectively talking our message up and showing how the right is logically wrong in nearly every position they take is the way to overcome the media and the funding gap. For instance: Social Security is a money problem; If the Republicans were really concerned about the future generation paying for it they wouldn’t be saddling them with all the deficit spending debt. See it’s easy.

Elliott @ 24

Scarecrow!

Is this the first FDL post with digg it?!
I think I got the digg it zed — or is it the zigg?

here’s a link on how it works pups, digg in
Digg It

I just noticed that. We used to have all kinds of thingies at the bottom of the post, but they disappeared, and nnow there is just a “share it” link. Have no idea where it goes. You may be the zeddiest digger.

I’ve been sorrily watching Obama fade. He was great and inspiring, and is now fighting the wrong fight.

Go Edwards! Go Dodd!

This man is ready for prime time.

Obama spoke at our CT Jefferson Jackson Dinner 2 years ago, and after viewing his Iowa speech I’m convinced he hasn’t grown much since then. BTW….Lieberman was his mentor in the senate. That’s an awful big learning curve to overcome.

I’m going with Edwards who is on the right track. We are a doomed country when the corporations control what little is left of this democracy.

Laurie @ 34

Would you please include Edwards speech? He’s my pick to win (and apparently, most everyone who visits FDL) and it would be good to promote him at every turn.

Thanks!

please don’t make any assumptions about who is my pick to win.

p.s. i much prefer what scarecrow, and other front pagers, have been doing – evaluating both the good and bad things each candidate has been doing. that keeps the focus on the issues, for which i am very grateful.

OT – today is veterans day, and congress is not in session. the weekly list of congressional hearings will be here tomorrow morning.

Bluetoe @ 5

Obama is not ready for prime time. As Scarecrow points out, to not see where the real source of divisiveness in the political discourse comes from is indicative of a very fatal flaw in his analysis.

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

selise @ 36

karma couselor @ 30

don’t you think obama who is a constitutional law professor could be talking about papa bush prior to junior’s reign…the international law forbids preemtive strikes and “taking out” a sovereign country’s leader

yeah, but international law also forbids attacking another country except in self defense – unless it is ok’ed by the un security council.

so, he’d have to be talking about president clinton’s (and general clark’s) war crimes too.

To be clear, everything inside the quote/bracket is from Yepsen — so those comments are his. Everything outside the quote bracket is mine.

If Obama meant the focus to be on Republicans, eg. Bush 41, it would have been simple enough to make that absolutely clear. I think it would have made his speech more effective if he had explained where this politics of the past came from, whether from his own party or the Republicans. I think his supporters would appreciate that. Being ambiguous about something this important — if that’s what he was being — is not helpful.

Obama could be helping himself more, and helping his Party by using his considerable intellect to explain clearly and forcefully why things went so badly in the last 10 years or so.

The quote Selise linked to shows he can do this. I agree with him that much of America does not see what is happening in stark ideological terms — but he can. I’d prefer that instead of muddying this up, he helped shape America’s perception so that they’re more likely to support what he or any Dem President will need to do.

Prairie Sunshine @ 10

Edwards/Obama ‘08…announce now. Think outside the box….

Watching CNN this morning alternate between the bus depot fire in London and some “cover your butt” time for Armitage from yesterday’s time with the weird breather.

Which takes a mighty effort…being well known that Armitage’s butt extends to envelop his head….

The more I see of the beltway bozo class, the more I think of Chicken Run.

April @ 44

Obama is inspiring us to change

Obama & inspire in the same sentence? Sarcasm?

perris @ 16

solai @ 15

Obama spends way too much time criticizing democrats. He seems not to believe in a ‘vast right wing conspiracy’. Every time he starts a sentence with “What democrats need to start doing…”, I cringe.

he can forge a fresh direction but he needs to STOP using that “what democrats need to start doing” crap

he can go here;

“this is the direction progressives need to pursue if we are to take this country forward”

bing

using his “what democrats need to start doing” is running as a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is clearly saying he is not a democrat even though he’s running as one

Choke *cough*.

And how much energy has the left blogosphere put into trashing democrats.

Obama draws a contrast for change and you get all weepy for the stale playbook of yesteryear?

http://www.danablankenhorn.com…..t-nix.html

excerpt: Stop blaming Hillary Clinton for the problems of the Democratic Party. Place the blame where it belongs, on Republicans, on Nixon’s heirs.

As I have noted here many times, Richard Nixon still dominates American politics as Franklin D. Roosevelt dominated much of the 1960s. The Bush Administration’s policies are completely Nixonian, and every single Republican candidate is a Nixonite.

This link of John Edwards did not make it through.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3818010

Scarecrow @ 45

selise @ 36

yeah, but international law also forbids attacking another country except in self defense – unless it is ok’ed by the un security council.

so, he’d have to be talking about president clinton’s (and general clark’s) war crimes too.

To be clear, everything inside the quote/bracket is from Yepsen — so those comments are his. Everything outside the quote bracket is mine.

If Obama meant the focus to be on Republicans, eg. Bush 41, it would have been simple enough to make that absolutely clear. I think it would have made his speech more effective if he had explained where this politics of the past came from, whether from his own party or the Republicans. I think his supporters would appreciate that. Being ambiguous about something this important — if that’s what he was being — is not helpful.

Obama could be helping himself more, and helping his Party by using his considerable intellect to explain clearly and forcefully why things went so badly in the last 10 years or so.

The quote Selise linked to shows he can do this. I agree with him that much of America does not see what is happening in stark ideological terms — but he can. I’d prefer that instead of muddying this up, he helped shape America’s perception so that they’re more likely to support what he or any Dem President will need to do.

I don’t get this supposed strategy of supporting your opponents without drawing distinctions???? The best way for Barack to win is to embrace Hillary Democrats……

Ask yourself how Hillary feels about Joe Lieberman, the civil rights marcher. Hillary has voted with Joe more often than not.

And how much energy has the left blogosphere put into trashing democrats.

You could not be more right. The media will attack the Democratic frontrunner relentlessly. Their attacks are so thin that they must repeat them incessantly for a long time for them to become part of the national mindset. This is calculated and deliberate. This is what Chris Matthews is paid to do. It does not happen to Republicans, the television is barely interested in Rudy’s pushing a derranged criminal to head the protection of the USA against the terrorists.

Maybe the Democrats best strategy is a hung convention so no one knows who the nominee will be until August. This would then give them only a couple of months to sow doubt through repetition.

You’re right. It is important the debate the issues that each bring daily, at this point. I was just referring to the poll the FDL did not long ago, and Edwards won that “by a landslide”. Tickled me!!!

eCAHNomics @ 47

April @ 44

Obama is inspiring us to change

Obama & inspire in the same sentence? Sarcasm?

Obviously you are stuck in the past, so I see there is no hope that you will change your mind.

Just be aware that others have different opinions and many of them represent the younger generation.

Swopa @ 26

dmg @ 6

i prefer a candidate who simply says what he’s going to do, not who he is not.

Well said. And good post, Scarecrow.

Ditto and ditto. Obama had a chance on Sunday to explain what he really stands for, instead all we got was pabulum about how he wants to bring people together. Very disappointing. I think at this point he’s morphing into a stalking horse to help Clinton get nominated by drawing votes away from the people who really want to change things.

April @ 44

Bluetoe @ 5

Obama is not ready for prime time. As Scarecrow points out, to not see where the real source of divisiveness in the political discourse comes from is indicative of a very fatal flaw in his analysis.

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

I agree that Obama has inspired many, and I think that’s been good for him and good for the party. I guess I’m not sure what the inspiration is leading to, though. Where is he heading with his analyis?

If you listen to the entire speech, you’ll find the classic political elements: — name all the things you dislike and criticize them, say you want to change them all, say you’re the person who can change them, but never explain how you’ll do it or what you want to change to.

My post isn’t intended as a defense of Clinton’s campaign, but as a critique of Obama’s world view, implied by this speech. Does he really believe that the problem with our politics is a result of divisiveness caused by the Clintons? Are they principal causes, or the principal victims? It makes a huge difference how one answers this question, even if one dislikes the Clintons for any number of reasons.

Just be aware that others have different opinions and many of them represent the younger generation.

Is that supposed to be encouraging?

aye @ 52

And how much energy has the left blogosphere put into trashing democrats.

See DailyKos…… the DLC democrats as republican lite. Don’t we want that to change? How does this change with Clinton’s when they are the poster children for the DLC dems.

April @ 55

eCAHNomics @ 47

April @ 44
Obama & inspire in the same sentence? Sarcasm?

Obviously you are stuck in the past, so I see there is no hope that you will change your mind.

Just be aware that others have different opinions and many of them represent the younger generation.

Were you inspired by W when he said he was a uniter, not a divider?

April @ 44

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’.

i don’t think i see it… would you explain? thx.

Living in Texas, I won’t have a say in the nomination, so my position is simply that I will support whichever Democrat gains the nomination. As always, I think candidates should not go so far out in criticism that they can’t believably come back and support the nominee. Otherwise, we have the fractures that gave us Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan,and George Bush.

As far as the continuing divisions of the 90’s, I don’t see any role either Clinton played in creating the bitterness. I heard conservatives talking about impeachment the day after Clinton’s first election.

IMO, Nothing in Obama’s speech is unifying. I’ve googled this quote to no avail. I must have it a little wrong and I don’t know who said it. But someone said (paraphrased) ‘That which unites us is far stronger than that which divides us’. THAT is a unifying statement. What Obama says does not bring a feeling of unity, it has the opposite effect. And, that is my complaint about him. Don’t just talk about the need for unity, give a speech that makes us feel like we ARE one nation.

April — I don’t get this supposed strategy of supporting your opponents without drawing distinctions???? The best way for Barack to win is to embrace Hillary Democrats……

I haven’t suggested Obama refrain from distinguishing himself from other candidates. The focus is on his analysis of where extreme divisiveness in American politics comes from. I don’t believe the Clintons are responsible for this, or that saying so well help Democrats, including Obama, both win the election and solve the problems when in office.

April @ 55

eCAHNomics @ 47

April @ 44
Obama & inspire in the same sentence? Sarcasm?

Obviously you are stuck in the past, so I see there is no hope that you will change your mind.

Just be aware that others have different opinions and many of them represent the younger generation.

which is why it is important to talk about what the substance beneath the shinny surface.

BlueMesa @ 56

Swopa @ 26

Well said. And good post, Scarecrow.

Ditto and ditto. Obama had a chance on Sunday to explain what he really stands for, instead all we got was pabulum about how he wants to bring people together. Very disappointing. I think at this point he’s morphing into a stalking horse to help Clinton get nominated by drawing votes away from the people who really want to change things.

So your vote is to stay as divided as possible? That’s an odd set of ideals.

Especially considering how disenfranchised Republicans and Independents are looking for something other than Bush/Clinton divisiveness.

Are you really that invested in keeping the country divided?

I honestly do not like some of Hillary’s votes. I don’t like some of Hillary and Bills positions. But I will tell you this. I think Obama is naive about the “vast right wing conspiracy.” I don’t think he has a grasp on how truly evil they are.

I think Hillary and Bill know. I think what I don’t like is that she plays right along side them. I have mixed feelings about this. I have a great fear that none of the candidates but for the Clintons really understand the power that this shadow gov’t weilds.

She may have fallen a few points, but honestly, his words concern me more than hers. I know she will compromise with corporate america. I didn’t like that Bill did, but I also understand that this is how he got things done. He compromised and he was able to move the agenda forward. This absolutely enraged the conservatives. Remember how they said he was stealing their plans?? And to say that because he compromised, he’s just like them, is black and white thinking. The facts show and I was in a position to know that poor folks moved to the middle class and the poorest of folks had much more of what they needed than they do today. Bills dedication to domestic violence was a huge benefit to poor folks. We had shelters for women and children. He did so much for that issue and it’s probably one of the greatest plagues for the poorest of the nation.

I think we need to remember this. I like Kucinish best of all, for his stand on impeachment and pacifism. But I do not think he will win. I also Like Edwards and believe he may have a better understanding of the corporatocracy. I believe that Bill and Hillary have carefully crafted a public view that looks as if they will not hurt the corporate as badly as corporate fears.

We’ll see what happens. I will vote for whatever democrat comes to the surface, but I do not think that most of the candidate understand what we are facing. I fear that Obama is too naive on this point.

This may be wrong. But I don’t think Obama understands that our great country has slipped into a fascist state. I don’t think he gets how much power they have and that his troubles will only begin once he is president. I don’t want to go through that learning curve again. I believe that the Clintons know exactly what they are facing.

I am also very disappointed that he has not voted on important issues and that he has not taken a strong stand on anything backed by behaviors. He talks a strong stand, but I do not see the behaviors to back it. I know the behaviors of the Clintons, they did back their word in many ways…in that they took care of the poor and middle class. They earned the rage of the shadow gov’t. Earned it by deed.

selise -

{{{One very last note for you downstairs.}}}

Scarecrow @ 45 –

thanks for the clarification – i misread the comment.

Scarecrow @ 57

April @ 44

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

I agree that Obama has inspired many, and I think that’s been good for him and good for the party. I guess I’m not sure what the inspiration is leading to, though. Where is he heading with his analyis?

If you listen to the entire speech, you’ll find the classive political elements: — name all the things you dislike and criticize them, say you want to change them all, say you’re the person who can change them, but never explain how you’ll do it or what you want to change to.

My post isn’t intended as a defense of Clinton’s campaign, but as a critique of Obama’s world view, implied by this speech. Does he really believe that the problem with our politics is a result of divisiveness caused by the Clintons? Are they principal causes, or the principal victims? It makes a huge difference how one answers this question, even if one dislikes the Clintons for any number of reasons.

No, Obama is not ready. It’s pretty clear that he doesn’t trust his own voice or his own vision, and that his positions are tactical.

Now it is hard to differentiate yourself from Clinton while holding essentially the same policy positions. At first, it looked like he would do that with charm and charisma–and a freshness of both relative youth and a very different life story.

But all that’s been sanded off to avoid making waves and positioning to the center–perhaps the Joe Klein/DC consultancy/traditional media center. One cannot really blame the strategists; look what happened to Dean. And look at the coverage Edwards and Dodd, both of whom are speaking more authentically, are not getting.

But we need not lose heart yet. The Clinton inevitability narrative can be easily thrown over by performance in Iowa, made still more unpredictable by a date ridiculously close to the holidays. Pollsters looking to second choices when trying to guess the outcome might be better off looking at intensity of the first choice, because it has hard to believe the turnout will be high.

To my mind, it doesn’t matter who wins, or does better than expected as long as it shakes things up. A plodding media narrative of an inevitable Clinton against one of the two loons will be bad entertainment, if nothing else.

April @ 48

And how much energy has the left blogosphere put into trashing democrats.

for me, the question is: “is the criticism a fair one”

not all critiques are equal.

Obama’s strength is that he has one or two really great speeches.
His weakness is that he has already given them, and they are not the really great speeches America needs at this time.
Obama, not Hillary is the best candidate the Right could wish.
Hil has the ability to gain support from untapped sources – Obama will only continue to dissappoint.

selise @ 61

April @ 44

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’.

i don’t think i see it… would you explain? thx.

Declaring herself the pre-emptive front runner ‘W’ style. Pushing the (national) polls with Mark Penn. Sucking up to Rupert Murdoch. Sucking up to Drudge. Taking money from military contracters. Planting questions at debates. Buying support from DLC dems, because if she does win and you didn’t support her, you will be screwed politically.

Ask yourself this. Why did Al Gore NOT use the massive political prowess of the Clinton’s during his campaign for President.

Why is there a chilly divide between Gore and the Clinton’s?

You can read the whole Yepsen article here. I agree with Yepsen that the Obama speech was the best. Everyone else I’ve talked to who saw the dinner says the same thing, and I don’t know any Obama supporters. Dodd and Biden were also good. The other three were forgettable renditions of standard stump speeches. Everyone in that hall could recite portions of them by heart. To his credit, Obama was fresh and inspiring.

Yepsen is the one who brings in the word “divisive.” In fairness, it does not appear in his Obama quotes. Obama is not the only one who has alluded to the fact that Clinton has high unfavorables going back a long time.

As Biden says, some of it isn’t Clinton’s fault. The wingers have been after her since 1991.

Some of it is her fault, though. Her personality is both aggressive and defensive, and had the effect of escalating some fights during the Clinton administration that perhaps could have been defused, like refusing to turn over records. Campaigns, like companies, have what is called “company culture.” Hers is aggressive to a degree that is remarkable by itself.

Apart from whether her conduct is responsible for division, it is fair to ask whether her unfavorability ratings will result in a close election that will hurt candidates down the ballot. Living in the Midwest, I have listened to people, predominantly men, talk about how they can’t stand her. There is an irrationality to it that is perhaps explained by the WaPo article Pach linked to. Whatever the reasons, fair or not, that dislike will have an impact if she is the nominee.

solai @ 63

IMO, Nothing in Obama’s speech is unifying. I’ve googled this quote to no avail. I must have it a little wrong and I don’t know who said it. But someone said (paraphrased) ‘That which unites us is far stronger than that which divides us’. THAT is a unifying statement. What Obama says does not bring a feeling of unity, it has the opposite effect. And, that is my complaint about him. Don’t just talk about the need for unity, give a speech that makes us feel like we ARE one nation.

I think you have hit the bell on this one, Solai – the issue in my mind STILL is that there seems to be such a huge polarization in the US. Blue vs. Rd. Rich vs. Poor(and middle class). Christian vs. Not. And on and on and on. To find someone who is a “uniter” means that vast groups of voters have to give up the whole “I will only vote for the person who suports this one issue”. No candidate can be everything to everyone. And until voters will start thinking “what is best for the country as a whole” rather than “what I personally WANT”, we will continue to see these divisive campaigns, I think.

One of the things I really don’t understand is the criticism of Hillary Clinton as calculating, heartless, too much of a policy wonk, etc.. Personally, I think we may never recover from an uninterested, uninformed, lazy, gut reaction president.

Katie Jensen @ 67

I honestly do not like some of Hillary’s votes. I don’t like some of Hillary and Bills positions. But I will tell you this. I think Obama is naive about the “vast right wing conspiracy.” I don’t think he has a grasp on how truly evil they are.

I think Hillary and Bill know. I think what I don’t like is that she plays right along side them. I have mixed feelings about this. I have a great fear that none of the candidates but for the Clintons really understand the power that this shadow gov’t weilds.

She may have fallen a few points, but honestly, his words concern me more than hers. I know she will compromise with corporate america. I didn’t like that Bill did, but I also understand that this is how he got things done. He compromised and he was able to move the agenda forward. This absolutely enraged the conservatives. Remember how they said he was stealing their plans?? And to say that because he compromised, he’s just like them, is black and white thinking. The facts show and I was in a position to know that poor folks moved to the middle class and the poorest of folks had much more of what they needed than they do today. Bills dedication to domestic violence was a huge benefit to poor folks. We had shelters for women and children. He did so much for that issue and it’s probably one of the greatest plagues for the poorest of the nation.

I think we need to remember this. I like Kucinish best of all, for his stand on impeachment and pacifism. But I do not think he will win. I also Like Edwards and believe he may have a better understanding of the corporatocracy. I believe that Bill and Hillary have carefully crafted a public view that looks as if they will not hurt the corporate as badly as corporate fears.

We’ll see what happens. I will vote for whatever democrat comes to the surface, but I do not think that most of the candidate understand what we are facing. I fear that Obama is too naive on this point.

This may be wrong. But I don’t think Obama understands that our great country has slipped into a fascist state. I don’t think he gets how much power they have and that his troubles will only begin once he is president. I don’t want to go through that learning curve again. I believe that the Clintons know exactly what they are facing.

I am also very disappointed that he has not voted on important issues and that he has not taken a strong stand on anything backed by behaviors. He talks a strong stand, but I do not see the behaviors to back it. I know the behaviors of the Clintons, they did back their word in many ways…in that they took care of the poor and middle class. They earned the rage of the shadow gov’t. Earned it by deed.

It sounds as though we need a composite candidate. I really liked how the Party as a whole looked when all eight were on the stage. Each brought important insights. But any one of them lacks the strengths, insights or experience the others have. Perhaps we ask too much of any one person.

Katie Jensen @ 67

I am also very disappointed that he has not voted on important issues and that he has not taken a strong stand on anything backed by behaviors. He talks a strong stand, but I do not see the behaviors to back it. I know the behaviors of the Clintons, they did back their word in many ways…in that they took care of the poor and middle class. They earned the rage of the shadow gov’t. Earned it by deed.

What you are missing is temperment and character.

ON these points Obama far outweighs every other candidate, both Republican and Democratic.

Chris Matthews and Tucker Carlson have been personally attacking Hillary Clinton every night on such weighty matters as how she laughs, or why she claps when introduced. CNN guests routinely criticize Hillary for defending herself

But this DOES illustrate part of Obama’s point – the Right wing propaganda machine also known as the Mainstream Media is not only ready with a full arsenal of illegitimate attacks against Hillary (how long til Vince Foster’s name emerges, or Travelgate?), but the US population is already “pre-sick” of them.

Will they do the same thing to Obama? Sure! But it will be all-new slander and libel, fresh new lies based on everytime Obama knew someone who committed suicide, or staffed an office.

But the REAL problem isn’t Hilary or Obama – the real problem isn’t even Rove and Gingrich. The REAL problem is that the MSM is “pwned” (to use a term my kids employ) by the Right. The MSM is a propaganda machine – not just Fox News and the WSJ, but NPR and NBC. They have been so succcessfully shifted rightward, and so thoroughly trained by 25 years of shoddy journalism and right-wing framing, that they work as a Republican propaganda vehicle effortlessly, almost without trying.

Until this is addressed, it doesn’t matter who the Left nominates, they will always battle a deluge of lies on their way to power. Because that’s just how the system works now.

April,

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, and Barack Obama endorses her, what will you do with regard to voting?

Susan in Iowa @ 74

You can read the whole Yepsen article here. I agree with Yepsen that the Obama speech was the best. Everyone else I’ve talked to who saw the dinner says the same thing, and I don’t know any Obama supporters. Dodd and Biden were also good. The other three were forgettable renditions of standard stump speeches. Everyone in that hall could recite portions of them by heart. To his credit, Obama was fresh and inspiring.

Yepsen is the one who brings in the word “divisive.” In fairness, it does not appear in his Obama quotes. Obama is not the only one who has alluded to the fact that Clinton has high unfavorables going back a long time.

As Biden says, some of it isn’t Clinton’s fault. The wingers have been after her since 1991.

Some of it is her fault, though. Her personality is both aggressive and defensive, and had the effect of escalating some fights during the Clinton administration that perhaps could have been defused, like refusing to turn over records. Campaigns, like companies, have what is called “company culture.” Hers is aggressive to a degree that is remarkable by itself.

Apart from whether her conduct is responsible for division, it is fair to ask whether her unfavorability ratings will result in a close election that will hurt candidates down the ballot. Living in the Midwest, I have listened to people, predominantly men, talk about how they can’t stand her. There is an irrationality to it that is perhaps explained by the WaPo article Pach linked to. Whatever the reasons, fair or not, that dislike will have an impact if she is the nominee.

First, thanks for the link; I put it in the main post. And second, this is a very helpful perspective.

April @ 66

BlueMesa @ 56

Ditto and ditto. Obama had a chance on Sunday to explain what he really stands for, instead all we got was pabulum about how he wants to bring people together. Very disappointing. I think at this point he’s morphing into a stalking horse to help Clinton get nominated by drawing votes away from the people who really want to change things.

So your vote is to stay as divided as possible? That’s an odd set of ideals.

Especially considering how disenfranchised Republicans and Independents are looking for something other than Bush/Clinton divisiveness.

Are you really that invested in keeping the country divided?

Changing things always means being divisive to some degree. I don’t agree that Bush and Clinton were basically divisive. In fact, (Bill) Clinton ran on trying to attract Republicans to the Democratic Party, and Bush claimed to be a “uniter, not a divider” in order to get elected. Of course, we all found out Bush was lying.

Usually in politics saying you want to be “non-divisive” is a code word for saying you like the status quo. You don’t want to make any waves. Maybe a few adjustments here and there, but basically we should just stick with the course we’re on.

Sorry, but I don’t like the course we’re on and I’m looking for someone who will make a change.

Scarecrow @ 12

Good morning, everyone.

Pach sent along this link to a WaPa article that suggests reasons why Hillary is seen differently from Bill.

Europeans look at the US and ask two for one for the American dynasty. Let me introduce you to the newly elected White House occupants, President Clinton and President Clinton.

Are we really that entrenched in old money?

You’re being a little hard on Obama, I think. He’s in a tough spot. There isn’t an incumbent in the race–the opposition nominee is still up in the air. If you are trying to gain traction against the front-runner, you have to attack the front-runner a little bit. Bill Clinton did that in 92 when he slid a bit against Tsongas. Bill would have done that like crazy if Cuomo had entered the race.

Bill Clinton ran as a fresh-faced outsider who was going to fix that mess in Washington. Obama is trying to do the same thing, and simultaneously draw distinctions between 92 Bill and 08 Hillary–if you liked 92 Bill, Obama is arguing, you should vote for Obama, not Hillary. Hillary is the kind of establishment figure 92 Bill was running against.

So cut him some slack. He’s in some crazy-ass uncharted water. He’s a black guy in a head-to-head battle with a president’s wife for a major party nomination. There’s not a road map for how you play this one.

I’m voting for Edwards or Dodd–whichever one is still alive when the primaries come to my f—ed up state.

Waccamaw @ 68 –

got it, thanks. excellent!

Scarecrow@77
“..I really liked how the Party as a whole looked when all eight were on the stage. Each brought important insights. But any one of them lacks the strengths, insights or experience the others have. Perhaps we ask too much of any one person.”

Maybe, but I think Biden and Dodd each has these qualities sufficiently to run, win, and to govern wisely. Richardson has relevant experience but is a weak candidate. The front runners all lack experience.

Divisiness? It’s everywhere you do not want to be – unfortunately, here included. When Obama talked about all that did NOT begin with the pygmy shrub, who could honestly be shocked as if we were in Casablanca? The point Obama was clearly making referred to his repugnance (and my own) for the bumper sticker simplistics of us vs them, blue vs red, anybody-but-bush, and so on ad nauseam … AS IF putting one of US instead of them in power would be a cure-all. INDEED, the risk needed for the Obama kind of change REQUIRES looking at the full history before us lest we yet again choose not to learn from it, and repeat the hideous mistakes. Go Obama 2008 – a hope for systemic change that I haven’t had since the dark days of Watergate. Just my $.02.

pma @ 80

April,

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, and Barack Obama endorses her, what will you do with regard to voting?

I will vote Democratic.

ON Hillary’s unfavorable’s, my husband, a manly man, who was unabashedly supported the ‘latte drinking effeminate intellectual’ Kerry…. (he put a Kerry sticker on his snowboard) absolutely WILL NOT vote for Hillary. Period. Dot. There are many many other good democrats who feel eXactly the same way, both men and women.

The problems over the last 7 years have been severe. There indeed have been obstructionist loyalists in Congress who make certain nothing is done unless it’s the republican way of doing them.

A complicit media has a hand in it too, making certain they tell us who to vote for. Can this be repaired? At this point in time, I would have to say no. Not unless a democrat is elected into office and assures the people Congress will be more effective. We, the people, are at our wits’ end.

April @ 48

perris @ 16

he can forge a fresh direction but he needs to STOP using that “what democrats need to start doing” crap

he can go here;

“this is the direction progressives need to pursue if we are to take this country forward”

bing

using his “what democrats need to start doing” is running as a wolf in sheeps clothing, he is clearly saying he is not a democrat even though he’s running as one

Choke *cough*.

And how much energy has the left blogosphere put into trashing democrats.

Obama draws a contrast for change and you get all weepy for the stale playbook of yesteryear?

‘

exCUSE me, the “play book” you are talking about is the ROVE playbook, he destroyed this country and obam is using HIS tactics…you want neo con tactics I suggest you become one

we are blogs that bring our candidates to the proper perspective, we are their training camp, WE are not running for office we ARE holding THIER feet to OUR standard, THAT’S OUR JOB

we are a party to unite and there you are claiming it’s fine to trash other democrats by obama and then get all upset over US trashing obama for trashing US

puhleeze

April @ 44

Bluetoe @ 5

Obama is not ready for prime time. As Scarecrow points out, to not see where the real source of divisiveness in the political discourse comes from is indicative of a very fatal flaw in his analysis.

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

How about some concrete examples of how Clinton is emulating Rove? I don’t see it. Given how she is going to be attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, what other choice does she have than to run strong? And, up until the fallout from the last debate, she avoided attacking her Democratic opponents.
I’m satisfied to see legitimate, proven facts about her failings. I’m not satisfied to see continual disparaging comments about her – on MSM or on this blog.

As for me, it’s too early to pick a candidate. Unfortunately by the time I vote other states will have already decided.

#Senator Dodd led the opposition to the John Bolton nomination. Trying to find out how Obama voted. I know Obama rolled over on the Condi Rice nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06…..olton.html

#Obama’s voting record
http://votesmart.org/voting_ca…..an_id=9490

April @ 88

pma @ 80

April,

If Hillary Clinton is nominated, and Barack Obama endorses her, what will you do with regard to voting?

I will vote Democratic.

ON Hillary’s unfavorable’s, my husband, a manly man, who was unabashedly supported the ‘latte drinking effeminate intellectual’ Kerry…. (he put a Kerry sticker on his snowboard) absolutely WILL NOT vote for Hillary. Period. Dot. There are many many other good democrats who feel eXactly the same way, both men and women.

I’m a married male grandfather who served in the military. I am glad to hear that you will vote for the Democratic nominee because I don’t know if the country can stand any of the Republicans who don’t mention Bush but advocate his “policies”. I’m sorry to hear about your husband, but does he give any rational argument for his absolute position on Hillary Clinton?

Marilyn In Texas @ 91

April @ 44

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

How about some concrete examples of how Clinton is emulating Rove? I don’t see it. Given how she is going to be attacked by both Democrats and Republicans, what other choice does she have than to run strong? And, up until the fallout from the last debate, she avoided attacking her Democratic opponents.
I’m satisfied to see legitimate, proven facts about her failings. I’m not satisfied to see continual disparaging comments about her – on MSM or on this blog.

As for me, it’s too early to pick a candidate. Unfortunately by the time I vote other states will have already decided.

maryland, it looks to me like april is an obama fan, this is fine but april you have to realize YOU are forgiveing obama for what rove does and then TRANSFER those rovian tactics onto hillary

we are not for hillary either april, what we ARE for is a UNIFIED party, NOT a party that follows the rove playbook

obama used rovian tactics and his feet need to be held to the fire, we hold ALL candidates feet to the fire

THAT’S OUR JOB

Hillary’s too this and Obama’s too that.

Well, let’s all just compromise and nominate Edwards, then.

cleter @ 95

Hillary’s too this and Obama’s too that.

Well, let’s all just compromise and nominate Edwards, then.

I think that’s what we are all trying to say, we really think neight obama nor hillary are going to do what the vast majority of Americans demand them do

and that is to bring this country back to a government for PEOPLE and by PEOPLE, not for corporations by corporations

we fear both obama and hillary are in the corporatists pockets

I think what we’re responding to is Hillary’s machine. I grew up in Chicago and live in Pittsburgh — we know machines when we see them. My question is if Hillary isn’t the de facto nominee will she put the weight of her machine behind the nominee or be silent the way Bill did to Al Gore in 2K. I have to think that point isn’t lost on Obama.

April @ 73

selise @ 61

i don’t think i see it… would you explain? thx.

Declaring herself the pre-emptive front runner ‘W’ style. Pushing the (national) polls with Mark Penn. Sucking up to Rupert Murdoch. Sucking up to Drudge. Taking money from military contracters. Planting questions at debates. Buying support from DLC dems, because if she does win and you didn’t support her, you will be screwed politically.

Ask yourself this. Why did Al Gore NOT use the massive political prowess of the Clinton’s during his campaign for President.

Why is there a chilly divide between Gore and the Clinton’s?

thanks for the reply. i agree with most of your list, although i think that may also be true of many national level politicians – that they associate with unsavory people, that they are unwilling to confront the mic (military industrial complex), i don’t know if anyone else plants questions, i do think other pols sometimes hold grudges (but i’m not sure how to compare who is better and who is worse).

i’m not sure there was a chilly divide between the gores and the clintons… and if there was, it could be due to any number of factors (including that the gores seem pretty straight laced and did not approve of bill clinton’s lack of sexual self control – personally, i don’t give a shit about that stuff, just saying the gores might)

the things that i hate the most about bush 43’s campaigns is his fear mongering and implication that people who disagree with him want the terrorists to win or some other nonsense. i also don’t like the dirty tricks of terror alerts, spreading lies about one’s opponent and fuckery with the voting process. it also looks like his administration targeted federal prosecutions to manipulate voting.

i haven’t seen senator clinton do any of these things. have it missed it?

Susan in Iowa @ 74

You can read the whole Yepsen article here. I agree with Yepsen that the Obama speech was the best. Everyone else I’ve talked to who saw the dinner says the same thing, and I don’t know any Obama supporters. Dodd and Biden were also good. The other three were forgettable renditions of standard stump speeches. Everyone in that hall could recite portions of them by heart. To his credit, Obama was fresh and inspiring.

it is great to hear from some one who was there. thank you.

do you know if there are audio recordings of the speaches? i’d love to listen to them for myself.

Not to disparage anyone from Iowa or New Hampshire but do these primarily rural states deserve the power they have in selecting or weeding out a presidential candidate? The primary system as currently configured would be laughable if it weren’t such a tragedy.

Christy has a new thread. Seems she loves FDL commenters.

To those who say Bill and Hillary Clinton never did anything divisive, I have only one word to say:

TRIANGULATION.

Thank you. That will be all.

musicsleuth @ 97

I think what we’re responding to is Hillary’s machine. I grew up in Chicago and live in Pittsburgh — we know machines when we see them. My question is if Hillary isn’t the de facto nominee will she put the weight of her machine behind the nominee or be silent the way Bill did to Al Gore in 2K. I have to think that point isn’t lost on Obama.

My understanding is that Al Gore chose not to accept an active Clinton campaign in his behalf. I think a lot of Al Gore, but it is generally seen as a mistake on his part.

selise @ 99

Susan in Iowa @ 74

You can read the whole Yepsen article here. I agree with Yepsen that the Obama speech was the best. Everyone else I’ve talked to who saw the dinner says the same thing, and I don’t know any Obama supporters. Dodd and Biden were also good. The other three were forgettable renditions of standard stump speeches. Everyone in that hall could recite portions of them by heart. To his credit, Obama was fresh and inspiring.

it is great to hear from some one who was there. thank you.

do you know if there are audio recordings of the speaches? i’d love to listen to them for myself.

The Obama folks sent out their video. I suspect the other campaigns have theirs posted on their own sites.

Christy has a fresh thread upstairs!

April @ 73

selise @ 61

i don’t think i see it… would you explain? thx.

Declaring herself the pre-emptive front runner ‘W’ style. Pushing the (national) polls with Mark Penn. Sucking up to Rupert Murdoch. Sucking up to Drudge. Taking money from military contracters. Planting questions at debates. Buying support from DLC dems, because if she does win and you didn’t support her, you will be screwed politically.

Ask yourself this. Why did Al Gore NOT use the massive political prowess of the Clinton’s during his campaign for President.

Why is there a chilly divide between Gore and the Clinton’s?

Hey, April, you forgot that she “has a computer chip for a soul” (”"”fact”"” courtesy of George Will).

I do not think Obama is trashing anyone. He is drawing legitimate distinctions, and I am glad the candidates are finally getting around to that. They are different. We need to understand what the differences are and try to choose wisely. The time for Democrats to be united is after the nominee is decided.

I live in Iowa. I feel a weighty responsibility far more than in previous years. I am fairly sure that the Democratic nominee will be the next President. I think that if Clinton comes out of Iowa with a win, there will be no stopping her unless she makes some huge mistake. So, as messed up as this system may be, in Iowa we may be doing some big choosing on January 3rd.

Hope is not a strategy. I have been looking for the authentic person in each of the candidates, and trying to understand what they want to do with the Presidency. I took months to decide, and my conclusions are different from a lot of people who post here, which is fine with me. I like Biden and will caucus for him. And if he is not viable I will caucus for Dodd. And if he is not viable, I don’t know what I’m going to do.

I will say this, though. Don’t wait to decide, even if you live elsewhere. If you like Dodd, Biden, Edwards or Richardson, send money now. Obama and Clinton are rolling in it. We have saturation bombing on the airwaves already. But you could make a difference to the others, if you choose to.

Bluetoe @ 100

Not to disparage anyone from Iowa or New Hampshire but do these primarily rural states deserve the power they have in selecting or weeding out a presidential candidate? The primary system as currently configured would be laughable if it weren’t such a tragedy.

Unfortunately, there are no primarily urban states that would also perform the function of forcing the candidates to meet with voters one on one, i.e., retail politics. Large, urban states would allow the candidates to get away with doing all ads all the time, allowing the best funded to stay away from dirty voters.

It is not a good system but I can guarantee that the voters who participate in Iowa and NH are very serious and understand the role they are performing.

Soullite @ 102

To those who say Bill and Hillary Clinton never did anything divisive, I have only one word to say:

TRIANGULATION.

Thank you. That will be all.

As I understand the point of triangulation, it is to work between two exteme positions, determine what is positive and doable and try to avoid alienating either side to the point either kills themselves to stop you.

If that is correct, it is exactly the opposite of being divisive. You can criticize the compromising as an abondonement of priniciple when it matters most, but I’ve never understood how Clintons can be both divisive and practitioners of triangulation at the same time. Maybe I don’t understand the term.

Thanks for this post, these things need to be said! I don’t wish Obama any ill will, but he needs to be really careful he doesn’t enable Republicans to damage beyond repair whoever the eventual Dem nominee is.

Do not send to know for whom the right wing harpy shrieks – it will soon shriek for thee…

check out snopes to read about gore and hillary and their disdain for the common man, including their own secret service….interesting
many people say that the gop has pushed hillary as a frontrunner of the election because they have dirt on her that will make her lose in the final analysis..menawhile, biden keeps pluggin along, working with both sides of the aisle, getting jobs done that hillary has taken credit for in the crime bill, and the front runners in the debate all deferred to biden, obama bows to him on foreign policy, and yet russert gave biden only 6 minutes total to speak….meanwhile, it’s biden who gets calls from musharraf and boutto as to what to do in pakistan…don’t be swayed by the network spin zones which are briefed each morning from the casablanca as to which one item to run that day…watch with your gut. biden isn’t playing the game, but guess what, he is walking the walk…he is the one who stands with the families as the flag draped caskets roll off the planes to U.S. soil, defying the visual gag order from higher ups who forbade him to stand in honor with those families….well, he is not playing…he is the real deal…
>

Scarecrow @ 104

selise @ 99

it is great to hear from some one who was there. thank you.

do you know if there are audio recordings of the speaches? i’d love to listen to them for myself.

The Obama folks sent out their video. I suspect the other campaigns have theirs posted on their own sites.

I wasn’t there for the dinner. My son, who works in Des Moines, was there. (I did go to the Steak Fry.) I watched it on CSPAN, where you can find the whole thing, including Leonard Boswell auctioning off a stuffed dog signed by the candidates, and “Nancy Pelois’s scarf,” which she waited until after somebody paid over $6000 for it (if I remember right)to announce that she had never seen it before. Ouch.

I’m in EPUland, but I thought I would mention that I heard an interesting program yesterday on “This American Life” about Harold Washington. It made me sad that I had not heard mo/betta about him (ie: truths) back when he was the Mayor of Chicago. Our media and how they think of us (back at you TSF) is more than sad.

Scarecrow @ 57

April @ 44

I disagree.

What you miss is that Clinton’s strategy encompasses Rove style strategies. It’s an old book and Hillary is running a campaign very similar to that of the ‘W’. That doesn’t disturb you?

Obama is inspiring us to change

Clinton is old school and old money, stale same old same old.

It’s disappointing that you don’t see this.

I agree that Obama has inspired many, and I think that’s been good for him and good for the party. I guess I’m not sure what the inspiration is leading to, though. Where is he heading with his analyis?

If you listen to the entire speech, you’ll find the classic political elements: — name all the things you dislike and criticize them, say you want to change them all, say you’re the person who can change them, but never explain how you’ll do it or what you want to change to.

My post isn’t intended as a defense of Clinton’s campaign, but as a critique of Obama’s world view, implied by this speech. Does he really believe that the problem with our politics is a result of divisiveness caused by the Clintons? Are they principal causes, or the principal victims? It makes a huge difference how one answers this question, even if one dislikes the Clintons for any number of reasons.

The divisiveness that rises out of the 60’s, that gave birth to the methodical building of the Vast Right Wing. Clintons are the unwitting symbols of that divisiveness.

So I think your question as to is Hillary the cause or victim is the wrong question.

Susan in Iowa @ 112

I wasn’t there for the dinner. My son, who works in Des Moines, was there. (I did go to the Steak Fry.) I watched it on CSPAN, where you can find the whole thing, including Leonard Boswell auctioning off a stuffed dog signed by the candidates, and “Nancy Pelois’s scarf,” which she waited until after somebody paid over $6000 for it (if I remember right)to announce that she had never seen it before. Ouch.

thanks! i think i found it in the c-span archives.

much appreciated, many thanks! when in doubt, i’d rather give it a listen myself before passing judgement!

Bluetoe @ 5

Obama is not ready for prime time. .

As I read somewhere, Obama’s job is keep Edwards from challenging clinton. He knows his first run goes nowhere, but, in 4 or 8 everything changes and he’ll have all the rahm flavored backing he could ever want.

This whole operation is so obviously corporate style it reeks. The southern strategy stole the dem’s bacon, the arkansas strategy steals the repub’s, the corporations.

Katie Jensen @ 67

I honestly do not like some of Hillary’s votes. I don’t like some of Hillary and Bills positions. But I will tell you this. I think Obama is naive about the “vast right wing conspiracy.” I don’t think he has a grasp on how truly evil they are.

I think Hillary and Bill know. I think what I don’t like is that she plays right along side them. I have mixed feelings about this. I have a great fear that none of the candidates but for the Clintons really understand the power that this shadow gov’t weilds.

She may have fallen a few points, but honestly, his words concern me more than hers. I know she will compromise with corporate america. I didn’t like that Bill did, but I also understand that this is how he got things done. He compromised and he was able to move the agenda forward. This absolutely enraged the conservatives. Remember how they said he was stealing their plans?? And to say that because he compromised, he’s just like them, is black and white thinking. The facts show and I was in a position to know that poor folks moved to the middle class and the poorest of folks had much more of what they needed than they do today. Bills dedication to domestic violence was a huge benefit to poor folks. We had shelters for women and children. He did so much for that issue and it’s probably one of the greatest plagues for the poorest of the nation.

I think we need to remember this. I like Kucinish best of all, for his stand on impeachment and pacifism. But I do not think he will win. I also Like Edwards and believe he may have a better understanding of the corporatocracy. I believe that Bill and Hillary have carefully crafted a public view that looks as if they will not hurt the corporate as badly as corporate fears.

We’ll see what happens. I will vote for whatever democrat comes to the surface, but I do not think that most of the candidate understand what we are facing. I fear that Obama is too naive on this point.

This may be wrong. But I don’t think Obama understands that our great country has slipped into a fascist state. I don’t think he gets how much power they have and that his troubles will only begin once he is president. I don’t want to go through that learning curve again. I believe that the Clintons know exactly what they are facing.

I am also very disappointed that he has not voted on important issues and that he has not taken a strong stand on anything backed by behaviors. He talks a strong stand, but I do not see the behaviors to back it. I know the behaviors of the Clintons, they did back their word in many ways…in that they took care of the poor and middle class. They earned the rage of the shadow gov’t. Earned it by deed.

I agree with this very sensible comment. I support Edwards for his positions and also for his remarkable speaking abilities (which Obama shares with him). Senator Clinton’s policies are Democratic policies, but she can’t swing a crowd, and if the going gets really tough over the next few years, inspirational speech is going to be a necessary complement to good policy. As to her ‘Rovian’ politics, she is following a well-trod maxim: ‘keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.’ That makes sense, and she does indeed know the power of the shadow government.

Spot-on, Scarecrow.

Obama’s whole campaign makes since only if you completely ignore the existence of the right wing, which he seems to think he can get along with. He operates seemingly without any awareness of what’s happened in this country over the past 15 years.

If Obama (or any candidate) wants to be taken seriously, he first needs to convince Americans he understands what the Bush/Cheney regime, its radical followers and a complicit media have done to America and its political discourse and realizes how hard it’s going to be to repair the damage.

Interesting. That one sentence really makes the case for Hillary Clinton as the best nominee. No way will she underestimate the power and danger of the Republican attack dogs.

I like Obama’s speeches, but haven’t really thought he was ready for prime-time yet. Frankly, I really would prefer someone like Dodd as the candidate, but if not, then this post actually makes me feel better about voting for Hillary. (Or whoever else is the nominee; I’m sure as hell not voting for a Republican OR a third-party.) Perhaps the real issue is that we need someone who can understand the importance of fighting back against the Bush/Cheney/Rove regime’s legacy, and how to do it. Perhaps that has to be done before anything else substantive can be accomplished?

My 2c, this is about a wash.

I would say to him:

“Sen. Obama, we are in the middle of a horrible, bloody catastrophe in Iraq. As well as the short-term costs of it, it has huge long-term inplications for us.
As you know, it was created using all manner of bullshit and lies. Now we’re trying to figure out who to blame for it, and how to salvage something out of the misery. “Divisive” is what’s for dinner. Deal with it. Eat.”

But, I was delighted with his comment about “…my opponent won’t be able to say I voted for the war…”

Even being a little dis-ingenuous, in that he wasn’t IN the Senate in 2002 TO vote on it, it’s good that he understands the signifigance of Clinton’s unrepentant vote to authorize the war, and the signifigance of the possibility of the democrats nominating a candidate whose hands will be tied on the most important issue of the barroom brawl that this election is going to be. In fact, if we’re going to clean their clocks, it had damn well BETTER be a barroom brawl with Iraq as the centerpiece, instead of just a “reasonable discussion” on health care and education and Social Security, etc…

“Obama’s whole campaign makes sense only if you completely ignore the existence of the right wing, which he seems to think he can get along with.”

I’m totally in agreement about looking at the candidates, and toting up the evidence of their willingness to schmooze with the right wing, and to that end I would say that we really, really, need to continue to take a hard look at some matters-of-record pertaining to Sen. Clinton.

And very relative to this thread, this is worth keeping in mind.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories…..0694.shtml

Jane Hamsher @ 118

Spot-on, Scarecrow.

Obama’s whole campaign makes since only if you completely ignore the existence of the right wing, which he seems to think he can get along with. He operates seemingly without any awareness of what’s happened in this country over the past 15 years.

This from the woman who painted Joe Lieberman’s face black, playing full tilt bogey into the hands of the Right Wing Noise machine. Possibly cost Ned his chance.

Clearly you don’t understand the right wing enough Jane.

Kucinich for president. He’s the one leading the crucial impeachment campaign which is so necessary to restore the Executive to a lawful position.

Geoff, I love Dennis. And we all know that he’s been more out front on the issues that most progressives hold dear, than any other candidate.

But, he’s got a tough row to hoe in that so many people perceive him as a bit of a left-wing kook.

(I wish he hadn’t talked about the UFO. :o) )

No, I don’t think Obama is ready. I thought he might be, right up until he started trying to court the Limbaughts with his Social Security non-issue.

I like Edwards, but I don’t think he has the momentum. I wish he would pack it in, and get back into the Senate and kick some ass with Feingold. If he wants to lead, there is plenty to go after there (including that bastard Leiberman).

I hate that Clinton has accommodated the right wing–the Iraq authorization of force and the Leiberman-Kyle amendment, etc. But, I think she has the steel we need to surgically remove the loyal Bushies from government, and honestly, she “gets it.” No one knows better than she how vicious these people have been and will be.

I hate that she is allies with Leiberman, and I think I might emigrate if she should appoint him to any position of power. The man is a craven phony. But, if we get her we get Bill, and I honestly think the two of them can get this country on the right track again.

I wouldn’t vote for Clinton because she is a woman, or any other issue except I think she can clean up the place. I hope Obama is still around in 8 years, because then I think he will be ready, and then the wonky stuff he wants to deal with could be realized.

Amen, Scarecrow. Your warning goes doubly so for Edwards, who instead of focusing on the Clinton years, seems determined to do a better job of character assassination than the Republicans.
They really don’t get it. But, oddly enough, the object of their attack, gets it spot on.

At least Hillary recognizes the “vast right wing conspiracy” that she so accurately described during the Clinton White House. Unfortunately, she and the DLC play into their hand because they are living in the “real world” of politics.

My problem with Barack is that he doesn’t seem to grasp the right wing conspiracy and understand the need that the Dems should be an opposition party.

Ellen @ 126

I hate that Clinton has accommodated the right wing–the Iraq authorization of force and the Leiberman-Kyle amendment, etc. But, I think she has the steel we need to surgically remove the loyal Bushies from government, and honestly, she “gets it.” No one knows better than she how vicious these people have been and will be.

I hate that she is allies with Leiberman, and I think I might emigrate if she should appoint him to any position of power. The man is a craven phony. But, if we get her we get Bill, and I honestly think the two of them can get this country on the right track again.

I don’t want to vote for Hillary yet I honestly have to say you make excellent points here that I find myself struggling with.

There are no easy front runner candidates in this race. Philosophically I’m aligned with Kucinich. Practically speaking, I’m inclined to vote for Edwards in the primary and would wholeheartedly support Hillary in the general election against any Republican given what we are up against. We need a bridge candidate. Hillary may be it even though I share most progressives’ distaste for her and the DLC.

Ellen @ 126

No, I don’t think Obama is ready. I thought he might be, right up until he started trying to court the Limbaughts with his Social Security non-issue.

I like Edwards, but I don’t think he has the momentum. I wish he would pack it in, and get back into the Senate and kick some ass with Feingold. If he wants to lead, there is plenty to go after there (including that bastard Leiberman).

I hate that Clinton has accommodated the right wing–the Iraq authorization of force and the Leiberman-Kyle amendment, etc. …

I hate that she is allies with Leiberman, and I think I might emigrate if she should appoint him to any position of power. The man is a craven phony. But, if we get her we get Bill, and I honestly think the two of them can get this country on the right track again.

Don’t forget that Wes Clark endorsed her and he is no friend of Lieberman. It would be very easy to misconstrue her support of some of the Iraq/Iran policies as being supportive of the neocons and Edwards and Obama have tried to do this, with great success on the left. But the issue is very complicated and Clinton seems to be comfortable with nuance. I don’t think for one second she is a warmongerer. I didn’t like her IWR vote but I suspect her Manhattan constituents had something to do with that. But she’s no Holy Joe.

I agree with April.

I find her perspective quite refreshing…….and I am by no means of the younger generation.

SuburbanGirl @ 129

Ellen @ 126

I don’t want to vote for Hillary yet I honestly have to say you make excellent points here that I find myself struggling with.

Sorry, for my typing in error in putting this in the blockquote at post 129. should be by own comment outside the block.

Scarecrow, this was a very fair analysis of the struggle with empty rhetoric vs. substance. I support Hillary Clinton, but don’t agree on every single position she espouses. I do know that the Clintons did not cause the division in this country. That was 1994 Gingrich, as mentioned by another poster. And to triangulate, as Jane Hamsher notes, is the only way to try to reach compromise , especially if you don’t have the votes, or the readiness of the country for a specific, though rightful change in policy. Progressives must not help the right to tar our candidates. And Obama and Edwards have to put up or shut up. So they’re NOT Hillary…..and….what?

Well, Barack is right to take on Hillary, not because he doesn’t have the sense to take on the gop, but i am guessing he knows that the game is on both sides of the aisle, and one he has the background to transcend, even though he is a rookie. watch this video:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/964698695/512848

Al Gore’s endorsement (assuming he doesn’t get in, himself) is going to be pivotal.

There’s a delicious irony to it, as in:

He might be picking the next president of the United States. :o) :o) :o)

Amen, Scarecrow.

The dropped message was AMEN, SCARECROW.
BLESSINGS TO ALL,

perris says:

November 12th, 2007 at 5:23 am
ok, check out my bold and TRY to tell someone the republicans haven’t bought this man;

*He said . . . “we have a chance to bring the country together to tackle problems that George Bush made far worse and that festered long before George Bush took office.” Translation: Clinton is divisive and there were problems the Clinton era didn’t solve.

sayyyy WHAATTTTT!!!!!!?????

holy CRAP

this country was held in the highest regard in HISTORY before this maggot in office did what he did, the middle class WAS thriving, national defense was STRONG, patriotism was HIGH, upper class was BOOMING, middle class was GROWING, lower class were being reduced, MORE jobs, BETTER PAYING jobs

natianal INTEGRITY and we were looked upon as a FAIR BROKER OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

ok, that’s IT, this man is another lieberman in training

******Hello Wake up from your generational slumber:Our trade policy was in the toilet since Reagan & Cliton continued Reagan’s policy.Remember “downsizing” & “outsourcing” Clinton used those to justify his corporate policies.So stop your bellyaching.

Obama is dead on. And you and the rest of the netroots are playing tit for tat as well.

What will you do when you don’t have Bush to kick around?

We have serious problems in this Country. And Obama realizes this and wants to work with both sides.

Not all Republicans are Karl Rove, hope some day you will learn this.

No, it is not Clinton’s fault. But they, and the netroots are all playing the game.

Obama doesn’t need you. Deal with it.

Because Kairos means in the right timing, so i a guessing you respect last minute changes, don’t you wonder if all the speculations in the world aren’t a bit like the angel stirring the water, and then the last minute will be a surprise?

note to obama –

go after the republicans please, starting with pres bush

if you want to win, fight them over there so we don’t have t smack you over here

thnx

Lindy @ 1

Good morning!

America is not yet ready for Barak Obama.John Kennedy did not last.Honesty and change is very tough in a political culture that is sold out to lobbyists and big bucks!

WTF; No.

Hillary knew what she was doing when she started moving to the right. She was trying to get the librul “stain” off her, and pull conservative votes, and when she did it she risked pissing off a lot of progressives.

Which she has clearly done.

(See: that straw poll on here, a few weeks ago. :o) )

And now that she sees how badly she misjudged that realpolitik move, she’s trying to mend fences. I say, too late.

No one held a gun to her head and made her attend Fox News’ 10th anniversary bash, and no one made her let Murdoch hold that fundraiser for her. No one twisted her arm and forced her to support one of the worst warmongerers in the senate in the Connecticut primary, instead of supporting a good man and a good antiwar candidate, in Ned Lamont.

SHE made those decisions as a “savvy, strong, politician”, and we, and the other candidates have every right to hold her accountable for them.

She’s not a sacred cow, and the people supporting her need to stop trying to make her into one.

Very good post.

“I don’t want to spend the next year or the next four years refighting the same fights that we had in the 1990s,”

Obama is either very naive or totally arrogant.
The reason the Clintons went through the Repub meat grinder is that they were standing up for the middle class (you know the middle class that is currently being systematically torn down). The Clintons’ policies supported and promoted the middle class. Those policies might have missed the mark on some matters, but the Clintons’ were always aiming to promote and support the middle class.
So I guess Obama is saying that in order for him to “get along” with Repubs and “bring everyone together” he will not tackle or support core Democratic issues and believes?

He does not make any sense.

The irony of seeing people exhorting Edwards and Obama to stop criticising Clinton, and to start criticising bush (as if they haven’t been) is just ludicrous, as her defenders ignore the facts:

She has had precious little to say about all the bullshit that bush and Co. used to drag us into the war.

She voted to approve the invasion, and she has never apologized for it.

She supported the surge.

She has regularly parroted bushCo talking points that they use to try sustain their (and her) bloody mistake.

She recently voted to give bush the authority to declare part of the Iranian military as a “terrist organization”, which declaration is a large boost in bush’s effort to start a war with Iran. It was precisely the sort of thing which he did with Iraq, and evidently, Clinton’s political “savvy” didn’t let her remember it.

She has taken substantial contributions from A*PAC, whose main agenda, is, again, a U.S. attack on Iran.

Once more; if she were a man named “Smith”, with all of this, she would be at the top of our shitlist of yellowdog democrats.
Instead, her supporters are ignoring all of this hard evidence of where she stands, and excoriating those of us who don’t want to risk losing this election by nominating her, for merely pointing out the truth.

At some point, her supporters and defenders are going to have to ask themselves if nominating a woman for president is worth overlooking the fact that she has consistently supported the debacle in Iraq, and doesn’t have the courage to admit how wrong she was, which in turn means that she will HAVE to soft-pedal the biggest issue in the election; the one with which we MUST hammer bush and the GOP, in order to win the white house, and keep and strengthen our control of the Senate and House.

Think about it. It’s time.

~~~ModNote: Edited for content to clear filters.~~~

randy evans @ 131

I agree with April.

I find her perspective quite refreshing…….and I am by no means of the younger generation.

Thank you randy evans.

As a hard core progressive, you know you are in trouble when the lefty blogs seem as invested in the ‘hate rhetoric’ as the righty blogs.

For me, ‘this we hate everything all the time nitpicking’ is becoming a real turn off and extremely uninspiring.

That is why I find Obama so refreshing. He waited til late to make the contrast to Hillary and he is doing it as a gentleman. I am not worried one bit that he can take on the right wing. The question is can he get the support of the hard left.

Team Bush is on the way to irrelavance, and most of the GOP knows that. Why doesn’t the left get it and start INspiring people to vote for something instead of against something.

There is a “meme” being articulated here lately to the effect that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist. I find that particularly disturbing.

I really like this speech the exact same one can be found on youtube from 10 days ago in SC. Did you have to wait for Yepsin to come out and tell you how you feel about this?

Is Barack Obama suggesting to voters in Iowa that the major reason the Clintons are seen as “divisive” is that they themselves said and did things that divided the country? That would mean the Republican Party of Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove had nothing to do with that perception.

These are by no means mutually exclusive, and saying that they are defies logic.

Wow, this appears to be quite the “Hillary Forever” Blog for the most part.

I found scarecrows comments to be mostly reaching. Are you working for HRC’s campaign?

Lot’s of hyperbole like “not ready for prime-time.” Who is and what exactly is the criteria for “prime time?” The criteria last go around was “not wanting a blowjob” -Bill Maher.

It seems to me that this is a primary election and the only way Obama can campaign for the nomination is to differentiate with the frontrunner. Everyone seems to see this as an attack on the Dems. Oh my goodness.

In this case we have a very clear picture of who really is the triangulator in the bunch; HRC voted for the war for political expediency. That was neither a principled, moral, brave nor progressive stand. Nor was it the decision of a leader ready for “prime time” in my book.

My criteria by the way is don’t vote to authorize war for political reasons. Just do what you feel is the right thing and if it’s unpopular, let the public catch up to you. They will, “if” you do the right thing. If Hillary was like the rest of us screaming at the top of our lungs to stop the insane lead up to the war she would be cruising to the nomination right now. She didn’t; Not. Good . Enough.

As an Edwards supporter I have to say that Obama gave a great speech. It was a very moving speech and actually had a lot of the material in it that Edwards uses in his speeches. Does anyone know who wrote Obama’s speech? Having said that I don’t think one speech should have the media fawning all over him like he is now the best candidate. Watching Hardball tonight I had to laugh as I watched Matthews making Obama out to be the best thing he’s ever seen. It was pathetic. That man is a total fool.

I thought my candidate gave a really good speech at the dinner but going first was not the best spot to be (no anticipation).

I thought whoever wrote Hilliary’s speech did a diservice to her campaign. The chanting from her supporters reminded me of a high school pep rally. Because of that cornball stuff I think she actually helped Obama to look like the better candidate (personally I do think he is a better candidate than Hilliary).

I guess we will hear about Obama the rest of the week and of course the media will set up the Hilliary vs. Obama at the debate narrative like last time (only this time they will be asking is Hilliary going to get tough). Obviously I hope my candidate comes through in the debate and really nails it becuse that is the ONLY way he will get any sort of national coverage and then only for a day or two.

All options regarding Hillary are on the table!!!

I am sick of the iranian agents roaming this nation buying up blue dresses and spitting on the flag

randy evans @ 147

There is a “meme” being articulated here lately to the effect that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist. I find that particularly disturbing.

is that because you hate women?????????????

:-)

Mabel’s at 153: um, nope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! : )

Mabel’s at 152: do WHAT now?

Mable@#152:

“All options regarding Hillary are now on the table!!!”

It’s about time. :o)

(I’m not sure about the blue dress and the Iranian agents, but it was a pretty good one-sentence rant. :o) )

hey randy evans i’m just joshin’ ya!

I’m not sure about the blue dress and the Iranian agents, but it was a pretty good one-sentence rant. :o) )

we dont submit comments with the rants we want but with the rants we have!!! :-)

Patty, I hear what you’re saying, but I have to
ask:

what is Clinton going to “get tough” on?

Is she going to come after Obama for his making
the point that if he’s nominated, Giuliani, or whomever, won’t be able to accuse him of voting for the war, if Obama tries (as he damn well BETTER try) to hang Iraq around the gooper nominee’s neck?

Is she going to get tough and say:

“The Iranian Republican Guard is TOO a terrrist organizaton!”?

Is she going to get tough and say:

“Things are now going so well in Iraq that I feel not the slightest need to apologize for the hundreds of thousands of people who’ve died
in the invasion and occupation I approved of.”

If she’s nominated, will she talk about the problems of funding Social Security, while the war which she helped authorize, and for which she has never recanted, has cost us $450 billion, and IS costing us $2.5 billion a week?

She has already boxed herself in for the primaries, and her effort to have it both ways will get her hammered in the general. Giuliani, playing to the mile-deep reservoir of distrust and suspicion of her that’s held by so many voters, will have a field day with it.

Her supporters complain about Edwards and Obama going after her, instead of bush.

Can they show us where SHE is going after bush with both barrels?

Can they show us her outrage about the $450
billion that Iraq has already cost us, and the $2.5 billion a week that it’s still costing us?

I don’t think they want to talk about Iraq anymore than Clinton wants to talk about Iraq. JUST LIKE BUSH, she needs it to go away,
long enough for her to mouth platitudes about safe democratic topics, in the hope that that will win her the nomination, so she can then mouth more platitudes on those safe topics
in the general election, instead of flaying the hide off bush and the republicans for what they’ve done to Iraq, us, and to the world.

If she had none of the name recognition she has: then, with her track record, we would all be snarking her to pieces. And she would deserve it.

Patty:

Of Matthews:

I love hearing the media whores on television complaining about the “media whores on line”. :o)

And, I just read this by Matt, over at Digby’s.

I had no idea Obama had supported Lieberman over Lamont. I’m shocked, and a little guilty, for giving Clinton a hard time about doing the same thing.

I will try to rectify that oversight. :o)

Here:

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446

I found scarecrows comments to be mostly reaching. Are you working for HRC’s campaign?

No. Nor for anyone else’s campaign.

randy evans @ 147

There is a “meme” being articulated here lately to the effect that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist. I find that particularly disturbing.

There have been posts here critiquing Clinton’s votes (e.g., Iraq, Kyl-Lieberman) or positions, and praising other positions, without being either “pro” or “anti-Hillary” per se. I don’t agree that being anti-Hillary equals being a misogynist.

“I get it. You hate Hillary, you hate everything about her, and if you don’t have anything to hate about her you’ll find something to hate about her.

It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it. If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.”

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments at 157

randy evans @ 163

“I get it. You hate Hillary, you hate everything about her, and if you don’t have anything to hate about her you’ll find something to hate about her.

It’s rank sexism, it always has been, it’s completely blind irrational misogyny but you’re entitled to it. If it starts to get too disruptive over time you’ll get the boot, I’m just warning you now. There’s only so much of it I’m going to tolerate.”

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…../#comments at 157

You want to be first in line or something?

SuburbanGirl @ 132

SuburbanGirl @ 129

Sorry, for my typing in error in putting this in the blockquote at post 129. should be by own comment outside the block.

Heh. S’alright. I thought I was losing my mind there for a minute, cuz I intentionally didn’t call C by her first name since I don’t call O&E by their first names. Heh.

Anyway, re the comments about FDL being a Clinton shop–personally, I’m a late comer to supporting Clinton. In part it is pretty perverse; every time I hear some NPR commentator pick HRC apart for something trivial and add on some old right-wing talking point aside, I get all pissed off and like her more.

I was actually hoping Edwards would give it a good run (and he has, but I would be surprised at this point to see him be the nominee).

I used to really like Obama, and hell yeah, he gives a great speech. But, he really does seem to think that if it’d been him and not WJC all that right-wing nastiness wouldn’t have happened. It just makes me think he is really niave, and in a presidential race he would get his ass handed to him.

To those folks who say they won’t vote for HRC, no matter what, I say “Really”? If Rudy Giuliani was the other choice, you would really let it go to him by default because HRC isn’t the second coming of FDR? Get real folks. You aren’t going to be completely happy with any Dem we elect, but believe me, you’d be a whole lot happier with one of our policy-minded Dems in the Whitehouse than some crazy neo-fascist Republican.

I don’t know if I could take another Nader-esque loss to one of those nutjobs. Really, are we going to throw the baby out with the bathwater because HRC isn’t progressive enough?

If you want Obama or Edwards, by all means, campaign your little heart out. I’ll vote for the Dem on the ticket no matter what. You get one of those guys there, I’ll vote for him. But I would be real careful about withholding a vote for Clinton. That’d be something of a pyrrhic victory I’m afraid.

I can just about guarantee all concerned, that if the dems are stupid enough to nominate Clinton, by the time the election gets here, we are going to be in a world of hurt from george bush’s policies, and despite her coziness with some of his worst ones, there will be very, very, few progressives who will sit out the voting.