Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Seriously. If you're a liberal, and can get past her support for the IWR, there's plenty to like about her voting record. I check the yeas and nays fairly often, and Sen. Clinton consistently falls on the right side of just about every issue I care about. Incidentally, she wasn't fazed by the Bush Administration's blatant fearmongering last week when the Senate passed the FISA bill the liberal blogosphere hated so much. Given that, I can forgive her her 2003 vote for the IWR.
And we'd better. The IWR passed by a fairly large margin, if I recall correctly. Edwards voted for it, too. In fact, he was one of the cosponsors (along with Lieberman of CT) of the Senate version of the bill. What is the big difference between Edwards' apology for supporting the IWR and Clinton's saying she wouldn't have voted for it given what is now known about the prewar intelligence? Just how deeply must Sen. Clinton genuflect, what pennance would be appropriate, what words must be said (and in what order) to convince the netroots she's as sincere and as worthy of support as John Edwards?
This is one reason I refuse to choose sides, as I did in 2004. Any of our top three can beat any of their top three. Would it be so bad if Hillary Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office? I seriously doubt it. So I urge my fellow Democrats to weigh the candidates on their respective merits, vote for the one they think is the best person for the job (not necessarily the one Ron Fournier thinks hates the least), and support the eventual winner.
Kucinich's remark about the difficulty in telling which candidate, or which party, is which, is right on the mark. It might not make him popular with Dem party workers or blindered supporters, and his remarks might appear hurtful to the anti-Republicant cause. But his observation is, essentially, true.
It's possible that every federal campaign, save for a couple of landmark elections in the 19th and 20th centuries, has been distilled down to a choice of the lesser of two evils. That has certainly been the case for the past 47 years. You will not convince me that Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush (either) or Clinton were the BEST men (you will be able to transgender this statement if Hillary wins) for the job. Hardly.
Kucinich, himself, is a better candidate than anyone in the current field. He has walked the walk for three decades. He has proven that he has the intellectual, political and emotional qualifications to be an apt leader. But he has as much chance of winning his party's candidacy as does Karl Rove.
No, the candidate for 2008 will be someone who has strong ties to corporate and institutional entities, someone who will seek to perpetuate an environment that is avidly anti-constituent (if you don't think of corporate lobbyists as 'constituents' as does Hillary).
It won't be Kucinich, just as it wasn't Tsongas or Bradley.
Here's to the new boss, same as the old boss...some things just don't change...
This convention says less about the Democratic candidates than it does about the liberal Blogosphere. Having stormed the gates of power and edged the Dems into slight majorities in Congress, they are now loath to do anything that might upset the apple cart.
Democratic Washington hasn't changed. They are still the same craven group of people who have the guts to stand up to only one group of people, their voter bases. They caved on Iraq. They're caving on FISA. They're letting Executive criminality off the hook.
Two years ago, the "Netroots" would be howling for blood. Now they have been allowed to have a seat at the kiddie table and hold their fire. To cheer Clinton and boo Kucinich only shows how much the "netroots" has been bought out.
One thing not talked about is the profile of the members of the convention. The Washington Post says the members of KOS are 99% middle-aged white males (at least the members of the convention in 2007). So to extrapolate that progressives have mixed feelings about Hillary or anything else on the minds of progressives is skewed.
As a female progressive blogger I don't even talk about the candidates yet. I am too concerned with trying to educate the people in my little world that what our community needs is to move into the 21st Century.
Re Slackie Onassis: Bingo. The Kos constituency is a double-edged sword. It does have some practical value: getting people out to vote for Democratic candidates. But the demographics reinforce the right-wing caricature of Democrats as an upper-class group, with the attitudes of an Eliot Spitzer. It's one thing to have the big dogs rake it in from investment bankers ... something else to have to listen to the moneymen rant on and on. And erupt when they don't get their way, as they have done ever since the nanny days and nursery school.
Re whether or not to attack northwest Pakistan:
9/11 commission co-chair Lee Hamilton started this discussion with a tactful statement early in July. Later statements became less and less tactful. Then we got to Obama. End of discussion.
A non-nuclear air strike against Al Qaeda in Pakistan could solve a great many problems, as the initial carpet bombing did in Afghanistan. But yakking this up is rock-bottom stupid.
asnet Mon.8.6.7 1:25 pm EDT
It seems we are splintered, so that we have agendas and sub-agendas. Americans in this election: Can we get it together? Is there some way to find common ground, or are we too distracted by...uh... smiles?
Picking apart the photo in these posts, you'd swear we want a Ceylon from Battlestar Galactica as Prez. Perhaps you'd prefer Six (Tricia Helfer)? At least she'd give you some eye candy and since there are six of her...
I assumed we all just want someone who can get the job done right this time. Someone who can, against all odds, unify! Smile or not, I don't give a rip, just roll up your sleeves and get to work! There is so much to do and here we are talking about smiles.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
