Letters to the Editor
-
Ouch.
"Odious" is a word even I haven't used in describing Hillary Clinton or her campaign.
But I find it difficult to summon up compelling reasons why it's unfair or untrue.
This crew thinks the Democratic nomination -- if not the general election -- is theirs, bought and paid for. I sincerely hope they're in for some unpleasant surprises come primary season.
-
Well, to state the obvious
it's hard not to play the establishment game when you are trying to become the establishment. "Insurgents" rarely win. The real test for Hillary, who I actually like, is whether she controls her handlers or her handlers control her. Right now, it looks like the handlers are winning. This election is, to an extent Hillary doesn't yet seem to perceive, about her character.
And the real problem is the casual way we view things like Dodd, Chairman of the banking committee, taking money from the banking industry. Clearly inappropriate by any ethical standard. What I would like to see is a Code of Ethics for congresspeople much like the Code of Ethics we lawyers have--which would prevent such conduct.
-
Dean vs McCain
It's interesting to compare and contrast the beltway media's response to Howard Dean with their response to John McCain. One was treated as an irresponsible outsider who was jamming up the real Democratic candidates and one is Mr. Maverick. There are lots of ways in which the two men are different (most of which favor Mr. Dean), but there are ways in which the image they give off - they're both smallish men who are rather blunt and unafraid and wear their feelings on their sleeves. But one was cast as a madman and one as the straight talk express.
By the way, Karen Tumulty, for all her faults, is one of the few people at Time for whom I have any respect.
My two cents.
-
I can't stand Hillary
And I couldn't back in the 90s, either -- but the difficulty is I also disdained the Limbaugh/American Spectator insane attacks on her and Bill. I don't despise Hillary because she is a lesbian who nevertheless murdered her lover Vince Foster. And I believe Bill Clinton is a genius of a politician who has a wet finger ever-in-the-air, but do not care into whose orifices he sticks his finger (or sticks anything else).
Neither of those two are principled, and James Carville makes me want to vomit. He is possibly as evil as Karl Rove -- he and Mary Matalin don't believe in a goddam thing or they could not be married to each other. What binds them is power and being part of the power elite, political principle or supposed party differences don't impede their bond a bit. Janet Reno's DoJ was no bastion of restrained power and respect for civil liberties. No, the whole Clinton cartel grosses me out.
I don't think I can vote for Rudy Giuliani, either -- once, I could have. But the last thing we need right now is a Napoleon with the soul of the most conviction-happy prosecutor lusting for all the power Yoo and Bush have demanded for the the Executive. Giuliani would be an insane choice in today's political landscape. Obama, maybe. Hagel? Yeah, but the GOP will never nominate him.
Can't we make an exception to the 13th Amendment and compel Russ Feingold into the involuntary servitude of running for President?
-
Insurgent candidates versus Insurgency
"Insurgents" rarely win.
I'd argue the contrary, at least in the military sense; just look at how things are going in Iraq right now. The problem there is that politics is emphatically not simply "war fought by other means" (misquotes of certain Prussian general notwithstanding). Ultimately, politics occur with in clear system of laws and institutions, not in the field of battle.
I agree that 'the establishment' will often stack the deck against those coming in from the outside and seeking to change the system, particularly when such changes are to the detriment of the entrench interests. One potential counterweight to the current constellation of such interests who exert de facto rule within the Beltway and over our political discourse is the emergence of candidates like Gov. Dean and possibly Senator Obama, who are making populist appeals to the increasingly disenfranchised majorities outside US 395 in VA and MD. They're also capitalizing upon the blatantly corrupt culture of DC itself (helped along by the ineptitude and idiocy of the current Administration), giving the American people something mroe concrete to actually organize against; this is in studied contrast to the bugaboos the Administration and its handlers trade like 'Islamofascists' or 'International Jewish Bankers' or a 'New World Order Led By The Antichrist', most of which only exist in the heads of Rumsfield, Robertson, La Haye and their ilk.
Can they actually "win", even with the momentum building now? I've no idea. One can take some comfort that whenther or not we have another President Clinton elected or celebrate a President Obama in 2008, we're seeing the start of a genuine realignment occuring in real time here. The American people aren't liking what's happening to their country; eventually those livin inside the Beltway will have to take notice.
-
"Serious" and "substantive"
These words have the same origin and purpose. They are code words signalling that a person or idea is safely "inside the box."
That is, a serious plan for Iraq accepts the implicit assumptions about American power that got us there: that militarism is a part of American politics and economics. A substantive health care plan accepts that socialism doesn't work and Americans will always prefer inequities in that area: that corporate profits are more important than efficiency and affordability. A townsman may stand and speak in the Council without being called a madman or worse if he does not actually suggest resistance to the aristocratic parasites who choke social and political reform in their cradles.
It's that "box" that will suppress this country's ability to reform its imperial system and will become its coffin if journalists don't start denying its assumptions and denying the pundits and politicians the ability to use it as a tool of reaction without ever being forced to defend it.