Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on "Questions For Barack Obama"

1

"Why will the Republican members of Congress rise to applaud you, and the conservative half of the nation tune in to support you, unless you pursue an agenda that appeals to them? How do you pursue an agenda that appeals to conservatives, but is also progressive?"

I think you do that by leading. Leadership is not just about giving people what they want, its about getting them to support what you want.

Posted by Giffy | January 29, 2008 4:47 PM
2

That was a fantastic post. Like Melissa, I'd like the answers to those questions.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 4:47 PM
3

Maybe because he appeals to all of America, not just the slices that the Bush-Clinton Rovian approaches do.

Most people don't vote.

They are this year.

It's a Blue Tidal Wave that will wash America clean, and there's no stopping it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 4:48 PM
4

@ WiS, the support of the American people means nothing in Congress. The American people didn't think Clinton should have been impeached. By large percentage points. But he was. The American people viewed Clinton incredibly favorably. That didn't help him with the Republican Congress.

So just because your average Joe likes you doesn't mean a Republican Congress will stand up and clap for you.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 4:51 PM
5

Plan B is to move on without them.

He doesn't need everybody. But he's inviting everybody. Clinton is starting off from a position where about half are dead-set against her. There's no room for movement or error there. She's writing off half the country; she's spoiling for a fight. Obama's asking them to have a look first.

And notice, they are responding; people who vigorously disagree with most or all of Obama's positions are starting to follow him anyways. Clinton's NEVER going to get that. Quite the opposite; even people who agree with her on most things are sometimes turned off.

Feel free to disagree that his approach will accomplish more, but it seems reasonable to me.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 4:53 PM
6

I can't believe how obtuse you Hillary supporters

Obama became a community organizer out of college when he could have pursued many more conventional, non-liberal career paths. HE IS A FUCKING LIBERAL! Ok?

How can someone seriously accuse a democrat of pushing a right-wing agenda with a straight face when you support a Clinton? End welfare as we know it Clinton? Balance the budget instead of increase funding for programs for working families Clinton? Vote for the War in Iraq Clinton? Applaud George W's 'the surge is working' Clinton?

When Obama talks about working with Republicans he is describing a communication strategy, not policy. You sound like deranged conspiracy theorists with this bullshit.

Posted by Andrew | January 29, 2008 4:54 PM
7

Erica, your agenda is obvious. You want to discredit Obama while propping up Hillary Clinton.

Why don't you think about how the Republicans will respond to your candidate? They will go after her and demonize her endlessly. It won't be pretty and will not be good for this country.

Obama is getting Republicans to vote for him because they're sick of their own party. Congress will become more blue next session and will marginalize the Republicans even more. Even if they resist some of Obama's programs, they won't be able to put up much of a fight.

Also, many people have said that Obama would be much better for down-ticket Dems than Hillary would be. Think about that. Republicans would rather run against Hillary because she is a big fund-raiser for them. They're scared of Obama because his nomination will destroy the Republican party on every level.

Posted by ghostlawns | January 29, 2008 4:57 PM
8

These are the kinds of questions the Clinton people start posing when they want to avoid discussing their depressing, stubborn devotion to the politically polarized status quo they helped create. They just don't get it...

Posted by Trey | January 29, 2008 4:57 PM
9

i've noticed that alot of hillary supporters are turning more and more rapid and deaf as time goes by...as they accuse obama supporters of being too dreamy. i am thinking that i prefer dreamy to pseudo wonk savagery and blindness

Posted by Jiberish | January 29, 2008 4:58 PM
10

Fnarf, that's a damn good answer. Well done. I hope that's Obama's answer as well.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 4:58 PM
11

well, he'd have the majority of americans who now oppose this war with him, unlike Hillary, who voted for it and continues to vote to extend it indefinitely.

Posted by bing | January 29, 2008 5:00 PM
12

Thanks, Fnarf, for your response.

Posted by Ziggity | January 29, 2008 5:01 PM
13

What Andrew said.

Hillary is about as left wing as Margaret Thatcher.

Posted by John | January 29, 2008 5:04 PM
14

@7, I hardly think any one person can destroy the Republican party on every level. If you think Obama is going to do so, then I think you are going to be disappointed.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:05 PM
15

this is what i've been thinking all day.

when you try to please everyone, you please no one.

obama would be a huge jimmy carter like mistake.

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 5:12 PM
16

ECB,

One of these candidates is going to be the Democratic nominee. The traditional circular Democratic Primary Election firing squad which you apparently can't quit fueling isn't gonna help either of them one iota when they're running against whichever sorry candidate the Rethugs ultimately field.

Posted by Mr. X | January 29, 2008 5:12 PM
17

Melissa McEwen has it in for Obama. She's still repeating the "Obama toured with McClurkin" lie.

She gives Obama credit for nothing.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 5:12 PM
18

have you been paying attention at all the past few months, arduous? fnarf's answer is a very succinct description of obama's message, as well as clinton's most glaring fault[s]. we don't all have to agree on every single issue, but we do have to at least be able to discuss matters like adults if we expect anything to change. you can't force the country to adopt your beliefs, but you can try to persuade them. that's what obama is trying to do.

i think there's an old addage involving flies and vinegar [and possibly sugar] that applies here but i forget the details. hopefully you get the point.

Posted by brandon | January 29, 2008 5:13 PM
19

Hate is a strong word. My mother (god rest her soul) taught me that I shouldn't hate others. But damn it all if I don't hate Hillary Clinton and her supporters. A lot. Fucktards, the lot of 'em.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 29, 2008 5:14 PM
20

You all seem to be forgetting something very important here. Hillary has a vagina! That trumps anything else you might have to say.

Posted by AMB | January 29, 2008 5:16 PM
21

If you haven't learned a thing about the electorate in the past 8 years--they are really dumb. Americans rally around vague ideas and promises (Obama), not intellectual arguments and "told you sos" (Clinton). As an intellectual democrat, if that's what it takes to rally my side, I support it (Obama). Once he has promises to keep, and more democrats in congress because of the support he can garner, we (Dems) can really get more done.

It's perfect... it's almost precisely the anti-Bush. The NeoProg, if you will. (ECB, don't respond to the trolls, please)

Posted by Sim | January 29, 2008 5:16 PM
22

@17 how is that a lie?

HE DID TOUR WITH MCCLURKIN!

Posted by lineout fan | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM
23

Some questions for Hillary Inc.:

  1. How can we trust you to reform health care when you have taken massive contributions from the insurance and drug industries?
  2. How can we trust you to fight media consolidation when Rupert Murdoch is one of your biggest supporters?
  3. How are we to believe you'll refocus our military on national security instead of imperialist adventurism when you voted for the Iraq invasion and you voted to consider a body of the Iranian government a terrorist organization?
  4. How do you expect to rally the country around any solution for Social Security and Medicare when you have attacked reasonable solutions you opponent has put out?

Erica, Paul Krugman, and gang are being willfully oblique when they dismiss Obama's rhetoric of unity. Obama keeps referring to the need to build a "working majority." What is a working majority? A voting block in Congress can overcome filibusters and special-interest-beholden legislators? And how do you build a working majority? By winning in enough of a landslide to chasten fence-sitting legislators and to build a blue wave of Congressional victories (and maybe even some sympathetic red upsets in the process).

Posted by cressona | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM
24

@4 - you mean this Congress. In 2009 you'll see a Blue Tidal Wave Congress, and there will be a lot of new faces, because most pollsters have no clue who these non-voters will actually elect.

None.

@6,7,8,9 are all correct.

@16 obviously is still hung over from playing the Bush Drinking Game last night ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM
25

I do tired of this old line about how Obama is a total novice who only can only spout idealistic platitudes without any knowledge of the rough-and-tumble world of politics, as if he didn't have a decade in elected office to draw from (two years more than HRC).

Posted by tsm | January 29, 2008 5:18 PM
26

@18, wow that's what I get for rising above the petty Obama/Clinton fights and conceding when Fnarf makes a good argument about a candidate I don't support? I get upbraided?

Geez, maybe I should go back to slash and burn tactics....

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:19 PM
27

I agree with Fnarf. Bill Clinton's Plan B was certainly to move rightward when his initial agenda items were rejected. As a result, his administration disastrously "reformed" welfare, produced "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and abandoned the health care issue. Both Clinton and Obama have demonstrated the ability to work with Republicans on legislation, and I would hope that either would continue that approach as president. However, I think the Republicans would more likely dig their heels in with a President Clinton (and score points with their base for doing so) than they would with a President Obama. It is bad politics to work against a popular, charismatic president. I think that is why Reagan got away with such a conservative agenda.

Posted by Bub | January 29, 2008 5:22 PM
28

You're right. These are excellent questions for and I'd love to hear the Obama supporters answer them, too. Yes, he's trying to transcend partisanship, but is that really a goal in and of itself. What is it that he hopes to inspire America to do exactly, and how does he plan to execute these ideas once he has their support?

This has nothing to do with supporting Clinton and a lot to do with being concerned with the non-platform of "change", "hope", and "bipartisanship" that seems to be fueling the Obama campaign.

Posted by josh | January 29, 2008 5:23 PM
29

@19 & @20-

As I've mentioned earlier, I like Obama. I prefer Clinton. I find Clinton inspirational. I find Obama less so. I prefer Clinton's policies. I think Obama's are marginally worse.

None of this makes me a fucktard, or means that I'm voting for Hillary because I have two x chromosomes.

AMB, I called you out yesterday for your sexist comments. Just because Melissa McEwan has some questions for Obama doesn't mean that she's dismissing him for being a man. To the contrary, she's an Edwards fan. You may think you're being funny. You may think you're not being misogynistic. You're not funny and you are being misogynistic.

Michigan Matt, you don't know me. I don't know you. I don't have any reason to believe you're not a perfectly lovely person, so I'll just thank you not to call me a fucktard.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:24 PM
30

@27

"It is bad politics to work against a popular, charismatic president."

You mean like Bill Clinton? The popular, charismatic president?

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:26 PM
31

I'm sorry brandon, what did arduous say to piss you off?

Obama supporters can call Clinton a "bitch" and that all her supporters are fucktards (don't pretend that Michigan Matt's not a regular), but if we suggest that the American public won't get on all fours for Obama, *we're* the uncivil ones. Nice trick.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 5:29 PM
32

ps- keep it up, ECB.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 5:30 PM
33

Also, consider this quote:

They are skeptical, they say, because the first-term senator's thin record has shown virtually no sign of bipartisanship. They are fearful because his appeal just might work.

"It's clear he is a phenomenon," said Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), a conservative scrapper who revels in Washington's partisan warfare. "He will use style and grace to achieve liberal goals, which is absolutely politically brilliant but intellectually dishonest."

This, right here. (Except for the "intellectually dishonest" part.)

Posted by tsm | January 29, 2008 5:31 PM
34

26 - L O L !!! you call that an upbraiding?

perhaps i was a little too harsh [although i'm struggling to figure out how], but all i'm saying is that if you listen to what obama is saying, this message comes across loud and clear. many conservatives understand this and embrace his candidacy, and not because they agree with him on the issues, but because they know they're not going to be treated like 2nd class citizens for the next 4 years. and with less partisan bickering, more things get done.

sorry, no upbraiding intended!

Posted by brandon | January 29, 2008 5:31 PM
35

1. you don't.
2. getting us the fuck out of iraq.
3. arrests, show trials, and executions.

Posted by max solomon | January 29, 2008 5:33 PM
36

Well arduous, I guess humor and misogyny are all in the eye of the beholder. I don't think the fact that Hillary is female is enough reason to overlook her numerous problems as a candidate. I vote for female candidates all the time. I've never thought much of HIllary as a politician. I've seen her speak in person and thought she came across as wooden and calculating.

Further, the amount of venom she incites among the extreme right makes her a very polarizing figure. Another polarizing leader is the last thing this country needs.

And finally, Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? WTF, next thing you'll be telling me that Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania.

Posted by AMB | January 29, 2008 5:33 PM
37

Man, you Obama supporters just amaze me with how enamored you are by this guy. You'd think he was the second coming or something..crap.

I'll give Obama credit, he is a great inspirational speaker but he sure makes a lot of promises, A LOT of promises. I fear that with all of these promises he'll inadvertently mess this country up in more ways than Bushie boy has. Being good at making inspirational speeches doesn't mean he will be a good president. Ever heard of the term 'to good to be true'?

I am really curious to know what Mr. Obama's answers to these questions would be.

Thanks for sharing ECB.


Posted by notonthehill | January 29, 2008 5:34 PM
38

Oh goodness, people. I'll withdraw the fucktard comment. I've never called Hillary a bitch and never will. But there's something just so irritating about the innuendo of (some) Hillary supporters. I mean, you guys are complaining about Obama supporters being upset that you aren't bowing in his presence? Who was running the inevitability campaign? Wasn't that Hillary?

There's just been so much crap spewed by Hillary's supporters (the NY NOW group being the latest example) that I just seethe at what comes out of their mouths. It's not serious. It's not about issues. It's about stupid nit-picky stuff that doesn't matter. Why not focus on why Hillary is so great?

Cheers.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 29, 2008 5:36 PM
39

@36

"You all seem to be forgetting something very important here. Hillary has a vagina! That trumps anything else you might have to say."

That's what you said. No it wasn't funny. Yes it is misogynistic. Period. It's not subjective. Now stop it, because you're undermining your cause and your candidate.

Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:36 PM
40

Those are really good questions. Vague, sunny rhetoric and a promise to leave details to special detail experts sounds entirely too much like our current, lamented president for my taste. Hillary appeals to me because she seems more like she'll be a legislator first and a leader second.

I should point out that I don't know shit, though.

Posted by Kiru Banzai | January 29, 2008 5:36 PM
41

President of the USA is a lousy civil service position. Whoever gets it next better be well-versed in bankruptcy law.
Now that the White Men have done with their pillaging and looting, who's left to take on this mucky work? Women and other minorities.
Shit, this country sucks.

Posted by isabelita | January 29, 2008 5:40 PM
42

What tsm @25 said. In the Illinois legislature, Obama worked on legislation requiring videotaping of police interrogations and confessions. He worked with cops and Republicans by appealing to their better nature. The result? "Obama proved persuasive enough that the bill passed both houses of the legislature, the Senate by an incredible 35 to 0. Then he talked [Governor] Blagojevich into signing the bill, making Illinois the first state to require such videotaping." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html (BTW: passing 35-0 = everybody standing up and applauding.) How popular a constituency do you suppose criminal defendants are? How many Democrats in Olympia are advocating gutsy legislation like that? Listening to the Clintonistas carp about how naive and inexperienced Obama is really burns me up. Which candidate would you choose? The one who graduated and went into community organizing in the South Side of Chicago? Or the one who became a corporate lawyer and joined the board of Wal-Mart? There really is no comparison. I have no doubt that if Hillary were a man running on her record, she would have zero support on Slog.

Posted by lion | January 29, 2008 5:40 PM
43

@31 - "Vote For Hillary: Her Supporters Didn't Call People Bitches and Fucktards On this One Blog, Or At Least Did So Less Often Than Obama Supporters Did"

Not a really catchy slogan. And, frankly, kinda whiny.

Posted by tsm | January 29, 2008 5:42 PM
44

How is saying that Hillary being female isn't a good enough reason to vote for her misogynistic?

A) it's true, and B) what other reason to vote for her is there? Her support of Bush's request for authority to wage unending war in Iraq?

Posted by AMB | January 29, 2008 5:42 PM
45

Hillary Clinton through her campaign has ampley demonstrated why she shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency.

Her word means nothing and she'll lie and break the rules to get what she wants. You need only look at her attempt to get the MI and FL delegates despite DNC rules and her pledge or her attempts to disenfranchise students in Iowa. But it's not just her that's a problem, it's her followers too.

Some like Taylor Marsh and ECB are content to merely spout demonstrable falsehoods while others see nothing wrong with outright vote fraud, whether it's pre-marking ballots or locking the doors early to keep other campaign supporters out. Maybe her campaign did't explicitly plan these actions but the "It's not illegal unless someone tells you to stop" memo certainly encourages dishonest behavior.

And that's the problem. Hillary herself isn't racist but she fosters an at-all-costs atmosphere that invites her supporters to engage in race-baiting rhetoric. The ends justifies the means and the ends are always for the benefit of Hillary, not necessarily America or the democratic process.

Leadership starts from the top and from the actions of her husband to her staff all the way down to her local supporters, they'll lie and cheat to get what Hillary wants.

And if you don't this very dangerous attitude isn't going to carry over to the White House, then frankly, I'm not the one that's being naïve and irresponsible.

Posted by ru shur | January 29, 2008 5:48 PM
46

@44, it's the assumption that because a woman is against Obama, she must be a)supporting Hillary and b) only supporting Hillary because Hillary's also female that's misogynistic. You responded to a post by Melissa McEwan (an Edwards supporter) by making a crack about how Hillary has a vagina and that must be why McEwan supports her.

And, please. There are a million reasons to vote for Hillary (I prefer her health care policy, and her policy towards Pakistan.)


Posted by arduous | January 29, 2008 5:49 PM
47

Michigan Matt@38:

OK, I'll focus on why Hillary is great. No mention of any other candidate that's running this year.

I think Gore and Kerry lost their elections by being wimpy shits. I think Hillary has proven herself to fight like hell, and to punch back when punched. She won a heated race in 2000 and then won large numbers of Republicans in NY in her reelection in 2006. The Republicans have said every vile lie about her that you can imagine, personal and professional, and she keeps coming- she's like the fucking Terminator.

It's inconceivable that she will allow herself to get Swift Boated without extracting terrible revenge on the perpetrators.

And even her critics admit that she has a masterful command of the issues (if, admittedly, they sometimes disagree with her decisions.)

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 5:53 PM
48

How about ALL of you people pull your dicks in just a little bit and stop competing over who's being treated the meanest? It's really stupid-looking. "Bitch" and "fucktard" are just part of the lingua franca around here. It's when you get all huffy about it that you LOSE. There are two sides to every argument that escalates out of control: an overwillingness to offend, and an overwillingness to be offended.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 5:53 PM
49

Fnarf-

Bullshit. "Bitch" and "fucktard" are the language of the troll.

There is something about Clinton that makes some of you think you can treat her in a way no one would, and no one does, treat either Edwards and Obama. And it makes you think it's o.k. to impugn the motives of Clinton supporters that would never and is never done to Edwards and Obama supporters.

It makes you look shrill and petty, and if it's whiny or weak for me to point it out, so be it.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 6:00 PM
50

ps-

Obamatons: when your candidate was the plucky underdog, a certain amount of iconoclastic overenthusiasm was amusing, even charming. Now that your candidate is the front-runner, and you continue to kick us and call us names, it just makes you look like assholes. And makes us not want to support your (otherwise outstanding) candidate.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 6:08 PM
51

@21 aka the intellectual democrat : "If you haven't learned a thing about the electorate in the past 8 years--they are really dumb."

Would this statement include the electorate that voted in the Democratic majority in Congress?

Posted by Mark in Colorado | January 29, 2008 6:12 PM
52

Goodness gracious! (To lingua franca: Fucking shit!)

It's stupid of Obama supporters to call Hillary supporters names because of their choice of candidate or preferred policies. We're bleeding-hearts! We care! Shades of grey, not black-and-white. Not all dissenters are fucktards. We love each other (tough love, I suppose) and we have to make other people care too. Remember?

I do have a little pet peeve around here, though. Sometimes a contributor will post something that is totally nonsensical, and we can't call bullshit on it. Or we can, and do, but if it's by ECB and about the candidates BHO and HRC (there have been a lot of these) Hillary supporters will accuse others of all sorts of vile things. No one's totally innocent here; Obama supporters then claim that Hillary supporters are stupid and shouldn't be listened to.

I like Hillary, for good reasons! I am currently supporting Obama, for lots of good reasons! And it's not silly or petty to point out a bad argument when you see one.

Posted by Vanessa | January 29, 2008 6:14 PM
53

Big Sven, I don't get it. Your main reason for supporting Hillary is that if Republicans say vile lies about her, she will extract terrible revenge on the perpetrators. I believe that is the point that many Obama supporters are making. They are tired of Terminator politics. All the Clintons did with their Terminator politics was turn 50 years of Democratic rule of the House of Representatives over to the Republicans in 1994. They didn't advance the agenda. They were continually on the defensive, complaining about the vast right-wing conspiracy. They played right into the hands of Lee Atwater, Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove. Who do you think is the Republican Number One Get-Out-The-Vote-Machine? But Obama disarms Republicans the way Reagan disarmed blue collar white men. The Democrats raged about how he was going to blow up the world, and he just laughed and said, "There you go again." He had an ease in his skin that allowed him to advance his deeply felt convictions over the protest of his political adversaries. HRC has zero ability to do that--she has no rapport with anyone other than her base. She starts off in a defensive crouch. Obama starts off in a much stronger position and--unlike Gore or Kerry--he's willing to defend himself on the stump.

Posted by lion | January 29, 2008 6:17 PM
54

Obama's campaign rhetoric about uniting disparate groups reminds me of Bill Clinton's show-stopping convention speech in '92. He played on similar themes and pointed out that the GOP (who made the mistake of letting Pat Buchanan speak at their convention that year, unintentionally terrifying millions) seemed mostly interested in defining which groups shouldn't have a place at the table, thus pioneering the technique of advocating for "unity" while slamming the opposition for divisiveness (wrap your head around that for a minute.)

Erica seems to be criticizing Obama's rhetoric for being rhetoric.

Posted by flamingbanjo | January 29, 2008 6:21 PM
55

Thank you all so much for proving my (regrettably accurate) point about the typical Democratic Party circular firing squad.

The ONLY thing "that sonofabitch Reagan" (as my dear deceased grandma used to call him) ever got right was that there really is something to be said for party unity - like, um, the ability to win elections.

Posted by Mr. X | January 29, 2008 6:24 PM
56

I'm sorry you think that, Big Sven. I think you're being overly sensitive, and I think you're being overly sensitive on purpose, because you like feeling victimized. That's too bad, because (unlike some of your fellow Clinton supporters) you're a pretty good commenter most of the time.

But if you think "you people" never do it too, you're crazy. Are you familiar with the work of "lineout fan" or "whatever"? The Jesse Jackson slur, which is coded race-baiting? The "oh my gosh he sat next to Ben Nelson, he's a warmongerererer" baloney? The constant refrain of "but he doesn't have any policies, just platitudes", which isn't true? It cuts both ways. You know it does.

How about if you let the loons fly on past you and concentrate on the arguments that make sense, and I'll do the same? If you're following along, you've seen me attack Obama supporters for being assholes too.

I'm just asking you in particular, and some of the other people who are possibly capable of having a conversation -- arduous, for instance -- to just dial it down a little.

It would be really, really awesome, too, if we could leave "vagina" out of it. There's other, better ways to make that point, such as it is, about Clinton.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 6:29 PM
57

What 45 said. And 53.

Posted by banjoboy | January 29, 2008 6:32 PM
58

So far Obama hasn't shown me much beyond his rhetoric for hope. Yes, he's smart and charismatic, and has a vision for change (what DOES it look like?), but so too does Hillary, and she has credibility on a much larger scale.


Correct me if I am wrong, but the image of and goodwill toward the U.S. has plummeted over the past 8 years under the Bush regime; we are pretty much reviled on an international scale, from what I've learned. But during Clinton's presidency, our international relations were in much better shape, and Bill Clinton remains popular and respected across the globe, and could be of benefit to a Hillary presidency. Also, I think Hillary has more knowledge of and exposure to international politics than Barak, which to me is a good thing, given our current international reputation.

Posted by grace | January 29, 2008 6:34 PM
59

Perhaps Obama was imagining Clinton getting elected president, and the politics of triangulation (redux) orchestrated by her union-busting Svengali Mark Penn causing Republicans to cheer her demonization of Iran; support for a flag-burning amendment; some sort of NAFTA 2, to destroy the remainder of our nation's manufacturing base her husband left intact; etc.

Posted by Brendan | January 29, 2008 6:39 PM
60

I apologize, everyone, for calling Clinton supporters "fucktards". I shouldn't have done it. It doesn't add to the level of discussion. And I'll try to be more thoughtful. Though, honestly, I tend to save more thoughtful discussion for websites that are a bit, well, more serious.

At any rate, I DO think you're right Big Sven. Hillary Clinton and some of her supporters have amply demonstrated that they won't let anything get in the way as they reach for their inevitable "ring." And some folks find her Terminator-ish attitude to be admirable. Bully for them.

I, however, don't. I also don't like being called an Obamaton--likening me to a thoughtless machine blinded by shiny rhetoric. It demeans people who support Senator Obama. I'm supporting him for very real reasons including that he's trying to pull us out of the depths of the politics of personal destruction that have become commonplace. The difference in their positions aren't that terribly big. You can argue that the Republicans won't change, and I hear you. But I think if Senator Obama gets enough support, it won't matter WHAT the Republicans think.

Cheers.

Posted by Michigan Matt | January 29, 2008 6:44 PM
61

Actually fnarf, I don't think Whatever or Lineout Fan ever called anyone a "fucktard" or "bitch". Nor has Sven or ECB. I believe Whatever called you especially nasty and crazy, because you pretty much are a troll. You call people names, trash people's ideas, and pretty much make every post uncivil because it's what you do. You lie constantly about what people do and do not say, and purposefully mislead conversations to hide the fact that you treat any commentors that disagree with you like shit. You drive people out of threads by doing the blog equivalent of shouting them down. Congrats! You are the new ecce homo!

Posted by fnarf lies | January 29, 2008 6:51 PM
62

But during Clinton's presidency, our international relations were in much better shape, and Bill Clinton remains popular and respected across the globe, and could be of benefit to a Hillary presidency.

So let's rescind the 22nd Amendment. I'm sick to fucking death of Clinton getting a free pass because she's married to a former president.

And any Democrat would be able to improve foreign relations. In fact, I'd bet that having someone in the White House whose father was Kenyan would be a remarkable asset, as Africa is undoubtedly going to be a big foreign policy nightmare in the future.

Also, I think Hillary has more knowledge of and exposure to international politics than Barak, which to me is a good thing, given our current international reputation.

Point being? What exposure did Clinton I have to international politics before he appeared on the scene?

Posted by bma | January 29, 2008 6:54 PM
63

Cheers to you too, Matt. We've been saying it for years-- dammit, folks, you should vote this way because it's in your interests! All these radical liberal ideas are great for almost everyone, but it takes a strong personality to make them listen. Abrasiveness turns them off. Obama might be able to help them understand.

Or maybe not.

Posted by Vanessa | January 29, 2008 6:54 PM
64

And face it... this really is just a beauty contest.

Posted by bma | January 29, 2008 6:57 PM
65

For godsakes, go to Obama's website and read his 64 frickin page collection of policy statements.

Posted by stunk | January 29, 2008 7:15 PM
66

FNarf could you provide one example of me calling any Obama supporter a name?

I'm not an HRC supporter. I'm not a Obama opponent. I don't want a repubo elected in 2008.

I have only said that I agreed with Sven that Obama supporters have been vitriolic and when challenged gave examples.

I don't remember calling you nasty and/or crazy but if I did please refer me to the posts and I'll apologize and make sure I don't post after Ambien.

Posted by whatever | January 29, 2008 7:20 PM
67

@66,

He's not accusing you of calling anyone names. He's accusing you of recycling disingenuous information about Obama and never listening to any counter arguments/facts.

Posted by keshmeshi | January 29, 2008 7:35 PM
68

I also plan on peeing on your cornflakes tomorrow morning, "fnarf lies". Just you wait and see.

Posted by Fnarf | January 29, 2008 7:41 PM
69

Maybe because he doesn't base his vote on having the same kind of sexual organs you have?

Posted by artistdogoby | January 29, 2008 7:44 PM
70

keshmshi

One example of information about Obama that I posted.

You people are rich.

I have nothing against Obama. I worry that he might not win in November. I have the same concern about HRC.

My favorite ticket would be Gore/Obama.

Posted by whatever | January 29, 2008 8:01 PM
71

So I notice no one has actually formed a response to #23... does anyone have anything beyond "But, she has a vagina!"

Don't get me wrong- I would love to see a vagina running this country... it's just the policies ATTACHED to this particular vagina that I don't agree.

Posted by UNPAID BLOGGER | January 29, 2008 8:22 PM
72

fnarf@56: We'll agree to disagree on paragraph 1. I'll grudgingly admit to most of paragraph 2, freely (and disappointedly) to the "Jesse Jackson" part. I'm with you on paragraphs 3-5.

Not to be all lovey dovey everybody, but I talked to the resident neocon at work this afternoon. He said the #1 fear of the Republicans is a Clinton/Obama (Obama/Clinton, Barack/Hillary, Hillary/Barack) ticket in the fall.

Perhaps we'll all be singing a different tune in a couple of months.

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 8:27 PM
73

obama doesn't come up with insane foreclosure freezes. by the timehillary couldv possibly take office she wouldn't be saving anyone currently out their home now and certainly wouldn't create an incentive to create loans for anyone

Posted by Bellevue Ave | January 29, 2008 8:31 PM
74

ECB, why do you pretend as though you actually want answers to these questions? It's pretty clear you don't - plenty of people have offered coherent responses to your anti-Obama posts and you still fall back on the same talking points over and over and over and over and over again. You're not in this for discussion or enlightenment.

Posted by seriously. | January 29, 2008 9:01 PM
75

Hey Sven, can we go back to what you said way earlier about Hillary: "It's inconceivable that she will allow herself to get Swift Boated without extracting terrible revenge on the perpetrators."

I've been wondering about that, you know how Hillary supposedly would hit back. How exactly would she do that? How do you take revenge on a guy like John O'Neill of the Swift Boat Veterans? The guy's name is already mud among Democrats, but what does he care? He's a winger hero and always will be.

It's one thing to reply to cheap shots instead of ignore them, such as when Obama stooped to answer the nonsense rumors about his religion. But how would anybody scare off the rumor mongers with threats of revenge? They're either anonymous, or they have nothing to lose.

How can Hillary hurt them in ways that Obama, or anybody, can't?

And if Hillary did have such terrible revenge in store for evildoers, why doesn't she use her supposed power against those who continue to make up stories about her?

Posted by elenchos | January 29, 2008 9:02 PM
76

@74, well a couple of days ago ECB admitted that she had stopped reading a previous thread at about the 25th post. That was another post of her asking questions that generated a ton of responses.

Given all of the incredibly sexist and/or personal vitriol that is thrown her way, I'm surprised she doesn't just disable commenting on her posts. That or do bulk deletes.

But yeah, I agree, if she posts as if she's actually interested in feedback it would be nice if she stuck around for it -- the part that is truly feedback that is.

Posted by gnossos | January 29, 2008 10:56 PM
77

e@75-

Are you really arguing that Clinton *isn't* one of the most calculating and aggressive politicians in the entire party?

If she were John Kerry she wouldn't have worried about John O'Neill. She would have gone straight for Bush- if she didn't have corroborating evidence, she would have implied she did. She would have called a press conference, played the ads, and said (in coded language) "unbelievable. Look what these Republican douchebags are doing now. Hiring serial liars to besmirch my name. Sorry, George, if you feel bad about dodging service drinking whiskey sours in an Alabama officer's club. But shore up your manhood at some other fucking scratching post. I was dodging bullets while you were snorting coke" And then she would have sicked her lawyers on everyone involved at SBV. Then she would have done oppo research and leaked everything she found.

She sure the fuck wouldn't have sniffed her nose and assumed the whole thing was going to blow over.

Hillary was right to talk about the "vast right wing conspiracy" back in the day (some of their perfidy live on today in memes that get repeated on the SLOG- fuck you Richard Scaife, hope your ex-wife takes you to the cleaners.)

I see no evidence that the various scandals during the Clinton years ever slowed her down nor did she let them deflect her from her goals (first to support her husband's agenda, then to become US Senator.)

Posted by Big Sven | January 29, 2008 10:57 PM
78

@77; yeah but neither of them could translate electoral toughness into legislative accomplishments.

In fact Bill caved in on gays in the military, welfare, and syringe exchange (to name just three), because in each case the right had the goods on him and let him know it.

As many others have pointed out, the Clinton habit of going for immediate polarization may be electorally successful, but it's a lousy way of governing (unless you're a dictator).

Posted by gnossos | January 30, 2008 12:01 AM
79

i can't read over 70 comments. maybe i should but all i can say is yes, it's a dream to believe that Obama's Dream is going to fix this world. You need to read either William River Pitt or Dennis Perrin if you want great educated and honest commentary. Google the names.

Posted by M | January 30, 2008 12:01 AM
80

that's William Rivers Pitt.

Posted by M | January 30, 2008 12:02 AM
81

The issues between HRC and BHO seem pretty clear cut.

The older lady has a record, fr better or worse. She is a competent person with a moderate to right orientation and a big ego. She has a hubby who may be a problem and will at best be unable to win over a majority of the public to any hard tack she offers.

The younger guy is bright, more likley to bring the country together and build some lasting alternative to the Repricans. He does not have her record of failures bhut in time liley would have some.

Could HRC run the country? Yes.

Could BHO run it Yes.

Which one is likley to get more public supprt for hard decisions .. BHO.

Which one ois more liley to swing foreigners to support the US, BHO.

My concern with HRC is the lack of a track record she and her husband have in appointing great folks under them. The Clinton cabhinet was a lot of yes men . with the one exception of Rubin. Aspin was a disaster on a par with Rummy. Magaziner, he who fucked up helathcare, is STILL their chief of policy.

Look, the rumor mills about Edwards as a BHO AG are credible .. does anyone beleive Hillary would have the self confidence to appoint Edwards as her AG?

Stand up, pull lout th laser pointer and make the big O. Now lets all get in the circle and move on.

Posted by SeattleJew | January 30, 2008 1:09 AM
82

OBAMA'S sunny disposition and vauge retoric reminds me of regan which is why I support him
a teflon liberal.....although I am VERY suspecious of his 2nd amendment record

which is why I supported richerdson and gravel

my first choice would be gravel.....but I'm realistic and support obama

I'm just a crazy montanon which is not that disimilar from alaska
leftist polocys....with guns

Posted by linus | January 30, 2008 1:22 AM
83

If you are genuinely opposed to voting for someone who voted for starting the Iraq war or funding for the war, neither Clinton or Obama have clean records. Policy-wise and voting record wise, since he was elected to U.S. Senate, they have voted practically identically. Neither of them is a nutty left winger, and neither of them is a closet republican.

So all of you who say you would never vote for Clinton even if she were the nominee, congratulations. You internalized the millions of dollars spent by republicans over the past fifteen years spent discrediting her.

If you support Obama in the primary, fine. Support him for his policies, support him for his charisma, whatever. But don't act like an ass and try to bring people over to his side by saying that you would NEVER vote for Clinton, because their voting records are virtually identical since he came to congress. Same goes for Clinton supporters.


And the health care critique? Yeah, the Clinton's got NOTHING done on health care. They certainly weren't responsible for S-CHIP, which provided 6 million American children with health care.

Posted by Sara | January 30, 2008 8:00 AM
84

I'd also like to add that supporting Obama because he won't be a terminator politician like Clinton is silly. Both he and Clinton have engaged in incredibly negative campaigns against one another. Neither has clean hands in this. The Clintons are exactly as racist as Obama is sexist. Obama has shown that he's willing to get his hands just as filthy as Clinton's if he thinks it will help him out. It doesn't make your support for your candidate any less legitimate if you admit that he is running a campaign just like every campaign that has been run before.

Unless you were ignorant and that was the only reason you were supporting him, which I don't think is the case for most people.

Posted by Sara | January 30, 2008 8:10 AM
85

Umm, Big Sven @77, apparently you didn't get the most recent memo from Clinton central: Scaife is no longer part of the vast right-wing conspiracy (in fact, he's now Bill's lunch pal), so you shouldn't be saying "fuck you." http://www.newsweek.com/id/69545

And as to the various Clinton scandals not slowing the Clintons down, apparently you missed gays in the military turning into Don't Ask Don't Tell, the torpedoing of Hillarycare, and Newt Gingrich becoming Speaker of the House in 1994. It's true that the scandals did not slow down welfare reform, NAFTA, DOMA and school uniforms (!)

Posted by kk | January 30, 2008 8:49 AM
86

Fnart and Keshmeshi,

Gonna give those examples where I attacked Obama or his supporters? Didn't think so.

KK - the article seems to say that it will be the Clintons that get both sides or the aisle to cheer, who woulda guessed.

Posted by whatever | January 30, 2008 9:36 AM
87

kk-

Bill was willing to accept Scaife's check for the Clinton foundation. Shocking!

But you're right. HRC didn't successfully win two elections in NY state. Including getting 30% of the Republican vote. My bad.

Posted by Big Sven | January 30, 2008 11:07 AM
88

I suppose it's always possible that McCain will develop some form of cancer and withdraw at the last moment, and the Republicans will run a heavyweight like Rick Lazio so Hillary Clinton has a decent shot at the presidency this fall.

Posted by kk | January 30, 2008 3:05 PM
89

kk@88- Would they run Rick Lazio or Alan Keyes?

Posted by Big Sven | January 30, 2008 6:58 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).