Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Sure, I'll vote for the monster, almost surely, if she's the Dem nominee--even though I don't think she and Bill will support the nominee if she isn't

>

BFFs Hill 'n' McCranky--isn't it a shame that they
can't run together to serve as co-presidents?

I think we can all agree that this has been a strange presidential season.

On the GOP side, starting with a field that could only have been assembled to illustrate the many varieties of incompetence, ideological wackitude, moral turpitude, and big-lie dishonesty huddled under the Tattered Tent of Modern Republicanism, the nomination has gone by acclimation--as a result of the Minister Hucksterbee Mind Meld that neutralized Willard Romney--to a candidate so pathetic and inept (not to mention corrupt, since of course Republicans would never hold that against him) that he'd already been written off as roadkill. Astonishingly, Senator McCranky, the sleaziest and most unprincipled contender in a field that was unbridled Sleazomania, now appears to command a united party poised to make a serious bid for the White House.

On the Democratic side, while there is certainly an element of surprise in the young and relatively untested Barack Obama winding up as one of the Last Candidates Standing, it was less surprising that the officially designated "major" candidates included no one whose stands on the issues might have inspired progressive voters. When the field narrowed to three, there was clearly appeal in some of the things John Edwards said, but for at least some of us there was never the sense that he was really committed to what he was saying, and hardly any clue as to what he might have been willing to fight for in the White House. (I do love that Elizabeth Edwards, but she wasn't the candidate.) Oh sure, he got screwed in terms of media attention, no question. But I don't think that's the only reason, or necessarily the principal reason, why his campaign never took off.

And then there were two--and things got really strange.

For those of us who'd been mostly sitting on the sidelines--unable to muster much enthusiasm for the Final Two but fully expecting to support whichever came out of the process, on the ground that he or she would be orders of magnitude preferable to whatever life form emerged from the Republican miasma--it was positively weird to find that we "undecideds" were viewed as suspicious persons if not actual enemy combatants by zealous partisans of the Final Two. (Of course it was surprising to begin with that those candidates aroused such zealous partisanship, at least among people who didn't see their candidate as a potential meal ticket.)

Still, for a lot of us, there came a point at which the Final Two began to separate. Perhaps because the Clinton campaign had been so spectacularly mismanaged, its tone and tactics came increasingly to reflect the squalid character of its inner circle, the people to whom the candidate had entrusted her fate. And they are (hmm, is there a delicate way to put this?) not just stunningly incompetent but some of the vilest people on the planet. True, reports now circulated that those people all hate one another, but then, who could help but hate them?

As the fog cleared, the Clinton campaign came to look eerily like any right-wing hate-and-smear job under the tutelage of Karl Rove. In the official campaign narrative, their candidate was always the saintly victim of unceasing vicious assaults from all sides. But on the ground what was visible was a barrage of innuendo, distortions, and outright lies orchestrated by the Clinton low command.

Most shockingly, Hill 'n' Bill have taken to all but endorsing their dear friend John McCranky in the event that she doesn't win the nomination.

The whole "3am phone call" garbage was always just that. In the one significant foreign-policy test she has faced, the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq, she could not possibly have failed more miserably. If she lacked information, it was her own fault--there was plenty of information to be had, and we know now that Sen. Bob Graham, who as ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee had seen the classified stuff, was begging his fellow Democrats to exercise their right to read it too.

True, Clinton had a lot of company among Senate Democrats who chose to take what they thought was the politically easy way out--to go along quietly, assuming that the political risk lay in sticking out their necks to resist the orgy of xenophobia being orchestrated by the White House. For once, though, it has turned out that just maybe there is a price to be paid for indulging in the gutlessness of expediency. Ain't that a kick in the head?

Senator Clinton of course has refused to back down or apologize for anything. Yet she expects us to believe that we should allow her to handle future national-security emergencies. In fact, she and Bill tell us that sooner than Senator Obama we should trust their pal McCranky, whose primitive and disaster-causing views on national security should automatically disqualify him from any public office.

Meanwhile, on the other side, Senator Obama was not only holding his ground but showing signs of emerging as a political figure of stature. As the attacks turned racial, he had one of his finest moments with his speech on race.

Yes, the speech was politically necessary, but he rose above necessity to address the subject frontally, in what could be the opening of the long-needed, long-postponed national conversation on race and racism. Note, by contrast, how Senator Clinton never faces challenges directly; she always sidles around them, tossing out carefully scripted invective and acting out her martyrdom--all so calculated in the delivery that one doesn't know what to believe about what she believes.

In more recent speeches Obama has undertaken some long-overdue rhetorical dismantling of the Bush regime. These are issues on which he might actually be able to bring together politically divided people in ways that might lead to positive action. I'm not getting all misty with optimism, but at least he is giving us something to hope for, while his opponent gives us only reasons for dread.

The real answer to the "3am phone call" nonsense, beyond the character of the candidates, is what kind of administration we could expect them to put together. Looking at the people Senator Clinton has put in charge of her campaign, is it possible to feel anything but horror at the thought of who would have her ear in the White House?

I had a frosty online exchange recently with someone whose sincerity as well as political experience and idealism I genuinely respect. He has, however, drunk the Clinton Kool-Aid, and has cast himself in the role of "honest broker" between factions he chooses to regard as equally responsible for the polarization. He had voiced concern on a political list that irreparable damage to Democratic hopes might be done by refusing to give the Clintonites their way on the Michigan and Florida delegate conundrum, especially as he had "heard say that Obama supporters were directly involved in preventing revotes in FL and MI."

Of course what he'd heard said was Clintonite bullshit propaganda. A more rational list member dismantled the case with regard to Michigan by simply running through the actual situation and sequence of possibilities there. But how do you talk to someone who thinks he's being "even-handed" when in fact he's being played for a sucker?

Here is an only slightly edited version of what I wrote him off-list:
Two thoughts, ---------:

(1) I'm pretty sure that your "I have heard say that" is concealing Clinton supporters. There's no way I can persuade you that I am NOT an "Obama supporter," that I was truly undecided until Clinton began turning herself into as vile and dishonest a candidate as, say, George W. Bush or John McCain. But the fact is that there is a radical difference between Clinton and Obama supporters, and the Clinton people have severed the link with truth and reality. I'm sure that there are many Clinton supporters who are genuinely deluded about reality, but they serve as tools of the flesh-crawlingly monstrous people who run the Clinton campaign, who truly don't give a damn about truth, only about winning. You can be sure that when they talk about Obama people trying to influence the outcome, it's because THEY have been trying thousands of times harder--albeit unsuccessfully--to CONTROL the outcome.

I see that ------- made a much more reasoned response with regard to the MI situation, and that's why she's so valuable to us all. I'll stick with my emotional response. Once we pretend that the Obama and Clinton supporters are comparable, we're trapped in the right-wing "fair and balanced" funhouse mirror.

(2) Someone will have to show me that the FL-and-MI argument isn't 100-percent bullshit. How many months did it take supposedly state-of-the-art "insider" types to grasp the pathetically simple reality that Democrats no longer have winner-take-all primaries, and THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING. By what margins would Clinton have to win in those states to significantly alter the delegate situation?

The only real advantage to Clinton of revotes in FL and MI would be a chance to ratchet up the scorched-earth tactics by which she and Bill clearly plan to put McCain in the White House if she doesn't get the nomination. I wish they gave us any reason to think that they share your wish to keep the party from breaking apart. I'm sort of coming to think that well-meaning initiatives like yours are hopeless precisely because the Clintons and their people have already determined the outcome. If they don't get what they want, they will prove that they SHOULD have.

Best,
Ken

I got a predictably frosty response, indicating that no conversation is possible between us here. But then, I didn't expect any, any more than I thought it was possible to have any sort of conversation with the respectable types of Democrats who adopted the right's meme of "Bush-bashing" as a weapon against those of us who insisted on branding the politics of Bushism as the catastrophe it has been.

My friend Peter makes what I think is a brilliant observation about our Hillary. She has, he suggests, turned into what her enemies always accused her of being. Of course they also accused her of being an ultra-liberal, when she really isn't even any kind of liberal, but Peter suggests thinking of that as just an epithet the Far Right hurls, more or less as a synonym for "evil." I think he's nailed this: She really has turned into the monster the loonies portrayed her as.

At the same time, my friend Leo, who is European, has taken to suggesting that, after all the years in which he's listened to me talk about the mystery of rabid Clinton-hating, it turns out to be surprisingly easy to hate the Clintons. Again, I would like to think that this is a recent development, that what the original Clinton-haters were hating was really something in themselves. But again, I can't disagree. On the basis of their performance in this campaign, I find myself now feeling terrible things about both Hill and Bill.

Nevertheless, I don't see any alternative to voting for Senator Clinton in the event that she wins the nomination. I wish I weren't so persuaded that the feeling isn't reciprocal. But I have hardly any doubt that in the event that she loses the nomination, she intends to prove that she was more "electable" by doing whatever it takes to make sure that her rival doesn't win. After all, all she has to do is directly or indirectly encourage her supporters to sit on their hands in November.


CASE IN POINT: ICKIEST HAROLD'S EXCELLENT
ADVENTURE FOMENTING RACE PANIC


After I wrote the above piece yesterday, Howie called my attention to news of super-slimy Clinton super-stooge Ickiest Harold's happy times trolling for superdelegates by working them into a panic over the Obama guy's race (which became a featured story on last night's Countdown). Class, pure class. Well, they do say the Clintons will do anything to win. These really are easy people to hate.

One thing I thought Obama's race speech accomplished--by couching his appeal in the form of an optimistic, inspirational exhortation that we Americans are better than that and can rise above these meaningless distinctions--was to begin to force irredeemable bigots out into the open, effectively declaring their irredeemability. You know, people like Rupert Murdoch (who thoughtfully pointed out that African-Americans haven't accomplished a darned thing) and Pat Buchanan (who's demanding to know why African-Americans haven't yet had the grace to thank white Americans for enslaving them).

Among others.
#

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

6 Comments:

At 6:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To be perfectly honest I am not sure who to cast my vote upon. If any thing like the UK you are promised the moon and stars and when elected in to office promises fail to be fulfilled. All they want is power.

 
At 7:26 AM, Blogger KenInNY said...

I sympathize, JC. I spent a lot of time in the undecided camp, and one thing I've learned is to pay very little attention to the handler-crafted political speeches, which just say what the handlers think we want to hear.

One thing I DO know, though, is that McCranky can't be allowed to slither into the White House. If nothing else, I think of poor Justice John Paul Stevens, continuing to hold on at the Supreme Court in the hope that he won't be replaced by the sort of slime you have to scrape off your shoe.

Ken

 
At 9:07 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't see any alternative to voting for Senator Clinton in the event that she wins the nomination."

I do. Green.

I can see that a vote for Clinton is a vote for the same old, same old. In that sense, it is no different than a vote for McBush.

In what sense does she differ from McBush? They have the same plans for Iraq (despite Hillary's claims otherwise), they both favor yet another war this time with Iran,
they both support Israel's right wing to the detriment of the US, they both cater to corporate interests above the interests of the average citizen, and they both surround themselves with crooks.

Hillary getting into the White House will result in at least another 20-30 years of the same old shit we've had since the late 1960's. McBush getting into the White House will mean another chance for real reform in only four years.

Not that I'm an Obamamaniac, because I'm not. He was about fourth or fifth from the top of my original list of possibilities.

The only thing that will make me consider voting for Hillary would be for her (and not Obama) to strongly demand and work for impeachment and prosecution of the entire Bush administration. You know how likely that is.

Barring such an unexpected development, I've made my decision.

 
At 10:19 AM, Blogger KenInNY said...

I'm not the best person to be making the case for our Hillary, but if it comes down to a choice between her and our McCranky, I think of the milliions of ways in which our everyday lives are affected by the vast number of federal bureaucrats, regulators, U.S. attorneys, judges, ambassadors, etc. appointed by the president.

This issue has been vastly heightened by the thoroughness with which the Bush regime has befouled the federal government. There's a desperate need to clean as much of that mess out as possible. (The already-sitting federal judges are beyond reach, of course, but there are going to be a lot of new appointments to make.) I'm not saying that President Hillary's choices would all thrill me, but there's no question in my mind that they would be unmistakably different from President McCranky's.

As I've noted in another thread, if there's one image that haunts me, it's that of poor old Justice John Paul Stevens hanging on literally for dear life.

Ken

 
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"a choice between her and our McCranky, I think of the milliions of ways in which our everyday lives are affected"

I understand and agree. But I was taking a longer-term view. If one or the other gets into office now, what will our country look like 30 years from now?

Imagine what the US would be like today if Eugene McCarthy had been elected president in 1968, or George McGovern in 1972. All those decades of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush - just erased! Peace and prosperity instead of criminality and war.

You think Humphrey would have been better than Nixon? I doubt it. He didn't suck quite as much, but he was a certified weasel, and he supported the Vietnam War, would likely have continued it as long as Nixon did, or even longer, by virtue of his being a weasel. The repubs would have blamed "liberals" for the mess, and the public would have lapped it up.

No one liked Humphrey, and for good reason, and he lost. Sound like anyone you know today?

Unfortunately, the Spineless Democrats allowed Ford to give Nixon a pass, using that pardon as an excuse not to investigate the criminality behind his administration (which criminals, btw, are several of the exact same people surrounding Bush).

I seriously don't think Hillary would be much better than McBush. OK, one judicial appointment might be different. But face it, our judiciary is completely politicized crap already. It will take MUCH more than one appointment to make a difference, and Hillary will not do what it takes.

So if Hillary gets nominated, I view a Green vote as an investment: A small loss today, getting McBush instead of Hillary (a very small difference, I think) compared to the possibility of a very large gain over the next couple decades.

 
At 9:05 AM, Blogger queenbeethat'sme9 said...

There is a HUGE problem with the "I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary " crowd.

By simply having that mindset you actually validate and promote all that Hillary and her supporters are doing and saying. Here's why:

1. By voting for her no matter what, you are implying that whatever she does..if she eventually wins the nomination--even if she cheats that is alright with you. That's a green light to cheat or do whatever she likes

2. By claiming obedience to dogma over actions and the willingness to ignore tactics, (while a large % her supporters claim they will NOT vote for Obama no matter what) you actually give credence to the argument that she is the more electable one. After all, she is looking for your vote, not your adoration

3. By voting for her no matter what, you lend credibility to the belief that whatever it takes to win is the new barometer--look for even uglier campaigns in the future

4. By allowing her to use race and gender as sticks to divide, these tactics are going to be the new low and weapon of choice for the Dem party just like it already is for the GOP--why? Because a vote for her means it WORKS--and winning is the name of the game

In short--all of you who will vote for Hillary or anyone who does evil no matter what are just as bad as Hillary--if you claim you hate the "devil" yet will support the devil in the end if it puts your team in the white house--then you also- will do anything to win, you just don't see yourself this way.

Consider this--for the past few decades, Democrats have shown a surprising lack of Convictions* Honor* or Principles. Not that they do not have them--but they have taken a back seat to winning. They can shelve those values when it suits them, just to "win".

There are many attributes of the far right now being displayed in the Dem party. Blind loyalty, marching in step to the party line, Party before principles, Smear tactics, singular loyalty to one chosen leader...But the far right had other attributes that many Dems failed to adopt but that ARE noble:


The ability to stand firm on principle regardless of the consequences to themselves personally, or even the country in the short term. This means they stand firm on an illegal war--even if it means they will be voted out of office. They stand firm on tax cuts for the rich--even if it means they will be voted out of office, When the guard changes in Washington, few will be able to say the GOP bent or caved in or even compromised on their core beliefs--they did not. Right or wrong, they lived and died by their principles.

what am I saying? That when Conviction Honor and Principle are not just ideas but the infrastructure of your being--then you do not jettison them or shelve them just because you may lose.

Democrats should have stood firm and sent Bush his vetoed bill over and over again until the money in Iraq ran out and he had to compromise. Democrats should have read the authorization to war and all the intel--and if they disagreed with it--they should have stood firm not gave in. Because it is not just about the winning--it is about belief and standing firm--of not morphing into what you despise--if her tactics are truly abhorrent, why validate them with a triumph to power? so the Dem party can rule? What is ruling if you put evil in place?

Hillary behaves a lot like Bush: Poor Financial mgmt, super loyalty demands, no transparency, lies, smear tactics, failure to accept responsibility or admit mistakes....so why is she any different than Bush? Her cabal votes blue? So what? It is not so much about the ideology as it is about the values. If you believe she will do anything to win and you despise that--won't you do anything also for the democrats to win by putting her in power? She is YOU, she is anyone who would sell themselves to the lowest bidder the worst sort, whose morals or values can be shelved for the win, who does not care what anyone thinks as long as she wins--who thinks in her heart of hearts(as no doubt do many Dems) that no matter what she does to get there--she is good, that what she wants for America is good and right--and that at any rate, no matter what it takes--ANYTHING that she is would be better than anyone from the other party.

I could have substituted she for he and Hillary for Bush and kept every other word intact.

I don't mean for this to sound antagonistic--(though it probably does) but Obama supporters are his strength and his greatest weakness--their very willingness to accept the Devil himself for the party, means they can and will be exploited by the Hillary camp. See? we are the stronger group if you don't let our candidate win, we will NOT support the Dem nom--but look, Obama supporters WILL support our candidate--so do you risk what we would do--when the Obama supporters are already willing to cave in?

Conviction Honor and Principle sometimes means doing the right thing, even if it brings hell, or sadness or defeat. I will be voting for Obama if he is the nominee, I will not vote for Hillary, because I will not ever, in any way shape or form give a green light or acceptance by my vote to any of her actions. Could this mean Republicans for 4 more years and hell for the country--yes--but sometimes standing up for the right things hurt--I will not compromise my values by participating in putting an aberration of the Dem principles into the White House. Sorry, I'm not a "will do anything to win" at least not for a position or for power--I've got bigger things (to me) at stake--like my convictions, and my honor and my soul--and they are not things that can be compromised or leveraged into a win for Hillary Clinton.

If Obama does not get the nomination, I will vote elsewhere, the lesson MUST be taught--that Democrats and others will not tolerate the slow slide of decency that the Democratic party is embracing with the Clintons. You vote the way that you feel--but don't think it does not prove many of you will do anything to win too--if you can hold your nose and support the tactics and attitudes and persona in the Clinton campaign. Shades of Bush--but this time in a blue pantsuit.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home