Just as Stwve preached time and again re 3rd parties and election boycotts: "Are you fukkin' crazy?" There simply is no alternative. The Demoncrats can be incredibly stupid sometimes, as the primary conflict here in Florida shows, but they are the ONLY American party left to us. People apparently need remindin' once in awhile. Nice job, Jes'
Exactly. I remember that in the last presidential election, the republicants kept saying off course Dean isn't electable, but Kerry is. As it turned out they were afraid of Dean because he would have pushed back hard.
Is Belle going to be on the ticket, perhaps as dog catcher for some county ?
Unfortunantely, Belle passed away in April 2006. The link to the photo source gives full details (not for the faint of heart, although the bad part is just a three or four hard posts; the rest of the story is really wonderful if you love animals.)
Belle and Sherry loved each other very very much. Sherry, still misses Belle, but eventually fell in love with a 'nother good doggie, Lila.
You can read more about Sherry & Lila.
Unlike Belle, Lila has all four legs and both eyes. But I'd vote for Lila also if she was on the Democratic Party ticket.
I couldn't agree more. I'm not enamored of Hillary, but she's smart, and tough, and not afraid of a fight. If she's the nominee, I'm not only voting for her, but working the phones, giving money and anything else I can do. Ditto Obama, Edwards, et al. The Republicans have shown they are incapable of making good decisions for this country and they gotta go.
I'll vote for Hillary and tell my friends to vote for her, AFTER I've voted against her (in favor of Edwards, most likely) in the primaries, after hoping the DLC don't put up some stiff like Lieberman as running mate, after running the DLC out of the party, and after supporting as many non-DLC Democratic Congressional candidates as I can.
I'm not a huge fan of Hillary Clinton, but I'm just saying, Democrats who really dislike her can better expend their energy working to keep her off the ticket. If they can't do that, they can push for a Democratic party that will at least keep her honest. And in 2010 they can elect even more real Democrats to Congress to reinforce the message.
The crappiest Democrat will still be better than the best Republican, any day. You may *think* the GOP are dead, but they're Michael Myers with only a butcher knife through the heart or jolted by 50,000 volts--i.e., only apparently dead.
Third parties have to prove they can elect governors, congressmen or senators before trying to convince people they can elect a President. They also have to prove they can get things done if in office.
Of course I'd vote for Hillary in the general election, any sane person would. Although I'll wager (and hope) that she is unelectable in the primaries. Too many compromises, and the democratic base is too pissed off at this point with FISA Kyl/Lieberman etc. etc.
The 'electability' argument is usually thrown around as shorthand for 'I don't agree with their positions but I don't have the time/energy/patience to really articulate why I disagree'.
Of course, with the laughable candidates the Republicans keep producing this year, any Democrat can win the presidency. Which unfortunately make the primaries that much more important. Which makes the ridiculous Iowa 6-percenters even more pernicious.
But back to the issues - if Hillary can't see anything wrong with her vote on Iran after how well her vote on Iraq went, there's a data point that should immediately rule her out. Iraq isn't a good idea badly implemented, and any candidate who thinks you can bring democracy at the point of a sword should be laughed out of the room.
Hillary is electable, but her policies suck balls, and it's got nothing to do with being a woman.
Globalism is wrong "."
Also, the rebuttlickans _stole_ 2000 and 2004 through a series of long planned and coordinated moves. Saint Steve wasn't always right y'know?
bjacques - F*ckin' A. Primary elections are more important than 3rd party candidates and voter drives.
Hullabaloo is infested with the Naderoid "there is no significant difference between the two major parties" types. I don't even feel like arguing with them.
What he said!!!
P.S. - The "HRC Is Unelectable" are some of the same folks that believe GWB will "resign" from office before his term is up. Useful tools without a clue.
Let's see. The GOP:
Lied and defrauded us into a war of attrition in Iraq;
Are trying to lie and defraud us into another war in Iran;
Have wreaked havoc on the Constitution and our liberties;
Condone torture and extraordinary rendition;
Undermined our economy so that when the recession does hit it'll take a long while to dig out of it;
Is on record as saying that they hate children, women, African-Americans and gays.
If Zippy the Pinhead was a Democrat, I think he stands a fair shot of becoming President.
I'm just disgusted that she's the only one the media (and some polls) has crowned as the front runner.
I still say, not this woman as president.
Wanderer - one would like to think so, but what with (according to TGNB) 25% of the population being mentally ill, the amorality of yer average GOP'er, and all the underhanded sh*t that goes on every day by "just plain folks trying to survive", it's not a given.
We all thought 2004 was gonna be a cakewalk for the dems and look how that turned out.
And besides, the term limit applies to Zippy, even if he does change parties.
Ummm...I haven't heard much "unelectable" talk from Dems.
What I have heard is:
* Corporate Stooge
* Will keep us in Iraq
*Has a man who makes his money busting unions as a political guru.
So I'm definitely not voting for her in the primary, but in the general, I'd vote for a syphilitic goat if it had a "D" after its name.
the dublin odds on clinton are damned near even. the odds of any dem beating any republican are 11-4 which by any measure is pretty short. they will say lots of crap, they are probably already getting their shit shovels all polished up to begin flinging. . .hillary clinton, if she wins the primaries as seems likely, will prove, by that alone, that she is electable.
but, above all, any dem over all republicans. period. house and senate? i'm voting a no incumbents ticket.
Well, I happen to agree with you completely - "get behind the plow and push, absolutely correct. We are fighting for the survival of America as most of us know it, but that is not the reason I came here.
I have a troll on my site named Michael Whittington, who claims to have had many "discussions with Mr. Gilliard" and who claims Mr. Gilliard was a racist. In an effort to rebut his insane, libelous bullshit, I came searching for any of those discussion s he claims to have had, or any posts by Mr. Gilliard that even hint at racism. Ofcourse there are none to be found.
He has also accused a fine Veteran named Cafkia of being a racist and tries to use "The News Blog" as proof of this insane assertion. (I have a small tribute to Mr. Gilliard in my sidebar so I suppose that is where he got his insane ideas to begin with.)
Now I don't know if Cafkia and Mr. Gilliard have ever communicated. I do know that neither of them have ever presented any kind of racism. Perhaps the fact that they are both African-Americans leads this misguided asshole to make assumptions.
At any rate, I have this cretin's home info and if Mr. Gilliard's family would like to take legal action, I will be glad to provide same to them. I have already offerred it to Cafkia.
Cafkia is a former member of the United States Navy and a member of the American Patriot Institute. Neither he nor Mr. Gilliard deserve to be dragged thru the mud by a knuckle dragging troglodyte like Michael Whittington.
Btw, blogrolling you now.
d.
Oh, I am so glad to see that the fine work begun by Mr. Gilliard is going forward. What better tribute could there be?
d.
http://www.draftgore.com. If you aren't happy, there is a lot of stuff going on to draft Gore. But never fear. I will and all of the Gore Draft people will vote for any Democrat available after the primaries if Gore doesn't run.
I do not want Prez Rudy or Prez Romney (Bush but with intelligence). At the very least, I think any of our Democratic candidates are persuadable in those areas that we disagree, and would change their actions if faced with real opposition backed by evidence. And no Dem is going to legislate private lives-I'll happily do without abortion wars, gay-bashing, immigrant bashing for at least four years and would be happy would to be without it for eight.
I wouldn't worry too much about Nader or Unity 08. It's worth noticing that there is little action on that front so far. I suspect both Nader and Bloomberg realize there is no left sentiment for a serious third party run beyond people who would always run third party. Indeed, the third party possibility looks like it will be on the right, not the left.
I'm with Matthew Saroff and the rest who understand that Hillary is just Republican Lite, as was Bill during his second term. I will do everything to the best of my abilities to make sure that Edwards wins the primary--but, I will vote the Democratic ticket regardless when it comes time to vote for President.
I didn't know he was performing anti-union work--I thought it was just Chelsea who was doing that.
Thank you, blksista and Matthew Saroff. You two summed up just what I was thinking.
I'm no fan of HRC (although she's my Senator and a good one) and it irritates me NO END to have her pushed as the front runner by traditional media. As far as I'm concerned, Edwards is TRULY the one to beat!
Nonetheless, if the gods really were that crazy and made her the nominee, I'd have no other choice but to vote for her.
None.
The reason I hope its not Clinton is that our first president refused to use enormous popularity to become king. Political dynasty is bad, he argued. I agree. I will vote for her in the general, but not as enthusiastically. I want Edwards or obama or gore please.
I will, however, kick any progressives I see with Nader 08 signs (funded by republicans, no doubt) square in the nuts with my steel toed work boots over and over and over again until my knees stop working.
Step one: Defeat the cartoonishly evil republicans.
Step two: Better Democrats.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States of America in 2008 I will vote for her.
Fuck the Republicans.
They can't protect you against terrorists.
They won't help you in the event of a natural disater.
They will S-T-R-E-T-C-H the military thin, then try to pick fights with other countries.
Other nations look at the U.S. with disdain.
Keep your eyes on the prize.
I don't like the idea of Hillary either, but if the team includes Bill {just the nostalgia of it is appealing} and depending upon who the vice ends up being, I would grip the lever over any Republican.
Problem is I live in a disenfranchised zone. No Puerto Rican resident can vote for Pres. So for me it is all a spectator sport.
anonymous 8.41 was RC
you use every weapon you have. the nukes all the way down to the butter knives. i'm ideologically an anarchist but i'm not into vandalism or violence - instead, i operate more on the "death by a thousand cuts" principle. voting for hillary is a very, very, very small cut, sort of like a paper cut.
get hillary into office, assuming someone better doesn't win the primaries. then, once she's in, hold her feet to the fire, be relentless, never let up, never rest. you can't climb a mountain in a single bound.
assuming that the game is fixed from the start and opting out as some sort of symbolic gesture is less helpful than setting oneself on fire.
Any Republican reading this has to be pretty disheartened. Unless the nominee turns out to be a thug or something equally malignant, the party will be united behind him/her.
Even then, I suspect people will just sit the election out on the Presidential level and strive to make sure the Republican faces a Supermajority Democratic Congress and work to elect more than enough State and Local officials to stymie whatever evil he wants to pursue.
I think that the hostility to Hillary by the general public is starting to fade a bit too. People have begun to see a lot more of her, and she doesn't have fangs. One of the ironic advantages of their Hillary (and Gore) bashing is that they've run out of ammunition. There is nothing left to say that hasn't already been said ad nauseum. There are no skeletons left that haven't already been revealed. After a decade of this stuff, I suspect the average voter would go "ho hum" and ignore the stuff as old hat.
Even if I did want to go third party, I'm pretty lucky in that I have Democrats on my local ticket that I would want to keep voting for even if I succumbed to "Hillary hating". And on the state level, a Democratic governor and Dems in the state legislature, even without a majority, brought us a decent health-care program known as "Badger Care". Though I did have to do a bit of nose-holding this past November to vote a straight ticket that had Senator Herb "Closet-Case" Kohl on it. (I wish he'd drop the pretense. Everybody in Madison and Milwaukee who knows anything at all knows that Herb Kohl is gay. Of course, that opens the whole can of worms of the established right being more threatened by a homosexual being open and honest about who they are than by someone discretely being, as they say, "that way".)
Even if I did want to go third party, I'm pretty lucky in that I have Democrats on my local ticket that I would want to keep voting for even if I succumbed to "Hillary hating".
Nice run-on sentence there, L&L! Forgot to proofread before hitting "publish"?
Yes... it's time for people to get REAL. I'm voting for the Democratic nominee. If that's Hillary. Then she gets my vote. FUCK the Republicans and EVERYTHING THEY STAND FOR!!!!
Sorry, to call bullshit, Jesse.
But, in the spirit of Gilliard's Bar and Grill, I'm callin' it.:o)
You went off on that rant, and said jackshit about specifics.
Where are the votes to elect her going to come from?
Do you seriously think she can peel republican votes off?
Please tell me you don't think that.
:o)
Do you think that conservative democrats, AKA marginal republicans, are going to vote for her in any meaningful numbers?
She might pick up some independent voters, but not enough to offset her minuses with so many other voters.
She'll get a lot of the "moderate" democrats, but not all of them. Not by any means.
The progressives like me, that she had in her pocket, when she first got elected to the senate? Again, some, but not all. I know smart, progressive JEWISH people who don't like her.
And you scoff at the idea that she will bring tens of thousands of republicans to the polls who would otherwise have stayed home because they know they will lose, if the democrats run anyone BUT Hillary.
The republicans hate her with a white-hot hatred. They always have and they always will. I say again, there is NOTHING SHE COULD SAY; no position she could take, that would change that. If you think differently, please tell us why.
We have already seen how her "triangulating" works with THEM. It doesn't. Period. Exclamation point.
They view her as nothing but an unprincipled power-hungry "liberal",
now showing herself to be a political chameleon, in order to get elected.
Which, for once, I agree with.
All she's done is dishearten and piss off a lot of us in the progressive wing.
With that shreik of a post, all YOU'VE done is go into panic mode. You're threatening us with the same old:
"We have to vote for her, or else the republicans will win" bullshit that got us Gore/Lieberman and John Kerry.
It's incredibly wrong-headed. Barring some bizzare hidden scandal, practically any democrat besides Hillary will be elected president in a walkover.
That's the political climate we're looking at, and you, and the people supporting her, whom are frantic to avoid a good, honest, knock-down, dragout, primary season, because they know that, with those positions that she's STILL taking on Iraq, she simply cannot survive frequent and open and unfettered debate about her positions on the war.
Jesse, do us a favor; please list how Hillary's positions and plans for Iraq differ from george bush's.
There is one simple fact that you, and anyone defending her, have to deal with.
Simply stated, Iraq is going to be, SHOULD be, the most important issue in the election.
It is sitting on our electoral dining room table like a pile of fresh steaming shit.
Do you seriously think Hillary can get elected by talking about equal pay for women, and overhauling the health insurance industry, and speaking about the other traditional democratic issus, while TRYING to keep the debate away from Iraq?
Clinton, of the three top candidates, is the one who cannot afford to hammer bush and the GOP on their creating the shitmire. (With some un-eaten help from her.)
AND SHE WON'T EVEN ADMIT THAT SHE WAS WRONG TO DO IT.
We NEED to have this debate. It's appropriate that it's getting cranked up here. I guarantee you, Steve is smiling. :o)
NOTE:
In my previous post, the word I meant to use was "disaster" not "disater"(darn fingers).
Personally, I don't think Al Gore is running in 2008.
Oh, and fuck the fucking Yankees!
It's not her electability that turns me off, it's her stands on the issues.
She's one of the more conservative democrats in the race, and her 90-style, tepid, incrementalism is just plain wrong for the country.
HRC does not have my vote or my support in the general.
Sorry, I simply will not vote for another DLC Democrat.
I'm sorry Carol. If you think the republicans have run out of "ammunition" to use against Hillary, then you haven't paid attention to those convoys of 6X's full of "ordinance" rolling down the highways.:o)
I promise you, the smart republicans are just holding fire, in the feverish hope that the democrats are stupid enough to nominate the one candidate that can keep the white house in their hands.
As I've said, Clinton is the woman of Karl Rove's dreams.
Why do you think bush was giving her advice about her positions on Iraq, telling her, and the other candidates, not to get too "extreme" in their statements?
When I read that, I thought:
"What an opportunity they lost! They should have gone public with that INSTANTLY, and held a press conference, saying:
"Can you BELIEVE this shit? This ignorant asshole, who CREATED the clusterfuck in Iraq, is giving US advice on what to say about it!"
But, Hillary, of course, can't do that...at least, not until she stops tapdancing and sits down at table and eats her authorizing vote.
And it's a little late to do that.
Just think of it, people, a year from now, if (as is highly likely) Iraq totally, unspinnably, implodes, or, if it even stays at the same level of hellishness, then, a month before the election, we'll have a candidate for president who will be dealing with the fact that she doesn't believe the decision to invade was a mistake, and it will be sitting on her head like it was Miss America's tiara.
It will be sitting there, because the GOP, themselves, will hold her down while they surgically implant it.
Sharon!
"Tepid incrementalism"
Hug across the electrons.
What a pair of words. :o)
That's what people do when their desire to be elected exceeds their own personal beliefs about the issues.
Where's the ordinance? With a dispirited primary, why wouldn't the Republicans use the stuff to pump up their base? What happened in New York? Notice how the Republican opponent to Hillary got bupkis from the National Republicans who would have loved to derail Hillary's effort before she had a chance to run for President. What about 2000, when the ordinance could have made her a private citizen?
I just love the John Birmingham "Axis of Time" trilogy where a US aircraft carrier commissioned c. 2024 is named the Hillary Clinton after "the most hard-assed, butt-kickingest President the country ever had." If you read these books back to back there's a certain amount of inevitability about the outcome of the next election.
Then again, you'd have to take Birmingham seriously for that. 
That aside, I'll vote for HRC if I have to. But I'll never forget - nor forgive - her stand in 2002. She knew better. She had to.
"Where's the ordinance?"
You make the same mistake that a lot of her supporters make. You think that the republicans' hatred of her is rational and issue-oriented.
It started that way, a couple of decades ago, but not anymore.
Now it's about as visceral as their reaction to Jane Fonda.
"With a dispirited primary, why wouldn't the republicans use the stuff to pump up their base?"
Their primary is dispirited because their party and their president are responsible for a bloody, pointless, and seemingly unending war in what used to be Iraq, and more and more americans are becoming willing to say that, and, it's fair to presume, to cast their votes based on that, every day. And, Carol, you haven't mentioned that little issue of whether or not Hillary really thinks that voting for the invasion was a mistake or not.
I'm only asking because I'm pretty sure it's a "hand grenade" that will be tossed out in the general election. :o)
If you want to see "dispirited" change to "energized" then just do all you can to help Hillary Clinton win the democratic nomination.
E.G. Rudy Giuliani's "family value" and "pro-life" minuses with the GOP will shrink to nothing, if the democrats are politically suicidal enough to nominate Clinton.
He, or any other repub that's nominated, will instantly be channelling Ronald Reagan.
The republicans with brains are not going to waste Clinton by going after her in their primaries. They WANT her to win the nomination.
They fear Edwards. He has a deal of genuine populism about him, and he's saying good things about Hillary being just another corporate toady.
Which is true.
He brainfarted when he said, last Wednesday night, that he couldn't commit to getting us out of Iraq by the end of his putative first term, instead of taking the opportunity to use that to put some distance between himself and Clinton and Obama, but we'll have to see what else he says in his campaigning. he can recover from that, I think.
And, he doesn't mince words about how wrong it was to vote to authorize, in 2002. He's said it repeatedly. He's going to have to say it some more.
Back to Hillary: At this point, do you think she can say it?
I mean, you asked for ordinance;
that vote, and her unwillingness to deal with it honestly, is a ticking time bomb, and the "yield" from it, for the GOP, is only getting bigger.
I should add, Fauxnew, and Rush, etc., will take their de riguer shots at Clinton, but I will guaran-damn-tee one and all, that they would LOVE to see her nominated.
She is THE red-meat issue that will unite republicans with a fervor and zeal that will make a "dispirited" GOP convention look like LSU's stadium in Baton Rouge, last Satuday night, against Florida.
No.
Gravie, if she's not afraid of a fight, why has she been so supportive of bush and of the war in Iraq?
Or, do you see her willingness to sustain the shitmire, as evidence of her courage?
r@d@r - Just because a game is considered fixed doesn't mean people won't play it. Pigeons gotta win once in a while to keep 'em hoping.
Observation: People make a lot of assumptions about "enemies".
2 more of our troops were killed yesterday in Iraq, along with 54 Iraqis.
The brits have announced that they will reduce their 5500 troops by half, starting next spring.
There is no sign that the Iraqi parliament will pass the Oil-law, with it's sweetheart deals for bush's petro-buds.
I think everything points to Iraq being at least as bad, say...8 months from now, as it is now.
With her track record, how much of an issue does anyone think Hillary will be wanting to make of that, if she's nominated.?
"We have already seen how her "triangulating" works with THEM. It doesn't. Period. Exclamation point."
Completely true, though it's worth noting the Clintons' (and the rest of the DLCesque business-oriented Dems') triangulating isn't for the benefit of their Rethug "rivals" (and certainly isn't aimed at the GOP's neandrathal base; the Dems aren't stupid & know very well how useless that would be), so much as it's meant to reassure the Big Money Boys that the Dems are good little piggies who won't rock the boat. (That's what Nancy Useless' little proclamation that Impeachment was "off the table" was all about. Just to use one example.)
I don't pretend to know what's going to happen, though Tanbark's thoughts strike me as more likely than not. He's certainly not wrong about how the Rethugs despise Hillary with a psychotic passion that has nothing to do with reality or what the woman actually stands for. Are they saving it for when she wins the Party nomination? Could be. If that happens, will she stupidly lurch ever further and further to the right, instead of fighting back? Not exactly dificult to deduce the outcome of that one, is it? After all, it's what Hubby did when he was President.
Reading this thread is a depressing experience. It's not so much that most of you are getting ready to take a big ole bite out of a shit sandwich - there are times when that's unavoidable, and I suspect the upcoming election is going to be just such an instance - but that most of you seem bound and determined to take that bite, and then declare it the best damn ice cream you ever ate.
I'm sympathetic, y'know? If I were an American citizen, I'd definitely vote for the Democrat in 2008, even if I had to hold my nose while doing it. Even Hillary, as awful as she is. That doesn't mean I have to con myself into thinking she's anything better than what she really is: An amoral, selfish scumbag who only cares about herself. she's still part of the problem, even if she'd technically be less bad than Benito Ghouliani.
Those who won't vote for the Democratic nominee in '08, ponder this:
By 2012, there will be nine (9) right wing extremists on the Supreme Court.
That alone should scare the shit out of you, particularly if you are a woman, a minority or a human being.
We need to stop obsessing about Hillary and start talking about Edwards everywhere we comment. I have made the mistake in talking to others about how it's alright if it's any of the top three, ClintonObamaEdwards, but it's not. It makes me sound wishy washy. I've made my choice and talk him up to everyone I know, dem, rep or indie.
This endless conversation about what Hillary is or is not just takes away from working for a more honest candidate, and plays right into the hands of reps who really want her in the primary.
Xeno, I've never said that I won't vote for her.
My 2c, I can hold my nose, if I'm just not so mind-boggled at how stupid the democrats are to have nominated her.
If she was a peach, issue-wise, and if she won the nomination and then got creamed, I would suffer with her, but this is a candidate whose differences with george bush and the warpimps don't amount to dime's worth.
She has regularly parroted the same bullshit they speak, and she has stood with them on the sidewalk, behind the koolaid stand, and it's a matter of record, NOT "Hillary-bashing" as her supporters like to claim.
She simply cannot make Iraq the focal point of a campaign against the GOP, or it's nominee. Her hands have too much blood on them; way too much, to do that.
And nominating someone whom, JUST LIKE BUSHCO, does NOT want to talk about Iraq, will be a disaster.
I just read this again..... this attitude pisses me right off. Jesse Wendel, you are giving up! You are drinking the koolaid with this talk. We haven't even had the first fucking primary, and you're giving up! Polls be fucking damned!! She's going DOWN in the primaries. She will NOT be the candidate. Now is the time to making sure that we get a DEMOCRAT for our candidate. This is a sick sick circle jerk between the bushes and the clintons that's being done here and it needs to stop. Right now.
Hillary Clinton doesn't stand for ANYTHING! Pure self interest, pure wanting to make history, pure bullshit. I'm voting FOR something and sure as hell isn't "Let them eat shit sandwiches"!! I'll be having none of that.
Three legged dogs my ass!!!
Well, we're gonna get another four more years of war regardless, so why not vote for Hillary?
hell, Tankbark, Hillary even voted for that vile Kyle-Lieberman declaration of war against Iran
Ivory Bill Woodpecker: "Hullabaloo is infested with the Naderoid "there is no significant difference between the two major parties" types. I don't even feel like arguing with them."
can you say "FISA vote from a few months ago"? how about the current Senate FISA bill that gives retroactive immunity to the telecoms who helped Bush illegally spy on Americans?
are Democrats better than Republicans? yeah, but that isn't saying much, is it
tanbark: "this is a candidate [Hillary] whose differences with george bush and the warpimps don't amount to dime's worth"
unfortunately that is true for a lot of Democrats
after the last FISA vote I refused to give a goddamn penny to the national Democrats, though I will probably support individual candidates who aren't ReThug Lite
Myrtle June -
You didn't read what I said.
I said:
Is there a difference between the candidates in the Democratic Party? Of course. Campaign away, fight hard, and may the candidate you dream of, win the nomination.
Don't want Hillary Clinton to be President? I support you 100% in your not wanting that.
Go out there and fight fight fight IN THE PRIMARIES for the candidate of your choice. And may the best man or woman win.
I personally don't know whom I'm going to vote for when the Primary Election happens in Washington State.
What I'm saying is, I'm sick of people saying Hillary can't be elected. It's a flat out lie, and people saying so are doing the Republican's work. People who believe it are buying into a Republican frame and should knock it off, even now, before the nominations are over, as buying ANY Republican framing gives power to ALL Republican framing.
I'd say, "fuck them and the horse they rode in on", except the closeted torture lovers would no doubt like that.
Fight for your candidate Myrtle June. Fight hard.
But when the nomination's locked, shut the hell up, get behind the plow and push.
Even if it is a three-legged dog.
If you don't want to vote for Hillary in the General Election, then go make sure she's not the nominee.
Jesse, do us a favor; please list how Hillary's positions and plans for Iraq differ from george bush's.
There is one simple fact that you, and anyone defending her, have to deal with.
Simply stated, Iraq is going to be, SHOULD be, the most important issue in the election.
* * * * *
this is a candidate [Hillary] whose differences with george bush and the warpimps don't amount to dime's worth
Tanbark -
You and a few others aren't listening to me.
I'm not defending Hillary. I'm saying she is electable.
Every time you say she isn't you are doing precisely what Karl Rove, Rush Limbaugh, Roger Ailes, and the rest of the Republican media folks are trying to get you to do.
And you keep falling for it, to the point of arguing for how much she can't possibly win, trying to find proof for what a loser she is, how much like the Republicans she is, how similar she is to GWB in Iran and how that is what will define the election.
What I'm sure of is, you're ripping into one of the three people most likely to be the Candidate of the Democratic Party -- our Candidate -- with Republican attack lines.
Stop.
Don't like Hilary's position on Iraq? Take her to task. Get her to change. Or vote for someone else which both forces her to confront her own position and might even have your guy end up as the Candidate.
Let the Republicans self-destruct, ripping apart their own candidates in an orgy of self-destructive win-at-all-costs primaries to the point they can't win the General.
We don't play that.
Got it?
Hillary is electable.
You may hate her fucking guts and spend day and night from now through the primaries working to elect someone else. I support you 100% in doing so and you're more than welcome to use the comment section here at GNB to tell us why you think the way you do.
But Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and the rest of them... they are fucking electable.
Regardless of any one of their position or difference in position with George Bush on Iran (picking a non-random example) there IS a major fucking difference between the current crop of Republican Candidates for President and the Democratic Candidates for President, just as there has been and will be a difference between Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, and between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party.
Don't ever let anyone tell you different.
i wish Hillary would just go away...
"And you keep falling for it, to the point of arguing for...how similar she is to GWB in Iran and how that is what will define the election."
Sorry, but pointing how Hillary voted for the Kyle-Lieberman declaration of war against Iran says NOTHING about whether she is electable or not. What it does say is how horribly questionable her judgement is.
Jesse Wendel .... Hillary Clinton is NOT electable. They will eat her for breakfast in the general. Period.
I did read every single word you wrote, Jesse. The only people that need to shut the fuck up are the 27%ers and Hillary Clinton Bush.
This isn't "Family Feud". There are more than two sources for Presidential candidates. And yet, we're sitting here discussing Hillary Clinton Bush.
The only person that can save this country is one who doesn't pander to the right or even the middle. Some one HAS to come out hard left to correct this course. If someone does that, that will be the biggest shut up stick you ever saw. This is the only electable person.
I thought Edwards was on that track. He's electable AND he stands for something. If he's willing to go balls to wall for it remains to be seen.
My problem with a Hilary nomination (and, what I believe would be her subsequent election), is this:
We, and I'm using the "royal" we here to represent all Americans, better be goddamn sure that we get some serious turnover in the make-up of the House and the Senate.
Why? Because otherwise, Hilary won't be likely to get a damn portion of her administrative agenda accomplished because of opposition (read: dumbfuck Republican) obstinacy. Think, if we had the current House/Senate make-up, whatever she put forward would easily be shot down.
That lack of ability to get anything done, compounded with the fact that the fighting in Iraq will still be ongoing in 2012 (and you're deluding yourself if you can't understand that), will doom Hilary to a single term and tarnish prospects for Democrats in the years after that (sorry, but the sheeple is not too sophisticated to connect more that dot A to dot B).
Still, what Jesse said is correct. Hilary is nominatable (if that's a word) and for damn sure electable. She's not my first choice, but if that's the name on the ballot, then that's the lever I pull/button I push/oval I fill in, because I'm almost (notice I said almost) to the point where I'll vote non-Republican, even if it is clear that the Republican is the more qualified and better choice. Perverse, ain't it?
But, then again, after seven years, I think I've got an idea about what Republicans are all about and I've spent the last two-plus years making sure that I have no connection with them (clients, friends, friends-of-friends, relatives, etc.)
Jesse, you aren't listening to reality.
It's the purest nonsense for you to put about that discussing and arguing about Clinton's baggage, or anyone else's, will somehow help the republicans. In fact, your putting up this thread, while worthwhile, in the the sense that it kicked off a much-needed debate about the candidates, is PRECISELY what those "worthies" that you listed, want us to do, now that the MSM is practically annointing Hillary as the new democratic Pope.
It's evil bullshit, and it's wrong for you to second the motion. The movers and shakers in the GOP know that the only chance they have to hold on to the white house, is if the democrats nominate someone that CANNOT take bush to task for Iraq...someone who helped them pull the trigger, and whom has NEVER recanted that. That would be, in spades, Hillary Clinton.
You put up my questions, which I appreciate, but you didn't answer any of them. Nor did you talk about what her campaign positions on Iraq would be, what they COULD be, given her prior actions and statements, if she wins the nomination.
I think that's foolish...we're being stampeded by Hillary's campaign and the MSM into believing that she's got it won, and this is happening with very few of the tough questions being asked of her.
Jesse, do YOU think the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake? I think that's a rhetorical question, in that I'm pretty sure you do.
Yet here you are, asking us to shut up because we can't get a straight answer from the leading democratic candidate to the same question.
That aint right, Bro', and if that's your idea of "unity" then I'm gonna pass, since I prefer dis-unity, to annointing someone with Clinton's track record on the war, as our nominee.
I'm not talking about starting a third party. I'm talking about the truth and the reality of what Hillary Clinton believes, and what she's saying, and how she's voted.
And I say again, there aint a dime's worth of difference between her position on Iraq, the most important issue in this election campaign, and george bush's.
Again, I welcome your thoughts on that.
:o)
Hillary wants to talk about safe issues, as if we and our kids and our grandkids won't be paying the price for the war that she helped george bush start, and for which she has YET to apologize.
NOT asking questions and demanding answers about her peddling the war-koolaid for bush, IS asking for this republican-lite triangulator to get a free pass to the nomination.
That, neither she, nor the others deserve, and there is no better place to have a 'net debate than on this blog. That's why there are more and newer people weighing in, which, I'm sure you'll agree, is all to the good.
Hell, FireDogLake has loosened up, and more frequently, the fur flies over there. :o)
We've always been free-ranging hogs here, why, all of a sudden, flinch from the kind of honest, and passionate, debate that the republicans and the beltway democrats like Clinton despise and ignore.
No one is threatening anyone, there's no name-calling; not even overmuch profanity.
If we turn our backs on these questions about the people who want to lead us...here, in the freedom of the internet, then we abdicate our influence, which, as we all know, is considerable and growing.
The News Blog has been a town-hall-meeting since Steve started it, and calling for anyone to stop posting about the candidates, and their positions, is just plain wrong.
You need to start addressing specific questions about Clinton, first, since she's the frontrunner, and since she has spent far more time and energy supporting bush and his war, than have Edwards and Obama.
And you need to stop asking us to stop. :o)
Hillary Clinton is the GOP's last,
best, hope to keep the white house.
I've posted why I think that. I invite you to post why you think not.
The country's gonna need another FDR before this is all over, y'know, and he's out there in the guise of a former NC Senator. But Hillary Clinton can be another FDR, too, if we the people show some leadership as well. We've gotta stay involved. She's a Democrat, after all, and, like her husband, knows how to listen. My gawd! Look hard at the alternatives, huh? Give her a Congress of real Dems, and we will have FDR's (and Truman's) single-payer health care system, a more equitable tax system and a final end to the Iraq travesty. If we don't stay involved, we will end up fighting for the higher paying jobs...in Mexico.
Ronzoni, WADR, I don't WANT to hammer Clinton into doing the right thing. She's had the chance to do that, many, many, times, and ONE MORE TIME, she can't even bring herself to publicly and unequivocally say that her vote was a mistake.
That means she can't say that the invasion, itself, was a mistake.
Can you tell us if you think a democratic candidate can be elected president of the United States in 2008, who won't say that creating the bloody, pointless, misery in which Iraq is not drowning, was a mistake?
Hell, I don't want her to change her mind at this point. In a perverse way, I give her a point for admitting that she still believes that it WASN'T a mistake.
But that leaves her sitting in the denial-queen pew with bush, Cheyney, Rice, and the rest of the "patriots".
I have no desire to force her to move to another pew, and then watch her change colors, to square up with reality.
And, why in the plu-perfect hell do we want to see her stick her hand out, so we can hand her the democratic nomination, without asking her:
"WTF, Hillary?"
Especially, when we've got other candidates, whom, if THEY are nominated, will reduce ANY republican to the status of a sacrificial lamb.
ALL of the progressive democrats; moderates and independents; even a fair number of registered republicans, will flock to either Edwards or Obama, and maybe, Richardson.
Does anyone think the preceding paragraph applies to Hillary?
Typo, of course: "...in which Iraq is NOW drowning...'
Guys, think about this;
If those of us who believe that nominating Clinton will be political suicide, and that republicans will turn out in droves, to vote against her, are right; then keep in mind, that Rudy or whomever, will inevitably have coattails, and there goes at least, the senate, and maybe the house, too.
With Edwards or Obama, it will be a tsunami...and we can consign these assholes to the political wilderness for a decade or three.
I never said that there was no diference between republicans and dempcroats. but there is a very small difrence between blue dogs and republicans, very small between the DLC and republicans...which groups are hilliry close to again..
I will not vote in one facist to replace another.
bjacques: a fake dem is far worse. she will give cover to all of the crap that the DLC and the k-street crowed wants to shove down our throats. our freedoms will roll back at an accelerating rate
I think if Hilary is nominated, the right wing attacks will make the right wingers look more like the impotent, panty sniffing bedwetters they are. I'd rather see Obama or Edwards Or Dodd. Personally I think they should get together and draw straws, and agree to work together on a progressive vision of America.
But I think right wing attacks might backfire this time. Right wingers are full of anxious insecure masculinity. Having to attack Hilary while hiding their true nature is going to be tough for them. They won't get it right.
This is one of the poorest districts in Ohio.
People have been talking to me about her since 2000. "I'll vote if Hillary runs."
Unelectable? Hardly.
Jesse, you screwed up royal with this thread.
YOU are the only one who cares about Shilary's electability, aside from the Pub's, who want her worse than stains on a blue dress.
And as has been suggested, Doc Hoss, it's WAY too early to drag out the Shilary support, till our OWN house is built.
YOU end up being the one to further the Pub Talking Points, by giving voice to them, so soon.
This would have been a MUCH better post, after the primary's.
I wouldn't elect Shilary for squat. For all the reasons others have already covered.
I'll FIGHT LIKE HELL now to see she DON'T get nominated. And you too, should be fighting that fight, instead of flacking for the GOP and the MSM this early in the struggle for our lives.
So, Doc, just say it. Admit you were wrong.
N then, send a letter to Shilary, and ask HER to apologize for her vote, and drop out of the running, in order to move our country forward.
SHE is the Divider.
She WILL divide the country, so deeply, at the moment we had the shittards of the 27%faggothating, women beating, minoritylynching pounded down so we could put the stakes thru their hearts and stop any fucking mad ass dreams of a renewed Confederacy coupled with Armegeddon and the Second Coming (the first being the stains on the blue dress).
We've got the fucks on the ropes, and ANY positive things said about Shilary, like her 'electability', will ENSURE the GOP and the fucktards will haunt yer ass and ours for the next generation.
Admit yer wrong, Jesse, and send Clinton a letter asking her to fucking drop out so we CAN unite the party and the country around PROGRESSIVE ideals and the phuckin Constitution.
THAT WOULD BE WORTHY OF GILLIARD'S FUCKING MEMORY!!!
Harumph.
-OnePissedOffRue
Margot;
Show me a poll, and not one commissioned by she or her subs, where independents are for her.
I ask again, do you really think that registered republicans, rich or poor, will vote for her?
If she's nominated, I think there will be no crossing-over. And I think very few independents will vote for her.
She's been in bed with the GOP on the war so many times, that it's hard to keep track.
But let me ask you:
Do YOU think the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake?
Because Hillary won't say it was a mistake, and at this point, I don't think she believes that it WAS a mistake.
Do you want to support someone who thinks that pulling the trigger was okay; it's just that it got tactically screwed up?
And those million-odd dead Iraqis and the other million refugees really ought to get their shit together and give our troops those garlands that bush and Cheyney and Wolfowitz, etc., promised them?
A couple of months ago, the big bushCo talking point was to blame the Iraqi government, and to that end, Rice, etc, did a lot of under AND over the table coup-rattling at Maliki, as they kept up the drumbeat of:
"It's all the Iraqi government's fault."
Except, with the Iraqi Parliament hiding out under their desks in the green zone to escape the mayhem that bush created (along with Hillary's help) THAT particular campaign of bushCo shitspeak was so obscene, that by comparison, the worst pornflick ever made was the music of the spheres.
And guess who eagerly chimed in?
Hillary Rodham Clinton.
When I read her statement to that effect, I was outraged at how fluently, how willingly, she spoke the identical words that the warpimps were prattling.
How smoothly and callously they dropped from her mouth.
I thought:
"She is about as politically stupid as george bush, to speak these words publicly, and to do it in front of a group of people who had the courage and the intelligence to boo her roundly, for saying them. In fact, it's the kind of thing she ought to say if she were addressing the American Legion, or somesuch..."
I had been an admirer of hers, and looked forward to supporting her, if she ran for president, but that steadily evaporated as I watched her ooze to the right, and when she blamed the Iraqi government for not "doing enough" to somehow pull the plug on BUSH (and her) clusterfuck,
That was the end of the road, for me'n Hil.
"Darlin', you can have the kids, the house, the car, the dog...just let me walk over the mistakeIdunno... body parts, and the shady campaign deals which the republicans will use to flay the hide off you, in the general election; just let me OUT of here, and we'll call it good."
Upthread, someone said they weren't worried about her electability, just her political morals, or lack of them.
That, too.
Love'n', Good link. Grazie. :o)
I dunno about her 'electability'. I think she could get in, despite a rethug firestorm............ especially if the R's split over ideology (see Ghouliani). Problem is, she's the wrong person for the job. If 'War, War!' is what you want, then she's your gal. Personally, I'm for 'Jaw, Jaw'. She'll make Thatcher look like a chaste, flower girl.
So, if she's the wrong person for the job, why vote for her?
"She'll make Thatcher look like a chaste flower girl."
That'll take some doing, but if anyone can do it, Hillary can.
In other news, this could get interesting:
http://apnews.myway.com//article.../
D8S614R00.html
Sorry, all. That's the wrong link.
Although, it sure works for another little indicator of just how well the surge is going.
This is what I wanted:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071.../
turkey_kurds_4
I will support whoever the Democratic nominee for President turns out to be. There is simply no other rational choice.
But if the nominee is HRC, I'm going to need the baddest set of nose clips ever made by human hands.
Y'see, I know the stink of gutless, unprincipled, time-serving self-seeking aging yuppie scum when I encounter it, and I don't like it at all.
SURE - OK - HILLARY IS ELECTABLE. This comment thread has had some really excellent thoughts running through it! What worries the hell out of ME is that Hillary is a member of the DLC.
Let's see if I got this right now...Gore was a member of the DLC and managed to let Bush steal THAT election. John Kerry was/is a member of the DLC and managed to let Bush steal THAT election. Hillary is a member of the DLC and...filling in the blanks here is what scares the be-JEBUS out of me!
Tanbark et. al. are right about this. As noted, our media are already anointing Hillary as the front runner and, as such, the nominee. That they have a different narrative about electibility is quite irrelevant; that narrative was made moot months ago. The Dem will win the next election, no matter who it is. This is a silly thing to criticize the media about at this point -- not that it isn't valid criticism, but since Hillary is an awful candidate who will fail miserably as president, taking the outlets to task over this issue isn't useful.
What is more useful is taking them to task over the notion that she is the inevitable nominee, a must stronger, much more pernicious, meme.
Well, you all seem to have covered this completely. I only have one word to add - Bill.
If Bill Clinton could run again he would win in a landslide. Need I remind you that he was the best President we've had in 50 years?
You are all well versed in politics so I don't need to list his accomplishments, (NAFTA aside, and he did the best he could do with that considering he had a Republi-con Congress to deal with, who had only one goal, tearing him down).
As a Union man, I would love to see John Edwards win it all. As a humanitarian, I can think of no better candidate tha Obama. As a realist, I will have to support Hill and hope that her husband's influence will enable her to make the right decisions. As an American, I can no longer suffer any more of the Always Wrong Right running my country.
Christ, most of their candidates don't even believe in evolution!
d.
"Christ, most of their candidates don't even believe in evolution."
NO shit, Dedder!
It's like the fucking flat-earth society has fielded the entire slate of republican candidates for president.
Moonglum, I agree Hillary's appalling. I'm just saying that the game's not over if she gets the nomination. There's the whole rest of the ticket to consider. There's also the possibility that Congress would, in true bipartisan spirit, start wresting away those executive magical powers she inherited from Bush. Just don't fixate on Hillary. Her getting in is a bad win, but it's a win nonetheless.
damn, Tanbark, you're on fire!
"...we're being stampeded by Hillary's campaign and the MSM into believing that she's got it won, and this is happening with very few of the tough questions being asked of her...."
guess that meeting with Murdock went better than expected, eh?
"...In a perverse way, I give her a point for admitting that she still believes that it WASN'T a mistake.
But that leaves her sitting in the denial-queen pew with bush, Cheyney, Rice, and the rest of the "patriots"...."
The korporate media support her because she is "serious". Do you doubt she would attack Iran?
Gay Vet; Thanks. I don't doubt it, for a minute.
Did she really meet with Murdoch? That, itself, speaks volumes.
She's horrible. We nearly have a lock on a big win in 2008, almost entirely because of what a fuckup it was to invade Iraq.
Why, in the name of the 24 balls of the 12 apostles, would we want to nominate someone who can't make an issue of Iraq without the republicans pointing out what a screaming hypocrite she is?
By their sometimes blind, rabid, support for her, the "moderates" are doing nothing but betting on the bushCo "come card", that Iraq will be better, 13 months from now.
I have no intention of helping to put our chips on THAT proposition.
Calling for "unity", three months BEFORE the first primary, is just plain wrong. It's straight out of Hillary's campaign plan.
No good.
where is hillery signifigantly difrent from bush???
bjacques if she wins we will have the progresive 1/3 of congress tryign to holdback the DLC/blue dog crowed teamed wit hthe republicnas...the onyl thing they would argue about is how fast they turn this nation over to the corperations...neither side would want to wait long at all.
there is a reason people say that there is no doference between the republicans and the democrats. hillery is a large part of that reason. in fact electing hillery would be worse. all of our lsot freedoms, all of the new laws turnign thsi into a facist dictatorship, all of the wacko far right judges gettign nominated would be "bipartisin". It would give political cover to the stripping the induviduals of all rights. Hilerys presidnacy would be the final nail in the coffin of teh middle class.
Guys, I offer this:
IF Edwards, Obama, and the rest of the democrats, candidates and voters alike, can deny her the early stampede that she and the media are trying to orchaestrate, then, the sight of she and her staff going into panic-mode will be worth the doing it, of and by itself.
It will be worth it, because ALL of the yellowdog democrats who are running with the republicans, will be shitting green nickels right beside her.
Do we want to miss that? :O)
moonglum - look on the bright side, Hillary in 2008 and 2012, Jeb Bush in 2016 and 2020
long live the dynasties!
Gay Veteran,
Don't forget Chelsea in 2024 and 2028.
Kings and Queens are fun!
"Don't forget Chelsea in 2024 and 2028."
Followed, no doubt, by whatever Bush son/grandson/nephew who has the least damaging police record.
I'd like to add to Mr. Natural's point from a few posts above.
Imagine the following scenario, me Dearie-O's: Hillary and Benito Ghouliani (or whoever) are neck-and-neck, and Hillary wins. By an inconveniently small margin. And so history repeats itself, as the GOP openly and unashamedly (and even more brazenly than the last 2 times) steal the election, using the same (and by-now totally familair) bag of dirty tricks that worked so well for them in 2000 and 2004.
What then? Will Hillary: (a.) challenge them and fight to her last bitter breath, or (b.) start spouting some drivel about "compromise" and "bi-partisanship" and "healing national wounds", etc. etc. and basically let them get away with it? As Gore did in 2000 and Kerry did in 2004? Which of these scenarios do you think is most likely? Don't be shy, now!
Christ. All this talk about the "electable" Hillary Clinton reminds me of how we heard nothing about Kerry 4 years ago except for how fucking electable he was. How'd that work out?
I had forgotten about her meeting with Murdock--it makes me angry all over again. Who can doubt this woman doesn't care about democratic ideals?
She's only out to win and she will pander to whoever and whatever to get there. God knows what happens once she's actually the Preznit.
Do we really think she'll care about the American citizenry?
Just so you're clear...
I didn't call for unity. I didn't call for anyone to stop campaigning.
All I said was, "She's electable." And to stop saying she isn't. (Which opinion/request of mine you're of course free to ignore: it's a blog post, not a commandment from on high. *cracks up*)
I didn't even say she's my candidate. I've never said who I'm voting for in the Primaries. They're still a looooong way away in Washington State.
I said, saying she isn't electable is a Frame Job by the Republicans and people shouldn't bite into Republican frame jobs, not at all. And that if you want someone else to not be the candidate, you should go fight very hard for him to win, including you're welcome to do so here in GNBs' comments.
I stand by what I said.
Cross-posted from Sara's thread "What We Knew Then", Oct 10
I said it in my previous thread, but I'll say it again here, just to eliminate the confusion.
I am not saying Hillary Clinton should be elected. I am not saying I would vote for her in the Primaries. I have not in any thread on GNB ever (that I can remember) said anything about Senator Clinton or expressed an opinion about her fitness for the Presidency.
I am saying, in the purest, rawest, most simplest electoral terms, she is "electable". I'm not making a moral judgment. I'm making a political judgment.
Furthermore I am saying the frame where in people characterize HRC as unelectable is primarily a Republican frame, which weakens her ability to be elected. It confuses a moral judgment -- should she be President? (given her vote on Iraq, that she's part of a political dynasty, the DNC, hasn't repudiated anything, has a vagina!, and so on) -- with a political calculation -- can she be elected? (get the electoral votes come November 7, 2008 to be elected President when the Electoral College meets in December, 2008.)
I have not and am not expressing my own opinion of HRC, and will not be expressing an opinion for a while. Trying to get me to is a waste of commenting. *smiles*
GNBs' threads are open to people through primary season for all of y'all to preach the gospel as you see it to each other.
"Trying to get me to, is a waste of commenting."
I didn't see anyone trying to get you to do that, on this thread, Jesse.
What i DID see was you telling everyone to stop talking about what a republican-lite, piece of shit, Hillary Clinton is. :o)
Her supporters on the thread, or, let's just say, the people whom, like you, think she IS electable, have never talked about the specifics of where the votes to put her in the white house, will come from.
And keep in mind, by saying that she IS electable, you're saying that 13 months from now, a politician who thinks that neither her vote supporting the invasion, nor, the invasion itself, was a mistake, is electable.
I know you think that the war is a mistake. Why in the hell do you object to our pointing out that Hillary DOESN'T think so?
Furthermore, your opening post on here took some us to task, and HARD, for pointing out her shortcomings, and if that aint pimping "unity", months before the first primary, when we so desperately need SOMEONE to speak the unvarnished truth about what's going on in Iraq and in america, then I don't know what is.
BTW, most anything I can post to stop someone from getting elected, vagina or not, who doesn't think that invading Iraq was a mistake, I will post. :o)
An afterthought:
Why are you so proud about not expressing an opinion about Clinton?
You're not reluctant to express one about george bush; and I ask you again to please tell us where you think Hillary differs with bush on the war.
:o)
AND why Hillary won't attack Iran
I'd sooner cut off my voting hand then give the Repubs a vote of ommission and sit out the election cause I don't like Hilary.
Cause I sure as hell don't like any of the Rs more.
Tanbark and a number of you, including many who don't comment but think very, very, loudly -
You're REALLY not listening.
I did not, not, not, not, not, not, not say... *goes and looks for your words* ..."What i DID see was you telling everyone to stop talking about what a republican-lite, piece of shit, Hillary Clinton is."
I didn't say that.
You persist in misconstruing me.
It's starting to piss me off.
You are collapsing two different domains:
1. The political domain of "Can she get elected? Can she get the electoral votes, raise the funds, win the primaries, amass the delegates, win the nomination, and go on and win in November?" That is a purely political calculation.
It has NOTHING to do with the the second domain, which is:
2. The leadership domain of "Who should be President aka Who do you want to be President?" I am not expressing an opinion on either Hillary or the other lead candidates in the domain of leadership...yet...because I'm a masthead blogger on GNB. The opinion of all of our masthead bloggers carries weight out of proportion perhaps to what it should, especially when expressed from the front page. I want people to have a chance to develop their own opinion in the domain of leadership without my opinion getting in the way.
Do I have an opinion?
Of course I do.
I've known both Bill & Hillary Clinton since I was a paramedic student in Arkansas in 1979. I have an opinion about each of them and their ability to lead this country.
I have an opinion on all the leading candidates. Just no one is going to hear my opinion on them quite yet.
I have encouraged you and everyone else to use GNBs comment pages to express your opinion in the domain of leadership. I continue to welcome you to express yourself and be yourself.
This is not an open invitation to loose your opinion over every thread (not that I think you would; you're a regular and understand how GNB works. *smiles*) We're fairly loose in how we comment and obviously we don't stay rigorously on topic always, but we are not going to become the bash Hillary or elect so-and-so blog, or become one-topic anything. People are always welcome to start their own blog if they have a topic they want to promote. GNB is not the place to whore their pet project or candidate, which isn't to say don't make the case for or against candidates. We are a political blog and candidates will be on topic many many times between now and the primaries and the general election.
(Cont...)
(Cont...)
More importantly, is how we all communicate with each other when there is the possibility of confusion. Especially if our first reaction is to tear the other person's head off. In my experience, when my first reaction is "What a fucking asshole" from someone whose opinion I normally value, it means I am misinterpreting what they're saying, not that they're being an asshole. Especially if I'm certain they're really really being an asshole.
ESPECIALLY in a blog where we talk in threaded communication about specific topics, we don't see each other's face or hear each other's voice, the communication happens with a time-lag, we must, must, must, particularly when the topic is tricky, be careful not to collapse domains, and we must assume trust and good intent.
If you are left thinking the other person is an asshole, go back and read it again. And again. As many times as it takes. Then, if you still don't get it, ask your question from the point of view, "I don't understand what you're saying here...", rather than, "Yo, mother-fucker... what a total asshole you are. Let me explain all the ways in which you're a dickhead. #1..."
In this case a few of you -- and I'm singling out our long time GNB regular Tanbark as I know he can well handle it -- have collapsed specific ontological domains, the domain of political action, and the domain of assessment of political leadership. They are related, but not the same. The standards of performance of effective action in the two are different.
An absolute asshole could run an effective campaign -- think Gingrich in 1994 -- and we would assess him as effective in the domain of political action. In the domain of political leadership, you and I would assess Gingrich as, "I hate his breathing guts with a fiery passion which surpasses all understanding. He, Rush, DeLay, Dobson, the dead preacher fuck, Cheney and Rove, and why the U.S. is in such deep shit. May he eat shit and die puking. None the less, he led the House with an iron fist while he was Speaker, before he too was the first of many too be run out of town on corruption charges." That's an assessment in the domain of political leadership.
THE TWO DOMAINS ARE DISTINCT.
As for me,
That is not, "I know you think that the war is a mistake. Why in the hell do you object to our pointing out that Hillary DOESN'T think so? Why in the hell do you object to our pointing out that Hillary DOESN'T think so?" as Tanbark said.
I never said I object to anyone saying that. You made that up. Why? Because you collapsed domains. You are literally attributing quotes to me I never said. Don't. You're also saying I object to your speaking about Hillary in the domain of political leadership. Of course, I don't.
To sum up, what I said in my original post is:
I am confident HRC can be elected. This is my assessment. Could it be wrong? Of course. It's not holy writ from on high. It's an assessment, which I believe is well grounded, but we shall see.
I am not making any claims about HRC's competency for Leadership. Want to take her on in this domain, have at her.
Any of y'all who are imputing to me jack shit about what I think, what it must mean that I think or imply based on what I wrote, or this, that, or the other fucking thing... shut the fuck up. As Steve Gilliard said in his very first post at The News Blog, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
Further, as I, Jesse Wendel say, I don't say what I don't mean and I don't mean what I don't say.
STOP COLLAPSING DOMAINS and attributing your interpretations, upsets, confusions, distortions, what I didn't say, what I didn't mean that you thought I meant, inferences, and what you made up about out of whole cloth, to me.
Want to know what I actually said?
RTFP.
P.S. It's not that I don't love you all.
But on GNB -- in life, really, but on GNB where we have so many bright, talented, articulate, emotional people making their case with passion in a variety of topics in our multi-threaded web-based blog community, inside our editorial commitment that the Group News Blog is a safe space for people, a home where people are able to truly be themselves and are always left taken care of -- keeping domains distinct is a fundamental competency we expect people to be at least working to get good at, if they're not good (competent) already. This is true even when -- especially when -- folks have an emotional investment.
This collapsing of domains with HRC between the domain of political action and the domain of assessment of political leadership, is a large part of why I took y'all (large y'all) to task so hard to begin with.
Enough. This topic is complete for me. --jwe
I will hold my nose as I pull the lever. I won't be silent when some dolt tosses off the latest, glib smear about his second cousin sayin' Rush said Hillary has a tail.
I don't like her but I can't deny her presence and the fact I can see her as president. Gawd help us if the GOP, with those moral midgets pulls off another win.
The fascists need to be stopped, checked, neutered, put down, slapped down. I'd hoped Harry, Nancy and Stenny would have but, well, fuck them to hell.
I guess being outta power for 12 years was so traumatic for the Dims that they lost their political acumen, skills and ah, backbone.
I despise the GOP but I really want to THROTTLE those capitulatin', craven 21st Century Beltway Whigs.
Commenting by HaloScan
