Please stay on topic. Please don't be asses.
Cheney is planning on being the next president. He's going to step up soon or they are going to have the current idiot resign soon (they couldn't possibly have these scandals after scandals without some purpose-they are really letting bush look like the complete fool that he is and they aren't even trying to hide it.) Anyway, Cheney is planning on taking over the presidency. He's been setting it up for years.
Unfortunately, unlike the Democratic candidates, the Republicans never get called by the MSM on the reality disconnect of their positions. So they can say magical things & to the average Joe its within the realm of possibility.
Come the fall 2008 campaign, the winner will tone it down, the reporting will be much more critical of the Democratic candidate, Bush won't be mentioned at all by the MSM, and it will be a horserace (particularly if Hillary is the nominee).
YOU'RE TOO OPTIMISTIC & RATIONAL.
Hillary is the briar patch candidate. I think they're really afraid of Edwards. They would be afraid of Dodd except that they know that they can count on the Dems to destroy him.
Yes, Edwards scares them to death. He's electable, period. But for our side, he's way more liberal than Hillary and the populace nature of his campaign is attractive to the majority of Americans. I'm caucusing for Edwards.
Isn't it odd (the tone of the baiting emanating from the `pugs)?
Hillary is a lot more like them--in actual policy positions--than some fire-breathing, cloven-hoofed leftie (and, hint, hint, she has been, for most of her professional life).
Just as with them, she'll be more mindful of Wall Street, of the private insurers and the WalMarts of the country than she should be, but what she won't do is promise right-wing judges and support legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade and promote anti-gay Constitutional amendments.
This is more pandering to an already small, fanatically religious base by `pug candidates. It's also why they'll lose to a "vaginal-American" or any other Democrat getting the nomination... this time around.
Please don't dare the democrats to prove they can lose to this hate hilary crap.
And hilary is polarizing. If she cures it and wins. Fine. But right now I haven't seen the polls indicating that in the general she would win.
And the game hasn't even started yet. There is a lot of mud stored up for slinging, and still no evidence the Democrats as a national party will show the backbone that is the only effective response to mudslinging. I expect Hilary will try to poll her way through mudslinging. If she does, she deserves to lose. Just like Kerry.
Hillary is the GOP's only hope of retaining the White House. She's the only candidate the Repubicans hate worse than Bush.
She scared me after she voted for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment. I wasn't supporting her, but after that vote, I may skip voting for president.
It will be exciting when we get the first distaff president, but not if she's a wholly owned subsidiary of the corporatocracy. That leaves out Clinton and Pelosi.
As much as I am disappointed by the lack of leadership in Democratic Party quarters, they are still shockingly better than the alternative.
on some levels, I'm sympathetic to the gut-roiling aversion everyone who reads this blog seems to feel for Hillary Clinton, but really. If it's between her and any of these horrible assholes, you really should think twice about abstaining. These Republicans are certifiably, batshit insane.
Digby, I love ya, but please don't dis the Diet Dr. Pepper. It's good stuff. This has not been a compensated endorsement.
digby: If it's between her and any of these horrible assholes, you really should think twice about abstaining.
Of course you're right, but lately I've been feeling more and more forgiving toward the people who voted for Nader. I'm not saying that there's not much difference between the parties, but gawd it's going to be hard to hold my nose and vote for the squishy Democrats.
Hah, you almost had me going there digby. It would be worth voting for someone who would force the odd duck turds to flush themselves down the lunatic loon shit sewer. As nice as the idea sounds, Edwards would be more likely to actually hold these creeps liable. It's in his work history.
any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks.
Which is why it would be such a shame to nominate Hillary Clinton.
Jayzuz Christ, every single one of these guys, including Ron Paul, prefaces virtually every question with "well, if Hillary won she would (bite the heads off puppies)..."
Which reminds me to remind you again: register with the GOP to vote for Ron Paul in the primary (you can switch back the next day). Do it soon, time is running out and there are registration deadlines.
I do think it would be a wonderful FU to the Republican base, and a clear demonstration of their impotence, to have Hillary Clinton as President. I don't actually vote on that basis, but it would be simple, emotional balm if my pick for the nomination did not get the nod.
And hilary is polarizing. If she cures it and wins. Fine. But right now I haven't seen the polls indicating that in the general she would win
On TMP Election Central right now, a SurveyUSA poll showing Hillary beating all GOP candidates in head to heads in Missouri
When did a Democrat last carry Missouri in the general.?
Any reticence I may have had about voting for Hillary has now dissipated.
Poor digby,
you are such a Charlie Brown. Do you not understand that Clinton is who they are salivating to run against? She is the only one they have a chance of beating, and not because she is a woman (though that will motivate some) but because she is a Clinton, the most reviled, among the wingers, politician since Lincoln. They hate her more than Carter and Gore put together. She is the one galvanizing pol that will bring out every fucking confederate wannabe from sea to shining sea. Why do you think the right has made her primary win a foregone conclusion? They want Hillary! They think, and it may be true, that they can beat Hillary and if not, they will beat the dems over the head w/ her for her one term in office (and it will be one term because she will not do what is necessary to put the economy back in shape once the 10 trillion dollars in bills come due.) She will try to slide along like her husband did, unfortunately she is on the downhill side of a boom-bust cycle. The government is going to have to quit printing bogus money, capture new revenue streams (taxes) and stave off the demand for trillions of dollars worth of American assets that Asia will want for those dollars. The only way to avoid disaster is to renegotiate all of out trade deals and for that, Hill ain’t got the balls. So she will be blamed for everything that goes south in her term and she will end up with about the same support and respect now enjoyed by Pelosi. As much as I am for Kucinich, I am against Clinton. What little voice progressives now enjoy will be completely snuffed out by a Clinton presidency yet her failures will all be blamed on ’liberals’. And we will have to hear about who billy goat is running after in new yawk and periodic visits from Vince Foster’s ghost for four long years during which dems will have to make excuses for failure after failure of her to enact a even slightly progressive agenda.
Fucking no thank you!
ABC - Anybody But Clinton
Hell, I’d vote for Joe Biden over Clinton. At least he wouldn’t set feminism back thirty years.
I need to lose that moniker. that is me above
Hillary as President would be a financial windfall for the coffers of every wingnut entity in the country. The RNC, winger churches, talk radio, FOX news and all the print papers and mags dedicated to hate and fearmongering aimed at anything remotely left of center will prosper. The markets, the war, international relations and multiple other areas are going to be left in such a mess on 1/20/2009 no politician or Congress can be expected to fix much of anything in a timely manner. It's going to be a long, contentious slog and the Right will be gnashing and slashing at the hindquarters of a Dem leader like lions on an antelope. The lion's prey has the luxury of dying in a scant few minutes. A Democrat Prez will have their ass chewed and their windpipe crushed for 4 long years.
You know, I used to think the same way as john above. But I've decided that it just doesn't matter; whoever is the democratic candidate will be trashed, lied about, trivialized, all the tools that the republicans use.
Hillary has an advantage here. She's not afraid of them; she's been enduring this for years now, and whatever they throw at her she'll throw right back. Obama is still a neophyte in this regard, and I'm afraid the veiled and not-so-veiled racism would rattle him.
Americans want someone who has some guts, and Hillary's got them. She's still too conservative for my taste, but, as Digby points out, compared to the republicans, she's the clear choice.
Having said all that, we still have time, and nothing is certain.
"she obviously scares the living hell out of Republicans"
I don't think she scares them. I think they look forward to the free pass they have coming from the press to make every crude joke and every wild smear. It's not so much about politics as a way of life. They can't wait to make jokes about Bill Clinton as First Lady, Hillary as Ice Queen, and to monkey wrench every bit of policy on the most sensational grounds.
The people are tired of it NOW but I don't think the press is tired of it or will be for a good long time.
montag: Hillary is a lot more like them--in actual policy positions--than some fire-breathing, cloven-hoofed leftie (and, hint, hint, she has been, for most of her professional life).
Which is precisely why they're talking about her the way they do. They're rehashing Poppy Bush's "Hippie Bill" strategy from 1992: Of all the Domocratic contenders in 1992, Bill Clinton was arguably the least liberal, especially on economic matters, so Bush's election machine ditched reality completely and painted him as dope-smokin', draft-dodgin', soldier-hatin', citizenship-renouncin', Hippie Bill, a super-radical who made Abbie Hoffman look staid and centrist.
Yeah, Obama is off my list because he doesn't seem to understand that the people who say "I'd die before I'd vote for a black guy" really mean he'll die before he sits as the President of this country. And that they will pay any price and bear any burden to make it so.
He doesn't get how deeply the hatred runs, but I'm afraid that as much as that's a problem, Hillary's confidence that she can rise above it and hit back on the lies is a fatal flaw. She can't possibly understand how many people in this country hate her. My Republican relatives hate her for stupid inaccurate reasons, and I wouldn't vote for her in the primary because she's far too much a corporate shill.
So her campaign is an attempt to find the 51% in the middle between me and my uncle Tom the farmer. If Hillary loved this country as much as she should, she would get off her entitlement to be the first woman president and ask her supporters to get behind one of the white men. Same medicine for Obama, as much as it's bitter to swallow.
There is no one more feminist and anti-racist than I am, but I'm above all hopeful for this country that has given me and so many others from various oppressed groups so many opportunities. I haven't given up on America, and that's why I think we have to win this election. Democrats who are seriously pushing for the black guy or the woman seem seriously out of touch with reality or deeply unserious about the fix we're in. I wish a yellow dog could beat these idiots, but I live in the USA, not Fantasyland.
Fire when ready, everyone.
Lets see a few hours earlier Digby was suggesting that the Democrats can win while suffering a near catastrophic drop in support among those horribly racist "White Males". Want to make a bet???
Funny thing, all those White Males losing their livelihoods to globalization, "Free Trade" and unsustainable levels of both legal and illegal immigration tend to be in relationships with women who are suffering right along with them. Any pollster worth a shit will tell you that White Males and their wifes/partners always have turnout rates that surpass single females and any other racial minority. So while the Democrats might hope to win votes with excessive pandering to Latinos by promising to back further futile and wildly unpopular attempts at "Comprehensive Immigration Reform", the likely result will be to insure a massive defection of record turnout "White Males" to any candidate that promises to enforce our existing immigration laws that will more than swamp any additional Latino votes.
Want very good evidence to be very very afraid about 2008?? Read about what none other than E. J. Dionne had to say about trouble the rather Hillarish Niki Tsongas had winning her Husband's old Massachusett's 5th district congressional seat.
n Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. [Jim Ogonowski] made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."
...[Niki Tsongas], a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp...7101801577.html
I spent 2004 and 2006 trying to help rebuild the Democratic party's brand in Iowa, Wisconsin and Indiana. Hillary's extreme Corporatist Free Trade and Open Borders agenda will wipe out all the good will grass roots volunteers built. I would rather try to shove a stick of butter up a monkey's ass with a red hot poker than go door to door promoting Hillary.
Digby needs to take a time out and read this article by always wise David Sirota on the perils of the netroot's triumphalism and
narcissistic self delusions.
The Dangers of Wearing Bourgeois Class On Our Sleeve
http://
www.workingassetsblog.com...ng_bourgeo.html
It is way too easy to spout nonsense online that would get doors slammed in your face.
Well now we know who the Boogeywoman is, but does that necessarily make Bill the Boogeyman? (he don't strike me as such and he don't seem old enough as I've heard of the Boogeyman ALL my life)
Hillary is not my first choice (so far it's Edwards) but you'd better believe I'll support her if she's the nominee.
All her policy positions aside...she's a much better campaigner than I could have imagined. She does come across as tough, in a way that plays much better in the Short Attention Span Theater that has become our national political discourse - and I don't think there's a Republican in that field who could beat her in a debate.
That's what I like about counting your eggs before they hatch. WE'VE STILL got a year of fun with Dick and George to ride out. (1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT)
Sad to say you can not make this shit up. Courtesy of David Sirota
"Rural Americans for Hillary"
According to ABC News, Hillary Clinton is holding a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the Washington, D.C. offices of the lawfirm that represents Monsanto.
http://
www.workingassetsblog.com...or_hillary.html
The Democrats wanted to run against Reagan in 1980.
How'd that work out?
"Americans want someone who has some guts, and Hillary's got them."
please, minalover, gimme some fer-instances that are not just personal. She laughed on fox once, ok, but only after she got unca Rupert's say-so. She will not even commit to getting out of Iraq within 5 fucking years! let's see her gutsy positions
Single payer? ah, nope
Leave Iraq to the Iraqiis? ah, maybe, someday... have to see how it goes
Tax capital gains over, say 50k per annum like income? ah, for sure nope to that!
Renegotiate shafta and the wto? ah, better not
Break up the media monopolies? ah, no-no-no. That my offend her new bff, unca Rupe!
Well, how about at least no increase in the defense budget? ah, nope, ther's just to much shit to fix.
Well, can she at least commit to no war w/ Iran? gee, if you do that you lose all leverage, so no again!
yeah, gutsy lady!
thanks, lama for the link - I hope everybody here takes a few to read what Sirota and his commenters had to say -
Frankly, I think the netroots needs to have a little moaist re-examinationist party - You bring the chablis and I'll bring the brie -
Hey, Element 5, you know Ron Paul was endorsed by Stormfront and so forth, right? I mean, I get your spoiler vote idea, but: eewww.
john in california,
Sirota has done more to help rebuild the Democratic party in the Red & Purple states than the rest of the Netroots combined. His book "Hostile Takeover" really told it like it is. I am a Democratic because of FDR. I have no tolerance for the Neo-Tammany Hall corrupt pandering Democratic party of today.
It is really sad how Sirota gets attacked for his honesty over at his diary at DailyKos. Sirota's new book is really going to hit a lot of the big name NetRoots liberal bloggers hard. They simply need to take a hard look at themselves.
While I not a big fan of hers, even Naomi Wolf has had some things to say about the faddish Gramscian/Marcusian "post-Marxist" bent of lots of lefty blogs that really hit home.
I think one of the really low points of the Liberal blogosphere is the tendency to scream racist at those who do not support current the Open Borders agenda of the Cheap Labor DLC faction of the Democratic party, MSM, WSJ Editorial Page, hardline libertarians and New Left holdouts and wannabees. If any of those slavish followers of likes of "Dave Niewert" would care to take a look they would find that a plurality of Democratic voters are strongly opposed to Open Borders and want our Immigration laws enforced. But go ahead keep calling all those folks who do not agree with your radical Cultural Marxist agenda racists and see what happens to the Democrats in 2008.
You can spend on the military until you burst and not add to the debt!
With Pentagon accounting this is actually possible! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/
2...ain325985.shtml Have cake, lots and lots of cake, really good cake, and eat it too! WhooHoo! The party never ends at the Pentagon. Unfortunately this accounting system only works for “defense” expenditures as normal accounting standards (or, more accurately, the federal government's definition of normal accounting standards) generally apply to all other spending. But after all, poor and middle class people offer such paltry returns on investment.
The GOP noise smells of desperation. Not that Hillary in the white house is a paradigm shift. She would probably kill fewer poor brown non-Christians than say Benito Guliani – not exactly a ringing endorsement I know, but it is the best I can do. Sadly a Hillary administration simply represents a return of the king, without a happy ending - not real change. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The...the_King_(film)
Reagan/Bush-Bush/Quayle-Clinton/Gore-Bush/Cheney-
Clinton/?
Dynasties R' Us
The King is dead!
Long live the King!
Sure glad I don’t live there.
Hillary? Guts?
Puh-leez.
"The truth is that any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks." -(Digby)
Then why are none of you doing the right thing and talking up Kucinich?
Although he is too far to the right, he is unquestionably the only Democratic party candidate who is not a cipher.
He roams the interstices of this blog like a phantom presence, something which does not exist.
The fact is that many- if not most- of you who claim to 'hold their nose' and vote Hilary are callow liars.
You wanted Hilary all the time.
Now what's not scurrilous?
Everything except you.
current the Open Borders agenda
aka American Serfdom - it has been going on for at least 100 years. Why is everyone so crazy about this now? Enforcing wage, labor, work place safety etc. laws and allowing workers to organzie freely would fix the imigration problem right quick, but no one in either party wants to piss off the industries that depend on cheap labor, especially the elite Democrats. Christ they would have to pay a living wage to the lawn boy and pay an extra 3 cents a pound for tenderloin, god forbid!
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Hillary Clinton is the one Democrat who might actually lose to these guys based on the negative opinion of her by so many on the right and even the center, many of whom might vote for Edwards or Obama.
I think that Clinton as the nominee is a bad idea (not just because I don't care for her corporate sellout candidacy and the fact that I still hold a grudge about the Iraq vote). I'm sure the party that gave us John Kerry, Michael Dukkakis and Walter Mondale will certainly not disappoint, though.
I'd be willing to bet two to one that the Democrats lose this upcoming presidential election, regardless of candidate. Any takers? They deserve to, after their recent performance as a party, and they look dumber than '04. The Republicans wanted John Kerry, so they helped spread the meme that he was so electable, and they were terrified of him. Same shit with Hillary. Stupid fucking Democratic voters will think that the Republicans really, really don't want her to be the nominee, I mean come on, they are quaking in their boots over here. She is so electable, she makes John Kerry look like... uh, I'm sorry, can't think of anyone lamer than John Kerry. But anyway, you get the point. Stupid, stupid Democrats. Stupid leaders, stupid voters, stupid politicians. You get what you pay for in this instance. Let's go elect some More and Better Democrats, everyone! Yay!
Hey, Element 5, you know Ron Paul was endorsed by Stormfront and so forth, right? I mean, I get your spoiler vote idea, but: eewww.
Err, yeah...but are you gonna hold his supporters against him? Whatever you think of him, he's the cream of the current GOP offering and he's not actually gonna win the Presidency, now is he?
Keyser Söze
current the Open Borders agenda
aka American Serfdom - it has been going on for at least 100 years.
Not quite right from 1880 to 1920 American had very high levels of legal immigration. It was a time of the rise of Jim Crow, Anarchist revolts, Republican Plutocracy and corrupt Ethnocentric Democratic Big City Machines, a radical yet very weak and ineffective Wobbly labor movement and a nascent Progressive movement.
From 1924 to at least 1965 we had sustainable levels of immigration which still by international standards were by far the most generous and by comparison rather tough border enforcement. Tightening labor markets brought many benefits. This was the era the great melting pot, the first "$5" dollar a day wage, the rise of strong national labor unions and the middle class, the New Deal, the long over due mechanization of Southern Agriculture and the civl rights movement. People forget that all of major early Black Civil Rights figures Booker T Washington Du Bois, Phillip A Randolf supported lower sustainable levels of immigration that would allow Blacks and many poor whites to leave indentured rural servitude.
My point is that Democrats forget the role that tightening labor markets played in spurring investment in capital investment, rising productivity and working and middle class wages. You simply can not have unsustainable levels of legal and illegal immigration and have rising equitable wage levels.
Yes, lama, I agree. I think most political bloggers are not working class nor do they make things for a living so, if their own economic situation is ok, and it usually is or they wouldn’t have time to blog, they only have a theoretical dog in the fight for economic justice. I’m an engineer. I started in SiVy in the late ‘70’s when most of the stuff we designed was manufactured here. Hell, we thought outsourcing was sending it to Idaho!
I watched first the Japanese, then the Philippines, then Indonesia and in the last 10 years, India and China take electronics manufacturing and now design away from the US because of short sighted trade policies. Now almost nothing electronic is made in the USA. And it is true for other areas of the economy as well. I have yet to figure out how it can be more economically or environmentally efficient to ship garlic from china when Gilroy (which touts itself as the Garlic Capital of the World) is twenty miles down the road, but apparently it is because Gilroy garlic is 2 bucks a pound and Chinese garlic is a buck. It must be those darn farm workers are overpaid!
This another reason I am such a big Kucinich fan. He has not run from his working class roots. And he is no xenophobe. He knows the immigration issue is a trade and labor issue first, not a security or cultural one. (though not even making the some of parts for the defense machine in this country shows how nutty it gets). He knows fences are not going to stop economic migrants if our southern neighbors can’t protect and improve their jobs. Likewise, we have to improve the wage conditions of many of the jobs these migrants are taking (especially in the construction trades) so they are more attractive to non-college American kids. Also, we must put a hold on H1b visas until meaningful review processes are in place. The way it is now, a prospective employer can advertise in the local penny saver w/ an ad so cryptic, it could be for a cosmetologist or a telemarketer to meet the I-searched-high-and-low-and-couldn’t-find-a-
qualified-engineer-to-take-the-job requirement of the H1b visa law, before they bring over that Indian engineer at a starting salary that might be ½ of what they would pay an American). But, as Sirota points out, non-stock market economic issues don’t turn the netroots on. And that is why they are ineffective in middle America. Dudd is a big hero right now because he says he will hold fisa until they take out one provision, but no one is asking about his sponsorship of so much terrible banking and trade policy legislation, let alone his ties to big insurance. For middle America this is symbol over substance. Nobody wants to be spied on, but in order importance, their livelihood comes first. If no dem will address bread and butter issues in a meaningful way, then they might as well go for the guy who says that at least I won’t take any more of your money in taxes. It is a real shame that the dems and even the netroots have ignored or denigrated Kucinich as some hippy-dippy character, instead of the only old fashioned dem in the race. But to take him seriously, they would have to give more than lip service to the unity of labor, big and small, and the democratic party. And that would endanger what they value most, big money political allies. Clinton, to a large degree bought into Reganomics, only he, luckily, had a booming market and Gore to fix the government, so didn’t suffer the consequences of an outsourced economy. But a lot of middle America did and it has had predicable results. Xenophobia and racism. I hope digby and her readers will take the time to listen to Kucinich on the issues. He would make a great president.
We have underestimated the ability of the republicans to manipulate the electorate, not to mention the Supremes, twice in a row. Let's not make that mistake again. HRC is the worst possible choice if we want the president to be a dem and even if she manages to win it is the corporatists will have won again.
OFF TOPIC, BUT IMPORTANT--A pair of nasty intruders took up brief residence on my PC, namely the Backdoor HuPigeon trojan and the Delf ERE worm. My XoftSpy found them and killed them.
Damn right Hillary Clinton can lose. Last time I checked the Survey USA state by state polls she was losing to Rudy Giuliani in Ohio and Florida and just about every other state needed to ring the electoral bell. And she was polling worse than Edwards against the top Republican candidates.
Hillary's courage and independence? I seem to recall that she co-sponsored (with a bunch of Republicans) a bill to criminalize flag burning. Gutsy move, that.
Someone please tell me that Democrats aren't going to nominate the one candidate (Hillary) who could actually lose to the weird, hunched-over, wild-eyed, lisping bald dude who looks like Grandpa Munster on meth (Giuliani). I can't believe that losing to Giuliani is even theoretically possible, but the state-by-state SUSA polls are showing that when Hillary's the other candidate. What a country.
Yeah, I'm not as optomistic about Hillary (or Dems chances in general) as Digby. People at work I know who voted Democrat last election don't seem too pleased with the current Congressional leadership at all. A lot were critical of Pelosi's Armenian genocide gambit, for obvious reasons. I don't see them getting excited about voting for Democrats in either Congress or the WH. Doesn't mean they'll vote Republican, but it could mean they just stay home.
llamajockey,
You simply can not have unsustainable levels of legal and illegal immigration and have rising equitable wage levels.
No disagreement here. But there have been Mexicans coming into the US illegally for a long time, especially in Texas and California. They are more visible now perhaps because they are moving to parts of the country that are not used to having Hispanics amongst them.
The economic conditions that made high productivity/high wages possible did not appear by accident, government policies and demographics were crucial. I would like to see a political climate that puts more faith in the government to solve these complex issues rather than relying exclusively on the dogma of market economics. But that requires genuine leadership at the top.
My larger point was that if we had a government that actually worked to provide reasonably protections and security for working people, this immigration nonsense would not be an issue. Without low wage jobs to bring illegal aliens, they would not come. Why would any working class person go to a country with a different language and culture far from their family to earn a better living if they did not have to? The government should penalize, in a meaningful way, employers who exploit the current status quo in order to push wages down and block unionization efforts; while supporting policies and programs that improve economic security for lower and middle class people.
Working people, illegal and legal, are and should be frustrated because they simply have no dog in this fight. Maybe a handful of Congress members actually give a rat’s ass about working people in America (Kucinich being a prime example and indeed he would make a great president). Both parties use the issue purely for political reasons and could care less about the legitimate concerns raised on all sides. I agree that enforcing immigration law is important, and I do not think it is racist to support laws that determine who can and cannot become a citizen - this is a fundamental function of societies after all - but I prefer that the government focus more on the demand side, i.e. the employers and general labor market conditions rather than the supply side, the unfortunate people who seek better opportunity in the US. The system in place now amounts to a welfare program for poor Latin American nations. If Mexico were forced to deal with this problem, millions of restless unemployed young men, without the release from the pressure valve that migration to the US represents, Mexico and other Central American and Caribbean nations would likely have different politics at home as well.
Also Dave Sirota is absolutley one of the best and well reasoned voices on the net today. He is a real wonk who lives and breathes progressive politics from ground zero in this battle. I have huge respect for his opinions and his work. I would love to see him get his own show on network TV, I won't hold my breath though.
What makes the republican wimpering wannabes pathetic is their conformity to a narrow-minded, false, and divisive marketing strategy that homogenizes them, and in the end makes them appear weak.
The rugged individualism of Americans is completely lost on these robotons.
I don't think that white males will be coming out in droves for this batch of contenders. One is weak, another a loud-mouthed fool who throws public temper tantrums, another is a two-bit actor, (I'm not refering to Thompson,) an obsequious sycophant, a mousey mid-westerner, a television actor, a whack-job, and an ignorant racist.
I'm certain that the even the Bubbas, NASCAR families, and independent males recognize the underlying similarity of the candidates, adherence to a party line they have been coached in, but more importantly the complete lack of testosterone in the bunch.
White male voters can see both historically, and in the present that Hillary has bigger balls then all of them combined. Obama is refreshing sometimes, Edwards is smarter all of the time, Gravel is more impassioned, Dodd is an experienced good guy, Biden has been around forever, and he doesn't take crap lying down, Kucinich who has a plan will not back down either. Any one of them would make a better president, a president Americans could be proud of as opposed to the easily seen through fake bravado of the republican liars. Their concern that leaders of foreign nations could see through all of them is unsettling as well.
If, as some claim, white-males like strength they must feel it surely lacking among the neo-fascist candidates. Another fact about white males is that many of them are very patriotic, in a real sense, (willing to make sacrifices,) and are not all that thrilled with the silent coup taking place that is undermining American principles.
I don't believe that white-males are a lock for republicans, because they don't like panty-wastes, and that is all the Republican Party is offering this presidential election cycle.
Oh, please, not a Hillary v Rudy Subway Series. Oh please, no. Edwards v Romney. Please. Please let them nominate The Pretty Dukakis. Please. And let us nominate the guy who beats the crap out of him in all the state-by-state polls. Can we get a landslide, please? C'mon. The GOP's gotten two in my lifetime. Two! It's our turn.
But not with Hillary.
Hillary as President would be a financial windfall for the coffers of every wingnut entity in the country. The RNC, winger churches, talk radio, FOX news and all the print papers and mags dedicated to hate and fearmongering aimed at anything remotely left of center will prosper.
What we need to do is start a rumour that, if elected, she intends to declare anyone doing this an "enemy combatant" and have them thrown in Gitmo... The amusement value as their heads explode will be worth it.
White males were not all that thrilled with the drinking, spoiled preppy either, until their fears were put to rest with with some grey hair in the personage of Richard Cheney to oversee the rich kid.
This may have been my imagination, but I swear that the day Richard was announced as VP there was an audible sigh of relief from the republican members of Congress. I don't recall if there was a chorus of groans from democratic representatives.
I like the idea of scaring the Cons with the unitary Hillary theory of executive power. They are shitting themselves that the Chimporer might be setting up The Hillary to be the most powerful and utterly unaccountable executive in history.
Does this mean that the Loyalists were the ultimate victors in 1783? We now have a monarchy in nearly every way except name.
Off with his head!
While people on both sides of the aisle believe that there should be immigration reform, what form this reform takes is the difference. As usual the republican solution is more punitive than humane. The democrats seem to be barely supporting a humane solution, though this should be their forte', as well. Fear of offering a humane non-racist solution to the problem appears to be difficult for both political persuasions. I'm not persuaded by the argument that all illegals are criminals or liars because they broke our immigration laws. I do believe that desperation and opportunity are more at play.
Can somebody explain how refundable tax credits don't have to be paid for with tax dollars?
Anybody can beat them?
Imagine the following: It's summer in Denver at the DNC convention. Hillary is about to make her acceptance speech. And the bombs start falling in Tehran. As Hillary gets up to explain how she was really voting for diplomacy, and not for war, and that Bush must have fooled her, and how she doesn't know how she keeps getting into this situation, like it's some kind of Senate-war-vote-Tourette's syndrome, CNN is meanwhile showing infra-red pics (in green) of big purty bombs blowing up buildings in downtown Tehran. Wolf Blitzer breaks in every few minutes to make some orgasmic heavy-breathing sound, like, "Wow, that was a big one! Did you feel that one where you are Christine?"
Yes, we could lose this. Don't be too sure.
The problem with Hillary's vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment is that it puts her totally at the mercy of the timing choices of the Bush White House. "But surely," you say, "they wouldn't time their attack so obviously just to cause mischief to the Democrat in the election!"
Yup. Count on it.
I don't think that democrats will be staying home. They have learned that if they don't fight for all their worth the result could be another four years of disastrous right wing elitism, patronage, and divisiveness, none of which are good for the country.
Republican politicians, like their followers, are just mean and stupid.
It's way too early for hand-wringing about who's in front or has this much cash or is inciting the mobs. Really. (And Hillary's not my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice.)
But I swear on Tucker Carlson's neck fat, if he and his smarmy leg-crossing testosterone obsessed mantaloons keep it up they're in for a world of hurt.
As vomitous as it is to listen to them try -- with a combination of wishful thinking and abject fear in their voices -- to whip another Dean-scream blowout on HRC's election vehicle, they really really don't want this refrain in the mainstream too much.
My instinct is that every woman, from girlhood to stately elder, rich or poor, powerless or at the top of the social food chain, has had some obnoxious snotbag like Tucker or other embodiment of the Unentitled, Privileged Nepotism R Us Boyz needlessly in her face at various points in her life.
Yes, that snorting panel of assholes is every boss's overweening fuckwad of a nephew who's spent a summer at girlfriend's workplace, stepping over his boundaries and bossing around more knowledgeable, senior workers in the mistaken belief he's there to boss, not to learn.
He's every overbearing horndog customer or client who expects ego strokes with his goods or services. It's not just good work with a smile or how's the day going and efficient service etc. but to scrape and bow to his mean intent to complain if you don't go along with it -- and not on the spot and not in front of his peer pack. He'll do it later, alone, just to be a dick.
He's the cheeseball pillar of the community whose technical monogamy involves unleashing his resentment on women in a thousand tiny painful cuts daily.
This assholery is being phased out thanks to by women and stand-up guys being more outspoken and/or facilitating remedy, but I think most women recognize what I'm talking about.
So even if most people aren't paying too close attention to this vapid horse race stuff right now, if this pathetic attempt to monsterize Hillary keeps up, the snorting fleabitten dog pack is going to awaken a Sleeping Giantess and piss her off massively.
Not only will the awakening unleash a buildup of high holy hell, to put it in mancentric cliche'd terms, it would be like poking Her with sharp sticks and then telling her, on waking, wow ... she looks like unspeakable crap in the morning but it's probably just the baggy PJs that make her look fat.
Also, this is one of those situations where male spouses who intend to show sympathetic solidarity outside the voting booth better come through or use the next year or so shoring up the foundations of his game face.
The truth is that any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks.
Well, if the election wasn't a $election.
The system is being primed to fail.
The best assume that goodness will prevail, because the good guys always win, right?
Hillary is owned by the security industrial complex just like Rudy is.
Chaos will be the result of this, which well enough for the powers that be, because chaos is the plan.
Yeah, when the studio lights are switched off these guys laugh and laugh...
It is absolutely hilarious listening to this new /old crop of gopper presidential wannabes. After 8 years of majority republican corruption, economic failure and deficient, not to mention foreign policy devastation, all these nincompoops can do is blame it on Hillary before she's even in office. Predictably, their crowd loves it... pathetic.
also- I see new/increased support for Edwards coming out in the blogs...I have been in that camp for some time, yes electable is certainly in his corner, and I also think he is as progressive an electable Dem that there is for now... but, as with Dodd , I also think Edwards could get squashed by the bigger Dem pistons in that engine, as they scramble to assemble the new and improved Clinton, but no not many really want Hillary, but over ANY of the others in the rethug field...come now, get real.
It's funny- I would not give a rat's ass either way about Hillary Clinton if it were not for the incredibly childish, nasty, misogynist, paranoid bullcrap that the Republicans, and their toadies in the media, keep spewing about her. Somehow it makes me want to defend her.
I like the idea of scaring the Cons with the unitary Hillary theory of executive power. They are shitting themselves that the Chimporer might be setting up The Hillary to be the most powerful and utterly unaccountable executive in history.
No, Keyser, they're not. They don't make the connection between Hillary Clinton being president and Bush's push toward absolute power. They just hate her because they think she's the wicked witch of the East.
They don't think rationally, they think childishly.
Pay no attention to the Republican candidates. They are irrelavent. The election will be decided by a compromised, corrupt and complicit media. That does not bode well for the Democrats.
If things stay "chalk", the goopers will have selected their opponent again. Ironic isn't it that they can do that but not easily select their own.
I'm waiting for Bloomberg/Hagel '08.
I really do think that the Dems grossly underestimate just how much a disengaged base will hurt them in '08. The Beltway Dems truly believe that if they say "you don't matter" enough times then the same people will turn out to help you, full of enthusiasm.
They may be in the process of uninspiring themselves to death. It would be amusing as all hell if Bloomberg won as an independent candidate, and perhaps even good for the Democrats. It could be their Goldwater '64 moment, forcing them to listen to who actually gets them elected.
I enjoyed Sirota's comments at the above link and I would love it if Digby could also weigh in.
In my opinion, a lot of important truths get missed when we reduce liberals' problems with middle America to our not making a loud enough noise about NAFTA and immigration. I don't think these bread-and-butter issues are actually as important as cultural ones.
If Americans are all riled up about free trade, etc., then why is there absolutely NO grass-roots resistance to Walmart? The only people who turn up their noses to Walmart are the bourgeouise liberals. Example: I work for a very liberal organization. On Friday, at a staff meeting, we were talking about Walmart and the talk revealed a split. Who shopped at Walmart? The non-professional staff. They said they know Walmart stinks but they need to stretch their dollars. The only ones who claimed never to have set foot in a Walmart were the professional staff.
Obviously, it's anecdote - but try it for yourself where you work or amongst your friends and relatives. The anger at imports, NAFTA, China trade, etc. is widespread but about 1/2 inch deep. The universal solvent of low low prices dissolves it on contact. Does that mean we have to raise consciousness? Absolutely. But the fact that we have to raise consciousness shows that the American people are not alienated from the left because of its lack of opposition to free trade and the like.
Something similar goes on with immigration. From what I can tell, Americans aren't terribly worried about immigrants, legal or illegal, taking jobs picking vegetables, mowing lawns, carrying hods or slaughtering chickens. Have you ever even caught wind of a boycott of a company that is widely known to use illegal immigrant labor? One that's actually been caught doing it? I suspect that the average American upset about immigration doesn't really care where immigrants work. When labor issues are a part of the rhetoric against immigration, it often sounds like an afterthought. The stuff I hear the most of is talk about immigrant "crime", not speaking English, using public resources like schools and hospitals, loitering and drinking in public, etc.
The anti-immigrant crowd for the most part don't care about where immmigrants work - they just don't want the immigrants living where they can see them or have to encounter them. IMHO, the problem isn't the netroots not siding with middle American economic policy - its more about cultural issues.
The truth is that any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks.
...and then concede the election anyway...
The truth is that any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks.
The Rethugs mention Hillary all the time because it's their one and only trump card: They know that the only way they can win is if the Dems nominate Hillary. And the more they mention the stronger her campaign seems.
Repubs will turn out en masse to vote against her. She doesn't have to propose any wild Marxist schemes or promise to make our boys in uniform wear pink. Her name just has to appear on the ballot. That's Rush Limbaugh's wet dream.
She won't win. I'll eat my cat for dinner if she wins, and I love my cat.
I keep hearing how Hillary is can't win, and she is losing in the polls. Regardless of what you think about her, she ISN'T losing in the polls.
heliograph, when is the last time you checked SurveyUSA? I just went, at your suggestion, and she is beating Guiliani in Florida. In Ohio, she is losing 47 - 48, but so is Edwards.
As for Edwards being more electable, you have to remember how much Americans hate trial lawyers. I have a Republican relative who didn't like Bush, but refused to vote for Kerry because he picked Edwards for his running mate.
BTW, I'm not a Hillary fan (I currently like Dodd), however I think Hillary will be our next President.
Because of that, I think our best bet is to try and convince her to join our side. If we constantly insult her, when we try to influence policy, she is going to ignore us.
For example, it was stupid to challenge Nancy Pelosi by threatening a primary challenge. She will NEVER lose, and it will just piss her off.
"IMHO, the problem isn't the netroots not siding with middle American economic policy - its more about cultural issues.
NickM "
Nick, the cultural issues have always been there for all immigrant groups, but it doesn't rise to the xenophobic level it is at now in middle America w/o a real economic threat. Most of that threat is from larger economic policies that drive down wages of which immigrant labor is only a part. But it is a real part. For 30 years I have worked w/ engineers from all over the world. Until the last 7 or 8, I had seen less acceptance of an engineer (African-American) from Richmond than one from India or China, but now they are seen as a very real threat to American engineers and so have become more and more resented. And no one is talking about their driving skills or dots on the forehead. They are talking about jobs. Engineers as a group tend to be fairly conservative, they like certainty and well run organizations, they have a pretty selfish view of social programs and generally have a “If you don‘t fuck w/ me, I won‘t fuck w/ you“ attitude. After 8 years of tinpot, almost none would any longer identify as repub but they will vote that way (again) if the candidate promises to something about job threatening H1b visas.
Workers in other labor areas think the same. And it isn’t about grape picking or chicken plucking or box loading at the back of wallfart, it’s about driving the truck that picks up the plucked (both chickens and farm workers) and takes them to the back of wallfart to unload those boxes of grapes and chickens, it’s about the (maybe legal) cashier’s job at front at wallfart, and it’s about guys down the road building the new and even more humongous wallfart, and it is about the (legal) guy driving the bus to that wallfart and the (legal) guy delivering the mail to that wallfart, . It is about jobs and middle America’s economic insecurity. Read the polls. Better than 60% of American think the economy is going south, irrespective of wall street. And immigrant labor is a visible target for that insecurity.
So while, as you say
“The stuff I hear the most of is talk about immigrant "crime", not speaking English, using public resources like schools and hospitals, loitering and drinking in public, etc. .. “
The underlying insecurity is the reason that talk will make a political impact in ’08.
Jill Bains | 10.22.07 - 12:35 am
And here comes the tedious self-righteous hectoring . . .
Any REAL Democrat could beat that collection of losers. Sadly, the crop of Repub-lites we have running for the Presidency will have a much harder time of it.
DR wrote: "heliograph, when is the last time you checked SurveyUSA? I just went, at your suggestion, and she is beating Guiliani in Florida. In Ohio, she is losing 47 - 48, but so is Edwards."
I hadn't checked the SUSA polls for about 10 days. But holy crap, is Hillary still polling behind Giuliani in Ohio? That seems like really bad news to me, given the recent spike in Hillary's popularity among Democrats in national polls and Rudy's decline among Republicans.
Edwards had been polling a point or two higher than Hillary in some key states, but the differences were mostly statisically meaningless. I'm not promoting Edwards here, just pointing out that fairly recently he seemed to be more popular than Hillary in some key swing states. And that surprised me, given how tepid his poll numbers are among Democrats. Must have some cross-over appeal that Hillary lacks.
Meanwhile, according to SUSA polls voters in the general election were loving them some Rudy Giuliani all over the land. Go to SUSA and check out the ass-whippin' Rudy hands Hillary all across the United States http://www.surveyusa.com/. When you pick Hillary as the Democratic candidate, and Rudy as the Republican, it's a freakin' sea of red. Sickening.
My point is, this is all surreal. How in the world could ANY Democrat (much less ALL current Democratic Presidential hopefuls) be losing so badly in the state-by-state polls to a creepy, freakish ogre like Giuliani? My god, on physical appearance and mannerisms alone the man is a nightmare, not to mention his insane views on foreign policy, his racism, and his general ignorance of important domestic policy issues. But there you have it, this malformed, unsavory, belligerent little ignoramus is leading Democrats in the states that would add up to a Giuliani presidency.
And this is even before the right wingers mobilize the hate and fear machine. I was stuck yesterday in an isolated rural area where I could get only three FM adio stations and one AM station. I had to choose between Sean Hannity and two evangelists, so I listened in on the angry Irish ape-man (Al Franken's description of Hannity). He was promoting something he called the "Stop Hillary Express." Now, only an idiot right-winger would create an "Express" to "Stop" something (wouldn't a "wall" do a better job of stopping something than an "express"?) But Hannity made the point that "we haven't even run one ad yet against Hillary", and he's probably correct. Hillary Clinton will indeed energize the right wing lunatics like no other candidate. And Hillary is starting in a hole already against Giuliani in Ohio, and trailing badly in lots of other states. Do we really think that she's going to campaign effectively enough against the right wing slime machine to dig herself out of the hole she's already in?
As I said, what a country.
Several people upthread have noted Clinton's service to, and fronting for, the most powerful players in Corporate America. If Hillary is the nominee, I will not be voting. One of
the batshit insane Repuglans would be preferable, in hopes of getting a System Crash which would give us a chance to grab and reassemble some pieces in a pattern more to our liking.
Of course, if Pelosi achieves her dream-goal of keeping this Administration unimpeached until the very last day, I may not vote in the federal part of the elections at all anyway. If outlaw criminality is enshrined as being the New Legal, then
the federal regime will be too illegitimate to ever re-legitimise. And voting in its elections would simply be ratifying its outlaw nature.
Voting Guarantees Consentizenship!
Would you like to know more?
At that point, all that would be left to us would be a counterculture of sullen refusal, and a countereconomy-effort to erode and destroy the Mainstream Economy bit by bit by bit.
And continued action in State and Local politics to try and create State
and Local CounterCultures and CounterEconomies.
As someone noted above, well-to-do liberals support mass illegal immigration because they want the benefits of slavery without having to support Slavery By Name. US citizens used to do those bad jobs. Illegals were and are let in to break US unions
(Meatpackers, cutters,etc.) and others, and drive down US payscales. If migrant farm labor paid $30.00/hour
plus benefits plus free onsite housing
plus powerful representation by powerful unions, American citizens would do it. Where would the money come from? Hopefully, from lower dividends to shareholders and lower salaries to overpaid lawyers, CFOs, CEOs, etc., throughout the economy. Well-to-do liberals (and others) who don't want to pay for vegetables at $30.00/hr and etc. for labor...don't deserve to have any vegetables at all.
For example, it was stupid to challenge Nancy Pelosi by threatening a primary challenge. She will NEVER lose, and it will just piss her off.
DR
Could she(Pelosi) be worse(for us) if she were pissed off? Does that mean she'll kiss bushco ass harder? I say run someone and "piss her off". She's a BIG reason the Congress is at 11% approvals.
I was stuck yesterday in an isolated rural area where I could get only three FM adio stations and one AM station. I had to choose between Sean Hannity and two evangelists
heliograph
I think I would have chosen silence. Which I do.
Dean, After about two minutes I chose silence. Except for the sound of pounding blood in my ears, which I understand is the sound of near- lethal high blood pressure.
But I learned so much from my two minutes with the Angry Irish Ape Man. Did you know Al Gore isn't really concerned about Global Warming because he lives in a condo near the ocean? Sort of like a person not being concerned about winter because they don't wear an overcoat in July. Or something.
FORCE Congress to IMPEACH. 1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT. (I called, now it's YOUR turn)
(Jill Bains | 10.22.07 - 12:35 am)
"And here comes the tedious self-righteous hectoring . . ." -(Fishbone McGonigle)
It certainly does come. And here it is:
The fact is that many- if not most of you- who claim to 'hold your noses' and vote for Hilary are callow liars.
You wanted Hilary all the time.
But you did not have the moral integrity to simply admit to that.
Nor would you have the decency to admit you would vote for Guliani, if Kucinich got the nomination.
Right wing opportunism always fears the left, more so than it does the right.
It is called Neo fascism in the Democratic party.
Now what's not scurrilous about that hypocrisy?
And McGonigle Fishbone-you must be a self flagellant- as I would lay money you read every word of all my postings, as you whip yourself into a silly delirium.
But that is obvious.
" If Hillary is the nominee, I will not be voting."
-( R U Reddy)
Has just elevated himself into the pantheon of 'essential' reading on the Digby blog!
"The truth is that any Democrat will beat this collection of odd ducks." -(Digby)
Not unless you and others don't get off your Hilary bandwagon and start supporting Dennis Kucinich.
But then, since the truth is, you would rather have Hilary as President than Kucinich, you won't do that.
I have said this many times before, and I will say it again. Her political opponents underestimate Hillary Clinton at their peril. I am a native of reflexively Republican Upstate NY, and her success, both in campaigns and in constituent service, in many rural counties has been nothing short of astounding. She knows the issues of a declining industrial and agricultural economy as well as anyone, and her constituents know it. If you dismiss her as unelectable, and rely on that as a campaign strategy, Hillary Clinton will burn your ass but good.
I wonder if Hillary Clinton would support Federal legislation making ass burning a crime. Maybe if she had enough Republican co-sponsors ....
So, you think Hillary is a Democrat?
I agree. They know Hillary can't possibly elected, or Obama, given the tenor of this country, and that's why they're making the media tout these two as the front runners. They're the only chance the GOP has to keep the White House.
8 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
