In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Democrats should grow up

Donna Darko

Bill Clinton’s recent remarks weren’t as nasty as people made them out to be. It seems he was promoting his wife’s strong points more than dissing anyone:

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly because she had already been “vetted” — another subtle slap at Obama.

She’s vetted.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be “the best agent for change” not merely a “symbol for change….symbol is not as important as substance.”

She’s been an agent of change especially on the identity politics front.

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was “like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I’ll get a chef or a plumber to do it.”

Who voted against the War? Russ Feingold.

When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that people would be “rolling the dice” if they picked Obama, the former president replied: “It’s less predictable, isn’t it?”

Obama should fire his advisers. He’s better off advising himself and best off if his wife advised him. Speaking of which, this election would be much more interesting if it was between Hillary, Michelle and Elizabeth. They’d get right down to business and come to a consensus within an hour on what’s best for the country.

Obama’s remark was nastier:

Sen. Barack Obama was asked how he would shift U.S. foreign policy in a different direction, given that several of his advisers once worked for President Bill Clinton. “I want to hear that,” Sen. Hillary Clinton chimed in, provoking laughter. Obama waited a moment, and then quipped: “Well, Hillary, I’m looking forward to you advising me as well.”

Edwards is the most progressive but Clinton and Obama are the frontrunners. Democrats should stop attacking each other and talk progressive ideals like Kucinich and Gravel. What do you think?

**Cross-posted at my place.**

62 thoughts on Democrats should grow up

  1. Pingback: Democrats should grow up « my place

  2. I love Kucinich’s ideas. It’s so depressing that someone who actually would change things stands almost no chance, while those who lean only very slightly to the left (and seem to apologize for it) are leading. I wish one of the forerunners would take real progressive strategies and enact them, but I’m not giving up on Kucinich yet!

  3. Its the trials, they have differentiate themselves amongst eachother, simply talking “about the issues” will not serve to delineate them from each other which is what is needed now.

    I’m not so sold on the idea that the wives would ‘get together and get down to business’, that seems to function on the stereotype that women don’t get mean and aggressive with each other. Also, we “pick” individuals to run, not teams. Frankly, I’d be interested in seeing a Clinton/Obama ticket in final run, but the nastiness may prevent that. That’s the only bad thing I see here, which I guess is possibly your point?

    What is the most interesting question, which will probably never get tested, is, if Huckles gets enough primary votes, will the Republican Machine let him run? And if he did, wouldn’t his weird combination of theocracy mixed with government spending (which the blue bloods are getting the shakes about) allow a candidate like Kucinich the ability to come forward in a more attractive light?

    If the theocrats run to Huckles and take over the Republican party and allow his more populist message to abound, what then Democrats? Would a centrist candidate pull from the Republican party in defiance of Huckles? Could the dems swing closer left and thus everything swing the country more populist?

    Could Mittens overtake Huckles against popular lower-middle support against Mitt and Co.?

    Would the Hate-Hilary machine fizzle in the face of Huckles?

  4. It’s not hard to have consensus on progressive ideals. Issues are secondary.

    Huckles worries me but I don’t think the Repubs will endorse him. It would be cool if a Huckles endorsement moved Dems left. Mittens’ Mormonism is too much to overcome. Hillary hate might fizzle in the face of Huckles as the frontrunner. My take.

  5. Are . . . are you . . . serious? Kucinich and Gravel *progressive*?? I could understand it if a crazy right-wing blog — or even just a totally uninformed observer — said this, but this is a feminist blog!

    Kucinich, literally until the day he declared he was running for the presidency in 2004, was violently anti-choice, as well as opposed to stem cell research. To the tune of a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL, no less. If you don’t believe me, here’s Katha Pollitt on the subject.

    And Gravel is hardly better — he wants to abolish the IRS and replace it with a national sales tax. Sales tax, of course, being essentially the most radically regressive tax possible (outside of, say, an income tax that got higher as you made less money).

    So these “progressives” want to adopt arguably the most harmful policies with regard to women and the poor, respectively. And you’re endorsing them.

    Yikes.

  7. Aaron, progressive I believe in this discussion is only in matter of how the media portrays them. I agree with you completely about Kucinich; and Gravel is just a bit creepy all around.

    While we’re at it, might I butt in and say that I loved Obama until about a year or more ago when he seemed to be pandering to the wingnuts on the gay marriage issue. That made my blood boil. If he’s willing to throw my gay friends under the bus then what? I remember distinctly Bill’s trade-off with the devil in ’95 – I’ll give you the poor wimmens if you give me the budget or some such nonsense, which has caused countless misery. I for one, was sacrificed in that battle, so it still burns hard.

    I know that whoever gets into the big house will have to bargain with the evil other, I’m a bit uncomfortable with anyone who seems eager to play Faustus so early in the game, much less someone who has gone back and furtively rewritten their script to please the new audience.

  8. kate identifies one point that bothers me about HRC: The woman who wrote “It takes a village to raise a child” was unable to stop WJC from cutting “villagers” funds to children who needed them most. She was unable to be an agent of change even in her own household, unless she was the one who moved WJC to the right. Counting Nafta and other atrocities for working folk that I have tried to forget, her “experience” as First Lady involved a lot of embracing the right-wing agenda while pretending to be liberal.

    And HRC’s vetting does not imply a clean bill of health, only that her scandals are all out in the open. Obama could hardly match HRC’s record from Whitewater to Travelgate to her big score in cattle future speculation to being on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart (question: what was her progressive legacy there?). Obama’s big scandal is that a neighbor sold him a ten-foot strip of his property at a rock bottom price.

    Further, I don’t see how Obama’s embrace of HRC as a future adviser was “nasty”. After Obama wins, all Democrats should unite behind him.

  9. Speaking of which, this election would be much more interesting if it was between Hillary, Michelle and Elizabeth.

    Why sure. Because being an experienced politician is just like being married to an experienced politician. As long as you have a vagina, why bother earning qualifications when you can marry them? Clinton must feel pretty stupid now after putting all those years into, you know, being a senator. Wonder why she bothered? Didn’t she know being a Wife is what makes her worthy, even on blogs called “Feministe”?

    Hillary, Michelle and Elizabeth. That’s just…precious.

  10. She was unable to be an agent of change even in her own household,

    The Clinton administration was not a “household.” If you think it damning that she accomplished political change through becoming a legitimate elected official rather than by cajoling her husband when he was in power, that says a great deal about you.

  11. Democrats should stop attacking each other and talk progressive ideals like Kucinich and Gravel. What do you think?

    Agree….but if the Democrats are serious about winning, they need to go beyond talking about progressive ideals. As it is, they are not really doing a good job of getting those ideals communicated to the larger public.

    They also need to start an strident effort to engage and convince the larger public of the validity of those ideals, especially those who are sitting on the fence and those who are completely disengaged from the political process. Most of those politically disengaged are not happy at the way the country is being run….but feel participating in the political process is futile. Looking at this from one vantage point, this is a great potential opportunity the Democrats could capitalize on if they start mobilizing a massive effort to convince the politically disengaged that their political participation is not futile and can lead to positive change. If this is coupled with an effective articulated communication of progressive ideals, then they can have an impact.

    OT question: One friend of mine who is a Kucinich supporter and who identifies as progressive and a radical socialist politically is so disgusted with the rest of the democratic candidates “being in the corporations’ pockets” that he actually said he felt Ron Paul would be a better choice if Kucinich does not get the nomination. How should i counter that line of argument as I completely disagree?

  12. Kucinich, literally until the day he declared he was running for the presidency in 2004, was violently anti-choice, as well as opposed to stem cell research. To the tune of a 95 percent position rating from the National Right to Life Committee, versus 10 percent from Planned Parenthood and 0 percent from NARAL, no less. If you don’t believe me, here’s Katha Pollitt on the subject.

    I’m going to be ganged up on for this, but here are my thoughts on Kucinich:

    So, he was anti-choice in the past, he’s not now. Furthermore, in an ideal world, we would have at least five or six large parties, with many candidates representing the true diversity of political views running. But that’s not our reality. The menu for choice is pretty damn limited. Kucinich represents my views more than any other candidate, and, in fact, more than most politicians in the US today. Also, though it may make me a “bad feminist” in the eyes of many here, I really do see the survival of our democracy, and matters of war and peace (especially, *ahem,* a war launched by the US that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and massive, organized violence against women) as more important at this critical moment in our history than the right to choose –which, again, Kucinich now supports.

  13. I actually thought this post was sarcastic until I got to the end and found it was serious. Obama’s saying he looked forward to getting Sen. Clinton’s advice is your idea of a “nastier remark” than Clinton’s? You think all the candidates would be best off with their wives advising them? I could see how Mrs. Obama would be useful on health care issues, perhaps, but WTF does she have to tell him that’s useful about tax policy? (An area where he’s having trouble getting across a comprehensible, comprehensive idea.)

    And the idea that by virtue of being female, “Hillary, Michelle and Elizabeth” (sorry, do you know these women personally? if not, why do you call them by their first names while using only last names for the men?) MUST agree, has been discredited for a long time. They may all have good ideas, they may not, but I seriously doubt that they all coincide — the Democratic Party is too diverse. I just hope Mrs. Edwards is concentrating on staying well, not on the fate of his husband’s campaign.

    Here’s some good news, though I still think it’s screwed up that it takes pardons to fix these problems that are most publicized (and that nothing is done for the ones that don’t make it into the media).

  14. Word, sophonisba.

    People don’t need to be convinced of the validity of progressive ideals. Politicians who behave progressively i.e. get out of Iraq, offer health care, publicly finance campaigns, support choice, naturally attract voters. Ron Paul has appealing viewpoints and abhorent ones. He seems to appeal to those identifying as libertarian white males An actual Paul presidency would be unfeasible and makes me wonder how progressive and radically socialist your friend is.

  15. exholt,

    Re: your friend, exactly why does he think all the Dems are in the corporations’ pockets?

    And why does he think Ron Paul, who fought against requiring corporations to assess their internal controls (in order to prevent fraud and future Enrons), is somehow a good alternative to Kucinich?

    I have seen precious little from Paul that doesn’t show him to be another Big Business Uber Alles Republican. He thinks, “The US Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the accounting standards of private corporations.” (that’s a direct quote) I’m very worried about someone who has such a narrow view of what the commerce clause allows the federal government to do, as that is the part of the Constitutional that allows us to have a federal minimum wage, federal anti discrimination laws, federal environmental protection laws, and a host of other measures that progressives ought to support.

  16. I think the three women should run. All six of them are lawyers. The fire in the belly comes from the women so it would be much more interesting for me.

  17. The “I’m looking forward to you advising me as well” remark surprised me more than the “rolling the dice” remark because the latter is partly true given his terrible advisers.

  18. Are we talking about Obama’s political advisers (who have taken some justifiable flack), or his policy advisers (who are genuinely top notch). From the context of the question, Obama was asking Clinton to be an adviser on the latter, but if you’re telling me you’ve got a problem with Samantha Power, we’re gonna have issues.

  19. Political messaging advisers. Either way, it’s rude to say she’ll be his adviser.

    I like Samantha Power very much.

  20. Dude,

    You can’t ask people to grow up about tough politics and then bitch about something Obama said to Hillary. Nothing anyone said in the statements you listed above was particularly nasty, including what Obama said to Hillary, which at least had the virtue of being witty.

    At least Obama’s campaign aides haven’t been caught sending around emails suggesting Hillary is a Muslim plant or suggesting she was once a drug dealer. The only stuff that’s really beyond the pale on the Democratic side has come from Hillary’s campaign, and not even John Nichols the Nation is buying the idea that Shaheen acted without Hillary’s approval.

  21. # Donna Darko Says:
    December 17th, 2007 at 2:28 am

    So you’re a Naderite.

    Good lord no — I like (in no particular order) Clinton, Obama, Edwards, even Dodd, all of whom have a long history (with no knee-jerk switches) on progressive issues like, y’know, the right to choose and an income tax. I’m not saying Kucinich and Gravel are the most progressive but not close enough, I’m saying that they’re *actively illiberal*. And I don’t think you bothered to find out anything about their actual policies (especially regarding Kucinich and choice!) before endorsing them.

  23. There are some African-Americans who are furious with Bill Clinton for his performance on Charlie Rose. Personally, as a white male, I found Bubba to be loaded with arrogance.

    FWIW, in the general election, I don’t have a problem voting for Hillary, Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or Obama.

  24. dnA, okay, the Muslim, drug and I look forward to you working for me remarks were ALL below the belt.

    AA, of course I know about Kucinich re: choice and Gravel’s crazy tax scheme

    GCA, I’ll have to figure that one out.

  25. Four positive women responders to this thread so far.

    Six negative male responders to this thread so far. (I haven’t figured out the Grover Cleveland response yet.)

    Hillary always gets this sexist, knee-jerk reaction.

  26. The difference as I see it is that Obama’s comment was an offhand joke. It made me laugh. And Sen. Clinton started laughing and making a joke at his expense first. And in any case, I’m not so sure what’s upsetting about the suggestion that Obama might want her as a part of his administration. Yes, it’s suggesting that he will indefinitely win the primaries, but every candidate does that on a daily basis. Bill Clinton’s remarks were dead serious and probably planned in advance. They were purposely delivered as slander, while Obama was just nudging Hillary in the ribs a little bit. And regardless, I think that both of them can take it.

  27. she accomplished political change through becoming a legitimate elected official

    Can you give me a pointer to the HRC Senatorial legacy?

  28. He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was “like saying that because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors, the next time I need surgery I’ll get a chef or a plumber to do it.”

    Yes, I’m not going to get a chef or a plumber, but I’m also not going to get a doctor who has eight malpractice suits and five patients who died in surgery.

    Hillary Clinton’s record on Iraq and now Iran is not encouraging. Her vote to authorize military action against Iraq shows she’s OK with wars of aggression. She has voted to fund the Iraq war several times. She said the Petraeus report requires a suspension of disbelief but later voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, effectively endorsing many of the Petraeus findings.

    So no, President Clinton, I’m not buying your rationalization on this issue.

  29. Whoops I think I found it. According to wikipedia, this is the only thing HRC initiated during her time in the Senate:

    In 2005, Clinton called for the Federal Trade Commission to investigate how hidden sex scenes showed up in the controversial video game Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.[209] Along with Senators Joe Lieberman and Evan Bayh, she introduced the Family Entertainment Protection Act, intended to protect children from inappropriate content found in video games.

    This protection of children from inappropriate content makes HRC truly a Tipper Gore for our times.

  30. I love how the richest white guy in the race is suddenly the economic populist that we should all be embracing (Edwards). Funny, I don’t remember him being this much of a lefty last time he ran for President.

    As for Hillary Clinton getting knee-jerk sexist remarks, I’m gonna jump on this and say that I don’t like her as a candidate because of her past support for complete bullshit policies and her work for Wal-Mart. This is a feminist blog–how many of your readers do you really think are that kind of knee-jerk sexist men?

    And I’m a woman who would absolutely LOVE to see a female president. But I wouldn’t have voted for Elizabeth Dole just because she was a woman. I certainly won’t vote for Clinton just because she is one. (Though if she’s the nominee I sure will)

    And thank someone for bringing up the Kucinich anti-choice heritage. I do believe that if hell froze over and he became president, he would support Roe, but that issue is too damn important to me to vote for someone who used to be that far on the wrong side.

  31. Kucinich is a panderer. Chris Dodd is far more sincere without the holier than thou tone, and the complete, cynical 180 on abortion. He’s filibustering the FISA law today.

    Also, I know that they aren’t running for President, but there are actual progressives in national elective office. Russ Feingold being the most obvious example. But I know that it’s much more fun to moan about the Democrats in general and complain about how there aren’t any progressive ones on the Presidential stage except for the guy who decided to make a career out of being a fringe candidate, and completely changed his beliefs the day that he decided that he was going to do so.

  32. Cara, I didn’t see the show and only read the remarks in the articles.

    Chris, her war record is not encouraging at all. The only possible positive spin is she has to look centrist as a woman Presidential candidate.

    Sarah J., there are sexist knee jerk responses from both feminist men and women.

  34. i think you’re really off mark here.
    obama’s remark re: clinton advising him made perfect sense in a debate context. not only that, but he was goaded into it by clinton’s (honestly) taunting laughter.
    former pres. clinton’s remarks on charlie rose are, in my mind, more “nasty” as your would say. he’s not challenging obama on policy points, and the main thrust is NOT his trumping his wife above all. rather, his comments said, “this man who is running for president should not be. america will be making a stupid decision by electing him instead of my wife.” argue about policy points all you want, sir, but don’t undermine the legitimacy of one of the candidates. there’s a law in place. there is nothing supererogatory about running for president.
    as a new york resident, i don’t condone the “hate-hillary” bandwagon. i think it’s shrill and cruel and distracting from the real issues. however, as a new york resident, i shan’t be voting for her in the primaries.

  35. also, sorry to take up space:
    how is it that clinton prefers edwards (though i do like him) in terms of experience?
    the man hasn’t been in government for the last few years! he’s out of the loop/game/other metaphor!

  36. Whoops I think I found it. According to wikipedia, this is the only thing HRC initiated during her time in the Senate

    According to the Library of Congress website, Clinton sponsored or cosponsored 177 bills. Obama in turn had 152. Sure she’s been in there longer, but she certainly initiated more than one bill.

  37. I live in NY. Clinton has been a decent senator for the state and I’d vote for her again on her record. Not spectacular, but decent and far better than Giuliani or what’s-his-name, the last minute replacement. She’d probably be much the same as President. I have a fondness for Obama that is probably unearned because he used to teach at my alma mater and I tend to think that he’s likely to be a nerd like many people there. Edwards lost my respect when he failed to support Marcotte during the smear campaign. My current prediction is that he will be the candidate in the general election, though, since I’ve seen several articles declaring him the “most electable” candidate. Anything for a white male, I guess, even if he is a semi-progressive. In short, I don’t know who I’m voting for in the primary, but will hold my nose and vote for whoever gets the nomination in the general election because they’re almost certainly better than anyone the reps are likely to run.

  38. Couldn’t agree more about Michelle, Elizabeth and Hillary, as well as Kucinich being the only real progressive candidate up there. Pissed me off when they didn’t even bother to invite him to the debate last week!

  39. Kucinich surrendered every scrap of his progressive credit, gave up any claim he might have to being a liberal, and spit on every forward looking plan the moment he said he thought Ron Paul would be a good running mate.

    Kucinich is not a liberal, a liberal wouldn’t want a Republican running mate.

    Kucinich is not a progressive, a progressive wouldn’t want a Republican running mate.

    Kucinich *IS* a coward, a traitor, and a pathetic excuse for a Democrat, such people would want Ron Paul as a running mate.

    Before the Ron Paul moment I knew Kucinich wasn’t my choice because of his stand on abortion, but if he’d gotten the nomination I’d have happily voted for him. After? I’d rather chew broken glass than vote for that traitorous slime, and I’m continually astonished, flabbergasted even, that any Democrats, any liberals, any progressives, are continuing to endorse him.

    As for Clinton, I think she’s far too right wing for my taste, but she’d be my second choice, with Obama as number one.

    Why? Because the individual sitting in the Oval Office isn’t as important as the people that individual brings with them. And you know that no matter which Democrat wins the nomination they’ll bring the same DLC types in as their cabinet, advisors, etc. Meaning that the individual politics of the candidate aren’t nearly as important as we like to think they are. So I say the symbology is the most important thing.

    Breaking the cynicism that says “yeah right, like America will ever have a black president” is important. Breaking the cynicism that says “heh, no one will ever vote for a woman president” is important. The actual person who sits in the middle of the DLC spun BS? Not so important.

  40. I am a woman, and I don’t think there was anything nasty about Obama’s remark. I’ve heard lots of much more ridiculous “You will be my VEEP!” put-downs during these debates, most notably from Edwards, who used it as part of his trying to shrug off a tough question in the Iowa Public Radio debate. Obama’s at least was witty. I’ve listened to several debates, and Clinton comes off as very practiced at evasion, spin, and politicking, and unwilling to be pinned down. I too would love to have a female president, but not her.

    I listened to Kucinich answer questions at a climate change forum yesterday, and the prospect of him as a president is completely terrifying. He has no practical ideas whatsoever, just grandiose rhetoric. Sure the rhetoric sounds great if it aligns with your ideals, but when the moderator or audience tries to ask how he plans to do…anything, ANY of the things he says he’s going to do, you get more rhetoric. Just having him in office is supposed to fix all our woes. “Courage” in our national leader will fix global warming. Courage to do what? Oh, he doesn’t want to answer that.

    I’m not sure whether he’s the weaselliest weasel in Weaselton, or just living in his own reality, but either way, I don’t want him within throwing distance of real power.

  42. Politics in a democracy cannot be about policy because the greater part of the electorate is unequipped to comprehend a nuanced discussion and any attempt to engage on a policy level is an opportunity to be misunderstood and portrayed as a pointy-headed wonk.

    This is how Al Gore lost the debates in 2000. Gore had a detailed policy for Social Security, and Bush had a very rough plan. But Gore couldn’t explain the importance of protecting the Social Security surplus from legislative filching to cover short-term budget shortfalls or to fund tax cuts, and he couldn’t explain why the Bush plan didn’t work. The electorate was too dumb to grasp it.

    But Bush was folksy and people wanted to have a beer with him, and Gore was talking about math, and Americans hate smart guys.

    This is the reason that the “culture war” issues such as gay marriage and abortion are so resonant; you’re either fer it or agin’ it, and you can pick your candidate based on that without having to be smart enough to figure out which party’s tax plan or health care proposal is more favorable for your family.

    Democracy means that dumb people vote for dumb reasons, and candidates pander to that with dumb ads. It’s about which candidate went to some grotesque state fair and ate barbecue and funnel cake with some guys who look like huge potatoes wrapped in flannel and denim.

    Lawmaking in this country is about serving the narrow interests that are actively involved in the lawmaking process, and by putting on a show for the broader electorate. And it’s getting worse. At least in the “Town Hall” style of debate, when the candidates took stupid questions from the peanut gallery the yokels combed their hair and put on their Sunday clothes. But the MTV debate where Bill Clinton fielded questions about his underpants has degenerated into the YouTube debate where candidates for the office of President of the United States are submitting to questioning by talking snowmen.

    The biggest things going on in the presidential race right now is Obama surging on his Oprah tour and desperate evangelicals latching on to the CHRISTIAN LEADER. The only candidate I like at all is Rudy Giuliani, and he might be insane.

  44. People don’t need to be convinced of the validity of progressive ideals. Politicians who behave progressively i.e. get out of Iraq, offer health care, publicly finance campaigns, support choice, naturally attract voters. Ron Paul has appealing viewpoints and abhorent ones.

    Depends on which part of the electorate we’re talking about. Those who identify as politically liberal/progressive/left do not need convincing. Those who are politically conservative/right-wing are extremely unlikely to be convinced. There are, however, a large pool of politically disengaged voters throughout the country who are dissatisfied with the current policies and administration…but who are convinced there isn’t a dime of difference between the two main parties and that the process is fixed to the point it isn’t worth bothering to pay attention to the politics, much less participate as voting citizens.
    If the Democrats go out to explain their progressive ideals, make an effort to engage them by taking them seriously enough to explain how those ideals will help them, expanding voter registration drives, and make an effort to convince them that their political participation does matter and will make a difference, they would not only be able to greatly expand their support, but also bolster their progressivism by getting politically disengaged citizens who feel their concerns have been effectively ignored by the current political system.

    Re: your friend, exactly why does he think all the Dems are in the corporations’ pockets?

    And why does he think Ron Paul, who fought against requiring corporations to assess their internal controls (in order to prevent fraud and future Enrons), is somehow a good alternative to Kucinich?

    His has said that while I had good points by explaining Ron Paul is anti-choice, attracting White Supremicists, and has called for eliminations of government agencies critical to the welfare of American citizens such as the FDA that Ron Paul is the lesser of two evils.

    He reasons for stating MOST of the Democratic candidates are in the corporations’ pockets are that with the exception of Kucinich, every other Democratic candidate has accepted campaign donations directly and indirectly from Fortune 500 firms and other Corporate interests and that if elected, the influence of those corporations on the political process would be worse and that if not checked that these candidates may pave the way for what he called “the corporate Fascist state”.

    I told him I felt his argument has severe flaws as Ron Paul has been getting a large amount of donations from wealthy individuals other corporate interests such as Steve Forbes with a extremist right-wing agenda. Moreover, the fact Ron Paul is attracting a lot of White supremacists and pandering to such voters through anti-immigrant rhetoric and that he is a great hypocrite in his supposed support for Civil Liberties by being anti-choice and through calling for wholesale dismantling of the very government agencies that are critical in the safeguarding of our rights, health, and more such as the FDA.

    Through the elimination of the FDA, I asked him if he wanted us to go back to the time of Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle”. He lamely replied that we have already arrived at that stage currently which showed me he has not really understood how bad food poisoning and contamination was before the FDA was instituted. He also said that the policies instituted over the last 2 decades has increasingly brought us back to the time of the Gilded Age. He felt as bad as Ron Paul is, that the vast majority of the Fortune 500s and individual affiliates are donating the bulk of their money to candidates in the two main parties and thus, if elected, they will pass corporate-friendly policies that will increasing bring us back to the Gilded Age.

    Keep in mind that I completely disagree with his arguments as they are flawed and confused. Heck, he even went so far as saying that I am playing into the hands of the corporate interests’ desire to create a “corporate fascist state” by stating that the democratic candidates are far more preferable to Ron Paul.

    Personally, I would vote for whoever makes the Democratic nomination. As for my preferences, I still have a great deal of respect from what Clinton has done for my home state despite her mistaken votes for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

  45. But Bush was folksy and people wanted to have a beer with him,

    Excuse me for being dense, but how could anyone look at Bush and want to do anything but run screaming? Quite apart from his politics, he’s always struck me as incredibly creepy as a person. Have a beer with him? Yeck.

  46. Democracy means that dumb people vote for dumb reasons, and candidates pander to that with dumb ads. It’s about which candidate went to some grotesque state fair and ate barbecue and funnel cake with some guys who look like huge potatoes wrapped in flannel and denim.

    Wow! A whole lot of patronizing stereotypes wrapped up in two sentences. Also, what does being shaped like “huge potatoes” have to do with anything?

    The only candidate I like at all is Rudy Giuliani, and he might be insane.

    You’ve got to be kidding me!

    Are we talking about the same dude who didn’t seem to mind police officers shooting Amadou Diallo 41 times because they were “scared”, has a cloud over him as a result of the sketchy way he has been running his security consulting firm, has a friend and business partner Bernard Kerik who is now being Federally indicted on multiple charges such as mail and tax fraud, favored censorship of Art as shown in the “elephant dung painting” incident at the Brooklyn art museum, and whose marital infidelities and family problems possibly far exceeds those of Bill Clinton’s???

    IMHO, if the Republican Party is actually stupid enough to nominate Giuliani as their Presidential candidate, it will be fun to watch how much of a field day the Democrats have in exhuming the numerous political and personal skeletons in his closet and thus, further revealing the overly sanctimonious hypocrisy of the GOP.

  47. Grover, I’ll take your word the 19th century remark was nastier.

    invisible, I’m only judging from these remarks. If he actually said Obama should not be running that’s out of line. I just looked at that Edwards line closely and it’s crazy he thinks Edwards has more experience.

    Brad, the Ron Paul thing is crazy. I’m not convinced yet that Obama is not as wedded to the DLC as Hillary.

    Crawford, framing and BS religious narratives are still everything.

    Exholt, it’s better for Democrats to behave in a progressive manner so independents and non-voters vote. All they have to do is walk the walk as progressives and people will vote for them. Your friend is not a real progressive or socialist. He probably identifies too much with the libertarian white males. Real progressives are committed to feminism and anti-racism.

    So far:

    7 positive women respondents to the post.

    9 negative men respondents to the post.

    3 negative women respondents to the post.

    because I’m so much fun like that.

    Prepare for the Final Hillary vs. Guiliani Death Cage Match. Hopefully, USians will be smart enough not to vote for Guiliani but I’m not holding my breath.

  48. The only candidate I like at all is Rudy Giuliani, and he might be insane.

    See if you still like him after reading this speech.

    Prepare for the final Hillary vs. Guiliani death cage match.

    Ooh, that might be fun to watch…from a safe distance. Like, say, Mars. I like to think that Clinton would come out of it victorious, clutching Giuliani’s still diseased prostate in her teeth, but hard to say how it would really go.

  49. Ooh, that might be fun to watch…from a safe distance. Like, say, Mars. I like to think that Clinton would come out of it victorious, clutching Giuliani’s still diseased prostate in her teeth

    Poetic justice.

  50. Donna I’m sure that Obama *wants* to be as wedded to the DLC as Clinton is, he just hasn’t been in office long enough yet. He has some nice rhetoric about change, and I’m cynical enough that I don’t believe any of it. He appears to be somewhat less right wing than Clinton, but that’s damning him with faint praise.

    I was a Deaniac back in ’04, again, Dean seemed quite right wing, but he also looked like a fighter which I thought was more important than ideological purity. On that front I’m sure Clinton will fight, I’m just not sure who she’ll fight for….

  51. I’d like Obama if he were his idealistic self. I keep waiting…it’s his mishandlers. He’s itching to get with the DLC like Hillary.

    Disappointment all around.

  52. Dems “grew up” a long time ago. people forget that dean got Max Clelanded by kerry’s people long before saxby chambliss arrived on the scene. teresa kerry charged the bush admin with “hiding” osama for an october surprise and called dick cheny “unpatrotic.”

    hillary’s racially coded “drug dealer” smear was an opening salvo that the clintons mean biz. rumors are all over washington that the clintons have dirt and are threatening to peddle it., as robert novack reports…who’s a pretty reliabel source if the valerie plame incident is any indication. even after firing shehan for the “drug dealer” smear, hillary talked about how she’s been vetted for 20yrs so nothing can come out, as oppossed to obama. many democratic women, who alledged affairs or worse with bill, have attested to some hardball tactics.

  53. The DLC did Dean in. Democrats should grow up and stop attacking themselves. From my view, all they have to do is be progressive and everyone wins.

    The drug dealer smears are way below the belt.

  54. Out of curiosity, how do you determine whether someone with a non-gender identifying username is male or female? (AAnon, exholt, dnA, S.H…. these didn’t strike me as obviously man or woman)

  55. Wait, what is this about Kucinich and Ron Paul? Say it ain’t so!

    Kucinich and Paul are friends. Kucinich had hinted that if he were to win the Democratic Party nomination, he would pick Ron Paul as his running mate. Paul has the record of the most money raised in a day. Dec. 16th, the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, he raised over $6.6 million, beating Hillary Clinton’s 6.2 million. Kucinich tried to make his own “money bomb”, but it didn’t meet its goal.

  57. Exholt, it’s better for Democrats to behave in a progressive manner so independents and non-voters vote. All they have to do is walk the walk as progressives and people will vote for them.

    Walking the walk is the first step. They also need to articulate and make the case that progressive policies will benefit the independents and non-voters…especially in the wake of the GOP noise machine that has been quite effective in framing and defining Democrats and their progressivism in the larger American public.

    Assuming people will vote for your party’s candidates because their ideals are correct is a dangerous assumption….especially in a political landscape where your opponent has been quite effective in framing and thus, mischaracterizing your party and its progressive message.

    Your friend is not a real progressive or socialist. He probably identifies too much with the libertarian white males. Real progressives are committed to feminism and anti-racism.

    Interesting you say that as he detests libertarians for their desire to return the US to the laissez-faire Gilded Age and is in favor of “big government” programs such as LBJ’s “New Society”, universal health care, and greater spending on social welfare programs.

    In this case, however, he sees any Democratic candidate other than Kucinich as corporate shills whose actions once elected won’t be any different than the Republican administration’s pro-corporate policies and thus, would have a greater chance of ushering a “fascist corporate state”.

    As for anti-racism and feminism, he takes a Marxist-derived view that class drives everything else. He feels that priority should be given towards correcting class inequalities in society as by doing so, problems with racial and gender inequality would automatically be taken care of.

    Coincidentally, he had a contentious argument today with a Latina post-structuralist sociology grad student as she completely disagreed with his Marxist-derived view that class should be privileged over race and gender in examining social issues and societies.

  58. personally, i don’t care that hillary has been vetted for 20 years.
    if anything, it’s exactly that sort of attitude that i hate in politics.
    her congressional record is enough to persuade me not to vote for her, namely her hawk-lite tendencies.
    we need a candidate who will end the current administration’s foreign policy. period. there is nothing doing more harm in the world than american foreign policy, and i simply don’t think hillary would change a darned thing in that area.

  59. Exholt, no, all Democrats have to do is walk the progressive walk. Even Republican Ron Paul raised 10 million dollars in two days because of his progressive views on Iraq. And I was right about your friend.

    invisible, vetting is about surviving attacks and standing one’s ground in the face of attacks. Would Obama be any less hawkish?

    FWIW, I never heard a candidate say to another, “I look forward to you working in my administration/on my staff.” Hence my comparisons of the nastiness of these remarks.

  60. 7 positive women respondents to the post.

    10 negative men respondents to the post.

    3 negative women respondents to the post.

    Predictable.

  61. This is great, Donna.
    Do you often use prodigiously invalid statistical sampling to bolster your preconceved notions and personal biases?
    Unhelpful comment, yours

  62. I’ve noticed this sexist bias against Hillary Clinton all over the progressive blogosphere not to mention the MSM.

    So it’s not so invalid and not so biased.

Comments are currently closed.