In "Eight for '08" series, Chris Matthews Show followed McCain gush-fest by bashing Hillary Clinton
SUMMARY: Two weeks after gushing over John McCain's likely presidential bid, the host and panelists on The Chris Matthews Show concluded that some of Hillary Rodham Clinton's greatest perceived strengths as a presidential candidate were really weaknesses.
On the December 3 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, guest host and NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell hosted a discussion on the potential presidential candidacy of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), continuing the show's "Eight for '08" series, in which the likely candidates from both parties are examined. In contrast to the commentators' discussion of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the November 19 installment -- which consisted of host Chris Matthews and his guest panel gushing over McCain, as Media Matters for America noted at the time -- this broadcast saw Mitchell and her panel conclude that some of Clinton's greatest perceived strengths were really weaknesses.
Hillary Clinton's establishment problem ...
Discussing Clinton, Mitchell noted, "one big plus is that she is an establishment favorite. Flip side of that? She's so familiar there's that 'been there, done that' factor. ... nobody's more establishment than Hillary." Time columnist Andrew Sullivan also asserted that Clinton is "still radioactive blue. And people don't want to go back to polarization." He later added, "[S]he's also a terrible politician, isn't she?" Time columnist Joe Klein agreed, "Yeah, she is."
New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller also said that "one of the biggest -- the developing theory now among Democratic activists -- is that it's going to be a lot harder for her to get the nomination than it would be for her to win the general election ... Democrats have notoriously been very tough on their front-runner establishment candidate since the '70's."
But on the December 4 edition of MSNBC News Live, Cook Political Report editor and publisher Charlie Cook told Mitchell, "I don't think among Democrats the people are going to be deciding who the nomination goes to. I don't think that's an open question anymore. I mean, generally speaking, she runs with favorable ratings among Democrats, between 70 and 80 percent -- I think the lowest number I've seen was a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that had her running at 66 positive. She's got very, very good numbers among Democrats, and they don't seem to think it's a problem."
... vs. McCain's establishment credentials
Matthews asserted that McCain "has to appeal to the Republican right and yet keep himself positioned so he can win the general," then asked, "How's he doing?" New York Times columnist David Brooks responded, "I think he's doing fine," and praised McCain's "super" record on pork-barrel spending. Brooks further asserted that "The Republican party is sick of playing defense," adding that "his style will be amenable to him." Matthews characterized McCain as "kind of like a Martin Luther. He's going back and reforming and finding the pure conservative movement." Later, after syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker described McCain's stance on troops levels in Iraq as that of "a leader," Matthews said, "I think there's a thing he has that people like me like, people -- a lot of journalists like, because journalists are supposed to be really independent. They're supposed to be."
Hillary Clinton's "big issue,"gender ...
Mitchell asserted, "Another big issue for Hilary Clinton, of course, is gender. The fact that she is the first woman making a serious run for president might be a big plus, a huge plus, but it could also be a minus." After Sullivan responded, "I don't have a problem with women politicians because I grew up in a country where one woman dominated the entire political landscape for more than a decade," Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker asserted, "I don't think this country is ready to elect a woman yet, especially not a woman who's a Democrat." Tucker also said Clinton "doesn't fit the traditional model [of 'what a woman should be', in Mitchell's words] but not just for a lot of Southerners, but unhappily for a lot of Americans."
As Media Matters previously noted, nearly a year earlier, on the December 11, 2005, broadcast of The Chris Matthews Show, Tucker told Matthews that "[t]his country is not ready to elect a woman, especially a liberal woman" to the presidency. Subsequently, a CBS News/New York Times poll conducted January 20-25, 2006, showed that 92 percent of respondents indicated that they would vote for a "qualified woman" for president were she nominated by their party.
... vs. McCain's "tricky" non-issue, age
Matthews noted, "This is always tricky in our society. You can sue people for firing you for age [which is also true of gender]. [McCain is] going to be 72 if he gets elected to president, the day he takes the office." Brooks said, "I think the whole thing will be solved when people look at him. ... He's running around, he's never sitting down. And so the energy thing I think will show up." Later, after Matthews concluded, "The country's comfortable with a guy who's 80 years old in the White House. I think you're right," Parker asserted, "Seventy is the new 50." Matthews replied, "That's what I think."
Hillary Clinton's "biggest plus ... her husband" is "also, though, a minus" ...
After Mitchell asked, "Is [former President] Bill [Clinton] an asset to Hillary or a liability?," Klein responded, "[O]nly if he makes a fool of himself is he a minus." Mitchell then said, "Well, I wasn't even talking about his social life. I was talking about the fact that he overshadows her." Bumiller asserted, "Bill Clinton gave one of the most amazing political speeches and a very, very moving tribute to Coretta Scott King, and then Hillary got up afterwards, and it was not a good moment," to which Mitchell agreed, "And she stood there, sort of giving him that Nancy Reagan gaze." Sullivan later said, "I think the big problem, Andrea, what do you do with this guy in the White House? What -- he's not going to be doing place settings, OK? He's not going to be the first husband." Klein agreed, "This is going to be a question that she is going to have to answer front up when she goes to Iowa. The people there aren't -- don't mythologize politicians. They're going to say, 'What's he going to do? What's his job?'" After concluding, "It's no longer two for the price of one," Mitchell asked Tucker, "Are people willing to accept Bill as first spouse?" Tucker replied, "I think that that would be a huge change for most Americans, and again, I'm not sure we're quite ready for that yet."
Earlier during the broadcast, Klein wondered, referring to the Clintons and the Bushes, "Do the American people want to keep on trading their most precious office back and forth between these two prohibitively weird families?"
... vs. McCain's "anger problem" that's really about his "passion"
Matthews noted, "You hear it around -- I don't hear it so much but I'm sure you people have, that McCain's got an anger problem." Journalist John Heilemann responded, "Well, I think it's actually incredibly appealing, you know, but there is -- he's a very tightly coiled guy and you see that in almost every setting." Parker added, "I think there's another way that this is going to be presented. They're going to cast this not as an anger problem but as a passion issue. He is passionate about everything and he's not going to sit around, as I said before, hold hands and talk to everybody."
From the December 3 broadcast of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show:
KLEIN: Well, there are an awful lot of people who love the Clintons in the Democratic primary. And there is a desire among a lot of people who worked for the Clinton administration and raised money for the Clinton administration for a restoration. But there's a real basic fact standing in the way of that: In 2008, when she runs for president, we will have had people named Bush and Clinton as presidents of the United States for the last 20 consecutive years. And so the major question is: Do the American people want to keep on trading their most precious office back and forth between these two prohibitively weird families?
MITCHELL: Two first families. But Hillary has major pluses and major minuses. Let's go down the list. One big plus is that she is an establishment favorite. Flip side of that? She's so familiar there's that 'been there, done that' factor. Cynthia, you come from outside the Beltway. Are people outside of -- the rest of this country really sick of the Washington establishment? And nobody's more establishment than Hillary.
[...]
MITCHELL: But Elisabeth, is there a downside to that? Does she also carry a lot of baggage from those years?
BUMILLER: Oh, absolutely. And I think one of the biggest -- the developing theory now among Democratic activists -- one theory -- is that it's going to be a lot harder for her to get the nomination than it would be for her to win the general election. And that's sort of the reverse of what the conventional wisdom was a few months ago. And one of the reasons is she's the establishment candidate. And Democrats have notoriously been very tough on their front-runner establishment candidate since the '70s.
MITCHELL: Does that favor an outsider? Andrew, is that why the romance with Barack Obama -- and we're going to talk more about him a little bit later -- but is that his basic appeal?
SULLIVAN: I think, yeah. I think he is a very fresh face. He has a very clear idea of where -- he's purple. She's still really radioactive blue. And people don't want to go back to polarization. We are so ready to go beyond that whole red-blue fight. And she represents, to me, at least -- even though I think she's been a good senator, I think she'd be a fine president in many ways -- she's the only thing that will polarize this country, once again take it right back. And it's the only thing that will reunite the Republicans, is Hillary Clinton.
KLEIN: I think that's absolutely true, and Obama has this wonderful line about us revisiting the dorm fights of the 1960s and how most people are sick of that. But in some ways, it does her a disservice. Because she's been a really excellent senator, she is absolutely solid on the issues, and especially on the Armed -- her work on the Armed Services Committee, she's really learned military affairs, and she's incredibly responsible. So in a lot of ways, a lot of this is true, but it's unfair.
SULLIVAN: But she's also a terrible politician, isn't she?
KLEIN: Yeah, she is.
SULLIVAN: When I -- like, I read her --
MITCHELL: You're talking about -- well, you're talking about retail politicking, door-to-door --
SULLIVAN: I'm talking about what it takes to glad-hand, to get out there, to show who you are, and to love pe -- that's what Bill had and she doesn't. And next to Bill, it's even more dramatic. I mean, I read her speech, for example, on torture and war crimes, and I was inspired. Then I saw it. It was just dreadful!
[...]
MITCHELL: Another big issue for Hillary Clinton, of course, is gender. The fact that she is the first woman making a serious run for president might be a big plus, a huge plus, but it could also be a minus. Andrew, you grew up under Margaret Thatcher. Is this Hillary Clinton as the Iron Lady?
SULLIVAN: I don't have a problem with women politicians because I grew up in a country where one woman dominated the entire political landscape for more than a decade.
[...]
KLEIN: He could possibly be a minus because he is one of the smartest people ever to walk the stage in American politics. And he's certainly the best strategist in the Democratic Party. So when people talk about him being --
[crosstalk]
BUMILLER: But you're forgetting -- you're forgetting Coretta Scott King's funeral, where --
KLEIN: You're right.
BUMILLER: -- Bill Clinton gave one of the most amazing political speeches and a very, very moving tribute to Coretta Scott King, and then Hillary got up afterwards, and it was not a good moment.
MITCHELL: And she stood there, sort of giving him that Nancy Reagan gaze.
BUMILLER: I don't think that will happen again.
KLEIN: I don't think they'll be giving sequential speeches during that campaign.
MITCHELL: What about down South? Is there a different gender perception, a perception of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton down South?
TUCKER: Well --
MITCHELL: Does she not fit the traditional model of what a woman should be?
TUCKER: She doesn't fit the traditional model, but not just for a lot of Southerners, but unhappily for a lot of Americans. I think this is broader than the Deep South, where she wouldn't play well for a lot of reasons. But quite frankly, unfortunately, I don't think this country is ready to elect a woman yet, especially not a woman who's a Democrat.
MITCHELL: Let's take a look at one classic moment, recent moment, more recent than that funeral for Coretta Scott King, when, as New York magazine described it, it was the scene at Hillary's 59th birthday party just last month. It was Hillary's night, but Bill was the one who grabbed the guitar -- just look at him, he's in the center of that group there, you can barely see her behind the left shoulder. It looks like she's the backup singer, sort of a Mary Ballard to Bill's Diana Ross. What's going on there, Andrew?
SULLIVAN: I think the big problem, Andrea, what do you do with this guy in the White House? What -- he's not going to be doing place settings, OK? He's not going to be the first husband.
MITCHELL: Well, there's tsunami relief. There's his AIDS initiative.
SULLIVAN: Well, no, I think -- I think you have to sort of get ahead of this problem and give him a job, because if he's left alone --
KLEIN: That's right.
SULLIVAN: -- he will get into trouble.
MITCHELL: So that's it, we see if we can find a job for Bill Clinton?
KLEIN: This is going to be a question that she is going to have to answer front up when she goes to Iowa. The people there aren't -- don't mythologize politicians. They're going to say, "What's he going to do? What's his job?"
MITCHELL: It's no longer two for the price of one.
SULLIVAN: I think she should say, "He's my secretary of state, send him to the Middle East."
[...]
MITCHELL: Cynthia, quick reality check from outside. Are people willing to accept Bill as first spouse?
TUCKER: I think that that would be a huge change for most Americans, and again, I'm not sure we're quite ready for that yet.
From the November 19 broadcast of The Chris Matthews Show:
MATTHEWS: Wow, David, it looks to me like he faces a challenge. He has to appeal to the Republican right and yet keep himself positioned so he can win the general. How does he do it?
BROOKS: I think he's doing fine. First of all, Luke Skywalker is now driving a big supership, apparently, because he does have the Republican elite with him, large parts of it. Parts of the party don't like him because they don't think he's loyal enough, but I think the way he does it -- first of all, on spending. The main core of Republican self-hatred right now is they spend too much, too much pork barrel spending. McCain's record on that is super. And then the other thing that I think will help in the long run, it's not left or right or center. It's aggressive. The way that McCain makes decisions -- he sees something in the paper, it really bugs him, and he goes out superaggressive. The Republican Party is sick of playing defense. They're going to want somebody who's superaggressive, and a lot of them -- it won't be the illogical, it's "Is this guy a leader who can get us back on the offense?" And his style will be amenable to them.
MATTHEWS: Wow. Gloria.
BORGER: You know, he's a reformer. That works now given what we've seen in this election. He's also a smart hawk. Not just a hawk, but he's a smart hawk. He says, you know, "I want more troops in Iraq, let me tell you why. I know it's not a popular position but the way we leave is really important to America," and I think he can sell that.
MATTHEWS: So he's kind of like -- he's kind of like a Martin Luther. He's going back and reforming and finding the pure conservative movement. No extra spending, no earmarks, and a very clear idea of going after the enemy like we had -- remember when the president was at the rubble right after 9-11, that sense of purity and toughness.
[...]
PARKER: Yeah, but his position on the war is a perfect example. I mean, he's saying "put in more troops" when everybody clearly doesn't think that's a great idea. But McCain can say, "Look, I'm a man of principle. This is what we have to do. I'm not looking here to please everybody. I'm not going to sit around and wait for everybody to hold hands and say "Kumbaya, isn't this a great idea?" He thinks it's the right thing to do, and he's going out on a limb, so that's an act of -- that's a leader.
MATTHEWS: This is so great but, you know, the thing about him is I think there's a thing he has that people like me like, people -- a lot of journalists like --
HEILEMANN: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: -- because journalists are supposed to be really independent. They're supposed to be.
[...]
MATTHEWS: OK. Let's look at the bottom line. We put it to the Matthews Meter, 12 of our regular panelists: Is McCain conservative enough for Republican primary voters? Seven say yes, he will be able to nullify doubts about his conservative credentials. Five say he can't. You think he can.
BROOKS: Yeah, I think the party, because of this defeat, is much more flexible.
MATTHEWS: They feel their vulnerability.
BROOKS: They feel their vulnerability. They don't have a conservative agenda anyway. There is no conservative agenda.
MATTHEWS: Well, more judges. More conservative judges.
BROOKS: Well, they have judges, which he's fine on. They just want somebody who's a leader, who's going to be tough on foreign policy.
MATTHEWS: Let's go to idiosyncrasies. We're now getting into the vetting process, which all reporters love. You hear it around -- I don't hear it so much but I'm sure you people have, that McCain's got an anger problem.
[...]
MATTHEWS: John, there is something about that that's somewhat appealing unless you don't want to have to deal with Arnold Schwarzenegger. But what do you think?
HEILEMANN: Well, he's, you know -- I think it's actually incredibly appealing, you know, but there is -- he's a very tightly coiled guy and you see that in almost every setting. Even in the most relaxed settings, he's very tightly coiled, and any moment you think he could just snap like a dry Frito.
MATTHEWS: Will that show in the campaign? Have you seen it, Gloria?
BORGER: Well, I just saw it recently in covering him when Barack Obama --
MATTHEWS: Right.
BORGER: -- was supposed to deal with him on lobbying reform, be part of a bipartisan group, and suddenly Obama announces he's going to lead the Democratic part of that, and McCain sent him this incredibly intemperate letter, which, by the way, a lot of people liked because he put Obama in his place and said, "You can't play both sides."
MATTHEWS: Well, I think he won that round.
PARKER: Everybody -- everybody's got a McCain story.
MATTHEWS: Well, let's hear yours.
PARKER: Everybody's got an anger story. I don't personally have one. He's actually always been very nice to me.
MATTHEWS: What's that say?
PARKER: But I think there's another way that this is going to be presented. They're going to cast this not as an anger problem but as a passion issue. He is passionate about everything, and he's not going to sit around, as I said before, hold hands and sweet-talk everybody.
BROOKS: He keeps his staff, which is a good sign.
MATTHEWS: That's a very good sign. Ted Kennedy has kept the same staff.
BROOKS: Right. His problem is the guy can't sit still. Is he really going to be cooped up in the Oval Office for eight years?
MATTHEWS: He's antsy.
BROOKS: That might be a problem.
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a question about age. This is always tricky in our society. You can sue people for firing you for age. He's going to be 72 if he gets elected to the presidency, the day he takes the office. That would make him the oldest president to come into the office at that age. Reagan was somewhat short of 70 when he went in. Would he have to say upfront, "I'm only going to look at one term, and I'd have to check with the doctors before I go for two"? Would he have to make an unusual sort of disclaimer here? David.
BROOKS: I'd be very surprised. His political hero, Teddy Roosevelt, did that and it turned out to be a disaster. It made the first term a lame-duck term. I'd be really surprised if he did that.
MATTHEWS: So he always wished he hadn't done that?
BROOKS: Yeah, and I think the health thing will be solved when people look at him. You go into his office -- most senators have their office in the corner, the senator's sort of reclusive. His office is right in the middle of his suite of offices. He's running around, he's never sitting down. And so, the energy thing, I think, will show up.
[...]
MATTHEWS: Is he going to have to face any unusual requirements to say things about his age, like "I'm only hoping to spend one term. I'll have to check with my doctors for two terms" or anything?
PARKER: I don't think so.
MATTHEWS: He won't have to do that. The country's comfortable with a guy who's 80 years old in the White House. I think you're right.
PARKER: Seventy is the new 50.
MATTHEWS: What?
PARKER: Seventy is the new 50.
MATTHEWS: That's what I think.
PARKER: Yeah.
Give any liberal blogger the list of names on the panel and ask them to make up a transcript of what will be said. They won't be far off.
Are there any pundits representing the views of the majority in the last election? Anywhere?
Are there any media-owning corporations who want to cater to the majority of the last election? Anywhere?
Tv lives only for TV, where everyone is a middle class moron in a power suit spouting the catchphrase of the day, just so happy to be in front of those damn cameras. They live for them cameras, they are all that matter to them. Just monkeys dressed in suits by the producers.
Corporate media has no intention of letting up on the mindless drivel, aimed to make us stupid, complacent, and easy to fleece. They will never allow a revolutionary viewpoint to be shown on their propaganda shows. Ever.
I still have a problem when Hillary Clinton is called a "liberal". Maybe I'm too far left. She seems more slightly left of center to me than "liberal".
I consider her far right. She's far too eager to bomb people, lock people up, and get her rich backers richer. She's as revolutionary as a brick. She's total inertia, total status quo. Nothing new or original comes out of her mouth. She's a hollow shell in the corporate uniform. A traitor and an Eichmann. Another empty powersuit. She's just goosestepping with the rest of them up on Capitol Hill.
hard to take you serious. i don't think of her as left on many things, but far right? do you even think about some of this stuff you write. a lot of it is just ranting.
Of Hillary, you say: "I consider her far right."
RESPONSE: Wow, that would be bad, IF TRUE. What is your evidence?
RK: "She's far too eager to bomb people"
RESPONSE: What people? Our recent history of conflict has been orchestrated by the Bushies to trap many into approving activities unspecified. For example, 9/11 was leveraged by the GOP to gain "approval" for retaliation, but did not specify that we would change policy into "pre-emptive war". Bush IGNORED his promise to exhaust all diplomatic avenues, and to treat war as a "last resort". Many in congress got hoodwinked by a bloodthirsty liar.
So, other than "support" of war, what's your beef? Perhaps you believe we shouldn't have gone into Afghanistan?
RK: "(she's far to eager to) lock people up"
RESPONSE: Again, WHAT people? Many people NEED to be locked up. They are criminals. Other people were locked up by Bush without cause or charge, and that was HIS perversion of his presidential powers, and nothing Hillary did. So you must be talking about something else. What?
RK: "(she's far to eager to) get her rich backers richer."
RESPONSE: There isn't a single politician in America who doesn't have "rich backers". You must know something unique and outrageous that Hillary has done to corruptly enrich HER backers. Of what specific are you talking? Has she, for instance, started a WAR and then funneled NO-BID contracts to a rich backer upon whose board she sits and whose stock shares she holds? That's what DICK CHENEY is doing. What's your EVIDENCE? (telling that you would consider this charge, if true, to make her "far right".)
RK: "She's as revolutionary as a brick."
RESPONSE: You want a REVOLUTIONARY as president? Wow. Anarchy?
RK: "She's total inertia, total status quo."
RESPONSE: Again, what's your evidence? I remember her Health Care Plan, that was as revolutionary and bold as any plan set forward in politics EVER. How could someone steeped in the status quo, as you charge, put forward such a plan? It seems contradictory ... could you just be WRONG?
RK: "Nothing new or original comes out of her mouth. She's a hollow shell in the corporate uniform. A traitor and an Eichmann. Another empty powersuit. She's just goosestepping with the rest of them up on Capitol Hill."
RESPONSE: Lots of blah, blah ... and we get it, you don't like Hillary ... but where is the MEAT? Where's the factual evidence to back up your emotional and hateful characterization of the woman?
Redking, you're really going to have to do a better job of persuasion. FACTS work much better than simple strings of generalized insults, which are troubling because they don't fit with the subject we know and see. You must know something we DON'T ... so SHARE! How about it?
Hillary has stated she would support war with Iran, has voted to support war on Iraq, has NOT criticized the President for failing in Afghanistan, supports AIPAC and Israel's war crimes, supports the Drug War which is jailing record numbers of Americans, and supports corporate control of our government, our schools, our lives, etc.
Can you name anything that she has done since being Senator that's actually liberal? Actually activist? I can certainly look up her voting record and show where she's voted for war crimes and to promote war criminals. Her voting record proves her racist and fascist and war criminal. Nothing progressive or liberal about helping kill people for profit.
She is doing NOTHING for the people of this country other than throw their money at the rich and into wars and prisons....just like the rest of the crooks in DC. She's nothing special, she's very conformist, just another dumb celebrity.
As for her health care plan, she's such a crusader for the issue that she hasn't touched it since 1993. Wow. She's so into making it happen, I'm just so impressed. Only thing she runs on is her celebrity, there's nothing else to her. Light a match too close and she'd melt. Plastic.
I look at the Democrat Party and see a minority of caring progressives being bullied about by a majority of downright evil conservatives...inside the Party. It was very clear during the recent elections, the pro-war faction trying to push the progressives out, then picking a pro-war House leadership.
The progressives need to leave. They're getting nowhere within the Democrat party machine, it's too fueled by greed and the corporate image. They're just losing the fight and their own souls by continuing to assist the evil. Just being Democrat means throwing your lot in with people like Hillary, who vote to kill people without a second thought. That's not the way to fight the good fight.
We progressives can forge a new choice, one that the people will actually side with, one that actually cares, that actualy thinks about what's going on. We do need revolutionaries, people who will think of ways to change the nation for the better. New Franklins, new Jeffersons, not another Boss Tweed in a powerskirt.
she's not liberal enough for you. but by no definition is she far right.
She votes to imperialise abroad and jail us at home. She votes to keep our country in a state of perpetual religious warfare. She votes to promote men who participate in torture to higher positions within the excutive. She votes to enable an authoritarian presidency. That's what the far right does.
Totalitarian plutocratic imperialistic racist corporate control of government is called Fascism. She supports that, therefore Hillary is a fascist. Simple Aristotlian logic.
When, in the history of the US, did we EVER dictate who can and can't run years in advance? Why even tell kids anymore that anyone can be president when the mogul's will be deciding their fate by 18? That is truly republican america, the don't take chances crowd. How - - - ... despicable.
...I believe with adulthood comes the passing of many of those 'dreams'.
As a kid, if you told me that a former drunk/alleged cocaine addict, flunky who failed at every business he attempted... was ''born again' and claimed to have direct communication with God... was President? I'd say you'd been reading too many trashy novels, etc...
But, here we are... the infamous 'future'. What galls me, though, is these creeps don't even have the decency to fake it! This is the current state of affairs.
Funny thing is, I grew up in military schools. It was my junior year where I learned that the best promotions were reserved for the big contributors. See, I grew up poor. My dad (bless his soul) made his way in life according to the old republican ways; he proved himself and convinced the powers that be to support his business. And true to form, as a small business man, he followed the teachings of those same old republicans - he used his business to pay for the family - he sent me to one of the finest military high schools in the country on his business' dollar. Here's the funny part - when he died, all those bills became due because the old republicans never showed him how to pass on your fortune, they just showed you how to take advantage of today. We lost everything.
But I can never fault him for what he did, he saved my life sending me to that school. I'm just really sad that this is the only way the middle to poor class can make the next gen better.
Rich envy? Paris doesn't even have a clue what her parents did for her.
McCain was the only "republican" involved in the Keating Five scandal. The rest were Dems. The campaign finance reform he pushed was unconstitutional. He really should switch parties because the left wing media loves him and he's much more comfortable slinking around with democrat slugs.
Because even though he is pretty conservative he probably is too good to be associated with the moron wing of the ReNAMBLAcans. He does have a shred of decency, thats why republican morons like YOU wont have him.
The guy who propagated some kind of anti-torture standpoint and then totally caved in to partisan pressure, not to mention the same people who defamed him in the presidential campaign?
No, he is the perfect republican. All talk and corrupt to the core.
Let's also bring up the silverado savings and loan. Who was the only person to escape jail time for that billion dollar debacle? Why, Neal Bush...
The Keating Five included two Republicans (McCain of Arizona and Durenberger of Minnesota) and three Democrats (Riegle of Micigan, Glenn of Ohio and DeConcini of Arizona)
however, is anyone excited by the idea of a McCain v. Clinton match up. Sure there was a time this looked like it could be one for the ages. The older maverick against the spunky firebrand, but now what do we have two shadows of their former selves. McCain kissing the ring of Falwell (who he cut into during the last Presidential race) and Hillary (who is her own bag of issues). All I have to say, "A dark horse, a dark horse -- my kingdom for a dark horse."
Andy Tanenbaum has a good analysis of all the 2008 contenders at www.electoral-vote.com.
Despite McCain's pandering to the right, I still don't see him winning the primary. And considering that McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, and Romney are the only ones with a pulse in the 2008 polls, the GOP has nothing but dark horses.
On the Dem side, John Edwards is looking increasingly good.
"The fact that she is the first woman making a serious run for president might be a big plus . . . but it might be a minus." - The life-sized Kewpie Doll
Maybe I missed it, but I have yet to hear of HRC announcing her candidacy for the presidency, forming an expoloratory commission, or filing with the federal election committee {which is required} . . .
So what is it that has got the rightwingnut talking heads SO CONVINCED that she's going to run that they have this craving need to swift boat her before she begins a campaign that may never occur?
And I've got to wonder: If, by some miracle, someone like Barack Obama or Tom Vilsack is taking the oath of office in January 2009, will Tweety and the other wingnut noisemakers STILL be speculating on whether or not HRC's "baggage" will hurt her presidential chances?
... who mentors PROS and also helps out with KIDS.
The PROS get the fundamental criticisms, the things to look out for, weaknesses emphasized ... because PROS are grown-ups (Matthew's favorite quality!), and can "take it", to make adjustments and become even better.
With KIDS, it's all (therapeudic) encouragement, all praises and atta-boys. Little Johnny gets all his small skills praised to the skies, all his potential attributes painted as bound for greatness ... and his weaknesses ... well, there will be time for that later. No need to crush little Johnny's spirit ...
Following the tenor of these "reviews", one can easily see who these people consider the PROS, and who they consider the KIDS; Hillary gets the PRO treatment, while McCain is treated with KID gloves.
Having said that, NONE on these panels is fit to coach a LittleDribbler basketball team, let alone have anything useful to say to a PRO. The CONTEXT of these Matthews panels is that of the regular Thursday afternoon TEA in a small town, where the old women get together to gossip and rip into everyone in town.
There can be no serious political discussion or impact, because these are the SAME people who praised GW BUSH to the skies, predicted his greatness, fawned over his codpiece and his manliness, and were so absolutely WRONG about everything connected to his Administration, the most corrupt, harmful and inept in our history.
Their undeniable RECORD: "If you are a betting person, bet AGAINST me being right about anything, and you will be the odds-on favorite!"
I might add that despite GWB's erratic failure these types of parrots are STILL afraid to really go after him, Keith Olbermann-style. They would be admitting their own mistakes, verboten on analysis shows.
Parker says: 'Seventy is the new fifty'. Dead is the new alive, lies are the new truth, dictatorship is the new democracy, torture is the new fair and humane treatment, floundering in the dark is the new strategy, failure is the new success, theft and fraud is the new business acumen, wrong is the new right, stupid is the new smart, war is the new peace, imprisonment is the new freedom, traitors are the new patriots.
The problem is some comments are true. "radioactive blue" is an interesting term but I believe it signifies the back of the neck hair raising by Republicans just from the Clinton name.
I am praying to god Hillary doesn't run, for both myself and the Democratic Party. I sucked it up once to get behind Kerry, but no more, not again. If this party doesn't pick a newer face (Obama, Feingold, even Edwards), my short-lived stint with the Dems will cease and I will personally beg Nader to run again. Please, Please, Please MM, don't try to make me feel bad about Hillary's bad rap in the press. If you want to ensure a divided left going into 2008, keep pushing her. This sad belief that only a DLC type of dem can win is the type of mentality that lost the house for over a decade and the Senate for half that time. Not only that, she matches up poorly against pretty much all serious Republican candidates. My view are shared by many on the left, particularly those who register democratic out of necessity. Green, left-libertarian, you name it: we are not going to come out to vote for this woman, indeed, we might actually come out against her. By the time the Pennsylvania primary rolls around, it will be too late to have my voice heard, so, a message to Iowa and other early state primaries: be bold, be brave, and vote against nepotism.
by voting republican? oh wait, that's what a vote for nader is anyway.
Oh yeah, that's right. I forgot about that (R) by his name. By your logic, since Kerry lost the last election, and since I could have told you for at least a year before the 2004 election that he would lose, I guess my vote for Kerry was a vote for Bush too, right? Perhaps instead of insulting the intelligence of fellow progressives, the democrats might be better served by embracing the left instead of running like scared little children to the center. Or perhaps you believe that Americans are basically "conservative" like all these Limbaugh clones? Maybe, just maybe, Americans are generally progressive but disenchanted with the two party system, particularly when the 'left' wing party votes in droves to sign on to the Patriot Act and the Iraq War. Those of us that supported Nader in 2000 were out in the streets in droves protesting while democrats were giving Bush a blank check to wage wars of aggression. Look, just give us the chance to be pragmatic while still retaining our conscience, that's all I'm saying. Things will work out better for all of us.
was to put bush in office. you need to deal with fact, not pie in the sky rhetoric. even nader recognized the difference between gore and bush by promising not to campaign in swing states, a promise he broke. and you are naive enough to think the american people are "progressive"? they have to be driven by circumstances to any progressive ideas. roosevelt became president after three republicans only because of the depression. if the american people are so progressive then why would nader end up with 3 percent of the vote? talk reality.
Because people like you, who probably agree more with Nader than you do Gore or Kerry, are too scared to vote for a leader you want to win and instead settle for someone you can deal with. . . Don't forget that a good portion of Nader supporters did vote for Gore, as Nader's number were cut in half in the last few weeks of the 200o election. When you have a nation where more than half of those eligible don't vote, and where those who do split pretty evenly between the two parties, and we know as a fact that conservatives generally vote more often than liberals, it is not a stretch to say that a majority of americans are more progressive than not. The problem is, too many don't vote. What you don't realize is that Nader represents %3 chunk that probably wouldn't have voted but for his campaign. They were votes that Gore should have earned instead of discounting.
PS: I live in PA, and Gore won my state. Talking out your ass about a vote for nader being a vote for bush is ill-conceived propaganda as well as being factually false. What did Gore do for this country again? Kerry? Oh yeah, they served in the Military. I've got a laundry list of Nader's accomplishments that have had a direct, positive effect on nearly all Americans. Democracy truism: you get what you deserve. We needed Nader, you settled for Gore, we got Bush.
if you are so progressive. because that's what you do to logic. let's see. nader's 3% was cut in half from the whole .... 6% he would have otherwise got? and i said you have to deal with reality. speculating on what the half of the country who don't vote think is futility. if they were so interested in voting progressive they had their chance in 2000. they didn't turn out. and i realize that in some states voting for nader did not make a difference because i mentioned nader campaigned in states he promised not to. the 70,o00 nader voters in florida did make a difference. you think you're superior to everyone else because you "got out in the streets". and accomplished what? after the civil war, there have been two parties. every third party has failed on a national level. the closest was teddy roosevelt running as an independent in 1912. if you want more progressive issues passed, then build from a state level. senator robert lafollette of wisconsin never got to be president, but a lot of his ideas later became mainstream. and i did not "get" bush. we all did. all your rhetoric got us a disaster of a president.
I said /we/ got bush. I am under no illusions about that fact.
PS: Gore won. Probably time to decide who your enemies really are intead of bashing those of us on your side. I voted for your fool in 2004, and look where it got me. 4 more years.
PPS: Kerry took over 10 times as much money from Republicans then Nader did. Crunch that rhetoric through your noodle.
and a splendid six years it's been, huh? reality rears it's ugly head again. when the electoral college voted, mr bush walked away with the prize, including florida. when those 70,000 nader votes would have avoided that whole mess. so you were wrong to vote for kerry? more gibberish. there is no evidence, none, that america is ready to vote left like nader. once again, the facts prove you wrong. they had the chance. in 2000. they did not do it. get that through your noodle.
you forgot about the votes in miami that went to Buchanan. That was enough of a margin for Gore as well. Oh yeah, and the Socialist candidate cleared the margin for Gore too. Just stop. It's over. We both lost b/c Gore thought he couldn't be a progressive. Each inch he moved toward the center took a foot from the left. He picked Lieberman for christ's sake. That was the last straw. I regret nothing but for the fact i couldn't vote for Nader in Florida as well as Pennsylvania. If you call having only two choices democratic when we face incredibly complex and difficult issues at every turn, your a fool and a coward.
those votes for buchanan were a mistake by elderly voters because of a bad ballot design in palm beach county. they were not deliberate. i called the election in fla a mess. and sure, you can say socialists helped put bush in too. as for being a "fool", you're on another post here praising gore for 2008, when his positions really haven't changed. it's not like he did a 180. and to accuse someone of being a "coward" because they don't share your political views, like i said, you think you're superior to everyone else. if you think i'm gonna lose sleep, think again.
Bush won by 500 votes....but Florida kept tens of thousands off the voter rolls. Gore would have won if Florida's Secretary of State wasn't a Bush state campaign director and had done all she could to rig the vote for Bush.
Same thing happened in Ohio 2004. Lots of little shenanigans about registrations and ballot access and those cursed Diebold machines. State manager of elections? State chair of the Ohio Bush campaign.
Not that I like Gore, but he would have won Florida in 2000 in a fair fight. But that game was rigged.
it still takes nothing away from my point that those 70,000 nader votes for gore would have put the contest out of reach for bush to challenge. nor have you refuted my answer to criminal's claim that the american people are so progressive, that they're just waiting for someone like nader to vote for. they had the chance. they didn't.
I didn't say you were (or anyone specifically) a coward for not sharing my political views. My statement was prefaced with "If". My point is this, you have a sham election in Florida b/c of Harris and Jeb, thousands of votes we now know weren't counted that could easily have tipped the election in Gore's favor. You have a Supreme Court who defies all of their well established jurisprudence philosophies on Equal Protection and State's Rights turning on a dime and handing the election to Bush. You have several candidates, Socialist, Reform, etc, all who received votes greater than the Margin Gore needed. Yet you blame Nader and those of us who voted for him in other states. Keep it up. This is the attitude that will bury the Dems. Your candidate sucked in 2000, and yes, he is better today. HE WAS NOT saying the same stuff in 2000, I know, b/c I went back and forth the whole year. Was he an environmentalist? sure. Who isn't in the party? NOT THE BIG ISSUE. Some of us are fed up with this two-party nonsense. Read Washinton's farewell address: it description of current American politics is uncanny. All these other issues: the environment, social welfare, war and peace, etc. . .take a second seat to the little 'd' democratic issues. Do you think we would have invaded Iraq if their were 3 or 4 legitimate parties in the US? I seriously doubt it. And don't tell me 'Americans had their chance.' That is pure bull. If a third party candidate can't get into a debate on National TV, they aren't going to get the $ to run ads and they sure as hell aren't going to get above 5-10% in the polls. The debates are controlled by Dems and Reps, and they have intentionally exculded 3rd party candidates b/c they threaten the future of both parties. Perot was the last time Republicans want a 3rd party candidate in an election, b/c he put Clinton in the White House. Acutely aware of this fact, Gore's camp decided to exclude Nader. Would Nader win? Could he win? Of course not. There is not a single person in the party (G) at the time that thought so. The stronger his support got, however, would tend to made dems more receptive to Green policies. That is how real democracies work - coalitions, not like this backstabbing two-party revenge fest. If, however, you are comfortable in the security of this hollow shell of a democracy, then yes, I call you a coward. Is the situation grave enough in Iraq for me to vote Democratic in the short term, yes. That is as pragmatic as I'm going to get, and quite frankly, I didn't have any other choices in my state b/c Democrats in PA have been challeging every signature on Green party candidate petitions since 2000. Why do they do that if there is nothing to fear? Why, for that matter, do that do that and still have the gall to call themselves democrats? I know. Because the 'Democratic party' does not live up to its namesake. Democracy is reserved for party members, not the rest of us stupid, idealistic Americans.
I had ringside seats for the Democrats smashing on the Pennsylvania Greens. It was sad to see how low so-called Democrats will sink to keep people away from "their" votes. The sheer arrogance of it has made me a firm Democrat-hater.
I registered Green this year, voted them last time too. They need the support, it's the only liberal party we got. They're a bit disorganized but with a few simple strategies, they have a chance. If the Keystone State goes Green, many more will follow.
You and Criminal D keep on keepin' on.
I really enjoy seeing the debate that the Greens on this site generate. I do not enjoy the squabbling amongst lefties. I think such bickering ultimately amounts to doing the work of the conservatives for them.
Lefties attacking lefties is retrograde.
Personally, my ear renders silent the rancor of disquieting blather and bends to hear the sweet sounds of liberalism.
The Greens have a wonderful narrative to present to the people. If your tune is appealing maybe people will listen to it more readily than they will a cacophony of discomfiture.
about how lefties can't disagree on strategy. you got me confused with a dittohead. and which is it? you enjoy the debate the greens engender or you hate the retrograde rancor? your pals and you are living in an illusion like mr. nader. i seem to remember a certain prediction from him in 2000 that it didn't matter much which party got in, but if it was bush then the country would be so fed up that they would take a hard turn to the left in 04. that worked out exactly as predicted, huh?
I know that I'm not as eloquent as I think I am. My intention was to encourage debate amongst lefties, debate as in give and take. And yes disagreement. NEVER did I say we can't disagree. I said attacks are retrograde.
My post, I thought, was a polite admonishment to the Greens to stop the sniping as it deflects attention from their liberal message. The same standard applies to Democrats.
I'm not a Green nor a Democrat. I am a simple painter who would defend liberalism to the death.
I really like most of your posts MEFIRST but go screech at somebody else.
you put yourself into the middle of a debate in which you told the greens to do their thing. don't cry if i answer.
Have it your way.
Peace.
allow me to clarify once more.
The Greens push the public discussion way left, I think that's a good thing as it helps shape public opinion in a liberal worldview. They don't seek to ingratiate themselves to the mythical center.
Conservatives have toiled for decades to frame the issues from a conservative worldview and thus influence public perceptions and voting habits. They did not do it by being centrist and it didn't happen overnight.
Most disappointing in grousing about the Greens siphoning off votes in 2000 and 2004 is that it plays directly into the conservative stereotypes of liberals. That is to say it sounds as though everything and everyone else is to blame for Democratic failures except for the Dems.
Getting folks to come back home to liberal and progressive values will take some time. Healthy debate amongst lefties will in my opinion, hasten that homecoming.
I don't know. Maybe the waters are mudied further but I have to go to work now.
Peace.
now you're saying you didn't call me a coward. you did. pretty clear to me.
A Gore win was still a win for fascism. He would have been talking blowing up more Iraqis within weeks of taking office too. He's a Zionist, him and Netanyahu are good buddies. Another Crusader president. 9/11 would have happened anyway and Gore would have been lobbing bombs at the arab kids over there so fast, make your head spin.
70,000 Floridians wanted Nader....that's a good start. Those people voted on the issues, not the celebrity.
of yours allowed you to see all this?
Yours seems a reasoned plea, but I'm not yet convinced. You ASSERT that Hillary would be a bad candidate, but such an argument should be supported with compelling FACTS.
See, she's a woman, she's "DLC", she's polling behind some Republicans (who are more liberal), these are not REASONS to oppose her. These are "appearance" or inside-baseball shorthand, and have no meaning.
To oppose ... or SUPPORT ... a candidate, I'll need REASONS about how they will govern, FACTS about mistakes they have made, or positions they hold that would be harmful to the nation.
I SUPPORTED her health care plan. I SUPPORTED her husband, and don't know how her policy positions would differ from his. I SUPPORT her record of child advocacy, and her record as Senator for New York has gained the unprecedented support of the people OF New York. She's articulate and intelligent and TRULY compassionate (unlike our current lying president). So, what is YOUR data that should trump my support, convince me to jump ship?
So, how about it? Take an opportunity to CONVINCE me you are right. What about Hillary, of SUBSTANCE, should convince me to join you in going Republican if she runs? Or are you a passionate person without substance, one who dances to the knee-jerks called by rightwing pundits?
Kinda responded in my other post below . . .
Anyway, I generally don't have tremendous policy differences w/ Hillary on many issues- though I agree that is often the primary reason i support or don't support a candidate. She tends to say some good things on healthcare, but I am not so sure as of late. She has gone from National Health Care (back in the 1990's) to a seemingly piecemeal model that I would argue is the best way to screw up Universal Healthcare. We should have one program of National Health Insurance, not 30 or 40 or 100 of different programs for Americans. That is the road to inefficiency and red tape, not quality healthcare. Second, the War. Enough said. There are a few people (in the Democractic party, no less) that stood up against the adminstration from day one on Iraq. She clearly was not one of them, and furthermore, she was one of the last to acknowledge the disaster it has become. But she still thinks it was right to go in. I think, and I certainly could be wrong, that this who hawkish appearence was more show than substance. She was following the polls instead of her convictions. This is a representative republic, not a direct democracy - we choose people, not policies. We hope those elected officials will act with their best judgment. Her judgment, in my opinion, has either simpy been poor or it has been the result of opportunism.
in any event, despite the importance of general policy positions on healthcare, education etc. . . , there is also the issue of character . . . on this the gut generally takes over. What I have seen in terms of carpetbagging, scapegoating and flagwaving has only reinforced that gut feeling. Granted, after 6 years of dopey I often find myself joking about settling for a benign dictator with a doctorate. However, despite Hillary's intelligence and political acumen (which I cannot doubt), I want someone I can trust a bit more than the last guy. . .
I responded to your last post before seeing this one. This is a better, qualified listing of complaints, but as you note, for you it comes down to "character" and "who you believe you can trust".
These are emotional statements, and cannot be argued. REASONING cannot make you like Hillary, if your "gut" is telling you not to trust her.
Too bad you have chosen to abandon reason ... although that is your right.
ok, Reason first. The candidate that is trusted and can move people to action can win. She doesn't appear have that effect on people. She is losing in all matchups with potential Republican candidates (except for the unlikely Newt). We have not had a Democratic President from New England since Kennedy, nor even a decent contender, and those very real, South/North demographics are still in play. Relative issues: Obama is less abrasive, and from my standpoint, more progressive (when was the last time Hillary talked about the failed drug war, or how to get a whole generation of young black men back into society after years of incarceration?). Edwards is just damn likeable, has the southern strategy card to play. Gore has a consistent position on the Iraq War as well as a comprehensive green worldview, both positions that comports well with those votes he once lost w/ the Naderites.
Look, I don't pretend to represent the mainstream left or any large faction of the party. I certainly find more comfort with Chomsky and Nader. I am just trying to establish a few considerations here with regards to people who share my views. We are willing to embrace the dems if they are serious about setting out a new course. I have seen many positive responses from Greens, Socialists, Left-Libertarians and the like to candidates like Obama, Feingold, Gore and even Edwards. I sense a distinctly negative reaction to Clinton, Kerry, Bayh and Reid.
Being willing to compromise is not the same thing as being a 'moderate'. Moderates start with a compromised position.
although i don't think gore would have invaded under the circumstances. as for gore's world greenview, he's had that for many years. the republicans called him a nut for it. so now you praise gore, but he was so unacceptable in 2000 you had to vote for nader?
he didn't act the way he does now when he was running in 2000. That is clear as day. He also ignored Nader instead of embracing him (Nader tried on several occassions to open a dialogue w/ Gore and Gore refused each time). He colluded w/ Bush to keep 3rd party candidates out of the debate. (How do you get 15% in polls if the media never gives you equal footing from the beginning? it's a catch 22 . . . Perot had a great showing in the polls after the debates, nearly doubling if my memory serves me correctly). Gore 2000 is different from Gore 2006. The lingering question is, if he is nominated, who will Gore 2008 be?
he had more or less the same positions. "act" has nothing to do with it.
You had two choices.
A guy who would disengage the United States from the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and reduce anti-US sentiment throughout the region, keeping us on a path of neutrality and end the massive bloated military machine and devote taxes to maintaining infrastructure and policing industrial violators and creating a working public health program.
The other guy .....an insider who feeds US funds to religious war in the Middle East, who supported the constant harrassment of Iraq through-out the 1990's, supports Israel and all it does, fanning the flames of anti-US sentiment and increasing the risks of terrorism. Who supports massive military spending, imperial bases around the world, and loves to whine about "rogue states" with the rest of the DC Choir. A man so shallow he had to hire an image consultant to tell him when to kiss his wife in public.
Who would you pick?
bush or gore. nader was not going to get elected. period. all your problems with gore aside, if you don't see him as a far better choice than bush then you have no objectivity. get a grip on reality yourself. and i made another simple point. criminal praises gore for 2008, but couldn't vote for him in 2000.
They always say character counts in politics but no politician thinks anyone can read theirs. Our lot are like refugees from a Dickens novel, greedy, corrupt, ignorant and snobbish. And far too prone to kill.
is andrew sullivan and joe klein calling hillary a "terrible politician". come off it. like her or not, she has won two very impressive victories, especially considering for the first one she was not really a new york resident. as far as kathleen parker, you could plug in her column. same thing all the time. every republican is a patriotic public servant. every democrat is a scheming power grabber. she wrote this in a recent column on religion: "it has become fashionable and amusing these days to ridicule conservative christians who believe in the bible, even if they fail to live by the word every waking moment. one fallen preacher comes along , and the secular world rejoices in the triumph of hypocrisy." "one"? what "world" does she live in? how many of these national religious leadrs have been involved in sexual and financial scandals? how many law suits has the catholic church paid off? as for believing in the bible, i have no problem with the golden rule christianity. but when you "believe" the world is 6000 years old and noah built an ark that carried two of every animal on earth for weeks on end, my reply to that is grow up and use some common sense.
the only reason people like chris matthews, and others are constantly speaking about 2008 presidential election is, the republicans are no longer to be in charge of the house in 2007, if the republicans had won the mid term election,there would be no talk of a presidential two years away,this is just another distraction, to take away from the democrats victory in the mid term election
...hatred of Hillary.
Is it sexism?
She does strike me as an opportunist. Slippery.
But I can't comprehend why so many loathe her.
A little help?
I don't hate Hillary. But then again, I don't hate anyone. Here are my reasons:
1) Health Care debacle: Hillary had no business running Clinton's Health Care initiative. She had no experience in Healthcare - most of her policy experience outside of the legal field was in education. So why was she appointed? Perhaps she had aspirations for the Presidency even back then. I don't know. In any event, it was in her hands, and she failed. Regardless of the responsibility of a then Democratic Majority in Congress, it was her job to sell the plan, and she failed.
2) Nepotism: isn't it about time we ended this fascination with American Royalty? Kennedy, Bush, Clinton . . . not exactly what our founding fathers had in mind.
3) DLC: Though I once respected the man, Carville gave away this little centrist clique's dying throes - here is a guy (close Clinton friend and political advisor, i'm sure I don't have to tell u) who calls for Howard Dean to be fired after Democrats take over both the house and senate !?!?! Why? because the DLC is losing its grip on the party (finally, thank god). Hillary has presented herself since she was first elected to the Senate in a manner completely consistent with the DLC centrist model. It is the same model that Gore tried to emulate in 2000 and which energized Naderites. (I personally don't think the shoe fits on Gore, which is why he seemed to appear so robotic back then - something I think has been clear since he was liberated from the handlers). Hillary's pro-war stance and her second marriage to corporate America make her America's predominant centrist. Worse than that, the Right actually thinks she is a radical lefty, so she can't even guarantee any of the dissatisfied Republican votes.
4) The ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ crap. Sounds like the ‘left wing media’ nonsense we have been dealing with for over a decade. It’s not a conspiracy when every Republican is openly attacking the President. Call them stupid, petty, whatever, but don’t call it a conspiracy. The only black helicopters flying around at the time were under the command of her husband.
5) Carpetbagger: Remember all the good things H. Clinton did in New York before she was elected Senator? Neither do I. She didn’t live there. This is the best evidence of her opportunism. Anyone in New York better qualified? I would say probably a few thousand, at a minimum. They just had the unfortunate circumstances of not being married to the President.
That about does it . . . title it “why I would hate Hillary if I hated people” ;)
Your reasons for opposing Hillary:
1) Health Care debacle.
RESPONSE: You say NOTHING of the substance or the ideas in the proposal. Was it GOOD? I think it was, but it got torpedoed by Republicans invested in the (failed but profitable) status quo, and over $900 MILLION invested by HMO's to mischaracterize and sabotage her effort (with the help of Rightwing Media, Talk Radio, etc.) Do you have a SUBSTANCE disagreement with her proposals, or only ad hominem attacks on Hillary for not being sufficiently "qualified" for your liking, and not being able to overcome a BILLION DOLLAR SMEAR CAMPAIGN?
2) Nepotism.
RESPONSE: Again, nothing to do with the woman herself, her qualifications, her record. "Guilt by association" is not a valid complaint; it is shallow and uncompelling. (Which "founding fathers" do you mean, who rejected "nepotism"? John Adams, or John QUINCY Adams? LOL)
3) DLC.
RESPONSE: Such things as "centerist" and "triangulation" are just pundit's phrases to explain/describe DEMOCRACY. I.E. negotiation and compromise, to develop a CONSENSUS solution. The opposite of this idea is simply TYRANNY, where we have the ideas of ONE MAN (Bush) and a rubber stamp Congress. I disagree, as a Liberal, with tyranny, no matter WHAT wing it springs from. No Liberal, OR Conservative, should be given absolute power, or should believe they can rule through edict. And a Liberal who runs on always getting his/her way, would be simply a terrible idea.
4) The ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ crap.
RESPONSE: In case you haven't been paying attention, that "vast right-wing conspiracy" stuff was not CRAP, but PROVEN TRUE. Also, "conspiracies" happen all the time, so calling something a "conspiracy" in no way discounts it or automatically define it as "silly". For that, one needs exculpatory FACTS ... such as those Reagan couldn't rally when trying to deny Iran-Contra (A CONSPIRACY!!)
5) Carpetbagger.
RESPONSE: First, it's "nepotism", not about the PERSON, but who she's related to. Now it's "carpetbagger", not about the PERSON, but where they are FROM. These bullet points of yours need SUBSTANCE to be persuasive.
CRIMINAL D Concludes, "That about does it . . . title it 'Why I would hate Hillary if I hated people').
RESPONSE: I have a better title: "How to despise someone without having a single valid reason."
So, again, why was she qualified to run the healthcare initiative? You don't say, but turn the tables, asking me to show she wasn't qualified. That's not the way it works. Your asking me to prove a negative. The burden should be on you to show why she was qualified.
Conspiracy . . . Proven? What !!! Come on, brother. Its not a conspiracy when everyone is publicly attacking him. (btw, she said this b4 she found out about Monica, while her husband was lying to her . . . ) No one forced Monica's lips around her husband's member. I don't like what he did, (lying about it to the America people when it was exposed, that is) but i would still defend to my dying breath that it wasn't an impeachable offense. Hell, the man deserved the BJ. But to equate the moral indignance of the Republican hypocrites with a 'conspiracy' is going too far.
Carpetbagger/Nepotism: these are about her character. I don’t care where she was from . . . if she had been in NY for say, a few years b4 running for office, that would be one thing. But she was filing for residency at about the same time she was filing to run for office. Please. She ran in NY b/c she had no chance in hell in her home state.
Nepotism: the only reason you know about this woman is b/c of her husband. She would never have been the Honorable Senator from New York if she wasn’t married to a certain ex-president. I agreed that she is intelligent and cunning, but so are several of my clients (and they are in jail for a long, long time.)
Here it is Tex, questions for you. Do you really like her chances, as opposed, to say, Obama or Edwards . . . or even Gore? Of the four of those people, who do you trust the most, and why? How do you defend her hawkish stance? I need reasons to vote for this woman. I don’t have any yet, besides the fact that she is a woman, which, I hope you agree, is not a good enough reason in and of itself.
Qualified? Proof in the puddin':
[link to www.ibiblio.org]
You may disagree with parts, or all, but it is comprehensive and addressed the issue head on. America is poorer for the rightwing's destruction of this proposal ... we suffer yet. Hillary HAD a plan ... and still has one.
Conspiracy . . . Proven?
[link to www.amazon.com]
"No one forced Monica's lips ..."
The "conspiracy" to get Clinton was only AT THE LAST MINUTE about Monica. From women to Whitewater, Travel Office, Mena Airport, Arlington Cemetery, a dozen other topics, the "conspiracy" was producing one NON-scandal after another to harass Clinton. Richard Mellon Scaife alone sunk over $300 MILLION into digging dirt with the hopes of removing Clinton from office. The "Arkansas Project", which Scaife involved with Coulter and Olson, the American Spectator, and dozens of others? A conspiracy, clear and solidly proven.
"Carpetbagger/Nepotism: these are about her character."
NO, they are about you needing to tie non-issues into your calculus.
QUESTIONS:
"Do you really like her chances, as opposed, to say, Obama or Edwards . . . or even Gore?"
ANSWER: Before the campaigning even begins, I like her chances, let's say "equally". Absent the campaign even starting, it's difficult to "pick" among many very qualified people, ANY of which would make excellent presidents. I "trust" them all (there is really no degree of "trust" ... you either do or don't. I don't trust a single one of Bush's crew, for example.)
How do you defend her hawkish stance?
"What IS her 'hawkish stance'? That she doesn't recant giving the President the authority to retaliate for 9/11? That stance needs no "defense". That Bush has corrupted the trust put in him does not mean the Congress should abdicate defending the nation, and Bin Laden NEEDED to be gone after. As for twists and turns SINCE, she will explain in detail as the campaign unfolds. I will listen ... and perhaps disagree on points.
--------
You don't need to decide today, Crim. Wait for the campaign to heat up, for 2008 to come some nearer, and LISTEN. Your questions about her positions on issues, I guarantee, will be answered.
Tex,
If you demand "facts" from others, why don't you include any in your post? examples:
"In case you haven't been paying attention, that "vast right-wing conspiracy" stuff was not CRAP, but PROVEN TRUE." I guess if Tex says it, it's a "fact."
"You say NOTHING of the substance or the ideas in the proposal. Was it GOOD? I think it was, but it got torpedoed by Republicans invested in the (failed but profitable) status quo, and over $900 MILLION invested by HMO's to mischaracterize and sabotage her effort (with the help of Rightwing Media, Talk Radio, etc.)" Tex, it's YOU who says nothing of Hillary's failed "proposal."
It's a FACT that Hillary carpetbagged her way into New York polotics and has always depended on nepotism to get where she is.
Criminal_D gives many more facts than you do.
Hillary represents to the rightwing everything they HATE. She's a smart woman. She's a Democrat. She isn't part of their oligarchical elite of "monied" interests. She will support programs that help real people, and oppose policies that further enrich the already very wealthy.
She is also a lawyer, and a mother who has raised a child who is, by all accounts, a great human being. Unlike many Republicans, she supports gay rights AND her own child is not gay (Reagan, Cheney, Newt's sis, etc.).
So, Hillary is the Right's worst nightmare ... the mom who goes out to the clubhouse ("NO GURLS ALOWD!") and catches the little boys counting the money they stole from purses while looking at Playboy and putting firecrackers up frog's asses.
Shortly put, Hillary will not respect the "old boy" network, and this threatens the rightwing's entire power structure. There will be accountability, time outs, and maybe even spankings. The very idea of such a woman "in charge" sends warm yellow liquid flowing down the trembling legs of Republicans and rightwingers who have invested everything in their "manly" poses.
Ok, that was a bit much. Not part of the monied interests? Are you going to tell me she's getting 10$ a piece from single moms? Come on. No one fills campaign coffers like Hillary. In any event, you do make her sound like a good dominatrix. America definitely needs a bit more of that . . . ;)
I don't "work" for her, but I've spent the last couple of decades watching (and hearing) the rightwing throw every smear and dirty trick her way, and still she conducts herself with grace and professionalism. She has already BEAT them.
As to finance, I agree with you that it's a cesspool that needs to be cleaned up. But it's our CURRENT system, and only an idiot would practice "unilateral disarmament" in collecting campaign cash ... it would be political suicide. So, she does what she HAS to do, but I'd stake nearly everything that she remains independent, unlike Cunningham who had a "bribery list" (and Cheney, who CURRENTLY BENEFITS from Halliburton).
My "analogy" of the mom was apt from the standpoint of the dominant PATERNALISTIC Republican structure, which is a throwback to the days when women were property, and couldn't vote. Still, I feel "strong" is to "dominatrix" as "assertive" is to "bitch". Republicans love to praise "strong, assertive" MEN while trashing "dominatrix bitches", and that's the semantic proof of a waning "male superiority" myth.
hey, don't knock a good dom. I didn't mean that as a slight. :)
"Loathe" is too strong a strong word. Most people don't even "hate" Hillary. She's just another deceptive, egomaniacal, power-hungry politician who believes in the Nanny State and who has spent very little time holding a real job outside of politics. She's a carreer slickster in the mold of her husband. 'nough said?
Now, here's a test for all you Libs who are salivating over Obama: Without Googling his name, write down five issues on which you agree with Obama (being Black doesn't count). Can't do it? Didn't think so.
I'm interested in this "Nanny State" you mention.
A proper "nanny" would lay down the law about such things as homosexuality and abortion. A proper "nanny" would listen in on the phone, making sure only proper thing are being said. Woebetide anyone who dared introduce a controlled substance into the household, or who breached the property without permission! A proper Nanny, if she "feared for" her household (whether justified or not), might just lock a "dangerous person" in the cellar, on her own suspicions alone. That proper "nanny" would see it as her duty to instill the fear of GOD into her charges, displaying religious symbols and messages on every available surface.
So, this "Nanny State" you refer to ... is it the "Rightwing Nanny" who knows best on all issues of MORAL behavior, and seeks to make LAW to enforce it?
Or do you have some OTHER type of Nanny in mind ... perhaps a "Leftist Nanny" who helps and nurtures those in need?
mega dittos, tex. ;) lol
"Woebetide"? Please. You certainly have a vivid imagination, Tex. Warped, but vivid. It is not the job of Big Government to "help and nurture those in need." It's the responsibility of individuals, not government. But it's easier for Lefties to sit around and complain that not enough money is being extracted from "The Evil Rich" and redistributed to "those in need" than it is to get off their duffs and help the people who really need it. Maybe if you "progressives" would pry open your fat wallets a little more often (like we conservatives do), the Big Government Nanny State would keep its nose where it belongs.
It's not about "redistribution". It's about SHARING the wealth created in the first place.
Under Bush, there has been a great deal of "GROWTH", (leaving aside that most of it is "borrowed" wealth), but those who work to create it are not seeing the benefits. From the OUTSET, the rules are rigged to allow the owners of capital to realize virtually ALL the benefits of that increased productivity.
So, it's not about RE-distribution. It's about getting the distribution FAIR in the first place, allowing ALL those who create wealth to enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Under Bush, the wealthy are getting MUCH wealthier, while average workers' wages stagnate, and the costs of living continue to rise. The result could easily be seen as wealth redistribution all right, but redistributed from workers TO owners, redistribution of capital value FROM the middle class TO the rich.
And it is all made possible by government POLICY. You rightwingers believe there is government that PUNISHES wealth production, and then there are Republicans who allow "natural" phenomena to thrive, and the result is just that rich folks get much richer. This is wrongheaded (actually, BONEheaded) thinking, because government policy ALLOWS this unfair distribution. If nothing else, the "corporation" itself is a CREATION of government alone, a legally created entity that allows the wealthy to shield their wealth from risk. And that's just ONE example, there are thousands.
So don't act like GOVERNMENT is missing in action when this nation is being looted by the upper class. The government is chief enabler, and in fact can go either way with its policies. You just happen to like it when the rules are skewed to the advantage of those who already have MOST of the advantages already.
beginning with your affirmation of the truth implicit in Holly's note and continuing through your sketch of the ideas of people like Huie Long, who realized that what made the country strongest both morally and politically was a sharing of power and wealth that is now being redistributed in a dangerous direction.
People disagreeing with your comments and those of others regarding the fact of a conspiracy need to go back and read The Clinton Wars by Blumenthal, and it wouldn't hurt them to read HRC's biography, either.
"It's not about "redistribution". It's about SHARING the wealth created in the first place."
Webster's: redistributionist- One that believes in or advocates a welfare state.
"Sharing" implies that the owner of something VOLUNTARILY gives a portion of that something to another. Forced redistribution is servitude, plain and simple.
"If nothing else, the "corporation" itself is a CREATION of government alone, a legally created entity that allows the wealthy to shield their wealth from risk."
Sure, Tex. Try starting a business and see how much the government shields your "wealth" and protects you from risk.
Your flowery rhetoric routinely mesmerizes the spiral-eyed spongeheads on this site but your arguments simply don't hold water. They come from the naive belief that socialism works. History proves otherwise but I guess there will always be those so blinded by this ideology that they refuse to see it for what it is: A complete failure.
by the blinders to the abuse of governmental power by the superwealthy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrated by people who are into the simplistic "egoism" of the Ayn Rand genre. The beauty of this nation's economy has become its blended ability to promote commerce by enriching the entrepreneur and the people who make his ideas work in ways that are rationally proportionate to the value added to the product, while protecting the economically powerless from abuse. That didn't come without loss of blood, and the laws that followed the bloodletting simply shifted from protection of the corporate person sufficiently to keep children out of sweatshops, ensure that a minimum wage was provided, limit entrenched crippling poverty, and provide the opportunity for upward mobility that has created the middle class that is the strength of this country. That class is shrinking while the classes above and below it are growing in dangerous proportions. Not so sponge headed as you might think, most of us have a sense of history and don't want our children's children to be going back to sweatshops, soup lines, shantyville living accommodations and the like, but the governmentally protected, tax-subsidized elite are short-sightedly unconcerned about that as they shift manufacturing to parts of the world that support just that sort of standard of living (Delay and the Northern Mariana Islands, my friend the rightwing engineer who helped build the Delphi factories in China and India only to suddenly see his own job in Michigan on the line for elimination as examples). My suggestion: spend less time on the web and go read books of the time (not the history books they gave us in history class), and you will understand why the socialists had such a strong movement, and why what we took from that movement and blended with capitalism has been what brings out the best in us. If you've already read them and still feel as you do, then there is little hope for your ever being able to emerge from the 1/3 that will always support the right wing. Of course, that is almost exactly the portion of the German Republic that supported Hitler...
"governmentally protected, tax-subsidized elite"?
Sounds like the public employee unions to me.
Aristocrats versus peasants. Same old story. The aristocrats want more power, more palaces, more priveleges...and they want the peasant to pay for it all.
Drug War Iraq War AIDS crisis Campaign Finance Reform Universal Healthcare Higher Education Assistance ... ok that was 6. I might have to google the rest.
Wow, you are alot like all those Freepers I recall chatting with a few years ago before they banned me for not being a conservative. Funny how MM lets you stay. Speaks volumes about which side is more tolerant of dissenting opinions.
What's a "freeper"?
Is Bush prolonging the war to save HIS butt
So far:
Yes 87% 183 votes No 12% 27 votes
Place your vote (and read the brief commentary if you care):
[link to www.dailykos.com]
I wish Media Matters didn't have to participate in this meta-commentary so soon before the '08 election. I guess it's a necessary chore.
Tweety Matthews is great at back handers and spew. So, when is he going to invite those guests that he smears on to his show? I am not a Hllary fan, but if Tweety is such an idependent "journalist", why does he not invite Hillary Clinton on to his show. He had McCain on, gushing and fawning as if he was the second coming.