Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama throws Kos under the bus

Haw:

OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left.

During the Roberts –

WALLACE: John Roberts, Supreme Court.

OBAMA: John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos, and was fiercely attacked [clutches pearls] as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

God. What an asshole. Kos purges his whole site of [not Obama] supporters and trashes his brand for the sake of The Precious, and this is the thanks he gets?

And I'm playing the world's smallest violin, too. Don't say you weren't warned, kidz. That Obama would throw anybody under the bus was shown, long ago, when his campaign destroyed another online community on MySpace. Just more of the "casual poetry"* of the Obama campaign. And if the OFB want to be abused, so be it.

NOTE Kid Oakland's "casual poetry" post is my all-time favorite Obama fluffery post. You just can't avert your eyes....

NOTE I think (hope) that VastLeft has an analysis coming of Obama's FUX transcript. Listen in, as Obama shows his tender regard for the capital gains tax! (Charles Gibson will be so proud...)

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Better you than me, pal!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Expect a Daily Kos Obama Rationalization (just as going on Fox in the first place has been rationalized) that goes something like, of course, he has to pivot right, Hillary has smeared him as some sort of dangerous un-patriotic radical. He needs to counter that and show his awesome potential appeal to moderate and independent white voters and how else is he going to do that other than to pander on FOX?

Nevermind that Obama's biggest problems have stemmed from Goolsbee/NAFTA, Rezko, Wright, Bittercling, and Ayers. Every one of those is a self-inflicted wound.

Nadai's picture
Submitted by Nadai on

but he wouldn't have self-inflicted them if Hillary had taken her boobs and gone home like a normal woman. So it's still all her fault.

intranets's picture
Submitted by intranets on

The "Obama Watch" will finally stop this weekend when Senator Barack Obama sits down with us for an exclusive "FOX News Sunday" interview.

Don't take the reacharound to finally give FOxNews release too lightly. It's not insignificant.

I'm shocked there is almost nothing on dkos about either of these subjects. The way the masses quiver at DailyObama, you'd think they would be excited their cult leader knows their name.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

As long as the Orange Frat House builds audience and influence what does Kos care? He has his fellowship at Cato Institute, a Newsweek column and a huge online community, what does he care?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

He abuses the media and they lick his boots in gratitude.

Or in this case, the big orange cheeto.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

corinne's picture
Submitted by corinne on

Not. It's not the first time Obama threw Daily Kos under the bus, remember.

"One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

Yep. Daily Kos is nothing special.

Obama has always pooh-poohed the progressive blogs but it won't make Kos throw off his rose-colored glasses.

wasabi's picture
Submitted by wasabi on

Both Clinton and Obama have distanced themselvs from the netroots ("teh loony left"). When Clinton does it, she is disrespecting Progressives. When Obama does it, he's building up his Indie/Repub base in the most awesomest way evah.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i expect Clinton to Sister Souljah progressives, so it doesn't matter--she's never pretended to be one, or pretended to bring all types together, bla bla bla. And she doesn't have what passes for progressive suppport anyway--there aren't enough votes there, as Dean showed.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Even as he's complaining about Obama lying to his netroot supporters about taking Fox on, he can't leave out mentioning Hillary and Bosnia.

It was a mistake for us to endorse Obama, just as it was a mistake for us to do nothing against Clinton after she accused Moveon of intimating her supporters at caucuses. We should be stuffing ads discussing her Bosnia sniper fire in Indiana. But we don't believe in standing up for ourselves.

I guess the Bosnia stuff at the ABC debate wasn't part of the distractions or gotcha questioning. And how on earth does stuffing envelopes with crap about Bosnia have anything to do with netroots standing up for themselves. Look, I know folks are a little angry about Hillary's MoveOn comments, which were taken out of context and made privately not during an interview on Fox news, but she isn't the one lying to you guys. She's the one who voted against sanctioning MoveOn and her spokesman defended Kos on Fox. Don't try to pull this pox on both their houses crap. Obama is the guy who is throwing you under the bus and who can blame him? If you ask nothing in return for your support, nothing is what you'll get.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

The Clintons have made a career of throwing members of their own administration under the bus when pressure from the right forced their hand- never to speak with these long time associates again.

Obama's dirty little secret isn't that he is willing to piss on people who carry water for him to look good as a centerist- it's that he isn't a particularly progressive politician.

Just like Hill.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

can you give specific examples of people that the Clintons "have made a career" of throwing under the bus... it must be a long list, so, providing examples should not be hard.

And Hillary never hid the fact that she is a centrist (yet more progressive than BO on certain issues, like UHC).

It's not the positions, it's the hypocrisy.

Submitted by lambert on

I was talking to Leah the other night, and MoDo or GaCo had written another stupid column about how terrified everyone was that the Clintons would return to power and wreak terrible revenges like, not inviting them to the best Village parties, or something.

And this is a truism... However, Leah and I couldn't come up with a single example. Can anybody?

Could it be -- and I know this is ridiculous -- that the Village knows how badly it screwed the Clintons, feels guilty about it, and fears just punishment?

And of course, deep down, just like the Republicans, they want to be punished. Deliciously. It's not being able to admit that to themselves that makes them hysterical.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... are people like Lani Guinier, who were driven out of the Clinton administration by rightwing gotchas.

If only the Clintons had realized that the rightwing wasn't seriously invested in causing them any problems at all! It was just one of those misunderstandings of the bickering 1990s.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

no examples are available.

It was the GOP, and only the GOP, that practiced "wedge politics"

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

These were the ones I could think of off the top of my head... it seemed at the time like a well practiced political skill: Clinton would jettison the controversial party and close rank with breathtaking certitude. Not saying that this isn't an effective tactic to keep the heat off of ones administration, it's just that it demonstrated a certain ruthlessness.

With Gunier I recall her commenting that once they had decided to pull the plug on her nomination they never spoke to her again- and they had a relationship with her that stretched back many years... just sayin'...

If either one of them deliver UHC they will deserve a place on Mt. Rushmore- but since Nixon was nearly "the one" to first propose this legislation it shouldn't qualify Hill as a progressive- it's just LONG past overdue.

The real point of my post:

The Clintons have shown themselves to be very effective at getting things done by making deals with monied interests. Perhaps this is the only way to do things in Washington, but it doesn't bode well for the possibility that any real change will come of a second Clinton Administration.

And If that's what her brand of centerism represents, I'd rather take a chance on Barry.

Submitted by lambert on

Elders and Guiner are, too my mind, consequences of "If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog," especially with an administration under the constant assault that culminated in impeachment and Bush v. Gore. Certainly the village hysteria on this issue is disproportionate to any actual events. And let's also remember that both of those supporters were not jettisoned for revenge or out of retaliation --- which is what all the hysteria is about. So, JackBrown, your example is not on point

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

After the democratic Congress and the media (remember "Quota Queen") helped the Republicans knee cap them. I think Clinton mismanaged Guinier's nomination and would've been better off standing and fighting, but it's not like he acted in a vacuum.

Look, politics ain't beanbag and none of these people are ultimately loyal to anyone other than themselves. Distancing themselves from particular individuals that become a political liability is the norm. It's what politicians do. But what Obama did here was essentially throw his own party under the bus, not any one individual (Kos is right about that, it wasn't really about him). That's entirely different, IMO.

And yes, I know the Clintons have been more than willing to strike deals with monied interests. It's what makes it so disappointing that of the remaining democrats, she's the one more likely to fight. Because the bar has not been set that high for Obama. He just refuses to step over it.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

The Clintons have shown themselves to be very effective at getting things done by making deals with monied interests.

Obama is not a progressive and is not interested in change. He works with the monied interest just as well as they do.

but it doesn’t bode well for the possibility that any real change

No one, and I repeat no one, whomever is elected in 08, will be able to change jack shit about the way things are done in Washington. The country is in too big of a mess, to be concerned with Change. Things must be fixed first. Then, come talk to the American people about change.

And do you have a link for that Guinier "never talked to them again" story.

And, just out of curiousity, since Obama has thrown his own grandmother, his pastor, and several others under the bus, b/c of the perception of trouble to his campaign, what makes you think he will be any different in his administration?

And these questions don't even touch on your conflation of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Yes, Bill Clinton showed that he would jettison people who were distractions(and who made them distractions, always remember that when Obama says he wants to "reach out"), but Hillary Clinton kept Mark Penn around for a long time, even when most of her own supporters made it clear they blamed him for the campaign's problems. I am sick and tired of too many people treating these two seperate people, as if the are just one whole person, instead of two married people, who support their spouses, even if they disagree with them.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Kos isn't a member of Obama's future cabinet as far as i am aware of, so I'm not sure what kind of debt of loyalty he owes to him. On the other hand Clinton kicked his own dog when it suited his political survival and never looked back. That's just the facts.

But really, I don't want to belabor a point that begins with Barry trumpeting his efforts to assist the Republicans at torte reform...

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

better to throw all the voters of the bus, than 1 employee. Give me a break.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

that "you gotta dance with them that brung you?"

Obama owes his whole candidacy to the big orange cheeto.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

You cannot simultaneously take credit for the accomplishments of the Clinton administration and distance yourself from its President. I'm not aware of a single instance of Hillary publicly distancing herself from anything her husbands' administration did... if you want the credit, you have to take the conflation.

And as far as Mark Penn goes, he's still in her campaign so I wouldn't be going on too much about that particular issue.

Here's an instance when she clearly SHOULD have thrown someone off of her bus...

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

That was one of their big issues, that Hillary refused to throw him under the bus.

BTW - It's one thing to cut loose someone who has become a political liability, it's quite different when you throw a key asset under the bus.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

but none of the credit?

If you're not going to give her any credit, don't give her any of the blame either.

BTW - What part of the nineties did you not like, the peace or the prosperity?

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

in the face of such unrelenting, orchestrated attacks. The thing I didn't like about the Clinton 90's was his turn to the right prior to the '96 election- " The Era of Big Government Is Over" etc. Worked like a charm on the Republicans, unfortunately it set back Democratic values about 50 years.

Loved the Peace and Prosperity (TM)

I wish we could have a bit of that back just now...

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Exactly how did he "set back Democratic values about 50 years?"

Actually, if he did wouldn't that have taken us back to the New Deal?

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

for his domestic agenda has cost us dearly: we now have nearly a third of the worlds prison population in our Free and Democratic country, thankyouverymuch.

And this at the expense of education... this was our peace dividend?

And thanks to his stewardship any cause left of center became much easier to marginalize- read "far left". Things like, oh, family planning, science-based discourse, and ultimately UHC.

Hill's failure to get out of the blocks with her health care proposal cost us UHC for more than a generation- and the Dems the Congress. Tell me that's not where it started? I'm not a Hillary Hater- I just don't think they made the wisest use of the most prosperous time in our nation's history-and now our choices are a lot, lot harder.

It's not hard to look back with fondness, but man, what a missed opportunity...

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

That's my main problem with the revised history of the 1990s. Everyone has agreed to blame the Clintons because that keeps any other Democrats from taking any blame.

The Democratic Congress was more than happy to appear bipartisan in asking questions about Whitewater, kneecapping Clinton out of the blocks over gays in the military (thanks, Sam Nunn!), and generally mismanaging their own house. It's not Clinton's fault that the House Democrats, led by convicted felon Dan Rostenkowski, had grown self-satisfied and corrupt. And while the Clintons certainly made their mistakes on UHC, they were also hurt by Congressional Dems lacking any clear direction on healthcare (something we're seeing again with Schumer and Rockefeller). In fact, some Congressional Democrats worked to undermine Clinton's healthcare plan, including Jim Cooper, who has been rewarded by becoming Obama's point man on the issue (yeah, I'm sure that'll turn out well).

It's not that I don't have some frustration with Bill Clinton tacking right in the 1990s, but he didn't do that because he wanted to. He did it because the Democrats were splintered and ineffective. Some of that is his fault, but some of it (a lot of it) is the fault of Congressional Dems who never met a Republican they didn't want to strike a compromise with.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

There was a GREAT piece on This American Life about him- and his meeting, face to face in prison, with the results of the anti-drug legislation he pushed through just prior to the '96 election:

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.as...

It speaks to my point, which is when you use your power to maintain power you kill the possibility of forwarding a more progressive agenda ... something which helps explain the Democrats' role in how we arrived where we are today.

Nothing happens in a vacuum- I don't blame the Clintons for the failings of the Congress... a lot of people with D's after their names do a lot of anti-Democratic shit. The Clintons do, however, get the brunt of the blame for having finished off a rather remarkable run of dominance we had enjoyed more or less since Roosevelt. This by their indecisive, meandering, and vulnerable first 1+ year on office. And that UHC debacle.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

to defeat Hillary's health care reform?

Do you recall those "Harry and Louise" commercials mimicked by Obama?

And don't forget that the Dems in Congress failed to support it or the Clintons.

More than anything, Newt and the "Contract on America" were an attack on the Democratic Congress, not Bill Clinton.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Clinton, probably both of them, will throw people to the wolves if they have to; just part of the reality of politics.

With Obama there's a pattern of gratuitously pushing people off the curb and under a bus, without appearing to think about the consequence. Not to be overly harsh on the guy but he does seem strangely uncaring about loyalty, and in some way needing to distance himself from any focus of support; he had no reason to undercut Kos, but he did it anyway.

Maybe he is so insecure he can't allow anyone else to claim a part of the story; any appearance of a dependence on another party has to be defeated, to sustain his own fragile ego. Very odd.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

"I’m not a Hillary Hater- I just don’t think they made the wisest use of the most prosperous time in our nation’s history"

Why was that period the most prosperous time in our nation's history?

BECAUSE OF BILL CLINTON.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Of the Healthcare debacle is woefully lacking, like the fact that is was Bill's plan, not Hillary's.

Some recommended reading.

And, like most Obama supporters, you continue to ramble on about why Clinton shouldn't get the nom, but have yet to give us one substantial reason why Obama should(HINT: Hope and Change[as in change Washington] are not substantial reasons).

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

I have been considering the revenge of the Clintons, I mean we all know she is a rattlesnake fighter, with sharp fangs and venom, and all of her followers are hillary rattlesnakes (bat eyelashes). But could it possibly be that she is also the party coordinator for the village. We do know she controls the global villages, and promotes them. I do think this is some cause for concern. On the bright side, no need to worry about being thrown to the wolves as there are no wolves in NY only in zoos.
On this logic it makes sense to vote for HRC over BO because there is more of a possibility of being tossed under a bus than to a wolf.

Little known fact but hope is that the bus is coming and change is hope I got it for the fare.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”

Submitted by lambert on

undercarriage

Because you never know.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

"Your knowledge of the Healthcare debacle is woefully lacking, like the fact that is was Bill’s plan, not Hillary’s."

You can't give Hillary credit for taking point on formulating the UHC legislation and the effort to sell the political process and then say it was all Bill's. That, in the words of John McSame, is nonsense.

Sadly, while I want to give Bill all the credit for the amazing prosperity of the 90's I would point out something he said after a few years in office: he found that he often felt he did not run things- I believe the quote went like " the Fed controls domestic policy, and the World Bank controls foreign policy"...

In any event he should have gotten richer that Bill Gates if it was all his doing...

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I guess we were unfair to blame Bush for the current mess too.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

The difference between throwing one's own to the wolves and throwing one's own under the bus? I shouldn't have to point out that this doesn't lead anywhere good.

Perhaps we can find common ground in this: there are some eerie similarities between the canny and somewhat morally ambiguous political instincts native to both Bill and Barry... I often think of how Bill would have fended off the kind of loaded political gotcha that's faced Obama and find that they match up pretty well...

If Bill Clinton truly doesn't like Barak Obama- as some in the press have reported- perhaps it's because it's a bit like looking in the mirror and not liking what he sees.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You can’t give Hillary credit for taking point on formulating the UHC legislation

When have I ever given her credit for "formulating" legislation? I give her credit for her hard work and dedication in working to forward Bill's policies.

I give her credit for being knowledgeable about the process, and understanding how the process works.

I give her credit for the policies she took leadership on as First Lady of Arkansas(like microlending) and in the WH(i.e. women's rights globally).

In any event he should have gotten richer that Bill Gates if it was all his doing…

Politicians are supposed to profit from their work on behalf of the citizens? WTF? You are all over the map. And you still haven't given me any reason to vote for Obama(my primary is on May 20th, so there's still time!)

And this:

I’m not aware of a single instance of Hillary publicly distancing herself from anything her husbands’ administration did

Because a First Lady isn't supposed to stand up and argue with her husband in public. The VP doesn't do it either, so I'm assuming you didn't vote for Gore? I mean, he didn't distance himself from Pres. Clinton until he ran for President(just like Hillary didn't distance herself on stuff like NAFTA, until she ran for president).

And I'm sure that when Hillary is the WH, Bill won't publicly call out her planned policies as bad, either. It's what political couples do(with the exception of Carville & Matalin).

It's obvious you have your opinions set in stone, based mostly on erroneous information and impossible expectations. I'm done.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jeqal's picture
Submitted by jeqal on

jack brown, at least with wolves you have a fighting chance.

There are a lot of reasons that Bill doesn't like Obama, not the least of which is the disprespectful and churlish way that Obama has treated the race for Presidency (not student president) as well as Hillary as a fellow partisan Democrat (yeah I know Hill isn't a DINO ....but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt with BO)
Obama has run a pretty dirty and annoying race, complete with misinformation given to the media, and a lot of blame. Loads of blame, blame grandma, blame whitey, blame elitists, blame 3 and 10 year old kids, blame PA, blame VA and KY, blame chablis democrats, blame religious democrats, blame gun-toting democrats. Geesh.

Bill Clinton does not like BO because Bill loves his wife. Using your logic, Michelle has one funky mirror too.

“Democrats have a habit of falling in love with candidates on the first date.”

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

includes, but isn't limited to:

Taking a minor point of someone else's statement and using it to try to change the subject.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I would love to see some of your own ideas, rather than your critiques of other people's (including mine.)

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Bill knows policy. But he says Hillary is even better at policy than he is.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

Submitted by lambert on

Yes, since:

1. The fear in the Village is that the Clintons will retaliate against perceived enemies, yet

2. The examples adduced so far in support of this claim are not on point.

Jack, does this help? Would you like me to use even simpler language?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

So perhaps the points I was addressing were a bit crossed. Apologies for shotgunning a whole host of subjects into this thread- I was one of those waiting for many weeks to post here ( couldn't access my original account )
so I've ben a bit over heated.

I used to visit and post here before the primary season...I got busy and didn't check back for a while 'til the two camps had cleaved and was surprised to find the level of vitriol directed at Obama here- there was little I had disagreed with here before this.

Do I believe that either Obama or Clinton represent Progressive political values? Not so much. Do I believe that either of them would represent a much better future than McCain? Absolutely-no question. Would I celebrate a Clinton inaugural? Just like I celebrated Bill's.

Can I understand how Democrats of differing stripes would attempt to scorch the earth before the prospective nominee in such a manner as to render them unelectable?

I'm having a hard time with this one...

Much of the discussion here takes a tone that suggests ( to me anyway ) that an Obama Presidency would be worse than a third term of Bush- that's kinda hard to back down from... what will you do if Hill loses? Withdraw from political discourse?

Those here would say Obama is responsible for starting this civil war and throwing the lowest blows... I've seen evidence sharp elbows on both sides. The thing that I had admired most about the Clinton Presidency was that they were EFFECTIVE poltical operators, not that they were nice people. And they were Democrats- however they redefined the brand.

I would work to get Hillary elected- what will you do?

Submitted by lambert on

Jack:

Thanks for sharing your concerns.

Vitriol is showing how the Republicans torture animals or how Christianists are sex predators. This stuff with Obama is just snark.

Anyhow, since up until recently, Obama's been getting fawning press coverage, and the A-listers are either totally in the tank for Obama or neutral, and so there are plenty of places you can go to redress whatever sense of imbalance you feel about a little C-list blog being out of step with the rest of your world.

As far as your pearl-clutching on an "Obama Presidency would be worse than a third term of Bush" -- got a link for that? I can't answer for every comment you might cherry pick, but the only people who speak for the blog are the Fellows, and no Fellow's written anything remotely like that (modulo irony). Sure, some of us feel pretty strongly that an Obama Presidency would be worse than a Hillary Presidency, but last I checked, half the voters in Democratic primaries, and most Democratic voters, agreed.

I will vote for Obama. I won't work for him, nor would his supporters wish me to. After all, I'm a racist. Old, too. I'll do my work on policy, where Obama just sucks (universal health care), or on down-ticket Dem races.

Where's your blog, Jack?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

1. Saying Hillary isn't a Democrat, and will run as McCain's running mate.

2. Accusing Hillary or employing a "Tonya Harding" strategy to "kneecap" Obama so she can run in 2012.

3. Accusing the Clintons of running a racist campaign.

4. Calling Hillary a "bitch," "whore," and/or other misogynistic terms. (I've never seen any lefty blogger permit someone to call Obama a "N-word.")

As for your comment:

"Those here would say Obama is responsible for starting this civil war and throwing the lowest blows… I’ve seen evidence sharp elbows on both sides."

Can you provide some examples of Hillary's "sharp elbows?" Two or three would be nice.

I don't mean criticisms of Obama, I mean "low blows."

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

My passion for this world would consume my obligations to the one where I run a couple of small businesses and raise a couple kids... that and the fact that I am years away from being able to express my ideas in a thematically consistent way.

You may have guessed that a policy wonk I am not- my main interests are in how ideas are sold, in media criticism, and in the counterpunching of campaigns.

And in propaganda- how the lie gets told.

Thanks for your reply.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Whether by her own words of through surrogates:

• Bill's expressed wish that the campaign be "about two people who love their country" and a discussion of their differences on policy instead of "all this other stuff", thus making the campaign about all this other stuff.
Running a campaign based on who's more patriotic is a gotcha theme usually reserved for Republicans, no?

• Elevating McCain by repeated stating that only she and McCain were qualified to govern- kind of a no-no to elevate a Republican in order to demean your Democratic opponent.

• Saying that Obama is unfit to be your VP- that he doesn't pass the commander in chief test... perhaps this one just passes as politics but it is even less respectful than calling him 'boy". Particularly when HRC's claim to executive experience has largely been riding shotgun.

• Ferraro's remark that the only reason for Obama's political success is his advantage as a Black Man. Over an advantaged White Woman no less.

• Bill's implying that Obama's candidacy was on par with the legitimacy of Jesse Jackson's .

And then there's the 3 AM ad, neatly co-opting the "Best Of" the Republican playbook on how to govern through fear.

Niiiiiiiiiiiice.

From my view these would count as both sharp elbowed and as low blows.

Submitted by lambert on

Let me set all the straw men that Jack adduces aflame:

1. Nobody claimed -- did they -- that Hillary doesn't know how to throw an elbow. That's a desireable characteristic in somebody who would be President, is it not?

2. What I keep asking for is examples of revenge and retaliation, which is what MoDo and GaCo are getting their knickers in a twist about. I can only conclude here that Jack can give no examples because there are none.

3. There is a difference between throwing an elbow and smearing someone as racist. The one is pretty much politics as usual -- whether you're "likeable enough," or "periodically" "get down" or not. The second is the most toxic charge in American politics, and designed to drive the target from public life. That is the charge that the Obama campaign chose to deploy.

4. I really can't believe that the idiotic Ferrarro meme is still managing to reproduce itself, but apparently, it still is. See See here. Shorter version: Ferraro didn't say anything that Bareback Andy didn't already say, in more flowery prose. So, what could be the difference between the two?

The remainder of Jack's examples are as negligible as these; I leave them to others to clean up.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

1. How in the hell does Bill Clinton's call for an elevated discourse, make the campaign about "all that other stuff". And you just revealed that your a Republublican, jb, by saying that talking about loving your country=patriotism. Only Republicans equate the two. But, hey at least you didn't try to say Clinton was excluding Obama with that statement, so a point in your favor.

2. She said Obama needed to make the case that he was ready to be CiC, not that he wasn't ready. She said she and McCain had made the case, but Obama hadn't.

3. This is just absolutely ludicrous, she has stated repeatedly that she would be open to having him as her VP(unlike Obama), so how was she disqualifying him again. Since she would be prepared to have him as her VP, Clinton's saying that in her opinion he has made the case to her that he is prepared to be CiC, but that he just hasn't made the case to the voters, yet.

4. I'll skip this one, but lambert is correct. Obama supporters have made the same case Ferraro has.

5. I love this one. Clinton was asked about Obama's win in SC. He had to go all the way back to Jackson's campaign to find a legitimate comparison. Jackson and Obama both got 55% of the vote in SC, they are the only candidates who have gotten that majority in recent history, and it is the only valid comparison. He couldn't make the point that Edwards won in SC, but went on to lose the nomination, because Edwards didn't win a majority.

And that ad pales in comparison to Obama's healthcare mailers, IMO.

I didn't include any linky goodness, because honestly, I don't expect this to sway him, he won't believe the other people who are these arguments as well, like Sean Wilentz.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

And I am by no means forwarding the meme that what Bill said re: Jesse Jackson was racist- it was just the kind of name calling that makes an elder statesman look unseemly - you might want to consider that the cumulative impression of Hillary employing fear, patriotism, and elitism to tear down Obama is doing nothing good for her negatives. And as she drives down the expectations people have for the Dems she helps blur the distinction between Blue and Red brand politics.

That is the danger of employing Republican tactics.

Submitted by lambert on

Honestly. We take down the individual points, and we're supposed to consider a "cumulative impresssion," held by unnamed persons and in unlinked sources? Feh.

Ditto the "employing Republican tactics," which "sharp elbows" seems to have morphed into.

What a waste of time and bytes. Elevate your game, Jack.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

would think comparing someone to Jesse Jackson was name calling.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

you have no clue of Jesse's enormous achievements and his rainbow coalition and his positive fighting message that won a bunch of states and millions of votes -- of all sorts.

Comparing anyone to Jesse is a compliment to those of us who saw a true coalition built on issues and helping people back then, and saw how a black candidate could really do well for the first time ever--and truly bring people together instead of insulting and dividing and relying on non-party voters crossing over.

Jesse never had to rely on Red states or "Democrat for a day" bullshit.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

not identity or personality.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

he was running to win, not make a statement.

------------------------------------------------
Real Democrats aren't afraid of democracy

48 + 2 = legitimacy

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

not on his personality or on transforming/changing the system. He also had decades of organizing experience and had been a civil rights leader too. He ran on using the system to benefit more of us, and on pointing out our commonalities and not dividing us.

Read up on it all, jack--seriously.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and has a warning for Obama too-- http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0127...

"Progressives should beware the charismatic leader who defines movement loyalty as personal loyalty to him or herself rather than to the movement and its objectives."

"... The Rainbow grew out of the black-led electoral upsurge of the early 1980s. It was rooted in a movement. In addition, the core was people of color who linked racial justice with broader social- and economic-justice issues. Likewise, for any effective neo-Rainbow effort, it is essential to have a core that not only represents the changing demographics of the United States but also comes to the table representing actual constituencies.

A united front.
The approach toward activity and movement/ organization building must be that of a united front. Jesse Jackson’s willingness and ability to reach out to diverse constituencies was one of the most admirable aspects of the Rainbow movement of the 1980s. In addition, largely through the activities of the left, additional constituencies were tapped, constituencies with which Jackson had little history. Asians and Latinos, particularly, became integral to the campaigns and movement.

Pro-equality populism.
The politics of a neo-Rainbow initiative must be pro-equality populist. This means having more than an anticorporate message, as important as that is. It must be about more than class, though rooted among working people and seeking the support of labor unions. A movement that links the fights for racial, gender and economic justice will resonate particularly, though not exclusively, with communities of color.

Pro-equality populist politics is fundamentally about inclusion. Jackson embodied this principle in the 1980s, for example in his open, public embrace of gays and lesbians at a point when many, if not most, traditional political leaders kept the gay community at arm’s length. Twenty-first-century pro-equality populism must be just as courageous and as inclusive.
..."

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

The Rainbow's Gravity--

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040802/wy...

"... Looking back, people with the campaigns say it was the amplification of issues, and the bolstering of ground forces driving them, that are Jackson's profoundest achievements. ..."

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

But "educating" me about them doesn't change the fact that at NO POINT in Jessie's campaign was there ever the faintest glimmer of a suggestion that he would actually garner the support necessary to actually secure the nomination.

I can say that without denigrating the Rainbow Coalition, can't I?

If you want to make this a pissing match about how I'm missing the significance of his candidacy well, I can't stop you. But the real point is that what Clinton said was an attempt to marginalize Obama's accomplishments by comparing his win to Jessie Jackson's- not praising him for its awesomeness.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it was not marginalizing--that's what i've been trying to show you--Jackson actually ran a very meaty, populist, issue-filled, non-personality-based campaign that won multiple states and truly brought people together-- and didn't denigrate lowerclass people as "bitter" or racist, etc. It was very much like Edwards this year in fact, and very fighting liberal of the classic style, but with the added elements of welcoming more of us to the table without shoving anyone else off it.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

minimizes and shrinks 84 and 88--Jesse's campaigns were never on the margins, and he lead in the polls at points each time, as well as winning multiple states and millions of votes.

This year, they've been trying to erase and shrink Jesse entirely--it's really wrong. He wasn't a joke like Keyes, or half-hearted like Mosely Braun, or funded by the GOP like Sharpton. He got more votes and more states than Rudy, Romney, Thompson, Tancredo, Paul, Huckabee, Edwards, Biden, Richardson--and all of them who aren't stil in the race. He won far far more than Jerry Brown, who stayed in to challenge Clinton, and far more than Teddy Kennedy, who stayed in to challenge Carter. ...

Submitted by lambert on

"They work every day." Phenomenal. Tears actually came to my eyes. Maybe if I heard that kind of thing from Obama, my mind would change. But no. You wouldn't catch Jackson running Harry & Louise remakes!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

his and Cuomo's--those are the truly stellar speeches of my lifetime so far--and both guys put Obama to shame, i think.

(related--it hit me the other day--we have to a "Debates and Ham" parody to knock Obama--"I will not debate on a plane, i will not debate on a train..."--and it hit me because of when Jesse read it on tv) : >

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

1. What Bill said was hardly a call for an elevated discourse- his vision for a "proper campaign" had room only for two- that would include McCain and...let's see... who else could he possibly have meant? I guess you can take back those points you were spotting me because excluding Obama was EXACTLY what he was doing. And while talking up McCain's and Hillary's love of country he was implying that someone else... maybe, I don't know who, didn't love their country as much.
As to the issue of patriotism, I'm not talking in code here: love of country= patriotism for a whole lot of people... but that's not how I define it. For me the highest form of patriotism is defending the rights and freedoms granted us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are much more spiritual documents than the book the Republicans hide behind and way more worth fighting for.
And in raising the issue of who loves their country more- call that what you will- he played a Republican theme and opened the door for all this phony flag-pin crap. And this passes for "elevated discourse"?

2. This linky gets the gist of her commander in chief comments: http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/arc... It's disingenuous to suggest that as she repeatedly praised McCain and his "lifetime of experience" ( note to Dems: not a notable act) she was only suggesting that Obama hadn't made his case- Mark Penn later came right out and said he wasn't ready for prime time.

3. http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi...
I'll save you the click: "After several days of Bill and Hillary Clinton floating the idea of a joint ticket with rival Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton chief spokesman Howard Wolfson declared Monday that Clinton does not consider Obama qualified to be vice president." It was a pretty neat set-up: first try to redefine the front-runner as second-rate by suggesting he might be suited to be a VP- but then... maybe not so much after all.

4. I’ll skip this one too- too much work.

5. What Clinton was asked was after South Carolina was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw

"What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him?" A totally bullshit question, but it wasn't a set-up to compare Obama's win to Jackson's. The race-baiting charges leveled at Clinton after this remark were unjustified IMO... but I do believe the comparison was an attempt to minimize the importance of Obama's S.C. victory- not intended to celebrate Jackson's accomplishments.

Submitted by lambert on

If any? I looked at your links, and I really can't see what you're trying to prove. Hillary's a politician? Could that be it? Film at 11...

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Back to my original post:

You are working pretty hard here to demonize Obama for political behavior I have observed in the Clintons.

I guess this makes them both politicians.

Submitted by lambert on

Oh, puh-leeze. More haka...

I guess to you, "oppose" means demonize? Seems a little over-wrought to me.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Submitted by lambert on

Can you try to express your concerns in a manner that is just a little less disconnected? I do find doing other's work for them "tedious," yes. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

In regards to your #1:

When Obama speaks of a hypothetical matchup between him & McCain, it's ok, but if one of the Clinton's does it, they are marginalizing and denigrating Obama.

In re 2 & 3

When one of Obama's campaign people goes off message, we are supposed to believe Obama. When one of Clinton's does it, it is because they are saying what she's really thinking.

In re #5

When Obama compares himself or the Clintons to politicians of the past, it is spiritual, uplifting, or valid. If a Clinton does it, they are marginalizing and denigrating Obama.

I'll add these to list, thanks for clarifying jack!!

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Maybe it's a matter of tone- what you call "snark" sounds a little bit more like smack to me.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Please be specific. You drop a couple disconnected sentences and then disappear for a while.

If you're hoping for the last word, dream on. We're here every day.

------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Troll.

This has been another edition of simple answers to simple questions. 8D

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

for you to go back to your fawning unanimity here, but if this is how you perceive someone who is left of you from the same party god help us once the nomination is settled.

It's clear that no one here will see it this way, but my issue is that the nasty tone of the fight won't serve whoever comes out alive very well. You have succeeded in convincing me that Obama's camp has done a pretty good job of sliming the Clinton's while not getting called on it. Now can someone here please be honest enough to admit that the 3 am ad wasn't a legitimate question of character but an attempt to scare people into voting for Hill?

If the Bush administration has demonstrated anything, it is that pursuing an agenda at any cost has cost us dearly. Their agenda is to kill Democracy.

And Hillary's is...to save it?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You have succeeded in convincing me that Obama’s camp has done a pretty good job of sliming the Clinton’s while not getting called on it.

Good, then will you admit that Clinton has done nothing worse than what Obama has done to her? That's all we'd like is a little parity, and your wandering ramblings don't make it seem as if you understand that.

And I agree that the ad was a tame, very tame, attempt at fear mongering, it holds nothing when compared to the Daisy ad, or the Bear ad, or the Wolves ad, reincarnations of which Obama will be facing in the GE, so please, but on your big girl panties, and deal. The ad addressed a legitimate question of who you feel is "ready" to be president, something that has been the central theme of Clinton's campaign. Some people may feel that both are prepared to be president, but those that aren't, it helped them frame their choice in their mind.

And please, it really is no worse than the Supreme Court fearmongering being done to those who are refusing to vote for Obama, if he becomes the nominee.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Submitted by lambert on

I just don't think you can put together a coherent argument, that's all. And when you do, it's not very interesting. You can elevate your game, if you want. Maybe if you got your own blog?

Sure, Hillary threw a sharp elbow with the 3AM ad. Your point would be? That I should clutch my pearls?

As far as "asshole," we've already seen Obama destroy one online community, the MySpace volunteer site, and his supporters wreck another one, DK. I do think that people who destroy communities are assholes. What do you think they are? (Of course, the irony is that after Kos threw his own site away, he got nothing for it from Obama.)

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I accused him of being both a republican, for equating patriotism with loving your country, and of being a troll.

So I labelled him, he didn't label himself.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

I'm investing in Depends.

------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

-it was to make her look like she was in command 24/7, and always ready and working late, etc.

It was to make her look tough alone, and she's done stuff like that a lot.

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

IOW - It doesn't fit the narrative.

------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

he hasn't handled this right all along, and has lied numerous times and changed his story over and over.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I'm quite upset about Wright and how the whole issue is being used against Obama. I still wish Obama had addressed his hateful and sexist remarks about Clinton, but oh well. But his reaction to it shows that he is not ready for prime time. And Clinton is being proper about it, her and her campaign have stated that we should move on, but of course the media won't listen, because they can smell blood in the water.

I truly wish it was his depressing lack of experience, or shady financial connections that were the cause of his downfall, but I really want Clinton to win, and with this issue, at least it's his own damn fault, though of course, the Boiz won't see it that way. He shouldn't need to vet his pastor, but he is the one who drew his pastor into his story, so it is fair game, in the media's eyes, and he should know that.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

jackbrown's picture
Submitted by jackbrown on

Who was it who recorded those sermons? Not likely Barack... Perhaps he thought at first it would help him with his "Muslim Problem" but I'm not sure he could have done anything to stop this weeks' damage.

The guy seems to be out to destroy him- could anyone have seen that coming?

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

after one of Rev. Wright's sermons.

------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

What's your point jack?

------------------------------------------------
Real ponies don't oink - Patrick McManus

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

He had to play up his Christian creds, to put down fears that he is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate. But now his entire embrace of the faith, seems coldly political, which isn't helping Obama there.

What gets me about the whole issue, is like white.n.az posted, this recent repudiation is coming b/c it is harming him politically, whereas embrace Trinity helped him politically. He understood the threat Wright posed nationally, hell it was talked about in Rolling Stone. He could have taken steps to address Wright early in the campaign, but somehow believed it would just float on by.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!