Hillary may be my least-favorite candidate in the Democratic field. But the accommodationist pretzel logic that two of her opponents used to attack her in last night's debate shows she's not the only one overdosing on Overton-adjusted centrism:
Obama knocked Clinton on her failed health care policy during her husband's administration, telling her the reason it was lonely is because she "closed the door to Republicans," who did want to reform health care....Biden then took his turn and accused Clinton of being too polarizing a candidate.
WTF
!? Hillary's original health plan wasn't deferential enough to Repubs!?
What part of Paul Glastris's essential 2004 analysis don't they understand?
Indeed, quite early on in Clinton's presidency, GOP leaders explicitly decided to make the failure of Clinton's presidency their overriding goal, regardless of, and indeed in spite of, his attempts to move to the middle. The most telling moment came during Clinton's second big initiative, health-care reform. By any objective measure, the United States had--and still has--a terrible system, which spent far more per capita on health care than any other country while leaving a higher percentage of our population uninsured than in any other advanced industrialized nation. While many Republicans were skeptical of Clinton's preferred solution to the problem, they at first accepted a responsibility to pass some sort of plan. Yet they came to be persuaded by the advice of conservative operative William Kristol, who urged in a series of influential memos that the GOP oppose the Clinton plan "sight unseen," and commit to sinking whatever plan was devised--on the grounds that successful passage of any plan would keep the Democratic Party in power. In keeping with this advice, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole even abandoned his own health-reform proposal, the better to create gridlock.
And can we stop parroting the completely fallacious meme that Hillary is polarizing?
Hillary may be the least polarizing figure in America. She is the furthest center-right of any Democratic candidate for President. Because of her Republicrat stances, dyed-in-the-wool progressives range from unexcited to "I won't vote for her."
She's only "polarizing" if we get our political analysis from Kool-Aid buzzed Limbaugh lovers, who reflexively call her a fat, lesbian devil (their taste runs to fat, impotent devils). How sick is it that, in response to this nonsense, the entire MSM — and even fellow "liberals" — call for her (and, by extension, anyone to the left of her) to scootch ever-rightward?
UPDATE (12/11/08): Needless to say, for those who read my writing on the campaign, I grew favorably impressed throughout the process that Sen. Clinton re-earned her progressive bona fides, at least relative to her ultimate competition for the nomination.
Ironically, as the unfair attacks on her increased, the passionate support for her that seemed non-existent at the beginning developed in a big way, including from some very progressive progressives. I guess if you publicly brutalize someone enough, you do create a certain amount of self-fulfilling polarization, as some people join the fun, and others are appalled.
Looking back at the comments, it's IMHO interesting to reflect on how powerfully the "death march" phase of the campaign and its results tempted me to give up on the "lesser of two evils" doctrine, especially when that lesser-than became less and less certain to meet the threshold of, as Arthur paraphrased Digby, "2% less evil."
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I don't want Hillary to go to the right.
She already is.
She caters to money.
I don't know whether it was her experience in '92-'94 at the hands of the GOP anti-health-plan attack dogs, or what. But she's turned her back on the policies her own husband used successfully to find the 1993 WTC bombers (and put the mastermind in jail).
She's turned her back on made-in-America, on unions, on the public schools (the NEEDED reforms, you idiots in Congress, aren't more standardized tests and further dumbing-down; the NEEDED REFORMS ARE buildings that don't leak, have energy efficient lighting and HVAC, operable windows, decent classroom and lab facilities, and budgets that provide books FOR EVERY STUDENT with current, fact-based, realistic information and have publication dates in THIS CENTURY and openly discuss the benefits of contraceptives other than abstinence, explain mathematical concepts, don't hold "the theory of evolution" to be evil, acknowledge gravity and the principle that the sun is the center of the solar system, not the flat Earth; don't depend on pop machines in the halls for revenue, and don't outsource janitorial, cafeteria, and bus services to overpriced contractors -- Sodexho/Durham is the Blackwater of education -- pay teachers as well as or better than they pay the local garbage truck drivers, with longevity pay and health care, and DON'T pay administrative schmucks eight-figures-a-year in districts where married teachers qualify for food stamps). EDUCATION is INFRASTRUCTURE, dammit.
Hillary's not for fixing any of the infrastructure, because the powers of the unitary executive look so good to her. She's not for single-payer health care, she's not for bringing the troops home and letting the police track down bin Laden, she's not for ending the wars for oil, she's not for alternative energy sources and higher CAFE mileage requirements, she's not for fixing public transportation (have you even seen a Greyhound ad in years? Bingo!) or transport infrastructure like checking the zillions of incoming containers offshore before we get a dirty bomb in Houston, she hasn't stood up for the people of the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Katrina/Rita, and she isn't showing me any signs of giving one thin damn about farmers, miners, clerks, cashiers, fry cooks, engineers, rural clinics, urban clinics, the poor -- and by that I don't mena just black people or Hispanic people; I mean any and everybody not making at least 150% of poverty-level wages for their family-size, so they can afford not to be homeless -- and she hasn't shown any signs of giving a flip about mental health care, real airport security (I'm not talking about the TSA or DHS, both of which should be flushed out of existence no later than January 10, 2009!!!) or regular citizens.
The current "governance" of this country is predicated on and propped up by solicitation of bribery on the part of every elected official everywhere, from county commissioner upwards, except we call it "lobbying."
It sucks, and I won't vote for it even if it does put on a Democratic face in '08.
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
As I've said before...
... my vote will go next to the letter (D), but I'll be trying hard to help make sure there's not a "Clinton" on the other side of that (D) come November, 2008.
Three words (or is it two?): Run, Al, Run!
Until and unless he does, this is one Massachusetts primary vote that's going to Edwards, though I'll be thinking nice thoughts about Kucinich and Dodd.
my vote will go next to the letter (D)
Why?
What do you see your vote as doing?
Why support the show trial we call the two party system?
I honestly don't get it. Do you think the party represents some dimension of popular will?
How do you see voting and the party system relative to your interest as a citizen?
In my analysis the party system does nothing but create the illusion of choice for a predetermined outcome. The Republicans and Democrats are mananging the same agenda. There is no difference in their outcomes.
Look, for example at Levin-Reed
44 Dem votes for, 3 Repub votes for. There IS a difference between the two parties.
The Dem-led Congress (with its virtually non-existent majority in the Senate and lock-step Republicans who will block any decent legislation) has been a huge disappointment without doubt, but the case that there is no difference is not at all well-supported.
There IS a difference between Newt Gingrich and Hillary Clinton, even if you can rightly say both are corrupted. In practical terms, a vote that's not for a Democrat in 2008 is a vote for a Republican. As Poppy Bush used to say, "na ga do it."
Xen, yer analysis is spot on
The Republicans and Democrats are mananging the same agenda. There is no difference in their outcomes.
albeit probably heretical.
But you'd be in good company: Chomsky, for one, Gore Vidal for another.
I have yet to hear any candidate, but especially not one "Democrat", satisfactorily or even sketchily answer the question: What ill you do in your first 100 hours to restore the Constitution at LEAST to the state it was in PRIOR to December, 2000.
Of course, I've never heard it asked, either...
A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
More...
With Al Gore do we invade Iraq as a response to Al-Qaeda? Of course not.
Do we even have votes about torture, or have an Attorney General who calls the Geneva Conventions quaint? Of course not.
As the Repubs say, elections have consequences, and letting those valueless motherfuckers anywhere near positions of power is a very, very bad idea.
Oh Please
You know how I feel about Gore. Besides, he and Bill did enough damage in their eight years. Not to mention his aiding and abetting of the Bush coup.
Xenophon, I think we agree Clinton abetted the Coup
because there was precedent for stopping riots by sending in troops. He might not have been able to get Florida National Guard, but in November 2000 we did have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard active-duty strength right here in the Continental United States.
IF Ike could send troops to integrate schools, why couldn't Clinton send troops to protect vote counting?
We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! Knowing that we’re not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0
1 John 4:18
Look, for example at Levin-Reed
an example of what? The Casey Rumsfeld plan from 2005 rehashed as Democratic strength? I'm sorry, where is the difference between this outcome and the one that was drafted three years ago. The tours of duty are up, they can't be extended. No shit they are coming home. That is no political will. That is not moral rectitude. It's called making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The illusion of choice where an outcome has been predetermined so as to create the impression that we "did" something. The policy effect is the same. No difference between democrat and republican.
Sarah: "It sucks, and I won’t vote for it even if it does"
Didja say sumpin 'bout bein' separated at birth?
A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
"Look, for example at Levin-Reed"
THIS Levin Reed Amendment?
A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
Me? A Quick Study, But A Slow Learner
The Gore-would-or-would-not have-been-different permathread
On the one hand, this statement by VL seems to be to be absolutely obvious:
If only because many Democrats are not, well, insane.
On the other hand, the slide toward loss of Constitutional government that Woody and Sarah et al. point to is clearly a long-term "secular" trend ("coup" is clearly the wrong word) , and Clinton at the very least did not stop it and may have moved it ahead (and I think we and the black helicopter crowd merge here, did we each but know it).
Leaving, as always, a choice between evils--and slapping the Dems hard when they fuck up, because some of them do have integrity, and in any case slapping a Republican is, oh, like trying to get a Komodo dragon to sing grand opera.
Oh, and at this point, sending money to challengers and figuring what else to do.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Thanks all, now I'll sleep better at night...
Knowing there was no difference between a Bush presidency and a Gore presidency.
No more agita about butterfly ballots, Nader voters, a media fixated on sighs and lactating candidates, uncertified military ballots. And no worries about disenfranchised black voters or Gore's failing to pursue a quixotic quest to get the best of a stacked Supreme Court by being the only man in the Senate to speak up on his behalf.
Because unless the election went to Nader or La Rouche or Noam Chomsky, the result didn't matter. Because Democrats and Republicans are exactly the same. Anyone who worked to get Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton elected was a fool. 12 more years of Republican hegemony would have meant nothing.
Got 44 Senators who want to end the war in Iraq? Fuck
'em. That's nothing to build on. Let's have 100 Republican Senators. After all, 3 of them voted to end the war. Now that's something to build on!
Of course, they're different, VastLeft
The Soros branch of the Carlyle Group has a much higher class of assassins flying its black helicopters than Blackwater.
Finesse. Nuance. Wine and cheese. Really covert activities instead of clumsily blundering, bloodthirsty violence.
Money invested wisely in satisfying the working massess instead of bloating the masters.
There is a difference...
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Rises to give vastleft a standing ovation
for expressing my sentiments exactly.
Christ on a cracker, people! We were promised--"if we can keep it" as the man said--a more perfect union, not a perfect one. And most definitely not a paradisial utopian happily-ever-after fucking fairy tale.
Disappointment with bad decisions is entirely reasonable and necessary. The offenders must be chastised into improvement. We must keep the heat on under the Only Serious
Question--"what are you going to do to restore the Constitution, mister/madame candidate?"--until it starts being asked in the aboveground media and until we start getting answers we like.
This woe is me, not a dime's worth of difference, not gonna vote because nobody's perfect enough...fuck that shit. We were supposed to get over the practice of throwing ourselves on the floor, kicking our heels, waving our little baby fists and screaming until we got what we wanted back around the time of our third birthdays, a milestone I do believe I can safely say we all have passed.
Just to note, typing at a desk from a standing position is uncomfortable and leads to typos, so I'm gonna sit down now. But thanks again even seated vasty. You said it beautifully. :)
The election is over a year away.
The reality is that Democrats are the only real alternative to Republicans. There is substantially more than a dime's difference, as the difference between this decade and the '90s shows all too well. In the clinch, I will vote for Hillary over Ghouliani.
But in the meantime I have the right to call foul loudly regardless of what my "betters" think. Even if both DINOcrats and Rethuglicans accuse me of treason.
And I still think THB has the right idea.
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
kelley, I agree with you and THB
I don't plan to give money to Democratic organizations or Congressional candidates who don't focus on solving the problems caused by Dems being (variously) too outnumbered, too chickenshit, or to Republicratty to take a proper stand.
I will, though, likely send $$$ to the Democratic nominee for president. In the meantime, I'll be trying in my own small ways to help make sure I won't have to hold my nose while writing that check.