Corrente

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

The Republicans impeached Clinton over a blowjob, and Obots now say nobody could have predicted Republicans would oppose Obama every way they could

Here's that talking point again:

Obama’s aides say he was never as clueless as Clinton — or any of his subsequent critics — portrayed him. Voters need inspiration, not just perspiration, and he was hoping his message would spur the GOP to compromise, they say.

“You don’t go out in a campaign and sell a B-plus, you go out and give people an ideal,” said Tommy Vietor, a former National Security Council spokesman who was a mainstay of Obama’s 2008 campaign press operation. “I think that was — and is — a key part of what made the president so successful. … And he didn’t know that the GOP leadership would make derailing progress* their one and only priority.

What I can't figure out... I can't figure out if the Obots are being stupid or evil. Did Obama's rump Democrats genuinely believe that the Republicans would compromise?** If so, that's a strategic miscalculation that borders on professional malpractice. Or are is it all kayfabe, and all the stuff that's happening to us -- the permanently high disemployment, the decline in real wages, the pathetically small stimulus package, the bank bailouts and the refusal to bail out states and localities, the HAMP program that harmed more than it helped because it was designed to "foam the runway" for big banks, the refusal to prosecute banksters for the outright theft of people's homes in the foreclosure crisis, the ongoing Clusterfuck that is ObamaCare -- are all desired policy outcomes shared by the political class? After some years of looking at this, I am inclined to the latter view: They're not stupid. They're evil. (Of course, some of them are stupid, too.)

* * *

Anyhow, Politico's article also mischieviously collected quotes some choice nuggets from Clinton's 2008 campaign. Things that -- and I know this will surprise you -- turned out to be true:

“There’s a big difference between us — speeches versus solutions, talk versus action,” Clinton said, also in the make-or-break month of February 2008. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank, or fill your prescription, or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night.”

We don't know what Hillary would have done. We do know what Obama did -- and didn't do. And this especially:

“I could stand up here and say: let’s just get everybody together, let’s get unified,” Clinton said, voice dripping with contempt long since discarded.

“The sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know that we should do the right thing, and the world would be perfect. Maybe I’ve just lived a little long, but I have no illusions about how hard this will be. You are not going to wave a magic wand…”

Yeah, well. Were the Democrats stupid and/or evil in 2008? Will the Democrats be stupid and/or evil in 2016? I don't know. But I don't think their candidate matters one bit. In other words, and unlike my view in 2008, I think that marginal is no longer significant.

NOTE * For some definition of "progress," obviously.

NOTE ** However, as Greenwald points out, the two legacy parties cooperate all the time:

One of the worst myths [Big Lies] Democratic partisans love to tell themselves - and everyone else - is that the GOP refuses to support President Obama no matter what he does. Like its close cousin - the massively deceitful inside-DC grievance that the two parties refuse to cooperate on anything - it's hard to overstate how false this Democratic myth is. When it comes to foreign policy, war, assassinations, drones, surveillance, secrecy, and civil liberties, President Obama's most stalwart, enthusiastic defenders are often found among the most radical precincts of the Republican Party.

NOTE **

0
No votes yet

Comments

Andre's picture
Submitted by Andre on

At the risk of sounding impertinent, this 'stupid vs evil' question bothered me for quite a while, but I settled it this way: evil, because everybody tells me what a brilliant guy Obama is and the same with all the people around him. And for sure I'm sick of getting emails from Democratic groups (bottom line; money) telling me about those dastardly republicans. They are, and I (who am nowhere near as smart as Obama and his cohorts) have known this since the nineties. And you guys sending out those email ; your problem is the 'republican' in the Whit House. I mean do I need a better example than this fiasco of Jobs (where has he been for five years?) in exchange for corporate tax cuts. Is that not how the Bush tax cuts got to be the Obama tax cuts, and the working stiff gets a 2 % tax increase? How could anybody think other than evil. The jobs endeavour he's working on now is a cover for corporate tax cuts which he has said he was going to do. He's the same slimeball who named the Chained CPI the 'Superlative CPI'. Who could deny it's evil

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

OTOH, what to do, when your choices are "Tweedledee" and "Tweedledum?"

Clearly, these choice between Obama and Clinton was no more than that.

I will post excerpts from Secretary Clinton's DLC "Saving the American Dream" (co-written with fellow corporatist Carper from Delaware) later.

It is a mirror image of Obama's domestic policies (actually, he copied the DLC, I imagine).

Regarding Christie--heard on XM that his approval is much higher among NJ Dems--70%.

Forget what his approval with Repubs was, but it was MUCH lower.

He is a corporatist. And Rubio speaks at Brookings quite often in front of mostly Dem audiences. He, like GWB, is a corporatist, with a Repub base "populist" veneer-Bush as a Christian Conservative and Rubio as a Tea Partier (notice Rubio has worked feverishly with corporatist Dems on the very corportist, business-friendly immigration package).

How to break through all the DNC and faux-liberal talking head "blather"--wish I knew.

But until someone figures this out, I can't see the direction of the Dem Party moving to the left.

Tragically, the well-meaning (at least in some cases) "folks" who are its base, mostly haven't figured out that it IS the corporatists Party today. (Since they've been so successful at eliminating all "pesky" factions from the left.).

Here's an excerpt from the DLC website bragging about getting President Bill Clinton elected.

The DLC: Centrist Wing of the Democratic Party

Founded in 1985 after President Ronald Reagan's reelection, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is a non-profit group that represents centrist and conservative Democratic party leaders.

Liberal critics contend that the DLC is a corporate mouthpiece which doesn't fight for the interests of everyday and downtrodden Americans, the traditional base of the Democratic party.

President Bill Clinton was elected in 1991 largely due to support from the DLC. And the DLC views President Clinton as proof of the viability of "third way politicians" and as a DLC success story.

If anyone figures out "what" can be done about this--please let me know. At this point, I'm close to deciding that penetrating the "propaganda bubble" that many Dems seem to inhabit, is not likely to happen. At least, not in my lifetime.

Notorious P.A.T.'s picture
Submitted by Notorious P.A.T. on

But we do know what Hillary did. She did nothing to opposeObama's drone murder program, or his illegal war against Libya, or his sale of weapons to Mideast dictators. She was arguably the second most influential person in this administration and did absolutely nothing to resist its crimes.

Submitted by dirac on

Yes, we need to cleanse ourselves of any residual puma-ism that sees the choice between Hillary and Barack as a choice aside from being analogous to any legacy party--marginal or no-op. Obama's an asshole: well-established pre-election. Hillary would've been a similar, if not more war-mongering, asshole. Can't say she'd bend over backwards for banks, insurance companies, Repubs like this guy but she's a DLC-style conservative and has had war lust for years.