Yeah, you heard me… fuck them both. Bill & Hill.
Fuck Bill because he made it fashionable for Democrats to abandon liberalism… his ‘centrist’ policies gave the Dems false hope that by appealing to the “middle” and moving rightward in security and economics somehow all those Bible-thumping, gun-toting, SUV driving meat heads that are further to the right of David Duke will all of a sudden say “Gee wilikers, that Hillary Clinton or Joe Lieberman sure would make a good President… way better choice than Bill Frist or John McCain.” Get real. All it does is give those who are not so far to the right the thought that “if liberal Hillary Clinton agrees with Frist then the Republican way of doing bidness must be the ONLY way to go.
So fuck Hillary for following in his footsteps.
I am sick to death of Vichy Dems collaborating with the neocons in the takeover of Democracy because they fear “alienating some voters”.
You know what that is right Hillary? It’s called cowardice. Or having no spine. Selling Out Democracy & 1/2 of the American’s who didn’t vote for Bush.
More rant on the flip.
Yeah, they’re talking a good game… form a vision, don’t just criticize… but ya know what the damn real problem is guys?
That you never, ever, actually, criticized Bush. Nope, never did. Danced around it. Toyed with it. But never actually came out and did it.
And you still won’t.
Some choice quotes from The Democratic Leadership Council’s two-day session in Columbus, Ohio, which opened yesterday… which was called, yup, you guessed it… “Heartland Values, Bold Solutions: An American Reform Agenda,”
Seriously? Are you really surprised Mr. Master Strategist? Here’s a tip… it might have something to do with Vichy Dems falling all over themselves to lick Bush’s boots after 9/11 and which continues to this day… why no positive sentiment… because in the majority of the public’s eyes… YOU ARE ONE AND THE SAME AS BUSH. You supported his policies. You didn’t call out his bullshit and lies. You didn’t stand for an alternative path. You didn’t speak with any other conviction then HIS.
So yeah, now you’re pretty well fucked.
That’s why Dems like Obama and Boxer and Conyers have risen in opinion polls while the Dem party as a whole has not. Go figure.
That will be $50k in consulting fees please.
See above… with an addendum… stop letting Feinstein & Lieberman & Clinton speak for the party and ONLY let Dean, Boxer, Gore & Obama speak for the party for a good year or two… then see what happens to your articulation and connection with the American public. I dare you.
Oh no. Here we go again. Listen up. Democrats cannot win the South with the current redistricting. They can’t. It won’t happen. Especially since the DLC doesn’t give a shit about helping out minority voters in the South (or anywhere else in the fucking country) to actually get their votes counted. There I said it. Without ELECTION REFORM nothing matters. Not strategies, not wads of cash, not a better media, nothing. Those who control the voting machinery control the outcome. Plain and simple.
What would the election have looked like if all those problems hadn’t happened in OH or PA or FL last year? What if there weren’t 8 hour lines in Cleveland? Perhaps the Electoral College would have swung and Kerry would be president. You never know. But the fact that we don’t know and still no one complained tells me all I need to know about the DLC and the appeasement Dems.
Where was the courage? Where was the outrage? Where was the concern for the 48 million people who didn’t vote for Bush? Why should I give a shit about the Dems now? Seriously. I’d still vote for them alright since I understand the ramifications of keeping Bush in office, but why should I have positive feelings about people who sold millions of American’s out? And if I feel this way, imagine those people who don’t follow politics as much as I do or know just how bad Bush is…
Right. Another $50k please James.
Let’s make a deal here Hillary et al (and I do apologize for picking on you Hill, but it’s just too hard not to, I had such high hopes for you)…
You stop being court jesters and I’ll start thinking of you positively. Until then I’m only paying attention to Dean, Boxer, Conyers, Slaughter et al. You know, the guys who care.
</rant>
Quotes from: Bloomberg – Democratic Centrists Plot Path to Counter Republican Dominance
{cross posted at My Left Wing}
for the profanity… I’m having a MSOC moment. 🙂
Feel free to disagree and lay into me… dissent is good…
Sorry, but I can’t dissent because I agree so fucking much with what you said.
I agree.
When I tell someone how I have voted over the years, I say I voted Republican two times – both were for Clinton.
I share your sentiments. The future for liberals/dems is in the West. You’re spot on, the South’s gone-don’t ignore what base is there-but concentrate in the West-keep pushing in the rust belt because they’re about to implode w/ the union busting. Now that all those good, high-pay auto workers jobs are going to Canada,they’re finally starting to get it that they’re being fucked over.
“keep pushing in the rust belt because they’re about to implode w/ the union busting. Now that all those good, high-pay auto workers jobs are going to Canada,they’re finally starting to get it that they’re being fucked over. “
yes, indeed they have.
by NAFTA. And clinton. And the pro-corporate congressional Dems.
Of course they’ve been fucked by republicans, also. Outside of some backwards areas of suburbia, thats a universally accepted fact. But its also pretty widely accepted that the democrats are no better, are just as pro-corporate, are just as anti-worker, and are unwilling to fight for working people.
You ever wonder why only 1/2 the country votes?
“fucked a little more” or “fucked a little less” isn’t gonna energise your supposed base. Its certainly not gonna convince people to skip work to vote for you.
Spiderleaf spelled his point out very succinctly: “…let Dean, Boxer, Gore and Obama speak for the party…” I agree.
Sure, NAFTA screwed with a lot of people, but it’s the reality of the situation. Do you think these folks are going to get off their asses and participate in what purports to be a democratic process without a viable alternative to the “pro-corporate” democrats? Read the diary, you bring nothing to the table with this.
My point is that the problem is deeper than who happens to have the mic at the time. People no longer trust the party, and imo, for good reason.
I don’t see how Dean, Boxer, Gore, Obama, etc, can change that. You can’t undo decades of damage with a new face on tv.
I see it like this: people are sick of this country being run by the rich and unaccountable. People want a say in what happens. They want to make a decent living. They want jobs. They want health care. They want schools. They want peace.
No one is offering them any of this. No one in politics, from Mr.KillThemAllAndLetGodSortThemOutBush, to Mr.WhatWeNeedInIraqIsMoreSoldiersDean, has anything to offer the average voter.
and he’s been saying so consistently–offering more to the lower and middle classes, including southerners, was the basis of his run for President.
It’s fair to disagree with him on the Iraq situation, but he opposed the invasion in advance when very few others did. He had a programs for health care (and a record of establishing it in Vermont), revamping trade agreements, labor rights, and he was blasted for saying that the party should be reaching out to the southern white male voters who are presently voting Republican.
The open criticism of party chairman Dean by some of the Democrats who fit your portrait is good evidence that Dean is nowhere near the lost cause that many others seem to be.
Poppycock. The redistricting in TX and FL is genuine gerrymandering, but that’s not true of the whole South. The problem with the South — speaking as someone born and bred there — is that the bulk of the population is convinced that liberals are a bunch of scheming, lying, conniving subversives. If you ask them why, they’ll repeat GOP talking points.
It’s not that there aren’t plenty of traditional (as opposed to DLC) Dem positions that don’t have broad appeal in the South, it’s that the Dems have no credibility. Some of this is because the GOP has been so effective at constructing straw men, but the bulk of it is because — as this diary’s rant explains — the Democrats have proven themselves to be spineless vote whores.
We do not need to be more like Republicans to win in the South. We need to be more like Democrats.
As a Canadian who knows a lot of “conservative” Southerners, there’s another thing I’ve heard repeated a lot as a reason why they don’t like the Democratic party.
Clinton.
A lot of Southerners seem to distrust the Democrats because of Clinton. Not just because of his spineless vote whoring, but because of the whole Lewinsky affair. And not because of what he did with her, but because of what he did when asked about it: lied, prevaricated, and tried to avoid taking responsibility for as long as possible. This lead directly to their perception of “all Democrats are liars”.
A common talking point about Bush, circa two years ago: “He may be bad, but at least he’s never gone up on TV and lied to the people.” Of course, we’ve since confirmed that he did go up on TV and lie to the people. Most of the Southerners I know now refuse to talk politics, as opposed to gleefully expounding the virtues of Republican Totalitarianism.
I consider it a marked improvement.
I did move here though in October before the election. The Democrats that live down here are Fricken Commando Democrats I shit you not! These people who had the Kerry signs plastered all over home, auto, and yard have more COJONES than I can ever hope to have. I type on here and remain faceless but these YAHOOS drove around town among those that they have known all of their life COMPLETELY FEARLESS to vandalism! I think the economy down here is pretty dismal, but this seems to be kind of a prosperous time down here if I understand the history of the location I’m in. There isn’t any welfare or social programs though down here either and this state is broke as all hell, if the national economy goes all four up these Redsters have no safety net and nobody gives a shit about them in the end. If this economy tanks, THE REPUBS WILL LOSE THE SOUTH FOREVER because the local Democrats eat nails for breakfast and piss lemonade and they are very patient in waiting to making their points! These folks don’t have much, but bible thumping seems to be keeping the wolf at bay lately and keeps the president happy, hungry kids wakes us all up! If you think the Red Staters are scary though, you should see how scary their local Democrats are down here! It’s like comparing street gangs to the Mafia!
Tracy? Your writing is awesome. Diary this. Please.
Heh. Welcome to the South! And thank you for noticing what liberals in the abandon-the-South faction seem blind to: we Southern Democrats are a very devoted bunch. We have to be just to make it out of grade school in one piece. Give us a serious candidate instead of folks like Kerry and Dukakis, and we’ll follow you to hell and back.
Word to the wise: Hillary Clinton is not that candidate.
I’d hate to imagine the reaction of my more moderate Southern friends to Hillary, but given their reaction to Bill, I can guarantee it wouldn’t be positive. What’s really kind of sad is that her increasingly rapid movement to the right (and that of other similar Democrats) makes them less inclined to trust and vote for her. Because, rightly, they have no idea what the hell she believes and values. Well, other than money and power.
Loved the rant. Agree Agree and I probably think you could have taken further. Time for a clean slate and new faces. But if you don’t fix the voting problems you can win with anyone.
That is suppose to be can’t win.
and then vote for her…
this was a done deal two years ago… Clark is in it for the ride.
Agree all the way, Spiderleaf. I still hear all the time from non- or Green-voters that there’s no difference between the two major parties. I’ve never understood all the Clinton worship from Democrats who should know better.
I do know that the Clintons are brimming over with faults and I still find myself often worshiping at the alter CLINTON. I tend to focus on what was accomplished verses how far back he set us and that is my own character flaw there.
Screw the democrats (most of them). Run your own candidates. I’ve had it with the lesser of two evils. I’m not likely to vote if that is the only choice. This is a complicated issue though, in the sense of asking oneself, just how dependent are we on a corrupt system?
Checkmate…
””””See above… with an addendum… stop letting Feinstein & Lieberman & Clinton speak for the party and ONLY let Dean, Boxer, Gore & Obama speak for the party for a good year or two… then see what happens to your articulation and connection with the American public. I dare you.”””’
I couldn’t agree more, you speak for me spiderleaf, and eloquently.
Hillary is making her way into the MSM spin machine as the big 2008 presidential hopeful.
And you know what? I used to love Hillary Clinton. She is around-about my age, though from a background of privilege that doesn’t and never will apply to me and — up until her performance in the Senate — I felt a tremendous sympathy for her. In my lifetime, she was my ALL-TIME most admired First Lady. Even throughout the Lewinsky neocon sting I thought she behaved with total awesome dignity.
So what happened?
Let’s extrapolate from the “outing” of CIA operative Valerie Wilson. This was executed to punish Mr. Wilson and warn any other liberal traitor whistleblowers who might be insane enough to challenge the Right Wing Mafia’s march to the Invasion (and appropriation of the oil) of Iraq. I mean, just think if this had got out and stained the ostentatious MISSION ACCOMPLISHED in the trendy flight suit scenario?
So they looked upon intelligence gathering agencies as their handmaidens and who can blame them since who set up the so-called intelligence gathering agencies in the first place? GHW Bush canonized “intelligence” when it was only really INFORMATION i.e. data that was manipulated to serve xyz political agenda.
So thru a little-known, arcane, complicated and probably insanely judicially activist law…
…that was initiated by GHW Bush — former CIA director and eventual heir to the assassination of John F Kennedy, his brother, and (by extension) his family… not to imply that Divine Favoritism for the right wing extremist agenda could have included JFK Jr. though it looks like when Rove goes to church he needs to thank God for a couple more fortuitous deaths, including the plane crash that killed Paul Wellstone.
So.. through enactment of this arcane, complicated law we are treated to an X-RAY of the dirty pretty tricks that our ultimately smart and oh so amazingly evil fellow human being Karl Rove has cooked to paralyze anyone who has either the charisma or the balls to come up against his neocon-sycophant agenda.
And — based on her record in the Senate — I don’t think this includes Hillary Clinton.
Hillary? Are you listening? Stand up for your principles. Stand up for them for better or worse, just like you stood up for Bill. In the end, no matter what happens, you will be in the best company.
So investigation into the disclosure of a clandestine operative to accommodate the right wing extremist takeover of this county is an X-RAY that we can use to diagnose the disease that right wing ownership of the media has become.
And, BTW, do you have any secrets? Ever done anything you regret or are ashamed of? Are you human with human failings? Well, “intelligence gathering” in this country has put that regrettable mistake into the hands of the wrong people, and they will let you know (just like they must have let folks like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and maybe even Al Gore know) who they will tell — Matt Cooper? Bob Novak? Judy Miller? — if you don’t do their bidding.
Hillary? Go to bed with your conscience. That’s all any of us will do, in the end.
Rock and Roll ….
for you …
AHHH — fuckin — men!
I don’t have any tolerance for true Vichy Dems like the ones I diaried about recently, and I can’t stand Lieberman generally. But most of the people you pillory here are right on in my book, at least in the advice you quote, and I think we ought to be listening a lot more to strategists like Carville and Mudcat Saunders. I’m as left wing as you are in my personal views, I would bet, but I believe the advice you present is a recipe for electoral disaster.
I also find it endlessly ironic (and, frankly, frustrating) that so many people who want the party to turn left fail to recognise that Howard Dean’s actual record as governor was at least as centrist as that of any of those DLC guys.
However, there is one point you made that I agree with 100%:
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it many more times, I’m sure: Senate Democrats should filibuster everything until this is passed and signed.
-Alan
Dean is very much not centrist. A centrist believes in moving to the centre of the political spectrum – thus the name. They hold no real convictions, other than that the centre is a good place to get votes. Dean is a moderate. There’s a distinction, and the only reason not to make it is to attempt to diminish or counteract Dean’s work.
Whatever you want to call it, Dean’s record is not a very progressive one. In fact, when you consider that he ran statewide alongside Bernie Sanders, his illiberal (“moderate”) positions become even more questionable. It’s one thing to moderate your positions because your constituents are more conservative than you are–but c’mon: we’re talking about the “People’s Republic of Vermont” here.
-Alan
His record was liberal enough for the “People’s Republic of Vermont” to elect him multiple times with rather large margins. Your argument is self-defeating, congratulations.
Also, your very attitude demonstrates why we loathe the Clinton Dynasty. “It’s one thing to moderate your positions because your constituents are more conservative than you are”? Listen to yourself! If you’re moderate, you should be moderate because that’s what you believe. If that’s not what you believe, then you shouldn’t be moderate, regardless of what your constituents believe.
Your statement is the epitome of centrist thinking.
And I just don’t agree with you. Sacrificing political strategy in order to stubbornly insist on one’s own beliefs is a good way to cede power to the other side (who usually won’t make that mistake). I can cite examples, by the way, where Dean has done the same thing (one that comes to mind is vis-a-vis flag burning).
I posted a defense of political pragmatism at My Left Wing and I’ll excerpt some of it here, as it seems germane:
-Alan
Nice to see you sidestep the core of my point: if Dean’s so rabidly right-wing, then why did the left-wing people of Vermont keep voting for him? The only sensible answer, of course, is that he is not rabidly right-wing, and is not centrist. Rather, he proposes sensible, moderate solutions to problems, which both the progressive left and rabid right in Vermont found attractive and acceptable. Contrast with the Clintons, whose centrist positions have drawn the hatred of both the left and right, and have been directly responsible for many aspects of the decline of the Democratic party.
Also, changing a stance on one issue is not a sign of the behaviour I’m talking about. Claiming that it is shows that you fundamentally do not understand the concept of philosophies and beliefs. Dean, after discussing the issue with people around him, changed his position on flag burning to one that, bearing in mind the new information, better reflected his core values. This is fundamentally distinct from the actions of the Clintons and other Vichy Dems, whose stated beliefs change based on the way the wind’s blowing. Dean, in contrast, has described how each of his changes was inspired by his core beliefs.
Your vision of political “pragmatism” is also fundamentally misguided. Attempting to game the system that way is the very sin the DLC is guilty of, and the very thing that put the Republicans in power. By doing that, you ensure that the discourse will move away from your ideal position, rather than towards it. The Republicans – specifically, the theocrats – gained power by refusing to compromise and voting for the politicians that most closely matched their vision. They also advocated that others vote the same way. The end result was that they crafted a small (20% of the electorate maximum) but cohesive voting block that votes consistently based on their beliefs.
Attempting to game the system that way is also fundamentally misguided. The central assumption of a democratic system is that citizens will vote for the candidates who best match their beliefs. Voting, instead, for a candidate who you think will win is directly responsible for the mindset responsible for degenerating democracy into a popularity contest and shouting match. It means that the best way to win is to make people think you will win, rather than govern successfully or articulate sensible positions.
First, a couple quick hits: The New York Times said last year that Dean “governed as a centrist Democrat”. The Nation referred in 2000 to “centrist Democrat Howard Dean”. And by the way, I didn’t even Google “Howard Dean” and “centrist”. Both of those quotes came up in two of the first three Google hits for the search “Dean Pollina 2000 ‘Green Party'” (I erroneously believed Pollina ran as a Green candidate, which he did not).
That’s a strawman. I never said he was “rabidly right wing”, of course. I said he was illiberal, and I stand by it. Did you actually read the Nation piece I linked to in my previous post?
They didn’t! From another op-ed piece in the Nation:
Pollina said the following about Dean in a 2002 interview:
Common Dreams had an interesting piece on Dean early in his presidential run:
Another piece on Dean lauds his cautious centrism, and–since it is a pro-Dean piece–is particularly interesting in terms of Dean quotes and other tidbits:
(I was tempted to bust that out as my own opinion and see if you denounced it…but I decided not to be that mean.)
More from that piece:
I think I’ve made a pretty airtight case here, but have at it.
So why can’t I use your logic and say “Well, Clinton won twice, getting support from millions of left wingers”? I’m sorry, but it looks to me like your rules change depending on whether or not you like the politician you’re applying them to.
It’s increasingly clear that you can’t be objective when it comes to Dean. You’re really twisting yourself up like a pretzel here.
But when Dean said he “was a triangulator before Clinton was a triangulator” that was completely different? Ummm…trying not to be too sarcastic here, but can’t you see why that looks a little suspect?
Here’s what I’d love for you to very specifically address: are you saying that it would actually make sense for me to vote for the candidate who supports my whole far left wishlist? Even though it’s likely that said wishlist would be anathema to over 90% of Americans? You’re rhetorically backed into a corner here, so you may respond in the affirmative (or not respond at all), but I find it hard to imagine that this is really what you believe.
No, that’s really not what happened at all. They voted for guys (Reagan, Bush fils) who presented a moderate facade while using codewords to indicate themselves as allies of their cause. Note, for instance, how poorly Gary Bauer did in 2000.
Wow, this post turned into quite the magnum opus! But I think this is so important, that we (a) not make a suicidal turn away from political pragmatism or “triangulation” if you will; and (b) not go along with this revisionist history that makes Howard Dean out to be this great champion of progressive causes when it’s just not so.
-Alan
No, Slacker, it’s increasingly clear that you can’t be objective when it comes to anything or anyone. You’re twisting yourself up like a pretzel trying to make Dean out to be a centrist whore and Hillary Clinton the Jesus of the Left, and you’re failing miserably. Quoting the NYT to prove that Dean is a Centrist because they say so? Nice job, nice evidence, nice lies. Also, you persist in calling moderation centrism, and refuse to distinguish between the two concepts. Good job.
Also, Clinton won twice because of Perot, and only because of Perot. Clinton’s strategy has since lost twice, and will continue to lose. Dean won far more than two elections in Vermont – I think the number was closer to ten – and the vast majority of progressives in his state supported him.
As an example of what the difference is, see the not-so-good Senator Clinton’s reaction to the “Hot Coffee” affair.
What are you talking about? Hot coffee?
well, anyway, I drink tea.
Hillary jumped on board with a right-wing’s group reaction to a mod to unlock deleted content in a video game. Her position makes no sense whatsoever; it was chosen merely because it is likely to play well with the right.
I hadn’t heard about “Hot Coffee” (I don’t play videogames); but after Googling the issue I don’t see the problem with her position (for that matter, I never understood the furor over the PMRC either–what’s wrong with protecting children from explicit content?).
To say this was a right wing position doesn’t wash. True, the GOP supported it overwhelmingly, but so did House Democrats–the resolution passed 355-21 and there just aren’t that many Vichy Dems. I mean, among those who voted for the resolution were Dennis Kucinich and self-proclaimed “independent socialist” Bernie Sanders!
-Alan
The issue is that the game is being re-rated based on content that is not actually present in the game being sold, but which can be added by the user. If this is the criteria used, it sets a disturbing precedent for all kinds of media. If, for example, I am capable of dropping pornographic images into an MS Word document, does that make MS Word software that can only be sold to adults? That’s basically what she’s saying.
It’s blatant, disgusting pandering to the right-wing culture cop crowd.
(This isn’t to say that video games shouldn’t be rated. I think they should, and the GTA series is an excellent example of why. However, the criteria being used to justify this rating change is utterly absurd.)
Sounds like you’re a little behind on the story. According to the London Times,
Do you have kids? I have two of them, and I also have a lot of friends who are parents, and liberal Democrats as well. My anecdotal observation is that all of us are part of what I guess you would call a “left-wing culture cop crowd”–one difference from the right wing version, btw, being that we are just as concerned about violence as sex, if not moreso. Bottom line is that I don’t see Clinton arguing for restrictions on what adults can buy or rent, so what’s the problem?
And just to be clear: you are also accusing Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich of “blatant, disgusting pandering to the right-wing culture cop crowd”, right? Those two seem like unlikely suspects for such pandering, but I’m sure you don’t want to be inconsistent here. 😉
-Alan
What is so sacred about allowing porn to infiltrate every part of our lives?
I guess I’m another left-wing culture cop. I frankly don’t like the porn culture and don’t want my kids to learn that that’s what sex and relationships are all about.
Hillary is in it for the long run, and when the touchdown happens, if it happens, it will all be for her, not one damned red cent for the public, count on it! (one cent at a time)
You might enjoy this simpatico rant by Marisacat at Liberal Street Fighter as well:
Amen, my friend.
If Bill “Sun King” Clinton was so great, why did we end up with eight years of Bush after Bill’s reign?
As for Hillary, I stopped caring about her years ago. She’s just another soulless drone of the same dishonest continuum that’s been in control of this country since 1980. She’s nothing special. Never has been. She is a typical Washington elite politician except she has breasts. Big deal.
Dean, well, I don’t know about him. There’s a difference between being “centrist” as a philosophy (ie Republican lite) and holding a lot of different positions that make you look centrist from a distance. Most people who are in politics have a grand unified ideology (theology?) of all their various positions. I think Dean does not tie his positions together in that way, for better or worse.
Since Dean has staked out his lot as the voice of the opposition — though not really the voice of the left — he is more palatable. Living on the fringe of the elites as he does, he at least has the opportunity to formulate new approaches and a new polity that really does represent the concerns of the true left. This polity simply hasn’t congealed yet. Everything Dean is doing is running on instinct, although it’s an instinct that’s distinctly different from that of Hillary.
I suspect Dean will move (or appear to move) more to the left as the DLC strikes back. Given the choice between joining the elite and opposing it, he will oppose as a matter of course.
Well, I never liked her. I really groked why many other Republicans hate her so much.
I was about to forgive her much of what I hated about her, but she rocketed back to the SOLE listee on my “People I can’t stand and just about hate” list. Her and that dumbass lawyer Thompson throwing a FIT over some hacked content added to GTA: San Andreas, AND THEN having the nerve to “come out” against “The Sims 2” because you can, kinda, if you download hacks, skins, and new models, you can, kinda, have naked children running around.
So what’s next, I can white out those words in my book and replace them with naughty things? Should we take all the blank paper in this world and burn it? Are we going to hold everyone accountable for what other people do to their works? She threw out the Chewbacca defense and people bought it.
GOD DAMN I can’t stand that woman!
You go girl! And all those other hail-fellow-well-met cliches. That was beautifully said. I usually decry the use of sexual terms as a verbal attack, but how else can you say it so us jaded ones comprehend?
Thanks Spiderleaf, it needs to be said out loud.
As I see it now, and what with all this dynastism in the WH, I am an Independent that will not vote for Hillery. I probably need to keep my mouth shut on this one, but as I see it the democratic party needs to be coming from the left and far left an then it will attract me. If I wanted a center of the line, I would vote for that.. Maybe I am a crazy out here, but I do not think she is the one to be considered here.
Once we get the dynasty out of the WH then maybe we can get back to business of the ppl.
I honest to god don’t know what I’ll do if she’s the one. I have a very good imagination but it comes to a screeching halt at the thought of writing a check to her or stumping for her. Can’t. Do. It. But people will say, “We’ve got to get the Republicans out of the White House!!!” To which I can only think, “and she would be an improvement, how?”
And she just keeps moving further right. Yesterday the DLC, the day before the video game nonsense, and tomorrow. . .what? Once a Young Republican, always a “Young” Republican. ( Goldwater supporter in high school, President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College)
My skin crawls. The only possible silver lining I could see would depend on a Democratic majority in Congress. Then, and only because she leans toward the popular kids, might she do the right (left) things.
Brrr.
And whoever the Republicans nominate… takes the White House.
Guaranteed. Period.
Absolutely right. That’s why this is so infuriating and hard. Rock, hard place. Once in the booth, because I’d probably force myself to go, I’d vote for her over the Repub, but doing anything up to that point? I just can’t tell you how strong my physical resistance is to that,for good or ill.
but recent polls showing her getting a majority of the electorate’s support (including trial heats against major GOP contenders), plus what I consider very canny moves to reach out to swing voters, have made me reconsider that view.
I guess it’s those moves to reach out that have pissed off a lot of you. But if I may offer a little “inside” insight: my mom (who’s about as liberal/left as they come) served with Hillary on the board of a liberal foundation in the mid-to-late 80s. She found Hillary to be a genuinely caring, progressive person. So I tend to suspect that this is still where her heart lies.
She’s still unlikely to get my support in the primaries, though. That will go to Edwards unless something changes drastically.
-Alan
Recent polls showed Kerry with a solid lead too. I don’t buy them. Maryscott’s right. Running Hillary will be like running Kerry or Dukakis. They poll well at first, then their support evaporates.
it is time for the Dem party to stand for something instead of just not being “them”.
I couldn’t agree more!
If they want to be DLC… Let them do it in the other party. I could only hope they would take Lieberman with them!