In a short post here regarding a Craig Crawford pro-Clinton article, Booman asks the far from rhetorical question Do We Really Hate Ourselves This Much?
I ask a counter-question:
Do we really hate Hillary Clinton this much?
Read on for more.
Ms. Clinton may be the most accomplished professional politician in America today. On the evidence of her continued…and apparently continuing…success. She means to get elected, by whatever means necessary. You can consider this sheer egotism; you can consider it the efforts of a closet reactionary, or…you can also consider it Lincoln and FDR- influenced practical politics.
I mean…Aghast!!!…SHE MAY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF THE MAJORITY!!!
Say it ain’t so, Joe!!!
Because if you were to round up every American over the age of 21 and insert a brain probe in each and every one of them, a majority would agree with her on this subject. (The vast CENTRIST conspiracy. Centrist. The very definition of the word “majority”.) All lobbying is NOT evil in their minds. Not the kind that helps them, anyway.
Now…maybe they have been brainwashed by the media. And maybe they haven’t. But they ARE “the majority”.
Bet on it.
She is.
What she is saying, apparently…and her increasing pluralities among polled Democrats appear to back up her position…is that it is not “the system itself” that is fucked up, it is THE WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED.
It is not the military or the concept of self-defense against increasingly violent enemies that is broken, it is THE WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED.
It is not the idea of large groups of people who have common interests bonding together to influence legislators, it is THE WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED.
It is not the fundamentally and historically multi-cultural society that has arisen here in the United States since its inception…including the media…it is THE WAY THAT IT IS BEING USED.
The way that it is being used by a…and remember, this is her phrase, at least insofar as she was the one who brought it to national attention if she did not write it herself…by a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY.
Duh.
I think that your question is a valid one, Booman, although probably not in the way that you meant it.
You wrote ” Do we really hate ourselves this much?” I think that the real question should be do we hate ourselves SO much that we are willing to tear down the structures that have grown up here over several hundred years of attempts at “democracy”…an ongoing experiment that is not pass or fail in nature but rather a process of discovering what works and what doesn’t, an ongoing process that consists of the refinement of what works and the rejection of what does NOT work.
Do we hate ourselves THAT MUCH!!!???
Or do we try to fix what is broken without rejecting the mechanisms that HAVE worked? Mechanisms…like lobbying…that have worked well enough over 300+ years to produce an incredibly prosperous and strong nation.
Not a “perfect” nation, by any means, but one that is still capable of growth and change if the yoke of said vast right wing conspiracy can be thrown OFF of its mechanisms.
That appears to be her position to me.
Is she right?
I personally am not sure. Tempermentally I tend towards the revolutionary, myself.
But I do think that we are about to find out.
Poll: Dems favor Clinton over Obama
WASHINGTON — New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has significantly widened her lead over Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination in the wake of a dispute over handling foreign policy, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds.
The survey, taken Friday through Sunday, puts Clinton at 48% — up 8 percentage points from three weeks ago — and Obama at 26%, down 2 points. Among Democrats and independents who “lean” Democratic, former North Carolina senator John Edwards is at 12%.
The 22-point gap between the two leaders is nearly double the margin found in the July 12-15 poll.
“People are seeing her as the one ready to be president,” says Mark Penn, Clinton’s chief strategist, a perception he says was “accelerated” by the recent debate.
“There is many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip”, or so said my wise old grandmother. But Ms. Clinton does not appear to MAKE many slips. Again…on the evidence of her ongoing political career. And when she does slip up, as in her resounding healthcare defeat while she was Assistant President (What, you thought that Big Al was in charge of the details while Bill was Prez? Get real.)…she gets even eventually, even if it takes her 10 or 12 years.
And woe to the vast right wing conspirators who took down Bill if she ever gets hold of the reins of power. For real. Their asses will be under SERIOUS threat.
I have a suspicion that she can hold a grudge.
Ask the Travelgate folks for more on that subject.
Whether her approach is right or wrong…it appears increasingly obvious that we are about to find out.
Watch.
May we ALL be born(e) into interesting times.
AG
I am getting a little tired of having to be a Clinton apologist on these leftiness blogs.
Especially since I actually do not think that she has…yet…done much for which she must apologize.
She has put herself in a commanding position to become the first female president of the most powerful country in the world.
Pretty good work, from a political point of view. In a country that still has a HUGE gap in the way that women are treated both in the marketplace and in the society in general.
And she has done so without compromising her social views. She STILL has an astoundingly “liberal” voting record, especially on social issues. Yes, she has had to tapdance through the minefield of American corporate-dominated politics. And here she is, all in one piece, VERY close to the prize. She has detonated NONE of the many mines that are planted in the way of a socially responsible candidate. Not so far she hasn’t.
And here “the left” is…whaling away on her, night and day.
As NYC Mayor Bloomberg said after one of the more recent Neo-Con sponsored terrorist flaps…the “We woulda blown up JFK airport if only we coulda gotten our lighters to work” thing a couple of months ago…”Get a life.”
Get a life, folks.
It’s a done deal.
Let us concentrate on getting her elected.
Please.
Giuliani?
Thompson?
Romney?
Scary.
Can’t we all just…get along?
No.
She is not Emma Goldman.
Not Saul Alinsky, either.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
Please.
Later..
AG
“It’s a done deal.
Let us concentrate on getting her elected.
Please.”
No, Thanks. I’ll pass. …and, I’m not even that far Left.
Sorry AG. I refuse to hold my nose and support any conservative candidates. Never again. 8 more years of triangulating the left into oblivion is not worth any minor issues that MIGHT go the lefts way with her as President.
BTW: There is no need to apologize for her. But the left will never support Clinton IMHO (I ain’t talking about Democrats), and neither will the right for all of the obvious reasons. Make her the Democratic nominee and I guarantee that by the time people walk into the voting booth most of the right will know for a “FOX-worthy” fact that Hillary conceived McCain’s illegitimate black child while performing a BJ for peace in communist vietnam, or some other fantasy propaganda mixed with half truths.
I do.
Have fun…
AG
P.S. Why, exactly?
Why do you hate her?
I am serious, here.
Inquiring minds want to know.
LOTS of them apparently.
Mine among them.
I think Hilary is doing a good enough job as Senator from New York, but her positions on executive power, and Iraq show a lack of judgement and disingenuousness in discussing them that say to me that she has not deserved a promotion to president.
yeah, but Arthur doesn’t care about any of that because he admires her savvy.
Maybe it’s the cleavage.
Why…Booman!!!
Since when do I not care?
About almost ANYTHING?
(Read below for more on THAT account.)
AG
P.S. If she was a savvy dog catcher or crossing guard I would admire her a great deal less. But yes. You are right. I do admire high levels of competence, just so long as they are not disastrously criminal in their effect.
Don’t you?
your answers were non-responsive and/or overly dismissive.
What are you even saying?
Anyone can predict Hillary will win. Doesn’t mean that is a desirable outcome.
Luam doesn’t want a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush country. Luam doesn’t want a candidate that will keep us in Iraq or bomb Iran or fudge the intelligence or will pursue Clintonomics.
Luam doesn’t want to live in an America where all the political noise is about fucking Vince Foster and the Rose Law Firm and Mena airport.
Neither do I.
If I thought she was the only candidate that could win I would feel differently. I don’t. Anyone that can beat her can beat Rudy or Mitt or Fred or Newt.
Hillary seems far more interested in gaming political advantage than in doing what is right much of the time. She strikes me as lacking for real political courage. Either her judgment, or her commitment to principles I share, or both are cast into doubt by her voting record (…particularly giving a “known drunk” the “keys to the car”.) I don’t want another Bush – who runs every decision thru his/her political wing. I want a president who is more interested in good governance than winning re-election.
By the numbers.
Guess we need a total revolution then, because “nepotism and oligarchy”: is what holds the pursestrings here. they are what’s for dinner here.
Bet on it.
I’m willing to risk losing it all in the pursuit of something higher. Are you? Really ready? And more importantly…are enough others ready to put it all on the line here?
I think not, myself.
Please. What the fuck does THAT mean? That we need a government of 20 something-year olds? Barack Obama is the youngest contender, and HE has been hustling since the ’90s.
And?
Who will NOT be? In this very divided country.
I actually think that she will NOT be divisive. She certainly has not been so in Red State/Blue State New York. Read up on her tenure here. She has so many Republicans backing her, she could probably run as an Independent in NY and still win.
Sheer bullshit. Unless of course you are some sort of misogynist. Who all vote Republican anyway.
Yeah? Could be.
Do you think that she stands for the vast right wing conspiracy?
I don’t.
And getting rid of THAT is Job Number One as far as I am concerned. Nothing good will happen here until the far right wing is totally crippled. Nothing.
Name ’em.
‘Scuse me?
What “progressive movement” do you mean, exactly?
Really. WHICH “progressive movement”?
Y’mean…there actually IS one?
One that is capable of winning elections?
Really?
If there is, please tell me exactly WHICH elections has it won since about 1938?
I refer you back to my answer at number 3.
She is indeed a crafty pol. And it is not a “promotion”. It’s an election. YOU know…those things that crafty pols usually win?
Sorry, Luam.
You am wrong here.
Watch.
Later…
AG
I may be wrong, but you asked for reasons. I gave you mine, I don’t feel that I got any reply other than aggressive dismissal. Allow me to address some of your rebuttal.
I do not think that Hilary is “inevitable” that is the argument that GWB used to win the Republican nomination (that and black babies) in 2000, but we are democrats and we will take our time to think about our candidates. If she is our nominee she is better than anyone likely to win the Republican nomination, but until then I will take my argument to the Democratic party and the primary electorate.
I believe this part of your commentary is right on the mark:
…she gets even eventually, even if it takes her 10 or 12 years.
And woe to the vast right wing conspirators who took down Bill if she ever gets hold of the reins of power. For real. Their asses will be under SERIOUS threat.
I have a suspicion that she can hold a grudge.
…And it will be very interesting (in the “may you live in interesting times sense?) to see what happens on the right when the PermaGov decides to turn over to Hillary all the levers of power put into place under Bush.
Maybe it’s to teach the Republicans a lesson about not getting too uppity, when they were put in power to serve a “higher power” (hint – it’s not one you’re gonna find in a church).
Maybe it’s just that Karma payback is a bitch.
Maybe it’s the yin and yang at work.
Whatever, the odds are looking better for Hillary; her slapdown of the blogosphere is her Sister Souljah moment.
(Which raises the question – Did Bill come up with the original all by himself?)
Triangulation: Is it the left, right, and middle, or the left, right, and money. If the latter, you know where the center of gravity is. Same as it ever was.
Gonna be a WHOLE lotta right wingers thinking about moving to Paraguay the day after the election if my guess is right.
Bet on it.
AG
Yeah right, like her friend Rupert Murdoch??? Come on, instead of getting even with the vrwc – she joined it. That might make sense from a strategic standpoint. But from a progressive standpoint – it sucks!!
Tactics.
NOT strategy.
Strategy is what you want to have happen. Where you want to go.
Tactics are how you GET there.
From a “progressive” strategic standpoint (WHATEVER that might mean…) no tactics (or bad tactics…even worse, really) are what suck.
Let us assume for a moment that the scope of Hillary Clinton’s career IS a progressive one, and that she maintains that strategic stance in her mature prime.
The tactics that she is applying to the realization of that strategy…set of strategies, really…are quite clear.
SDhe ios trying to get elected President of The United States by leaning as far towards the center as she can possibly lean without violating her core strategic principles.
In other words…she is trying to get the fuck elected by any means necessary that will not cripple her once she is in power.
So, my progressive friend…what are YOUR tactics? How would YOU do things differently?
And if you are young enough and ambitious enough…go right on ahead and try to apply those tactics to the problem at hand.
In about…ohhh, in about 15 or 20 years if you are lucky enough and talented enough…you will get to see just how well they work.
Or…jes’ keep on ‘a snipin’.
Sometimes it does the heart good to fire away at will.
I swear…I think that there are times when Ms. Clinton has quite consciously chosen what some mystics call “the path of blame”. She has willingly set herself up as a target for the good of her own strategic plans.
She’s VERY crafty, y’know…
AG
Assuming her tactics worked to get her in the WH, what would she do? Is she really going to take Murdoch money and screw him, or will she be happily co-opted a la Timmy with the reins of MTP?
Or more to the point–will she behave like a blathering idiot like the British poodle, Blair? Apparently his former staff members are still sitting up and rolling over by the looks of this shameless op-ed by Alastair Campbell.
I don’t mind tactics. I don’t mind compromise. I DO mind someone all too willing to be co-opted.
Soon.
My bet?
She’s playing them all.
AG
My bet is that she is playing us as well.
The short answer is YES. As for Obama, the best candidate we have, racism in America which continues will deny him any opportunity to serve. If Harold Ford, the best candidate in TN couldn’t best a good ol’ boy mayor, let’s face it. Tolerance is for sissies. Ohio and Florida, the crucial states, will revert back to their usual postures as not quite BLUE states.
“Hate is for Republicans”, below.
Maybe Obama IS the best candidate, ideally speaking. The positions he is enunciating are certainly closer to mine than are those of Hillary Clinton.
But could he get the job done after he was elected?
Does he have the combination of finesse, clout, knowledge of the inner workings of the federal bureaucracy and approval of the power brokers to actually DO what he says he wants to do?
Can you imagine the members of our gigantic and essentially permanently in place State Department if he was elected and immediately began setting up personal meetings with people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez? They would throw a hissy fit that would throw our entire set of international relations into a tailspin. He wouldn’t be able to get SHIT done. Even if the Intel and Military guys decided to let him live.
Let ALONE if he decided to start making some plain sense in the Middle East. Out front and personal.
The oil people?
The Israeli lobbies?
Please.
Fuggedaboudit!!!
Anbd then…think about it.
I am.
I’ll tell you when I decided that he probably does not yet possess the fine political judgement and delicacy of action that is required to become an effective President. It was when he stood up a couple of months ago in front of the movers and shakers of the US automobile industry and publicly castigated them for not taking care of business.
Bad move.
He’s right, of course. About their lack of foresight and action. But he went about it badly.
He’s still learning.
Hillary has learned already.
AG
“Hillary has learned already.
AG
The definition of a paranoid: One who is in possession of all the facts.-William Burroughs”
Hillary has learned the old political game. But, she doesn’t seem to have learned good governance. If she has learned anything else, why won’t she admit her mistakes (especially Iraq) and apologize for them? (‘Cause some consultant advised her not to look “weak” or “wishy-washy”?) What do you call someone who is in possession of all the facts but is none the wiser? …Other than “Dubya”.
I vastly prefer other candidates to Senator Clinton, because I vastly prefer big progressive steps to cautious baby steps. But more than that, I prefer to win.
And as my spouse constantly reminds me, there is more to being a successful president than just winning. If we elected someone who was really far ahead of Congress (with this congress, wouldn’t be hard) there might be years of deadlock–like the Carter years. Carter was brilliant, just ineffectual. I can’t imagine that happening to Senator Clinton again.
(Please don’t throw up the health care fiasco of 14 years ago. It was an elephant, ahead of its time and too big to work. She had no clout, and was forging a new role for a First Lady that was amazing in itself even if it didn’t work.)
There’s winning. And there’s winning… There are too many people in Washington who get paid even if we don’t get represented. They work both sides of the aisle. There are too many consultants who continue to get paid even when they foist candidates on us who fail to win, or win and fail to represent us. I’d rather something that’s broken be good and broken instead of looking like it’s supposed to work and failing me when I need it.
don’t you understand?
Clinton is running John Kerry’s campaign. If nominated, she will lose, just like he did.
Republican Lite is a failing strategy for Dems. Always has been.
As Harry Truman said, given a choice between a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the American people will choose the real Republican every time.
Ain’t it the truth.
When will enough Democrats learn this simple lesson?
And “the system itself” IS fucked up.
Here is what “responsible Democrat” means:
You and Kristol can have your “responsible Democrat”.
Of course neocons are going to talk Hillary up, because they want us to lose.
I actually really used to like Hillary. This was before she became a politician. She seems doomed to be the kind of politician I hate. Having James Carville’s hand up her backside moving her mouth certainly doesn’t help her AFAIC.
One thing I learned shopping for used cars is that if they know you aren’t willing to leave without That Car you will never get the deal you want/deserve. If they know you are really willing to walk away the advantage shifts to your side. Democrats have been playing us that way for YEARS. I know I am going to work against Hillary in the primary. But, I’m probably part of a very small minority of Democrats who isn’t sure, even, if he would vote for Hillary in the GE. As important to me as electing Democrats is – just as important is changing the political “game”. Hillary is the antithesis of changing the political game. A shift is just beginning to occur. And, I’m not so bent on electing Democrats that I’m willing to turn the game back over to the old consultants and power brokers in Washington.
But, that’s just me.
who aren’t sure they would vote for Hillary in the GE? It’s a minority, sure, but I don’t think it’s very small. I, for one, belong to that minority.
I voted for Kerry in 2004, but I think that’s the last time I’m going to vote for Republican Lite for president. I too am sick of Democrats playing us in the way you so accurately describe.
If the Dem establishment became convinced that their base will stop voting Dem when it is given “centrist” candidates, then maybe it will stop playing this game.
And I suspect that that’s why there’s so much antipathy to Hillary in the netroots. It’s not just her support for the war or her haughtiness: it’s also that, with her candidacy, they’re trying to do it to us again. Because, clearly, she is THEIR candidate, that is, the candidate of the ruling elite.
I would be very pleased that if Hillary won the nomination, the majority of the netroots didn’t support her, contrary to how it fell into line with Kerry. That would demonstrate the independence of the netroots. If Hillary gets nominated and the netroots fall into line once more, the Dem establishment will just continue ignoring us.
Arthur writes that “she is saying, apparently,… that it is not ‘the system itself’ that is fucked up.” That’s what one would expect her to say, because her candidacy is a prime example of how it is precisely the system itself that is fucked up.
It was Bill that said “fall in love in the primary, and fall in line in the general.” The problem is that they are not willing to let us fall in love in the primaries, anymore. Earlier and earlier we are expected to give up on what/whom WE want and support the Presumptive Nominee.
We get all this “It’s a done deal…”, “He/She’s inevitable”, “There’s no point in voting for anyone else.”, “There’s no point in building anything but a shoe shop… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_Event_Horizon ” crap before the primary. We got stuck with Kerry the last time and we bent over and took it for the Team. Never again!
It’s like they’re thinking: you get to elect the president and Congress, but we get to determine the choices you’ll have. And this is related to the Dems’ refusal to go ahead with impeachment: both reflect a profound aversion to letting the people have their way.
The culture inside the Beltway is profoundly anti-democratic. I have heard Richard Posner give a talk in which he bluntly said that the US does not have a participatory democracy, that the only input citizens have on the working of the government is voting every two years, and that this is a good thing, because governing is best left to the professionals. And that is how all the ruling elite thinks. Their attitude is completely different than what is taught in civics classes, and how most people think about American democracy. It is as if there are two versions: the official, public one, and the secret one know only to the elite that actually runs things.
Up until now, it has only been radicals like Noam Chomsky who believe that the American political system is set up in such a way as to give the people no real influence or control over the government. But it now looks like this understanding is spreading down the political spectrum, because the democratic deficit has been getting so much worse.
to put them over the top…a dangerous under-estimation of the volatility of the political climate beyond the beltway, imo.
via gallup clik to enlarge
and this: …other data showing Clinton is growing less unacceptable to voters inside and outside her party as the campaign progresses. What started out as nearly 50 percent of voters saying that they would never vote for her has diminished..
l haven’t decided whether of not l would hold my nose and vote for her if she gets the nomination, but without reservation, l will not finance, nor work for her campaign, and will support another candidate, as yet undetermined, in the primaries.
lTMF’sA
I guess I am getting my answer.
And now we shall fiunally see how much “power” the so-called netroots have.
A good 80% of the responders on this website are virulently anti-Hillary
Clinton.
As are a smaller percentage on My Left Wing. Say 50%.
A quick tour of Dkos (YUCK!!!) suggests that maybe 66% percent of the krosshacks will deign to support her if she is the nominee. I know that this is unscientific and bad math, but thgen so is the whole polling idea no matter HOW broad the so-called sample. Averaging those out we get about a 45% “Yes, we will vote for her. If we must” result.
If she only wins a 45% plurality the primaries…say splitting them with Obama getting say 35% and Edwards and the others cleaning up the remaining 20% or so…which is pretty much how it is beginning to look except with a greater plurality for her and less for the Edwards and below crew…will the netroots resistance have crippled her badly enough so that she will lose the election?
A number of people here hope so, apparently.
The old “Cut off your nose to spite your face” routine is what this looks like to me.
But what do I know?
Be careful what you wish for, folks.
You may just get it.
AG
“The old “Cut off your nose to spite your face” routine is what this looks like to me.”
Hillary isn’t my nose. I’d just as soon have her off my face.
“…will the netroots resistance have crippled her badly enough so that she will lose the election?”
So… We can’t even resist her in the Primary because it might hurt her in the General? WTF kind of democracy is that?
I will fight her in the primaries, and probably “hold my nose” in the general. If I do work on a campaign it won’t be hers but someone local I can feel enthusiastic about.
When I worry about her electability it is exactly the math you are looking at Hillary will energize the other side (+5%) and reduce the enthusiasm of the left wing activists (-5%) that eats pretty far into the generic Dem lead of 11%.
What I wish for is a nominee not called Clinton.
In a word, YES!
But let’s cut to the point: You are arguing that Clinton has both the political skill and the backing to win the election, and that we should help her.
The first two points are not greatly in doubt: She has skill, and she certainly has backing.
But WHO is backing her?
First and foremost, the soft wing of the powers that be. Soft wing: These are the folks who think manipulation is to be preferred–when it will work–to open violence. A corollary: Competence is to be preferred to incompetence.
Sounds good, right?
But what are the OBJECTIVES? Well, the continuation of empire, and a more effective approach to the resource wars that sustain it. Enhanced control of the masses at home (this is why the Dems keep folding on civil liberties issues). Direction of the suffering of the hard-landing of the American economy to America’s poorest.
But is she a stealth candidate? That is, is she the opposite of what she is portraying herself–a tool of the wealthy who supports the extension of war–who is secretly preparing to create peace and restore democracy? Well, it’s unlikely, that’s all.
The fact that the crises–climate change, peak oil, economic disruption–which will be the actual life-and-death issues of our political economy–are not on anybody’s agenda tells me that our political economy will not last long. Now it may well be the powers that HAVE thought about these things–it is even likely–but if so it is to profit at the expense and well-being (survival) of the rest of us. That is the reason for KEEPING these issues off the agenda: We are meant to go down like pole-axed sheep.
But in this context, having a competent, skilled leader keeping the death-machine (empire) running is not obviously so much better than having a incompetent one. Both will do great harm, but a skillful opponent is always the more dangerous.
I give up.
You win, Gaianne. ALL of you Hillary haters.
You are right, of course.
She is most obviously a highly skilled closet fascist. A mole for the bad guys. Dr. Strangelove in an Armani business suit.
Give me a break!!!
AG
I don’t doubt she would be competent.
So then the question is her agenda.
But electoral politics as a whole is very skew to those things that need to happen. NOTHING relevant is on the agenda. So I am certainly ready to wait until the election actually approaches before worrying much about who might do the least damage.
BTW I remember how she botched healthcare, and after that I have not been enamored at all.
Apparently.
“In 90 seconds, I don’t have the time to tell you all the mistakes I made.”
This was the deciding moment in her career, I believe.
She had a “plan”. A goal.
But her tactics were wrong.
And she has spent an entire decade of her life applying NEW tactics to the achievement of that goal. Which was not simply a good healthcare program but rather a very progressive overall look at how Americans live and the interface between their lives and government. Very progressive in terms of mainstream American politics, at the very least. It is very easy to be to the left of her positions. I certainly am. It is NOT so easy to actually effectively move those radical positions in place as law. She understood this 40 years ago when she was in college. Go read her Wellesley thesis on Saul Alinsky. It’s all there. The whole scope of her career. Practical inside politics applied to moral goals rather than impractical radical agitation from the outside. She has been AMAZINGLY consistent in her march towards power since that time. A sort of political genius, I think.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Feel free to differ.
And as far as intensity is concerned…this is about our ASSES, Gaianne. And those of our descendants. I tend to get intense about such things, and I wish more people would follow suit.
In a very perceptive article on My Left Wing about Tuesday’s AFL/CIO-sponsored Dem debate (Democratic Presidential Candidates Meet Average Americans ), Betsy L. Angert wrote:
If that idea does not ramp up our intensity, then we are doomed. We have lost our will to live. To survive. The great writer and student of Sufism Doris Lessing wrote about this curious lack of intensity in so-called modern civilization 50 or more years ago. I cannot quote her exactly, but she was very struck by the passivity with which most of the people of Great Britain faced the question of nuclear war and nuclear armament. Her thesis was that we indeed HAD lost our will to live.
Maybe she was right.
We shall soon see.
You can bet on it.
AG
Stirling Newberry, on the Agonist.