Tuesday, June 03, 2008


I have a tremendous amount of respect for Hillary Clinton. She has been a very effective Senator for New York and a spokesperson for the Left. She's a fighter against the Dark Side. She has strengths and weaknesses, and so does Obama.But what the hell is going on here? I mean, there's a time to fight your cousin and there's a time to fight the infidel. McCain is the Enemy, and as Democrats we need to start getting our shit together. I may not like it that Obama has the edge in delegates, or that Hillary has more popular votes, or whatever the hell. But now that it looks like the numbers are tipping Obama's way, Hillary can help defeat McCain in the fall or she can rip the Party apart. With this speech it looks like she's promising war to the knife and the knife to the hilt. WHY??

I hope there's another explanation for this. Because if this is just about a politician and her supporters unwilling to accept defeat for the betterment of the Left as a whole it just makes me more angry, more downcast and more sure that we are as doomed as the old Roman Republic.


Lisa said...

devil's advocate time:

Well, it has been a pretty close race, and what would be wrong with a rousing convention floor knock-down, drag-out? I want some virile democracy for a change.

Frankly, I wish we could do away with delegates and the stupid Electoral College. Why can't we have an election by popular vote?

pluto said...

My guess is that she's trying to blackmail Obama into giving her the VP position. Which I can't see happening.

Obama may prefer touchy-feely speeches to brass knuckles politics but I think he's heard quite enough of Hillary's voice over the last few months and I can't imagine that he has enough positive feelings towards her to agree to such a choice no matter how it affects his poll numbers.

By the way, I heard on NPR that a woman is claiming to have recently had an affair with Bill. Just imagine the implications for Hillary if it turns out to be true.

Lisa said...


Bill is/was a charismatic man. And at least it was a woman.

As for O's running mate: any white female will do. Like you say--Hillary's voice. A more dulcet-toned, submissive cheerleader-type would be just the ticket, IMHO.

FDChief said...

I think that another point to consider is that giving the R's a shot at one of the two Senator slots from NY would be silly. Hillary has been doing a good job in the upper house - she would probably make a good Majority Leader, if the D's can take 51 seats in November.

Lisa, I think my problem here isn't so much that Hillary wants to fight it out, but that the TONE of the fight is becoming so damn vitriolic and shortsighted. I'd have liked my man Edwards to have won. He didn't. To use up my anger on Hillary or Obama's people instead of putting my shoulder to the Democratic Party wheel is cutting off my nose to spite my face.

mike said...

Don't worry FDChief I will vote for him in November. But I do have a lot of vitriol stored up. I fear that the undemocratic caucuses and Doctor Dean's voter suppression in FL and MI have doomed us in the general election.

BTW, all she wants - and all her supporters want - is a little respect from Obama and from the radical wingnuts in the party.

And Pluto, Obama is no novice in "brass knuckles politics". Let us just hope he does not let his ego do his thinking for him in the next few weeks and months and start thinking he is the voice of the people.

I supported Hillary but do not want to see her run as VP. It would be good for the party to compromise, but on the other hand there are too many downsides: #1 she should not have to desert her principles which he would insist on; #2 the hard core Hillary haters in his camp will desert him in November; #3 if or should I say when some whacko tries to take a shot then all the conspiracy freaks will be pointing their fingers at her; #4 all of his failures will somehow miraculously turn out to be her failures; and #5 the clincher is the advice my father gave me that one should never, never, ever go to work for an egotistical boss.


georgefox said...

I would guess that she figures that there is a decent chance that Obama will be forced out of the race (either by a bullet, or by some dark secret in Obama's past).

She wants to be there to grab the ring before it hits the ground.

Sure, its a low probability shot, but it is better than a no probability shot.

Lisa said...

I understand your point, Chief, which is a good, sensible West-coaster p.o.v. However, the vast midsection might not feel that way.

I believe Mike has it correct.

mike said...

Hey Lisa - I am a west coaster like FDChief. But my state, unlike Chief's fair state, did not honor their primary election; instead they relied on a miniscule bunch of party radicals to select delegates. Like Obama and Clinton, Chief and I agree on 99% of issues. Unfortunately the one percent we disagree on are non-negotiable.

Chief is right about wars between cousins - they can be a lot more brutal than wars between strangers. I opine that is because of the feeling that a cousin should stand with you against the common enemy, instead of calling you a "monster", or a "blackmailer".

Like FDChief, I also supported John Edwards early in the primary. Unfortunately he dropped out just before our state caucuses. So I went to our local precinct caucus with an open mind. But the vitriol of Hillary-haters there turned me completely off on anybody that those jackasses supported.

He needs to reign in those jackass Hillary haters if he wants to win.

Lisa said...

Yes Mike, to my ears, the senseless and incessant vitriol was aimed at Clinton, and the papers never gave her a break.

From Chris Cillizza in WaPo today:

"The Obama campaign realized that the only metric that mattered in the end was delegates, a strategic assumption that Clinton never made. (As late as Tuesday night she was touting her popular vote victory and her ability to win swing states. Both points are as true as they are meaningless; the nomination is decided on delegates, nothing else.)

To me, that is tragic. The delegates may nominate Obama, but the will of people doesn't seem to matter when political machines take over.

My arm is now twisted...

pluto said...

Totally unrelated to the Chief's topic (other than WASTF):

The link below is to a Washington DC newspaper column that details a counterinsurgency plan that the Washington DC police department will be using starting this weekend.

Apparently the crime scene in DC has gotten so bad that they are going to seal off neighborhoods and interrogate everybody who tries to enter. Anybody who doesn't live in the neighborhood will be turned away and will face arrest if they don't immediately leave peacefully. I have absolutely NO knowledge of the situation in DC but that's a pretty extreme solution and it makes me wonder how bad the problem really is.


FDChief said...

mike: My issue with this isn't that the Obama people played nicety or that Clinton shouldn't have won. It's just that there's a time to bank your fires and a time to let them go out.

Ironically, the "Hillary-haters" were one of the big reasons I eventually went with Obama. Not the haters on the left but the haters on the right. As much as they will go after Obama anyway, the incredibly deep well of vitriol that Hillary built up during the Clinton presidency would - I believe - energize the wingnuts in a way that Obama won't.

I did have a pretty sad discussion the other day while out working. We had a break and started discussing politics, and the first words - literally - out of one of the drillers' mouths was "Did you know that Obama is a Muslim?"


If we can keep it, indeed...

mike said...

FDChief: "...energize the wingnuts in a way that Obama won't."

Yeah, the great unifier!!! I heard that spiel also. Wonder why he could not even unify his own party? The super slimers are on him a hundred times worse than they ever were on Hil, Bill, Gore, and Kerry. In any case, my experience was that the left wing of my party used right wing slime against her in the primary. They can kiss my tukus.

But cheer up, if he makes it he has to be better than the boy king:

Gotta love those Aussies.

mike said...

Sorry about my bad link and lack of html skill. Try this one in two pieces from Sydney via Slate:

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/ 2005/12/29/1062268457310.html

FDChief said...

Damn, mike. You REALLY hate this Obama guy!

mike said...

FDChief -

I do not hate the man at all. I save my hate for those of his supporters who chanted "iron my shirt" and "make me a sandwich" at Senator Clinton.

Let's hope your daughter and my granddaughters never have to put up with slimeballs like that.

FDChief said...

mike: I agree that Hillary has been the recipient of very ugly prejudice.

But when all is said and done, Hillary is just a politician, like Obama and Howard Dean and John Edwards. Insults and slander are the hazards of the profession.

It took me a while to figure out why your anger, and the anger I've heard so loudly from other Hillary partisans, is so disturbing to me. I finally figured out why, and it's because of what come across to me as the vaguely "celebrity stalker" aspect of it. For example, while I wanted Edwards to be President, I could have cared less about the man personally. His wife has cancer; that's sad, that's a tragedy for him and his family but raised nary a tear from me. It's HIS tragedy and I don't really know the man.

So the height of fury these taunts and sneers have raised in her supporters seems to have a very personal, intimate quality I reserve for feeling about people who insult my wife or my sister. But Hillary is NOT family; she IS just another politician, and to her you so furious at her enemies seems to me like hearing a Britney fan swearing death at a Kevin Federline fan, or a Penguins fan make bloodthirsty threats about Red Wings fans. It maks me want to say "Whoa, big guy! It's just a damn hockey game!"

But I also understand that to them, it's NOT just a damn hockey game, and to you the insults are personal.

To be that invested in another person not one's spouse seems to me a huge risk of disappointment, disillusionment or even betrayal in the long run. So I guess I just hope that things work out...

Oh, and that McCain is handed a loss worse than Herbert Hoover's.

mike said...


I am not that big a fan of Hillary. As I said before on this blog, I too was an Edwards supporter.

You lucked out in Oregon. Put down your choice on a sealed ballot, no fuss, no sweat. Nobody called you a racist for your vote or tried to change your vote by telling you what a perversely bad, cruel, or wicked person your choice of candidate was. To your face!!!
In the caucuses you could not vote and leave and go home, you had to stay to the end and listen to the other side's insults before the final vote.

My rage at the insults were that they were the same old slimey lies that I saw Limbaugh and the swiftboaters use. They sent a retired teacher home in tears from the caucus. But it was coming from so-called Democrats!!! In a primary!!! Damn right it got personal real fast even though prior to that day Ms Clinton was not my choice.

I believe that the Obama campaign is the one that delayed the primary for so long. They hardened the opposition with their tactics. If not for their hate this round-up would have been over in March.