Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
And the last eight years?
I don't care who beats John McCain in November. The important thing is that he is beaten - hopefully in a landslide, but that doesn't matter either.
That said, I have read nothing in these pages discussing what either Obama or Clinton would DO about the last eight years of wholesale corruption. There is ample discussion on either side about what they would do going forward, and frankly the differences are insignificant given that all of their programs will be run through the grinding machine of the legislative process, and none will emerge intact.
But here's where I think Hillary has it all over Barack. You see, Barack Obama is a gentleman and he has been forthright in saying that he wants to move ahead and put these disastrous years behind us.
I am not that forgiving. I don't think Hillary is, either. In fact, I think she is a conniving, vindictive bitch who will woo the support of her adversaries only to turn on them when the opportunity arises. I think Hillary will go after the "Great Right-Wing Conspiracy" with a vengeance, and I would love to see that, vengeful SOB that I am!
C'mon Obama fans, admit it, wouldn't that be fun?
Comments (5)
When I was a kid and I'd get pissed at someone, my mother would always tell me, "Don't sink to their level." I suppose this is something I've carried with me and it seems relevant in light of your comments. Sure I'd like to get in a good kick at say, Dick Cheney's callousness, but what would that really do for me? For us? Not much. Though the visual picture of that sounds pretty good, especially in light of the recent "So?" comment.
One of the proposals made by Senator Obama that I find particularly interesting are the ones that have the goal of creating more transparency in government. By using the technological advances we've made in recent years we can open the door and let the smoke out of those back rooms. Or at least one hopes.
Much as I think Clinton would be a capable leader, I have doubts about whether she would do much to curb corruption. While the "vast right wing conspiracy" no doubt played a role in the absurd number of scandals in the Clinton white house, can we really absolve them of all blame? I think there's plenty to go around. And I'd rather not see any time wasted in the next 4 to 8 years on fighting old battles, as we've got plenty new and current ones to fight.
Some wisdom of the ages:
"The rarer action is in virtue than in vengeance."
April 1, 2008 11:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
More likely, it would be counter-productive... And a complete disaster. And it would lead to a diminished Democratic majority in Congress. In fact, many people support Barack Obama because they believe Hillary Clinton wouldn't have a stronger governing majority than George Bush enjoyed during his first term. The last thing we want is to win back the White House only to have a repeat of 1994 in the first mid-term election. And what you described sounds like a carbon copy of that.
Face it: Barack Obama appeals to so many people because so many people are fatigued when it comes to "politics as usual". They choose him over Hillary because of her deceptive, destructive tendencies. Barack Obama appeals to our desire to move ahead because we are PROGRESSIVE. We don't demonize ALL Republicans because we know Republicans who are moderate, practical, reasonable people who actually agree with us on a host of issues and also seek leadership in terms of getting things done to make this country better. The people you seek to destroy, we seek to marginalize. As I'm fond of saying, If you want to govern from the poles, how you treat the equator matters.
A Democratic President with a 60/40 split in Congress can do one of two things: Consolidate power by isolating demagogues on the other side of the aisle and working with moderates of both parties to build a sustainable coalition and get things done OR spend two years pissing away a mandate with the kind of scorched earth approach you advocate for here. It is obvious from this campaign that Hillary hasn't learned from the Health Care debacle of the early 90s. In her mind, she has all the ideas, and anything you suggest that doesn't fit her way of thinking is a grave offense that requires retribution. She wouldn't see a governing majority in the second half of her first term. She has no coattails, so she might not even see a governing majority at her inauguration.
You're advocating moving from a position of relative strength to one of relative weakness. I'll pass.
April 1, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Friends,
Check your calendars.
April 1, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's remember -- it was Bill Clinton who did not pursue anything against GHW Bush and the Reagan corruption. His actions helped contribute to the Reagan myth.
Since that time, the CLintons have cultivated the likes of Richard Mellon Scaife and Fox News. Hillary's idea of bipartisanship is caving to Republicans -- at least Obama has a record of bringing them over to progressive issues. Hillary caved to the health care industry in 1993, hoping they would return the favor. They turned on her instead. Now she's cultivating her "enemies", hoping they won't turn on her. Do we see a pattern here? What good is experience if you don't learn from it?
Obama, by the way, has spoken repeatedly about the restoration of the Constitution that has been trashed by Bush. Hillary has been eerily silent on any of those issues.
Hillary can't wait to be the unitary executive and institutionalize those unAmerican ideas. Obama will restore the balance.
So Obama has it all over Hillary.
April 1, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I think she is a conniving, vindictive bitch who will woo the support of her adversaries only to turn on them when the opportunity arises."
We already saw this approach to politics play out in the 90s. As a result, we lost the majority and paved the way for the worst, most destructive administration in American history.
So if you don't mind, I'll pass on the "vindictive bitch" approach to creating a working majority.
As I understand it, so will Sen. Chuck Hagel. While he hasn't endorsed any candidate, he did say the success of the next president will be predicated upon the ability to create a governing majority--he said Obama is more likely to achieve that.
April 1, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment