« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Betrayal
In politics, people pick sides. Sometimes they pick the side you like, and sometimes they pick the other side. It's how the system works. Part of the point of a primary is to convince more people to come over to your side. Voters, delegates, and organizations all pick sides. It's to be expected.
Yet, to Clintonites, picking the other guy is betrayal.
On NARAL:
“This action by NARAL is a betrayal. If they can dump Hillary they can dump any of us,” said Rep. Jane Harman , D-Calif. “This is really personal.”On Bill Richardson:
"An act of betrayal," said James Carville.Maria Pappas, Head of New York NOW, On Ted Kennedy:
"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the
day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing
is appropriate, if ironic."
“Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy’sIs there anything comparable on the Obama side? Has the campaign ever responded to any of Clinton's endorsements with more than a shrug and "we're disappointed"?
endorsement of Hillary Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic
presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard."
This is politics. You make your case, and you either get the support or you don't. If you don't, then you either make a better case, or you move on. But to attack people like this? It's crazy.
Advertisement
Comments (121)
Thanks for bringing this up, Phoebe.
There is nothing equivalent on the Obama side -- because he has substantive things to talk about.
And I agree with you: let people vote their conscience. I have no problems whatsoever with Hillary backers deciding to vote for McCain, writing in Hillary, voting for Nader, etc. if they do it out of conviction and reasoned thinking.
I have no respect for people who do that if they do it out of bitterness.
But it's still their choice.
May 15, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, thanks for the diary. I have been struck by use of the words "betrayal" and "traitor" that have been used by women (ostensibly feminists) against, in particular, other women who don't throw our political support behind one certain candidate.
My partner recently attended a dinner of friends all over 50, white, lesbian feminists and she was roundly castigated and questioned because she supports Obama. Obama was derided as a black male pretender for his usurpation of Clinton's national (white) woman moment. The attempts to question my partner's support for Obama became quite heated and the unfortunate phrases "traitor to your gender" and "betrayal of feminism" were used to describe her support of one Democratic Primary candidate who was against the invasion & War over another who voted to support George Bush's War. We agreed that if I had been there, none of this would have probably been uttered since I am a lesbian of color, and it has been our experience that most white people speak differently to each other about people of color when there isn't one in the room.
I can't wait for all of this to be over, Obama our nominee and our President, so people can stop acting in ways they will regret later. I hope.
May 15, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Macropolitical inference by individual anecdotal diddy.
May 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
bslev, we feminists are kind of attached to that "the personal is political" thing.
May 15, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a feminist because I believe in what feminism means, the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. (I'd like a bigger word..like if Humanism meant believing in the equality and worth of all humans)
So as a feminist I would be offended if decisions were made on who to support or not because of their gender.
It has seemed to me that to declare a woman is owed allegiance because of her gender is sexism, not feminism.
May 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? My comment was meant to support spotthedog, not Clinton.
May 16, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get out much, do you? Here's a sample from NARAL's blog. You can go there and read it yourself. Clearly, as much as you would like to dismiss it, my experience is not isolated. It's called use of a personal anecdote to illustrate a larger phenomenom. As scofflaw notes, in the feminist world it's called the "personal is the political" and has value in our understanding of the world as lived in the particular. Clearly you don't have much of an understanding of feminism, but it's not required. As a Second Wave feminist, I'm one of those who was there in the trenches at the beginning (yes, I actually do know many of the feminist luminaries weighing in on this on both sides). I'm probably older than you, so I'm not surprised or dismayed by oddles of self-satified smugness that attempts to be passed off as pithy cleverness. But since you seem to need quantity, enjoy:
"I just wish to add my voice to...women who feel betrayed by your actions"
"What a grave grave GRAVE mistake...not supporting...a fantastic FEMALE candidate.."
"I am disappointed as a woman that you endorsed Obama..."
"The need to do this endorsement now escapes me. This is a sexist position to deny Hillary the right..."
"I could go on pages, suffice it to say, women support women..."
"Shame on NARAL...You are joining too many men in the Democratic party who would rather lose an election than nominate a woman."
"This is an insulting and a slap in a face to her career and to all women. Shame on you."
"I am disappointed as a woman that you endorsed Obama before the Democratic Primary is even over!"
"You confirmed my long-held contention that feminism in this country is truly dead."
"By not supporting Senator Clinton you might as well be endorsing Senator McCain...What kind of feminists are you??!"
"Et tu Brute. That's quite a blow to your gender and delivered at a prime time in campaign, too. The most rabid women haters could not have done more damage."
"Take me off your lists...if I get one call or harassment/I'll take legal action. you made your bed - now go sleep in it with B. Hussein O."
"The founders of the women's movement everywhere suffer a serious setback when their own sisters attempt to destroy them...The founders of the women's movement roll in their graves today..."
"I can't believe you aren't endorsing a woman for President are you a bunch of stupid ignorant women who prefer to be told what to do by a man."
"I'm supporting Hillary. I prefer to promote my own minority, not someone else's. Shame on Democratic Women!!!!!"
For your empirical enjoyment, here's the entire link:
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2008/05/naral-prochoice-6.html
May 16, 2008 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many black politicians have received comments as bad for not supporting Obama?
May 15, 2008 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, how many? Give us a few links.
May 15, 2008 6:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there was John Lewis, that's one. I'm pretty sure there was a second one, as well. None of these are coming from the Obama campaign itself, but most (if not all) of the betrayal comments directed at women for voting for Obama are also not coming from the Clinton campaign.
May 15, 2008 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lewis said it was hard for him to switch his support to Obama because of his long relationship with the Clintons. He said he had to recognize that something significant was happening in the country around Obama, and he had to honor the preferences of his constituency. Show me some equivalent public statement from key Obama supporters about Lewis to what was said above.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/us/politics/15clinton.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
May 15, 2008 7:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In re-reading contemporary news accounts, perhaps I am misremembering how prominent the critics were of Lewis et al. with respect to the unfortunate "plantation" accusations. I cannot find a named Obama supporter who actually leveled such an accusation.
May 15, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please post your proof where the Obama campaign told black supporters that they were "betraying" Obama by standing by Clinton.
May 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the comments by Tavis about how much pressure he has gotten is evidence enough.
May 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it isn't, where's the outrage?
May 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, show us a public statement from someone equivalent to the Congresswoman, Clinton surrogate and major organization quoted above, relating to Tavis Smiley's whining.
May 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...Tavis "LOOK AT MEEEEE!" Smiley? ROFL...Are you talking about him? Um...okay...it's incredibly stupid, but I'll bite: When did the Obama campaign say that Smiley being his same old egomanaical self means "betrayal"?
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not just Tavis. This is old. But pretty much shows what I mean:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/us/politics/07support.html
May 15, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How in the hell is the stuff in that article at all comparable to the quotes in the OP?
May 15, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 15, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I notice you don't offer examples of Tavis Smiley being attacked; you offer the example of Tavis Smiley perceiving himself as having been attacked.
Tavis Smiley did get criticized, but from what I saw the public criticism was generally on the grounds of the way Smiley was choosing to criticize Obama, not the mere fact he was supporting Clinton-- i.e. the criticism seemed to be for example that Smiley had crossed some kind of line that should not have been crossed with some of his comments ("something in the neighborhood", etc) and did not focus on the fact by itself he was supporting Clinton or criticizing Obama.
May 15, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. Provide the link where prominent Democrats attacked an African-American for supporting Clinton.
I'm not talking about random people posting on Internet sites. You can find every ugliness on the planet on various forums. (I spent an hour on hillaryis44 last night, and that stuff is vicious, but I do not attribute the views of these rabid supporters to Clinton or her campaign.)
So again, provide the quotes, or concede the case.
May 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Betrayal" is just a word and it probably accurately communicated the emotion the speaker was feeling. The same word hasn't been used by the Obama camp because he doesn't have as many public relationships which go back decades and any public groups or entities to whom he has provided service have been backing him in the election.
Offhand, I'd say that if Rev. Wright, Dick Durbin or the Illinois Democratic Party had endorsed Sen. Clinton, then Sen. Obama would feel the same emotion, but they've all have either remained neutral or in his corner, so the same emotion just isn't there.
May 15, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your point that Hillary, as the establishment candidate, is more likely to have been "betrayed". But still it's an example of the gracelessness that has, sadly, characterized her campaign.
May 15, 2008 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
...as opposed to all those posts yesterday about how the people of West Virginia are all a bunch of ignorant racists?
"Betrayal" is just a word; It's an accurate description of the speaker was feeling. The fact that Sen. Obama hasn't done that much with the constituency groups of the Democratic Party, or that he has few public friends with whom he has closely worked for a long period doesn't make him "better". In fact, the opposite could be argued and these attempts to make every little word choice appear offensive will help cost us the election in November.
May 15, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously comparing internet postings to the quoted comments by Harman, Carville and NY Now?
The fact that the chosen word may represent the teller's true feelings is kind of the point.
May 15, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no difference between what was said yesterday and what was said before, it's all just people expressing their opinions and no ones opinion is any valuable than any other.
May 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was said yesterday was based on the polling that 20% of the voters said race was important, and of those 82% voted for Clinton. WVans admitted that they were uncomfortable with Obama race. That's racist. What black voter has said they're voting against Clinton because she's white?
May 16, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL coming out for Obama is disgusting. As Jane Harman says they now can dump anyone at anytime. Why get involved in a Primary Campaign? It is a dumb a move as Moveon. Clinton supporters are starting to see many many signs that we are not welcome or needed in any Obama Democratic Party tent.
May 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
"we are not welcome...?"
"WE"???
That's a big word coming from a non-member.
Louisville, I simply don't believe you are a Democrat, just a phony concern troll.
And your one goal is to divide our party.
I do believe there a lot of bitter, desperate Clinton supporters fomenting and foaming at the mouth in sheer desperation, but you aren't one of them. You are just here to pretend you are a "disaffected Dem," with no party to call home, and you are consistently working to push others into that despicable condition.
May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah ok. Contact Chris Redfern in Columbus. Or either that or Howard Dean. Or maybe the Virginia Dem party....or maybe the Kentucky Dem party....Or maybe ...
I was doing things in this party when you were still picking boogers out of your nose.
May 15, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you heard, us old folks are "the establishment"; Obama doesn't need the votes of "real Democrats" or to placate core groups within the party because he can make them up votes with Independents; We should put a Republican on the ticket; Decades of party service means nothing; Every Democratic leader who hasn't endorsed Obama or remained neutral has no vision; Presidents Clinton and LBJ were bad guys; Jesse Jackson was just a black man; The Democrats had no ideas until Obama came onto the scene?
May 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to admit I didn't see this coming. NARAL? wow. Gotta say thats a kidney punch.
May 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
...especially considering the timing or the fact that their endorsement really won't help in most of the remaining primaries.
May 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
But did you read their explanation of the timing? NARAL has said that both candidates have been excellent advocates (indeed they both have perfect voting records for NARAL, NOW, and Planned Parenthood), but that it's clear to them that Obama is going to be the nominee and they want to help unify the party behind him.
They're not trying to affect the results of the primary, but they are trying to affect the results of the general (by getting in now).
May 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can explain breaking up with your Wife all you want but the message is still the same Ben. Why get involved in the first place. Nerves are raw. I see it as a way to humiliate Hillary. Simply put Obama and the left want to destroy her.
May 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're proving the point of the OP. You're seeing any endorsement as a slap against Hillary. Why does NARAL owe Hillary anything here? What difference does it make that Hillary has been fighting the same fight, but for longer?
Suppose you had a candidate who had been actively pro-choice throughout their 30-year career, and a second candidate that had been actively pro-choice throughout a 15-year career. And it was the judgment of the organization that both candidates would solidly support their cause, but the one with 15 years of experience had a better chance of being elected. Why should the organization support the 30-year experience candidate just because of the longer period of support?
May 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't think that NARAL's endorsement will have any effect on the remaining primaries and there's really no question about who'd they support in November. Also, I have to say that Hillary's service to the cause goes much deeper than her few years as a Senator, so the fact that the two candidates have a similar voting record is beside the point; Hillary's been in the fight for much longer.
Still, I don't think the endorsement really matters and I think that it was poorly thought-out because why should they take any unecessary action which could alienate some of their base?
May 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said. They are intent on humiliating her. "Destroy the bitch" is the motto. If TPM has shown me anything it is the hatred that it has for anything Hillary.
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have some kind of one-way filter on that causes you to hear stupid shit about Hillary but not stupid shit about Obama?
There's plenty of both in the blogosphere, and this site. If it's 70/30 here, it's not 100/0. There are other sites at least as heavy the other way.
People have to stop whining about how there are some assholes attacking their candidate. True of both candidates, not the point.
Love of the party means you rise above it, it's very simple.
May 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just disagree. And I don't really care about folks here or any other blog for that matter. What matters are things like NARAL which as I said before is a tough shot to take. What a mistake.
May 15, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your view of NARAL is confusing to me. If they endorsed Hillary, she's unlikely to win the nomination now, not sure what good that does.
I respect that the thing isn't over, but you understand that your candidate isn't likely to win. Obama has a 100% rating from one of the major abortion rights groups. It's not like he's going to appoint judges against their interests. It's a free market, and the idea that an endorsement is intended to injure and insult is simply not right. You or Clinton is entitled to hate it, but that doesn't make it hateful.
May 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL should have just stayed out of it. Just like MoveOn. Their collective dogs weren't in the fight. Why picks sides. We can all admit that both are good representatives for each group. It smacks of something else to me.
May 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
For NARAL, the stakes are high. They want -- need -- a Democratic pro-choice President. They want to support the winner.
The other thing is that NARAL, like many other feminist groups, has taken lessons from the mistakes of the second-wave feminist movement, which failed to take racism (or women of color) seriously. NARAL is committed to reproductive justice for all women. They're entitled to believe that healing the rift between white women and other Democrats of color is important to their mission, and they are entitled to support the candidate they think can best do it. They're entitled to conclude that Obama is better for their priorities than Clinton is. Fwiw, I think they're right.
May 15, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, believe me. I am the very tip of that iceberg. 15 million votes for Hillary. How is Obama or anyone in the Obama Org going to try and attract us. To date, I don't see even a sliver of an effort.
May 15, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
As Hillary herself would no doubt say, it's "premature" at this point to try to start attracting you in the way you're probably wanting to be attracted. (I.e., via olive branches to Hillary.)
May 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not true dude. IF they have won. Call off the dogs. Axelrove is still doing his dance.
May 15, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Louis, I know you're a very committed Democrat and not a concern troll.
At some point this thing of "the other camp isn't making me feel good" has to end. Obama is a unity guy, and he has said a lot to praise Hillary and her campaign, and will continue to do so. Because his share of Dems nationally is 71-76%, depending on who you read, he's going to be reaching out more to the Rust Belt states, probably less the Appalachian states, to work toward her base within the party. It will happen.
Let's not personalize this quite to that degree, it doesn't help. No one is saying that the near-half of the party with her is irrelevant. I've met David Axelrod, and he talks very respectfully of Hillary's campaign. He's not "Axelrove." Give the guy his props, if you want to be fair, and want people to be fair to your causes.
May 15, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can this not become personal at this stage? Certainly the villification of Hillary by Obama supporters started well before 2008.
Not sure what your getting to on how many dems he is pulling. I think its wishful thinking if your saying he has 71-76% dems. He has gotten here based mostly off of Independents and "new" voters. The rank and file of the party is squarely in the other camp.
That is his problem in a nutshell. We can stop calling names all we want but certainly if the shoe was on the other foot there would be some howling going on.
Imagine if the SLC endorsed Hillary over Obama.
May 15, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louis, just factually, Rasmussen says Obama has 71% of Dems, Gallup says 76%. That's why he leads McCain in head to heads. He has his half of the party, and in the general, about half of her half, which puts you around 3/4 for now.
As to your point about SLC, she still has roughly half of the Congressional Black Caucus as SDs, though those SDs' districts weren't with her. So I don't have to imagine that, it's the case. Doesn't offend me. Soon those SDs will all be with him, not because he got more black, but because he'll soon the nominee.
I'll leave you be on this, but it's a great stride for the party to have a woman or black nominee. Much positive on this, hope you get more excited later.
May 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, done too. Just didn't realize that that had happened. The NARAL thing. A bit of a shock.
May 15, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a limit to how conciliatory the Obama campaign can be before Clinton actually drops out.
Either Obama's the nominee for all intents and purposes, in which case NARAL acted in an entirely appropriate manner, or he isn't, in which case your demand that Obama's supporters act magnanimous in victory is ridiculously inappropriate.
May 15, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you want Obama to do to attract you?
May 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't see it, it's because you're not looking. Edwards' speech last night was all about reconciliation and reaching out.
May 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Louisville1975:
What has he done to "attract" you? How about he is a Democrat, and you, supposedly, are too? When Dean lost the primary fight in 2004 Kerry didn't do anything to "attract" me; he didn't have to. I am a Democrat, and he was our nominee. My God, you must be a Boomer. All this talk about how everybody owes you something. And if you don't get what you want, you will take your ball and go to the field of people who hate you. Selfish, selfish. Unfuckingbelievable.
May 15, 2008 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't care for this "you must be Karl Rove" shit when Sen. Clinton's supporters were slinging it, and I care for it even less coming from an Obama supporter.
Chill. Lou is a disaffected jerk. That doesn't mean he's any less of a liberal than you claim to be.
May 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought NARAL was for women's rights; not specifically for women.
Both Clinton and Obama have strong records on women's rights so why is it "disgusting" for them to support the candidate with the Y chromosome?
May 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you serious with this shit? I was a Dean supporter and local delegate. I was privately disgusted that my party chose an establishment candidate who voted for the war and had no chance of winning the election. Did I throw a fucking tantrum? No. I put a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on my car, a sign on my lawn, wrote letters to the editor of my local newspaper, and voted for him proudly. Why? Because I am a Democrat, and he is the one my party chose.
Are you kidding me? You will only remain a Democrat if your party chooses the one you wanted, period? And if you didn't get your chosen candidate, you will vote for the guy whose positions are diametrically opposed to the candidate you supposedly support? Give us a break.
You are not a true Hillary supporter because you obviously are wholly unfamiliar with what she stands for. She is pro-choice, and McCain wants to put women in jail for having an abortion. If McCain is elected, he will get to put a minimum of two, and as many as five, justices on the Supreme Court. And they will all, I promise you, be in their fucking 40s with low cholesterol and nice blood pressure. And they will hate women, gays, minorities, laborers, and non-Christians. But as long as you got to make your point, it was worth it, right?
May 15, 2008 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why get involved in a Primary Campaign?
From reading NARAL's statement it seems it is precisely because the primary campaign is over and the general campaign has begun that NARAL chose to get involved.
May 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Desperation is the mother of more desperation...
May 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
More talk on this NARAL decision
http://feministing.com/archives/009197.html#comments
May 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay - Nice post. It's that old debbil: Entitlement.
And political dynasties breed it and it has to be stopped. It's anathema to democracy.
I've had it with these entitled politicians - it's never too late to polish the fifes and the drums from 1776 and be Americans again. Maybe they need to be reminded of that every so often.
Jefferson believed that completely and the longer I live, the more I see what he meant.
May 15, 2008 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more of an Adams guy, even though his son became President, and I agree about dynasties.
Jefferson owned his mistress (having one, totally fine with that, owning the mistress, not so good), had a bunch of kids with her, didn't acknowledge her parentage of them, and didn't set her free at his death.
In a word, Jefferson was a wanker.
May 15, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
O my god - Adams is the worst of allllll the founders.
He started this bullshit - the Alien and Sedition Acts? Are you mad? Totally?
O I'm terribly disappointed. I can't stand Adams.
May 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Adams takes so much grief, as if everything he did in his life was negated by one really shitty thing. He _did_ go along with the Alien and Sedition Acts, but he didn't exercise the sweeping powers they gave him, and he:
Didn't. Own. His Family.
Can't even compare those two things, for me.
Give me an angry lawyer who avoided war with France over some fancy talking guy who owned other human beings. It's not like "everyone was doing it" like marijuana in high school, and Jefferson was peer-pressured into slaveowning.
Slavery was an issue discussed in connection with the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, one that bore more heavily on the mind of Washington, no fancy pants intellectual but a Virginia landowner who grappled more honestly with this issue, it was discussed in connection with the Constitutional Convention.
Americans of conscience in the 1700s were dealing with the contradictions between Jefferson's lofty rhetoric and this evil, but Jefferson was not. He was quite the narcissist, and his use of the Aurora and proxies to promote faction was, while understandable by contemporary political mores that didn't exist yet, not consistent with the Washington/Adams yearning for national unity that was more idealistic than political, and more beneficial to our form of government than harmful to it, IMHO.
Writing the Declaration of Independence and buying Louisiana are two epic, signal achievements in American history. I give him his due there. But I don't like him as a person.
May 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, can we compromise on Franklin?
I mean - Thomas Jefferson had his faults, but wanting an aristocratic presidency was sure not one of them. And the man was no pedestrian thinker - he was a genius.
Adams was another New Englander, AFAIC.
But Franklin is my kind of guy - he loved the ladies and he loved to party and he was as smart almost as Jefferson.
May 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nicely done Tena.
To my way of thinking, one of the biggest drawbacks for both Jefferson and Adams -- geniuses both -- was that they each liked each other -- assholes both. ('Course that was when both careers were over.)
Ben Franklin was the original hard-working genius hippy. A bit of a self-promoting blowhard, but more of a renaissance man even than TJ.
May 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
O Tena.
Franklin was great, and knew how to have a good time. And yes, Jefferson was a great thinker. I like the thinking and doing to have more congruence, but no question on the Adams side, the Alien & Sedition Act was evil.
My affection for Adams is in part because I used to walk across the Freedom Trail in suburban Boston every day on the way to class. The New Englanders were the firebrands of the Revolution. They're kind of crotchety these days, but back in the 1770s, they were pretty righteous.
May 15, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
ALMOST??? Franklin brokered the "Great Compromise" and helped keep the constitutional convention going!
May 15, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Jefferson's rankle with Hamilton is what gave rise to the two-party system.
Jefferson was definitely prickly...and had serious issues in maintaining his finances. Hamilton, on the other hand, figured out a way to put the US on some sort of economic system that was stable.
Everyone is beautiful... in their own way...
May 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, if Franklin doesn't work for y'all as a consensus hero, how about Tom Paine?
May 15, 2008 8:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gawd, I love TPM. Where else tonight are people arguing passionately over which of the Founding Fogies was best? 8-)
May 16, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena:
No one at TPM is more anti-dynasty than myself (just look at my profile), however the Adams weren't much of a dyanasty: they represented two different political parties.
Same with the Roosevelts.
The Kennedys were very different, of course. But that seems to have stopped.
The Bushes and Clintons with tight bonds, same party affiliation and tight proximity of presidential terms are the real danger here.
May 15, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
We political outsiders are the ones who really take all this posturing and taking sides to heart, much more so than the candidates and their campaigns. They are accustomed to all the back-biting and betrayal as the norm. As PA blue collar,low income white guy, this campaign season has filled me with hope,anxiety,faith in my fellow man, and feelings of anger,and pride in our young people. It has been an emotional rollercoaster ride that makes me sick to my stomach and still compels me to keep riding. I for one will not feel like kissing and making up with the opposition, and will be happy when it is all over. And what universe are the Clintonites living in? Is it a hopeful one, or just one where they have faith in the treachery and survival instincts of their candidate? What is more compelling,the feeling of betrayal, or their blind loyalty to the wrong woman at the right time?
May 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with your assumptions but it simply isn't the point with the NARAL endorsement and I know you know that.
May 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does the NARAL endorsement mean to you then?
In my mind most late to the party endorsements (including Edwards) are really just people or groups hopping on the bandwagon of the likely winner so I don't typically take an endorsement like this too seriously; but obviously you do and I would respectfully like to understand your feelings about it.
May 15, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
NARAL is not Emily's List. They are not an organization whose purpose is to promote female candidates for elective office.
They have one issue: Reproductive rights. If this had been Emily's List, your vitriol would make sense, but NARAL? You are way off on this.
Also, since Hillary is not the candidate (Bill is), but rather a puppet for the real candidate, why do you care which of the two Democratic men vying for the White House NARAL chose?
May 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Double standards Phoebe.
I would like to say more, but took a pledge to my self last night to leave her alone!
May 15, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
One of you asked, rather wistfully, when HRC supporters would be wooed by the Obama camp?
Please, look at the facts. You are being wooed right now. You hear nothing disrespectful about HRC from Obama or from his team, although the same cannot be said in reverse.
You will be wooed even more obviously: 1) when HRC shows us she actually cares about the party and gracefully concedes; 2) when HRC supporters stop swearing angrily that they will vote for McCain; and 3) when HRC supporters start thinking about what a McCain presidency would really mean: more ultra-conservative Supreme Court justices = more invasion of privacy and less choice; more voter registration restrictions in future elections skewing the results to the GOP; and less support for workers on every level... all this, just for starters.
Cinton supporters: please stop sabotaging our collective chances; instead, join us in support of a new and better day. We welcome you.
May 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You are being wooed right now. You hear nothing disrespectful about HRC from Obama or from his team..."
And in fact you have an Edwards appearance where he goes out of his way to praise Hillary.
May 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was it my imagination or when Edwards tried to praise Hillary in his speech he was greeted with a loud chorus of boos?
May 15, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, well, Hillary needs to do some wooing of her own. Her unpleasantness has not earned her a whole of friends in the Obama camp. BUT, Obama has CONSITENTLY risen above her nasty attacks.
And, by the way, Obama stepped up and put the nix on the booers.
May 15, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can I just take you back in time a while to exhibit why you don't hear "negative" campaigning from the Obama campaign? Why? Because they are running and have run a campaign style right out of the GWB playbook. GWB in 2000 didn't do anything outright by himself or anyone that was associated to him to torch John McCain. Still the deed was done. How? Of course, those "supporters" of his campaign that somehow couldn't be brought into line with what the campaign wanted.
It is the same with the Obama campaign. Say nothing outright yet leave it to your minions to say what you want said. The style is exactly the same. It seemingly has worked? And why not, it gave us GWB as President twice. GWB did never "swift boated" John Kerry but he sure didn't stop anyone either. David Axelrod and by extension BO has done the same.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/03/21/the_anatomy_of_a_smear_campaign/
May 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what were the untrue smears against Clinton? If Obama surrogates were pushing smears, if there was negative push-polling, then please, post examples.
I can give you an example of an outright lie promoted on behalf of the Clinton campaign - the Muslim lie. This has been pushed all over the place, by a lot of different sources. As far as I know, none have been tied definitively to the Clinton campaign, but as far as I know, Clinton didn't do anything to stop them.
Please, give me a comparable example of a lie being spread against Clinton?
May 15, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's this willingness to interpret words and phrases in only a negative light that's not helping Obama with MOR voters and which may come back to haunt us in the fall.
"As far as I know" isn't a lie; It doesn't promote an agenda; It was just an off-the-cuff add-on which reflected a fact. Hillary didn't know what is in Obama's heart. There was no question from the rest of the response that she believes Obama to be as he represents himself, but none of us know what he truly believes and the lawyer in Hillary probably couldn't leave her response unqualified for this reason.
May 15, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You ignore my question. Louisville is accusing Obama of running a smear campaign against Clinton comparable to what Bush did in 2000, but he gives no proof. I asked for an example. I still don't have it.
I gave an example of a known smear campaign against Obama. I want an example of a comparable smear campaign against Clinton.
May 15, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Phoebe Fay, your example of an outright lie promoted on behalf of the Clinton campaign - that Obama is a muslim - is just plain wrong. It is simply ridiculous to dub HRC's stupid off-hand disclaimer ("as far as I know") as a smear campaign. Swift Boat veterans for truth - that's a smear. A silly lawyerism, to be sure, but a smear campaign? (And please don't bring up the trifling non-story of the photo of BHO in tribal garb that hasn't even been linked to the Clinton campaign).
So there is no reason, really, to bring up any equivalent lies peddled by the Obama campaign. There haven't been any. And I'm not straining to find any either. I suggest you do the same and worry about John McCain in November.
May 15, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hasn't even been linked to the Clinton