Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Concession to Clinton
For most of this campaign, I've felt that the democrats have had an election handed to them on a silver platter, and the only thing that could get the GOP out of their funk and energized would be democratic nominee Sen. Hillary Clinton. It's been a GOP bate fantasy since 1996. She would lose in the general election, and our majorities in the house and senate would shrink or disappear.
I don't think that anymore. I think that John McCain may have appeal to independents and moderates, but he's a flawed enough candidate that his temper and doddering old man image make it possible for a tenacious, fierce, and ruthless Senator Clinton to defeat him in November. She will be a better president than John McCain even if her only policy achievement is to bring all of our troops home by the midterm elections in 2010. I predict that democratic majorities in the house in the senate will not grow. They will likely shrink, but she can pull out a general election win.
The point is that I just won't care.
Was I happier in the 90's? Yes. Was Bill Clinton a better president than either Bush? Definitely, but the Clintons share some blame for how bad things are now. Under the Clinton administration, democrats lost a majority in the house they held for over 40 years. During his two terms, the democratic party hemorrhaged seats in congress and governorships. Right or wrong, the religious right ascended to power with the Clintons as the focus for all of their anger. They were perceived as criminals and their crimes so great that even if the Monica Lewinski scandal was lame, if it was the one thing they could get to stick, so be it. The Clintons emerged from the 90's unscathed. They evaded every scandal, and came out the other end with a seat in the senate and a $250k guarantee for speaking engagements. This, friends, made the climate fertile for George W. Bush to fly under the radar, running as a uniter, not a divider, all the way to the white house where the neocons, hard right wingers, and christian conservatives could reap their revenge. You know how the rest goes. Don't get me wrong. Bush and his rubber stamp congress are responsible for the travesties of the last eight years, but lingering anger from the Clinton years primed the political climate to create a perfect storm for Bush and company to come to power.
Bush and company of course played their hand too strong, their policies proved to be disastrous, and here we are again. Another perfect storm. The pendulum swings back. Do you see a pattern here?
Can Sen. Clinton win? Yes. Will she be a better president than John McCain? Yes. Will I be happier with her as president than John McCain? Yeah, probably I will. Will I give a shit at all about politics and where this country is headed? No, I won't. Because I will have learned that hope is for assholes. Politics of division are here to stay. It was naive to ever think different. People that resent someone running for the highest office in the nation for seeming too intellectual don't deserve intellectuals for president. They deserve frat boys like George W. Bush. People that get off on knee in the crotch politics of distortion, distraction, gotcha moments, and pandering.. They can have that. It's all negative, hateful, pointless, and poisonous. I'll happily tune out politics and focus on things that make me happy.
Yeah, I'll still vote, but again, I won't care, and I'm not alone.
Comments (14)
The nominee will not Hillary be.
May 5, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
WHAT WE WILL DO IF SHE DOES WIN
Poop pants and sit in them.
You've been warned.
Sincerely
Committee for the Emotionally Unstable and Guilty Without Cause (CEUGWC)
VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE
NOT YOUR WHITE GUILTY CONSCIENCE
May 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you, but hope still isnt for assholes. People ARE stupid.But dont let other people affect who you are and what you believe. EVER. If helping to save the country makes you happy then you can still do that, and do your best to ignore the ignorant...and hopefully not snapping someones neck :P
This is how Civil Wars are started and I am beginning to wonder if America might be due for one.
I dont know if we can ever REALLY come together as a nation because there are so many people that just cant do it. They cant look another man/woman in the eyes. Or think with their mind.
The only other thing I think can really change that is maybe if we have a war on our own soil. That usually snaps people back into reality very quickly.
May 5, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Works for me. As this site proves, you can't love everyone.
May 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the Democrats have not offered an ignorant and ignorance-loving candidate, so I don't know where part of your rant comes from. Clinton is not running an anti-intellectual campaign since her main selling point is competence and preparedness.
Yes, she tries to tag Obama as an elitist and quite successfully since San Francisco. Personally, I long for the day when someone finally says, "hell yeah, I am one of the elite and you should be damn glad" but that will never happen. Good grief, Obama went bowling to try to show he was "just folks."
I agree there's a strong anti-intellectual bias in this country, but I don't see Clinton appealing to that since she has as good intellectual credentials as Obama.
May 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too be fair, I don't think he/she's ranting, it's more acceptance that there was too much dream at the beginning and in the end we'll end up with a flawed but satisfactory candidate, whether he or she.
Don't beat up on people when they're shaking hands, poor form.
May 6, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what point you want to make, but please get your facts straight. The only consistent feature of many Obama supporters has been either a deliberate distortion of the Clinton record or fuzziness with the facts.
Democrats in Congress did not continue to lose seats under Clinton after 1994 - in the House, Democrats gained seats in the 1996, 1998 and 2000 elections.
It is also incorrect to assert that "the religious right ascended to power with the Clintons as the focus for all of their anger." In the first place, the religious right began a remarkable and steady advance to power well before anyone had ever heard of Clinton. Secondly, are you saying it's Clinton's fault that he was a "focus" of their anger? If a nutjob attacks you on the street who is at fault - the nutjob, or you for being a "focus" of his anger?
May 6, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, beating up someone during a concession is bad form. There's time to debate the details later, accept the handshake in peace and friendship.
May 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
DKDC-
Hmm not sure I completely agree.
As we all know 1994 was the big loss year. In fact for the first time since 1946 the Democrats lost their majority. I would have to say the '94 loss was strong backlash against a number of things and one of them was Bill Clinton. I agree the Religious Right started their ascendancy long before. I think soon after the Vietnam era as the Silent Majority started to find their voice. It gained more power through the Reagan years. However and here's where I diverge from your point. I do think they started to hit their peak during the Clinton years. Bill's indiscretions gave them all they needed.
Now as you rightly point out they did gain seats back, but in drips.
It took Bush's ineptitude to finally win back a slim majority in 2006.
May 6, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oregon -
I will only disagree in that Hillary as of late has been on this anti-elitist rant. So in that sense she is running a anti-intellectual campaign. The there is - I don't need people who are smart telling me about what is good policy. Her counter to economists and her gas tax holiday shell game.
May 6, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will NEVER under ANY circumstances vote for her. Not now. Not EVER.
May 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear you, and appreciate your perspective, though it makes me a little sad, and I hope it will prove to have been overstated, albeit unintentionally. What is critical is that you are looking at which Democrat can win the White House in the fall; that is what we all NEED to do. Seeing McCain's praise for Roberts and Alito today is all we need to remind us that our singular focus must be on which candidate can save us from more of them. Clinton can do that. She also happens to be shockingly smart, in an intuitive, practical, effective way, as much as in book learning. And she has become a diplomat to a degree that I never realized would be possible. I am proud to be supporting her, and thrilled to have you aboard. I hope when you see the results you will regain some of your enthusiasm, even as you temper it with the reality of politics under our Constitution.
May 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Btw, this isn't a concession that Sen. Clinton will be the nominee. This is merely a concession that if she somehow managed to get the nomination, she could A) win, and B) would be a better president than John McCain even if still a huge dissapointment.
May 6, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's how I took your concession as well. Thanks.
May 6, 2008 11:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment