Hillary Clinton is angry! And it’s not at George Bush, or terrorists, or even her increasingly Falstaffian husband! No, it’s at Barack Obama! And not because Barack’s the frontrunner and is on the cusp of rendering worthless Hillary’s last 2-9 years of work (depending on how you’re counting!)! No! It’s because after a long, hard-fought campaign, Obama has suddenly chosen this moment, when it’s all but wrapped up, to start fighting dirty!
It sounds unlikely! But it’s true! And now she’s mad! It’s not frustration or bitterness or merely a last-ditch tactic! It’s about being a victim! And not being willing to be a victim any more! It’s about being SO doggone mad you need to let it out even if it mean fracturing your party and laying out a blueprint for Republican attacks in the November election! It’s about being so mad that you wave pamphlets and waggle fingers and pump fists and if photos that make your opponent look like a scary foreign terrorist, well, HE’S the one who first took out the metaphorical box cutter and started waving it around your metaphorical campaign jet, isn’t he!? And maybe that’s a poorly chosen analogy with some pretty serious connotations but let’s face it things get SAID when you’re angry because someone has just flown a plane into the carefully-constructed towers of your campaign strategy! Ibid! Like they say, all’s fair in love and Barack Obama is a silvertongued liarface I’m paraphrasing of course!
So let the debate begin tonight! Everything has changed since one week ago when things were exactly the same! So now the gloves are coming off because sometimes something happens that you just can’t abide and if that’s coincidentally also when you have your last realistic shot at changing the tone of the campaign, well it’s not your fault that it’s really, really coincidental because you can’t be concerned about that at all because you’re angry about certain liars whose name I won’t mention but whose name is Barack Hussein Obama! Bring it on!
Fanny Roborat
75 comments
margaret
February 26, 2008 at 10:59 am
1It’s really interesting to me that the candidate responsible for the egregiously inaccurate mailers to NH voters, accusing Obama of being vehemently anti-choice, is suddenly crying “Shame on you!” about a couple of relatively accurate flyers he sent to OH voters. A couple of weeks ago.
I can’t say whether the Clinton attempt to paint Obama as anti-choice was responsible for her squeaker of a win in the Granite State. But it divided the partisans of each candidate and seems to have left an indelible scar locally.
So we’re sitting here paralysed by shock and awe at the sheer hypocrisy of the present line of attack. And yet, we’re really not surprised.
Rob Allen
February 26, 2008 at 11:09 am
2Adam, grammar check - the sentence that starts with “It’s about being so mad…” has a problem in this section: “…and if photos that make your opponent look…” Did you mean “and if there are photos that make your opponent look…” or “and if photos make your opponent look…” or something like that?
Ann
February 26, 2008 at 11:25 am
3Rob, don’t try to correct him when he gets like this. Adam, take a deep breath.
No, this obvious attempt to paint Hillary as “hysterical” just because she’s speaking forcefully isn’t the slightest bit misogynistic, nosiree…although of course if either Gore or Kerry had found a bit of righteous anger, their respective presidential bids might have ended differently.
Alexander
February 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm
4There’s no excuse for the Obama flyer on Hillary and NAFTA. Page 3 makes it clear that they knew that she didn’t use the word “boon” (if she had, Newsday would have put it in quotes themselves) and putting their BS sentence that strongly implies that did use the word right above the sentence they are actually quoting the word from makes it even more obvious.
Obama’s defense of the mailing is the scummiest thing he’s done, perhaps the only scummy thing he’s done through the campaign. But it is scummier than any one thing that Hillary’s campaign has done.
Both of the their efforts trying to paint the other as softer on NAFTA when they apparently each feel the exact same way about it is dumb. Yeah, OH hates it. But neither of them would repeal it. Both of them want future trade treaties to be more careful about environmental and labor laws. Both want them to pay more attention to blue collar workers. And neither can force Mexico to the table. The only difference is that Obama is willing to use NAFTA as a shorthand for all trade treaties and globalization in general (like most people do) and Hillary talks about trade treaties in general (to avoid stepping on on Bill’s first big legislative victories).
If Hillary attacks Obama on things that he is genuinely vulnerable on, that doesn’t mean that she’s writing the playbook for the GOP. Obama has got to be able to answer those charges. McCain WILL hit him on foreign policy and national security experience (or lack thereof). I want to see how he responds. I want to see how he responds to aggressive attacks. And I DON’T want her to resort to untrue smears.
If his message, his record and his candidacy can’t take her attacks, he doesn’t deserve the nomination because there would be no reason to believe that he can survive the general election. And if she can’t stick to the honorable truth — which does not mean that she’s not allow to offend Obama supporters/worshippers — then she doesn’t deserve the nomination either, as it might indicate that she can’t get the turnout she’ll need from Dems to win in the general.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 26, 2008 at 1:15 pm
5Hysterical* is the word I reserve for a lot of the right wing attacks on both remaining Democratic candidates.
Mark Halperin has suggested “allowing some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.”(via c&L)
Well, quite a few supporters have stepped up to the plate lately, and published thoroughly disgusting (and some outright dangerously lunatic) screed.
And of course, Hillary has been the target for misogenistic attacks from the right since her days as first lady, so the right-wing machinations are nothing surprising to her.
To both of those kinds of attacks from the right, I say, keep it up. We want to see those true colors (with the exception of the previously mentioned veiled calls for violence).
However, accusations of misogeny or racism leveled by either Democratic campaigns against their opponents do no good in promoting the views and platforms of either candidate. Really, does anybody think that Hillary and Bill are racist or that Barack is a chauvinist?
On a personal note, I was more turned off by Senator Clinton’s pie in the sky mockery of the ideology of hope, than I have been by any of the other putative anti-women or racist “attacks” from either side.
Ann
February 26, 2008 at 2:29 pm
6OK, Jim, but if you removed the word “putative,” would your opinion be the same? That is, would you prefer actual sexist or racist attacks over attacks on the validity of “hope” as a campaign platform?
Because if not, you’re just saying that you find noninsulting attacks nonoffensive, which isn’t particularly controversial!
And regarding your “does anybody think” question, you seem to be implying that it’s impossible for Hillary, Bill, or Barack to maintain any of the attitudes—no matter how unspoken or unconscious—that they have been exposed to since birth.
And I must answer yes, it’s certainly possible. We all have deep-seated biases that we have to work hard just to recognize, let alone counteract. Just tally up the number of exclamation marks in Adam’s posting, and tell me whether “hysterical” is an exaggeration.
Harold
February 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm
7Check out Tina Fey’s guest commentary from Saturday Night Live: “Bitch is the New Black”:
http://supertiff.com/?p=448
(Damn. The video appears to have gone missing again. But Tiffany included a transcript! And check out the rest of Tiffany’s site while you’re over there. She’s amazing!)
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 26, 2008 at 3:13 pm
8Ann, we’ve met and talked. Of course I would be offended by actual racist or misogynistic attacks.
My point is that, from Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment about Barack being “racist”, to Barack’s comment about Hillary “feeling down” being misogynistic; there is a certain amount of over-reaching when the it comes to playing the respective “racist/anti-woman” card.
Compound that with the fact that the extreme right is apparently trying to conflate the situation, and it’s a recipe for dissaffecting voters for either candidate before we even get to the general election. See the C&L story from today regarding the lucianne.com 2009 inaugural ball Barack joke, that was apparently later applied to Clinton campaign staffers: http://www.crooksandliars.com/.
That’s why that particular form of rhetoric needs to be brought down a notch or three, regardless of which camp is leveling the charge.
One final note, I looked over some of Adam’s past posts and have come to the conclusion that he is addicted to exclamation points.
Adam, hie thee to yee olde punctuation treatment facility.
nato
February 26, 2008 at 3:16 pm
9Is this what you’re looking for, Harold?
(Hopefully that’s not something that pisses of Fanny)
nato
February 26, 2008 at 3:18 pm
10Fanny didn’t like the embed, so here’s a link to Gigglechick’s site — scroll down to Feb 24 to view.
http://www.gigglechick.com/erin/blog/index.htm
nato
February 26, 2008 at 3:19 pm
11Crap. Here’s the permalink, not sure why I didn’t use it the first time . . . http://www.gigglechick.com/erin/blog/2008/02/bitch_is_the_new_black_sn l_is.htm
Ann
February 26, 2008 at 3:38 pm
12Jim, I remember you! And I didn’t suggest that you wouldn’t be offended by actual sexist/racist attacks. I didn’t say anything like that. I’m questioning your relative levels of outrage.
Basically you said that you were more upset about “real” attacks (mockery of hope) that you were by attacks that you didn’t think were actually offensive. I just don’t think that’s saying much, so I asked if that would still be true if you did think they were offensive.
Let’s stipulate that it’s OK—it’s actually expected—that opponents will attack each other. At the same time, we expect the attacks to be about substance and to not be offensive, however we define that. In this race, attacking an opponent’s race or gender is generally going to be considered offensive. So if HRC says that basing a presidential bid on “hope” is ridiculous or inadequate, she might come across as terribly cynical, but she’s not being offensive.
Both candidates should be—and are presumed to be—sophisticated about the use of various phrases as they relate to race and gender. We would be appalled if HRC complimented BHO on his sense of rhythm or excellent dancing, even though neither of those comments is racist on its face.
By the same token, talking about a woman’s “periodic emotional lows” (or whatever he said) isn’t on its face sexist, but it’s extremely clumsy and unsophisticated—so much so that it can be heard as a “dog whistle.” Whether one is inclined to hear it that way depends on one’s sensitivity and experience to that kind of talk in daily life and public discourse. I, for one, have had my fill of it.
Mojo
February 26, 2008 at 3:40 pm
13What on earth has Adam said that could possibly be considered misogynistic? If you replaced “Clinton” with “McCain” and “she” with “he”, would you still think Adam was trying to paint the person as “hysterical” or rather was simply pointing out that the supposed righteous anger was nothing but a pose from a campaign looking for a way to turn things around. “I didn’t say the word ‘boon’, I simply used words that led the interviewers to conclude that I felt it was a boon” is, at best, worthy of a request that the quotation marks be removed from the literature. It isn’t the kind of thing that should lead to a crusade.
(I know Clinton didn’t actually speak the exact sentence I placed in quotes but that is the essence of her argument. And I’m not using the word crusade as an attack on Muslims. And if any portion of the above was previously said by someone else, I apologize. I am not intentionally plagiarizing them.)
Harold
February 26, 2008 at 4:29 pm
14Thanks, nato! But it looks like the video on Supertiff’s site was just taking a while to show up.
gigglechick
February 26, 2008 at 4:38 pm
15just followed the breadcrumbs from my stats back to this post :}
thanks for slapping my links up here, Nato!!
sharon
February 26, 2008 at 4:57 pm
16I think this latest dustup highlights the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama is going to call for a repeal of NAFTA, or of any other free trade agreement. Unfortunately, this plays right into Ralph Nader’s hand.
Ann
February 26, 2008 at 4:59 pm
17Yes, Mojo, and if you say HRC has a good sense of rhythm, you’re not being a racist. Just switching the gender of the people being discussed and saying “See, there’s nothing wrong with it” is either incredibly naive or disingenuous.
I don’t accuse Adam of being a misogynist. I’m quite sure he’s not. I admire Adam and am very fond of him. I’m saying that this posting has a whiff of misogyny—undoubtedly unintended. That you don’t recognize it isn’t evidence of its absence. As I said previously, we all have deep-seated biases that we have to work hard just to recognize, let alone counteract.
And now someone is free to say that I’m too sensitive or that libbers don’t have a sense of humor. Where’s the fan club now?
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 26, 2008 at 5:44 pm
18I don’t know about Obama, but George W. Bush fulfills the dancing stereotypes attributed to middle-aged straight white men.
John Travolta, however…….
nato
February 26, 2008 at 5:57 pm
19Hey! No mocking of middle-aged straight white men’s dancing abilities! Some of us will be living that stereotype in a few more years!
Elliott
February 26, 2008 at 6:21 pm
20Hi Ann,
If you question what a person says, please quote him or her, don’t put words in hers or his mouth.
“I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she’s feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal.”
–Sen. Barack Obama speaking about Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign tactics to reporters on Friday, as quoted by the Associated Press.
Check it out on you tube and the effect is different, the word “periodically” sounds different. From my perspective, I agree with Jim in saying, “there is a certain amount of over-reaching when the it comes to playing the respective “racist/anti-woman” card.”, but I do say that the media and pundits do try to fan the flames as high as they can and the media is guilty of overt sexism when it comes to the coverage of Hillary.
My 2 cents, back to the lounge.
sharon
February 26, 2008 at 6:29 pm
21“Check it out on you tube and the effect is different, the word “periodically” sounds different. ”
Oh, dear. Now I have to re-examine my opinion of Obama. Surely he knows that a 60-year-old woman is past menopause??
Elliott
February 26, 2008 at 6:56 pm
22Excellent riposte Sharon, you parsed me into oblivion. That is exactly what the media is doing, parsing everything into sound bites to fan the flames. Thanks for that.
I am not saying that he did not say something that on it’s face is mysoginistic. If you don’t agree with his positions and his campaign so far, that’s fine, but if you can’t even suppose that his comments were possibly anything but a extremely poor choice of words at that moment and can’t make the effort to listen to what he said in it’s true context for your own edification then this election is truly about media coverage and the he said/he said politics that we need to move beyond.
The AnnFan Club
February 26, 2008 at 8:28 pm
23Adam sure got things stirred up here tonight, didn’t he?
Oh boy, did he ever. But remember he’s a professional writer (in Hollywood!!!) and he is very skilled in knowing which buttons to metaphorically push.
Well, he certainly did whack the hornets nest with a hickory stick this time.
(Check the membership list, George. I think Dan Rather may have joined the club!)
Chatsworth, who do you think will be more famous in five years, Dan Rather or Adam Felber?
Well, when he worked for Spike, Adam was definitely getting more air time than Dan.
I think Adam lost a lot of weight towards the end of the season, wouldn’t you say?
Maybe. It could have been the clothes, though. But when you start off the season with a slow-mo foot race wearing only briefs, it’s not the most flattering view of one’s physique.
OK, maybe. But what I have noticed is true, is that when Ann gets really involved in a heated discussion, she becomes even more attractive, don’t you think?
Yeeaah…
Yeah…
(Sigh!…)
As long as she’s not angry with me!
Yes! Of course.
Goes without saying!
Absolutely!
Totally!
For sure.
So, who are you voting for?
I don’t know yet. I’m just thrilled that we don’t have to choose between the lesser of two evils again this time.
Hear!! Hear!!
Nigel, good to see you, old chap! (Is he in the House of Lords now?)
(I hope so. Otherwise, his powdered wig just comes across as creepy!)
Ann
February 26, 2008 at 8:51 pm
24Great Lobster, Elliott, you’re just making stuff up now. I didn’t “question” what Obama said, nor did I put words in his mouth. I made it very clear that I wasn’t quoting him exactly; and the difference between “periodic emotional lows” and “periodically, when she’s feeling down” is so fine as to prevent parsing of any sort. It certainly wasn’t worth researching for the purposes of this discussion.
I have no serious objections to Obama. If he’s the candidate, I’ll vote for him enthusiastically. I haven’t attacked Obama, or his positions, or anything about him. ALL I said about Obama was that this statement was clumsy and unsophisticated, and that it’s open to interpretation. Your despair about someone’s (mine? Sharon’s?) failure to “listen to what he said” is misplaced, particularly because you have no idea whether I have listened to him at all.
Dale
February 26, 2008 at 8:53 pm
25Where I see sexism is in this race (beyond the overtly sexist right-wing crazies) is in the degree to which Democrats and reasonable independents have decided to HATE Hillary, rather than acknowledge that the candidates are pretty close on most issues and choose one or the other based on a rational thought process. And also the degree of glee they find in indulging their anti-Hillary sentiments.
As far as the relative sexism vs. racism debate–I think it´s pretty obvious that there are many more structural obstacles facing black men in this country than white women. However, I think white prejudice is principally targeted against African-American culture and community–the blacks –more than against an individual black man who by education, class, and self-presentation has assimilated into the dominant “white” culture. On the other hand, white men aren’t particularly threatened by women in the aggregate, but they do have serious deep-seeded (deep-seated, Ann?) issues with a single, powerful, ambitious woman. In that sense, Hillary has more to overcome than Obama.
Okay, I’m sticking my fingers back in my ears. Let me know when this is all over.
David
February 26, 2008 at 8:56 pm
26The Republican smear machine will be in high gear totally irrespective of anything Clinton or Obama say in the primary. Sure they’ll use whatever either says, but they’d do it anyway, even if they had to make it up.
Only two real questions I see, assuming Barack is the nominee: How effectively will he counter the Republican smears, and how effective will he be in debates with Smiling John? Nothing in the primary, short of an irreparable blunder by Obama, actually matters. And the only other thing that matters in the general election is whether or not the press likes our candidate. Everything still points to Obama as a winner against Smiling John, and Hillary as a loser. Reality can be a pisser - in fact, usually is.
And the press will seek to create conflict at every turn, simply because like sex, conflict sells (or as Alexandra Pelosi put it, will do its usual job of turning the presidential election into a freak show).
Spent this afternoon in the Norton Museum of Art in Palm Beach. My Sweetie and I are visiting a friend who is the park director for the John D. MacArthur State Park, a gem preserved only because John D. MacArthur thought this 300+ acre gem between the Idian River and the Atlantic Ocean needed to stay au naturel. Thank you, John D. MacArthur.
Adam Felber
February 27, 2008 at 12:27 am
27Well, I’m glad we’re stirred up!
!
!
Ann, I tend to agree with you more often than not. But now… not. I get that you’re not accusing me of misogyny, only saying that my post has a strong whiff of it. Unintentional, naturally, but visible to the keen eye.
I don’t think so. In fact, I think your characterization of my post is wrong from the git-go, and though you know I hate to ’splain myself, here I feel compelled.
You call this an “obvious attempt to paint Hillary as “hysterical” just because she’s speaking forcefully.”
That isn’t remotely what I was trying to do. Pretty much the opposite. I was trying to imply that Hillary’s angry, bellicose, somewhat bullying tone of the past few days was anything but hysterical. In fact, I suspect that it might have been a bit of a sham. And for the purposes of comedy, I decided herein that it was completely a sham.
If you read back, perhaps more of what I was intending will emerge (perhaps not - comedy’s an inexact science). The above is supposed to show someone pretending to be uncontrollably angry whilst somehow surgically striking at all perceived vulnerabilities. Under the guise of being “carried away” with “anger.”
Doubtless, we could characterize this too as misogynistic. After all, I’m implying that Hillary is duplicitous, which is another negative stereotype associated with powerful women. And just above I refer to her tone as “bullying,” which is a male-identified term, and my condemnation of this shows that I find such conduct unseemly in a woman and am uncomfortable with feminine power.
But I called it as I saw it, and then exaggerated it for good measure. Interestingly, it’s John McCain who’s the genuinely angry, potentially hysterical candidate in this race, and that may well become an issue down the road that I’ll be harping on. I’m not sure what that will carry a “whiff” of, but I suspect it will be something like “Fixodent.”
The AnnFan Club
February 27, 2008 at 4:22 am
28Well, but it certainly seems like everyone here is playing nice again.
That’s good.
You know, I’m struck by how similar political dust-ups and religious schisms appear.
Hush, Beazer. We just dodged a political bullet here; now, you want to bring up religion.
Done at your own peril, Beaz.
Ann, note that I’m leaving now and I’m not the one looking for trouble.
I’m out of here. Off to the salt mines.
Later.
David
February 27, 2008 at 8:15 am
29I wiped out my own comment. Oh-fucking-well.
What’s not to like about two proven winners going gray matter-to-gray matter? In this instance I’m talking about Adam versus Ann, of course.
Now we mostly need the Clintons to come back to their Democratic senses. Too much of value will be lost if they don’t. Meanwhile, I am really looking forward to the Obama-McCain debates, especially when McCain’s head explodes.
jerry-the-conserva-troll
February 27, 2008 at 9:48 am
30Wow - the comments got really interesting and it wasn’t Waterfowler or myself that stirred the pot!
Murray
February 27, 2008 at 9:58 am
31Meanwhile back at the ranch, the Rightwing freak show continues. McCain was introduced by a radio slug who called Obama just about everything short of the N word. O Reilly doesn’t want to Lynch Obama’s wife “Unless she deserves it”. And of course the NY Times hates America and is working for terrorists in getting a Democrat into the white house. by running a story against McCain.
Ann
February 27, 2008 at 10:43 am
32Oh, well, if you’re just calling her duplicitous, I can’t disagree.
dee
February 27, 2008 at 1:06 pm
33She’s duplicitous!
She’s triangulating!
She’s pentagonal!
sharon
February 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm
34Can we dissect McCain now? I heard a couple of words from him on the radio this afternoon and omigod he is starting to sound just like GWB! I don’t mean just his choice of words–he’s starting to develop the drawl. And yesterday on the way home I listened to one of NPR’s finest–I forget who–stumble over the word “nuclear”!
Sharon, having another screaming at the car radio type of day
piglet
February 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm
35Maybe one last word on Hillary:
http://slatev.com/player.html?id=1377935786
Jason
February 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm
36This article wins my award for the most gratuitous use of exclamation points! Is that great or what?!
Anyway, here’s hoping Obama’s tactics and Hillary’s accusations of mudslinging to the Nth power doesn’t make the Democrats fall on their collective sword…
SallyMutant
February 27, 2008 at 7:07 pm
37I like both candidates, but I’m not in love with either candidate, so perhaps I can grade Adam dispassionately.
A- on main point of blog–that desperate last-ditch efforts can get dirty. Exaggerated impression of a hysterical candidate was too realistic; it was misconstrued as an actual description such a candidate.
A+ on use of exclamation points. Worked well–made the tone of the post seem hysterical enough that the exaggerated impression of a hysterical candidate was so realistic that it was misconstrued as an actual description such a candidate.
A on Adam’s general use of exclamation points: He’s well within the realm of graceful, civil discourse. Please compare real hackery: much more use of exclamation points, ENTIRE PHRASES IN ALL CAPS, BOLDFACE CAPS and BOLDFACE CAPS WITH UNDERSCORE, which I would have formatted appropriately if I wasn’t such a noob.
Irresistable off-topic topic: Today William F. Buckley, star of the longest running program on PBS (the Officlal Voice of the Liberal Media Conspiracy) went back to whatever planet he came from.
gillian
February 27, 2008 at 7:28 pm
38Dust to dust, Sally.
Oh, why doesn’t Ralph Nader just marry a nice girl (or boy) and settle down into a pleasant suburban subdivision?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=02262008&type=c
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 27, 2008 at 9:36 pm
39Sheesh. Try to get someone over their obvious addiction to overuse of certain PUNCTUATION, and you get the enablers coming in giving KUDOS.
That’s it!!!!!! I’ll be in the lurker’s lounge if anybody cares. That freakin’ Ann Fan Club had better not have bogarted all the Maker’s Mark.
The AnnFan Club
February 28, 2008 at 4:37 am
40Maker’s Mark? No we never touch the stuff. However, if you were hoping to mix your Maker’s Mark with A & W root beer, you’re pretty much screwed.
Good one, Todd!!
Ok, barkeep, no more for those two!
Todd never could hold his sarsaparilla.
I hope someone calls him a cab.
Hey, Todd, “You’re a cab!” (snicker!)
(Snort!)
And you’re a dork, too.
(Snort!)
(Snort!)
sharon
February 28, 2008 at 5:08 am
41William F. Buckley was one of the saner conservative voices, and he had a sense of humor, which cannot be said of many (any?) of the neocons.
Ann
February 28, 2008 at 11:19 am
42Great Merciful Lobster I have the lamest fan club imaginable. Adam? Can you help?
It's Pat!
February 28, 2008 at 12:42 pm
43Word of the day: Noob. I love it.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 28, 2008 at 12:47 pm
44“She’s duplicitous!
She’s triangulating! She’s pentagonal!”
Why does this sound to me like lyrics to a new network sitcom?
Dave von Ebers
February 28, 2008 at 2:41 pm
45Dammit all to hell. I’ve been (nearly) laid up with a broken ankle the past 10 days and I’ve missed all the fun.
For what it’s worth (I know … not much), I’m tired of the way the 2 campaigns are conducting themselves, but I have little problem with either Obama or Clinton, personally. My Illinois provincialism leads me to favor Obama (yes, I know HRC was from Park Ridge, originally, but she’s as far removed from Illinois today as Obama is from Hawaii … or from that madrassa in Indonesia … wait, did I say that out loud?).
But I digress.
Neither of these candidates is ideal; neither is particularly “evil” either. They both need to get ahold of their campaign workers and give ‘em a quick shake, tell ‘em to stop the negative bullshit, and get out there and kick John McCain’s ass.
If nothing else, the major point of the 2008 presidential election should be this: Competence matters.
I mean, haven’t we had enough of the C-student, drunken frat boy mentality to last a lifetime? Both Clinton and Obama are infinitely more competent than the train-wreck-in-chief and his band of looting, pillaging, draft-dodging, good-for-nothing charlatans. (Well, I’m not against draft-dodging in principle; just the weasely kind of draft-dodging guys like W and Cheney pulled ….) (By the way, is there one “l” or two in “weasely”?)
For God’s sake, don’t give McCain and the rest of these jamokes any advantage in the fall! Is alls I’m sayin’.
Dave von Ebers
February 28, 2008 at 2:43 pm
46Oh, good lord … I’m in the “moderation cue” again. What, is there something wrong with referring to the current administration as a bunch of looting, pillaging, draft-dodging, good-for-nothing charlatans?
I meant that in a good way …
David
February 28, 2008 at 4:32 pm
47I hear that it comes from a song in a yet-to-be-mounted Broadway show, Acronym Jim. I think the working title of the show is “Something Funny Happened on the Way to the Nomination.” I think it will also include numbers which do take into account her indefatigable efforts on behalf of good ideas and worthy causes - at least I hope so - but that damned war (kind of echoes what one might say about LBJ)…
SallyMutant
February 28, 2008 at 6:14 pm
48WAY TO FORMAT, ACRONYM JIM!!!!!
Sharon, you’re right about William Buckley being saner than most of the current neocons. He was brilliant, articulate, witty and a PBS star. I actually found myself agreeing with him, infrequently. Yet he was one of the Great White Fathers of the neocon movement. That’s why I threw out the off-topic topic. Lot’s of irony ‘n’ stuff in that career. And what an eccentric visual presence. I still have to think of Joe Flaherty doing him on SCTV’s “Battle of the PBS Stars.”
Pope Benny 16
February 28, 2008 at 7:22 pm
49Cardinal Bernie came into my library today and laid a newspaper clipping on my desk for me to read. The lead sentence was:
I had Father Gilbert specify if the font used in the article matched any type style used by the tabloids or Fox News. He says “no”, so apparently it’s a legitimate news story. Father Bernie wants to be in charge of constructing and running the souvenir stands outside the hospital where this miracle happened. (Will he never stop?)
This story is from Reuters, so it’s probably true as well:
And finally from the Gaston Gazette - “Man Coughs Up Towel in Brussels” and “Sultan Insulted in Melee-Melee”.
Father in Heaven, you will be telling me when the end of time is upon us, right? I mean, if the lion lays down with the lambs, I won’t be the last to know, nicht wahr?
gillian
February 28, 2008 at 7:36 pm
50This is about right… http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=02272008&type=c
And this, too.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_ main.html?name=Toles&date=02282008&type=c
Dale
February 28, 2008 at 8:33 pm
51Last night I dreamt that I made 33 posts on this thread, under multiple pseudonyms. The two I remember were:
1) “Q: What´s the difference between Iran and Iraq?
A: Iraq the New York marathon!”
and
2) “Someone should invite Adam, Ralph Nader, Steven Pinker, and Steven Frye onto a show together. Then they could call it, ¨Felber, Nader, Pinker, Frye.¨”
If there are any shrinks in the lurker´s lounge—break it to me gently, please.
waterfowler
February 28, 2008 at 9:46 pm
52As Ice Weasel would have put it….DAAAYUUM! Y’all keep it up. Look’s to me like POTUS McCain, but y’all still win. He’s a lib.
The AnnFan Club
February 29, 2008 at 4:56 am
53Thirty three different personalities…
Hmmmm…
Dale….
That’s a problem…
Yes.
Thank God we life in a time when we can openly discuss problems such as Multiple Personality Disorder, hemroids, ED and bran fiber deficiency without fear of ridicule.
(Hemroids.. snicker!!)
(ED … snicker!! Do you think Todd would even know what this is?…)
(Well, he knows about hemroids, that’s for sure!)
(snort!)
Dale, I’m not a doctor, but I play one on the internets. Sounds like you may need a tonic that I just happen to carry. Derived from the Most Holy Peyote Mushroom, it contains one part of the paste, one part of the juice and just a potent jot of Inca Hell Oil.
Oh, and alcohol, Dave. Don’t forget about the alcohol.
I advise you to just go with it, Dale. Thirty-three different personalities is really not that bad.
(Did she say her name was Dale or Sybil?)
(Shhhh!…)
A daily cocktail of Prozac and Wellbutrin, taken in the morning with food, certainly works for me.
(Jeez, I wonder what he be like without the drugs!!!)
(We could swipe them and see…)
No!
It's Pat!
February 29, 2008 at 4:59 am
54no, he’s a noob.
Dave von Ebers
February 29, 2008 at 7:32 am
55What I tried to say yesterday, when I was queued (yes, I know I spelled it “cue,” but here in the midwest we have lines, not queues … I don’t think any word should have two u’s, even “vacuum”), was basically this:
For what it’s worth (I know … not much), I’m tired of the way the 2 campaigns are conducting themselves, but I have little problem with either Obama or Clinton, personally. My Illinois provincialism leads me to favor Obama (yes, I know HRC was from Park Ridge, originally, but she’s as far removed from Illinois today as Obama is from Hawaii … or from that madrassa in Indonesia … wait, did I say that out loud?).
But I digress.
Neither of these candidates is ideal; neither is particularly “evil” either. They both need to get ahold of their campaign workers and give ‘em a quick shake, tell ‘em to stop the negative crap, and get out there and kick John McCain’s rear end.
If nothing else, the major point of the 2008 presidential election should be this: Competence matters.
Then I went on to say some unpleasant things about th’ Bushwhacker and his merry band of thieves … a-an’ I got queued.
Sheesh.
Dave von Ebers
February 29, 2008 at 7:34 am
56Holy crap, I got “queued” again. What gives? I didn’t cuss and I didn’t link to anything. Still, they think my comment is spam? I mean, it may be vacuous and inane … but spam?! That really hurts!
Ann
February 29, 2008 at 12:19 pm
57With all this negative talk about HRC, I’ve really been on the fence. When people I respect say they’re going to vote differently, I pay attention. And dammit, I want to like Obama, I really do. And I want to believe that he’s honest and sincere. But then I read this stuff:
http://againstobama.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/why-matt-is-against-obama /
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12687
He is apparently not that anti-war, and he voted to reathorize the PATRIOT Act.
I’m willing to believe many negative things about HRC, but let’s face it, BHO is not the agent of change that he sells himself as—in fact he seems pretty hypocritical. Please, somebody, tell me that these charges are false!
Once more, the sincere candidates get weeded out early, and we’re faced with the lesser of two evils. Dammit.
Gina T.
February 29, 2008 at 12:38 pm
58All this just goes to prove that when it comes down to it, this country is far more misogynist that it is racist. Barack Obama is a Republican in Democrats clothing! Just wait, you’ll find out. But you can’t see past that due to your overwhelming need to keep a dick in the white house. Just wait. You’ll find out. I am with you, Ann. And the charges aren’t false.
Jim (OJNTNJ)
February 29, 2008 at 12:52 pm
59Now I’m really confused; I thought most of us wanted Cheney impeached.
SallyMutant
February 29, 2008 at 6:40 pm
60Must respond to the Bishop of Rome: Everything You Know is Wrong. (And your clamcakes are getting cold.)
David
February 29, 2008 at 8:52 pm
61My thoughts at this point:
Hillary is losing because Mark Penn had the wrong strategy and because Hillary alternates between some very effective moments and some ineffective campaign speaking. But mostly she is losing because Obama beats McCain and McCain beats Hillary. You want a Democrat, which means Democratic core values have a seat at the table, or do you want four more years of the Republican machine?
For me, it’s either an Obama/Clinton ticket, or Hillary as secretary of state, or if you really want to shatter a glass ceiling, Hillary as secretary of defense.
Let the misogynist concerns go at the moment, Gina T. - voters are going to do whatever they want. That’s a grassroots battle to win, not something you can do anything positive about at this point in this presidential election cycle, unless it’s with a woman as veep or secdef. But fight it mightily as a grassroots cause of the first order, because it is true that America is more misogynist than racist, at least as far as who gets to be politically or corporately in charge is concerned.
Ann, I’ve read the anti-Obama stuff and it doesn’t really wash with me. Candidate JFK would come up far worse than Obama, and in fact made some terrible mistakes Obama would not make, but he also got himself and the nation pointed fairly aright, and I think really did come to understand the Viet Nam War for the tragic mistake that it was. Read Obama’s first book. People do not change when they become president. They become more like who they have really always been. Only some of their conclusions change based on what they learn that they didn’t know before.
The greatest single transformation I ever saw was in the case of Bobby Kennedy, and it occurred because the prominent politician finally looked at reality in Mississippi and stood up for what was obviously part of the character and core beliefs of the Kennedy clan, at least the ones I know anything about. And in any assessment of LBJ, the starting point has to be that he was a for real New Deal Democrat, but also unfortunately a Texas macho anti-communist who couldn’t process the larger realities of the Viet Nam catastrophe, at least not until it was far too late, if he did at all.
Also, pay attention to who endorses whom, and why, and who the people around Obama and McCain are. I would say the same for Hillary if she were going to be our nominee. Either Hillary or Obama would make a good president - not perfect, but good as American presidents go. And Obama is a far more compelling public speaker.
McCain will be a continuation of the worst aspects of Bush/Cheney, except McCain has a worse temper, is more pigheaded, and is not all that much smarter than Bush. Cheney is quite smart and horrendously misguided.
waterfowler, McCain is not a lib - not even close. He is not even a centrist. He just happens to get it that global warming is for real because he asked his staff to find out and report back to him, which they did. On all the other issues on which he has taken reasonable stands in the past he is backpedalling as hard as he knows how in an attempt to win the support of hardcore conservatives and fundamentalist Christians. I’m curious whether or not he will stand firm on global warming. Perhaps he will just let it fade from his agenda. He also has no class, considering it appropriate to poke fun at Chelsea’s looks back in ‘98, and not much sense regarding Iran or the occupation of Iraq. I prefer to Huckabee to McCain because I think he has a preferable temperament and some appreciation for the destruction of the middle and lower middle classes, as well as an awareness of what it means to deal with poverty. He just hasn’t a clue about the rest of the world, or about the absolutely essential role of the separation of church and state in a free society.
OK, I’ve clearly used up my FA bandwidth, or whatever you call tying up space on the blog. Somebody make room on the lurker’s couch for a while.
David
February 29, 2008 at 10:07 pm
62Barack Obama’s 2002 speech opposing the invasion of Iraq:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19440.htm
SallyMutant
March 1, 2008 at 2:43 am
63Informative link, David. And I think I second your longer comment–In short, lesser evils are always less evil than Republicans. In 1968 libs were much disgruntled with Hubert Humphrey, a somewhat evil lesser evil. My ux voted for Pigasus in 68 and has always regretted that vote; it did not have a positive impact on the Supreme Court.
So can’t we all get along? Swallow rancor. Win The Damn White House.
Bishop of Rome–Sorry, your clamcakes are getting DAMP.
Adam, come back! We need the usual excellent essay or at least a topic, please. Otherwise I participate in this talk-amongst-yourselves portion of the blog to the point of obnoxiousnessesment.
lurker dave
March 1, 2008 at 12:44 pm
64Dale… I don’t know ’bout shrinks in the lounge but drinks that’s a different story. May I suggest we all get off of our soapboxes and gather at the bar to forget our worries for a while.
I know Maker’s Mark bourbon is THE drink of choice or our distinguished host and for the fantastic felbernaut crowd, and I can be stripped of my Maker’s Mark Ambassadorship for suggesting anything different but has anyone tried Bulliet bourbon?
It is my opinion Bulliet is better straight, but not as good as Maker’s Mark in a Manhattan. I shall continue to test this hypothesis in as scientific a manner as often as I can. If any of you have made observations, under the strictest scientific guidelines of course, please let me know.
And while I’m trying to hijack the thread… I want you’re thoughts and opinions on the following subject: cherry juice in Manhattans? Good tasty fun, or evil communist conspiracy meant to rob us of our precious bodily fluids.
lurker dave
March 1, 2008 at 12:57 pm
65ok one more thing… I just can’t help myself
Waterfowler I have to ask… why do wingnuts have such venom for vietnam veterans?
Max Cleland
John Kerry
John McCain
just to name a few
What does a person have to do to be an honest, honorable patriotic American for your crowd?
Good conservatives are listed here just scroll down.
Cotton Mather
March 1, 2008 at 7:50 pm
66Pops always says “Tis better to throwdown than throwup.”
Jim (OJNTNJ)
March 1, 2008 at 9:25 pm
67Is Cotton channeling Confutious now?
Ms. Pompomposity
March 1, 2008 at 9:51 pm
68Sputter, sputter, sputter (accompanied by bilious drool). Er.. um… go team.
sharon
March 2, 2008 at 5:14 am
69Well said, David!
Luke 12:48: “For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required.” John, Bobby, and Ted lived (and died) by it, and so do many of their children.
Would that more of our politicians took that to heart. Instead we get the Boy King, who moaned all throughout his first term that “Being president is Hard Work.”
sharon
March 2, 2008 at 5:16 am
70“why do wingnuts have such venom for vietnam veterans?”
It’s jealousy, lurker dave. They were too chicken–or had “other priorities”–to serve themselves, so they have to knock down anyone who did serve.
Dirk's Diary
March 2, 2008 at 6:05 am
713-02-08
Dear Diary,
I had to ask Mildred on Friday what the difference is between Moonbats and Wingnuts? She gave me the most piteous look and said something about hearing a beignet calling her name. As she closed the office door on the way out I heard a series of snickers and snorts. She’s still undecided about retirement, so maybe I should just make a concerted effort to mask my noobiness and try to project the image of professionalism, that I belong in DC running with the big dogs, that I am one of the more deserving and competent of the Bush appointees. In all modesty, I probably am, but then W set the bar on the bottom peg when he rode into town.
I unexpectedly went home for lunch that afternoon and caught Patricia in the backyard going through her flaming baton routine from our college Homecoming Halftime show. Good thing the baton wasn’t lit, is all I can say. She was quite the eye candy in those days, though, and she still is in my book.
Dick Cheney has missed the last several Cabinet meetings. Scuttlebutt has it that he’s in his White House bunker getting “medical treatments”. W said to pay no attention to the dimming lights, as Eliane Chao droned on about the new, improved union busting techniques she’s employing. If Cheney were to pass, that would leave me seventh in line. I’m running out of time for all the stars to align, the “plane crash” to happen and my ascendancy to the Presidency. Maybe I’ll console myself by flying down to Puerto Rico and checking out that spewing and exploding sewage treatment plant report that’s been filling my email for that last six weeks. Maybe I should take Patricia along with me and catch a few rays while we’re there. Why not? These taxpayer junkets will be a thing of the past before I know it.
Dirk
Fran
March 2, 2008 at 9:24 am
72There’s a post on Nicola Griffith’s MySpace page (I know, MySpace, but work with me here) and I’ll try to link it, but we know Fanny and links.
Anyway, Nicola’s British but has been living here for ages, and the person whose thoughts she has shared is a Canadian media person who has some quite interesting thoughts on the Clinton/Obama presentations and how they’re designed to win our hearts, not our minds.
Just food for thought and discussion, until Adam gives us another blank piece of paper.
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=167271 744&blogID=362949777
Adam Felber
March 3, 2008 at 2:21 am
73Ann, I don’t find those links too persuasive. The first one takes itself apart, to my mind. For instance, Obama committed the sin of not being stupid enough, in 2004, to think that an immediate US withdrawal was a good idea. In that, he was basically in lockstep with John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and more or less every responsible Democrat, regardless of whether they thought starting the war was a good idea.
They were all correct, I think. Tragically, we were at the beginning of the long, horrifying insurgency, and we had responsibilities born of Bush’s colossal blunder.
As for the voting record rundown of the second link… Meh. It’s pretty much Hillary’s voting record. They’re senators. Their voting records can be made to look like anything, and for a variety of good reasons that most people neither know nor care about. This is largely why a Senator hasn’t been elected to the presidency in my lifetime.
—
Gina - well, there it is again. The implication that the only possible reason for Hillary not beating Obama is sexism. This race, in the minds of some of Hillary’s supporters, has suddenly been reduced to a black penis vs. a white vagina. It’s insulting to the candidates and insulting to the people who support them on both sides. Obama’s supporters, myself (and my wife) included, will do anything “to keep a dick in the White House.” That smacks of more than sore-loserdom - it’s downright patronizing.
For over a year, this was a campaign of ideas. Even when the race winnowed down to just Hillary and Obama, with Hillary still ahead, it was a race between two individuals. Suddenly, it’s not. Now it’s a sexist nation rejecting a candidate just because of unsurmountable gender bias.
In a word: Bullshit. The sexism is there. Yes it is. Absolutely. But there are a lot of very real reasons why Hillary is down (but definitely not out):
The Press. They’ve been unfair to her lately. Very unfair. This is not necessarily because she’s a woman, though. Much of it has to do with the Obama-mania thing, and even more of it has to do with Hillary’s campaign’s behavior over this past year. According to everything I’ve read and heard, they’ve been officious, unresponsive, and relentless - a virtual White House In Waiting. In huge contrast to Obama, who isn’t very accessible but doesn’t dispatch winged monkeys to the back of the plane every ten minutes, Hillary’s every speech is followed by tag-team flacks lobbying reporters ceaselessly to buy the official version of the story. The press were looking for a chance to rebel, I’d say.
The Charisma. Hillary’s a lot of things, but she’s not magnetic. This is not a gender problem - she has the same presence-gap that crippled John Kerry, (the pre-anger) Al Gore, and much of the last entire generation of liberal technocrats. I voted for her in New York. I believe she would govern well. I don’t think “being inspirational” is a necessary quality for a candidate, but it sure as hell becomes important if there are any other charismatic candidates in the race. Hillary doesn’t have to “be an Obama.” But even before his ascension, I found myself wishing she could be an Ann Richards.
The War It goes beyond the war authorization (which is huge for me, but it’s not the whole ballgame). Hillary has been one of the most hawkish Democrats, rhetoric-wise, that I’ve ever seen. I think only Joe Lieberman out-hawks her. For the past year, her supporters have been assuring me that this is because as a woman hoping to be President, she needs to establish herself as strong on defense. Maybe this is true. But voters have only her words to go on. To be fair, she is hampered by the fact that she started gearing up for her run while the war was still relatively popular.
The Strategy Hillary hasn’t run a terrible campaign, but it sure hasn’t been great. Their “big state” strategy was nearly as fatal as Giuliani’s, and the campaign frittered away its money while Obama conserved (for instance, he ditched one of his campaign planes in January, which had the twin effect of bringing the press closer to him AND saving a buttload of money). The “Clintonesque” War Room has actually been a little slow, at least compared to Obama’s. And - most of all - they simply had NO strategy for anything after Super Tuesday. I’m not making this up - Hillary stated at least twice in late 2007 that she thought the race would be decided by February 5th. If you read about the petty, uncontrolled infighting in her campaign right now, it’s a wonder that she’s still doing so well.
The pedigree To the “swing voter,” Hillary’s husband is not an asset. A lot of voters associate Clintons and Bushes with 16 years of bitter, juvenile acrimony. I don’t think this is the Clintons’ fault. But it is neither stupid nor naive to want to see a government that behaves more like it did before the rise of talk radio and the poo-flinging right wing. There is some evidence that they may be weakening. A lot of voters see more hope for harmony in anyone who’s not a Bush or a Clinton.
So… there. A bunch of non-genital-related reasons why Hillary might be struggling. And that doesn’t even touch on the biggest: A lot of perfectly bright, progressive women and men think that Obama would make a good President. Calling such people sexist or deluded isn’t going to change a lot of minds, and I don’t think it’s entirely accurate.
The AnnFan Club
March 3, 2008 at 4:44 am
74Wow!! People are really getting excited about this election!
I’ll say.
It’s about time we acted like a participatory democracy.
This is good!
I’ve never seen such a rallying behind a candidate!
Or such spirited debate.
Far Out!!!
(Hmmm… Zippy, check the roster. Maybe John Denver did survive that plane crash!)
(….. You know, I always did like “Annie’s Song”, but then he went and divorced her.)
(What a sap!!)
Groovy!
Okay, I think we need to establish a cut off age for the membership. Some of these fans are pathetic geezers!
I agree.
Me, too.
Well, if we had a dress code that required pocket protectors, Dwayne, you’d have Ann all to yourself!
A truly excellent idea, Dexter! Do we a quorum?
Schmuck!
Shlemiel!
Dweeb!
Pustule!
Dave von Ebers
March 3, 2008 at 8:53 am
75Adam, I agree with everything you say, but I do think sexism plays a role. Let me say, in the interest of full disclosure, that I’ve favored Obama from early in the race; but so too have my wife, my mother (who cast her first vote in the 1940’s, mind you), all six of my sisters, and several of my nieces, including one who was heavily involved in Obama’s Iowa campaign. So no, favoring Obama over Clinton doesn’t make one sexist. Not in the least.
Still, I can’t escape the notion that a good part of the press’ antipathy toward Clinton is sexist. It began well before the race winnowed to two candidates, and it included things like “Cleavage-gate” and the non-stop reporting on her appearance and whether she was sufficiently “likable” to get elected. I mean, they all but called her a bitch. During the early republican debates the candidates were asked whether Clinton was “fit to be commander in chief”; and yes, that question was based in part on the fact that she was then the presumptive front runner … but you could feel the sexism in the sneering way the question was asked and the flippant responses the question evoked.
In the end, though, I have to support the candidate whose views are most like my own, and that’s Obama, not Clinton. More to the point, I can’t let the sexist pricks in the media (and in the Republican party) dictate for whom I vote. All that having been said, I think I can understand the frustration that some of Clinton’s supporters feel …