Democrats, Primaries etc - Since I'm not sure where to put this one

[Akash]

Ok, I'm going to try to get through this without railing against capitalism, even though our political process (with two parties) essentially fulfills the base/superstructure dynamic or a turbo capitalist society by limiting our options to A/B and then applying pressure on us to choose one, thereby defending the status quo, but whatever.

Damien is right. Hillary's vote is close enough to a vote for the Iraq war and everyone knows it -- including Hillary! Everyone knew it was essentially a resolution for war with Iraq in the event that Saddam Hussein refused to give up weapons of mass destruction as mandated by UN resolutions. Damien is correct -- let's not split foolish semantic hairs. Here's an article from 2002 -- even back then it was referred to as an Iraq war resolution. It's not officially an "ok" to attack, but it was seen as essentially the same thing back then. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/

And please, we all knew Bush and Cheney were lying to get us into that war. There were a number of dissenting leftist/radical articles written about this and a lot of criticism from a skeptical International Left. A few people DID VOTE AGAINST IT after all -- like Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They at least put their own integrity and morality above political opportunity and if Hillary wanted to, she could have done the same. Principles only mean something if you stick by them when they're inconvenient. Politicians like Kucinich and Ron Paul had no way of knowing that the tide would turn years later -- that it would be fashionable to like the Dixie Chicks again? -- and that opposition to the war would become the popular/cool opinion. And now politicians like Clinton have to answer for their vote, and we shouldn't let them off the hook or let them wiggle out of a vote that everyone knew then (and now) meant essentially going to war with Iraq. If she benefited by gaining masculine points for her vote, then she has to take the rotten eggs that come with it. That's how we roll, lady.

Clinton was admittedly boxed in by gender norms that paint women as weak, and so she voted the way she did to position herself as tough on terrorism, choosing political opportunity over human life. Steph is correct, this should be unforgivable. Lest we forget she and her husband (and Al Gore) were all gung-ho about bombing Iraq to divert attention from the Lewinsky scandal during Bill's second term, so it's not like she has any problem sacrificing lives to further herself politically. But then I'm the wrong person to ask since I personally don't believe war should ever be an option, not even a last option, not unless (I guess) another country has directly attacked and you have no choice but self defense. And even then I don't like it.

I posted a three part article from Counterpunch a while back, detailing all the heinous positions and immoral opportunism Hillary Clinton has indulged in her quest for power. Here it is again if anyone is interested. It's actually quite alarming.
Part I http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11142007.html
Part II http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11152007.html
Part III http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11162007.html

(Or you can just read them all together in the old thread http://www.oscarguy.com/cgi-bin....t=7346)

If Obama is like Bush in terms of his lack of experience and empty words, then Hillary is like Bush and Cheney in her willingness to sacrifice human life for political gain. She plays right out of the Republican Handbook -- everything from viciously destroying reputations, careers and lives to cover up her secrets and control her image (again, see the article) to planting college students at town hall events to ask her just the right questions.

However, all that being said, a number of seemingly contradictory ideas can all be true at the same time. It is absolutely true that Hillary is a horrible candidate, but Obama is only marginally better. He can be fake and inexperienced and she can be an immoral opportunist all at the same time. One doesn't preclude the other. And it can also be true (and I believe it is) that the kind of criticism launched at her by publications like Counterpunch and The Nation are important and valid, while most of the media remains guilty of sexism (Maureen Dowd and others). Hillary Clinton has been a victim of vicious attacks and a sexist country, but she has also been the perpetrator of vicious attacks and dirty tricks throughout her (and her husband's) political carer.

Obama and Clinton are both horrible candidates buoyed by a country that lacks a strong Left, and one that is tempted by the false promises of Identity Politics. I mean let's be real. Neither one of them will ever do anything to dismantle, challenge or even question patriarchy and white privilege because -- despite the color of his skin and her vagina -- they both benefit from these power structures.

Getting back to those capitalist A/B options -- if A) Obama is an empty media creation and B) Clinton is quite evil, then I choose C) all of the above.



Edited By Akash on 1199519920

[Big Magilla]

McCain toe-licker Chris Matthews has hated her for years. The morning of the caucus, he declared that if Hillary did win Iowa, it would still be a resounding defeat because it meant that two-thirds of her party voted for someone else. (I parodied that comment in this thread somewhere.)

I can't stand Chris Matthews.

[Damien]

You are right. As bad as Guiliani and Romney are, they are nowhere near as awful as Huckabee. In addition to being a far greater religious nut, Huckabee also says on his website that he doesn't believe in taxes. Like AT ALL. Not any kind of taxes. I don't know where he expects then to get the money to help the low income families he pretends to care for.

I disagree. Huckabee has some crazed reactinary positions on social issues, but I respect him for having convictions, which makes him nowhere as despicable as the say-anything-do-anything Romney and Giuliani.

Huckabee is a populist regarding poverty, which sets him apart from 99 per cent of other Republicans. As for taxes, he wants o replace the income tax with a national sales tax, about which I strongly disagree. But unlike other proponents of such a tax, he would exampt the poverty-stricken from paying it.

Plus, Huckabee often talks about the importance of having music and arts in the public school curriculum -- when was the last time someone running for president mentioned that?

[Damien]

Rudy Giuliani on his current sixth place status: "None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."

That's a joke, right? How many more times can he milk 9/11?

A friend emailed me this quote and I initially thought it was a joke. But no, he actually said it. As Keith Olbermann, reporting on the quote, said "Does the term self-caricature mean anything to you?"



Edited By Damien on 1199512242

[Damien]

And his campaign cleverly targeted America's fickle youth who are always desperate to hitch their wagon to the ride of the latest fad lest they be left behind in the Uncool, where they might actually have to pick up that most dreaded American pastime -- Independent Thinking!

Then I must be one of them because for all his flaws, I still find him way more appealing than Hillary. Edwards is the best of the top three, but Hillary Clinton is just horrible. Her vote for the Iraq war alone was a cold, calculated decision on her part to make herself seem tough and masculine. She chose political opportunity over the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, and that kind of thing should be unforgivable. I can't stand her.

I disagree that Obama could be the next Reagan. I see Obama as the next G.W. Bush. And the above comment is the perfect example why.

No, Hilary Clinton did not vote for the Iraq war. There was NO vote for the Iraq war. A Declaration of War was never brought before Congress.

The vote you're talking about gave the president the authority to use force, but only until all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Meaning, war should be an option, but the last option. She should not have voted for it. She took Bush at his word that he would honor all diplomatic avenues. A mistake. But it was not a vote to start the Iraq war.

Oh c'mon don't insult our intelligence or be so naive.

We all knew that the vote was tantamount to declaring war on Iraq -- it was a given at the time that a yes vote meant a war against the Iraqi people because that dry drunk Bush and his evil mentor weren't interested in diplomatic channels. We all knew it (well my friends and I lol) as did 23 courageous senators who didn't bow to politically expediency (including Kent Conrad from the heartland state of North Dakota).

Plus, Clinton's constituency was very much against the bill, but she ignored our wished for her own political future. I love that it's come back to bite her on her ass.

Yes, Kerry and Edwards also cast yea votes. But with Kerry, it was an election against Bush, not a primary with fellow Republicans. And unlike Edwards, she has never acknowledged that it was a mistake.

And lest we forget, she also voted for essentially the same measure pertaining to Iran, the Kyl-Lieberman bill (and principle and common sense should tell you not to vote for any bill with either of those names attached to it).

I was so excited when Clinton ran in 2000 figuring her true lefty colors wouldproudly come out. She quickly became a huge disapointment, as she proved herself nothing more than a poster child for the DNC. I didn't vote for her re-election and if she gets the nomination, I'll find me a third party to vote for. And I loved how stunned she seemed last night that voters rejected her.

Having said that, I do find Obama a bit scary and he may well be an empty suit. Seeing him over the last two days, it becomes clear that his success so far is based on a cult of personality not specific issues. As Chuck Todd of MSNBC pointed out he's seemed extremely cocky in the last 24 hours, and he reminds me of Gary Cooper in Meet John Doe or Andy Griffith in A Face In The Crowd -- an attractive blank slate on whom one can project anything. As Chuck Todd of MSNBC noted, he's been extremely cocky over the last 24 hours. (And the last time we had a personailty-based President, that was Jimmy Carter, whose presidency was, shall we say, less than successful.

I also hate his pronouncements about concilliation between the two parties -- I want a candidate who will kick some Republican ass!

But at least his record is progressive, which is more than you can say about that woman. And her camp has started attacking Obama as "too liberal" to be elected. Meanwhile, she's claiming she'd be the strongest candidate against the Republicans -- what world is she living in?



Edited By Damien on 1199514030

[Sonic Youth]

Oh yeah, the media hates Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen such a hated candidate since Al Gore. And we should be happy for this, that the Fourth Estate is incapable of showing neutrality? Then we should also be happy that the media reduces Kucinich to a joke, or that the media wants to have a beer with Bush and encourages us to feel the same. And anyone who doesn't think her being a woman has something to do with this zeal to bring her down is fooling themselves.

It's been obvious that Fox hates her, but the rest of the media seemed to me to be walking on eggshells trying hard not to tip their hands one way or another until last night. Watching the CNN coverage from 6 to 7 PST, it was apparent from the gleam in their eyes and the half concealed smiles on their faces that every one of them, except maybe Wolf Blitzer, was positively overjoyed that Hillary came in third. Not just the men, but the women, especially the women.

McCain toe-licker Chris Matthews has hated her for years. The morning of the caucus, he declared that if Hillary did win Iowa, it would still be a resounding defeat because it meant that two-thirds of her party voted for someone else. (I parodied that comment in this thread somewhere.)

Maybe Blitzer has been able to conceal it until now, but I haven't seen much eggshell-walking from most people.

I don't think it's a sexist thing. Iowa women had been her strongest supporters, yet they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

I'm talking about the MEDIA. No, her being a woman is not the primary reason. The primary reason is because she's a Clinton. But her being a woman makes this zeal all the more sweeter.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1199509776

[Big Magilla]

Oh yeah, the media hates Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen such a hated candidate since Al Gore. And we should be happy for this, that the Fourth Estate is incapable of showing neutrality? Then we should also be happy that the media reduces Kucinich to a joke, or that the media wants to have a beer with Bush and encourages us to feel the same. And anyone who doesn't think her being a woman has something to do with this zeal to bring her down is fooling themselves.

It's been obvious that Fox hates her, but the rest of the media seemed to me to be walking on eggshells trying hard not to tip their hands one way or another until last night. Watching the CNN coverage from 6 to 7 PST, it was apparent from the gleam in their eyes and the half concealed smiles on their faces that every one of them, except maybe Wolf Blitzer, was positively overjoyed that Hillary came in third. Not just the men, but the women, especially the women.

I don't think it's a sexist thing. Iowa women had been her strongest supporters, yet they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.

The biggest argument I've heard against her is not the vote that you correctly point out was no different than Kerry's, but that she is controlling, feels entitled and does not easily mingle among people the way her husband did. They say that many of her supporteres are there because of Bill, but another big loss like Iowa and they will drop their old allegiences and abandon her.

[Sonic Youth]

And his campaign cleverly targeted America's fickle youth who are always desperate to hitch their wagon to the ride of the latest fad lest they be left behind in the Uncool, where they might actually have to pick up that most dreaded American pastime -- Independent Thinking!

Then I must be one of them because for all his flaws, I still find him way more appealing than Hillary. Edwards is the best of the top three, but Hillary Clinton is just horrible. Her vote for the Iraq war alone was a cold, calculated decision on her part to make herself seem tough and masculine. She chose political opportunity over the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens, and that kind of thing should be unforgivable. I can't stand her.

I disagree that Obama could be the next Reagan. I see Obama as the next G.W. Bush. And the above comment is the perfect example why.

No, Hilary Clinton did not vote for the Iraq war. There was NO vote for the Iraq war. A Declaration of War was never brought before Congress.

The vote you're talking about gave the president the authority to use force, but only until all diplomatic options had been exhausted. Meaning, war should be an option, but the last option. She should not have voted for it. She took Bush at his word that he would honor all diplomatic avenues. A mistake. But it was not a vote to start the Iraq war. And it's very unlikely that many of the same Democrats who voted for this bill under discussion would have voted for a Declaration of War had it been brought to the table.

Why is this relevant to anything? Simple. Because John Kerry supported the same bill. And in 2004, some of the most radical left-wingers gave up their third-party preferences to vote for Kerry in order to defeat Bush. And the explanation I just gave in defense of Clinton voting for that bill was the same explanation Kerry supporters gave in '04. And the explanation was correct. And it's just as correct in '08 as it was in '04.

And who was it in '04 who twisted the true meaning of the bill and made it sound like Kerry actually voted to go to war? Bush supporters! Democrats didn't buy it back then. But Obama-supporters took amnesia-inducing drugs and are now using discredited Bush arguments against Clinton. Because it's politically expedient.

How else is Obama like Bush - or rather, how else are Obama supporters like Bush supporters? Let's see... Oh. His experience! Yes, Obama has garnered up enough experience to be the president, (just like Bush's six years as Texas governor and owning a baseball team counts as sufficient experience). And even if he doesn't have much experience, is that a bad thing? He's a Washington outsider (just like Bush was said to have been). He's not part of the Establishment (just as Bush was said not to have been). He's for CHANGE, a NEW DIRECTION (just like... well, you've got the point). He's a uniter, not a divider (just like...) Oh, and let's not forget the Lincoln comparisons, shall we.

And when I see Bush or Obama, I see an empty suit, a vacuous yuppie. Everything about Obama screams Establishment. Everything about Obama is redolent of Bush. Granted, at least he's not stupid, but he's no genius.

Oh yeah, the media hates Hillary Clinton. I haven't seen such a hated candidate since Al Gore. And we should be happy for this, that the Fourth Estate is incapable of showing neutrality? Then we should also be happy that the media reduces Kucinich to a joke, or that the media wants to have a beer with Bush and encourages us to feel the same. And anyone who doesn't think her being a woman has something to do with this zeal to bring her down is fooling themselves.



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1199507469

[Sonic Youth]

Based on nothing but guesses, here's my predictions for tonight. If I'm wrong, then I'm no better than the professional pundits who also know jack shit as far as I'm concerned.

1. Huckabee - 29%
2. Romney - 27%
3. Thompson - 15%

4. McCain - 13%
5. Paul - 10%
6. Giuliani - 5%
7. Hunter - 2%
8. Keyes - 1%


1. Obama- 30%
2. Edwards - 28%
3. Clinton - 27%

4. Biden - 5%
5. Richardson - 4%
6. Dodd - 3%
7. Kucinich - 2%
8. Gravell - 1%

Results:

1. Huckabee - 34.3%
2. Romney - 25.3%
3. Thompson - 13.4%

4. McCain - 13.1%
5. Paul - 10%
6. Giuliani - 3.5%
7. Hunter - 0.4%
8. Tancredo - 0%


1. Obama - 37.6%
2. Edwards - 29.7%
3. Clinton - 29.5%

4. Richardson - 2.1%
5. Biden - 0.9%
6. Dodd - 0.1%
Gravel - 0%
Kucinich - 0%


Hey, I did pretty well. (Put aside my replacing "Tancredo" with "Keyes"; don't know what happened there.) With one exception, I got the order DOWN, boyyy!

My second mistake was forgetting to take the Dem's 15% threshold rule into account. But I don't know if anyone short of a mathematician would know how to predict under those circumstances. They still look like reasonable guesses, had the traditional voting method been used (as it should be).



Edited By Sonic Youth on 1199502785

[Akash]

THE NATION
WHY OBAMA’S WIN IS BIGGER THAN YOU THINK...
Posted by Ari Melber at 01/04/2008 @ 07:04am

Barack Obama's decisive victory in the Iowa Caucus is probably even larger than most people realize. In a battery of national polls -- often inaccurate but relentlessly pitched as self-fulfilling media predictions -- Clinton led by an average of 21 points just last week. As the Clinton Campaign used to emphasize, she also led in December polls from every upcoming primary state, from Iowa to Nevada. She spent about $7 million on over 8,000 television ads in Iowa, plus at least another $10 million on outreach in the state, and stood on the shoulders of Democratic giants, from President Clinton to Michael Whouley to a sizable chunk of the liberal policy establishment.

Barack Obama battled an expectations game stacked against all challengers; a metric of experience discounting work beyond Washington; and an unknowable question about the relevance of his skin color, swirling around his candidacy alone. Last night, Iowans did not simply accept Obama's masterful ability to clear those hurdles, they rushed to support him in an unprecedented coalition within record-breaking turnout. Over half of Democratic attendees were first-time caucus goers. Obama tapped the largest share of the new participants, who compromised 41 percent of his support. Youth turnout jumped 5 percent from 2004, thanks to Obama, who drew a whopping 57 percent of voters under 30. (Edwards and Clinton netted 13 and 11 percent, respectively.) Obama won more support from women voters than Clinton, by five percent. And he bested Clinton and Edwards by a solid 7 percent – roughly 25 percent of their totals.

Republicans saw 108,000 people caucus last night, while the Democrats drew a record-breaking 239,000 caucus attendees -- a gain of 115,000 from 2004. In today's New York Times, Adam Nagourney depicts the Democrats' "huge turn-out" as a demonstration of "the extent to which opposition to President Bush has energized Democrats." Not quite. Bush was easily as big an energizer in 2004, when he was actually on the ballot and Democrats were eager to battle an incumbent who had never even won the popular vote. Something else is at work here: a strong Democratic field with several compelling candidates; a sense that this is a rare and epic intramural battle that can set the party's course; and, apparently, a hunger for an Obama candidacy that is as adamant about transcending Bush Republicanism as it is about vanquishing Clintonian politics.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=265730

[Akash]

That's a joke, right? How many more times can he milk 9/11?

About 9 hundred and 11 more times.

Somebody needs to tell Guiliani that the fact that other candidates and even the media are making fun of his 9-11 dropping means he's running out of 9-11 currency. You can only use so much of it you know? It can't really buy you any more goodwill once people laughing at you. It's like his mouth wants to write the check, but his ass has already stamped it "Insufficient Funds."



Edited By Akash on 1199487496

[Akash]

I was frankly appalled that Huckabee won the GOP side. I have been reading much about Guilani, and how unsuitable HE would be for the job of president-- as he would be for anything else I could think of. But Guilani, dangerous as he may be, AND stupid, certainly has nothing on Huckabee, who doesn't believe in Darwinism-- yet ANOTHER throwback.

You are right. As bad as Guiliani and Romney are, they are nowhere near as awful as Huckabee. In addition to being a far greater religious nut, Huckabee also says on his website that he doesn't believe in taxes. Like AT ALL. Not any kind of taxes. I don't know where he expects then to get the money to help the low income families he pretends to care for.



Edited By Akash on 1199487175

[Big Magilla]

Rudy Giuliani on his current sixth place status: "None of this worries me - Sept. 11, there were times I was worried."

That's a joke, right? How many more times can he milk 9/11?

[Big Magilla]

I was hoping for an Edwards/Obama ticket, but I don't see Edwards winning without any real money behind him. An Obama/Edwards ticket would be the next best thing among likely outcomes at this point.

Huckabee is such an obvious idiot, I can't see him winning in the general election, but then I thought the same thing about George W. The diffference this time around, if we go by Iowa, is that liberals are voting in huge numbers while the conservatives are staying home. Let's hope the trend continues.

[cam]

Canadians , who really think about it, are involved in the US election --not as voters, of course, but as bystanders who wait and hope.
I was frankly appalled that Huckabee won the GOP side. I have been reading much about Guilani, and how unsuitable HE would be for the job of president-- as he would be for anything else I could think of. But Guilani, dangerous as he may be, AND stupid, certainly has nothing on Huckabee, who doesn't believe in Darwinism-- yet ANOTHER throwback.

I have not yet seen the actual vote tallies: how many people voted for the Democrats, how many for the GOP--which would be very enlighening--but in 97%-white Iowa, Obama's win is remarkable.
I am hoping for Edwards, though, in the long run. Obama seems to me to be too conservative for my liking.



Edited By cam on 1199485557