Icky Ickes, Tse-Tse Flies, Pander Bears, and Hillary’s Last Hurrah
Saturday Night -- New York City
I sorta got gypped out of watching the whole DNC Florida and Michigan show today. I took an early morning flight from LAX to JFK on Virgin America and was all set to pass the five hours watching CNN on my personal video screen. Except that the satellite hookup 
wasn't working and, actually, I had a much better time watching pay-per-view Superbad for the third time.
It was just as well. I got to my Manhattan hotel room just in time to catch the final half-hour of the live broadcast from the Rules and Bylaws Committee and was, therefore, rudely reminded that watching 30 DNC members do anything for 10 hours is about as inspiring as watching an orgy of tse-tse flies.
What an insufferable load of useless hacks -- who, together, should stand as glaring reminder that, as satisfying as it will be to boot the Repubs from office this November, anyone who expects some sort of radical change is living on another planet.
That said, good riddance to the entire opera buffa staged over the totally manufactured issue of restoration of the "rights" of Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates. There was never a legitimate issue here. Instead, we saw nothing but pandering, pandering, pandering and more pandering right up to this evening's final and anti-climactic compromise to seat both delegations with 1/2 a vote for each delegate.
Listening to the howling and pleading from Clinton surrogates and other sundry opportunists and operatives that seating these delegations was a civil rights issue is about as convincing as interpreting one of Uncle Jun's addresses to the Pipefitters Union as some sort of workers' manifesto.
Who's kidding who? The original DNC decision to authorize only four states to vote early was a blatant act of pandering to Iowa, NH, Nevada and South Carolina. The leap-frogging ahead of Fla and Michigan -- heartily suppported by each state's Democratic officials in defiance of the DNC-- was a blatant act of pandering to local constituencies. The ratification of the decision to punish both states by the Clinton and Obama campaigns was a further act of pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. The decision to reconsider the just punishment and come up with today's compromise was a blatant act of pandering to Florida and Michigan. The notion of legitimacy attached to either one of those "elections," one in which Clinton had no opponent on the ballot and the other in which all candidates vowed not to campaign, insults the intelligence and panders to political morons.
The battle cry of "Den-ver! Den-ver!" by Hillary supporters in the wake of Saturday's decision is nothing short of a sort of collective psychosis. The same die-hard Democrats who spent the last eight years blaming Ralph Nader for the deficiencies of their own party have now embarked on a similar campaign to spoil the candidacy of the eventual and certain nominee -- Barack Obama.
That the Clintons and their campaign henchmen have actively encouraged this psychosis is an act of supreme political cynicism without much contemporary parallel.
Look no further than the revolting performance at the Rules Committee hearing by Clinton consigliere Harold Ickes. His characterization of the compromise as a "highjacking" of Madame Clinton's delegates directly undermines the legitimacy of Obama's eventual nomination and pairs perfectly with Ickes' vow to "reserve the right" to re-open this wound at the August nominating convention.
Some describe the act of going all the way to Denver as the "nuclear option." I disagree. It would be more like an act of political suicide bombing. And as gruesome as such acts are, remember who is always the first casualty.
So Harold, Hillary go ahead, if you dare. Make my day.
wasn't working and, actually, I had a much better time watching pay-per-view Superbad for the third time.
It was just as well. I got to my Manhattan hotel room just in time to catch the final half-hour of the live broadcast from the Rules and Bylaws Committee and was, therefore, rudely reminded that watching 30 DNC members do anything for 10 hours is about as inspiring as watching an orgy of tse-tse flies.
What an insufferable load of useless hacks -- who, together, should stand as glaring reminder that, as satisfying as it will be to boot the Repubs from office this November, anyone who expects some sort of radical change is living on another planet.
That said, good riddance to the entire opera buffa staged over the totally manufactured issue of restoration of the "rights" of Florida and Michigan Democratic delegates. There was never a legitimate issue here. Instead, we saw nothing but pandering, pandering, pandering and more pandering right up to this evening's final and anti-climactic compromise to seat both delegations with 1/2 a vote for each delegate.
Listening to the howling and pleading from Clinton surrogates and other sundry opportunists and operatives that seating these delegations was a civil rights issue is about as convincing as interpreting one of Uncle Jun's addresses to the Pipefitters Union as some sort of workers' manifesto.
Who's kidding who? The original DNC decision to authorize only four states to vote early was a blatant act of pandering to Iowa, NH, Nevada and South Carolina. The leap-frogging ahead of Fla and Michigan -- heartily suppported by each state's Democratic officials in defiance of the DNC-- was a blatant act of pandering to local constituencies. The ratification of the decision to punish both states by the Clinton and Obama campaigns was a further act of pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. The decision to reconsider the just punishment and come up with today's compromise was a blatant act of pandering to Florida and Michigan. The notion of legitimacy attached to either one of those "elections," one in which Clinton had no opponent on the ballot and the other in which all candidates vowed not to campaign, insults the intelligence and panders to political morons.
The battle cry of "Den-ver! Den-ver!" by Hillary supporters in the wake of Saturday's decision is nothing short of a sort of collective psychosis. The same die-hard Democrats who spent the last eight years blaming Ralph Nader for the deficiencies of their own party have now embarked on a similar campaign to spoil the candidacy of the eventual and certain nominee -- Barack Obama.
That the Clintons and their campaign henchmen have actively encouraged this psychosis is an act of supreme political cynicism without much contemporary parallel.
Look no further than the revolting performance at the Rules Committee hearing by Clinton consigliere Harold Ickes. His characterization of the compromise as a "highjacking" of Madame Clinton's delegates directly undermines the legitimacy of Obama's eventual nomination and pairs perfectly with Ickes' vow to "reserve the right" to re-open this wound at the August nominating convention.
Some describe the act of going all the way to Denver as the "nuclear option." I disagree. It would be more like an act of political suicide bombing. And as gruesome as such acts are, remember who is always the first casualty.
So Harold, Hillary go ahead, if you dare. Make my day.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Clinton’s big supporters:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2008/3522race_ain't_over.html
May 31st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
“The same die-hard Democrats who spent the last eight years blaming Ralph Nader for the deficiencies of their own party have now embarked on a similar campaign to spoil the candidacy of the eventual and certain nominee — Barack Obama.”
Nice inaccurate self-serving dig, Marc, though I agree with the rest of the tirade.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:58 pm
This widespread Leftist belief that Obama is somehow different from the usual run of mainstream Democratic politician is truly bizarre. The guy has spent his entire life working his way up through the Chicago Machine. David Axelrod, his chief strategist, is a long-term servitor of Chicago Mayor Richie Daley, an arch-thug and criminal.
If Obama goes all the way, as well he might, you people are in for a world of disappointment.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I watched those clowns most of the way through.
I’m getting nostalgic for Nixon.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“David Axelrod, his chief strategist, is a long-term servitor of Chicago Mayor Richie Daley, an arch-thug and criminal.”
So Obama is not just guilty by association, he is guilty by association WITH an additional association. Samuel Stott, you are reaching here, and getting nothing. Other than perhaps matching Woody’s ridiculousness.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Do the trains in Chicago run on time?
May 31st, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Oh, and apparently Axelrod also worked for Robert Kennedy, Paul Simon, and John Edwards….Oh the horrors!!!!!!
May 31st, 2008 at 9:23 pm
“If Obama goes all the way, as well he might, you people are in for a world of disappointment.”
Thanks for the heads-up — I’m bracing myself.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sam,
No doubt that Obama — like everybody short of Jesus– will disappoint. I often disappoint myself, in fact.
Out of curiousity: Is there anything about GW Bush that has disappointed you? Please be specific.
(The wonderful part about doing a blog is seeing how 99 out of 100 people check their voter reg before giving an answer on national politics).
May 31st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
And Samuel Stott (after this, I am through), it is not just “the left” that have a “belief that Obama is somehow different from the usual run of mainstream Democratic politicians.” If you check even the most conservative of polls, Obama is beating both Hillary and McCain in a cornucopia of so-called “red” western states (Nevada, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, etc.) that wil easily enable Obama to spank McCain’s wrinkled ass come November.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Only someone who is completely tone deaf to politics could believe he is not different. Not the messiah, just different.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Marc & Co., long time no comment.
Thought you all would enjoy the below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DesyhrRYtB0
May 31st, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Here’s more:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s&eurl=http://wjno.blogspot.com/2008/05/clinton-supporter-goes-berserk.html
May 31st, 2008 at 10:48 pm
(ok, let’s try this again with Tiny URL)
Here’s more:
http://tinyurl.com/4hwado
May 31st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
(apologies for the double post Marc.)
June 1st, 2008 at 4:34 am
qdpsteve,
Hope she gets back on her meds.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:38 am
Good post, Marc. At Balter’s Blog, we call the Clinton position “The Audacity of Lost Hope.”
June 1st, 2008 at 4:48 am
Who’s kidding who? The original DNC decision to authorize only four states to vote early was a blatant act of pandering to Iowa, NH, Nevada and South Carolina.
Here’s an interesting counterargument, although I remain somewhat conflicted on the whole issue. My firm belief is that major reforms still need to be done in fundng. In particular, free airtime should be granted, especially after the broadcasters were given their digital spectrum (i.e. public property and so determined by no less a rightie than Herbert Hoover) for free.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:07 am
Marc: No doubt that Obama — like everybody short of Jesus– will disappoint.
Obama will not disappoint, if this picture of him from Reuters is any indication.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:32 am
“No doubt that Obama — like everybody short of Jesus– will disappoint.”
I was disappointed that Jesus turned water into Merlot – if he had been less of an elitist he’d have turned it into Old Milwaukee. Also, that Lazarus thing ? Creepy!
June 1st, 2008 at 8:41 am
What yesterday’s retail issues of whether to seat delegates or not made me think is the wholesale problem of the idiotic way the U.S. conducts it’s elections. I find it interesting that at the very moment in our nation’s history when the two major parties are so middlingly weak and in such decline in terms of ideology and basic philosophy (think how so many people are registering as “Decline to State” for example) yet both parties seem to be like ruthless palace guards in running (and ruining) the actual voting process. Dueling fraternities have taken over the campus. The drama with the DNC yesterday just the latest examples or a corrupt and corruptible system. Why the parties have so much influence — indeed partisans can be in charge of election bureaus throughout the country — is mind numbing. Nearly 8 years on from Florida’s chad and we’ve gotten no significant reform. Gerrymandered districts, too much money, partisan control of the publicly owned voting processes; all these these things have to go. It has to be changed. A match must be struck and the whole rotten enterprise should be burnt down.
Alright. I’m done venting. Nothing will change before November. Still, don’t you think there needs to some serious deep structural changes before the next cycle?
June 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Deep structural change?
Abolish the electoral college. Have candidates elected by lists (in which voters give their “second favorite” – and the proportional weight of firsto nlists is larger than second on lists). Make campaigns completely publicly financed with free television air time. Disallow organizations left, right and other from sponsoring debates.
Gore Vidal has recently suggested an outright constituional convention. Daniel Lazare’s writings – on how the constitution itself is undemocratic – are informative.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I like the electoral college.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Do we sit back then withdraw while people die needlessly, or do we overthrow the regime so that we can go in and help? WWOD?
June 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Rob G – the primary elections are qualitatively different from the general election and with some good reason. These are, after all, the terrain for “family feuds.” Personally, I’m all for states not voting at the same time, for some smaller states to front-load the process so that candidates are forced to go “retail” and not just do media buys on a national scale, and for regional idiosyncrasies – like caucuses – to hold sway for a few weeks as the process unfolds. If anything, I’d like to see the proportional representation of delegates mandated by Democrats to be applied to the electoral college, short of getting rid of it entirely. Without this admittedly chaotic and “irrational” state-by-state slog – too long, no doubt, but a real test of each candidate’s political viability with real voters – we’d only ever have candidates like Hillary winning, Obama wouldn’t have had a chance – and Howard Dean would not have had the kind of 2004 impact on the Democratic party that has proven at least modestly transformational in terms of grass-roots activists getting the leverage that drove Obama’s success.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Woody – exactly who, in the spectrum of candidates – including Bob Barr, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader or whoever else you might drum up – is proposing we invade Myanamar ? For that matter, leaving the President himself aside – since I assume Robert Gates is speaking for and enacting his policies – who in the administration or elsewhere is advocating such ?
If “nobody”, what’s your point ?
June 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Randy: thanks, but which one needs the meds? The older gal or the younger gal?
I was disappointed that Jesus turned water into Merlot
Well, Reg, at least it was chocolate/cherry-flavored Merlot.
But seriously, I’d like to know what you think of the individuals in the videos I posted, both of whom say they’re going McCain in November if Hillary doesn’t get the nod? If your reaction is ‘fuck ‘em/who needs ‘em’, that’s fine (and about what I’d expect) but it seems to me it’s still worrisome. A replay of 1968, anyone??…
In the meantime Reg, we’ve got a old warmed-over-from-the-60s black gay filmcritter, David Ehrenstein, back at my usual hangout blog, The Festering Swamp, who looves to tout his credentials as someone that believes neither Barack or Hillary have enough balls to burn down the system as we know it and install whatever libtopia he’s supporting that week. The very same Ehrenstein, in fact, who wrote the (in?)famous “Magic N-word” column about Obama in the LA Times over a year ago. What I’d give for you, Reg, to have some quality ‘face time’ with him…
June 1st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
qdp – I don’t think those folks are representative of even a significant minority of Hillary’s voters. And I doubt they’ll have much influence in November. Of course, if Hill and Bill are as narcissistic as Marc thinks they are (or me on my very worst days of this primary) they could hurt party unity at the edges of Hillary’s most fervent supporters. It’s really on them to pull everyone back together. If they’re as smart as they’re supposed to be, they know it’s their reputations on the line as much as Obama’s success – if they do anything less than give the ticket full, active support and McCain squeaks through, Hillary’s toxic in 2012. But then, they’ve done some pretty stupid stuff this campaign season.
June 1st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
reg, no one is proposing that we do anything with Myanmar except to withdraw without helping, because the corrupt and inept government won’t accept aid, even though tens of thousands may die. Is the best moral stance that anyone can propose is to do nothing and let these people lose all hope and perish? I think it’s a tragedy, yet that’s the path that leftists, who claim to care about people, have forced politicians to take.
June 1st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
I think it’s a tragedy, yet that’s the path that leftists, who claim to care about people, have forced politicians to take.
Could you please be a bit more specific?
Qdpsteve: Both of them.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Woody, what are you talking about? Who is forcing this decision on politicians?
June 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Randy & Dan, what I’m saying is that the left has made it politically unpopular for our government to help innocent people in other lands, if it means that we may have to consider military options to remove the causes of or obtacles to their well-being.
After Vietnam, our country sat back while the the Communist Khmer Rouge killed or starved millions next door. Now, we are heavily attacked by the left for being in Iraq, despite it freeing people from tyranny, so no one is about to go back to southeast Asia to help anyone else. If today’s leftists were around in WWII, many would say that the European Jews were not our problem either.
The next time that there is coverage about all the dead people in Myanmar, close your eyes and ignore it rather than consider that they are victims of political protests by the left who made people and nation saving both unpopular and political suicide.
Since this post is about HRC & BHO, ask why they haven’t said anything about what we should do in Myanmar.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The left was fighting fascism when capitalist powers (and for a time, Stalinists in the “third period) were appeasing the fascists and Nazis.
A riposte to your point about Left Anti-Imperialism – if the Right wasn’t so anti-UN then there would be a rapid response force for just such situations.
June 1st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
jc, there isn’t anything rapid about the U.N. except to grab money and power.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Woody, I dunno. I think that’s a little ahistorical (not in the Marxist sense, please!).
It seems that caution about the use of the military for is just wise, and its opposite, is downright dangerous.
I was for the intervention on Kosovo, and I was for the intervention in Iraq on the basis of opposing tyranny. I tend to believe we should intervene in these sorts of things. However, probably to my discredit, I severely underestimated what a blunt tool military force is. It’s probably a lesson any thinking person who has read about Viet Nam, or Algeria, or read Siegfried Sassoon, or Robert Graves, or Paul Fussell simply should not have to be reminded of. And the cost of learning that lesson, is, well, to phrase it in rather disgusting understatement, a bit too high.
Interventionists too often strip away all the rough edges and imagine a scalpel is used to remove a hang nail, when it’s much more like a chain saw ripping through a limb.
On the other hand, I detest the knee-jerk elements on the left who think force is never justified. It is…sometimes. But I can’t really fault people who urge us to take great caution with the use of force, if not only for the cost in lives, but also for the cost in freedom, as Thomas Jefferson would like to remind us were he here now.
On Myanmar specifically, would you suggest that we start to bomb them so that we can give them food and blankets? Seems like an odd option at best.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Randy & Dan, what I’m saying is that the left has made it politically unpopular for our government to help innocent people in other lands, if it means that we may have to consider military options to remove the causes of or obtacles to their well-being.
I think invading a country for overhyped, ultimately false reasons in a rush to war predicated far more on the needs of the Republican party and the election cycle (e.g. the vote ofr the war resolution three weeks before the 2002 election) than on any actual threat and absent any immediate humanitarian crisis (indeed, when Saddam was doing his worst, the Republican party was enabling him), has done far more to sour the public on such interventions than anything else.
Moreover, your response betrays a basic ignorance of geopolitics and geography. Burma shares a major border with China. If you could imagine China allowing the US to invade a country with which it shares a border, then I urge you to share what you are smoking with the rest of us.
June 1st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Dan O
I sympathize with your position. If the “we” in question, however, is the USA, then it will never have legitimacy. I opposed the Kosovo adventure that was against international law (accepted retroactively post facto) and the Iraq war, even keeping in mind that there may be some tangible gains to certain populations (Albanians, Kurds) that the position that actions that empower the “greatest purveyor fo violence in the world” (MLK) the American Empire to grab more power are immoral even if they actually do have tangible gains for small groups aligned with empire (Kosovo was about Camp Bondsteel and NATO extension and the US empowered the most vicious forces, even Wesley Clark admitted many times that the war made the situation worse).
At the same time, I am not totally opposed – in principle to the idea – abstracted from its specificity – of humanitarian intervention. There have been ideas floating for decades in progressive foreign policy circles about a truly international military force under UN jurisdiction. It was Canadians and Hungarians, who at the time were on opposite Empires in the so called Cold War who really popularized the idea among interntional civil servants. An international force in which the constabulary and officers themselves have no national basis but it is a supplementary international military, can and should exist for humanitarian situations, including Katrina, say, as well as to stop both genocides that the US opposes rhetorically (Darfur) and genocides that the US abets (Congo)…
Brazil is behidn this. Russia, China, even much if not most of Canada’s defense establishment, much of Europe, probably not France….It is an idea that should be pushed more and more.
June 1st, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Turn out the light’s, the party’s over.
Another party’s just getting under way …
June 1st, 2008 at 10:54 pm
jcummings, are you out of your fucking mind? Lyndon LaRouche?
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:15 am
Shouldn’t it be, “Who’s kidding whom?”
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:19 am
Good grief. I’m going to have to regain my composure…polite and thoughtful responses to one of my comments.
No, in this particular case, I’m not suggesting that we go into the capital of Myanmar with guns blazing and try to kill the military rulers. Instead, a better option would be to take the food, water, and supplies to the helpless people under protection of armed forces. If the military junta of Myanmar wants to take on our military to prohibit our giving aid directly to suffering people, then let them try.
But, we are not invading a country. Instead, we would be providing the necessary subsistence to the people on a temporary basis and making sure that it gets to those in need in an orderly manner and doesn’t get hijacked by the rulers.
I don’t believe that the area impacted by the cyclone goes that far inland and it surely goes nowhere close to China.
jcummings, remember that your favored U.N. gave up completely on the project of helping the people of Myanmar. There you go.
Myanmar is just an example of matters that can come up regarding the humane use of military. Maybe our country does have some type of non-disclosed policy on issues like this in place, but if we don’t, then we should have one.
In the meantime, the left needs to start thinking and quit automatically assuming that military use under Republicans is always bad. It’s wrong to stir up political discontent against humane efforts.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
Woody,
With respect, it doesn’t matter how close to China it is. They will not tolerate it any more than we would tolerate their sending an army to Chiapas in order to deliver aid to the Zapatistas if a hurricane devastated the region and the Mexican government refused to let aid in.
The Myanmar junta is a perverse group. Even the Tamil Tigers let in aid workers to the regions they control in Sri Lanka after the 2004 tsunami. Any attempt to use military force to make the junta to “accept” aid will be met with force from the military and will likely result in human suffering in addition to the suffering going on there now.
Don’t blame this on the left, Woody. Even the US DOD and DOS in this administration knows how the world works in this situation.
June 2nd, 2008 at 7:24 am
jcummings, see how the U.N. handles a tyrant who starved his country.
Mugabe at food summit ‘obscene’
Well, this post is still about the election, but you’ll never see something like this issue discussed in the election when you can make more points over meaningless verbal gaffes.
June 2nd, 2008 at 8:01 am
LaRouche is a big HRC supporter. As I saw, after discovering LaRouche literature among Hillary supporters – he is very influential amoing that hundred or so wingnuts at noquarter,, hillaryis44, etc.
The UN does not have the funding to be effective, Woody.
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
You’ll notice that this VF piece has dish on Clinton dallying with someone who I’ve mentioned numerous times in this blog comments area and called on it as if it was bullshit. We Torontonians know better.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807
June 2nd, 2008 at 9:51 am
jcummings: The UN does not have the funding to be effective, Woody.
I just had to read that again to believe that I was seeing it. Why, if they took the money that they’e wasting on renovating the building in NYC they could feed the world.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 am
Woody, your proposal that we invade Myanmar because the regime is permitting its people to starve implies that those people will be better off once we prevail, which of course you assume we would do.
Have you learned nothing from recent history? Do you really believe that making war in Myanmar will facilitate the delivery of goods to the survivors of the disaster? Of course not, it will disrupt whatever is or will be forthcoming, both from within and without the country. Even assuming that countries and NGOs trying to assist will never find a way to get aid in (and I think they will), what is left of the country will be completely disrupted.
We rid Iraq of the tyrant Hussein, and what is the evidence that people are better off, unless you give credence to “better off dead.” (And yes, I believe that Saddam’s people did murder opponents and even innocents, but nothing approached the level of death and destitution as we see now.)
And let’s look at Cambodia. It was a peaceful kingdom, even though a civil war was being engaged in Viet Nam next door, and even though some of the supply lines created by combatants in that war crossed through its lands. But it was stable until US bombing disrupted and destroyed its land. This created the uprising, out of which the Khmer Rouge took power. And the Khmer Rouge itself was not a threat to the people until the murderer Pol Pot grabbed power during the dislocation cause in the wake of the bombing. What good did that American incursion do the Cambodian people?
The callousness of the tyrannical rulers of Myanmar is stunning. It is possible that the most we can do is work with and through neighboring countries and the UN [I know to your people, Woody, this is anathema] to find a way to get aid in. Invading with the remnants of the Georgia National Guard (can GWBush, perchance, be called up) or whatever forces you believe are available and creating war conditions will only make things worse for the people of Myanmar.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:38 am
To respond to Marc’s post, I am wondering what your definition of “pander” is. The national and local political parties have real conflicts over the timing of primaries. If the “free market” is left to work unchecked, each state wishing to have the decisive early say in the process will set its primary/caucus date earlier than the one before, and we will end up pushing the primary into the end of the midterm elections. I don’t believe this is an exaggeration.
The question of which states lead off is important. There is good reason to complain that permitting Iowa and New Hampshire to cull out the also-rans [who might in fact be the winners in states with greater ethnic, cultural and experiential diversity] is a bad idea. I don’t think that efforts to limit this influence of small-town, white Democrats on the final selection is pandering. Nor do I think that taking the arguments of Iowa and New Hampshire seriously–that the culture and geography of those states permits close scruting necessary to the identification of potential leaders–is pandering.
These are tough questions. I did watch the bulk of the meeting on Saturday, and it reminded me that the Democratic Party is constituted of real people, not all Wall Street-approved pros.
I thought they did a decent job. Had it been more critical to Obama’s campaign that they cut a stronger deal, I think it would have been bloodier, but they backed off. I certainly agree that Ickes’s “hijacking” rant was based on a seriously bad premise, but I think some expression of rage against the dying of the day was necessary. As for the “Den-ver” chanters, well, I’m sure some of them will be there. The chances of a ’68 Chicago scene, however, have dissipated.
June 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Also Woody, to amplify Dan O’s comment, do we even have the ability to pull off what you’re suggesting? Soldiers in Iraq have to take extended tours, standards are getting dropped to fill recruitment quotas, and this administration has shown little ability to plan any mission more elaborate than blocking the Florida recount.
I agree that the Left (and the Right for that matter) needs to be clearer about when international action is necessary, but first we need to know if it’s possible. And I think the Iraq war means that for next several years, our ability to do anything outside our borders is gonna be severely limited. (Most other nations will say to us, “you and whose army?”)
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I used Myanmar because it was in the current news. All that I was suggesting is similar to some of you–that we need sanity in the political debate to make such actions politically neutral if done for humanitarian reasons.
Now, if Obama were to be elected President, Heaven forbid, would he have painted himself into a corner with his anti-war rhetoric?
As a public notice, if the Clinton campaign owes you money, get you invoices submitted and take your checks directly to the bank to be cashed. I still can’t believe that she doesn’t have some back-door plan to snatch victory from Obama. It’s just not like the Clintons.
June 2nd, 2008 at 1:34 pm
The question is not whether international “action” is neccessary, the question is legitimacy. The US has no legitimacy, nor has it, arguably, since before the Marshall Plan. Internationalists who want to solve global problems should work to convince Obama to give up some sovereignty and allow the US to help form a UN rapid reaction force, under rotating generals, etc.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
McCain is clearly outside the mainstream of most Americans’ thoughts on the issue of talking with the leaders of nations that are not friendly with us.
June 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Six in ten is hardly “mainstream.” That is one stupid poll answered by a lot of clueless people.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Word is that Clinton is negotiating with Obama to pay her campaign debts. That’s like someone drawing out a court dispute and then going to the victor asking for help to pay their attorney fees.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Woody, you didn’t pay close enough attention to what Randy and/or Gallup (the “stupid poll” that you seem to find exotic) stated. Your “six in ten” refers only to the poll relative to Americans opinions of our president meeting with “the Iranian President.” Actually, Randy was referring instead to the poll right beside that one that asked people their opinion about our president talking with leaders of nations in general all around the world – that poll found that 67% (nearly 7 in 10) of Americans (the “clueless people” you refer to) support that.
Furthermore, if you check Webster’s Dictionary (assuming you don’t see some kind of “liberal bias” relative to Webster-Merriam), it defines “mainstream” as “the prevailing current of thought.”
Long story short: McCain is indeed “out of the mainstream” on meeting with leaders from other countries.
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
….other countries around the world, that is, who are “considered enemies of the United States.”
June 2nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
that “nations in general” part in the first paragraph was thoughtless typing. Need sleep…
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Since our conservative faction here likes to parse every word that comes out of Obama’s mouth and smear him with the association of everyone he’s ever shaken hands with, perhaps it’s fair for us to note who McCain actually employs and what they say.
Take a look at Glen Greenwald on Salon, where he notes that McCain’s deputy communications director is now Michael Goldfarb who believes that the President has near “dictatorial powers” to conduct foreign policy, and who blithely discounts charges of torture with the playground chant of “boo hoo.”
I guess it’s only fair that if McCain knows Ayers and had some relationship with him, and that this is cause to brand him a leftist terrorist, that we now have 100 times more basis for concluding that McCain is a law breaking tyrant, a little dictator in the wings, since he writes a paycheck out to Goldfarb who has expressed the views he has.
Please Woody and the rest, do us the favor of being consistent. It’s a small request, and you didn’t get me anything for Christmas last year.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Obama knew Ayers. I hate it when I make a gaffe like that. I guess my hope for higher office is officially over.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:23 pm
David, it’s going to have to take more than one stupid Gallup poll to convince me that any view represents “mainstream” America–or “prevailing current of thought” as you explained, and no poll is going to convince me that everyone who answers polls knows what he’s talking about. Oh, and thanks for the lesson that 67% is seven in ten. Now, is “not friendly” (Randy’s wording) the same as “enemies” (Gallup’s wording?) I hope you get your sleep.
June 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Dan O, while I don’t remember smearing Obama as you indicated. In fact, I supported him over Clinton. But, I don’t consider his attending the church of a radical preacher for twenty years to be merely shaking hands.
I’m not trying to score points on this, but I truly am concerned about Obama being active in that church for so long and that the philosophy of the preacher might be the same as Obama’s. His wife let it slip what she believes, and maybe Obama needs a little more scrutiny to really know if what he says is what he really believes.
–Woody, a typical white person
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
“Oh, and thanks for the lesson that 67% is seven in ten.”
Woody, as you know, but omitted, I said that is 67% is “NEARLY 7 in 10″. Emphasis on “nearly.” Second post in a row from you displaying blatant dishonesty.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Woody, you’re right I don’t recall a specific post where you said such a thing. It must simply be guilt by association.
June 2nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Pretty funny. Now, I’ll get you something for Christmas next year.
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:11 pm
David, blatant dishonesty? You really are trying hard to find something with which to disagree.
Say, do you think that the “prevailing current of thought” ever changes or should we base policy upon what one poll says at one point in time?
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:14 pm
David from KS,
Why argue with someone who thinks two-thirds of the population in a poll conducted by the most prestigious polling organization in the country is “hardly mainstream.”
It makes one wonder which has more deeply permeated Woody: denial or pride.
June 2nd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“Out of curiosity: Is there anything about GW Bush that has disappointed you? Please be specific.”
Sure Marc. The question apparently assumes that I am uncritical and a partisan Republican , when I am neither.
How George W. Dissapoints Me.
An Essay By Sammy Stott
1. W. disappoints me by being inarticulate and being unable to explain himself, in general.
2. W disappoints me by failing to explain why our wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq are just.
3.W disappoints me by failing to explain how and why radical Islam is an existential threat to the survival of liberal democracies.
4. W disappoints me because he asked us to go to war and then go shopping, instead of calling upon all Americans to sacrifice in the war effort.
5. W disappoints me because he is impolitic, and has alienated millions of people worldwide, by failing to appoint deputies capable of making America’s case effectively.
6. W disappoints me because he waits too long to replace failed policies with effective ones, failed commanders with successful commanders.
7. W. disappoints me because he refuses to
break with the Arab kleptocracies that get rich selling the US oil, who employ the proceeds to fund Jihad.
8. W. disappoints me by failing to promote energy independance and sustainable energy policies.
9. W. disappoints me by failing to veto pork-barrel and promote fiscal restraint.
10. W disappoints me by failing to defend his record of minority hires, the greatest in the history of the Republic.
That’s just ten. I have hundreds.
But my point was, Obama is a transparent opportunist who will throw anybody, anybody under the bus for political advantage. Skillfully, masterfully, he spent twenty years consorting with the Nation of Islam and Tony Rezko; Little Billy Ayers and Richie Daley; the esteemed Reverend Wright and the honorable Emil Jones Jr.
You can do that sort of thing, in Chicago, so long as the garbage gets picked up. But apparently, you can get millions of deluded ideological Leftists, across the country, to conclude that you are all about the high road and “change” when you are nothing more than a cynical product of the most corrupt (effectively corrupt) political culture in the country.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 am
Clinton as suicide bomber – classy
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:09 am
Okay, let’s see if “mainstream” America answers the question the same way from the “most prestigious polling organization in the country” if the question is properly worded to specify who these “enemies” are. If the “mainstream” knew that the list includes Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and knew what he preaches, would they feel the same way?
You don’t negotiate with mad men intent on destroying Israel and the U.S. – unless you are BHO or ill informed citizens given a badly designed poll and question.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Here’s your accurate polling:
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Woody,
Your hysteria is showing.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:57 am
You don’t negotiate with mad men intent on destroying Israel and the U.S. – unless you are BHO or ill informed citizens given a badly designed poll and question.
And just for the record, Woody, the Bush administration finally realized the value of meeting with unfriendly governments and decided to negotiate with the government of a guy who is so obseesed with his diminutive height that he wears his hair in a buffant and wears high heels. We know him as Kim Jong-Il, one of the “Axis of Evil” members.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Are you still cheating on your taxes?
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pm
You’ve got nothing as usual.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Best. Headline. Ever.
- kdb
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Just tired of arguing with you.
Negotiate with these guys.
“This computer generated image posted on terror forums depict what would happen if a nuclear attack took place in Washington D.C.
June 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Just tired of arguing with you
Probably should have thrown in the towel awhile ago.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:42 am
[...] [...]
September 1st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Do you know any more about that? I’td be cool to have more details