The Healing Begins Today
Today Hillary Clinton will give the speech of her lifetime. I have no doubt she will fully and enthusiastically endorse Barack Obama and that she will demand the same of her supporters. Any attacks she makes will be directed at John McCain, any slight will be against the Republican Party. The primary is over…
… and Republicans are licking their chops. If one more conservative pundit, editorial writer, or blogger expresses their “concern” for the unity of the Democratic Party I’ll scream. This was our fight, a family fight, and let’s face it conservatives have enough to worry about when it comes to their gaffe-ridden, flip-flopping candidate. Might I suggest they concentrate their efforts where they’re most needed?
And might I suggest we do the same? If Dems lose this year it will be by our own hand. Hillary and Barack know this. They also knew, no matter who prevailed, that their concession speech would have to be a barn burner; that the loser would have just as much responsibility for uniting the party as the winner. I firmly believe Hillary is up to the task.
Are we?
Tags: 2008 Presidential, Hillary Clinton
Wow. There’s that word again: healing. Ugh. I posted this in a comment over at DWA, but I think it’s fitting here as well:
P – You guys are doing some serious miscalculating if you think that Clinton supporters will hop on over to the land of rainbows and unicorns simply because Hillary dropped out. Perhaps the leftest leaning of us will, but I think you’ll be surprised by how many of us don’t. Sorry.
Contrary to what so many of you may think, this wasn’t a matter of me being torn between the two candidates and leaning toward Hillary because she was a woman or because I liked her style better. My support for Hillary was based as much on Obama’s shortcomings as it was on her strengths. His shortcomings are exactly the same now as they were when he started the race; worse, actually, because his allegedly stellar judgment (on which he based a good portion of his candidacy) has been proven to be quite awful. Add his vicious campaign tactics and the DNC travesty and, well, yeah…not so much.
…Over the next five months, the media will likely (HOPEfully) sour to their lovechild while his race-card games are met by a much less tolerant center-right electorate that has likely growing quite tiresome of his fluff and his dirty Chicago past will catch up with him. Poor thing will no longer be able to find mercy behind the foibles (exaggerated as they may have been) of the Clintons.
I’ll get the popcorn started.
If I sound bitter, it’s probably because I am. All of this talk of ‘healing’ makes me sick. This isn’t something that can be ‘healed’. Have you gotten over 2000 and 2004? Did time heal those wounds? Did you come around and accept and respect GWB as your president? Does it still sting a little to think about it? Well, that’s pretty much EXACTLY how I feel right now. I really don’t think I’m alone. I think this is a bigger problem than Obamanation is willing to accept.
I read your comment over at DWA and responded. I accept you’re voting for McCain – you’ve made that perfectly clear.
MY position has been crystal clear from the beginning: I will vote Dem in Nov. no matter who. Even if there is a coup in Denver… I AM VOTING DEM! Because, to me, the issues – which both Hillary and Obama agree – are what’s important.
All I really want to know is how the delegate tracker shows 118.5 uncommitted delegates, but both candidates have an even number of delegates?
FL delegates only count as 1/2. Fucking DNC.
Mrs. Marshall belongs with the GOP.
Rules? What rules?
Dominique, what vicious campaign tactics?
‘Rules? What rules?’
Sounds like the perfect bumper sticker for the DNC.
June – umm…let’s start with character assassination and race baiting. Just look at the drivel from the article Nancy posted in another thread that repeats the same bullshit lies and exaggerations the Obama camp spewed about Bill Clinton (his campaign is a fairy tale, etc.). Then we can move to completely dismissing the accomplishments of the only two term president the party can boast since FDR. Nevermind the fact that he reportedly single-handedly raised about $20m for Dems around the country in 2006. Finally, we can move to his wife’s filthy ‘if you can’t run your own house, you can’t run the White House’ comment about Hillary. All this courtesy of the guy who’s going to change Washington because he’s so different from yesterday’s politicians.
What does any of that have to do with DNC rules?
More changing the subject and not addressing the topic at hand? Dom, you don’t give good victim. Really.
Read Mark Penn’s NYT OpEd today for a laugh. He and Bill sunk Clinton’s chances and she let them.
‘What does any of that have to do with DNC rules?’
C’mon, Nancy, don’t play stupid. Sometimes there’s just no getting around a travesty – even if it works out in favor of your candidate. Tell me you’re ok with what went down with the MI delegates. Do it. This isn’t about me being a victim, pinhead. It’s about the DNC and the MI Dem party shattering not only their rules, but the will of the voters.
FTR, I would never read anything written by that asshat Mark Penn. I have absolutely no interest in what he has to say unless it’s ‘I’m sorry’.
Dominique – I assume you must really hate Harold Ickes, who initally tried to have all of Florida’s delegates count for zero.
“FTR, I would never read anything written by that asshat Mark Penn. I have absolutely no interest in what he has to say unless it’s ‘I’m sorry’.”
If one really wants to know what they are talking about they should read both sides of the argument….you continually admit to NOT wanting to read anything other than what YOU think is important…..you may want to diversify your sources of info…..it may surprise you.
But then again…
Dominique, nothing you said to answer my question is nearly as bad as the Clinton nastiness, but forget that for a moment. I’m going to try to explain as basic as possible (like a grownup) why I chose to support Obama instead of Clinton (I can’t speak for anyone else, but most on here will agree, I think).
I’ve followed politics closely for a long time, and I am sick and tired of the way politics works in Washington. It is disgusting and disgraceful, and when I heard Obama talk about making BIG changes in the way things are done, he won me over. He thinks outside the box. He has no one to answer to. He fought a campaign from the grassroots up, small contributions, no strong political ties to the bosses in the various states. His campaign staff made wise decisions as opposed to Hillary’s, whose planning was most of the reason she lost. He’s already come out with some changes in the way his campaign will be run differently from others.
Hillary, on the other hand, has exhibited through the years that her main object is her political future. She knows what to do and say–everything is calculated. When she voted for the Iraq war, she was thinking of her political future and it screwed her. The antiwar movement was, almost to a person, against her. She is intelligent, capable, and a great leader. I would love to have had a woman president, but she’s not the one. If Obama gets elected, I hope she gets a position where she can show what she is capable of.
When the campaign started way back when, it seemed like there was no one who would be able to beat her because she had so much money, so many political ties, and she was Hillary Clinton. I felt like hiding in a cave until everything was over. I feel sorry for Hillary’s supporters — I really do because I’ve been on the losing side so many times.
But, I really resent your accusations to those of us who support Obama — we aren’t knuckleheads; we aren’t stupid; we aren’t being duped — we aren’t drinking KoolAid. We are just sick and tired of the same old stuff in Washington, which would continue if Hillary were elected, and we have the faith that things will change with Obama.
June, while I am supporting Obama, he is certainly not perfect. His health care plan is better than McMads, but not as good as Hillary’s. And even Hillary imploded and voted to keep the for profits in. Back in the day when she was working on…it was single payer she was supporting and for all the right reasons. But the health care lobbyists got to her and republicans made her life hell.
None of these people can get to the position of being a candidate for President without baggage. Hilary has tons of baggage, and she wont accept the VP either, because that means that Billary has to come clean with all his ties to foreign nations.
Obama needs to make his own plans, pick his own cabinet, and lets end the Bush/Clinton dynasty. Who wants to be bombarded with the right wing lunatic fringe from Rick Jenson locally to Rush the drug addict, or Hannity the Insanity spew their hateful garbage marring any opportunity for Obama to make his own way and bring about change. I worry about all the promises of change….when I heard him speak at AIPAC, that was disturbing to me.
Why should any candidate running for President of the US, be forced to cow tow to another soverign nation, and make promises to keep the “horror” continuing in Palestine/Israel. If Obama really was a change cnadidate, he didnt have to go 100% with AIPAC, he could have stated that he would be unbiased, fair and deliver a real peace plan where both sides could exist.
Palestine is nothing but a prison camp, just read the NYTimes Tom Friedman column, who just visited there. He said, visited both Israel and Palestine, and said Palestine is a prison camp, horrible conditions worse than ever.
Bush did nothing about Israel/Palestine in 7 years, while the Zionists stole even more land in violation of UN 242.Just before Sharon had his stroke, he was trying to stop the zealots from stealing more land, illegally. Israel is an apartheid, theocratic nation, who havent a clue regarding the word “democracy”.
Still waiting for one elected official with a concience to step up and deal with the issue. Recall that Iraq Study group (Jim Baker) stated that the Israel/Palestine problem is causing terrorism worldwide.
Friedman said there are thousands of illegal settlements on the west bank…the Zionists are out of control. Israel would do better if they made peace, turnJerusalem into an international city, get a two state solution. Millions of people worldwide would go there for tourism.
Its time to cut Israel loose if they continue to behave like fascists.
‘I heard Obama talk about making BIG changes in the way things are done, he won me over. ‘
Did you happen to catch him explaining what, exactly, those BIG changes were going to be? If you’ve really followed politics closely for a long time, you surely know this is the same bullshit line every politician offers. What makes you think he’s any different?
Like you, I am simply stating my own opinion. I can talk all day about roses and rainbows and milk and honey, but it makes no difference if I can’t deliver it. If he’s such a big change agent, why didn’t he change Chicago’s political system? I’m sure you’re aware of how dirty they play in Chicago. What did he change during his time in the senate? What, in his history, makes you think he is capable of bringing any of the sweeping changes he is promising? I am not being snarky; I’m asking a legitimate question. You made your decision to support him based on his promise to change things. Did it ever occur to you to wonder how he was going to do it? Or did you just take his word for it?
BTW, I read plenty. I read information from the left and the right (do you?). I resent your implication that I am somehow closed-minded because I don’t accept your candidate as the be-all end-all. I just happen to have no interest in reading anything that Mark Penn has to say. From the very first time I saw him on TV implying that BO may have sold cocaine, I was turned off by him. I know you may find this hard to believe, but I don’t like dirty campaigning – regardless of how hapless I think the opposition candidate is.
Dom, I won’t waste either of our time re-answering a question I’ve answered several times before. To you Obama’s change message is an unqualitative promise consisting of all fluff and no real substance. To you ‘change’ is merely a political slogan which can’t be measured. Sorta the way I feel about Hillary’s ‘strength’ and her ready on day one claim.
So let’s deal with what Obama has changed since becoming the nominee.
1. Fundraising within the DNC. This is no small feat. Call it a political ploy, which it is in part since it hits McCain where it hurts most, but you can’t deny it IS change.
2. Bitch slapping Lieberman. I know I’m harping on this, but come on, Obama putting Lieberman’s back against the wall on the Senate floor was so sweet and so different from anything else that has been done to bring this guy in line. And let’s face it, Old Joe should have been called out long ago.
And you know what? I’ll bet Lieberman was shocked. You know why? Because what Obama did simply isn’t the way it’s done in Washington.
3. Obama isn’t running away from the Iraq war or security argument. He isn’t giving an inch. Instead he’s taking the debate, a supposed Republican strength, to McCain.
4. The 50 state strategy is no longer an idle Dem threat. Obama is serious about competing in all 50 states. Will he win all of them? Of course not, but the GOP will be forced to spend money, time and resources defending their turf.
Agree with these points or not, but they are change. And what’s it been? 5 days?
Umm… could the management rescue my comment? It didn’t post. Thanks.
Dom remember in Chicago when he ran for the senate he had no opponents because he got them removed from the ballot by his team of lawyers who used gutter tactic’s to get them off the ballot a great Chicago political move
Look folks i am not trying to tear down your man but just pointing out some facts that the REPUKS will use against him if you sit there with your head in the sand and refuse to see some of his weaknesses then when the slime machine comes after him on his present votes in the IL senate maybe you will have an answer for some of his weaknesses. and we will be able to win this election
“I resent your implication that I am somehow closed-minded because I don’t accept your candidate as the be-all end-all.”
There is no sense trying to talk sensibly to you, Dominique. Nowhere in my post did I come close to saying you are closed-minded because you don’t accept our candidate.,… I was trying to explain why I supported him, not why you should have supported him. This is a good example of how you see things as you want to, not like they are.
I give up. I’m moving on to sanity.
Okay, my brilliant comment (you’ll have to take my word on that! 🙂 ) was lost so I’ll try and recap my main points.
Change. I won’t rehash my previous comments from weeks past, instead I’ll focus on recent events.
1. Fundraising. Getting the DNC on board is no small feat. Call it a political ploy, which is partly true since McCain can’t afford to turn away money and will ultimately look bad, but it’s still change.
2. Obama is not ceding the issues of the Iraq War and Security. He’s taking these “republican” issues straight to the Straight Talking Express.
3. Bitch slapping Lieberman. Okay, I know I’m harping on this, but – come on – how sweet was this moment? And, be honest, haven’t we all been waiting for SOMEONE to call this guy out? Obama does it on the Senate floor!
4. The 50 state strategy is no longer an idle Dem threat. Will Obama win all these states? Of course not. But he will force Republicans to spend time, money and resources on states they’ve previously taken for granted.
These are changes. Like them or not, they are Changes. And it’s only been 5 days since he won the nomination. Pretty impressive.
June – I apologize. The part about about not being open-minded should have been directed at Stella.
Before you give up, would you mind answering the question about the changes you think Obama is going to make. I have yet to get a straight answer on that from any Obama supporter. What changes and what in his history makes you believe that he can or has the willingness to make changes?
Pandora – I know you guys think I go out of my way to poo-poo everything positive you say about Obama, but the things on your list are not changes in our government.
1) See my comment in the DNC fundraising thread about his loose definition of a ‘federal lobbyist’. I would be more impressed if he had a record of not giving earmarks (like his opponent does) to his supporters. Why don’t you look into his history of directing hundreds of thousands of state dollars to Fr. Pfleger’s church (sp?) when he was in Chicago? How do you feel about that?
2) How is that a change? Has he written any legislation to stop the Iraq war since he’s been in the senate? I don’t know his entire legislative history, so I’m asking that a serious question. What has he done since he’s been in the senate to end the war?
3) Apart from the fact that fighting with an old man in the senate is unbecoming, it’s not change – Dick Cheney led the way with that tactic. Nice company for him to be in.
4) 50 states is a campaign tactic (and a good one) he borrowed from Dean. Again, not a change.
What does he mean when he says he’s going to change the way they do things in Washington?
Dom, I’m about to give up. EVERY time you’ve asked the “change” question – over that last month or two – I HAVE answered.
And NOT ONE of my answers has been given an ounce of credit by you. Not one.
How can we have a discussion if you believe everything you say should be considered fairly – which I have done – and everything I say can be easily dismissed as fluff?
Changes to the capital gains/dividend tax structure. This is how the very wealthy get away with not paying their fair share. The top 1% own 50% of the stocks in our markets.
Focusing tax dollars on R&D for alternative energy sources – Obama has made reference to an “Apollo” program on energy. A massive directive, designed to create new jobs based on our need for new technologies.
A foreign policy based on vast cooperation of similar-minded nations. Focusing on policies that will deter the creation of terrorists, instead of breeding them.
You know what? Fuck this…do it yourself.
Did you think asking a “prove it to me” question would qualify as a legitimate rebuke? Maybe the people here don’t want to play your game because you’re lazy.
My comment was lost again… so here goes.
Dom, I’m about to give up. EVERY time you’ve asked the “change” question – over that last month or two – I HAVE answered.
And NOT ONE of my answers has been given an ounce of credit by you. Not one.
How can we have a discussion if you believe everything you say should be considered fairly – which I have done – and everything I say can be easily dismissed as fluff?
P – don’t be discouraged. maybe i’m misunderstanding him when he talks about changing washington. i think he’s talking about making sweeping fundamental changes in the way our government does things. maybe all along he’s just been talking about his list of policies (listed above by von cracker). they’re definitely different from the bush administration/republican policies, so i suppose technically that’s change. i was just under the impression that he was referring to something much grander in scale than that because if he’s just talking about the policy positions that are on his website, well, it seems any of the democratic candidates could have provided ‘change’ since all of their policies are about the same. thanks for clearing that up, von cracker.
so, now that i know how he’s going to change things, i guess my next question is how is he any different than any of the other dem candidates? i mean, other than being the winner and all, why are you guys so much more excited about him than you were about, say, edwards or richardson or even biden who actually have pretty long histories of getting things done?
I originally wanted Edwards, but Obama’s not as entrenched into the DC status quo as the other candidates. He doesn’t owe anyone anything, and he’s not part of the Pro-business DLC.
And yes, the idea of sticking it to the Man is very appealing!
Oh… but Dom, I was originally for Edwards. I have also consistently said that I will vote Dem in November – no matter who wins. I am voting on the issues… which are change.
Penn was an ass. Hillary had the chance to grab the change message. She’s a WOMAN for crying out loud! Why did she pass up this opportunity?
vc – have you looked at his contributors and his voting history? look, i’m not an obama hater. i’m really not. all along, i have said that he is a politician – no better, no worse than any other. the only difference i see is that he has been able to sell himself as something different. that’s political mastery and i’m pretty impressed with it. i’m not saying his policies are anything like gwb’s, but his campaign was very similar in that they were able to package him as something much more pure than he actually is.
do some objective research on his ties to the nuclear industry and how it’s benefitted from his voting/legislative record. take a look at the corporate donations he has received. take a look at the earmarks he has gotten for his contributors over the years. don’t believe everything you hear about his funds coming from ‘ordinary’ people. do some research on his political bundlers. look into the pac that he established when he got to the us senate and take a look at the contributions that pac made to politicians who then acted as his surrogates during the campaign.
i get that so many of you really connect with his message. i guess what bugs me is that you all seem to take it at face value. you have nothing but praise for him and you get your knickers in a twist if anyone thinks he’s less than perfect. i could stomach everyone loving him long time if i thought they accepted his shortcomings and still found him to be the better candidate. it’s the apparent refusal to admit that he has any shortcomings, that he is somehow ‘different’ than any other politician, and to simply believe everything he says that makes me just a wee bit crazy.
btw, does it bother anyone else when we’re referred to as ‘ordinary’ by politicians and pundits? barack is not the only one who does it. i’ve heard andrea mitchell and tim russert say it, too. i find it a bit condescending.
oh, p, you know as well as i do that she couldn’t have run as the ‘woman’ candidate. woman = weakness in washington (and countless other places). why do you think she voted for the war? i truly believe that she would have voted differently if it was going to be close. that bill was going to pass regardless of what she did. she had no choice but to establish herself as hawkish. they all do what they have to do when they’re preparing to run. why do you think barack voted in favor of continued funding? if he was truly anti-war, he would have voted against it. it would have passed without his vote, but he could have stood on principle. he didn’t because it would have been political suicide for him in the general election. it was a smart move. just like her vote for the war was.
you’re right, tho, she should have run with a change message, but when your main opponent is essentially a 1-year senator, you should be able to mop the floor with him with the experience argument. she seriously miscalculated how strongly his message and his speeches would resonate with voters.
she made a lot of mistakes during the campaign. that doesn’t change the fact that she was the hardest working, most well-informed candidate in the field. yes, she has a ton of baggage. yes, the idea of clinton hating for another 8 years is a bit chilling. but, you know what? she really was the best one – the perfect mix of style and substance. if only she had started out with more style and less substance. instead, she came out all substance and very little style. by the time she pulled it together, it was too late. oh, well, woulda, shoulda, coulda…didn’t.
Personally, I have no problem with Nuclear Technology. The French do a very good, and safe, job with it.
His contributions during this election have been by us. Yes, rich people contribute, that’s their discretion and right. Oil execs contribute to his campaign too, but as individuals, not part of a consolidated group so they can wield influence.
Rezko? Whatever, that’s a non-story.
Anyway, I’m sure, just like everyone on this Earth, Obama’s done something he’s not proud of during his political rise, in order to get where he is.
I’m not saying the ends justify the means either, what I am saying is he has gotten where he is during this executive campaign by stating a conscientious effort to move away from monolithic influence and toward a plural one, meaning individual citizens.
And yes, I do find the word ‘ordinary’ condescending. Just like how the only hard-working people in this country are white, blue-collar folks.
But what do you expect from insular morons who’ve never left the confines of DC. They think they’re the arbiters of conventional wisdom, but in reality, they’re the actors and entertainers of the Greek and Roman times….They might go to all the great parties, have money, and live the lifestyle they’ve always wanted, but what they don’t know (or want to admit) is that, deep down, the true aristocracy mocks and laughs at them, and will always believe that these useful tools are a lesser lot….just like us!
Rescue my F’ing COMMENT!!!!!
I’m posting again it in the “Unity Achieved” thread…
omg, i hate losing comments. it’s happened to me a couple of times at dwa. it makes me want to throw my laptop across the room. my husband always suggests typing them up on a word document first in case something like that happens, but i never think to do that until it’s too late.
Try copying the comment before hitting the publish button, D. Then you have it ready to paste again onto the comment block for another try. The second try usually works.
The worst thing in the world is losing a comment!
Barack Obama ran smarter. We need smarter.
Meh. Bush ran smarter, too. It’s not always an indication of what kind of president we’ll get. Of course, I never got the feeling Bush was even remotely bright. At least Obama’s not a dimwit.