F%#k it. We back Mrs. Clinton. Now let’s talk policy
This is a straight up grab from the Rude Pundit.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, the Rude Pundit feels your pain. He’d love, love, love for a real liberal to run for president. He says this pretty much every election, often supports whatever quixotic candidate is taking a shot this time until he (and, sadly, it’s only been “he”) drops out, and then votes for the moderate who he mostly agrees with on Supreme Court picks. In 2008, he supported Barack Obama because he thought the movement Obama had started would be transformative, not realizing that the president cared less about the movement than about governing from the presumptive middle (which, truth be told, Obama’s pretty damn good at). Obama didn’t move left. The middle moved right.
This time, though, it seems as if we’re not getting the token liberal. And we’re not getting anyone of color. Those who are remaining are either the white liberals who say they’re not running – Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders – and the white dude who might – Martin O’Malley. If that liberal appeared, the Rude Pundit would love to jump on that bandwagon. But he or she won’t be there this time. As much as we want to say that Hillary Clinton should have a primary candidate or whatever other bullshit we want to hide behind, the truth of the matter is, as everyone knows, very, very simple. Hillary Clinton is the nominee. She is more or less running as an incumbent. Last week, the Rude Pundit said this and was attacked on Twitter (which is the rhetorical equivalent of a gnat buzzing by you) for being racist because somehow he was dissing Obama. Sorry, but, Alan Keyes’ paranoia aside, Obama can’t run. And there is no man or woman of color who is even on the bench at this point, something that better be corrected or the Democrats will seem as out of touch as the Republicans.
So what are we left with? 18 months of bitching about what Hillary Clinton is not? 18 months of pretending like that will do a fucking thing to move her to the left on some of her positions? No, what’ll it do is, one more time, take the left out of the equation. Because if there’s one thing that Team Clinton knows is that most of the people who complain about her not being progressive enough on Wall Street, on foreign affairs, on immigration reform, will still vote for her because who the fuck else are they gonna vote for her? The ones who promise more Scalias and Alitos? Mike Huckabee? Jeb goddamn Bush?
Oh, you can say, “Well, I’ll just stay home,” and then you’re a selfish fucking idiot who doesn’t give a shit about the future. In her powerful Facebook post on how women of color should confront a Hillary Clinton candidacy, Jada Pinkett Smith (yeah, a celebrity) says, “The only question I have been asking myself is if I’m suppose to vote for Hillary because she is a woman; will she take us to the mountaintop with her or will women of color once again be left out and left behind?” But she concludes in the most hopeful way possible: “Women of color and white women have been taking on the majority of their fights on the political platform on separate lines; can Hillary Clinton change that legacy through her journey to become president? Because if she can…she would not only have my vote…but she would have my heart.” You got that? Pinkett Smith says that she is voting for Hillary Clinton. But she wants Clinton to be something more.
That’s why the title of this post is not a threat. It’s not marching orders. It’s an opportunity. What if the left coalesced behind Clinton and did so early? Clinton has already made one of her big issues a constitutional amendment restricting money in politics. That’s some Lawrence Lessig-level shit right there, even if she’s raising metric assloads of cash to run for president. What if, instead of the usual cycle of pretending we can get a moderate candidate to veer left by viciously tweeting and blogging and giving Fox “news” a chance to say, “See? The Left doesn’t like Hillary,” we just said, “Fuck it. We back her. Now let’s talk policy”? What if we made ourselves players instead of giddy, powerless outsiders?
Obviously, it could backfire. Obviously, the votes could be taken for granted and Clinton could play us like we’ve been played so many times (and that’s especially true for people of color). But that’s what will happen if liberals decide to be the headless opposition, as we learned with Bill Clinton, as we learned, to an extent, with Barack Obama. At the very least, a different tactic during campaign season would force Clinton to deal with liberals in a different way. If there’s one thing that we know about Hillary Clinton, it’s that she can eviscerate or at least isolate those who seek to destroy her or her family.
And we know that she privileges loyalty. Maybe this time we could play it differently. Just shut the fuck up. Stop acting like there’s gonna be any other choice. And behave as if this is the only one we have. Resignation doesn’t have to be defeat.
Agreed. Hillary is our candidate. And it’s nice to hear some of the Democratic-sounding things she is saying recently. The issue for me is, how will Hillary react and respond to the coming shitstorm from the right?
Tacking left for the primaries is the conventional wisdom, but Hillary has nobody to run to the left of except herself. Just maybe it has dawned on her that running to the left will profit her in the general.
That said, after his NPR interview, Martin O’Malley now has my complete attention. Not necessarily as an opponent to Hillary, but as a clear and sane voice for the left, and it is welcome. We need more like him. I think he is trying to steer a path toward being that voice without directly challenging Hillary. I am not yet getting the sense that O’Malley is trying to become President at any cost. You could say he is running for Vice President, which would be nice, but that is unlikely because balance.
If you didn’t hear the interview, just skim through the excerpts in the link – it’s worth it.
The Koch-funded negative campaign will be withering, but Hillary needs to stay positive. Hillary is going to need a lot more voices like O’Malley’s as surrogates in this campaign. Bill Clinton may be Explainer in Chief but he can’t do it all himself.
Someone on DL mentioned the aging Supreme Court the other day. To me, if there is one overarching reason to vote Clinton, that would be it.
Second, is that we live in a dangerous world, not just direct danger to Americans but danger in that things are breaking down. We really do need someone who has some foreign policy creds.
Third, I don’t think Ms. Clinton is prone to play nice nice with people who cross her (or Bill for that matter). I’d like to have someone with some cajones (I would have said b**** but since she’s a woman, it wouldn’t be PC) and I believe she has the ability to mix it up when necessary.
Lastly (of the big reasons), I am very interested in seeing what will change with a woman in the WH. The cultural, political, and societal impacts might be fascinating to witness and who knows how long we would have to wait for another opportunity. It’s a rather self serving reason to want her to win but I don’t care. I’d be fascinated to see the effect. Although I was not an Obama supporter, it was interesting to see the that effect on culture and society in general was not much. I wonder if it will be the same during Clinton.
Ultimately though, for me, Clinton is the best choice because she is not an ideologue and yeah she is a centrist which suits me just fine.
If the Court takes out Obamacare all bets are off. I honestly don’t know how voters would react. Would they overwhelmingly turn to Hillary in revulsion against the current Court? Or would they get swept up in the wave of triumphalism from the right and FOX and say “I never liked that Obamacare anyway” and turn to the GOP candidate who opposed it all along?
Cajones means balls, but… whatever.
And this: “Lastly (of the big reasons), I am very interested in seeing what will change with a woman in the WH. The cultural, political, and societal impacts might be fascinating to witness and who knows how long we would have to wait for another opportunity. It’s a rather self serving reason to want her to win but I don’t care. I’d be fascinated to see the effect. Although I was not an Obama supporter, it was interesting to see the that effect on culture and society in general was not much. I wonder if it will be the same during Clinton.”
What does this even mean? That all women and minorities are interchangeable and would generate a certain effect? Given this “logic” I guess we could just put Sarah Palin or Herman Cain in the oval office.
Know what the biggest effect (you speak of) was with Obama? Bringing white racists out of the woodwork. Hillary will ramp up the sexists, and I shudder to think how vile that path will be. For people capable of looking beyond gender and race there are actual positions here.
But I’m really curious as to what “cultural, political, and societal impacts” you envision/ed. What did you expect from an Obama Presidency? Me? I expected a pretty middle of the road, with some left leaning, agenda. I expect much the same with Hillary. Nope, not seeing any bra burning. 😉
Headline from The Nation, November 1996: “Hillary’s Husband Wins.”
Meanwhile, in the pigsty:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3281289/posts
The role (and “title”) First Lady and first female Commander-In-Chief just to name two cultural aspects of our society related to that office. Would it have an effect on the glass ceiling? Would it effect young women’s aspirations? I could go on. But really, I can’t even fathom that anyone could fail to imagine the possibility of cultural change or even comprehend that’s what I meant. And I don’t “envision” anything in that regard. I am merely demonstrating interest and curiosity of another first in our nation’s history. Will there be significant change? Who knows? But I’m interested to find out.
As far I Obama goes, I had no expectations except that there very few radical changes that come out of the office regardless of the occupant. And in that he met my expectations.
The biggest cultural impact of Obama being president has been intensification of racism all over the country. The people who have been conditioned to do so, ramped up their lip spittle when their worst nightmare came true. While it’s sad to see so much hate, it has been a pleasure to watch them freak out as their world falls down around them…. expect much more if the same if a womanfolk is in charge.
I expect you’ll see a lot of bo-dunk towns and states trying to pass exteme anti-choice laws, then attacking the President because she is “a woman, there for too close to the situation” Their formula is insanely predictable, and I think that is why HRC will have no trouble picking them apart.
I also wonder how countries who’s rulers beleive it is improper to address a woman who is not their wife will act. I dont particularly care about them or their 12th century sensibilities, and they are usually from someplace that relies on American foreign aid, (im lookin at you, Likud party) so it will be nice to see HRC being the bigger person.
Do Dems have a good black VP candidate? That would keep GOP heads exploding… well, probably for the rest of their lives.
Why didn’t Hillary follow policy and sign form OF109?? Was she hiding something? Makes you think.
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/american-politics-why-the-thrill-is-gone
@anonymous: Yes, it makes me think you need better priorities. Your comment fails on the most basic W of journalism — who gives a fuck?
If politicians must turn over their emails, they won’t say anything in emails anymore. The only people who care about emails are political opponents who want to find something damning in them.
Please try to understand something: Democrats don’t really care about the four dead in Benghazi, because Republicans don’t care about the 4,800 dead Americans and 100,000 dead Iraqis in Iraq. Until shithead Republicans take responsibility for that, no Democrat is going to care about four people caught in a “diplomatic compound” that was actually a CIA station.
Democrats don’t care about Benghazi because the GOP led committees in the House have cleared Mrs. Clinton. Everything else is fundraising for the GOP.
And the OF109 is just one more wingnut manufactured crisis.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121612/hillary-clintons-leftist-rhetoric-should-please-liz-warren-wing
@JM: Are you buying that swill? That because she’s saying things the left likes, they shouldn’t complain? Or are you selling that swill?
“Why didn’t Hillary follow policy and sign form OF109”
Show me the policy and I’ll give you an answer. I bet you can’t find the policy. There is no directive contained in the FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) or the Foreign Affairs Handbook that requires or directs the use of the OF-109.
P.S. Federal nomenclature for forms SF – Standard Form. OF – Optional Form. The only form that is absolutely required is the ubiquitous SF-52 (Request for Personnel Action) which begats the SF-50 (Notification of Personnel Action). All other forms are as applicable to the office, individual and circumstance. State could require that form to be signed, or they could use a different form that has an identical function but only used and retaining within special offices because it could pertain to national security and therefore might not be releasable. OF-109 is a GSA form that can be used by any agency of the federal government. I did not sign the form either when I left.
Think about this Anonymous, you are asking a question about why Hilary didn’t sign a form that you’ve never heard of before now, have never seen or read, don’t comprehend the purpose of, and have no clue if there is an actual policy, procedure, directive, law, or regulation concerning the use of the form. Are you so bereft of common sense that you have to resort to expelling your wisdom from the wrong orifice? I would feel real stupid if I were in your shoes and spouted just nonsense. Yet strangely enough you probably don’t. You’ll probably just continue to let news you can choose to do your critical thinking for you so that you can act like a parrot. Someone should give you a cracker.
Guns and religion!
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/239974-clinton-deep-seated-beliefs-block-abortion-access
Guns and religion indeed, or maybe just religion:
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/25/progressives_cant_trust_hillary_clinton_on_cultural_and_economic_issues_the_problems_are_stark_and_decades_long/
Not Rosenberg’s best. Unfocused word salad.
I’ll boil it down for you: She plays footsie with evangelicals. Feel better now?
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121645/hillary-clintons-populism-real-or-fake-it-doesnt-matter
I would love for all that to be true, but I’m sure you noticed that he cited no hard evidence anywhere in the piece to back up his claims. I want pudding.