Tags:

Shifting Demographics of Electorate
September 26, 2007 10:42 AM Subscribe

With President Bush hoping to make Hillary the democratic nominee so the Republicans will be ensured a victory, recent Republican decisions in the face of a huge demographic shift may be suggesting an electorate which leans further left in some traditional Republican strongholds. Are Bush's actions a last ditch attempt in the face of long term shift in the Democrats' favor?
posted by gandledorf (263 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

Hillary will never win the general election.
posted by four panels at 10:45 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the numerous GOP candidates arrayed against Hillary are so outstanding and well-loved that her even considering a run is a joke.
posted by blucevalo at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

I agree, my worry is that Bush's statements, and the media's focus on her, will cause her to win the nomination. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll be voting democrat. If Hillary does... well I'll be voting the "Anyone But Hillary Ticket".
posted by gandledorf at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Provided I bother to do the absentee thing for this federal election, I know I sure as hell am not going to vote for her. I'd vote for nearly any other Democrat, but not her.

I don't think I'm alone in this.
posted by the dief at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

"It's the Economy, stupid".

"It's the Imaginary Left-Leaning Electorate, stupid".
posted by rockhopper at 10:52 AM on September 26, 2007

from the WaPo link: "We sound like we don't want immigration; we sound like we don't want black people to vote for us," said former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.)"

Gosh Jack, I wonder where on Earth people would ever get such an idea?.....
posted by Avenger at 10:53 AM on September 26, 2007

I have no idea why she's the front runner when no one I know of any political persuasion wants her in office. The democrats are likely to hold their noses if that's what it comes down to, but there isn't a conservative in America who would rather vote for Hillary than eat glass.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 10:54 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Man, if there's one thing worse than a vast right wing conspiracy trying to make you lose...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:55 AM on September 26, 2007

Of course, there's the podcast forecast of yesteryear:

Podcasting is DOA. An artificial trend pushed by people seeking net prestige. You can tell by the self-aggrandizing tone of the podcasts and the podcasters. The way they have to attach their names to everything. You can tell by the way there was wrangling in the first weeks over who had coined what words.

posted by Mo Nickels at 10:56 AM on November 2
posted by four panels at 10:55 AM on September 26, 2007

I'll tell you why she is the front runner. Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left. A lot of ultra-leftists are convinced she craps rainbows, although I have no idea why. The only thing she agrees with the Dems on is the fact she is sort of pro-choice.
posted by gandledorf at 10:56 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'll tell you why she is the front runner. Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left.

Definitely feminism - my girlfriend's vagina tingles every time Hillary is on television.
posted by four panels at 10:58 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

What the fuck?

She is not in any sense of the word a "leftist".
posted by Artw at 10:58 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Yes, but tell us what you really think.
posted by nasreddin at 10:58 AM on September 26, 2007

I'll tell you why she is the front runner. Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left.

Of those three only groupthink is valid. I consider myself left of the ultra-left and I will be thoroughly pissed if the Democrats nominate the centrist Clinton.
posted by cloeburner at 11:05 AM on September 26, 2007

I would not like to have a beer with her.
posted by LordSludge at 11:05 AM on September 26, 2007

I've never understood all the Hillary-hate going around on the left. She's definitely not fantastic by any stretch of the imagination and I would vote for just about anyone else on the Democratic side before her, but she's a competent senator and seems like a decent human being, if a flawed one.

Certainly better than the vast array of gargoyles and mutants on the other side of primary race.
posted by billypilgrim at 11:06 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Then again, I'll be pissed with anyone but Kucinich so it's all moot.
posted by cloeburner at 11:06 AM on September 26, 2007

Artw: I think grandledorf is saying not that she's a leftist, but that she's adored by the left. But it doesn't matter much, cause he's still wrong. The left supports guys like Nader and maybe Gravel. Clinton doesn't return their phone calls.They'll take a Clinton over a Bush, sure. But they'll take damn near anything over a Bush at this point. I'm somewhere to the left of Karl Marx and, personally, I'd vote for Charlie Manson if I thought it would get the troops out of Iraq even a few months faster.
posted by Clay201 at 11:08 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

"[Bush] thinks the New York senator will defeat Barack Obama in the Democratic presidential primaries, but will fall to the Republican nominee."

I often look to President Bush for clear-headed predictions of future events.
posted by turaho at 11:09 AM on September 26, 2007 [25 favorites]

Ultra-left supporting her? Really? I thought she was the furthest to the right of any democratic candidate. That's why I couldn't bring myself to vote for her: I don't vote republican.
posted by mullingitover at 11:09 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Just because sentiment on Mefi is not pro-Hillary, it is a mistake to think she would be a losing candidate if she becomes the nominee. When push comes to shove, I think that very few Democrats will risk another Republican administration.

I heard a huge amount of negativity to Gore when he was running. I've heard that "no difference, equally as bad" talk before. Ya, that was a good plan people had to vote for Nader. Even if I have to wear a clothespin on my nose and even if it is more anti-Republican than pro Democrat, I will support the Dem candidate. It may not be great, but I doubt we could ever see worse.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:09 AM on September 26, 2007 [7 favorites]

I just hate her because of the blatant oportunism of the hot coffee thing, and before that the rap music thing.

That and I'm unconvinved by the Democratic leaderships plan of running people with no charisma whatsoever for president. What, it didn't work for Gore and Kerry but 3rd times the charm?
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Are Bush's actions a last ditch attempt in the face of long term shift in the Democrats' favor?

For that shift to happen, the Democrats would have to show themselves as actually having some kind of vision as opposed to being the spineless cowards they are. Pelosi won't allow an attempt at a Bush impeachment, they won't end funding for the war. They never acted like an opposition when they should have and they aren't acting like a majority party now.

The shift can't happen until Democrats start seeing themselves as Democrats as opposed to "not Republicans". There needs to be an actual leader that steps forward. None of the current Democratic candidates are that leader. Until then the party is going to remain fragmented and a Republican will win the next presidential election by default.

I really want to see a Democrat win the next election, not because I care about the democratic message or anything they stand for, but simply because I really really hate the Republican party. If Hillary is the nominee though I'm going to file a blank ballot.

Nobody who swung to the left for the last election gave a shit what the Democrats had to say, it was a reaction to the Republican party falling on their face as they do every 12 or so years. They'll rebuild, short attention span America will forget, they'll start talking about family values and making us safer and the Democrats will wait for them to make a mistake again. It's what they do. This isn't a long term shift, it's a temporary reaction. As much as we want to claim we live in a liberal country, we don't. The Democratic "platform" as such is what most countries would consider conservative (hell, Nixon was a liberal by today's standards). Over the long term, the further right you swing, the more the people who actually vote (as opposed to just complaining about it) will vote for you.

And my whole objection to Hillary is that I can't name a single viewpoint that she has that isn't the result of a focus group. I want to know what SHE thinks, not what her handlers told her to think. Bill was supposedly a poll driven president, but I got the feeling that he honestly believed that any action he took was in the best interest of the country. I don't get that feeling from Hillary. She's been running for president since elementary school and will do anything to get into the office. I can't respect that.
posted by mikesch at 11:15 AM on September 26, 2007 [10 favorites]

Hillary is popular among the people who make up the power elite within the Democratic party. These are the people who talk about how "tough" she is and how she's a great "strong female." Those are direct quotes.

My impression of Hillary supporters is that they are like the Democratic/vaguely lifestyle leftist equivalent of the Neo-Con opinion columnists who are obsessed with 'strength' in their candidates as a way of living out their own fantasies. Glenn Greenwald has talked about this in the GOP.

I wish people would stop worrying about looking tough, and be more focused on actually delivering results. Hillary is a failure-- she failed with her healthcare plan, and now she wants to play nice with the people (insurance companies) who burned her last time.

Actually that doesn't look to tough to me.
posted by wuwei at 11:15 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

*too
posted by wuwei at 11:16 AM on September 26, 2007

All bets are off if Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize next month, as Christopher Hitchens seems to think he will.
posted by bonehead at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2007

Then again, I'll be pissed with anyone but Kucinich so it's all moot.

Indeed. The rest are corporate whores of the same degree as Hillary.

Campaign donation menu for 2008:
$100,000 Companies can write letters to candidate
$500,000 Companies can make phone calls to candidate
$1,000,000 Companies' requests for tax breaks, law changes, etc, are considered and may be granted if there is little resistance.
$5,000,000+ Such requests will always be granted
posted by poppo at 11:17 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

The media, the GOP, and the DC Dems/DLC have all been pushing her non-stop. She's too conservative, calculated, and wimpy about all her proposals. (and the public at large thinks she's really liberal--she's the most conservative/status-quo one running on the Dem side)

This is reminding me of how they were pushing Kerry, and ensuring that Dean and the others were shut out, and trashed.
posted by amberglow at 11:21 AM on September 26, 2007

I fully expect a Republican to win in 2008. Clinton will probably get the Democratic nomination, and if she does, the Republicans could run a smelly hobo and still win.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 11:22 AM on September 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

Did you see the "laughing" segment on the Daily Show last night? It was Hillary on all five sunday morning shows trying to show humanity (or something) by laughing, but it just came out all sorts of wrong.
posted by mrnutty at 11:22 AM on September 26, 2007

It doesn't matter what you think of Hillary. She has a world-class organization and unmatched fundraising skills. That's what wins political office in this country: organization and money.
posted by mr_roboto at 11:23 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I would (ugh better get this out quick before I wretch) voteforHillaryClinton if she gets the nomination, but I would much rather vote for nearly anyone else the Democrats might field. Obama seems particularly intriguing. People saying he's "unseasoned" makes me wonder if perhaps we don't need a candidate who isn't overloaded with special interest flavorings.
posted by JHarris at 11:25 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

mrnutty, that itself is unheard of except for when they were pushing Iraq--i think only Condi has done all 5 in one day.

The media and big money know it'll be business as usual if Hillary wins, and they hate Edwards--he's a much bigger threat to all of them. Obama is someone's veep at most.

This was truly appalling---Hillary's "pay to play" campaign event fixing up Homeland Security companies with sitting officials--... the junior New York senator is scheduled to speak at a homeland security-themed, $1,000-a-plate fundraiser for her campaign in the downtown Washington, D.C. offices of a powerful legal firm.

"Being a week after 9/11, it appears unseemly and politically opportunistic," said Steve Ellis, a former Coast Guard officer who is now vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C. good government group.

Clinton's fundraising audience is expected to include many of the government contractors and lobbyists whose fortunes have soared in the years since the attacks, which triggered a massive government reorganization and billions in new government spending.

But that's not the only objectionable feature of the event, critics say.

For the price of a ticket -- from a $1,000 personal donation to a $25,000 bundle –- attendees will get a special treat after the luncheon: an opportunity to participate in small, hour-long "breakout sessions" hosted by key Democratic lawmakers, many of whom chair important subcommittees on the Homeland Security committee. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:26 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

and this is Bushish: GQ Kills Critical Hillary Article
posted by amberglow at 11:28 AM on September 26, 2007

Please no Hillary. Obamaobamaobama.

Of course they want her to be nominated, they know they can crush her. I'm not surprised Bush is saying that. And I'm sick of the "Al Gore!" hope, he's not running and he's said so a million times. I wouldn't if I were him either - he's doing so much good not being president .
posted by agregoli at 11:29 AM on September 26, 2007

I'm almost at the point where i will sit home for the first time ever if it's her--even with the Supreme Court element--we've lost that for the rest of my life.
posted by amberglow at 11:30 AM on September 26, 2007

I'll tell you why she is the front runner. Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left.

Ultra-left? Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:30 AM on September 26, 2007 [8 favorites]

Of course they want her to be nominated, they know they can crush her.

They've ensured her high negatives, and she will drive GOP turnout thru the roof. But she's also the least threatening to the powers-that-be.
posted by amberglow at 11:31 AM on September 26, 2007

I'm a yellow dog Democrat.
posted by paddbear at 11:33 AM on September 26, 2007

Not quite getting your drift, amberglow, but I think we agree.
posted by agregoli at 11:34 AM on September 26, 2007

Her and Biden are the most status-quo of all of them, i think.
posted by amberglow at 11:35 AM on September 26, 2007

And also, I don't know why it's all about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when we have a perfectly good John Edwards sitting right there.
posted by billypilgrim at 11:35 AM on September 26, 2007 [9 favorites]

Ultra-left? Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahah!!!!

I'm not saying she is ultra-left, I'm saying the ultra-left is dumb enough to support her. Probably just because she's a woman.
posted by gandledorf at 11:36 AM on September 26, 2007

President Bush hoping to make Hillary the democratic nominee so the Republicans will be ensured a victory

Bush isn't stupid enough to try a stunt like that, and she isn't stupid enough to fall for it.

He's reaching out to her to ensure policy continuity regardless of who wins. We already know there will be policy continuity if Guiliani, Romney or Thompson wins. In other words, if Hillary or any serious republican contender wins, then the policy in Iraq, on oil, on China, etc will continue as is. The only X factor for the contingent that put Bush in (and that is also giving money to Hillary) is if Obama wins.

Bush is a dummy, but only in the intellectual sense. Bush is very sophisticated about how he networks with people and engenders loyalty. He knows the best thing for his family (his huge extended family entrenched in the global finance, oil, and civil development industries) and network's interests (Cheney, Baker et al.) is conflict in the middle east, pressure on Iran, etc. U.S. influence over mideast oil production, continuation of the dollar-denominated petrobourse etc.

This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. Their feeling is that the United States depends on that particular resource to survive, and that therefore it should be under U.S. influence if not outright control. It's not a completely insane position. What is insane is how they believe themselves to be the country's ruling dynasty. But that's another story.

Bush (W) has decided he doesn't care about his approval rating. In fact, he's willing to sacrifice his legacy to make the tough decisions, like committing troops to Iraq through 2009 and strating a war with Iran, so that whoever follows him only has to maintain the status quo.

This is how policy continues uninterrupted despite huge shifts in public opinion and the appearance of a change in power to the other side.

At the higher levels of government and corporate decision making, for many issues like oil, and the US role in the Middle east, there is no "other side". There's only one side. Hillary and Bush are on the same side.
posted by Pastabagel at 11:39 AM on September 26, 2007 [7 favorites]

Lordy, I was unprepared for all the Hillary hating in this thread. You'd think that she came and personally shit on all your lawns, slept with all of your husbands (or wives, if the rumors are to be believed), and beat up your kids, for all the hate she is engendering. For all you lefties out there, you would rather vote for anyone other than Hillary if she was the democratic nominee? You'd rather see a Republic White House for another four years, because you despise her that much? Is that what I am to understand? Because, I just don't get that.
posted by msali at 11:40 AM on September 26, 2007 [4 favorites]

For decades now, the right has told the country she's a lesbian murderer who is a communist and will make all our kids gay and have mandatory abortions for all. She's actually very conservative and won't end Iraq, or do real universal healthcare or anything at all that we want--except for millionaire Democrats who are plugged into the system already. Her actions are very reassuring to Wall Street, and HMOs, and all corporations--including defense industries--it's why Wall St is giving to her so much. NAFTA won't disappear or be fixed, middle class and poor people won't be helped, New Orleans won't be rebuilt, Iraq won't end at all, etc--and our deficit and the massive amounts of money thrown away in Iraq will be used as a reason why she won't do anything too.
posted by amberglow at 11:40 AM on September 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left.

Groupthink, maybe, but the ultra-left has nothing to do with her, and a number of feminists think that as the first female President, Hilary is going to be in a position where she's not going to be able to push "feminist" issues, out of fear of seeming biased.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:41 AM on September 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

She is a corporate shill and anyone who is far left knows it.
posted by pointilist at 11:44 AM on September 26, 2007 [4 favorites]

At the higher levels of government and corporate decision making, for many issues like oil, and the US role in the Middle east, there is no "other side". There's only one side. Hillary and Bush are on the same side.
Exactly. That's the whole thing about her--and why she is the opposite of real improvement here and abroad.

The raising of GOP turnout and depressing of ours is icing on the cake.

And also, I don't know why it's all about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when we have a perfectly good John Edwards sitting right there.
Amen. Edwards is the only one for any kind of real change, and even he doesn't go far enough.
posted by amberglow at 11:45 AM on September 26, 2007

"But she's also the least threatening to the powers-that-be."

Wait, she's not one of the powers-that-be?
posted by From Bklyn at 11:45 AM on September 26, 2007

Lordy, I was unprepared for all the Hillary hating in this thread. You'd think that she came and personally shit on all your lawns,
Actually, she did--her votes in the Senate, and her absolute lack of leadership there is shitting on us all--repeatedly. And she's done nothing as Senator at all for my state or city--except cozy up to outsourcers upstate.
posted by amberglow at 11:47 AM on September 26, 2007 [4 favorites]

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."

The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory. ...
posted by amberglow at 11:50 AM on September 26, 2007

A lot of ultra-leftists are convinced she craps rainbows...

Name one.

If Hillary wins in 2008, the Republicans will be more than happy to start opposing Iraq as nationbuilding, saying they'd "been against it from the start".
posted by DU at 11:50 AM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Look at it from the bright side: if she gets the nomination, it will be a Republican president who gets to clean up the worst of W's mess, and it will be the Republicans who will get the blame for failing to do so properly. As it should be.
posted by DreamerFi at 11:51 AM on September 26, 2007

Hillary isn't so much hated as a person, she's hated as a concept. My personal opinion is that she's representative of the milquetoast Democratic party. No strong opinions on anything. No core values. Very much entrenched in politics and preserving the status quo. Doesn't value anything beyond keeping things exactly as they are. She'll occasionally launch initiatives to boost her approval ratings up and then once the media loses focus she'll just drop them. That's my whole problem with her. To me, she represents everything that's wrong with the government. If she wins, what do we get? She voted for the PATRIOT act, she voted to go to war with Iraq, she'd probably be ok with going to war with Iran. She might publicly denounce it, but she won't do a whole lot to stop it. HOW exactly is she better than a Republican?

Will she stop spending? Will she balance the budget? Will we have health care at the end of her term? Will we be out of Iraq? Will the government still be conducting warrantless wiretaps?
posted by mikesch at 11:52 AM on September 26, 2007 [8 favorites]

She is a corporate shill and anyone who is far left knows it.

The right-wingnuts are the ones that think she has anything to do a liberal stance.
posted by pointilist at 11:52 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oh and don't forget that if Another Clinton wins, it just vindicates the "Democrats have to be just to the right of center in order to win" line. The furthest left realistic candidate is Edwards and he would be dead center (if that) in any European country.
posted by DU at 11:55 AM on September 26, 2007 [4 favorites]

If Hillary wins in 2008, the Republicans will be more than happy to start opposing Iraq as nationbuilding, saying they'd "been against it from the start".
And they will stop all attempts at doing anything here at home too. Bush is already starting it with the SCHIP veto threat. Hillary doesn't have coattails for Congress either--unless you want more DLC and Blue Dogs.
posted by amberglow at 11:59 AM on September 26, 2007

Who's gonna vote for Hillary Clinton? The women are.

Because of that (and her organization and her fundraising, and her position at the table with the powers-that-be), I don't think any other Democratic Presidential candidate makes it out of the primary season with the nomination.

All the other stuff about Hillary Clinton -- Hillary-care, her popular image as a lefty, her husband, the way she mobilizes the RIGHT -- will make the general much closer than it otherwise would be and the Democratic sweep downticket a lot smaller than it could be.
posted by notyou at 11:59 AM on September 26, 2007

I'm saying the ultra-left is dumb enough to support her.

You must not know anyone on the ultra-left, then, because no one left of the centrist-right DNC is supporting her.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:00 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I use to strongly believe that Clinton wouldn't win a general election, now I'm not so sure. I still don't particularly like her politics, and there are at least 3 other D's I'd vote for, but I have to admit a Clinton/Obama ticket would be scary tough to beat, you have the experience and the charisma.
posted by edgeways at 12:07 PM on September 26, 2007

Who's gonna vote for Hillary Clinton? The women are.

Did you read the article you linked? Because the article says nothing like that. It says she gets 40 percent of the women. That means a majority of the women want someone else.

I agree that she probably gets the nomination, but it has absolutely nothing to do with how many women vote for her.
posted by Pastabagel at 12:07 PM on September 26, 2007

Anyone spouting that "no difference, equally as bad" crap should be shown a condensed history of the Bush presidency and then shot in the head, IMHO. It's beyond idiocy to be coming out with that stuff now.

I think this should be at the top of every political thread for the next year and a half.

I can't believe we're even having this discusion. We are facing the end of western civilization, and I only wish I were exaggerating. Between the impending death of the planet, the military collapse of the world's superpower, and world tensions that get worse by the day, it's just that bad. The Bush administration is intent on taking everything that works and breaking it, and taking every extant problem and exacerbating it. Anything for a quick profit. Whatever Clinton's faults, can it be honestly said that she will do either of those things? Her husband left the place in far better shape than he found it, but of course that's no guide--let's accept the conventional view of her as the next coming of Satan.

But of course it's easier to be a smug asshole than to suck it up and admit that we're going to be utterly fucked if you can't swallow your pride enough to vote for someone you don't like.
posted by Epenthesis at 12:07 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Who's gonna vote for Hillary Clinton? The women are.
National polls only reflect name-recognition at this point... Look at state polling and how women are responding.
posted by amberglow at 12:08 PM on September 26, 2007

Plus I'd find it highly amusing to have Bill as the First Husband, you thought he was a partier before? heh.
posted by edgeways at 12:08 PM on September 26, 2007

Who's gonna vote for Hillary Clinton? The women are.

Brilliant sweeping generalization. 40% of men aged 18-39 are "gonna vote" for her, according to that article. Why not point that out? It's the same percentage as "the women" who are polling in her favor right now.
posted by oneirodynia at 12:10 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

wuwei writes "I wish people would stop worrying about looking tough, and be more focused on actually delivering results. Hillary is a failure-- she failed with her healthcare plan, and now she wants to play nice with the people (insurance companies) who burned her last time."

I would be happier with Hillary's failure's than Bush's at this point. If Giuliani or Romney wins, we're in for pretty much another Bush term, but this time executed with less potential for failure. So, think of a successful Bush term, as in, accomplishing most of his goals.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:10 PM on September 26, 2007

Of course, "failures" didn't need the apostrophe ...
posted by krinklyfig at 12:11 PM on September 26, 2007

I'm saying the ultra-left is dumb enough to support her.

You're posting inane shit like this and we're the stupid ones? Jesus christ, do they cut out part of your brain when you join the GOP or something?
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:12 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Anyone spouting that "no difference, equally as bad" crap should be shown a condensed history of the Bush presidency and then shot in the head, IMHO. It's beyond idiocy to be coming out with that stuff now.
posted by Artw at 11:15 AM on September 26 [3 favorites +] [!]

Sorry, who said "no difference, equally as bad" about Hillary?

I think she'd be marginally better than any Republican. But with the country being in as dire shape as it is now, marginally better is not anywhere close to being good enough.

As for the comments about how the "ultra-left" loves Hillary: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What planet are you from? You must get your ideas about "the left" from watching/listening to O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, etc. The "liberals" they fulminate against are almost entirely the creatures of their own fevered imaginations.

Try reading DailyKos.com if you want to get a grip on what the American left actually thinks. Clue #1: There is not a lot of love for Hillary.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:12 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Whatever Clinton's faults, can it be honestly said that she will do either of those things? Her husband left the place in far better shape than he found it, but of course that's no guide--let's accept the conventional view of her as the next coming of Satan.

There's nothing that shows she'll even stop the horrors here or abroad--in fact all her statements state they'll all continue.
posted by amberglow at 12:12 PM on September 26, 2007

But as Sen. Hillary Clinton privately told a senor military adviser, she knows there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in some cases, politics can force dishonesty."... in a recent debate Senator Hillary Clinton said that her first priority if elected would be to "bring our troops home." She did not say ALL our troops, Koppel points out, and she does not mean ALL our troops. She told the New York Times three months ago that some forces would have to remain. And Koppel adds that he spoke with someone from the Pentagon who briefs Clinton, and that she had told this person that if she is elected and reelected, she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term. Koppel notes that that's 10 years away.
posted by amberglow at 12:17 PM on September 26, 2007

My first and oldest reason for opposing Hillary is general opposition to the "Political Dynasty," or more accurately, inbreeding. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? What kind of American Legacy is that?

Personally, I'd support Mrs. Kucinich, Mrs. Obama or Mrs. Edwards for President before Mrs. Clinton, even with her eight years of elected experience (but partly because of it).

And I'm getting to believe that the mess Bush & Cheney will leave behind (even if they were both impeached next month) is so bad that nobody can possibly clean it up, and I wonder why anyone in their right mind would want the job. But then, I'm not totally convinced Bush & Cheney are actually planning on leaving in 2009
posted by wendell at 12:18 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

P.S. I do think that Bush is right in this case -- Hillary will get the Dem nomination, and lose the general election, because the right hates her with a burning passion.

Nominating Hillary is about the stupidest thing Democrats could do, but Dem primary voters often seem to do stupid things.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:20 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I suspect Hillary deep, deep down inside is more liberal than she appears, but like Bill, has been so obsessed with winning that she's rebuilt herself to be the centrist she thinks she has to be get the votes. It's very cynical and calculated. And essentially spineless.

Anyone on the left who is supporting Hillary this early in the game is making a tactical decision to go full force behind the candidate they think has the strongest chance to win in the general election. It's a tactic, but a bad one. This ought to be the time that we're backing who we really believe in, and not fearing to appear weak by backing an underdog. Giving up on your ideals too soon is just as destructive for the Left as the the other extreme--personified by Nadar and his followers, who foolishly refused to fold themselves in to a Gore's team at the 11th hour.
posted by tula at 12:22 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Blah, blah. A bunch of people will blather on for the next year about this candidate and that candidate... and in the end, two corporate-owned puppets will waste enough money on TV spots to insure every child in America, and a small minority of Americans will even bother to vote.

After that, everything will remain exactly the same. The occupation will continue, no environmental changes will occur, millions will still be uninsured, and everyone will go back to whatever celebrity red herring is dominating the press.

I don't have an opinion any more; there's no point. Call me when the sleeping giant finally awakens.
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:25 PM on September 26, 2007

I suspect Hillary deep, deep down inside is more liberal than she appears

Washington is full of these people -- usually baby-boomer-age Democrats -- who think, "deep down", that they are still liberals.

But when your words and actions for decades have been about compromise and centrism -- when you fear revealing your progressive principles -- when you actually distrust your own instincts, and have absorbed the prevailing right-wing narratives about liberals, to the point where you are now afflicted by a deep, permanent self-loathing -- then guess what?

You are no longer a liberal.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:26 PM on September 26, 2007 [7 favorites]

tula, we did that in 04, against our better judgement--haven't people learned?

But then, I'm not totally convinced Bush & Cheney are actually planning on leaving in 2009
I'm not either--and Congress has done nothing to get them out.
posted by amberglow at 12:29 PM on September 26, 2007

You're posting inane shit like this and we're the stupid ones? Jesus christ, do they cut out part of your brain when you join the GOP or something?

Doesn't take a Republican to think the ultra-left is moronic. Just like it doesn't take a Democrat to think that the ultra-right are fascists.

I've heard nothing but support for Hillary from all of the local ultra-left organizations, such as the LGBT groups, pro-choice groups, etc. The news is filled with the ultra-left praising her, and quite frankly, I think they're stupid for doing so.

Hillary is not a democrat. She is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-censorship, pro-wire taps, you name it and so long as it isn't gay rights or abortion, she will agree with the Republicans. The ultra-left have let themselves become single issue voters. They only focus on abortion and gay rights. Since Hillary is pretty vocally "with them" on these issues, and since she is a woman, they're throwing in with her by the boat load. Mean while the rest of us who are more moderate Democrats are watching in abject horror as a Republican begins to look like she will get the Democratic nomination.

I'm sorry, but the ultra-left is dumb, and they're selling us out to Hillary for token ideals she will never represent.
posted by gandledorf at 12:33 PM on September 26, 2007

*checks calendar*

Seven years of blaming Ralph Nader when all that shit in Florida happened? Still... blaming Ralph for that sham? That APPOINTMENT?

*faints*
posted by chuckdarwin at 12:34 PM on September 26, 2007

I keep telling you folks...Gingrich is going to come to the Republican party's rescue. He's the only thing out there that stands a chance of exciting the party base. He's also the only possible candidate that might have coattails for the undercard.

The only fly in the ointment, really, is whether the Republicans really want to be in-charge after Bush leaves. Iraq, alone, is a big enough of a mess as to have the potential of sinking the next administration (and, potentially, their party). They might actually want to sit this one out. Put a candidate out there that Hilary can beat. Let Iraq, healthcare, economy, etc. sink her. Then, four years later, ride in on a white horse and a big "Told you so" banner.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:35 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I'll tell you why she is the front runner. Groupthink, feminism, and the ultra-left.

Definitely feminism - my girlfriend's vagina tingles every time Hillary is on television.

I was hoping we wouldn't get this flavour of misogyny here. Sigh.

Did you see the "laughing" segment on the Daily Show last night? It was Hillary on all five sunday morning shows trying to show humanity (or something) by laughing, but it just came out all sorts of wrong.

I know that's how I usually choose who to support! Who laughs best in public!

And one more time, can we please try to refer to women in public life by their last names, as we do the men? Everytime I see a sentence that includes something like "Bush, Cheney, and Condi" or "Obama, Edwards and Hillary" it just underlines that women are still not taken as seriously as men on the political stage. Thanks.
posted by jokeefe at 12:41 PM on September 26, 2007 [9 favorites]

What is with people who think that Hillary Clinton could never win a national election? That was true in 1999. Guess what, folks? It's ain't 1999 anymore.

Hell, it isn't 2002 anymore either.

Clinton is one of the strongest Democratic candidates nationally. Y'all need to stop getting your news from... well, actually, I don't know where you are getting the idea that she can't win. All the battleground state polls show her as the strongest Democratic candidate against Giuliani, Thompson, or Romney except for the occasional place where Edwards does better against Giuliani than Clinton does.

Let's all step boldly into 2007 and stop parroting the "Clinton Can't Win" line.
posted by Justinian at 12:42 PM on September 26, 2007

Artifice_Eternity writes "P.S. I do think that Bush is right in this case -- Hillary will get the Dem nomination, and lose the general election, because the right hates her with a burning passion."

Nah, they'd never put this sort of thing out there if they really thought that. They would never put all their cards on the table like that. It's more a sign of fear, that if she gets the nomination she will defeat any Republican. Bush is really trying to discourage Democrats from voting for her. As much as the Right hates her, she is polling and fundraising miles ahead of any Republican candidate. If she gets the nomination, as long as she doesn't screw up in a huge way, she'll win.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:42 PM on September 26, 2007

Artifice_Eternity writes "P.S. I do think that Bush is right in this case -- Hillary will get the Dem nomination, and lose the general election, because the right hates her with a burning passion."

Have you forgotten the lesson of 2004 already? It doesn't matter if the other sides base hates you. The left hated Bush with the burning fire of a thousand suns and he still won. Most of the left will vote for Clinton and most of the right will vote for whoever runs against her.

What wins it for you are the swing voters. And a lot of swing voters are women who really like Hillary Clinton and folks that would normally vote against her but will hold their noses and vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is because the Republicans have screwed the pooch so badly in the last 8 years.
posted by Justinian at 12:46 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

gandledorf, you keep using the term "ultra-left" to describe Hillary supporters. I do not think that term means what you think it means. In my world, "ultra-left" means people who think Kucinich is just a good start.

And also, I don't know why it's all about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama when we have a perfectly good John Edwards sitting right there.

thirded.
posted by ambrosia at 12:46 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Gonna call it here--Huckabee's going to be the GOP nominee. And he'll kick Hillary's ass. Four more years of Jesusland!
posted by EarBucket at 12:47 PM on September 26, 2007

And one more time, can we please try to refer to women in public life by their last names, as we do the men? Everytime I see a sentence that includes something like "Bush, Cheney, and Condi" or "Obama, Edwards and Hillary" it just underlines that women are still not taken as seriously as men on the political stage. Thanks.

I always see Rice mentioned as Rice, and I will continue to call Hillary, Hillary, whether the political correctness nazis whine or not because Bill got first dibs on the name Clinton. It's also why you hear Dubya a lot instead of just Bush, and why Bush's father has become GHWB instead of GWB.

It's about names, and avoiding confusion.
posted by gandledorf at 12:47 PM on September 26, 2007

If she becomes the nominee, no voting for her is another vote for the Republican candidate. Your choice. And please remember: the next admission to the Supreme Court is likely to be nominated by the person in the White House...the one you helped in some measure get in.
posted by Postroad at 12:48 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I've heard nothing but support for Hillary from all of the local ultra-left organizations, such as the LGBT groups, pro-choice groups, etc.

Uh...so "LGBT" and "pro-choice" are ultra-left causes? Seriously? If you say so, Man from 1965.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:48 PM on September 26, 2007 [9 favorites]

the more Hillary seems to have the nomination in her pocket, the more I really like Edwards -- too bad that his haircut got 1,000 times the media coverage* than his health care plan did.

and Obama is cool, but you don't usually win Presidential elections based on coolness; it's also painful but necessary to remember than to go in only 44 years from segregation to black President is very likely not doable. I don't expect an elected (ie, not President in a Gerald Ford scenario) black President in another 25 years. I hope I'm wrong. I also hope that the first black President won't be Clarence Thomas.

* more often than not he got ridiculed by known populist men-of-the-people such as Brian "customized Porsche 911 Turbo" Williams
posted by matteo at 12:48 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

jokeefe writes "And one more time, can we please try to refer to women in public life by their last names, as we do the men?"

In this case, I do think it's because there are two of them, and her husband is what many people think of when they hear the name Clinton. I don't see people getting upset when he's referred to as Bill.
posted by krinklyfig at 12:48 PM on September 26, 2007

Uh...so "LGBT" and "pro-choice" are ultra-left causes? Seriously? If you say so, Man from 1965.

No, they are progressive causes. However people who act like they are the most important things in the world are pretty solidly in the ultra-left. Believe it or not most Democrats care more about health care, bringing jobs back to America, and ending the war in Iraq than they do about Abortion and LGBT rights. Sure most of us would like to see gay rights taken more seriously, but it pales in comparison to millions without health care, rising unemployment, and continued death overseas.
posted by gandledorf at 12:50 PM on September 26, 2007

Gandledorf:

I've heard nothing but support for Hillary from all of the local ultra-left organizations, such as the LGBT groups, pro-choice groups, etc.

You've "heard nothing but support"? Does that mean you've actually heard support, or you just haven't heard the (very active, loud) anti-Hillary dissent?

I will say that some of the older LGBT and pro-choice groups, who are very settled in D.C. and part of the establishment, are cozy with Hillary. But they are actually quite out of touch with the newer, more grassroots-oriented left. Markos Moulitsas, for example, frequently criticizes some of these groups for their myopia (they endorsed Joe Lieberman, who is so far to the right he's not even a Democrat any more).

The news is filled with the ultra-left praising her, and quite frankly, I think they're stupid for doing so.

Again, please give examples. I haven't seen any of this news, and I follow the news pretty closely. Who exactly comprises this "ultra-left" of which you speak? Are they people that Fox News commentators describe in the abstract, or can you cite many (or any) actual prominent left-wing figures who have endorsed Hillary?

As I said before, if you want to actually get to know what the contemporary American left is really about, instead of taking potshots at the straw liberals in your head, check out sites like DailyKos.com.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:50 PM on September 26, 2007

BTW, she calls herself "Hillary" on her own campaign website.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:52 PM on September 26, 2007

I completely despise all of you people who wouldn't vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee, yet call yourself leftist. I for one will gladly hold my nose. Blank ballots? Not voting? What does that accomplish? Do you think our country can handle 4 more years of Republican presidency? I know, I know, SHE'S JUST LIKE A REPUBLICAN. But do any of you really believe she would have gone into Iraq? She may have voted for it because she's a political whore, but would her people have planned it? A vaguely leftist, lukewarm, kindof annoying presidency that gets nothing accomplished would be BLISS compared to what we've had.

So please, I beg you, if it comes to it, HOLD YOUR COLLECTIVE NOSE ALL OF YOU!

(And meanwhile, vote for Obama or Edwards in your local primary.)
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:52 PM on September 26, 2007 [9 favorites]

I'm a moderate, just like a plurality of this country. I have no idea whom I'm going to vote for, but I'm frikkin' tired of these purity tests demanded by the right and the left.

Can't we just elect someone with integrity, decency, and intelligence, rather than someone who meets all 500 points of the official platform of the Radical Right/Left Agenda/Conspiracy/Cabal/etc.? Can't we elect a leader, rather than a politician? Can't we agree to disagree on a few points in the interest of getting the right compromise?

No. Of course not. The Party Must Be Served. Good middle-ground people get thrown under the bus because They Are Not True Believers.

I've just about had it. Either we go to a party-driven parlimentary system, or let's just abandon the idea of this indirect democracy altogether and let the cabals fight in the street over which corporations should run this country. I'm tired of this narrow-minded He/She Is Not Pure Enough bullshit. We need a leader, not a belly-bleeder.

And I'm not saying that because I support Hillary. I don't. But I'm not sure she's the moral equivalent of electing Mussolini that the far-left is making her out to be. And it makes people like me, a moderate, less and less likely to vote for a liberal, because I don't like being regarded as some dumb sheep who is Not A True Believer. I feel the exact same way about the far-right.

The people in the middle are Not Your Enemy. Stop treating us like we are.
posted by dw at 12:52 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

The ultra-left have let themselves become single issue voters. They only focus on abortion and gay rights. Since Hillary is pretty vocally "with them" on these issues, and since she is a woman, they're throwing in with her by the boat load.
She isn't with us, and we withheld money from her in her Senate run because of it---she still isn't with any of us, and i wouldn't at all use any DC organization as a guide to how we'll vote, or who we'll support (the glbt ones don't have grassroots support at all for the most part--all action is at the state and local level because the DC groups have been happy to sit at the table with Congress without anything in return)--not one of the top Dems running are "with us" on equal rights at all, and not one has expended any political capital at alll in Congress or out of it on us.
posted by amberglow at 12:53 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf, where are you getting the idea that the ultra-left supports Hillary?

Folks keep pointing you to information showing otherwise, yet you keep saying that.

Me, I'm anti-Hillary. She showed us back in the early '90s that she's a sniveling weakling who cares more about power than progress.

I'd be interested in seeing Mr. Obama win, despite the lack of experience (or maybe because of), although I have reservations based on how much he could get done in four years (or shorter, if our history of losing visionaries continues to bear out if he's elected) and have said before that I'd like him to be VP before Prez in order to gain more momentum.

John Edwards has said some interesting things, like "we're going to screw those corporations who are screwing you". I like that kind of assertion. I'd love it if he were elected and could actually carry out those promises.

Can he, though? Bill Clinton couldn't manage to fulfill most of his campaign promises. He caved on one item after another, or had them become moot because of other machinations he hadn't foreseen (or had foreseen and bet on not having to fulfill those promises, depending upon how cynical you choose to be). John Edwards can talk a lot of smack, but can he get the job done?

I'm still absorbing info and making my decision as far as he goes, I guess. There are precious few scenarios wherein I would vote for Hillary Clinton for president. Some of those include viler Republicrats being the other choice, unfortunately.

I'll hope I can vote the way I want, but I acknowledge I may be making a concession to avoiding more direct pain in a little over a year.
posted by batmonkey at 12:53 PM on September 26, 2007

I've heard nothing but support for Hillary from all of the local ultra-left organizations, such as the LGBT groups, pro-choice groups, etc.

Equal protection and reproductive choice are ultra-left positions? And here I thought Dubya was a uniter, not a divider.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:54 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Guys,
Don't worry, it's Ron Paul in a cinch anyway.

Hee-hee ha hah ahaha ahahhhhaaaaaaa! Oh man, as fucked up as this whole thing is, thinking about the Ron Paul candidacy still gives me a good ole chuckle. You gotta laugh you know?

*Vomits, Faints, Continues working feverishly on rocketship which will get me to the moon where they still have a semblance of a working democracy*
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:54 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Who exactly comprises this "ultra-left" of which you speak? Are they people that Fox News commentators describe in the abstract, or can you cite many (or any) actual prominent left-wing figures who have endorsed Hillary?

As I said before, if you want to actually get to know what the contemporary American left is really about, instead of taking potshots at the straw liberals in your head, check out sites like DailyKos.com.

I'm talking about the voters, and the polls. I don't care about the talking heads, I care what the ultra-left voters care about, and how the political action groups in my city are responding (and yes, they support Hillary).

I've read DailyKos, btw, I read it quite often even though a lot of the groupthink on it scares the hell out of me. I've not seen much Hillary bashing at all.
posted by gandledorf at 12:54 PM on September 26, 2007

The people in the middle are Not Your Enemy. Stop treating us like we are.

Motherfucking exactly. This is exactly what Bill Clinton figure out in 1993, what GWB figured out in 1999, and what GWB and the Republicans forgot in 2001.

I hope that the Left doesn't forget this lesson in 2007. But the people in this thread sure seem to.
posted by Justinian at 12:55 PM on September 26, 2007

Yeah, I read it pastabagel. Look at the numbers for the other candidates. She's not running against the field; she's running against a bunch of fellas.

Clinton runs weakest among her contemporaries -- women between 50 and 64 years old (Clinton is currently 59 years old; she turns 60 on Oct. 26). In that subgroup Clinton takes 31 percent of the women's vote compared with 25 percent for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), 18 percent for former Vice President Al Gore and 12 percent for former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.).

Her strongest demographic subgroup is women between the ages of 18 and 39. Clinton takes 45 percent among that demographic to 22 percent for Obama, 12 percent for Gore and 10 percent for Edwards. (Interestingly, Clinton also runs strongest among men aged 18-39; she polled 40 percent in that group.)

Amberglow: I'd be interested in seeing that polling data (cause, I really want to be wrong about this. Really.).

oneirodynia: Well, it's 45% of 18-39 women and 40% of 18-39 men. But I see your point. Elsewhere the article notes an 8% gender gap across age groups. Couldn't find hard data, but there's gotta be more women Democrat primary voters than men (since there are more women voters in general...). So that 45% is sliced from a thicker pie.

In any case, the gender gap [PDF] is the key this primary season since all those Democrat women finally have a chance to vote for a woman [PDF]. Based on conversations I've had with women Democrats, I think that's what a plurality of women primary voters intend to do.
posted by notyou at 12:56 PM on September 26, 2007

(Oops, Clinton figured it out in 1991 not 1993... he)
posted by Justinian at 12:56 PM on September 26, 2007

The furthest left realistic candidate is Edwards and he would be dead

that much is true. i'm very much of the opinion that anyone truly to the left who looked like she/he had a real chance of winning the Presidency -- and therefore threatening the oil/military/pharma/insurance monster that runs t'ings -- would be Wellstoned.
posted by lord_wolf at 12:56 PM on September 26, 2007

haveanicesummer:

But do any of you really believe she would have gone into Iraq? She may have voted for it because she's a political whore, but would her people have planned it?

I doubt she would have invaded Iraq, but I'm not interested in what she hypothetically would have done in an alternate historical timeline. I'm interested in what she will do if elected. And all evidence suggests that she will not withdraw from Iraq.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 12:56 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

PS: In the above, please substitute "Democratic" for "Democrat" wherever I've used "Democrat" as an adjective. Thanks.
posted by notyou at 12:59 PM on September 26, 2007

I always see Rice mentioned as Rice,

Then you're not paying attention.

Anyway, I don't want to have this argument again, so enough of a derail.
posted by jokeefe at 1:00 PM on September 26, 2007

I hope that the Left doesn't forget this lesson in 2007. But the people in this thread sure seem to.

Um, Kerry lost. Remember him? The safer middle ground guy?
posted by Artw at 1:03 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Then you're not paying attention.

Or you're paying selective attention.

But do any of you really believe she would have gone into Iraq?

Of course she would have. Have you forgotten even her anti-War husband voted to bomb the crap out of it? Hillary is enough of a war hawk that she'd have definitely voted to take them out.
posted by gandledorf at 1:04 PM on September 26, 2007

I've read DailyKos, btw, I read it quite often even though a lot of the groupthink on it scares the hell out of me. I've not seen much Hillary bashing at all.

Death-Wish of the Democrats and Republicans

Hillary to US: F.U. - votes in favor of Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment

Republican Media Pundits Love Hillary

It's over, the media declares Hillary our nominee

Why It's So Important that Hillary Be Defeated

Those are just from the past day.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:07 PM on September 26, 2007

The news is filled with the ultra-left praising her

Here is your problem: this isn't the ultra-left. The people who get on news shows are not the ultra-left. The progressive wing of the democratic party, the 'ultra-left', are nothing like what you get from the news and what you describe here.

Also, you look to single issue groups and then are shocked, shocked to find that they're single issue oriented? Honestly?

The real ultra-left is not single issue. Progressives want gay rights and reproductive choice, yeah, but also universal health care, humane immigration laws, an end to US sponsored torture, better labor conditions, an end to the war in iraq, an end to the war in afghanistan, stronger protections of the environment, less business influence in washington, more and better direct democracy, etc., etc. Not all items apply to everyone in the movement, of course, but the point is that progressives care about a hell of a lot more than what the two single-issue groups you pay attention to happen to care about.

If you're going to say 'ultra-left', you really should mean it.
posted by Arturus at 1:08 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I assume all these negative comments about Hillary are coming from the people that voted in george jr another 4 years. Take a look at what a mockery he has made of our country during his two terms.
posted by sjk at 1:16 PM on September 26, 2007

dw proposed: Either we go to a party-driven parlimentary system, or let's just abandon the idea of this indirect democracy altogether and let the cabals fight in the street over which corporations should run this country.

What a brilliant response. I wish I could favourite your comment again. It's almost worth £2.50 to do so.

You're absolutely right. Is there a stronger word? You're absofcukinglutely right. And correct, even.

Voting for your party and letting the natural leader of that party emerge by dint of his/her own talent is much cleaner way to do things. All this cult-of-personality noise about this candidate and that candidate is counter-productive.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:16 PM on September 26, 2007

Take a look at what a mockery he has made of our country during his two terms.

Let's not. I just ate.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:17 PM on September 26, 2007

goody. with hillary in office we'll finally get to have a president who supports legislative measures like this one. what a refreshing difference!
posted by saulgoodman at 1:17 PM on September 26, 2007

Artifice_Eternity, don't confuse us with the facts, or anything.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:18 PM on September 26, 2007

The ultra-left have let themselves become single issue voters. They only focus on abortion and gay rights.

Is this parody? Because it sure as hell ain't reality.

Gandledorf, you really don't know any leftists. If you did, words like "anti-globalization" and "environmentalism" would appear in your posts. Either you have some incorrect definition of "ultra-leftists" or you get all your info from TV and talk radio. Which is it?
posted by edverb at 1:19 PM on September 26, 2007

I assume all these negative comments about Hillary are coming from the people that voted in george jr another 4 years. Take a look at what a mockery he has made of our country during his two terms.

I voted for Kerry. I would have preferred to vote for Dean or even better, Clark, but definitely voted for Kerry over Bush.

With Hillary, it will be much the same as with Bush. I didn't vote for Kerry because I liked him, but because I feared Bush. When 2008 rolls around if Hillary is on the ticket, I'll be voting either Republican or Independent because Hillary is someone I fear as much as I fear Bush. She may even be worse than Bush in the long run. Unless the Republicans nominate a really and truly vile candidate (and they might), I'll vote Republican. If they do nominate someone vile, I'll throw my vote away on an Independent before I'll vote for Hillary.

She is NOT a democrat.
posted by gandledorf at 1:20 PM on September 26, 2007

"anti-globalization" and "environmentalism" would appear in your posts

I don't consider those ultra-left views. I consider them fairly moderate. Al Gore has convinced even some Republicans that environmentalism is important, and most of us who make under $30k a year, whether Democrat, Moderate, or Republican, are anti-globalization.

Ever heard the phrase "They took our jobs,"? It's uttered all the time in the South and is very anti-globalization.
posted by gandledorf at 1:22 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

sjk: You'd be wrong. Really very incredibly wrong.
posted by batmonkey at 1:24 PM on September 26, 2007

I'm interested in what she will do if elected. And all evidence suggests that she will not withdraw from Iraq.
posted by Artifice_Eternity

I don't disagree with you, and hope someone who WILL withdraw ASAP gets nominated. But will the Republican nominee withdraw either? My argument isn't "She agrees with you on everything." My argument is some centrist bullshit stagnation would be a dream come true after this Republican nightmare.
posted by haveanicesummer at 1:29 PM on September 26, 2007

You know, I'm starting to believe that the Republicans are right when they talk about Democrats hating responsibility. (God knows the GOP isn't any better, but that's not the point here.) You fuckers nominated Al Gore and Joe Lieberman- a pair of boring, uninspiring, GOP-lite candidates, in 2000. At a time when nobody knew what a monster Bush would turn out to be, the choice faced by someone who doesn't vote a party line was basically a pair of center-rightist assholes (and spare me the outrage here, that it's possible to refer to the Clinton Administration as "left" in any sense shows just how horribly fucked-up the American idea of politics is) vs a pair of what appeared to be bog-standard conservative assholes.

Given the choice, in 2000, I wasn't planning on voting.

My experience isn't unique. A lot of people, burned out on the Democrats after eight years of the Clinton Administration caving in to the Republicans, were sick of the Democratic party. Nader, though, represented something- not necessarily a chance to vote for someone who might win, but a chance to, if we could get 5% of the popular vote, get federal matching funds for the Greens. So we voted Nader, with no more or less data about the future than any of the rest of you.

Now, it's true that Nader took a number of votes in certain states that were greater than the margin that Bush won by. Nobody's disputing this. What I will dispute, however, is the false and insulting proposition that this means that Nader cost Gore the election. Everybody I knew who was voting Nader was someone who would not have voted otherwise, like myself. There is only one reason to believe that those Nader voters would otherwise have voted Gore, and it's a deeply insulting and arrogant one.

Put simply, the Democrats believe that they are owed the votes of everyone on the left.

I even see it in this thread, with comments like "I completely despise all of you people who wouldn't vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee, yet call yourself leftist." As I say, it reflects a complete refusal of responsibility on the part of the Democratic Party- the onus is on us to vote for whoever the Party decides upon, and not upon the Democrats to actually nominate someone worth voting for. And hey, it doesn't matter how shitty a campaign Gore ran, or how vicious and vile the media's treatment of him was, or the failure of Democratic GOTV efforts, or the way that the Democratic Party keeps marching to right as fast as it can. Oh, no, the fault lies with the people who exercised their constitutional rights to run for office and to vote. And no matter how far to the right the Democrats run, it is, of course, the duty of everyone to the left of Arlen Spector to vote Democratic, because after all, they're somewhat less bad than the Republicans.

I voted for John Kerry in 2004- I didn't like how he pussed out and refused to confront the Swift Boat Veterans for Filthy Lies, and I didn't like his politics at all. (You hear that, gandledor? I'm a leftist, and you wouldn't recognise one if it slapped you in the face and called you an anachronistic idiot.) I'll probably vote for whoever the Democratic Party nominates in 2008. But on behalf of those of us who voted Nader in 2000?

Fuck you guys.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:35 PM on September 26, 2007 [18 favorites]

I'm centrist politically and her views are mostly in sync with mine. But I'm so very tired of the Bush/Clinton dynasties. I suppose if she's the nominee and a right-wing Republican is nominated I'd hold my nose and vote for her.

But if a centrist Republican gets nominated I'm not sure who I'd vote for.
posted by aerotive at 1:39 PM on September 26, 2007

The news is filled with the ultra-left

um, WTF, when?
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on September 26, 2007

there is a difference between 'anti-globalization' and what the left means by 'anti-globalization', which is better expressed as an opposition to neoliberal globalization. Most people involved in this movement are, in fact, pro-globalization, just sure as hell not the globalization we've ended up with, driven by businesses and not people.

Your problem, gandledorf, is you seem to have confused "people on the left I don't like" with "ultra-left" and "policies I like" with moderate.

It's not even the case that you're necessarily wrong, there is a larger percentage of the population which will actually support progressive policies than is generally thought, in my opinion, the key is packaging and the way the media handles it, which is utter shit. In the way things are handled and packed however, this is ultra-left.
posted by Arturus at 1:39 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I assume all these negative comments about Hillary are coming from the people that voted in george jr another 4 years.

Superfunny.
posted by Artw at 1:42 PM on September 26, 2007

"anti-globalization" and "environmentalism" would appear in your posts

I don't consider those ultra-left views.

Wait, but pro-choice and pro-gay rights causes are?

I guess I don't know any actual ultra-leftists, then, since you've just defined them out of existence.

None of the people I know whose politics are "ultra-left" are going to vote for Clinton.

I think you're in a parallel universe.
posted by rtha at 1:50 PM on September 26, 2007

posted by gandledorf She is NOT a Democrat.

What is she?
posted by fandango_matt at 1:51 PM on September 26, 2007

What is she?

Corporate
posted by uri at 1:57 PM on September 26, 2007

Ultra-left = anything not on Fox News
posted by Thorzdad at 1:58 PM on September 26, 2007

What is she?

An ex-president of her alma matter's College Republicans who has since been hiding out with the Democrats in hopes of helping her career.

In other words, she is a Republican opportunist who hates America. Think George Bush without the Penis.
posted by gandledorf at 2:01 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf, you're completely out to lunch.
posted by Justinian at 2:02 PM on September 26, 2007

digby thinks this is about Rudy: California Dreamin'--...
Whatever their motives, the Republicans are not saying this because they had simultaneous epiphanies. The Party is directing this meme for a reason. It's always important to keep that in mind, even if the media, like newborn babes, dutifully burp and spit it back up without any context or explanation. They don't go on jihads or spread memes like this spontaneously.
posted by amberglow at 2:03 PM on September 26, 2007

In terms of integrity/decency/intelligence/leadership--Hillary has already amply demonstrated and proven she's not well equipped with any of those things.

Jack Thompson would disagree on the decency thing. He and the Republicans love how much she hates freedom of speech. If it were up to Hillary 9/10ths of the internet wouldn't exist.
posted by gandledorf at 2:10 PM on September 26, 2007

But Hillary is the best chance we have for a decent health care system in this country. How can you oppose that, gandledorf?
posted by fandango_matt at 2:12 PM on September 26, 2007

oops--we're

and lemme tell you something else--it's bad enough when the DC Democratic establishment anoints someone and ensures they win--now we have the entire GOP and media doing the same--what's the point of having primaries at all then if we can't vote our interests and desires and needs? What's the point of an election at all?

You might be a happy "moderate", voting for whoever is pushed on you, but most people prefer to make a choice--informed or not.
posted by amberglow at 2:13 PM on September 26, 2007

What an astonishing load of crazy.
posted by ~ at 2:14 PM on September 26, 2007

But Hillary is the best chance we have for a decent health care system in this country. How can you oppose that, gandledorf?

A) I'm not convinced Hillary really gives a damn about health care. Obama, I'm convinced, does.

B) I don't trust the Feds with a national health care system. The f*** up everything else badly enough as it is. I'd rather see the states do a health care system, as is being proposed. The last thing I want to see is national health care under a republican administration. We'd all need to wear lipstick and wigs then.
posted by gandledorf at 2:17 PM on September 26, 2007

Lipstick and wigs? Huh?
posted by agregoli at 2:17 PM on September 26, 2007

Lipstick and wigs? Huh?

It's a crude comment on where they would stick their painful and uncomfortable politics to us folks at the bottom once they inevitably took the reigns of the program.
posted by gandledorf at 2:18 PM on September 26, 2007

Like I said. Huh?
posted by agregoli at 2:19 PM on September 26, 2007

posted by gandledorf I don't trust the Feds with a national health care system.

Seems to be good enough for Bush & Cheney and just about every other Federal employee. What's your problem with that?
posted by fandango_matt at 2:20 PM on September 26, 2007

Like I said. Huh?

They'd make us all nice and purty before they treated us like their girlfriends at a prison camp.

I submit HMO's and emergency rooms as an exhibit of how the Republicans think we poor folk ought to be treated by health care.
posted by gandledorf at 2:20 PM on September 26, 2007

On the day an aged and decrepit George Bush finally chokes on his own drool in a million dollar a month ultra-secure private hospital someplace, with no one around him but a few Secret Service agents and carefully vetted doctors who all hate his guts, a dozen hapless American kids who haven't even been born yet will die in some third-world shithole because of what he's wrought.

That's a given. We missed our chance to head off that future in 2004. We're now well past the point where we can save this country with an election. You might have picked up on that after the one in 2006...

So no, Hillary isn't our savior by a long shot. She's not going to ride into DC on a white horse and undo everything that's happened since 2000. But we do indeed have to hold our noses and vote for her once the Dems nominate her. (Which is pretty much a given at this point.) Because a bunch of other people will come into DC with her, and they'll occupy small, boring government positions, and they'll get to work. And even though Hillary herself isn't going to make the big changes, they'll start making the small ones. Only a few specialists will really notice, but it will all start to add up and, if we're incredibly lucky, this nation might slowly start to pull back from the brink.

If you're unwilling to do that, the alternative is to pick up a gun. How does that sound to you? Freedom isn't free, right?
posted by Naberius at 2:20 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

If you're unwilling to do that, the alternative is to pick up a gun.

Or we could realize that the Democrats aren't all necessarily our allies. Only some of them. I'm sorry, but Hillary is only a democrat because she loves abortion and kind of supports gay people.

The only way to actually fix this country is to make sure someone like Obama, or at the very least, Richardson, gets elected. Heck. I'll even vote for an ambulance chaser like Edwards. Clinton will only make the problems worse. She won't bring our troops back, and she is just as likely to get us mired in yet another conflict.
posted by gandledorf at 2:26 PM on September 26, 2007

They'd make us all nice and purty before they treated us like their girlfriends at a prison camp.

Ah. So not only was your comment obtuse but extremely weird and sexist. Got it.
posted by agregoli at 2:28 PM on September 26, 2007

Ah. So not only was your comment obtuse but extremely weird and sexist. Got it.

Never seen Office Space have you?
posted by gandledorf at 2:30 PM on September 26, 2007

And Hillary walks into the White House far weaker than any other candidate now running (who are all walking in weak--both GOP and Democratic)--a hostile press, the focus on Bill, and scandals (madeup or real) already ensure that. The media is slavering to rerun the glory days of Monica--they don't like GOP scandals and ignore and downplay them even now. The storylines are written for a Clinton term, and they're not pretty. She won't be effective if you care about getting this country back on track at all. She won't be effective if you want any kind of progress. She won't be effective if you want the spying stopped and our rights restored. ...--all these things are not just because of the unrelenting hostility she'll face but because she herself has stated it over and over. So she sucks both because of her stands and positions and because she won't be allowed to be effective anyway, which is the more general problem this year.

No Democrat will be allowed to wield any of the power Bush and Cheney did, nor will they be allowed to operate in secrecy like they did. The rules are set, and the thing about the GOP wanting a weak 1-term Democrat while they regroup is very valid--smart even. Given that, we need someone who at least pulls the brakes on some of the horrors if not reverses things.
posted by amberglow at 2:32 PM on September 26, 2007

News to Democrats.
If Hillary wins the nomination you had better vote for her in the general election or we will have another Republican in the White House. Please recall the 2000 election when many Democrats wouldn't vote for Gore because he, 'was no different than Bush.'
Live and learn, please.
posted by Rashomon at 2:35 PM on September 26, 2007

But do any of you really believe she would have gone into Iraq?

I do. I think she would have waited until Afghanistan was stabilized, would have gone in with a rebuilding plan, and maybe would have been more sophisticated in her justifications, but yeah I think she would have used Sept 11th exactly the same way the Bush whitehouse did. Bill was always itching for a reason to stomp Saddam, but never quite came up with one. He would have used 9/11 if he had it (with the same childish "it changed everything" rhetoric), and so would have Hilary.

Gore, not so much.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:40 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hillary is only a democrat because she loves abortion

That seals it, you are an idiot.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:40 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf - Richardson is Clinton in hispanic drag. I've been in New Mexico for thirty years watching. He will tell you anything you want to hear.
posted by pointilist at 2:40 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

NH Debate tonight
posted by amberglow at 2:42 PM on September 26, 2007

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fandango_matt at 2:42 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Metafilter politics is hilarious. The Right! The Middle! The Left! The Ultra-Left! "Hi, I'm on Metafilter and all my views fit on a one dimensional line."

If you insist on facile dichotomies and a Manichean world view, here's a free hint: The major ideological split between all of the major party candidates is not liberal/Democrat vs. conservative/Republican. It's authoritarians vs. ... well, no one.

Your state's presidential ballot probably will have more than 2 names on it. And if it doesn't, go out and do something about it. Don't make me haul out my Kang & Kodos quotes.
posted by oncogenesis at 2:46 PM on September 26, 2007

Going into Iraq was purely a Bush thing. Democrats may have failed to prevent it, and most of them signed there name to it since the momentum from 9/11 was pushing them into it, but no fucking way would they have come up with it themselves.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on September 26, 2007

...ambulance chaser like Edwards...

You know who else describes Edwards that way?

That's right.

Also - "loves abortion"? Please.
posted by rtha at 2:48 PM on September 26, 2007

That seals it, you are an idiot.

Really? Because have you looked at her positions lately? I have trouble finding much else she agrees with the Democrats on. Let's review, shall we?

Israel: Hillary has stated she is "an emphatic, unwavering supporter of Israel's safety and security." She has repeatedly sided with the Republicans on any and all conflicts with Israel.

Homeland Security: Hillary stated in 2004 that she supports expanded the powers of homeland security. She has repeatedly co-sponsored bills with Republicans that increase the power of the DHS.

Iraq: Hillary has always supported the Iraq war, and made many comments on the subject of military intervention. She has always supported it.

PATRIOT ACT: Hillary supported the PATRIOT act when it was first introduced, and supported its renewal and expansion. She has refused to sign the American Freedom Agenda's pledge, and does not support repealing the Military Commissions Act, or restoring habaes corpus.

Freedom of Speech: Hillary supports outlawing flag burning and introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005, which would make it a felony to burn an American flag, and carries a jail term and $100,000 fine.

Executive power: Hillary is on the record supporting the authority of the executive office and congressional deference. She is quote as saying she is "a strong believer in executive authority," in 2003.

Death Penalty: Hillary strongly supports the Death Penalty.

Education: Hillary was and is a strong supporter for the No Child Left Behind Act.

Same sex marriage: Hillary has said she is against recognizing same sex marriage. Yet somehow claims to be pro-gay rights.

Censorship: Hillary has numerous times sided with Jack Thompson and others calling for video game and other censorship.

Abortion: Hillary is pro-choice.

Wow, you know out of all of those positions, the only one she agrees with the Democrats on is Abortion.

Are people even paying attention to more than the (D) listed at the end of her name?
posted by gandledorf at 2:53 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

gandledorf, you're seriously over modding your post.

fwtw there is a MeTa post open on this
posted by edgeways at 2:58 PM on September 26, 2007

billypilgrim writes "I've never understood all the Hillary-hate going around on the left. She's definitely not fantastic by any stretch of the imagination and I would vote for just about anyone else on the Democratic side before her, but she's a competent senator and seems like a decent human being, if a flawed one. "

In line with what wendell said, it's kind of creepy that a nation with 350 odd million citizens can't find any better candidates for president than the son of a former president and the wife of a former president. Considering the term limits enshrined in the constitution a Clinton nomination especially feels like an end run around the two term limit.

After all a president's son/brother becoming president is a classic sign of a less than free democracy/republic.
posted by Mitheral at 2:59 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

I’d like to see a weak or less connected president, or a president committed to change, with a much stronger congress, - for at least the next 20 years.
I don’t know that will happen with Clinton. I suspect it will with Obama.
But hell, I’d take even Kucinich over Clinton, he strikes me as a principled individual, albeit one who I have some difference of opinion with, but principled nonetheless.
Whatever the case, the trend of making a chief executive with stronger and stronger powers, I very much suspect, would continue under Clinton.
I have to (para)quote Mos Def: “what, are we going to just hand the presidency back and forth between two familes for 20 years? That’s not good for the country”
Whatever Clinton’s flaws or merits (and she does have a few) the 1,000 lb gorilla is Bill Clinton and the massive ingrained structure that they’re both connected to.
I think Obama is the right guy to remedy that, in part because of his policies but also because he’s still a bit of a noob - so the situation will be more dynamic than static. (I believe in being guided by past wisdom and maintaining a predictability in government, but not stasis or stagnation). But I’ll probably be voting 3rd party again so, moot point.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:01 PM on September 26, 2007

Gandeldorf thinks people vote on issues.

By and large, they don't.
posted by edverb at 3:03 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf (spelled it right that time!), I'm not talking about the issues. I'm pointing out your use of "loves abortion" as if that were anything but a talking point slur used by right-wing, anti-choice assholes. None of us "love abortion". We simply want it available to those who desire one.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:10 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf doesn't care about black people.
posted by fandango_matt at 3:11 PM on September 26, 2007

I like pancakes.

Pancakes for president!
posted by po at 3:13 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf -
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh. Quiet down, little baby. That's good.
posted by MythMaker at 3:13 PM on September 26, 2007

Are people even paying attention to more than the (D) listed at the end of her name?
posted by gandledorf at 2:53 PM on September 26 [+] [!]

Yes, we are. Welcome to the ultra-left!
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:14 PM on September 26, 2007

gandledorf - king of wrong.
posted by Artw at 3:19 PM on September 26, 2007

haveanicesummer has it.

Senators haven't been able to win the presidency in decades because they will ALWAYS be fucked by their voting records, because to get anything done in the senate requires mounds of "close your eyes and think of England" compromises - it's the way the senate is set up.

I won't be happy to vote for Clinton, but I'll be very happy to see her in office over whoever the Republicans put up (unless it were Ron Paul, and I'd still probably vote against him. The stakes are too high.) I also don't think it'll come to that because the polls right now aren't showing what I predict will actually happen, i.e. Clinton's got more money and higher numbers now, but Obama's got far more supporters (and almost as much money) and in America, our voters aren't required to vote, and voting can be a pain in the ass.

In 2000, my sister voted for Bradley in the primaries in Dallas. She later got a call, because she was one of the only ones to vote in the Dem primary in her district, to be a delegate. She agreed, and then her area sent her as delegate to the region. Because she was the only delegate who bothered to show up. Her entire area ended up going for Bradly - even though the polls supported Gore - because the Gore supporters didn't give a shit.

Clinton has money, yes, but from few people. Obama has TONS of supporters who give a shit. They'll be the ones who actually bother to show up, and he'll get the nomination quicker than we think, and then Clinton will be begging for the Veep spot.

And he'll be unbeatable in the General, and likely the only nominee who can move the country towards looking at issues as policy rather than politics.

(Note: jokeefe, I did my best to go with your ruling here, b/c I agree with it, but it just felt very odd. I think it's because Clinton has branded herself so indelibly as "Hillary.")
posted by Navelgazer at 3:22 PM on September 26, 2007

Hillary is the best candidate, because gandledorf is an anagram for "Flared Dong" or "Lord Fagden."
posted by fandango_matt at 3:23 PM on September 26, 2007

“None of us "love abortion". We simply want it available to those who desire one.”

My wife and I love abortion. We’re going to have another one, we’re just having trouble with conception.

(yes, I’m married to Silverman)
posted by Smedleyman at 3:29 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

Navelgazer: I would love to see that scenario play out. But I'm not holding my breath.

The DC establishment (Dems, media, lobbyists, and even the GOP) all want Hillary to be the nominee. They will do what they can to trash anyone who looks like a serious threat to her.

I do think Obama is the most charismatic, eloquent, and politically astute national Democratic politician since... well, since Bill Clinton. I think he has the best chance in the general election of any major candidate, Dem or GOP. (He's running 3rd among Republicans in Iowa!) And while Bill can run his wife's campaign, he can't take her place when she has to speak to the public in that grating, soulless voice of hers.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 3:29 PM on September 26, 2007

I love Hillary. Looooooove her. She's got my vote!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:34 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Wow, you know out of all of those positions, the only one she agrees with the Democrats on is Abortion.

Then why has she voted the party line 96.9% of the time?
posted by rtha at 3:34 PM on September 26, 2007

Wow, you know out of all of those positions, the only one she agrees with the Democrats on is Abortion.

And how do any of the Republicans with a chance to win the nomination compare? She's the lesser of two evils, which is less evil. Let's get the ship pointed away from the iceberg before we argue about who the ideal captain is.

I share the reservation about switching back and forth between two families, and Hillary Clinton isn't my first, or second, choice, but any of the Democrats that could win the nomination would be better than any of the potential Republican candidates, all of whom have endorsed Bush's policies.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:47 PM on September 26, 2007 [2 favorites]

It's been since sometime in the 70's since a Bush, Dole or Clinton has not been on the ticket.
posted by edgeways at 3:56 PM on September 26, 2007

Voting Dem isn't pointing the ship away from the iceberg. It's pointing the ship away from the iceberg that's very, very close and toward the iceberg that's a little further off.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:57 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm not saying she is ultra-left, I'm saying the ultra-left is dumb enough to support her. Probably just because she's a woman.

I'm not saying you are a really, really ignorant, just that the ultra-left is likely to think so. (And I'm cued in to what the ultra left thinks because I am a woman (aka without the Penis.)

OK, gandledorf, you can tell us now. You've just been funning with us, amirite? We're on Candid Camera, aren't we?
posted by madamjujujive at 4:03 PM on September 26, 2007

She'll be elected president after a ugly general election rife with sexism and fear, and history will anoint her amongst the greatest wartime presidents. Mark. My. Words.
posted by ogre at 4:13 PM on September 26, 2007

I never thought I'd pine wistfully for Bill Bradley.
posted by malocchio at 4:13 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

As I've said many times, I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton; she's too much of a managed, poll-driven, triangulating (to use her husband's term) politician for my tastes. But if she is the Democratic candidate, I will hold my nose and pull her lever because I think the public is going to hold the next president a bit more accountable to the populace. She won't have as much wiggle room as Bush has had to do blatantly stupid shit.

Until then, however, I will cross my fingers and quietly intone, "Edwardsedwardsedwardsedwardsedwards......"
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:27 PM on September 26, 2007

I never thought I'd pine wistfully for Bill Bradley.

Bill Bradley rocked; a politician with a working, thoughtful brain (he was a Rhodes Scholar, just like Billy Clinton). He quit because he got fed up with a broken system.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:30 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

Just today she voted for this piece of shit about Iran--the Lieberman-Kyl Amendment: ...“Cheney’s fondest pipe dream ... a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action.”
posted by amberglow at 4:31 PM on September 26, 2007

I'll never understand why the 'founding fathers' thought it was a good idea to focus so much on ONE PERSON when they were trying to get away from a Monarchy.

So be it. I'll be under a lot of pressure to vote for your new Queen, but I won't like it.

The bald, naked truth is this: a better man will be held back by the colour of his skin. Nothing changes in America, does it?
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:46 PM on September 26, 2007

I think he's more held back by not being a completely boring center-rightist who always places safe and has heavy establishment connections.
posted by Artw at 4:50 PM on September 26, 2007

even if I have to wear a clothespin on my nose and even if it is more anti-Republican than pro Democrat, I will support the Dem candidate.

THe problem with this approach is the subtle effect it has on the outcome, due to who actually bothers to vote. If everyone were required to vote, those that did so reluctantly and those that did so fervently wouldn't be any different, but given that one has to find a way to get to a voting booth on a work day, and very often stand in line for some time in order to cast a vote to begin with, the excitement over a candidate is very likely to make a real difference in outcome. If the Republican candidate came across as believably moderate or different enough from Bush to be a new start, plenty of nose-holding supposed Clinton supporters would just not follow through when it meant having to reschedule their day to get to the voting booth.

I would prefer our first female prez not be a former first lady, somehow, but on the other hand it's not really fair to consider her a weaker candidate based on having had so much in common with someone we previously elected president that they decided to be partners for life...

I'm also surprised by all the hate in here, and can't help wondering how much of it stems from misogyny. How many consider themselves pro-Bill, anti-Hillary? You cannot claim their positions are far apart.

If everyone here would be just as inclined to bash Bill if he were running after 8 years of GWB, then I really do think we will have another Republican president in 09. It seems like people just get weary of thinking about how different things might have been, and after a suitable amount of time, forget that anything at all would have gone another way. But I do not think Al Gore would have made the same choices after 9/11 that Bush made. Moderate candidates that actually get into office can affect history. Voting for your personally perfect fringe candidates does not make sense in a two party system.
posted by mdn at 4:50 PM on September 26, 2007

I think he's more held back by not being a completely boring center-rightist who always places safe and has heavy establishment connections.

Ah, the outsider thing. He's not BLACK. He's not a governor. He's young. He SMOKES. He says things without checking with focus groups beforehand.

He's doomed because no one owns him.

Ask yourself this: would a candidate with his level of charisma and gift for public speaking be so discussed if he were white? Or would he simply be the front runner?
posted by chuckdarwin at 4:54 PM on September 26, 2007

Navelgazer has a good point-while there seem to be a lot of people who prefer Hillary over the other candidates, I haven't heard of that many real Hillary enthusiasts, and that might catch up to her.

I went to a Clinton rally back in July, and that's exactly what it was-a Clinton rally. People were excited to see Hillary, but they were equally or more excited to hear from Bill. From the sounds of it, at least 60-70% of the supporters had been there in '91 and would like to vote for Bill-but would take Hillary if they had to.

These are Hillary's core supporters- the people who bother to show up on a Friday afternoon and wait two hours to hear a thirty minute speech, and they didn't seem to be that excited about the candidate.

With Obama's supporters, you might wonder if they have any idea of what they're talking about, but you at least know that they're enthusiastically for him. He might have a chance in the primaries.

And even if Clinton does win the primaries, that doesn't mean that she'll lose the election, even with a relatively unenthusiastic base. The number of people wanting to get back to the Clinton years without the Lewinsky mess might be enough to carry her through the election-especially considering who her opponents are. Gulianni's got an incredibly messy divorce, a horrible track record, and is pro-choice. Romney did a lot of flip-flopping and made a mess as a governor of Massachusetts, and McCain's campaign is dead.
posted by dinty_moore at 4:55 PM on September 26, 2007

posted by gandledorf I don't trust the Feds with a national health care system.

Seems to be good enough for Bush & Cheney and just about every other Federal employee. What's your problem with that?

Because some of us don't trust the government to give the same benefits of those in power? Or to pay hospitals what they need. Medicaid pays 10-20% of all medical bills. That's a far cry from what our hospitals and health care facilities need to survive if we distributed that to the rest of American citizens.
posted by jmd82 at 5:04 PM on September 26, 2007

when they were trying to get away from a Monarchy

It may not be a Monarchy yet but it's certainly looking like a de facto Aristocracy which one might suppose to be a necessary precursor. An entire generation of voters has grown up knowing nothing but rule by only 2 families with George I ascending to power in January 1989.

If Hillary's elected it'll mean possibly 28 years of rule by either a Bush or Clinton with the second Bush and Clintons being immediate relatives of the first ones.
posted by scheptech at 5:11 PM on September 26, 2007

Ask yourself this: would a candidate with his level of charisma and gift for public speaking be so discussed if he were white?

Absolutely. He does not make the right noises for the Democratic leadership, therefore he will not get the nom. Race may or may not hamper him, but it's far from his biggest problem and not an insurmountable one. Being some kind of "radical" (and i use that in the weakest sense of the word) trumps it many times over.
posted by Artw at 5:12 PM on September 26, 2007

The problem with Hillary? Her voice. I'm not kidding. She has a screechy, nasally voice that my subconscious tells me to "stop listening to her!" after a very short time. Too bad, because she's a damn smart person who would probably make a good president.

In comparison with, say, Fred Thompson, who's apparently dumb as a rock, has a voice you could listen to all day long.

Think about it.
posted by zardoz at 5:36 PM on September 26, 2007

It's pointing the ship away from the iceberg that's very, very close and toward the iceberg that's a little further off.

And those are our two options next year.

I think if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee she will win the election against any of the potential Republican candidates. They'll attack her with all the '90s crap (that's already started), but that's all old news which was unsubstantiated after millions of dollars and years of investigations and I believe people are tired of it. We aren't going to find out anything bad about her were don't already know, and the people that have an opinion aren't going to change their minds.

I'll never understand why the 'founding fathers' thought it was a good idea to focus so much on ONE PERSON when they were trying to get away from a Monarchy.

They didn't; they had quaint ideas like separation of powers and checks and balances that are too old-fashioned for today's modern times.

Gulianni's got an incredibly messy divorce

Which one?
posted by kirkaracha at 5:39 PM on September 26, 2007

pointilist writes "Richardson is Clinton in hispanic drag. I've been in New Mexico for thirty years watching. He will tell you anything you want to hear."

Yes, but he is a superb diplomat, and we desperately need someone like that. That's also what Bill Clinton discovered during his own term. He'd be a great Secretary of State, or even VP. He doesn't have enough vision or charisma to get to President, but he'd be a good person to have at your side.
posted by krinklyfig at 5:53 PM on September 26, 2007

I’d say he’s the opposite of radical, but I agree Artw.
Obama is perhaps a heretic? Can't think of a good word myself, but yeah, he's non-orthodox in many ways.
But I suspect that’s so because the entire political environment has become radically partisan with the political movements more crucial than the basic constitutional workings.
I mean in a lot of ways the guy is as dangerous as oatmeal. But that stability looks out of place in either party.
...So ‘oatmeal’ while (nearly) everyone else is doing absinthe or flagellating themselves for their respective visions.
(yes, the two substances of enlightenment excess and medieval fanaticism are references by design)

Although other candidates have their merits...
I dunno, perhaps I like Obama the way spotting a black guy in an otherwise uniform looking ethnic culture feels homey. “Hey look! That guy’s not (Japanese, Norwegian, etc)! Hey man! Are you an American!?”

“I'll never understand why the 'founding fathers' thought it was a good idea to focus so much on ONE PERSON when they were trying to get away from a Monarchy.”

Yeah, that’s just the social tendancy. The way the system is set up the president is pretty much congress’ bitch. Except we have this whole sort of non-constitutional understanding. F’rinstance we can go to war without declaring war because no one kicks, so it’s unconstitutional, but y’know...
Perhaps they aimed at that overall dynamic, where power is constantly negotiated outside the ‘rules’.(Pure near fantastic conjecture on my part)

I’d like to see the office of president split into two halves. The Veep would take care of foreign affairs and the President would handle domestic affairs. Unfortunately that seems to have happened with no system of checks on the Veep. But if it were formalized you could have the two in competition for funding, which would provide a nicer balance for war powers with the pres, the stronger of the two, pushing for more butter than guns.
Meh. Off topic pipe dream really.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:59 PM on September 26, 2007

Handy left/ultraleft recalibration tool:
The left demands that Bush be put on trial. The ultraleft calls for Bush to be executed.

I don't want to vote for Hillary either, but Giuliani is the Antichrist. Thinking of President Giuliani loosens my bowels in terror. The part that worries me in the knowledge that given the chance to swap they'd have the same positions.
posted by a robot made out of meat at 6:37 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The left demands that Bush be put on trial. The ultraleft calls for Bush to be executed.
Where am i? I want him rendered by the CIA to some secret prison somewhere forever--where they "don't torture", of course. (Gitmo forever is good too, without trial or anything, like he's doing to innocent people who were the result of paying Afghanis bounties and not determining any guilt)

President Giuliani will never happen---he might be veep tho, or else certainly in some GOP cabinet--even tho he's insane and ignorant and more self-obsessed than even Bush. If it's a Brownback or Huckabee as Pres, Giuliani would be the veep choice, i bet.
posted by amberglow at 7:06 PM on September 26, 2007

They'll attack her with all the '90s crap (that's already started), but that's all old news which was unsubstantiated after millions of dollars and years of investigations

it's a good point. the savagery of the GOP gangbang from the 1990s has really made her invulnerable from the Arkansas shit. I mean, who wants to hear about Vince Foster again? Kerry never had to endure that kind of scrutiny before '04. I don't how they could Swift Boat her; it'll be ugly, but do they have new ammo? I doubt that. I mean, what if the find out that Bill is sleeping with other women and they have like tapes of a new Gennifer Flowers saying that Bill told her the marriage is just a sham at this point? Would that surprise people? Do Americans think she has a normal marriage anyway? Do they care?

Having said that, she may have the highest negatives of any politician of this era; and negatives, the conventional wisdom says, are what kills you in the end (just ask Dukakis). But the Whitewater/Monica stuff? That shit just won't fly anymore.

Thinking of President Giuliani loosens my bowels in terror.

there's a TV ad in there somewhere, I like the concept.

But on behalf of those of us who voted Nader in 2000?

No, no, you voted for Bush. For Bush. No matter how many people you tell to go fuck themselves, you didn't vote for Nader, you voted for Bush. Learn to live with that.
posted by matteo at 7:17 PM on September 26, 2007

They'll attack her with all the '90s crap (that's already started), but that's all old news which was unsubstantiated after millions of dollars and years of investigations

it's a good point. the savagery of the GOP gangbang from the 1990s has really made her invulnerable from the Arkansas shit. ...
That's completely untrue--the Hsu fundraising stuff is just one of many dirty dealings she has--past and present. And they'll also just make stuff up--the GOP already has, i bet. The media wants these stories, and wants her partly because of all the stories and scandals. That's the Hillary narrative, and they won't deviate.

The pay-to-play fundraiser with Homeland Security companies and Senators alone is a scandal.
posted by amberglow at 7:50 PM on September 26, 2007

Russert just brought Hsu up, and the donors to the Clinton foundation/library.
posted by amberglow at 7:55 PM on September 26, 2007

you know what? send Russert to Gitmo too--"What's your favorite Bible verse?" ugh (and Hillary said "golden rule" which is not a Bible verse)
posted by amberglow at 7:59 PM on September 26, 2007

No, no, you voted for Bush. For Bush. No matter how many people you tell to go fuck themselves, you didn't vote for Nader, you voted for Bush. Learn to live with that.

oh, okay, so finally we're reminded of the real lesson history taught us with that ill-fated election in which gore was ultimately shown to be the winner all along though some other twit ended up in the white house: no matter how much you may not agree with either of the two major parties, the last thing you should ever do is consider supporting an inherently unelectable third-party candidate, who might actually share something resembling your political views. in other words, only a fool would be suckered into voting for a candidate whose policy positions he actually supports in a properly functioning democracy.

obviously, in a proper democracy, you should just vote for the guy you think has the best chance of winning--no matter how much you may disagree with their positions, at least that way you'll be able to participate in the illusion of having influenced the outcome.

when the field of options is limited to only two choices, it's all too easy to manipulate the outcome by playing both sides against each other to achieve predictable outcomes. such systems encourage systematic game-playing and provide at best only the illusion of choice for most. if we want truly representative government in this country we need substantive electoral and other deep structural reforms that open up the game to a much wider range of players, as found in other more mature democratic systems.

until we get those things, we'll just continue to stagnate and rot from the inside. don't doubt it for a second. without such reforms there's no longer any real incentive to do otherwise.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:04 PM on September 26, 2007 [3 favorites]

that said, of course i'm going to vote for whoever the dems nominate this time, though i fear i'll just be wasting my vote.
posted by saulgoodman at 8:05 PM on September 26, 2007

amberglow: Jesus said to them, "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself, and as you love me," or something to that effect.

...I'm almost sure of it, anyway.

My (unrelated) question is, why in the hell would anybody vote for somebody based on name recognition in the primaries? Generally, if you're voting in the primaries, then yo care enough about what's going on to be better informed about it, and can anyone think that most of the population won't know both candidates names and faces by a week later?

For instance, I know next to nothing about Brownback or Huckabee, but if they got a nomination, I'd be hearing all about them for the next nine months without any effort on my own part. The nomination legitimizes whoever gets it, and makes them one of the two biggest names of their particular year.

So why does anybody truly think this matters? What is the strategy here?
posted by Navelgazer at 8:24 PM on September 26, 2007

No, no, you voted for Bush. For Bush. No matter how many people you tell to go fuck themselves, you didn't vote for Nader, you voted for Bush. Learn to live with that.
posted by matteo at 10:17 PM on September 26

And you, sir, voted for HITLER! No matter how you tell me to go fuck myself.

The two party system, with the mostly scumbag hypocrite liar politicians we have today at the Senate/"realistic"-Presidential-candidate level, is just a race to the bottom. Republicans find some new evil. Democrats want to "appeal to the middle" and not appear "obstructivist" (basically, want to play politics as a game for their own benefit rather than stand up for anything) so they basically act slightly less evil than the Republicans. Republicans find a way to be more evil. Repeat.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 8:28 PM on September 26, 2007

And you, sir, voted for HITLER! No matter how you tell me to go fuck myself.

Laugh it off if you want, but for me and my loved ones — at least partially because of Nader voters — Republicans have been given the ability to unite a plurality of the country around enacting laws which take away rights from gays and lesbians.

We don't live in a parliamentary democracy — we live in a winner-take-all democracy.

It sucks, but there it is, and because of Nader voters in a swing state, all Americans have had to live with the consequences of that system: from loss of equal protection, civil rights, damage to environmental laws, etc. etc. etc. over the last seven years.

I wish — I truly hope and plead — that Nader voters and sympathizers would please be honest and own up to at least a little of the significant damage done because this decision-making process.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:54 PM on September 26, 2007

I would blame the Republican voters much more than the Nader voters for all that stuff, personally. And also everyone to blame for Bush being president even though he lost...

Yeah, in the messed up elections game we have going voting for Nader was a losing move. Doesn't mean it was a vote for Bush, in my opinion. And, by my recollection, the atmosphere back in 2000 wasn't as bad as it is now, in that people weren't so desparately afraid of a Republican presidency that they felt the need to vote for the least-odious of the two likely winners rather than vote their conscience. At the time it seemed like Bush and Gore were just both the same old scumbag politicians, and sure Gore would be a little better, but why not vote for someone you actually want. (Chalk it up to lack of research by the voters, perhaps - in any case, I was 15 at the time so I'm not defending any of my own actions here.)

Now of course, that view has been shown to be wrong - Bush has turned out to be the horrible thing he is and Gore has actually become a respected public figure.
posted by TheOnlyCoolTim at 9:12 PM on September 26, 2007

I honestly believe that it does not matter which way you guys vote anymore. It appears cabal of corporations and special interest groups have taken over at the highest level of power, and will ensure that whoever they want will be elected president.
posted by tehloki at 9:23 PM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

One part Daily Kos chatfilter, one part editorial blog post. Excellent!
posted by chundo at 9:32 PM on September 26, 2007

Yep, we're the bad guys, because dammit, no matter who atrocities the Democrats sign off on, anyone left of Arlen Spector better vote Dem!

Christ. Anything to avoid blaming yourselves, I guess.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:56 PM on September 26, 2007

If Hillary is so republican-friendly, won't it be cool for her to take office and to see republicans do an about-face on stuff for the sake of disagreeing with her? Personally, I can't wait til she gets her paws on all those great new presidential powers bush has wrangled, if only for seeing republicans decide all of a sudden that they should be curtailed.

I like Hillary Clinton. She didn't just stumble into politics but has had a longtime commitment to public service on causes that I tend to appreciate. And she's as intelligent, if not more so, than her husband. She gets a lot more criticism for playing the political game than any of the other guys, but the reality is that she couldn't get into office otherwise.
posted by troybob at 11:41 PM on September 26, 2007

I even see it in this thread, with comments like "I completely despise all of you people who wouldn't vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee, yet call yourself leftist." As I say, it reflects a complete refusal of responsibility on the part of the Democratic Party- the onus is on us to vote for whoever the Party decides upon, and not upon the Democrats to actually nominate someone worth voting for.

Are you somehow confused into thinking I am the establishment? Yes. The establishment wants that. I however, want people to ditch the protest voting until we have some semblance of stability. It may have to be establishment corporate sellout stability first before we get something we really want, but the alternative is unconscionable.
posted by haveanicesummer at 12:18 AM on September 27, 2007

I wish — I truly hope and plead — that Nader voters and sympathizers would please be honest and own up to at least a little of the significant damage done because this decision-making process.

I cannot believe that I'm still explaining this to people after seven years. I thought you were supposed to be smart.

Here's what you're assuming: that people who voted for Nader would've voted for Gore. They would have stayed home, sir. They would not have voted at all.

Their votes weren't wasted, and their votes didn't go to Bush. They went to Nader. Less that one percent of the people who voted Green in 2000 said that they would've cast a ballot at all if it weren't for Nader being an option.

It was a simpler time, and people were making an honest effort to get a Green Party off the ground. No one knew what was coming.

So let's suppose your idea was correct and all those Nader voters somehow slipped and voted for Gore... the margin would still have been narrow enough for Bush to steal Florida. Look it up.
posted by chuckdarwin at 1:00 AM on September 27, 2007 [2 favorites]

I completely despise all of you people who wouldn't vote for Hillary were she to be the nominee, yet call yourself leftist.

which is exactly WHY she's so dangerous - she's someone who is as power-hungry, warhawkish, corporate shilling, etc etc as george w bush ever thought of being and she has two advantages over him

first, she's competent

second, many leftists will support her - and once the rightists see that she's "strong" when it comes to the "war on terror", they'll cut her some slack

so, if she wants to continue the iraq war - or start an iran war - or get the draft started again - or take the country further down the road to fascism - she'll have BOTH parties backing her, not just hers

i cannot shake this feeling that she is much more dangerous than bush ever dreamed of being - there is something about her that is cold and calculating and scares the shit out of me

i WON'T vote for her
posted by pyramid termite at 1:25 AM on September 27, 2007

one more thing - i voted for nader in 2000

if you don't like it, you can kiss my ass - say what you will about it, at least i'm not whining about my man having lost

americans hate whiners

get a clue about that, would you?

the republicans got over the possible stolen election in 1960 to win in '68

if they can do it, you can do it too
posted by pyramid termite at 1:43 AM on September 27, 2007

I voted for Nader in 2000. Had Nader not run, I STILL would not have voted for Gore. His campaign had an arrogance that was typified by their current arrogant assumption that my Nader vote somehow belonged to them. Nope. It belonged to ME. You never had a claim on it. Never. So take that and stuff it up your Southern clipper-humping', v-chip installin', lyric-censorin' ass.

And this recent bi-partisan condemnation of the MoveOn ad is the last straw for the party as a whole. Unless impeachment is actively pursued, unless concrete steps are taken to reign in Bush corruption, unless those subpoenas start rolling, unless we see daylight in the Iraqi withdrawal -- I won't vote for any Democrat in any race. There's simply no reason.
posted by RavinDave at 3:32 AM on September 27, 2007

That's what wins political office in this country: organization and money.

No, that's what wins nominations. Then, after the nomination, and certainly on the national battle, both sides are generally equally matched for funds and organization. The only difference becomes which party is better at sending the message out, and which candidate connects with voters.

I truly can't comprehend the people who think Clinton has any chance whatsoever of winning. I think the Democratic party recently has been fielding people that they consider to be "kinder, gentler Republicans" or something. That's not at all what people want.

The truth is I think it's too late to win a Democratic presidency. If they could have run a president in 2006, or if Hurricane Katrina had occurred in 2004 rather than 2005, we would now have a Democratic president.

In 2004 they would have won if they had even a shred of dignity and guts and gone with a candidate who was an honest-to-goodness populist liberal. I'll admit it -- I genuinely thought that Bush was going to lose in 2004. Some argue that he did and that the results in Ohio were bad somehow. Even so, I think someone like Dean or heck, even Kucinich might have mobilized a larger turnout. The thing is, Democrats looked at Kerry and saw someone who wasn't Bush, so they voted for him. But there was a good 10% of the population or so who could have actively liked the Democratic candidate. The truth is, you only hated Bush. I don't think anyone other than his family voted for Kerry because they liked him

In 2008 I feel that there's more of an ideological void. We'll have had "2 years" of a Democratic Congress, so the presidential candidate will not be able to run on "the failures of the government" just Bush alone. And since Bush is leaving, basically it removes the taint and suddenly you're just dealing with normal Republican candidates who know all the buttons to push and the right things to say.

These days Republics really are too clever at running campaigns. It seems like only being wildly unpopular or doing something really macaccaish will lose you the election if you're a Republican. If you have two people running against each other in a party-neutral region, and both are considered equally likeable by the populace, the Republican will win because somehow the Democratic candidate will end up being smeared as some kind of sexually deviant predator with close ties to Al Qa'ida.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:00 AM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

I however, want people to ditch the protest voting until we have some semblance of stability. It may have to be establishment corporate sellout stability first before we get something we really want, but the alternative is unconscionable.

And you know, in 2000, we had that. Nobody realised what a psychopathic monster Bush would turn out to be. At the time, he looked like bog-standard worthless Republican #314159. All this "OMG YOU VOTED BUSH" nonsense forgets that.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:50 AM on September 27, 2007

The problem with the "they suck, support'em anyway" strategy is that they will take that support as an affirmation that they are on the right track.
posted by RavinDave at 6:27 AM on September 27, 2007 [3 favorites]

So let's suppose your idea was correct and all those Nader voters somehow slipped and voted for Gore... the margin would still have been narrow enough for Bush to steal Florida. Look it up.

According to the Florida Department of State election results for president in the 2000 election, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes, 2,912,790 votes to 2,912,253. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. If fewer than 1% of Nader voters had voted for Gore, and the rest voted for Nader, he would have won Florida, and the election.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:29 AM on September 27, 2007

Well, then ... it's obvious that if Nader would have won if Gore hadn't stolen his votes.
posted by RavinDave at 6:33 AM on September 27, 2007

BTW, five talk shows in one day is called a "full Ginsburg".
posted by idb at 6:59 AM on September 27, 2007

the republicans got over the possible stolen election in 1960 to win in '68

Nixon only got elected because Bobby Kennedy got shot
posted by matteo at 8:10 AM on September 27, 2007

For the record, I like Kerry.
posted by billypilgrim at 8:36 AM on September 27, 2007

If fewer than 1% of Nader voters had voted for Gore, and the rest voted for Nader, he would have won Florida, and the election.

That's a huge "if". I've never heard of a Nader voter who would've voted for Gore in any event.

There's an even bigger "if": the one that assumes that those tallies in Florida are in any way correct.
posted by chuckdarwin at 8:43 AM on September 27, 2007

kirk, it's not Nader voters who threw the election to Bush--it was the GOP and Supreme Court. (and that's not even counting the bad campaign Gore ran, and his running away from Clinton the whole time, and Lieberman being on the ballot too...)
posted by amberglow at 8:58 AM on September 27, 2007

And for all the people saying "hold your nose and vote Hillary", why don't we all wait for even one primary vote to be cast first? That discussion is really for after the primaries, and hopefully it won't even be Hillary, but someone better.

I will not vote for a Democratic candidate who is the GOP's choice, and we've all learned what happens when the DC Dems anoint a candidate--they lose--see Dukakis, Kerry, etc. Sitting Senators always make bad candidates too. Bill Clinton was not the DC establishment's choice in 92, but Hillary is today. Jimmy Carter was not either.
posted by amberglow at 9:05 AM on September 27, 2007

Nobody realised what a psychopathic monster Bush would turn out to be. At the time, he looked like bog-standard worthless Republican #314159. All this "OMG YOU VOTED BUSH" nonsense forgets that.

Bush got a lot of support on the novel idea that it would be refreshing to elect someone to office who didn't go in for all that fancy book learnin', and many were charmed by the America-first arrogance that precluded the necessity for knowing anything about how the rest of the world works. Others of us took the election seriously enough to know that this is dangerous, and we didn't need prediction of the horrors to follow to understand this. Evidence of Bush's incompetence and dishonesty was available to anyone literate enough to vote; don't try to now come off as all shocked that these qualities would continue to play out.
posted by troybob at 9:36 AM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Others of us took the election seriously enough to know that this is dangerous, and we didn't need prediction of the horrors to follow to understand this.

I recall a lot of talk about how you didn't need a strong, principled man in office, because he'll have smart, principled people around to advise him. Yeah.
posted by dreamsign at 10:11 AM on September 27, 2007

amberglow: And for all the people saying "hold your nose and vote Hillary", why don't we all wait for even one primary vote to be cast first?

This is roughly the same as "Why don't we wait until we hear the Petraeus report?". ;)
posted by RavinDave at 10:13 AM on September 27, 2007

It was a simpler time, and people were making an honest effort to get a Green Party off the ground. No one knew what was coming.

Then-Governor Bush was on Pat Robertson's TV show proclaiming love for Jesus, and his family consists of oil barons and assorted war profiteers. I don't think the "we didn't know it was going to be this bad" argument flies, frankly.

To be fair, though, Bush didn't really win 2004, so much as the Democrats lost with Kerry. Florida's Nader voters are to blame at least partially for 2000-2004 — and the rest of the country for 2004-present.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:09 PM on September 27, 2007

I've never heard of a Nader voter who would've voted for Gore in any event.

All of the people I know who voted for Nader in 2000 were California voters who voted for him because California was safely going to go for Gore and they would've voted for Gore if California had been expected to be close. (Obviously this is anecdotal and only based on people I personally know.) There were a lot of Nader supporters in close states trading votes with voters in states that were safer for Gore so their support for the Green Party would be reflected in the national results and the candidate who actually had a chance to win and was closer to their positions had a better chance to win.

You're claiming that 100% of Nader voters would not have voted for Gore. If 99% of Florida Nader voters in 2000 didn't vote for Gore, and 1% voted did, Gore would've won by 974 votes, which is almost twice Bush's official margin. I'm not a mind reader any more than you are, but it's plausible that 1% might have preferred Gore to Bush.¹

I agree that Gore ran an uninspiring campaign. I don't think he, or any Democrat, is entitled to Green Party votes, or anyone else's. He should have cruised to a big win based on his qualifications and the Clinton administration's accomplishments, and it's his fault that it came down to what some Florida voters did or didn't do². But it's a simple statement of fact that if 1% of the Florida Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, Gore would have won (at least until the Republicans tried to steal the election).

¹ For example, well before the 2000 election Gore had written a book on the environment, founded the GLOBE Program on Earth Day 1994, and strongly sponsored the Kyoto Treaty (symbolically signing it in 1998). Bush was the governor of a state that led the nation "in air pollution, in toxic chemicals released, in factories violating clean water standards" and "according to the Environmental Protection Agency, of having the dirtiest air in America, of ranking 47th in water quality, and having the seventh-highest rate of release of toxic industrial byproducts onto its land." You'd think supporters of the motherfucking Green Party might have seen a teensy-weensy difference instead of saying there wasn't any difference, as Nader himself did.

² Like the previously-unknown "stronghold" of Pat Buchanan voters in Palm Beach.

it's not Nader voters who threw the election to Bush--it was the GOP and Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's intervention was bullshit because of the conservative justices' flip-flop on states' rights and the ludicrous this-isn't'-a-precedent clause, but it did not cost Gore the election. In November 2001 a media consortium counted the votes, and Gore would not have won under any of the scenarios that actually happened. If the Supreme Court hadn't stopped the recount, Bush would have won by 493 votes. Gore would have won under some scenarios, but not in the actual recount. He would have won if he had asked for a statewide recount, but he didn't do that; he only asked for recounts in four counties (Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia) that he thought he would win.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:34 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

kirk, unless all those scenarios include all the "hanging chads" and ballots determined to be non-valid, they're bull.

it doesn't matter that he didn't demand a full state recount (altho i would have). Katharine Harris did not allow enough time for even the partial recount to occur.
posted by amberglow at 1:31 PM on September 27, 2007

Ah! Edwards is doing Public Financing, and challenged Hillary (who said she supports it) to do the same. Excellent!
posted by amberglow at 1:42 PM on September 27, 2007

"I hope that the other two will join me. As I've said, Sen. Clinton said she is for public financing so she can step forward and show she actually means it."

This threatens the hell out of DC.
posted by amberglow at 1:50 PM on September 27, 2007

and speaking of public money: Hillary's Earmarks this year
posted by amberglow at 2:03 PM on September 27, 2007

unless all those scenarios include all the 'hanging chads' and ballots determined to be non-valid, they're bull

The media consortium recount included those scenarios (they're listed at the bottom of the page) and Gore would've won if they had applied, but they didn't. "The recount also showed that the only way that Al Gore could have tallied more votes was by using counting methods that were never requested." (my emphasis)

Under "Gore request for recounts of all ballots in Broward, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach, and Volusia counties," Bush would've won by 225 votes. Under "Florida Supreme Court of all undervotes statewide," Bush would've won by 430 votes. Under the "Florida Supreme Court as being implemented by the counties, some of whom refused and some counted overvotes as well as undervotes," Bush would've won by 493 votes.

That last scenario is the only one that counts, since it's the actual recount that the US Supreme Court stopped. I don't think they should have interfered, but Bush still would have won even if they didn't.

(I'm talking about what actually happened, not what should have happened. I think Gore should've asked for a statewide recount and the recount should have included overvotes, but that's not what happened.)
posted by kirkaracha at 2:41 PM on September 27, 2007

Recounts don't really make any difference when many votes were altered to begin with.
posted by agregoli at 3:08 PM on September 27, 2007

Because of the GOP Brooks Brothers riot there, i'll never buy any analysis, because the pressure they exerted--orchestrated by the Bush campaign and paid for by them--changed things.

Hillary Hates You-- She thinks you're weak. She has no respect for you, and her lack of respect amounts to loathing--the kind of loathing that the powerful feel for the powerless. She's confident that progressives are too impotent, divided, and disorganized to deny her the nomination. ...
posted by amberglow at 4:59 PM on September 27, 2007

Y'know what happens when you vote defensively?

You end up with the shithole Senate and House you've saddled yourselves with, filled with people who have no courage, no vision, and no need to worry about disappointing the public.

Quit voting defensively. It's killing your country.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:19 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

amberglow: And for all the people saying "hold your nose and vote Hillary", why don't we all wait for even one primary vote to be cast first? That discussion is really for after the primaries, and hopefully it won't even be Hillary, but someone better.

Allow me to cite this a second time. It blends so nicely with prediction back in November '04 when I wrote:

What doubly sucks is that the DNC has already chosen our next candidate as well. Unless we get rid of people like Terry McAuliffe we'll just be going through this exact same flying-dutchman scenario in 2008 when they run Hillary (and lose). Hopefully this will shake them up, but I doubt it.

... and ...

I learned that the DNC doesn't give a fig about what membership thinks, that they have a borderline psychotic tendency to repeat the same mistakes and expect different results, and we all know that no matter what anybody wants, they will run Hillary Clinton in '08 and you will get a creepy feeling of deja vu on that election night.

Frankly, I'm focusing on one of the Olsen twins in 2020.

In short ... I've been saying that Hillary's nomination was a done deal for several years now and I've been having that stuck-in-molasses watching-a-slow-motion-trainwreck dream on a weekly basis ever since. Let's not kid ourselves about *if* she wins the nomination.
posted by RavinDave at 6:05 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Vote independent, then. Rally everyone you know to do the same. Start a movement. Get rid of the rotten Republican and Democrat parties. Do something different. You can't make things change without making changes in what you do.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:36 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

Get rid of the rotten Republican and Democrat parties.

It's difficult for me to understand why more Americans aren't concerned for the health of their democracy considering the son of a prior president won office last time and the wife of a prior president is now likely to be nominated this time. It's really quite unbelievable. What about the other third of a billion people? No one else qualified?
posted by scheptech at 10:53 PM on September 27, 2007

I heartily comment Palast's "Armed Madhouse" to you.

He points out that Nader is a smokescreen and so is the voting machine -- both the 2000 election and the 2004 election were simply swung by preventing Democratic voters from voting, or preventing their votes from being counted.

There were over 3 million votes that were cast but not counted in the last election, and these votes were overwhelmingly in Democratic districts -- and these numbers come from the official government sources.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:55 PM on September 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

I heartily comment Palast's 'Armed Madhouse' to you.
Bad things happened to the last guy that did that.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:52 AM on September 28, 2007

If Senator Clinton (please, not "Hilary"- do you refer to the other candidates by their first names?) were a man, she wouldn't have anywhere near this much doubt and vitriol thrown her way.

Grow up, America, and get over your double standard.
posted by mkultra at 6:54 AM on September 28, 2007

Puh-leeeze ...

"Hillary" is perfectly fine and not a double standard. If you say: "Clinton", you'll be forever qualifying it so that people don't confuse her with Bill. Your imagined slight would carry more weight if people routinely called Pelosi "Nancy" or Feinstein "Diane". "Hillary" also sounds like a last name, which makes the tendency for likely. And just as Dubya was promoted to "Bush" when he moved into the Oval Office, it's quite possible the same thing will happen to "Hillary".
posted by RavinDave at 7:18 AM on September 28, 2007

mkultra - have you read the rest of the thread? People are listing legitimate concerns about the Dem's chances of deposing the Republicans and she happens to be the front runner for 'em so that's why the heat - meanwhile we lately find ourselves in the bizarre position of having to use names other than last names to tell one president from another - calling her Hilary (to distinguish her from Clinton the First), is a lot more respectful than the names commonly used for the current POTUS (to distinguish him from Bush the First). My personal fave and one of the mildest ones available: The Decider.
posted by scheptech at 7:32 AM on September 28, 2007

RavinDave: ok, you're psychic--now use that power to knock her out of the race and to help Edwards. : >
posted by amberglow at 12:00 PM on September 28, 2007

Your imagined slight would carry more weight if people routinely called Pelosi "Nancy" or Feinstein "Diane".

Neither of those two get their political opponents as riled up as Clinton.

"Hillary" also sounds like a last name, which makes the tendency for likely.

What?

mkultra - have you read the rest of the thread?

Yeah, and mostly what I see is a whole lot of blather from amberglow and the OP, and not much else.

People are listing legitimate concerns about the Dem's chances of deposing the Republicans and she happens to be the front runner for 'em so that's why the heat

What you (and others) consider legitimate concerns seem to me to be a lot of Rovian talking points as part of a concerted information warfare effort to sow dissent among the Democratic base. If you look at her career objectively, she's probably worked harder in her life than any candidate from either party and has earned a reputation in Congress for her work ethic and ability to get things done.

I don't agree with all of her positions, but geez, you'd think the Dems were putting up Al Sharpton.
posted by mkultra at 1:51 PM on September 28, 2007

Also, I have one more thing to add to all the Hillary haters:

Vote in your damn primaries. Get your friends and neighbors to vote in your primaries. They get away with shit because we let them.

Looking at the 2004 IL primary/general election the primary turnout was less than half of the general election (for democrats).
posted by a robot made out of meat at 2:25 PM on September 28, 2007

Incidentally, I'm a proud member of the "ultra-left", and my personal politics align pretty closely with folks like amberglow. It just shocks me how eager people are to sabotage the chance to unseat the GOP.

The greatest lesson Rove taught the GOP was that no matter how much you disagreed with your candidate, you got the party in line behind him. The DNC would do well to learn that.
posted by mkultra at 2:43 PM on September 28, 2007 [1 favorite]

The flaw in your logic is that when the GOP is elected, they tend to act as their supporters want (excepting certain raw-meat issues they like to hold out). But when Democrats elect their people, we get shafted. We get snubbed. We get ignored. See, the GOP courts the traditional GOP base ... the problem is -- the entrenched Democrats court the GOP base too.

As long as they think they can take our vote for granted, things will NEVER change. So, no more scare tactics or bluster. Not working anymore. Gimme concrete action on issues important to the rank-n-file or drop off my radar screen.
posted by RavinDave at 2:59 PM on September 28, 2007

Senator Clinton issued a couple of gentle-but-firm smackdowns to Tim Russert in the most recent Democratic debate. I'm annoyed that the Washington Post chose two unflattering screenshots for her clips, as opposed to the relatively flattering ones for the male candidates' clips, in a story about nonverbal communication. She's been portrayed as a castrating bitch for 15 years, and I think she'll win a lot of people over by being surprisingly charming and self-deprecating in comparison to how she's portrayed. (Even if it's an act, she's pretty good at it.)

I also think, unfortunately, that she has learned from the last two elections that you only need about ~50% of the vote to win and you can win even if almost 50% don't like you. I think she's tough and ruthless enough to play hardball, more so than either Gore or Kerry were.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:23 PM on September 28, 2007

If everyone who normally doesn't bother voting in the primaries were to go vote in the primaries, and were to make their vote for whomever seems the most honest and intelligent, I'll betcha you wouldn't have Hilary as the next President.

Thing of it is, though, it takes participation to have a democracy.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:36 PM on September 28, 2007

fff, if our choices are so bad, and so limited to GOP and GOP-lite--as they are today--it's not just voting that matters, and in fact voting matters less than helping people challenge the sucky incumbents who think they have their jobs for life (and usually do). It's about who you vote for, rather than voting itself.

Even when more people vote, they don't vote in primaries, but in the general. There's a giant opening for real change and real progress only during primary season at all levels of government--one that's simply not there later in the process because of our limited system. And that challenge early does scare the incumbents of all parties--even the new online and youtube stuff has shown its power to radically alter things early, as in Macaca Allen's case and others.
posted by amberglow at 12:40 PM on September 29, 2007

and i'll remind you that Lieberman actually and very visibly lost his primary, and that a total unknown--Tasini--got 65k against Hillary's 350k in our primary here in NYC with zero media attention. All over the country, more progressive challengers were up against Emanuel and Schumer's more conservative picks--many of their picks are now the bluedog Bush-lite useless ones like Heath Shuler, and many other they picked also lost their races entirely in 06.

Our media needs to either die or stop hurting us too. They're still only reporting on whatever GOP blastfax/Drudge/Politico says every day. From the moveon bullshit to ignoring multiple rancid GOP scandals...
posted by amberglow at 12:48 PM on September 29, 2007

like this--Larry Kissell: ...He came closer to beating an incumbent Republican than any other Democrat in the country who didn’t win. After a recount, only 329 votes separated Larry from rubber stamp Republican Robin Hayes. ... In 2006 Rahm Emanuel didn’t believe in anti-war, grassroots candidates and Larry’s race was, tragically, ignored by the DCCC. “We never did get any financial help from the D Triple C. ... But they had their numbers and they were looking at certain things– which they tell us now, were wrong…
In the end Larry spent $779,341. The Hayes campaign, claiming he wasn’t a “serious” candidate, spent $2,475,169 or $40.62 per vote, as opposed to Larry’s $12.86 per vote. Imagine if Chris Van Hollen, who is heavily behind Larry’s campaign this year, had been DCCC chair in 2006 instead of Emanuel! But Emanuel heard Larry Kissell yelling “Bring the troops home” in February of 2006 and he went south… (and west, to back quasi-Democrat Heath Shuler who won and has been voting more like a Republican than like a progressive). ...
posted by amberglow at 12:55 PM on September 29, 2007

more on Florida in 2000: ... Michael Allan Leach, who, "it could be argued, played a more direct role" than most anyone else in George W. Bush's victory in Florida in 2000, the St. Petersburg Times reported at the time. Leach, an Air Force veteran, then-recent Florida State graduate and state GOP field worker, "used a laptop computer to salvage hundreds of Republican absentee votes which were in danger of not being counted because they didn't have voter identification numbers." ...
posted by amberglow at 7:03 AM on October 4, 2007

« Older An Unfortunate View From the Sky.... | And Lauren, what's the deal? A... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Shifting Demographics of Electorate September 26, 2007 10:42 AM Subscribe

Shifting Demographics of Electorate
September 26, 2007 10:42 AM Subscribe