The call for progressives to STFU and be good little obedient democrats
Primary tabs
From http://firedoglake.com/2010/01/16/ma-sen...
Here are some excerpts:
The MA Senate race is also a textbook example of how the corporatist party establishment tends to respond to these situations. Instead of wising up and making a play for the progressives by offering policy goodies, and a play for the swing voters by ditching consultant-speak and addressing them with more authentic language, they use scare tactics to try and motivate activists to work hard to avoid disaster. That works only to some degree, and we’ll find out on Tuesday whether it’s enough to stave off the right-wing in this case.
and:
The party establishment’s reaction to things like voting for Nader, or staying home at a key election, is to treat it as a deviant act. Those who engage in it are seen as somehow flawed, stupid, demented, or otherwise showing signs of a lack of logical thought. In fact, actions like supporting a third party candidate or abstaining from an election are entirely predictable and commonplace reactions to a political coalition that has decided to ignore and at times belittle your needs and values.
and:
That’s why Obama’s decision to operate his administration as Clinton’s third term was so disastrous. It immediately recreated the political conditions of the 1990s, where progressives were unhappy and shut out from policymaking, and Democrats were so in hock to corporations that they lost touch with the people who put them in office and were beaten out by an insane right-wing that has a better message and a more common touch.
This is a very good article as well: http://www.starkreports.com/2010/01/10/t...
Last night, I got caught up in a discussion of why things look so bad in Mass. Here’s what I wrote:
the folks from the other side that are so fired up to vote are hearing:
1.there’s a gov’t takeover of healthcare in the works;
2.that going to your doctor will be like going to DMV;
3.that their taxes will be increased to pay for deadbeat’s Viagra and abortions;
4.that those with health care will see their services rationed,
5.etc, etc, etc
On the other hand, folks that voted for Democrats in 2008 have learned:1.they made Joe Lieberman President;
2.they will be mandated to send money to a health insurance company that may or may not provide adequate care;
3.Obama’s promises mean diddly; if you have decent health care, he wants to tax it;
4.the rich deserve everything Bush gave them and then some… the stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts…
5.Wall Street bankers deserve 7 digit bonuses on the taxpayers’ dime;
6.War is awesome
7.torturers are pretty cool too… prosecutions smoshecutions!!
8.Cap and trade? EFCA? Financial reform? Accountability of any sort? As far as Democarts are concerned, [Yawn... Whatevah...]And all along, those of us that wanted to hold Obama to his promises (dating back to the campaign and the fight for FISA) have been told by far too many people that we needed to pipe down and defer to Obama’s secret plan.
Z
Comments
Obama is Bush's 3rd Term
Wow, what collection of falsehoods, I don't have time for all these lies, this one stands out:
"That’s why Obama’s decision to operate his administration as Clinton’s third term was so disastrous"
Utter bullshit, the man's talking out of his ass.
Note to Lambert
I know that a lot of you are just crazy over anything clinton ..
... and I ask you, why?
I think there are a lot of similarities between this administration and clinton's ... like all the rubin-ites on the economic team and the dlc henchman himself, emanuel ... and how they operate.
Let's review some of the wonderful things that bill clinton did:
1. He didn't just pass nafta, which by the way, bush sr, couldn't, he PROMOTED nafta and sent his little hit man, rahm, to muscle dems to vote for it.
2. Allowed policies to stay in effect that ... I'm not sure if he initiated them, probably not ... that led to hundreds of dead Iraqi children.
3. The de-regulation madness of wall street hit into high gear when clinton was in office and much of the de-regulation that led to our recent meltdown passed right on by with the help from clinton's pen.
4. Passed welfare reform that took apart part of the social safety net.
5. Relaxed the limits on media ownership which has helped lead to this wonderful media we have.
6. His reign also spawned a generation of know-it-all democrat corporate sell-out "triangulists" whose political acumen is way overrated due to their luck of having Perot run twice which took away votes from the republicans.
7. He passed into law a provision on student loans that makes people that have drug possession convictions ineligible for federal financial aid. What a guy --- he even admitted that he smoked pot himself, but that was him so it is different ...
8. clinton passed The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, an act dealing with crime and law enforcement that became law in 1994. It is the largest crime bill in the history of the US at 356 pages and provided for 200,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion in funding for prisons and $6.1 billion in funding for prevention programs which were designed with significant input from experienced police officers. When clinton entered office, the prison population-local, state and federal-was about 1.3 million. When he left, that number has ballooned to over 2 million ... in 8 years.
I could go on and on ...
And for those that want to brag about how he balanced the budget and how great the economy was back then, those were all short term effects due to something he had absolutely no hand in (the internet revolution), the early influx of cheap goods from NAFTA and other free trade treaties, his abhorrent secretary of treasury, rubin, talking greenspan into exploding the money supply to reflect the "productivity miracle", and the consequent stock market bubble. In the end, we all saw how real that was when many highly capitalized companies couldn't produce anything and went bankrupt with wall street walking away rich.
clinton did a hell of a lot of selling out during his 8 years in office ... on his own. A hell of a lot. And he also got rich real quick once he left office partly due to speeches to entities of which his policies benefited. The clinton apologist's creed is that clinton was "forced" into corporate friendly polices by the big, bad republicans. Bullshit ... he sold out on his own and he financially benefited off of those sell-outs once he left office.
You people that back clinton are really lost IMO. What is it, did you rally towards him becoz of the lewinsky situation and forget what he had effectuated over his 8 years in office or are you feminists that back hillary and have adopted bill as a result?
clinton was a disgrace. his damage to the party is still being felt. He helped create this quasi-police state that we now live in, his reign led to an acceleration of the financialization of our economy, the concentration of our media, the export of manufacturing jobs, free trade, deregulation, free market madness, and other corporate friendly policies for 8 years ... 8 years in which labor fell further behind while wall street flourished.
Z
You do?
That's odd. I think it was Will Rogers who said something like It's not what you don't know that's the problem; it's what you "know" that's not so.* Then again, I suppose it depends on how you define "crazy."
I'm basically with the PA truck driver who said, of the OFB, "What part of the Clinton years don't they like?" The peace? Or the prosperity?" (And before you say "Kosovo," it's not anywhere near Iraq.)
And sure, Bill Clinton's on the left end of the neo-liberal spectrum, as is/was Hillary. That doesn't mean that there weren't concrete, material improvements in people's lives under the Clinton administration, because there were. Those improvements were halted under Bush, and are being clawed back under Obama. I'd say that any evaluation of the Clinton era that doesn't want to end up in the CDS file has to take these concrete, material improvements into account. There's also the fact that Clinton didn't come to power through election fraud, as both Bush and Obama did.
I'd also say that politicians, even exceptional ones like Bill Clinton, are only as good as the times allow them to be. Clinton took office as the Conservative Ascendancy was reaching its apogee (reached with W). I don't think there was a way for him to do anything but play defense. So I don't have the sense of squandered opportunity with Clinton that I do with Obama; I'm not sure the opportunities were there to be had. And discrediting the winger nutjobs, which was the outcome of the Lewinsky matter, was no small achievement, in retrospect.
UPDATE * Thinking over your headline, "I know that a lot of you are just crazy over anything clinton..." it seems to me that if this were true, it would be reflected in the content of the posts. Unfortunately, that's not happening; there's a ton of stuff on single payer, more on banksters and finance, and more on the state of the Democratic party and what to do about it.
I take it, then, that putting a demonstrable falsehood in your subject line is, in your view, an effective means of making your points credible?
UPDATE I missed this gem:
I don't know how many feminists you know or work with, Z, but in my experience the behavior you're describing is more than a little unlikely.
You want to atack the headline, but not the facts
What exactly amongst those 8 points that I made, do you "know" that I don't know?
I explained the "prosperity". The fact of the matter is, is that workers fell further behind during the clinton years despite the low unemployment.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Street0...
And would you please name some ... any ... of those amorphous "concrete, material improvements in people's lives" that you claim happened under clinton?
Is the fact that he won two elections w/o resorting to election fraud one of his great accomplishments? If so, hoooray!
Another great accomplishment: clinton discredits wingnut jobs that attempt to get him impeached based upon a sexual encounter with an intern. Another big hooray ... yeah, that really paid huge dividends in the elections that followed in which bush won two terms and the republicans won control of congress. Not to mention that when clinton walked into the white house, the dems had control of at least the house, as I recall, which they quickly lost ... probably due to clinton's pimping of nafta.
I never compared clinton to the worst president that this country ever had ... I don't believe in a no-president left behind standard.
clinton had an odd way of playing defense: damn near give big business whatever they wanted. Well, it worked out pretty well for him ...
But anyway, please continue ... it's kind of funny in a pathetic way.
Z
In response to your 2nd update, I'm asking a question about ...
... why it appears that a fairly large % of the posters here seem to like bill clinton becoz I honestly don't know. And after your post, I still don't know.
And I could be wrong about that "large %"; I haven't administered a poll regarding the matter.
Z
Well, I agree with you on this
"I don't have the sense of squandered opportunity with Clinton that I do with Obama"
Z
Ho hum
Let's start at the beginning and then move on. You wrote:
I point out:
You respond:
Well, you don't need to administer a poll. All you need to do is make yourself familiar with the blog by reading it, or check out the "All posts" link in the menubar. Are you this lazy in all the generalizations you make, or only in the generalizations that you make about this blog? Before I invest further time, I'd like to clear this up.
* * *
A hasty search for Bush v. Clinton economic performance shows this chart, for example: Jobs with good wages up 4.7% under Clinton, down 1% under Bush, people out of poverty up 2.29% under Clinton, down 4.33% under Bush. Those are concrete material benefits that make a difference in people's lives. As I said, any account of the Clinton years needs to factor these in.
IACF.
Was Bill Clinton liberal enough for me? Hell no, a thousand times no. But I'm grown up enough to realize that anyone as liberal as I am doesn't stand a chance in hell of being elected President - at least, not the way things are at the moment. (I think we could definitely shift that famous Overton window to the left, if we ever get organized enough.)
Bill Clinton created 22 million jobs, had the most peaceful presidency in decades, and created programs like Americorps that benefited the poor and working class. He was also a good President for women, passing the Family Leave Act and making sure his Cabinet was almost 50% women (for which he got massive amounts of static from the Village, by the way - it was a REALLY big deal at the time).
Obama will never accomplish anything that benefits the country that much.
Thank you for providing some facts about the clinton era
Peace is a huge thing ... there wasn't total peace mind you, but definitely one of the more peaceful presidencies of recent times.
I don't agree with the "clinton created 22 million jobs" narrative ... there were events that were outside of his control (like the expansion of the internet) that led to some of those jobs. And, like I've written about earlier, much of this economic growth was in the end empty and was caused by the initial stimulus due to cheap goods coming into this country due to the free trade treaties, the increased financialization of our economy, and the actions of the federal reserve ... all of which eventually caused this country much more harm than good.
I'll also contend that the poor and middle class fell further behind during the clinton years ... partly due to the financialization of our economy which really ramped up during the clinton era. Here's an article that you may want to read for some info on that subject from a writer that I respect a lot and possesses a very intelligent, objective mind, Paul Street: http://dissidentvoice.org/Sept05/Street0...
Thanks though ... sincerely ... you make some good points.
Z
i forgot to stress one very important
Detail which Lambert mentioned...taxing the wealthy to create a stable economy. This is a centerpiece of both Clintons' economic philosophy which Obama, fatally, refuses to embrace, and it is liberal economics, not neoliberal. During his time, the idea that we were all in it together, that there was a larger society to which we were responsible, flourished and took hold. This "it takes a Village" idea was totally absent during Reagan's time, as Ronnie's famous "nine most terrible words" were on everyone's lips.
The same poisonous Libertarian bullshit about how we all have to be "personally responsible" is on Obama's lips too. From a Reaganite like Obama, those words mean one thing: "Fuck you, I've got mine."
The real victory of the Clinton era was that, in a broad sense, economic liberalism was proven to be correct, and "voodoo economics" was proven to be incorrect. (I agree that NAFTA and the loosening of mortgage lending regulations were two big flies in that ointment, but we see how they have failed, unlike raising taxes on the wealthy.)
Alas that the ones who came after him didn't run on that concept. But then, his Party never liked him very much.
Again, I do not grade presidents by comparing them to the ...
.. worst president of all-time. By the way, the post that I linked to above compares clinton to the republican heyday of the 1980s ... which not only supports the contention that too little changed between those years and the clinton era for the poor, but that it got worse for them during those wonderful clinton years.
Your method of proving the concrete and material IMPROVEMENT in people's lives during the clinton regime is extremely flawed, which is essentially comparing him to the worst president of all-time who was someone WHO FOLLOWED clinton and counting any part of clinton's performance that was better than bush jr.'s as a "concrete and material "IMPROVEMENT". I'm kind of quirky in that whenever someone wants to cite IMPROVEMENTS to a situation, I use data that PRECEDES it to evaluate the claim, not the data that SUCCEEDS it. In my world, if one is trying to measure IMPROVEMENTS, again, shouldn't they compare it to the person they followed like the article I linked to above that compared clinton to bush SR. and reagan????? I can see why you want this focus this discussion over my title. Actually, you probably should becoz you are sounding more ridiculous by the post on everything else.
And getting to that all-important title line for which calls into question everything else that I write ... according to you ... I don't have time to read ALL of the posts on this blog. I go from the posts that I've read, which are quite a few becoz, for the most part, I like this blog. And I also don't think that reading all of those posts somehow provides a measurement of how many people on this blog like bill clinton. From many of the posts that I have read, there seems to be a substantial portion of you that are bitter that hillary clinton did not win the nomination and are defensive about any criticism about anything clinton.
You constantly rail against the "legacy" parties ... and I agree with most of the points that you make about them (maybe even all, but I don't have time to read everyone of your posts on the subject) ... but anyway, if clinton would have won the nomination, would you still be railing against both parties or would the democrats be acceptable to you?
Again!, what exactly amongst those 8 points on my initial reply do you "know" that I don't know?
Z
Ho hum reprise
The word "know" in your subject line, of course.
I love the argument that "you don't have time" to become familiar with the blog before making insulting generalizations about it, and its writers. Persuasive! Way to build your credibility there. I look forward to hearing of your successes....
hahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahaha
Z
Indeed
So, back to square 1. Do you just make shit up in your subject lines? Or everywhere?
Year one Obama Vs Year one Clinton:
Year one Clinton:
signed the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
Clinton's attempt to allow gays to serve in the armed forces garnered criticism from the left (for being too tentative in promoting gay rights) and from the right who opposed any effort to allow gays to serve).
On July 17, 1996, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13011 - Federal Information Technology, ordering the heads of all federal agencies to fully utilize information technology to make the information of the agency easily accessible to the public. [And if you don't know why this matters..perhaps you should ask]
Clinton controversially supported ratification of the North American Free Trade Agreement [BIG BIG BAD AND PISSED ME OFF ROYALLY Z]
Clinton signed the Brady Bill into law on November 30, 1993
In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a Republican vote.
A] It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses,[48] and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers
Oh yeah, Travelgate controversy Counsel Kenneth Starr investigated the firings and found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Clintons.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Year one Obama:
Obama accomplished a lot, that Bush tried to do, but failed.
There's FISA, AFTER HE WON, as the newly elected President Obama voted for a Bill he said he was against, then quit the Senate to avoid helping Dems with other votes.
TARP, Dead in the water under Bush, but revived by Obama.
Tax Cuts for the wealthy [called stimulus],
3 separate expansions of the AF-PAK War,
Continuation of the Iraq war,
Keeping Guantanamo open, expanding the Bagram prison complex,
Successfully arguing before the Supreme Court for the destruction of Habeas Corpus,
Expanding our rendition program,
Health Insurance Bailout Bill,
Cutting Medicare,
Cutting Medicaid,
Another Bailout bill [4 Trillion this time],
The right to seize citizens funds until financial institutions can be made whole
...and I believe he is on track for the big take down of Social Security next year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So let's give Obama a little credit where it's due, he's been far more effective implementing Bush programs than Bush ever was...and people just love the way he talks.
Anybody comparing these two first years is beyond deranged Z
Thanks for the facts ... I sincerely do appreciate them
I don't like either one of them, but I agree that obama is on his way to becoming a worse president than bill clinton.
There are strong similarities in the economic teams of clinton and obama ... in philosophy, action, personnel and influence (robber rubin). And that is not the only area where there are similarities in personnel ... podesta and emanuel come immediately to mind. They both have also made balancing the budget a big priority at the expense of social programs and have heavily favored corporate and wall street interests.
Thanks,
Z
Being a feminist isn't an insult here
so I'm not sure what you meant to accomplish with this:
"or are you feminists that back hillary"
But please, do go on. I'm all attention.
Thanks, Valhalla
The behavior described didn't seem typical....
For God's sake, it wasn't meant as an insult
Why would it be? It's pretty ridiculous and petty that some folks on this board take it that way.
It seems to me from the posts, and I don't know for sure becoz I can't see your faces, that there are a lot of women on this blog. And there also seems to me to be a bit of bitterness that hillary clinton did not get the democratic nomination. So, I don't think that question was unreasonable ... not that you have to be a feminist to be a female that backs hillary clinton, mind you ... becoz I don't really see how she is separate from the democratic party establishment that so many of you rail against. In fact, she was a PART of the democratic party establishment IMO ... I think you'd have a hard time finding someone that felt different ... and I'm trying to understand why IT APPEARS that so many of you SEEM to have such a strong preference for her. And I'm also trying to figure out why there APPEARS to be many people on this board that are bill clinton apologists and also APPEAR to be against the democratic party establishment.
Z
Marginal but not insignificant
Thanks to a recent snowstorm, I had the opportunity to observe that there are at least 17 empty houses on the 2 streets surrounding mine, plus the 5 on my street.
How many of those homes would still be empty, had a hypothetical President Clinton implemented HOLC in Jan 2009?
And contrary to your imagination, we would still be raking a hypothetical President Clinton over the coals, for all failures to implement policies that helped citizens. Because that's what advocates and activists do. We don't cheerlead for politicians. In 2007/8 many of us reached the decision that Clinton was best equipped to do the best job of implementing the policies we support. But that support surely didn't include the mindless defenses that supporters of Obama have spouted off since he reached the position it was so dire he achieve.
Also, your continued conflation of Hillary and Bill Clinton is quite insulting. Women are independent of their husbands, as lambert pointed out. Hell, she disagreed with her husband on NAFTA. Also, her financial advisors were totally different from Obama's. Which is important, since those are the people she would have been advised by, instead of the people from 1992.
Finally, your continued assertion that H. Clinton would have been no different than her husband, also ignores the 8+ years that everyone has had to observe which of his policies were failures, and which ones weren't.
And our "bitterness" over Clinton's primary loss doesn't really stem from some emotional "What Might Have Been!" but from the actual fraud and manipulation that took place, ensuring H. Clinton never got the nomination. Injustice should offend everyone.
Many of you seem to have come to the conclusion ...
...but I don't know if that holds for you personally ... that both of these parties are hopeless and not worth working within. And for those that feel that way and still are bitter about hillary not getting the nomination, my question is what the f' is the difference if hillary won ... she is about establishment as they come. The only major difference is that she is a woman.
I have never made the assertion that hillary and bill are both one in the same, though personally I don't think there'd be a whole lot of difference in them as presidents. I didn't notice much difference in her campaign ... she didn't say much that distanced herself from many ... any? ... of her husband's policies. At least not credibly.
No shit that wives are different than their husbands and husbands from their wives, but she is as democratoc establishment as they get ... she's a dlcer for God's sake. And how many courageous stands did she take as a senator against the status quo. I can't remember any ... maybe you do, if so, tell me.
Robert Reich, who was there, said hillary was only against the timing of nafta (http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/02/...) not the substance of it. She was for nafta in principle and has actually praised nafta and never made any stand against it prior to the primaries. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/...
Completely separate from this discussion, at this point, I'd be willing to bet that she would be better than what we have.
In what way do you believe that hillary was screwed over in the primaries ... I'm very susceptible to being offended and outraged, I just need some basis for it and quite possibly you could provide it ... seriously.
Z
The conclusion I have reached is that
Hillary Clinton is not the POTUS, Obama is, and that is our reality. Taking into account how he got there, and what he has done - and not done - since he took the oath, how the party has marginalized and elbowed out many from their liberal - yes, liberal - wing in order to help bring us policies and legislation that seem more out of the GOP playbook, why on earth would I feel compelled to continue to support that party and the party leadership that made it all happen?
As to how Hillary got screwed over, and meaning no disrespect, but were you in a cave during primary season? There is so much information on this subject - and by information, I don't mean opinion, I mean honest-to-God facts - that I don't understand how you could possibly not be informed on this subject.
What do you think feminism is, then?
Have you ever met any feminists, or worked with them?
How, then, could you imagine that saying that a feminist would "adopt" Bill Clinton because they supported Hillary, would be anything other than insulting?
Just trying to understand...
OMG! The "bitter" riff!
I'll spell it out very slowly here. When Z writes:
This is beyond bizarre, since a feminist would be highly unlikely to "adopt" a man because they respected his wife. Hillary, for example, has an independent existence from Bill.
One can only wonder what Z imagines feminism to be.
I'm just trying to understand why ...
... there appears to be many here ... like yourself ... who profess that both of these parties are hopeless and yet are bitter that hillary did not win the nomination. hillary is as democratic establishment as they get ... she's a dlcer for God's sake ... how exactly would the power structure have changed with her heading the party.
Well, she is a woman, so maybe that is what makes you turn such a blind eye to the fact that she is, again, as dlc as one can be. Maybe some of you believe that having a woman in charge would change things for the better becoz that would empower women within the party more ... personally I find that argument somewhat persuasive. It's really hard to imagine the party being much worse and I wish that we had more women in positions of power. When was the last woman world leader to start a war? margaret thatcher?
It's really hard to back hillary and not also absorb bill in the process becoz that is somewhat what she ran on: her experience in the white house. And again she did not distance herself from her husband's policies much during the campaign.
Z
One can only wonder what Z imagines feminism to be.
No answer.
We seem to have run into a new demographic of leftists who aren't able to engage on point because they don't have the analytical tools. FairLeft was one; Z seems to be another. It's interesting.
And then there is, of course, the lying:
Sure, she's on the left side of neo-liberal, as I said, so "turn a blind eye" is just a lie.
Her policies were marginally better than the right side of neo-liberalism and would have made a material difference in some lives -- HOLC, for example, would have been a lot better than Obama's cramdown kabuki. In my mind, that was the Dem Party's last chance, and they blew it.
If you'd bothered to read the blog, or ask, you'd know all this. But you don't have time to do that. Rather, you hurl feces and announce that you're trying to understand -- another riff I've heard before, from the same demographic.
You're pathetic ...
... and you are so much less smarter than you think you are ... and that I thought you were. And I'd have to honestly say that I'm very surprised by that.
You hang on to the title line and your demands that I define feminism to you and blissfully ignore everything else in my posts which it appears that you have no answers for ... which is a lot.
I know what feminism is and it is hard to imagine that the election of a woman president would not further feminism's goals: equal rights and women's rights. And you could tear that apart as being too broad or too simplistic or whatever. I expect you to becoz you have yet to tell me what exactly amongst those 8 points on my initial reply that you "know" that I don't know. Oh, lookey there, there is the title line ...
And that's great that you have recently discovered that the democratic party is hopelessly corrupt ... though I have to wonder what the hell you were thinking prior to that and if this discovery isn't largely rooted in some bitterness that hillary didn't get the nomination. You certainly overlooked quite a bit if it took you this long to come to that realization. But I guess that you were teetering on the edge and that "marginal" difference between her and her opponents tipped the scales to where there is now no way that you can work with either of the "legacy" parties. One can only hope that your recent "discovery" is unconditional.
Could the source of your discontent largely be that she was a candidate who was a woman who you felt was mistreated? You admit that the differences between her and her opponents was marginal. It certainly was a factor wasn't it? And is there anything wrong with that being a factor when one looks at the mess that our male dominated power structure has produced?
Z
Your suicide request is granted!
Congratulations!
I let mithras hang about because he discredits his own cause, but I don't choose to discredit the left, and your work isn't original enough, and your writing isn't good enough, to curate you. Bye.
darn!
I spent all that time laying out a response only to find Z suicided in the meantime.
Although, since this seems to be becoming a bit of a pattern, maybe I can just bookmark this thread and reuse when the next person shows up to school me in how wrong and stupid we all are. Recycling!
Yeah, it's weird
The new breed of leftie commenter...
And the amazing thing is, he could respond directly very easily. But he doesn't. I don't get it.
More lies...
More lies from Z
"There are strong similarities in the economic teams of clinton and obama"
Untrue, Clinton started with a Rubin whose views were far different than where he is now. For example Rubin did not support repeal of Glass-Stegal until 1999. Obama started out with right wing extremists in his economic team. And has consistantly ignored advice from right center economist that have warned his policies are too right wing, too biased towards the rich to work.
"There are strong similarities of clinton and obama ... in philosophy, action"
What shit, what utter shit, you either know nothing of history or you are liar. Since I just gave a history that lays this claim to waste, you must be a liar.
"They both have also made balancing the budget a big priority at the expense of social programs and have heavily favored corporate and wall street interests."
What complete bullshit, Clinton balanced the budget by taxing the rich. Clinton budgets increased the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds, Obama has already slashed more from Medicare and Medicaid in his first year than all of Clinton's social cuts in 8 years combined. Obama now plans to slash Social Security Benefits and will attempt privatize by forcing people to buy private annuities that can be seized by the government should the financial firm fail. This so investers can be made whole. This with out doubt the most extreme right wing social policy possible.
The budget deficit inherited from the Reagan/Bush presidency was staggering. Those first 100 days of Clinton, while being attacked from all sides, the course was actually set for a economic recovery and boom the US had not seen since the sixties. Had Clinton waited as Obama has done, that boom would not have occured.
At every level you sell lies Z, at every level, go work for Pravda Z and take your historical lies with you.
"Lies"
There are similarities between the economic teams ... they both have strong influences from robber rubin. I don't remember this being a comparison between obama's first year and clinton's first year. The original thing that set this off was a comment from something that I posted in which the poster compared obama's first term to the end of bill's second ... referring to it as a clinton 3rd term. It is hard to not see this a continuation of the economic policies of the clinton adminstration's 2nd term when so many people come from the same tree that was so influential at the end of the clinton era: the robber rubin tree. If you haven't (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/sto...).
In response to: "There are strong similarities of clinton and obama ... in philosophy, action"
You: What shit, what utter shit, you either know nothing of history or you are liar. Since I just gave a history that lays this claim to waste, you must be a liar.
Me: Please be more specific ... and, if you would, could you be a little bit more articulate in explaining why I "must be a liar" in making the aforementioned statement?
Me: "They both have also made balancing the budget a big priority at the expense of social programs and have heavily favored corporate and wall street interests."
Me again: See Welfare Reform
I'm amazed that you would contest that clinton "heavily favored corporate and wall street interests". But you are on a bit of a roll, so go right ahead ...
I would make the point that the economy was recovering by the time that clinton walked into office. And in addition to the other comments that I've made about the big ... ultimately empty ... "economic boom" during the clinton years, clinton had a wildly inflated stock market to tap into via capital gains to help balance the budget.
Z
Er, no.
What I wrote:
Of course, the fact that you're lying about what I write doesn't necessarily mean that you're lying about what others write. As the riff goes, I'm trying to understand...
Clinton vetoed the first two efforts to reform US welfare
"Me again: See Welfare Reform" - Z
Clinton vetoed the first two efforts to reform US welfare policies.
The bill that became law was approved July 18, 1996 in the House by a vote of 256-170, and approved in the Senate on July 23, 1996 by a vote of 74-24.
The House approved the final version of the bill July 31 by a vote of 328 to 101, and the Senate approved the final version on August 1 by a vote of 78-21.
SO FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS BASIC ARITHMETIC SKILLS...THAT'S A VETO PROOF passage.
Z can't do basic arithmetic, so he's either too stupid, or thinks we are too stupid to notice the vote count.
Also Z can't count sequentially, so he's either too stupid, or thinks we are too stupid to notice in 1996 the Republicans controlled both houses of congress WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what Obama faces today when he is cheer leading the passage of extreme right wing legislation with veto proof Democratic majorities.
As I pointed out above, for the most part [with exceptions carefully noted in CAPS] Bill's first year was fairly liberal, WHICH IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what Obama did in his first year when Barak cheer lead the passage of extremist, right wing legislation.
"I would make the point that the economy was recovering by the time that clinton walked into office." - Z
This is a oft repeated Republican talking point [lie]...which explains your support Obama, who has the same policies of Bush.
Sorry Z, go to DU, TPM or other hack blogs and sell your pack of lies.
Only an idiot...
would punish Martha Coakley, and thereby themselves as a resident of Massachusetts, to spite some so-called establishment that never would have selected her as the candidate, had the choice been said "establishments" in the first place, by sitting out this election. Scott Brown is an abomination. I would march out there just to vote against him. As it is, Coakley is a decent candidate, and would easily fit to the Left of nearly every sitting US Senator, and would be a step toward more female members of the Senate.
You're right...
wanting to stop a horrible Health Whatever bill by not voting for Coakley makes one an idiot.
"So-called establishment?" Please do explain what you think those words mean.
And please elaborate on your statement about how Martha Coakley is "to the left." What action is she prepared to take that would distinguish her from any other Democratic Senator? She certainly isn't standing up for women's rights as she pledged to do just a few weeks ago, before she won the nomination. Seems like she's in total lockstep with the National Party to me.
As many on the left do, you seem to mistake insult and dismissal for cogent argument.
she actually is liberal
I don't go along with the idiot comment because a lot of very smart people have been having a very hard time with all this.
She's definitely not a party renegade, or an independent like Sanders. She was probably going to go along with the health insurance bill (absent Stupak) all along. That wasn't a problem for me in the primaries because of the candidates, she was the least rah-rah about it; none of them was pushing Medicare for All. And as far as the general, well, Congresspeople with far more juice and on-the-record support for SP caved under (afaik) a lot less pressure.
But she will likely be a consistent left vote on any issue where Obama and party pooh-bahs aren't whipping like rabid dogs for an anti-liberal or anti-woman outcome. The argument to abstain or vote against her isn't that she'd be a bad Senator, it's that people think this moment in time is the perfect opportunity to send the Democrats a message.
She may have been a liberal at some point,
but I suspect that she will not be one for long, not in the atmosphere that is the US Senate, where being a liberal gets you exactly nowhere, and earns you no points with the powers-that-be.
If she threw women over before the election, what kinds of selling out will she do on issues like Social Security and Medicare? She's also a big-time law-and-order person - not exactly a liberal in that arena, and one wonders where she will come down on things like civil liberties and privacy rights.
Brown's most assuredly not better, on any issue, but in some respects, I see him as irrelevant to this conversation. What concerns me is that the Coakley election is as clear a sign as any we've had that the party is not interested in welcoming liberals into any national elective office - and Coakley, if she wants to be a player, is going to have to go over to the dark side - she's already shown her willingness to do so.
Bernie Sanders is more liberal than Coakley
And he too, has caved. So have Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer, and Lynne Woolsey.
There is no progressive pony. They will all march in lockstep with Obama's rightwing agenda unless we show them that going rightward has consequences.
big time law and order
are you saying that because she's a prosecutor, and all prosecutors are supposed to be big time law and order people, or is there evidence? I'm genuinely curious, because everything I've seen that purports to show she's overzealous or whatever, is pretty questionable, or the type of thing pushed at TL (which I know you don't buy uncritically, certainly), and I've seen pretty much nothing to show she's bad on civil rights or privacy. If there was evidence, I'm pretty sure it would have been dug up by either Capuano supporters in the primaries or TL. Now, of course, doing almost any sort of research on Coakley is totally poisoned.
Personally, I think I would have an easier time making up my mind if I didn't feel like I was getting NOW NOW NOW from all sides. It's fine to argue that we need to send Dems a message (I agree with that) but it's not so easy for say a Mass. voter like me to take on the burden of someone like Scott Brown for what I think is an extremely small chance that a 'message' will be received and heard and a rather big chance that it will be misinterpreted. People outside Mass. can, if the effort fails, say 'oh well that didn't work out' but I'm stuck with Brown as a Senator. And I really think it's pretty cavalier to say "yeah but it's only 3 years" when 3 years is plenty to give him an incumbent's advantage.
I think it is a lot easier for non-Massachusetts
residents to weigh in on what would be the best course of action, and I don't envy you having to make a choice about whom to vote for, or whether to vote at all. Certainly, when I, as a Maryland resident, chose not to vote the top of the ticket in 2008, it was a moral victory only, as Maryland went overwhelmingly for Obama - I wasn't risking a McCain victory in any way.
As for Coakley, I guess it strikes me that her prosecutorial background, and her passion for bringing justice for the victims of crime, could be easily co-opted for the cause of anti-terror efforts, many of which have involved a fairly disturbing tendency to forget we have a Constitution and rights that ought not to be abrogated. She'll be on a larger stage, able to participate in decision-making that concerns bringing the terrorists to justice and keeping them from carrying out their evil plots here in the homeland. I'm uneasy. Maybe I have no reason to be.
As an aside, I'm not someone who automatically takes the side of the accused, although I do believe we need to take seriously the presumption of innocence and make sure everyone's rights are scrupulously protected.
Where is Coakley's line in the sand? Does anyone know? We thought she had drawn one with respect to abortion rights, and then she moved that line. What else will she be willing to compromise on? I don't even know how she justified her changed position on the health care bill.
I'm sorry that this election may result in a qualified candidate losing to someone who is being described as a Neanderthal, but the confluence of events and sentiment and anger people are feeling places this election squarely in the position of becoming a referendum not on the candidates, but on the party.
I could post Coakley's explanation of her change of mind
her, if anyone's interested. She did respond when I sent her an outraged email the day after the flip, but it was mostly along the lines of not letting Republicans obstruct reform, she's still pro-choice so she's only relectantly going along with the bill but it will help some people, blah blah blah. It was much better written than most of what passes for Congressional apologetics, but the content was the same.
On her law and order thing -- I'm extremely frustrated right now because tracking down research on Coakley anything is near impossible. But I remember hearing someone discuss how immediately after 9/11 Coakley jumped all over anti-Muslim discrimination that was popping up all over the place. She does favor civilian, rather than military, trials for suspected terrorists (but I only found that because of course Brown is all over her for being soft on terror, blah blah blah). I've heard other stuff that would indicate she's fairly good on preserving rights, but it was quite a while ago and I don't remember the source. It may have been Coakley herself, which wouldn't be the greatest source.
In response to some questions...
Dear Z:
This thread is all over the place, and so are many of your statements, so it's a bit difficult to respond with any clarity or focus. I think your bewilderment about Corrente is due to a mix of factors, including a misperception of opinions toward the Clintons and some ignorance as to the general nature of the discourse here.
First off, what has gotten lost is the beginning of your original post, which is really too bad because it nails the current conditions in Mass., at least from my grounds-level view. The Democratic Party has moved in and has certainly gone with scare tactics over policy goodies or authentic speech. Staying home is indeed being treated as a deviant act; Lambert has posted elsewhere with a few prominent examples. I would happily provide more. (however, note: I'm also growing increasingly annoyed with the easy calls from "progressives" to sacrifice Mass. voters to the horrible Brown in order to prove a point. Again, where the f*ck were you people when it mattered?)
Back on point: this thread really could have been an interesting discussion of the above. That would have been great. But, as your excerpts point out, presentation is everything. And you really blew in here and opened up with (I paraphrase): What the hell is wrong with you people? Are you just stupid, or are you feminists? Do you really, really not see how that juxtaposition works?
Then you followed up with a bunch of CDS-fueled talking points, mostly without references, all of which the members of this site (Clinton supporters and non-supporters alike) have heard and refuted so many times that honestly, I think we're too bored to respond to at this point.
To take issue with your first assumption: you are exaggerating the extent and quality of support for both Clintons here. Your implication seems to be that just because we don't take every opportunity to mark out either or both Clintons as evil, corporatist monsters, then we must irrationally and overemotionally adore them, singling out women? feminists? in particular in this regard. This IS a CDS-fueled meme that is both false and insulting. For instance I am a feminist AND I supported Clinton, not a feminist SO I supported Clinton (Hillary, that is). Also, it's very poor argumentation, as you're playing the strawman game: Why are we all so "crazy about anything Clinton?" We're not. End of discussion. Now that wasn't very illuminating, was it?
If you're genuinely bewildered, then please either take the time to really look around -- I don't think there's anyone here who is under a lot of illusions about either Clinton -- or ask your questions sans insulting implications.
Or do a bit more research. I can't tell from the many accusations you throw out about Bill what it is exactly you're talking about. For instance, when you talk of deregulation madness, I hope you're not referencing the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The Gramm-Leach bill was introduced by Republicans well after the Republican takeover of Congress in '94 and passed Congress with an overwhelmingly veto-proof majority (Senate 90-8, House 362-57). It can hardly be laid at Clinton's door.
I clicked through to your dissidentvoices link, and I have to say that while I don't feel like I have time to deconstruct the whole thing, both the link and references seem to elide easily over actions by Clinton (or pushed by Clinton) and legislation enacted while Clinton was president. There's a big difference there. Like Lambert, I did a quick search and turned up this on the wage differential:
In other words, the situation is rather more, dare I say, nuanced than you are presenting it.
As Anne says, there's plenty of information out there on the problems (travesties) of the primaries. There's plenty of information here on it as well. And on the Clintons, and on the CDS. While I think pretty much everyone here is happy to discuss most subjects, it's really not our obligation to teach you if you can't be bothered to do a bit of the legwork yourself. If you really, really want to get into it, then slow down. Start with the assumption that if most folks on this site don't think either Clinton is Satan Incarnate, there might be reasons for it. You may, once you find out the reasons, disagree. You may learn some stuff you didn't know. We may learn some stuff we didn't know. But you will get neither an answer to your loaded questions nor discussion of (as I said) your interesting points about Dem Party corporatism as long as you come in with a hatchet and start swinging it all over the place.
As a relative newcomer to Corrente
I have to say that I love this place. What got me hooked was/is the really thoughtful quality of many comments from "regulars" such as you, Vahalla, and so many others. It's quite rare (at most blogs I read) that someone will take the time do go into depth- write a long comment- to give perspective and information. TY.