Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

What Are We Going to Do in 2010 and 2012 (Part Four)?

madamab's picture

It's that time again, people. As the summer bogs down in a swamp of heat, humidity and semi-amusing wingnut insanity, let us turn our minds to cooler times in the future, to the month of September, when (dreamy sigh) the aspens will be turning, and election season will be upon us.

Are there any races you're particularly interested in? Against my will, I have been drawn into the primary battle between my Congresscritter, former fave Carolyn Maloney, and photogenic upstart Reshma Saujani. I wrote about Reshma recently in the post "A Pattern Emerges," and with her latest campaign tactics, she is only confirming her extreme similarity to Barack Obama.

Remember how Obama sent out those "Harry and Louise" flyers to bash Hillary Clinton's health care plan? I received a similar flyer from Saujani about Maloney's alleged crimes in continuing to fundraise for her corporate PAC while being a legislator involved in financial reform. Uh, Reshma, not everyone is a wealthy hedge fund manager from Chicago. Some people need to actually fundraise while they're running for office! I can't find it online, but it doesn't matter, because she repeats all the stupid allegations on her website. Read it if you dare!

But that's not all! She also released an ad trying to paint Maloney as some kind of BP crony. The ad is, shall we say, a little light on the facts.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney's office today called an attack ad released by her opponent—one that seeks to portay Ms. Maloney as a toady of the oil industry—"preposterous."

"This is preposterous," said Maloney spokesman Alix Anfang, in an emailed statement. "Congresswoman Maloney has been a clear, consistent leader in standing up to the oil industry and demanding that the oil industry regulators do their job. Our opponent is exploiting this national crisis in an attempt to score political points."

To Ms. Anfang's point, Ms. Maloney has a 100 percent approval rating from the League of Conservation Voters, and her legislative record indicates a contentious history with Big Oil. [MB: Feh! What does that prove? Facts are stupid things!]

But James Allen, a spokesman for Ms. Saujani's campaign countered, "Being a leader is much different than voting the right way on party line environmental bills. Once again, Carolyn Maloney is talking about the past not the future, and following instead of leading. What's her plan to prevent this from happening again? What's her proposed legislation?"

(Wiping tears of laughter from my eyes) Wow! What a breathtakingly inept response. Nowhere does Allen refute the claim that the ad is factually untrue. That's because the ad is factually untrue. He simply throws around the word "leader" as though his boss has some right to it. I must reiterate here that the Divine Ms. Saujani has no government experience at all. In what way can she claim to have ever been a leader? Where is HER proposed legislation, I wonder? She seems to be great at lying and using focus-grouped, empty slogans, but these "accomplishments" do not a leader make. See: Obama, Barack.

And does she really expect Carolyn Maloney to come up with legislation to combat future deepwater drilling disasters? Got news for you, Reshma, since you don't appear to have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. The laws to prevent this shit from happening ALREADY EXIST. It is not Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney's job to enforce those laws. The MMS, the agency whose job it actually is, was bribed by, and snorting meth off toasters with, oil executives from BP. Thus, it granted waivers to open Deepwater Horizon when it was quite clear the well was structurally unsound and could blow at any time. Further fingerpointing should go towards Barack Obama, who did nothing to clean up the MMS agency's long history of cronyism and corruption under Bush, and is still doing nothing to clean up the catastrophic results of that cronyism except giving speeches and placing his thumb firmly up his own rear end. In the real world, these are the government agents who are responsible for what happened at Deepwater Horizon.

La Saujani has pissed me off so much, I'm going to grit my teeth and vote for Carolyn Maloney in the primary. I'm damned if I'm contributing to the effort to allow that malicious creature to knock Rep. Maloney out of her seat.

As for the actual election, I'm not sure yet. I am still inclined to give it a miss and/or write in NOTA.

Now, you'll notice I added 2012 to the mix this time. I've had myself a little epiphany, aided by my recent travels out of the country. I was discussing the economy and the BP oil spill with the manicurist at the spa (I know, you all hate me right now), and she said that her husband might lose his job because he works for an American oil company. I realized then that our environmental policy, and our economic policy, IS our foreign policy. And as she was speaking, I kept having visions of the Gulf of Mexico becoming a pool of ugly black sludge while Barack Obama or his Republican twin, Mitt Romney, saunters his way into the Oval Office and somehow figures how to keep profiting from the misery of tens of millions of Americans and countless millions of people all over the world, in every country you can possibly think of. Our political stupidity is not only screwing us over, it's screwing everyone else over as well. No one is safe from our malign corporatism. No one!

I became furious as these thoughts roiled in my unsleeping brain, but still didn't have any clue as to what I would do about it.

And then, it hit me. I've got to come out and say, for myself, that I want Hillary to run for President in 2012. And, I've got to talk to people about it - people who may know her personally - and let them know that I feel this way.

I remember all too well how bushwhacked I was by the Democratic Congresscritters' failure to end the Iraq War in 2006. But, I made excuses for them. I said, "They don't have enough power. What can they do? Those evil Republicans! It's All Bush's Fault!" When people tried to tell me that the Dems deserved blame too, I refused to listen. When the field of candidates came out in 2007, I was first taken with Al Gore, then John Edwards. I never gave Obama a second thought except for some discomfort when Oprah started pushing him on all her fans. Any Democrat would do for me. Go team! Go team D! When I came out for Hillary, it was with a marked lack of enthusiasm. Only when I saw the debates did I really start to get how utterly capable and competent and deserving she was of the job, and how easily she outshone all the others on the stage (with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, who sadly, did not live up to his inspiring rhetoric on single-payer health care).

Well, in 2012, I will NOT make that same mistake. I am saying right now that there is no acceptable candidate for President in the 2012 election except Hillary Clinton. None. There will be no liberal Messiah that will suddenly emerge from the pack. There is no perfect candidate who is both a liberal on domestic and on foreign policy. If such a person existed, that person would never have a chance in Hell of becoming President anyway. There is no one with the stature, popularity, intelligence and ability to handle the horrors of possibly the worst job in the world, except Hillary Clinton. In addition, there is no way to fix our broken system unless we right the wrongs of 2008 and allow the person who actually won the primaries in 2008, to win the election in 2012.

Let me say right now that I don't expect miracles. I know this is a long, long shot, although there has been some buzz about it from various pundits here and there. The reason it's a long shot is because of Hillary herself. I don't believe she has any plans to run, especially not against Obama. However, one thing I do know about her is that she is a responsive politician. I had ample evidence of this from her responses to the phone and email campaigns I participated in when she was my Senator. Rarely did a coordinated effort from the liberal base fail to push her to the left when she needed it. If she gets enough calls and emails asking her to step forward for the good of the country, perhaps she will change her mind.

So today, this is my activism: I am taking my stance, with the support of my Widdershins co-bloggers, Chatblu and BlueLyon. And, I am going to contact as many people as I can, whom I think may have a line to Secretary of State Clinton, and ask them if they can put a flea in her ear.

I won't join anything again. Been there, done that. And, our blog won't be a Hillary 2012 blog. We will continue to post on a variety of issues, as we do now. But if you feel the same way we do, I hope you, too, will start spreading the news. Could it be that the next President will be the former Senator from New York, New York?

0
No votes yet

Comments

coyotecreek's picture
Submitted by coyotecreek on

"...let us turn our minds to cooler times in the future, to the month of September, when (dreamy sigh) the aspens will be turning, and election season will be upon us."

I prefer the heat and humidity.

tarheel-leftist85's picture
Submitted by tarheel-leftist85 on

she runs as an independent and fully embraces policies like single-payer, banks-as-public- utilities, an end to mercenary contracts--basically everything i've delineated in my letter to a Green Party candidate in SC (who, btw, seems to ally himself with the good ol boi state dems who didn't get to coronate their candidate).

Our 2008 nomination choices parallel closely. I was an Edwards supporter, never giving though to Emperor O (by October, i was convinced of his Manchurian candidacy). After Kucinich advised his supporters to caucus w/ O in precincts where he didn't achieve the viability threshold (IA caucuses), he was off my list. Hillary had grown on me since a debate in NV, and by the time JRE dropped out, I was pulling for her (though had already voted Edwards in the SC primaries).

Even though i'm afraid of what might happen the longer she stays in Emperor O's camp, if she were to drop the legacy party, giving a clear indictment of the entire legacy party system and alternative policy platform--i'd be there in a heartbeat. I can't settle for compromises anymore and i can only support candidates--even non-legacy party--when they make the class war (elite against the peasants) the crux of their campaign (not a check on a laundry list). Electoral politics--aside from the legacy parties (either through NOTA, third parties, or non-partisan alliance)--is still important in that it allows either avoiding collapse or provides a basis for life after collapse.

"It's all about rents and rent-seeking."

Submitted by lambert on

... but I don't see Hillary going into class warfare mode, and that's what I would take. Full throttle support for single payer, a jobs guarantee, HOLC, breaking the power of the banks... I don't see it. And I don't see a reason to reinforce the Ds. Again, it's opportunity cost. Policies like that are the baseline to avoid collapse, so, absent policies like that, prepare for collapse and don't invest in the Ds.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Anne on

If she didn’t do it when the party itself did everything it could to screw her over and keep the nomination out of her hands, she’s never going to do it. So, there’s that to factor in.

And speaking of the party leaders, I think the only reason they have been so complimentary and effusive in their praise for her work as Secretary of State is that she’s safely out of their hair and not a threat to the rise of the New and Not Improved Democratic Party – let the talk about her running get to the maybe-this-might-happen stage, and I think the long knives come out and she’s right back to being the Devil Incarnate.

I’m trying to imagine what the party looks like by 2012, after the losses I think they will suffer in 2010, and then two more years of the insane belief that the only way to win is to move to the right, and I don’t think there will be any room for a liberal or liberal-leaning, or left-of-center candidate; I think all the choices will be right of center to some degree, and the only thing the Dems will have going for them is that they won’t be as off-the-charts crazy as the GOP.

Would I like Hillary to give it another run? Yes, but I think that even with the general discontent with Dem politics and policy, and even with the completely unsatisfactory Obama presidency, the powers-that-be are not going to let it happen – even if Obama decides against another term, and even if Joe Biden would then opt not to run either. I would bet my left arm that someone else – someone in the same mold – is being groomed, if not for 2012, then for 2016, and they will close ranks and close doors and close the corporate cash drawer to keep Hillary out of the way of whatever stupid plans they have for the future.

I hope I’m wrong, but I haven’t seen any indication that the party – not the people, mind you, but the party – has any interest in supporting candidates that represent the left side of the spectrum, or gives a rat’s ass that the policies and agenda it has been supporting are just wrong for the country.

So, unless something changes between now and then, I will probably nor be voting for anyone for president; I’m over the whole guilt trip, and the fear-mongering and all the other pressure tactics designed to get my vote.

As for Hillary, I think she might have more influence back in the Senate or, out on her own advocating for the domestic policies she supports – but I don’t see her out actively criticizing a Democratic president; it’s just not who she is. If Dems lose the WH in 2012, then, yes, I see her being of great use as a private citizen in a public arena – but the fear that she might use that to launch a run in 2016 might see the party pooh-bahs whipping into action PDQ to put the kibosh on that.

Sorry to be so negative, but that’s kind of where I am with all of this.

john.halle's picture
Submitted by john.halle on

Actually, I can envision a scenario by which she would leave the party. Namely, if the Wellstone-Kucinich wing were to take over and begin to enact a seriously redistributionist economic agenda, one which challenges her good friends (and indeed, her daughter and soon to be son in law) in the investment banking, hedge funds and finance capital world.

In the very unlikely event that this happens, there will be calls for a "responsible" centrist alternative. This would be more or less along the lines of the Social Democratic Party in Britain which briefly emerged when the Labor Party was flexing its muscles in the mid seventies. Once "old" Labor was vanquished by Blairite "new" labor, there was no need for the Social Dems, who then closed up shop. But you can be sure that something analogous to this would be strongly supported by the Clinton wing who would bolt the Dems at the first opportunity if their bankrollers' interests were perceived as under threat.

Remember, in this connection, that Hillary (as did Kos btw) started as a right wing Illinois Republican and there's a case to be made that her politics have not budged an inch since-an indication of the success which she (and others) have had in remaking the party in her image of what a left opposition should look like.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

30 years later...

I disagree with the rest of your comment too. I note that you don't make your supposed case. I wonder why?

Although if the Dem Party did what you suggested, I'd be incredibly thrilled, and if Hillary protested, I'd tell her to go jump in a lake. figuratively, of course.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

One of my great frustrations about the rush to coronate Obama as Our Progressive Savior is that it squandered a chance to pit the Democratic candidates against each other to commit to concrete, leftward changes to an electorate primed for real change from the Bush ideology. Instead, we had Lakoff gushing about Obama's "deeply progressive" pronouns, while Obama sang the praises of the Party of Ideas.

Obama is right, words do matter, and most of his words spat at what had been very strong winds of change.

My crystal ball tells me little about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would have wrought. It would have been far from ideal, but I'm quite sure it would have been to the left of Obama's -- if that's not damning with faint praise, I don't know what is. More-left enough to be substantially less shameful? Probably not; unlikely to have been a radical departure from any presidency since LBJ's. But probably with less zeal to screw ordinary Americans.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

She was throwing red meat to liberals all the time and bashing conservativism and the GOP. Re-read her convention speech. Look at some of the little things she talked about and proposed: HOLC (and read her justifications), the gas tax holiday (again, read her justifications), help for women (child care, etc.). And for fun, read some of her comments on NAFTA. Do all of this from a neutral viewpoint, not a view that states she can *only* be 20% less evil. As important as her actual positions is the justifications she gave, which were unambiguously liberal. To me, that was the most important aspect of her campaign.

And when it comes to foreign policy, take a look at what Wesley Clark was saying as he would have been an intimate adviser if not VP. (Incidentally, I had breakfast with Wes and a handful of others once and his foreign policy included anti-poverty measures as fundamentally important to national security--not even John Edwards ever spoke so strongly.)

Just like proggers have to caveat any negative comment about Obama with "good intentions", the reverse is true about Hillary: every good comment about her has to be 'caveated' with how bad she would be. To me, this is just as obnoxious as the Obama caveats and seem to stem from similar mindsets based on "conventional wisdom" and Versailles talking points.

Having said all that, her lack of distance from Obama makes me trust her less. I don't see this as a contradiction at all. A lot changed with Obama. Perhaps the Dems were always GOP lackeys, but under Obama the Democrats for the first time (in my view) their collusion is strikingly clear. Kucinich of 2008 is different than the Kucinich of 2009. Same with countless other pols I admired (e.g. Anna Eshoo). There was a very real change that took place in 2009 when Obama took the presidency, and it was entirely bad.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Submitted by lambert on

... after she threw caution to the winds in February (and won a majority of the popular vote, if all the votes are counted) and all the big states, too.

It would be nice to see something similar in 2012. The problem is, I can't see how that's done through the Ds, and she's a D loyalist, for sure.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

john.halle's picture
Submitted by john.halle on

My discomfort with this approach to the problem is that it recapitulates the line which was taken by the left supporters of Obama, which was to evaluate him in relative terms, i.e. to the left of X, rather than in relation to the multiple global catastrophes for which we need solutions not four, eight, twenty years from now, but right now.

The analogy is to a bus going sixty miles an hour and heading off a cliff. So just as Obama, even at best, promised to slow down to forty five and turn the wheel slightly to the left, perhaps Hillary offered the potential for slowing down to thirty five.

Well, damn it, that's just not good enough anymore. We need, for example, a drastic reduction in the defense budget to finance a conversation to renewable energy. We need a trillion dollar jobs program and an end to jobs killing trade agreements, not bailouts and tax credits to corporations for keeping a few production facilities open here. We need a complete repeal of Taft Hartley, not "consideration" of a watered down EFCA. We need a Roosevelt style packing of the Supreme Court to defang the extreme reactionaries who will function as an insurmountable obstacle in the face of any progress on the above etc.

So to repeat, half measures, whether undertaken by the Obama or Clinton variant of the DLC-neo liberal playbook, just aren't good enough anymore.

Either way we end up off the cliff-and that is not an exaggeration.

mojave_wolf's picture
Submitted by mojave_wolf on

(1) I don't think there's a chance she'll run;
(2) I'm not sure it's possible for Obama to screw up enough to lose in 2012. The real "hope" is for progressive candidates for Congress to do well by then, and the world not to be irredeemably ruined by 2014/16.

You're right, she's better than anyone else I see now, and she *might* be really good, and depending on what she does 'tween now and whenever-she-might-run-again and what sort of campaign, and she's said some very good things as SoS. But, she totally failed to speak out against all sorts of things I think she was obligated to use her stature to fight against. At a certain point, not complaining makes you complicit. (yes, I'm one of those people you were railing about in a previous post. she's free to make whatever decisions she wants, and I'm free to think they are really, really bad decisions, and no, I don't think her political instincts have proven so wonderful I have to assume she knows what she's doing; see: Iraq vote; not advocating a repeal of DOMA, & her presidential campaign before she lost Iowa)

And if she's not going to radically change things almost across the board, from civil liberties to the environment to economic policy, I don't see the point. Once upon a time, before the last 10 years, incremental improvements were fine.

Things are too fucked up for incremental changes for the better now. IF she (clearly and unmistakably) indicates wholesale changes are her intent, and that she's ready to go to war w/her own party's establishment and it's corporate donors and make a serious effort to fix all that has been then messed up since 2000 and institute a sane energy policy asap, then, yeah, she's more capable than anyone else, so of course I'll be there.

The big problem to this sort of campaign from her is explaining why she stuck w/this administration so long. Big hurdle, if you're campaigning against most of what they've done. Not impossible to finesse (possibly she'll lie about what they've done and blame everything on republicans; hopefully she'll say she expected better of them and was trying to do the best she could from the inside, which is probably true but doesn't look very good in light of she hasn't mitigated much of anything), but difficult.

I'm pulling for the "massive prog/green revolt taking over or destroying the democrats" solution, myself.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I'm super-busy today, so I'm just absorbing right now.

I would like to quickly say that my ultimate wish where Hillary's concerned would be for her to run as an Independent. And I don't think it's totally out of the question. I am totally unenthused about voting for any D, but the thought of Obama or Romney being President in 2012 makes me want to hurl. Our environment is dying and those people will not do a d*mn thing to stop it.

If there a credible third-party challenger appears in 2012, I'll be glad to vote for that person instead. It would be my preference, in fact. I just don't see it happening and in the absence of that much more pleasant alternative, I'd rather vote for Hillary.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

From the article:

The White House says the meeting will focus on new ways to create jobs in the private sector.

Welp, guess the framing is set on that one. Heaven forfend we should start a new WPA!

The leaders will also discuss ways to increase new investments in the clean energy industry.

That one is a little better, but the words "clean energy industry" give me pause. The way Obama defines "clean energy," it will probably include subsidies to oil companies, mountaintop mining, coal mining and nuclear power companies.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

I'm not for the legacy parties, and I'm also not for legacy politicians, all of whom are tainted with neo-liberalism and also with excessive reliance on the instruments of violence in international affairs. I agree that Hillary would have been better than Obama had she been nominated. We would have gotten a better health care bill and also probably a tougher FinReg bill. However, many of the same people would still be in the Cabinet, the White House, and the Federal Reserve. Maybe not Timmy, but probably Larry, and probably Rahm or John Podesta, or even Erskine Bowles, Ben Bernanke, a similar makeup of the Defense Department and State and a similar insistence on the prerogatives of the Executive. In economics, I think things would have been pretty much the same, because I don't think Hillary would have done any better on the stimulus, and I also think she'd be emphasizing deficit reduction in the future too, just as Bill did. I think Obama has turned out to be a weaker Executive than Hillary would have been; but I also think we have to recognize that his is the third Clinton term in Ideological outlook, the philosophy behind his policy approach, and this shabby business of "the perfect is the enemy of the good."

Next time we need someone who can talk sense to people in plain language and who has an iron integrity. How about Elizabeth Warren for President?

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I'm all for it.

I don't see that happening.

I would think any non-legacy party person who is serious about the Presidency would have used the Deepwater Horizon crisis to come out against Obama and push a truly liberal agenda. Come on now. You are a getitdone kinda guy. Wouldn't you?

You're factually wrong on her and the economy. This is a mole I really wish I didn't have to whack every five minutes. The HOLC she proposed to bail out homeowners, not the mortgage industry (based on an FDR policy, I might add). Corrente has a lot of posts on it. Had Bush listened to her (yeah right) the meltdown would not have been nearly as severe. She was not for the TARP. She is against privatizing Social Security. She is completely different than Obama on economic policy. And guessing that the same people would have been around? Good for you. There's no proof that would have happened at all. I'm quite sure Rahm would never have been a part of her cabinet, they hate each other openly.

I agree she would have emphasized deficit reduction, but she said quite clearly that she would not do it on the backs of the middle class and the poor. She also said she would end the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and raise the taxes back to Clintonian levels. I know it's not MMT, but MMT is both obscure and controversial at this point; even you can admit that, I hope.

I find it both fascinating and depressing how people seem to feel so free to attribute completely false ideas and beliefs to Clinton without ever feeling the need to back them up.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

letsgetitdone's picture
Submitted by letsgetitdone on

However, I notice you don't mention any foreign policy differences or differences on issues of maximizing executive power. As for staff do you really think she wouldn't have chosen Podesta for Chief of Staff? Or that the DOD would be very much different? Or that Bernanke would be gone? Or that Summers wouldn't have been at the center of things? Who would she have drawn upon other than old Clinton folks? Of course, they include Reich, so maybe there would have been some change there. But Galbraith or Krugman or Stieglitz, I just don't see it.

As for MMT, it is still obscure, but not so obscure that Kucinich and Warren don;'t know about it. Also, Bill Black. Do you think Hillary would have appointed him to the watchdog position he deserves.

No, I'm afraid I want to move on from the New Democrats. I want a Green New Deal, and I d rather send messages asking Elizabeth Warren to run than Hillary Clinton.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

And read the Corrente archives. Seriously. Everyone always mentions the lack of differences on foreign policy. I actually disagree on this point given my encounters with Wes Clark and listening to the two debate and hearing Hillary many times during the campaign, but that's irrelevant. There is ample discussion on the perceived lack of difference on foreing policy.

Only tyrants rig elections.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

If you think that there is really some kind of possibility that Elizabeth Warren will run for President, please do write her and ask her instead of Hillary. This post is about what all of us can do in 2010/2012, not just what I'm planning to do.

Your points about Hillary's supposed cabinet and how she never would have appointed the "right" people to the "right" positions, are as invalid as they were before. Why pursue a line of argumentation that is based on nothing but your own prejudices and guesswork, and frankly, more on what Hillary's husband did than what she has done?

For myself, I just don't think we're doing anyone any favors by saying "How about Elizabeth Warren for President?" when she's obviously not running and never has run for any political office whatsoever. If you want her for a candidate, getitdone! :-) But I would have to be convinced she had the competence and know-how to deploy the resources of the federal government towards saving the environment ASAP (job creation would be part of that same effort, IMHO). I can't stress enough that this is now the most important issue to me. The ever-faster-approaching death of the planet trumps absolutely everything.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Its not a guarantee she will run, much less as an independent, but I think this is the best way to coax something like that.

I'm not posting much on NOTA because I don't have a home computer anymore (and frankly, doing *great* without one). But mostly because I think we have to get a movement that happens quickly. If we have a long extended discussion, we will lose interest and move on, just as we did with PB2.0. Also, it gives the legacy party time to counteract it. Now if we could have some NOTA shirts ready about a month before the actual voting starts, that would be swell. More soon.

Only tyrants rig elections.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

thanks for posting. I hope someone with the time and money can take this on.

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

I'm just addressing the implication, intended or perhaps (on my part) imagined, that HRC's politics are indistinguishable from Obama's, and also noting that the headlong rush to fabricate a mythical lefty Obama enabled him to more-fully equal or exceed his predecessor in neo-con "accomplishments."

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

i'm on one of the olde machines in the house, so forgive the lack of links, i don't normally blog on this one.

anyway: Kabuki, people. you're arguing about Kabuki. "the preznit" isn't in charge anymore. like, for a while now, and i guess i'm just getting that and my elders will pat me on the head and smile. but really- obama's many "showdowns" with such members of TPTB demonstrate very clearly that figurehead isn't calling the shots. female figurehead wouldn't have been able to either. i don't mean to sound doomy or overly extreme, but when i look at the actual decision making pathway on most issues, the people at the top are rarely politicians. who are bought for so very little, in the scheme of things.

the shadowy world of global multinationals, arms dealers, oil execs, banksters- what do we really know about it, down here? so little. perhaps our only real access to it comes from, ironically, television. where we can see vain media giants construct narratives about themselves and their insecurities writ upon the bodies of blonde women and cute puppies and moral values video games. beyond that, i don't really know who has the number to the WH Red Phone but i promise you several do, and they aren't elected or hardly even "citizens" of any nation in the traditional sense.

lb and i have discussed this, and i'm back to "local, local, local." the national/federal entity will be increasingly Predatory. there's less and less participation in the "democratic" process at the national level accomplishes. yes, we have to pay attention and yes, we should advocate and perhaps even work for the parties of our choice. but there's so much more to prepare for, if you're a Little Person. smart time and money in that stuff *now* will mean the life and death of your loved ones, perhaps, in the not so distant future.

thank you M for this fun thread. i had my doubts but once again the Good People here came thru.

madamab's picture
Submitted by madamab on

I definitely have my eye on the local races as well, as you can tell. In the GE in 2010 I am planning to write in NOTA. :-)

Never vote for people who hate you.

ERA Now!

The Widdershins