Tag Archives: 2008 presidential election

Cry of the Clintonistas: ‘Surrender, Dorothy!’

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Billary’s ‘inevitability’ is not inevitable

article_benghazi2_0123

	U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responds forcefully to intense questioniing on the September attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites in Benghazi, Libya, during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington January 23, 2013.  

article_benghazi_0123

BENGHAZI24N_4_WEB

Reuters photos

Billary Clinton appears to be going through the last four of Elisabeth Kubler-Ross’ stages of grief as she answers the Repugnican Tea Party traitors’ bullshit charges on Benghazi in Washington, D.C., in January — charges that the traitors (including Mittens Romney) couldn’t make stick to President Barack Obama but sure the fuck are trying to make stick to Billary, even though war criminals George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al. remain free. I, for one, don’t want to hear even more Benghazi bullshit for months and months to come, and would much rather see another, actually progressive Democrat win the party’s 2016 presidential nomination, male or female. (Go, Elizabeth Warren!) I reject Billary’s “inevitability,” and I hope that she has to go through Kubler-Ross’ stages of grief where the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is concerned.

Too many people were bored over the long holiday weekend, because the “buzz” was over Billary Clinton: Will Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren run in the 2016 Democratic presidential primary?

A writer for the New Republic says yes (or, at least, says probably); the smug, center-right political columnist for Slate.com David Weigel, in response, among other things has proclaimed that “The professional left [an apparent insult, since progressives, myself included, were quite insulted when a mouthpiece of the Obama regime dismissively referred to us as “the professional left,” when the more correct term for us would be “the Democratic Party’s base”] doesn’t know how to win” and asks (rhetorically?) of “the professional left”: “if the Obama experience hasn’t taught them that a dreamy presidential candidate won’t bring about paradise, what will?”

Weigel could have summarized his inevitability-of-Billary screed in two words: Surrender, Dorothy!

It’s fun to pick on “the professional left,” I’m sure. And it’s fun to knock down an argument that your (presumed) opponent never even fucking made. I mean, I know of no progressive who ever has described Elizabeth Warren as a “dreamy” candidate who will usher in “paradise.”

I do believe, in fact, that “the Obama experience” has taught us progressives an important lesson. (If nothing else, Obama has utterly ruined the words “hope” and “change” for all Democratic campaigns to come.) But Weigel, who apparently doesn’t actually associate with any of the progressives whom he so smugly disdains, wouldn’t know that; if he knew that, he wouldn’t need to ask, rhetorically or not.

Weigel’s assertion — not to pick only on Weigel, although he can be a real asshole — essentially seems to be that because “Billary Clinton is more popular than ever,” we might as well just skip the 2016 Democratic primary season and declare her the victor already.

I remember when the Deaniacs were basically, sometimes even literally, saying the same thing about Howard Dean during the 2004 presidential election cycle. Even progressive columnist and political cartoonist Ted Rall, with whom I agree more than 90 percent of the time, once actually wrote a column suggesting that states save money by skipping the caucuses and primaries altogether, since Howard Dean undoubtedly was going to win the nomination anyway.

Of course, when people actually voted in the primaries and attended the caucuses that Rall had recommended be scrapped, it turned out very differently: The candidate whom I’d supported all along, John Kerry, like Lazarus, arose from the dead and got the nomination. (Kerry, admittedly, has been a shitty, or at least a disappointing, secretary of state, but I still believe that he did much better against George W. Bush in 2004 than Howard Dean would have done had he won the nomination.)

So I reject similar assertions of Billary Clinton’s inevitability. Will she run for president again in 2016? Very most likely, as she is widely seen, as Mittens Romney apparently was seen in 2012, as her party’s heir apparent for 2016.

But is her primary-season win inevitable?

No. No more so than was Howard Dean’s.

Sure, polls right now show Billary as the undisputed leader for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, but doesn’t the fact that the likes of David Weigel basically are telling Americans that Billary Is Inevitable lead a great number of them to believe that Billary is their only real choice?

Elizabeth Warren shows in the top three in the 2016 Democratic presidential field in the latest polling, which suggests to me that she has a real shot.

I’d support Elizabeth Warren or another actually progressive Democratic candidate (female or male) hands down over Billary. I’m fine with a woman as our next president; I’m not fine with that woman being the center-right Billary Clinton.

I require more than the mere possession of the XX chromosomes in a presidential candidate. I wouldn’t want Sarah Palin to be president (or even vice president), either.

Ted Rall, in his forthcoming column on Billary Clinton and how she never should be president, among other things, notes:

… Hillary’s admirers have conflated her impressive list of jobs with actually having gotten things done. When you scratch the surface, however, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the woman has done little more than warm a series of comfy leather desk chairs. How has this career politician changed Americans’ lives? Not in the least.

No doubt, Hillary knows her way around the corridors of power: first lady, senator from New York, presidential candidate, secretary of state. Nice resume, but what did she do with all her jobs? Not much. …

Rall reminds us of Billary’s years in the U.S. Senate:

… After sleazing her way into the Capitol as an out-of-state carpetbagger — New Yorkers still remember — Senator Clinton wiled away the early 2000s as a slacker senator. This, remember, was while Bush was pushing through his radical right agenda: the Patriot Act, wars, coups, drones, torture, renditions and so on.

While Bush was running roughshod, Hillary was meek and acquiescent. …

[Update: Rall’s full column is here.]

Indeed, Obama also accomplished little to nothing during his (four) years in the U.S. Senate. Indeed, perhaps progressives have learned that you look beyond a candidate’s campaign rhetoric and instead look at that candidate’s record, and Billary’s record of accomplishment is no more impressive than was Obama’s when he won the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

“Since 2009 we’ve seen what happens when we elect a president with charisma but minus a resume,” Rall notes. But Billary doesn’t even have the charisma.

And, as Rall notes, “At least with Obama, 2008 voters saw potential. Hillary has had 20 years to shine. If she hasn’t gotten anything accomplished in all that time, with all that power, why should we think she’ll make a great president?”

Yup.

Elizabeth Warren at least has consistently stood up to Wall Street — Warren at least shows potential — while the Clinton machine has made Wall Street its engine.

Would Warren use the hopey-changey bait and switch that Obama did? I doubt it. It wouldn’t be impossible, but I find it unlikely. And it would be difficult to find a lazier president than Obama has been. Recall that when he had both houses of Congress in his party’s control in 2009 and in 2010, he squandered his political capital, something that even the fucktarded George W. Bush never did.

In his column, Rall also correctly points out that although “A woman president is two centuries overdue,” by having ridden her husband’s coattails, Billary is “a terrible role model for women,” and that Billary royally fucked up in October 2002 when, in “the most important vote of her life,” as a U.S. senator she voted to allow the unelected Bush regime to launch its Vietraq War.

While I don’t know that I agree with Rall’s assertion that Billary lost to Obama in 2008 “primarily due to that vote,” it was a significant factor. (The charisma factor was larger, though, I surmise.) I, for one, still hold it against my U.S. senator, the nauseating DINO Dianne Feinstein, for having voted for the Vietraq War in October 2002 (the traitor nonetheless keeps getting re-elected here in California, though; that she’s a millionaire helps, I guess), and I still like my other, for-the-most-part-actually Democratic U.S. senator, Barbara Boxer, in no small part because she voted against it.

But John Kerry also had stupidly voted for the Vietraq War in October 2002 yet still won the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

True, the Vietraq War still raged then, and we didn’t have the hindsight on it that we did when Billary ran in 2008, but here in the United States of Amnesia, I can’t see her vote for the Vietraq War hurting Billary much in a 2016 campaign.

Still, though, her vote for the Vietraq War demonstrates that if she isn’t a self-serving coward who will do what’s politically expedient over what is right, she exhibited, in Rall’s words, breathtakingly “poor political calculus,” which makes her “kind of dumb.” (“Kind of” is generous.)

I’ll offer yet another, perhaps selfish reason to reject the “inevitability” of Billary Clinton: I really, really, really don’t want to keep hearing, for months on end, about Benghazi from the very same right-wing traitors who have had no problem whatsofuckingever with the pointless deaths of more than 4,000 of our troops in the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked, unjust and thus bogus — and thus treasonous — Vietraq War, but who claim to care sooo much about four Americans who died in the Middle East last year.

But then again, perhaps with the Repugnican Tea Party traitors so fucking focused on trying to take down Billary with the Benghazi bullshit, they wouldn’t see someone like Elizabeth Warren coming…

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The tea stain needs to be removed

Tea party

Associated Press photo

A wingnut wears a “National Tea Party Convention” T-shirt at a KKK rally — er, at the “National Tea Party Convention” — today in Nashville, Tenn. Politico unsurprisingly remarks of the convention that the “roughly 600 attendees … came primarily from the South and were largely white and older.” A recent poll shows that almost a quarter of those who identify themselves as Repugnicans want their state to secede from the Union. I say to them: Don’t let the red, white and blue door hit your treasonous, free-loading asses on your way out, bitches!

“‘Tea Party’ Movement: Who Are They and What Do They Want?” asks the Christian Science Monitor.

You can read the article if you please, but there’s no need.

I can answer those two questions. Handily.

Who are the “tea baggers”?

The “tea party” “movement” is not a “movement” and it’s nothing new.

The “tea party” douche bags are the same people who dubbed the Gore-Lieberman team “Sore Loserman” when Democrat Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 but the White House went to loser Repugnican George W. Bush anyway.

These assbites were the losers of the 2000 election, but they called the other side — the winners — the losers. The sore losers.

They threw such a tantrum to have their guy installed in the White House, even though he’d lost the election, that there was no national outcry, as there should have been, when the radical-right-tilted U.S. Supreme Court, in its infamous 5-4 vote, installed Gee Dubya as “president.”

The “tea baggers” are, in two words, sore losers. OK, three words: sore fucking losers.

Not only can they not accept it when they lose elections, but they’re white supremacists, too. Look at the news coverage of “tea parties” and the Repugnican National Convention and the “National Tea Party Convention” (which is going on as I type this sentence) and other wingnut gatherings. They look just like Ku Klux Klan gatherings sans the burning cross. You see a sea of lily-white faces.

I’m a blue-eyed white guy, and these Stepford “patriots” give me the fucking creeps. 

What do the “tea baggers” want? They want nothing short of the democratically elected President Barack Obama removed from office, whether it’s done bloodlessly or not, although most of them probably prefer blood (as long as it’s not their own, of course). They hate Obama doubly because he is a Democrat and he is black. To them he’s like a black Bill Clinton, for fuck’s sake.

The “tea baggers” can’t come right out in “polite” company and call Obama a nigger, so they use code for “nigger,” such as that he is a “Muslim” or a “socialist” or that he isn’t a U.S. citizen or that he actually is on the side of the “terrorists.” Or they even say, with a straight face, that Obama is the “racist.”* (That kills me: white supremacists calling their victims “racist.”)

These “tea baggers” proclaim themselves “patriots,” yet they would, if they c0uld, shit and piss upon the will of the majority of the American voters (53 percent of the American voters voted for Barack Obama to only 46 percent for Repugnican John McCainosaurus) and put their own stupid white man (or maybe Sarah Palin-Quayle, who is a stupid white man in a woman’s body) in the White House.**

“No, they wouldn’t do that,” you protest?

Oh, really? They already did — in 2000!

The majority of the “tea baggers” also want to impose a Taliban-style “Christian” patriarchy and theocracy on the entire nation. They want to completely reverse all of the gains made by women, by non-whites, by non-“Christians” and by non-heterosexuals. They want the return of the “good old days,” when stupid, rich, white, “Christian,” presumedly heterosexual men ran the show. You know, the “good old days,” when an uppity Negro never could have been elected as president of the United States.

Who are the “tea baggers”?

They’re fucktarded traitors, the progeny of the fucktarded traitors whom we blue-staters failed to polish off in the Civil War, that’s who they are.

They succeed as far as they do only because too many non-“tea baggers” naively believe that the treasonous “tea-bagging” fascists can be reasoned with, that we really can have some fucking “bipartisan” national Kumbaya.

No, the “tea baggers” cannot be reasoned with, and no, there will be no Kumbafuckingya.

The “tea baggers” are our national stain that persists even after the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement.

You cannot reason with a stain.

You can only remove it.

*This past week Politico reported:

A new poll of self-identified Republicans released Tuesday shows a large slice of the GOP believes President Barack Obama is a “socialist” who was not born in this country, should be impeached, wants the terrorists to win and only won the 2008 election because ACORN “stole” it for him.

 The survey of 2003 self-identified Republicans, who typically trend much more conservative than voters who “lean” Republican, was conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal blog Daily Kos.

According to the poll, 63 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist; 39 percent think Obama should be impeached; 24 percent said Obama wants “the terrorists to win”; and 31 percent agreed with the statement that Obama is “a racist who hates white people.” [Never mind that he is half-white himself, that his mother was white and that he was raised by white people…]

Those numbers are just a portion of the results from the poll that paints the GOP as much more socially conservative — and in some cases conspiratorial — than most analysts would be willing to grant.

According to the survey, 36 percent of respondents do not believe the president was born in this country, and 21 percent think the liberal advocacy group ACORN stole the election for Obama.

Meanwhile, nearly a quarter of the Republicans polled, 23 percent, want their state to secede from the union.

Those polled also showed strong opposition to the expansion of gay rights.

Fifty-five percent said gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military, while 77 percent opposed gay couples getting married and 68 percent believe gay couples should not receive “any state or federal benefits.” In addition, 73 percent said openly gay men and women should not be allowed to teach in public schools….

Fifty-one percent of those polled believe sex education should not be taught in schools; 77 percent want creationism taught in schools; 31 percent want contraception outlawed; and 34 percent believe birth control is “abortion.”

 Those polled showed excitement for this fall’s midterm election, as 83 percent said they plan to vote.

Among those surveyed, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin is the favorite candidate for the 2012 presidential election…. Asked whether they thought Palin is more qualified than Obama to serve as president, 53 percent said yes.

**This is what the wingnuts attempted to do in Venezuela in April 2002: forcibly replace the democratically elected brown-skinned socialist President Hugo Chavez with their own unelected right-wing light-skinned “president,” against the will of the majority of the people of Venezuela. The right-wing traitors in Venezuela failed because the people rose up against them and they returned Chavez to power within three days.

This is why the wingnuts demonize Chavez: he survived a U.S.-backed right-wing coup attempt that few, if any, democratically elected progressive Latin American leaders before him survived.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized