Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
Hillary Clinton showed her teeth the other day. They are sharp.
In her running spit-ball spat with Barak Obama, her sardonic side popped out on the CNN /YouTube debate when she asked in that cutting voice of hers, "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?" She was referring to Obama's calling for what he says is a new, better, happier brand of politics in which hope takes the place of fear.
This is part of a larger spat over Hillary's foreign affairs claim to be the deeply experienced senior person compared to Obama, the junior person, who lacks seasoning and judgment. This sounds good but how much experience making critical decisions does Hillary have? Her one big public responsibility as First Lady was to get a health care program up and through Congress. She botched that one so badly that her failure on health insurance and not being like Tammy Wynette are the two things she is most famous for, if you do not count Bill.
For the record, Obama has had as much experience in public office as Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson had when they were elected.
In foreign affairs what has Hillary done? Matt Stearns of the McClatchy Newspaper chain answers that question by saying, "...Clinton has wrapped herself in a cloak of experience--and drawn a sharp distinction with Obama, who's served in the Senate less than three years. But being a well-traveled first lady isn't the same as being a president. And having years of experience traveling the world isn't the same as making wise decisions; her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq war has dogged her throughout the campaign. So in some quarters Clinton's claim to foreign-policy expertise is met with skepticism. How much should visiting 82 countries as first lady count?"
If Hillary Clinton does have foreign policy experience, where did she get it? Maybe it was during those years her husband was fighting for his political life that she picked up the experience she's claiming. Maybe while he was closeted with his lawyers and fighting impeachment, she was running the country.
If that's the case she may not be legally eligible to more than one term. The Twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution says that, "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, (emphasis added) for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
Constitutional lawyers, take note! Obama, Keep on keepin' on! And Hillary, watch where you sink your teeth, girl.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
Well, Hillary DOES have David Corn on her side.
Additionally, how this plays out will be an even BETTER identifier of Barack Obama's qualifiers to become the Democratic nominee, than any actual "hurt" it puts on him during the primary run-up.
By that, I mean, if he can't handle the Hillary Machine....how the heck is he going to handle the Republicans in the Fall of '08???
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 11:10am
Well, Hillary DOES have David Corn on her side.
Posted by MASK 07/30/2007 @ 11:10am
Careful......David stated "I'm NO fan of Hillary"! I'd say his tolerance & eventual acceptance of Her Highness is about like yours!
Posted by Happy at 07/30/2007 @ 11:16am
In reading Barack O'Reagan's Miami Herald interview, one must conclude that O'Reagan's and Clinton's views on diplomacy are as similar as their Senate Iraq voting record.
That said, I'm not sure what Barack O'Reagan's diplomacy position will be tomorrow. Perhaps he doesn't, either.
As of today, however, having studied O'Reagan's many, many, statements over the past week, I think I have my head wrapped around his current view of Presidential diplomacy.
O'Reagan feels that preconditions are OK on the condition that conditional conditions are previously agreed upon. Further, under the Conditional Propaganda Clause, there are conditional exceptions to this rule, but only under certain conditions.
Are we clear now?
Posted by JoeCHI at 07/30/2007 @ 11:17am
Gees, it's not like Obama is any improvement. What a scam that is.
But not only does she have some sharp claws, she also has a smug, self-satisfied look everytime she hears herself speak. They managed to get her to lose the "ahs" but she says "you know" too much. How the hell do they get that far with no public speaking skills? Well, what difference does that make--we have Bush afterall, and he has certainly been coddled when he should've been lampooned endlessly.
Posted by Lil at 07/30/2007 @ 11:39am
Obama, Keep on keepin' on!
Does this guy know what decade it is? If you want to support a black candidate, for God's sake don't give him the soul brother treatment.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/30/2007 @ 11:39am
Happy,
I see that you lovingly refer to Senator Clinton as "her Highness".
I'm curious as to why you have bestowed that moniker on her BEFORE she's taken the monacrhical throne that has been dutifully built by Bush / Cheney.
If you think she's arrogant / unresponsive or whatever now, just wait until she actually is Queen of the USA!
Posted by freedomplease at 07/30/2007 @ 11:41am
08 will be Hillary and Obama or Hillary and Richardson....
there are no other choices, in fact, there never was another choice but Hillary since Bill left the WH..it has been sewn up..
Are we clear now?
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 11:49am
Posted by HAPPY 07/30/2007 @ 11:16am
Well, like Mr Corn, if it comes down to it...I'll vote for her.
Unless the Repubs nominate Ron Paul...heheh.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 11:51am
Joechi, it gets funnier every time you say "O'Reagan." VERY clever, though I don't see Obama applying anything close to Reaganomics if elected.
If elected? Who am I kidding? It's a safe bet to assume he'll be the VP to Clinton. For once I agree with John Maasch! How's that for cynicism?
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:06pm
Hmm, let's try this...
And Obama, watch where you sink your teeth, BOY..
I don't think you'd suggest a black man is somewhat like an animal (sharp teeth) and call him a boy.
Or maybe you would... but thank you for proving why we so desperately need a woman president.
Posted by ajm7 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:10pm
Hmm, let's try this...
And Obama, watch where you sink your teeth, BOY..
I don't think you'd suggest a black man is somewhat like an animal (sharp teeth) and call him a boy.
Or maybe you would... but thank you for proving why we so desperately need a woman president.
Posted by ajm7 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:11pm
Posted by AJM7 07/30/2007 @ 12:11pm
So, AJM...you're a Hillary supporter?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:13pm
What's really sad is that the main stream press represents Obama and Hillary both as some sort of "leftists." These two are to the right of Nixon. And then these courting the fundamentalists on the Repub side are more or less given a free pass, without any serious analysis of their far right views (just like this extreme, radical right administration is not called out for what it is).
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:18pm
Where's Ralph Nader? Someone get him on the ballot so that those of us who are paying attention have someone to vote for in the 2008 general POTUS election campaign. Otherwise, a lot of us will just stay home -
Posted by ZERO
Amen.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:20pm
Right on Zero, you're absolutely correct. But lets not delude ourselves...unless something really bad happens to Clinton between now and election time, she will be the nominee. It's all over. She's just Democratic enough (if only in name) to part with Bush and co and attract centrists and many liberals, and conservative enough to seem safe to the neo-cons who voted for Bush.
The thing that scares me is that she is SO polarizing! Conservatives hate her for her strenght and because they hated Bill and for whatever other reason. Plus, many liberals can't stand her and don't trust her given her voting record and pandering to the right. This said, given her nomination, the right republican could very well beat her, Nov 08!
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:22pm
Posted by MATTMAN
And if the Repubs win in '08, the Dems have no one but themselves to blame.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:26pm
Republicans attract from a variety of bases- religious nuts, neo-con idealogues, laizes-fair business types, macho-working class guys (and their wives). Then we have the purging of voter rolls that will likely have expanded to more battle ground states.
Yup, I'd say we should fear a Republican victory way more than Clinton. That's why I'd vote for her even though she's not my first choice.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:31pm
MASK, no I am not a Hillary supporter. I do think it is high time we had a woman in the White House or else come clean with the SHAM of claiming we are the greatest democracy on the face of the earth that has never been represented by a one person of the group in the greatest MAJORITY (women!). At least let's say we don't believe women make good presidents, at least that's honest.
I don't like Hillary as a President, but men - and women, and there are a lot of them - who make derogatory and personal remarks about her actually push people like me to want to vote for her. It is amazing that people who wouldnt' dream of using stereotypical insults toward black people have no problem doing the same to Hillary. When you attack her because of her gender, you attack all women and you make her an even better candidate because many will identify with her.
If the Reps have no problem with a female nominee, how come they have none?
Posted by ajm7 at 07/30/2007 @ 12:38pm
I get a sense that people who are critisizing this incredibly intelligent Senator have demons of their own and need to confront them before offering any more of this jaded journalism. ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 12:17pm |
Curious FRANK...what psychological problems do you think Ari Berman of "The Nation" has?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:40pm
ZERO- Nader is great, I would choose him over Hilary in a heartbeat, but would you really want to split the left vote again? Politics is what it is. People can say what they want about the 2 party system, but it is representative of the left-right continuom (sp?)of political orientation in our country and the world at large. When you introduce any independents, they will take from one side or the other, given their ideological orientation, and ensure victory to the opposition.
By not voting you again play into the hands of the right. Why do you think they try to discourage new voters? Because that tactic always works in their favor. If you want to see economic improvemtent for working class people and take the power back from the right, vote democratic. It'll take small steps to move back to the left, given our de-evolution to the right over the last 25 years.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:40pm
What's really sad is that the main stream press represents Obama and Hillary both as some sort of "leftists." These two are to the right of Nixon. And then these courting the fundamentalists on the Repub side are more or less given a free pass, without any serious analysis of their far right views (just like this extreme, radical right administration is not called out for what it is).
Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/30/2007 @ 12:18pm
YEAH, FOR THE MASS MEDIA...
Anybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh is a "leftist." Pretty sad when you actually read AP and Reuters stories that talk like this when, for example, reporting on Democratic politics and infighting. And you know? I think it's just sheer mental laziness rather any kind of deliberate ideological stance. It's just what mainstream reporters hear all the time on reactionary talk radio, Faux News, and Bush/Cheney PR. Since they're basically just intellectually lazy (unlike the present company!), they're buying into the terminology is all, I think. And yet, people LIKE Limbaugh and Coulter are still complaining about the "liberal bias" of the media! Go figure.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/30/2007 @ 12:43pm
I'd like to see how many women would vote for Harriet Myers, because of her gender.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:44pm
MASK, no I am not a Hillary supporter....
If the Reps have no problem with a female nominee, how come they have none? ----Posted by AJM7 07/30/2007 @ 12:38pm
Well, first...according to FRANK, if you're not a Hillary supporter, you must have some "inner demons" to work out...heheh.
Second, actually they were advised to get one...Condi Rice....by Dick Morris. He laid out the inevitable Hillary win (both in the primaries and general election) and said if the Repubs wanted to stop that, the only way they could was to offer not only a female, but African-American candidate.
And despite the fact that she's a self-aggrandizing ditz (is "ditz" sexist?)...I think a lot of your Hard Right guys would vote for Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin in a heartbeat.
Oddly, I think if Hillary was NOT a woman...she'd be catching a lot MORE flack, as a "Republican-lite" and it would be a straight-up Edwards/Obama fight. While it's true that sexism remains, it's also true that "don't hit a lady"'ism also remains, and Hillary uses that to her advantage, to keep her opponents' attacks blunted.
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:45pm
That's something that's between him and his psychiatrist, don't you think?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 12:42pm
Well, FRANK, you made the claim. So...what "inner demon" (psychologically) do you think Ari Berman has to "work out"?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 12:46pm
ZERO 07/30/2007 @ 12:33pm
Journalists have plenty of time to start asking the right questions. So far the only stories I've read are 1) isn't she a BITCH (e.g. this one) 2) she's not a real woman 3) she's "polarizing" (whatever that means)
But in the end, the coverage will run into the obvious brick wall that she is the most talented politician out there right now. Regardless of who she really is, it just won't be possible to portray her as some kind of kook or threat. She's just too damn good at looking normal.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/30/2007 @ 12:46pm
HAP -- I SEE YOU EDGING LEFT...
Snow is pleased.
Posted by w_m_bear at 07/30/2007 @ 12:50pm
Mask, if SHE was a HE, you're right HE would seem more conservative except for the fact that HE was married to Bill.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 12:51pm
Zero-Bush/Cheney and the GOP candidates are honest?Since when?I believe that "honest politician" is a contradiction in terms.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2007 @ 12:52pm
ZERO 07/30/2007 @ 12:48pm
I agree completely that there is no such thing as a "centrist" position on anything.
But there is a center. It's where most of the votes and a whole lot of the money is. And to get something done from one side or the other, you have to win them over.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/30/2007 @ 12:55pm
Zero-How do you know that the Clintons view themselves as enemies of liberals?
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2007 @ 1:01pm
This is like the English War of the Roses: first comes Bush, pere (House of lancaster), replaced by Clinton (House of York), replaced by Bush, fils (Lancaster), replaced by Rodham-Clinton (York). Except for a few nobles getting their heads lopped off and some calvary charges by knights in shiny armor, what's the difference? We, the people, the voters, don't seem to mean a damned thing. Very depressing.
Posted by The Goods at 07/30/2007 @ 1:08pm
Reagan was not a candidate of the "Center" and Clinton, running hard as a "New Democrat" and as a centrist, wouldn't have been elected if not for Ross Perot. The center is a constantly shifting area, based on the countering tugs from left and right. The liberal-left, trapped in the capitalist Democratic Party, has a chance next year of running the table against the Republicans if they run hard against the GOP, their own Congressional leadership, the war, and the economic status quo. Clinton will lead the Democrats to a marginal victory at best.
Posted by cka2nd at 07/30/2007 @ 1:09pm
Someone should ask Hillary would she have talked to the head of the Hutus if she thought it would prevent the slaughter of more Tutsis, or would she put 'pre-conditions' on the talks that the Hutus must give up violence?
"Pre-conditions" have become propaganda in their own right, in which the things countries do that we don't like become pre-conditions to talking at all. It is easy to say "I won't talk to him because he is a socialist, communist, or mistreats his people", but much more difficult to talk and negotiate over items of interest to the US and the world that could result in an improvement in that country's behavior.
Using pre-conditions as a cop-out to avoid serious diplomacy shows a lack of depth and ability in foreign affairs. It certainly is not something to beat your chest about, as Hillary has done.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/30/2007 @ 1:14pm
ZERO 07/30/2007 @ 1:07pm
I'm out of time here but I'd just like to point out that "the rich" includes George Soros (financed Bush oppostion in 2004), Warren Buffet (contributed to ... oh hell what was it), Bill Gates (fighting malaria in the third world, giving AIDS research a huge kick), Ted Turner (monster contribution to the UN) ...
Being rich doesn't mean you have to be completely selfish.
That said, your point about class warfare and who's winning is well taken. The current situation is indeed bleak.
PS Ralph Nader is a multi-millionaire.
Posted by MyParadigm at 07/30/2007 @ 1:16pm
Zero-That doesn't include the personal views of the Clintons.I'm not a Clinton supporter,but I need more than that to judge them as viewing themselves as enemies of liberals.They do support many liberal causes and Hillary would definitely nominate more liberal thinking justices than a GOP president would.
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/30/2007 @ 1:24pm
That said, your point about class warfare and who's winning is well taken. The current situation is indeed bleak. --Myparadigm
They are but anecdoetes and are not representative of "the rich".
Everyone stands more to the left or to the right. either that or they aren't informed fully. There exist no true centrists.
Posted by MATTMAN at 07/30/2007 @ 1:33pm
I was referring to the lazy, band wangon journalism that I've been reading here. ----Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 12:49pm
Okay....would that apply to Ari Berman here at "The Nation"...or Nicholas von Hoffman?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 2:16pm
Nader is great, I would choose him over Hilary in a heartbeat, but would you really want to split the left vote again? Politics is what it is. People can say what they want about the 2 party system, but it is representative of the left-right continuom (sp?)of political orientation in our country and the world at large. When you introduce any independents, they will take from one side or the other, given their ideological orientation, and ensure victory to the opposition.
Posted by MATTMAN
The only problem is that the true left is virtually non-existent, at least as far as representation in the American two party system goes. The Dems give it a lot of lip service, but that's it. They'll wave abortion rights, gay unions and other highly divisive social issues, but the Dems are not too much different from the Repubs when it comes to economic policies. Both parties are bought and paid for by the deep pockets of corporate America. There is no geniune difference between the two. It's all nothing more than a game, a sham. Voting for Hillary rather than some idiot like Gulliani or Thompson makes very little--if any--difference.
If the Dems want my vote, they're gonna have to do a little more than just put some grease on it before they stick it to me.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 3:15pm
Several points:
1) It's good to see a lively thread being spun by the Hillary question, and the comments here have been better than average as reasonable critiques. Thanks to all.
2) Sadly, no one has remarked on the playful insertion of the Youtube footage of the prehistoric shark. Like Hillary, a fascinating creature to be handled with care. Nice touch Nicholas!
3) On the meat of the matter i.e. Hillary's dichotomous reception, I would draw the comparison to Dubya in the 2000 campaign.
Hillary is a kind of double reverse negative of Dubya; she's obviously highly intelligent, and she's loathed by the progressive base.
As for me personally, I don't feel the same level of revulsion for Hillary as I did almost immediately for Dubya. I found it somewhat baffling that he was considered somehow charming to so many Americans.
Hillary is another fish entirely --to continue Nic's analogy. I can see how, to many, she seems very professional and highly capable as a politician. But like Dubya she presents a Rorschach test to the public. Our politics --as the masters of propaganda are well aware-- are driven by perception primarily, and much less so by substance.
Hillary's actions have long been those of a Washington insider, more so than Bill. She should not be in the Democratic party, and her endorsement by an editor at the National Review should be a giant red flag to democratic voters.
Beyond the substance, which presents a practical indictment of Hillary, her speech and body language are not reassuring in the least. Here's where many feminists will raise their hackles, much like those who reflexively scream "anti-Semite" when the Israel lobby is justly criticized for its hugely outsized influence on Middle East policy.
In the final analysis, Hillary gives me --and many, many others-- the heebie-jeebies. No Freudian analyses please, as I would be delighted to witness the election of the first female US President.
Just not Hillary, please!
P.S. I once again implore The Nation editorial staff to take a strong pro-impeachment stance ASAP.
At some point, a strong stance against the Hillary Clinton candidacy should be in the offing as well. Frankly, she is not "one of us."
Posted by b_kool_66 at 07/30/2007 @ 3:50pm
"And we've dropped lots of bombs. The oceans are teetering on the brink of ecological disaster from over-exploitation. And the corporations? Man, they are making out like fat cats, even as the American middle class goes into sustained decline. The rich? Party central! The poor? Don't need a dental appointment, you'll go bankrupt, and that doesn't help you now."
Posted by ZERO 07/30/2007 @ 1:03pm
So, let's tax ourselves out of existance and become France...no more big US corporations, no more people with more than $100k in assets, no more free enterprise, just a socialist paradise where we all grow our veggies and everything is free...that way all the pollution in the world will end, no more wars, the Islamics nuts will all leave us alone,...the animals will rejoice..and all will be at peace in the world..
and then what?
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 4:05pm
And, of course, the main stream media, concentrated and owned by a few conglomerates (many major urban areas with only one paper that doesn't want to alienate any of its readers), is not going to give any coverage to alternatives (i.e., leftist ideas) that contradict the current "free" market doctrines from which corporate America benefits so much.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 4:07pm
So, let's tax ourselves out of existance and become France...no more big US corporations, no more people with more than $100k in assets, no more free enterprise...
and then what?
Posted by JOHN MAASCH
So that's our only choice? The alternatives are nearly so black and white. That's nothing more than hysterical fear tactics.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 4:10pm
"not nearly"
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 4:10pm
And demonstrates a geniune lack of imagination and the inability to think critically.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 4:11pm
I am not very fond of the Clinton's "Free Trade" policy, and her economic policy would not be that different than the Bush Administration. She has already promised Silicon valley more temporary workers programs from India to drive down the wages of American high tech workers. She is also Co-chair of the Indian lobby in Congress. Everyone but the American people are represented in Congress. Obama's comment about her being Cheney and Bush light was not too far wrong, but Republican light would be a more accurate label.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 07/30/2007 @ 4:27pm
Think we see the pattern emerging, huh?....the homophobic slurs?....that plus some time spent in prison....hmmmm???
If the Dems want my vote, they're gonna have to do a little more than just put some grease on it before they stick it to me. ----Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/30/2007 @ 3:15pm
heheh
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 4:47pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 12:40pm
You go for those center voters - like Mask - just don't cry about Ralph Nader or whomever because you were so busy moving more right that you lose the support of the left.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 5:25pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/30/2007 @ 5:25pm | ignore this person
I don't believe the dems CAN lose the support of the left, where are they gonna go?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 5:29pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 4:05pm
Concerned about taxes? Cut spending for wars and so-called defense.
When a Republican administration proceeds to run up huge debt as a strategy to feed imperial ambitions and starve off social programs, then you have a recipe for the circumstances you describe. Or doesn't corporate socialism - no military recruiter, defense contractor or logistics company left behind - count?
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 5:35pm
heheh
Posted by MASK
Judging from your weasel like posts, you'd be a punk on the inside. You have no back bone; you'd be doing favors for a book of stamps.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 5:36pm
Posted by SRJENKINS
Yeah, then we'll get a Dem that must balance the budget by cutting more social programs. It's all a game, nothing more.
Posted by mtspence05 at 07/30/2007 @ 5:37pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/30/2007 @ 5:29pm
They could stay home - as Spence, Zero (I think) and others have suggested they will likely do. Or they could go third party, Greens are starting to get onto some state ballots and there are always right-ins and other options.
I'll probably do the latter but I'm open to see whether the Democrats will try to win my vote. I'm not hopeful they will make they effort.
And if you don't think now winning the votes of people like me is a problem, great - try to win without me. Just don't whine about when you lose. In the meantime, I'll send my checks and cast my votes for those that most closely represent my interests - and right now that isn't Democrats anymore than it is Republicans.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 5:42pm
"I don't believe the dems CAN lose the support of the left, where are they gonna go?
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/30/2007 @ 5:29pm
Exactly,...
which is why the hard left is thrown a bone now and then, and ignored....and Hillary knows this too, they feel the same about the black voters...where as the hard right gets ignored,they get pissed and stay home and it has a huge effect...the left just holds its nose and follows the trail layed out for them...and votes anyway.
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 5:58pm
SR,
15% of buget is military and the rest is entitlements ect...
"When a Republican administration proceeds to run up huge debt as a strategy to feed imperial ambitions and starve off social programs,..."
75 % of budget goes to entitlements by 2030...you are already killing the goose that laid the golden eggs to pay for your programs so needed..
"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010728/site/newsweek/?from=rss"
Never seen one starve off, have you? ever?
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 6:03pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/30/2007 @ 5:42pm | ignore this person
vote for whom you like, or don't vote, and say hello to pres Romney. go ahead cut off your nose... to spite your face.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 6:22pm
People who vote for Hillary Clinton (if nominated) in this upcoming election, they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Posted by MADLIB 07/30/2007 @ 6:21pm
I for obne will vote Thompson based on what I know of him SO FAR...if he does not run, I will give Rudy a look, and probably vote libertarian..
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 6:27pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 6:03pm
The problem is your getting your information from Robert J. Samuelson. Perhaps you might start with something like a GAO analysis.
http://www.gao.gov/cghome/d07345cg.pdf
Then it might lead you to other questions, perhaps questions revolving around why are healthcare costs such that these entitlements - even factoring in the demographic trends - growing so rapidly? Could it have something to do with healthcare costs?
Perhaps you might also look for information that puts this situation into context? http://www.cbpp.org/1-29-07bud2.htm
Nah, don't bother thinking for yourself. Other people will figure out for you what you need to believe.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/30/2007 @ 6:22pm
Rather than actually trying to represent my interest, why is it that the only thing people that favor Democrats can offer up is fear? What about the Supreme Court? What about President Romney?
Your complacent notions that I have no other options are the problem. You need to either figure out how to speak to my issues and convince me or you need to figure out how to win without me. But cut the whining. I don't have to get on board when both trains are going somewhere I don't want to go.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 7:08pm
"I don't give a rat's ass who you vote for, as it is most predictably, the wrong person.
Now if you could answer my rather simple questions...
Posted by MADLIB 07/30/2007 @ 7:03pm
Feelings mutual...
What question did you are so simply?
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 7:10pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/30/2007 @ 7:08pm | ignore this person
I'm not the one who's whining. you are. your train analogy will leave you at the station.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 7:16pm
People who vote for Hillary Clinton (if nominated) in this upcoming election, they are part of the problem, not the solution.
Posted by MADLIB 07/30/2007 @ 6:21pm | ignore this person
yeah, vote republican.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 7:18pm
the country will likely have a dem contender for the presidency picked from the three front runners. that's it. it will be one of those, most likely. any one of the three is head and shoulders above the miserable repub retreads. that's it. there will be no deus ex machina to bring forth a perfect candidate. that's IT. takes yer cherce.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 7:24pm
"Posted by SRJENKINS 07/30/2007 @ 7:08pm "
Using your link..the math still works...
20% military(including pensions, how big is this part?) 40% SS and Medicare/medicais 32% other..(wica, food stamps, welfare...and all the others, lunch programs...on and on)
9% interest...
I come up with 72% entitlments and 20% military...using govt math , well
Close enough...I think you will find the percentages will jump each year as more and more demand their rights to some program from those you are taxing to pay for it...shrinking in numbers so you have to take more taxes from them...
This can not be supported for very long even if you steal all the "rich" blind...
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 7:25pm
"If you can't divulge what questions were posed ..'
Aren't you suppose to divulge them?
Apparently you pose such intersting questions that they get "lost" in the pap..
anyway, it is not even close to important if you won't ask them again..never mind, ...
But I will try to be as nice a person as you...
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 7:29pm
JR,
"the country will likely have a dem contender for the presidency picked from the three front runners. "
Please don't tell me you still believe this was an election? It was Hillarys for years..the only question is who is second bannana to off set her huge negatives enough to squeak out a win...which is not a lock for the WH...I think a repub may still win it..
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 7:32pm
These difficulties pale in comparison, however, to those facing the Republican Party and its candidates for the nomination......
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person
you got that right. is this your writing or a quote?
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 9:01pm
If he can't handle the Hillary Machine....how the heck is he going to handle the Republicans - MASK
Because, the Hillary machine has some credibility behind it, the Republicans machine doesn't.
Posted by conshame at 07/30/2007 @ 9:06pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 8:37pm | ignore this person
nevermind.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 9:11pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/30/2007 @ 7:16pm
Moving simply for the sake of moving is folly. I've got no problems staying at the station - when appropriate. And it may very well be appropriate in the next election.
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 7:25pm
Try this website: http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= 286&Itemid=61
You will get a little different picture when you move the focus away from projections of entitlements 20+ years down the road to how it is currently spent. I particularly like the breakouts of military share of debt interest in military spending.
I think there is an obvious problem with the demographic changes that are developing in the U.S. and worldwide, but I find it interesting that you make the problem into entitlements. I think another reasonable conclusion is that the problems in our healthcare is the problem to which this projected entitlement spending is a symptom. Don't see you addressing this point.
I'd also point out that it is possible to be "rich" and believe that since you benefit the most from society, you have a responsibility to contribute back to society as well. It is true that the perspective seems to get lost when you have more money - but it does exist.
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 8:37pm
...well-educated and largely white, ideologically liberal faction (another third)...
Thanks for this Frank. If you listen to Mask or JR, you might believe the "left" is a fringe group and winning means trying to pitch to Republican voters. You can't win by losing a sizable chunk of that third folks. Time to wake up out of that dream.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 7:32pm
Mr. Roarke? Is that you? "Smiles, everyone... smiles!"
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 9:25pm
the decision will not be made by those who don't vote.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 9:28pm
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 07/30/2007 @ 9:28pm
Apparently, it isn't made by those that do vote but vote for someone who doesn't win. You have a most refreshing view of what it means to participate in a electoral process of a republic. Positively bubbly, I'd say.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/30/2007 @ 9:34pm
hey kids, I know what let's do. let's sit this election out.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/30/2007 @ 9:35pm
Posted by CONSHAME 07/30/2007 @ 9:06pm
CS, never answered my question.....is Hillary in the "genius" wing or "idiotic" wing of the Democratic Party?
I assume from your post you think she's in the "genius" wing, which you defined as the liberal wing ("idiotic" of course being the conservative).
Willing to say that?
Posted by Mask at 07/30/2007 @ 10:05pm
SR,
"If you listen to Mask or JR, you might believe the "left" is a fringe group and winning means trying to pitch to Republican voters.
and from Franks cut and paste..
"Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/30/2007 @ 8:37pm
...well-educated and largely white, ideologically liberal faction (another third)... "
If the number of people who identify themselves as Dem are about 48% and those who ID themselves as repub are 45% or so
then 1/3 of the dems are Franks group..well educated white uber libs..that makes them account for 15% of the voting public...not exactly mainstream...if you compare this to the total eligible voter pool, where only 50% of us actually vote...then your 15% turns into 7% or so...which becomes fringe at best..of those 7% say 1/2 are in the mold of Frank, Zero, EMPTY,WILL, IE, most of those here at the Nation,...you have the kook fringe of the blogosphere...coming in at less than 3.5%...and these make more noise than than a broken chain saw...IMPEACH,ARREST, ILLEGAL, BUSH LIED... ad nauseum.
The math works...
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 10:49pm
SR,
"I think there is an obvious problem with the demographic changes that are developing in the U.S. and worldwide, but I find it interesting that you make the problem into entitlements."
I didn't make it into a problem with entitlements..the math does...your own GAO links will show the number of people climbing onto the SS rolls, Medicare, et al rolls will increase dramtically in the next 10-15 years...and the number of workers paying the taxes to give those benefits are not increasing...these are not issues I haven't addressed...these are math facts that a middle schooler math quiz can verify just using the population statistics...
Posted by john maasch at 07/30/2007 @ 10:56pm
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 10:49pm
You seem to be having a bit of trouble. Let me help.
The argument you need to make is that there are more swing voters in the Republican wing that might vote Democratic than will be lost in a Democratic rightward move.
So let's use an easy figure like 100 people are going to vote. Let's assume your figures 48 people self-identify as Democrats, 45 self identify as Republican and 7 people self-identify as independent.
So a third of 48 is 16. The argument that you need to establish is that if a Democratic candidate moves to the right, they will capture more votes.
Lets assume by moving right that they will lose 50% of the white, highly educated third or 8 people. They then have 40 people, but they need 51 to win.
Where are those 11 votes going to come from? Even if they win all the independent voters, they still need to win 4 people from the Republican side to win.
So, you need to make some kind of argument that 50% is too high because as JR puts it, what else are those lefties going to do? Or make some kind of claim that people that self-identify as Republican are going to vote for a Democrat enough to tip the scales.
I think these arguments are weak. The only way Democrats come out on top on the let's move to the right strategy is if there is a third-party candidate splitting the Republican vote a la Ross Perot. It's why Mask and JR get in such a dither about people not voting or voting for someone other than the one that happened to be selected by the money primary.
The bottom line is Democrats can't win without the support of this group - whether they are mainstream or whatever pejorative term you try to come up with to pretend like this isn't a big issue. It is a big issue. If Democrats can't speak to people like me, there is always going to be someone to split that vote. Moving to the right is a strategy for failure - but those that espouse it want to pretend the failure is on the part of the vote and they are dead wrong.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/31/2007 @ 12:02am
Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/30/2007 @ 10:56pm
The issue you haven't addressed is the role of rising medical costs on entitlements. You are trying to pretend that it is only a function of demographics, and it isn't.
But let's pretend for a moment that you are on to something. Entitlements get cut. Now, what happens to the people that have health issues that these entitlements would have paid for? Or yeah, they show up in state hospitals and "entitlements" still happen. You see the problem here? You are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and not solving the problem - but you are pretending you are.
Now, there is a way to solve the problem - be controlling medical costs, a point that is also in the link you are getting your math from. Interesting that this seems to be invisible to you even though I've mentioned it a few times now. Why is that? Only facts that support the conclusions of Newsweek are the only one's you are interested in? I don't think that is the case, but there is a kind of blindness in play here.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/31/2007 @ 12:10am
JR get in such a dither about people not voting or voting for someone other than the one that happened to be selected by the money primary.
hey, who cares if you vote? just stop pretending it's some kind of moral crusade.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 10:34am
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/30/2007 @ 9:21pm
SRJ, before you lump me in with MAASCH, let me tell you what part of "the Left", I'm referring to that can safely be ignored by the Democrats.
I'm talking about that 3-5%, maybe, but no higher than 8%, who are socialists, think 9/11 was a MIHOP, and who think that a "Department of Peace" is a good idea because it SOUNDS "good" (despite the fact we have a Department of State, that is essentially our "Dept. of Peace").
The fringe. Not mainstream liberals, who are New Dealers (even Great Society'ers), etc.
But poll after poll shows that while the American people support a "progressive agenda" (universal health care, taxes on the rich, etc.)....that when Democrats start to enact actual legislation on those things, it back-fires (Hillary-care, 1993 tax hike, etc).
And when they CAMPAIGN on those items, at BEST, they come in third...i.e. John Edwards....and at WORST, they come in 7th, like Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 10:38am
Posted by MASK 07/31/2007 @ 10:38am
Oh, I know you are cut from a different cloth than Maash. But there are certain arguments you share, and this is one of them. I also find it interesting that JOHANNESROLF is also onboard. I can think of few other arguments shared by the three of you.
But there is a weird kind of schizophrenia going on. In one breath you talk about the 3-5% and in the next you admit that the progressive agenda is favored by the majority of Americans. Perhaps, by your definition, you are claiming that most Americans are mainstream liberals. While people like Maash argue that "liberals" - however he is defining the word these days - are the fringe.
But in the final analysis, it doesn't much matter. You reach the same conclusions. Come right, marginalize the left (rationalized as an unnecessary "fringe") and talk about how it is a winning strategy even if it means you lose (save when there is a bona fide Republican appealing third party candidate).
There is also some vague argument about how progressive strategies somehow don't work in the long run - arguments around entitlements a la Maash, government supposed inability to run a business a la Happy, or just a general preference for smaller government a la yourself.
I'll grant that there is something to these arguments, and the truth is used along with devices like arbitrary increases in debt to pay for military expenditures to sink any real progressive move before it even gets out of the harbor.
But this need not be the case, and I'm certainly not going to keep supporting a party that keeps sinking my ships. You like history, perhaps we could look to the Populist Party as an instructive example of what can happen when both parties are not addressing the concerns of an important demographic.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/31/2007 @ 4:06pm
I'm not sure what board I'm supposed to be on. we have a two party system. good bad or indifferent, that is the reality. I favor voting against the ones who are stealing the public treasure, the ones who recklessly wage war. and the ones who are willing to sell our democracy down the river. that is Bush and the repubs. life is about choices. not choosing is cowardice. the dems are not perfect, but I don't have the luxury of throwing away my vote.not in these perilous times. to say that both parties are the same is a lie. they are not. the repubs are far worse.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/31/2007 @ 4:41pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 07/31/2007 @ 4:06pm
It's not "schizophrenia", SRJ....it's a paradox.
Yes, the polling (when worded a certain way) does get majorities in favor of universal health care, taxing "the rich", "strong measures to stop global warming", etc.
Then somebody tries to implement it. And the discover that that support was about 1/2 an inch deep and that the people "didn't realize the solution to the problem meant THAT!!!" Universal health care becomes EASILY labelled as "socialized medicine" or WORSE "government-controlled health care"...or that when they go ask their family doctor about it, they say "Yep, and if they pass it, I'm getting out of the practice, because I didn't want the Medicare paperwork, I sure as HELL don't want that paperwork!"
Or that "strong measures against global warming" means that they have to pay $500-1000 more for their Ford Expedition or Chevy Blazer or whatever....or a 50 cent a gallon gas tax to reduce consumption....or that rich guys like Al Gore and John Edwards will be able to continue to pay off their rich lifestyles with "carbon credits"...while Joe Six-pack has to bear the brunt.
To use a football analogy...most of the "progressives" (a term that is meaningless if you ask one) want to cover 20-30-40 yards on the football field of policy in a play....the average Dem politician knows that the crowd won't accept but 2-3 yards at a play, total ground game with no Hail Marys.
More than that they will easily be swayed by the Right that some "socialist revolution" is underway, led by "a bunch of Vegan dope-smoking pinkos who want to take your power mower away and see that your kindergardners learn about condoms!"
Play the passing game, and the GOP will intercept and run back for a touchdown. Play the ground game, and they don't get ahold of the ball.
Posted by Mask at 07/31/2007 @ 4:43pm
Posted by MASK 07/31/2007 @ 4:43pm
I've always preferred the passing game.
Posted by srjenkins at 07/31/2007 @ 11:49pm