Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditCheck out CNN.com for Bill Clinton's vent about how a "cover up " is hurting Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming the Democratic nominee. This is a man who has trampled on his spouse's voice every time, in this campaign, that she's found it.
The women of The Nation are the first to deplore the sexism in media commentary this primary season, but a "cover up"?
Hillary Clinton started this race last year as the one to beat--she had the money, the machine and the name recognition that assured her of quasi-incumbent status. And, indeed, she ran as a quasi-incumbent, an establishment candidate in a change- year election. Yes, there were the Chris Matthews and the Tucker Carlsons and the Mike Barnicles and the Rush Limbaughs and the women who were working out their Clinton hatred through Hillary's candidacy.
Betsy Reed's superb May 19th cover story, "Race to the Bottom: How Hillary Clinton's Campaign Has Divided the Feminist Movement," documents those sexist remarks--and explains how Clinton's campaign has divided the feminist movement. But Clinton's losses cannot be attributed solely or largely to a sexism that still runs deep in our political culture.
Clinton made the mistake of running a top-down campaign in a rules-changing year, and acceding to a sexism within her campaign that advised her not to apologize for her disastrous vote supporting Bush's war resolution. Yes, she was in charge. She could have rejected the guys' advice. But Clinton appears to have bought into the idea that a Commander-in-Chief has to play by "men's rules"--and be tougher than the toughest. If she'd been smart and right, not strong and wrong, how in her right mind would she not have said, I made a mistake when I accepted the word of a man who, it is now widely accepted (except in FoxLand), lied us into a war that has gravely undermined the US's security? John Edwards managed to issue an apology--and he was dueling with a media that had pegged him as "the Breck Girl." Could it be that macho boys like Mark Penn and Bill Clinton counseled Hillary that if she issued honest regret she wouldn't be macho enough to be treated as a serious Commander-in-Chief?
If Clinton had listened to alternative voices --if there'd be some "woman- commen-sense" over in her campaign--they might have suggested that she reframe what a commander-in-chief for the 21st century means. That what's needed to deal with the challenges of this world is not more militarism amd macho swagger, but a commitment to smart, principled use of non-military tools. After all, how does military might address genocidal conflicts? Or the worst pandemic in world history (AIDS)? Or staggering and destabilizing global ineqality? Or, for that matter, the spread of weapons of mass destruction?
Hillary might even have given a speech about what it would mean to elect the first women President. She might have given a superb gender speech--one that people, generations to come, might be talking about just as they will be talking about Barack Obama's magnificent speech on race. But she chose not to. Instead, Clinton chose a different route. And while, on some level, I like Clinton's "I'm fighting for you" persona, and her fighter instinct, that stance came too late in the campaign and needed an anchor in a larger fight than the fate and future of her campaign.
So, opportunities lost, squandered. So, it is with sadness that one watches these last days of what began as an energizing and historic campaign.
The last 72 hours of this campaign, I believe, have given renewed meaning to the term "move on." Ironically, that's a term that first gripped the national imagination at a very different moment in the Clintons' political history. It was in 1998, as rightwing forces converged on Bill Clinton, salivating about the possibility of impeaching a President for improprieties that, while grotesque, never rose to an impeachable offense, that the rules-changing internet operation MoveOn emerged on our national landscape.
It is now time to move on, again. That is not to say that Hillary Clinton doesn't have every right to campaign through the last primaries on June 3. After all, it's been a long time since millions of citizens were participants-- not simply spectators--in our mess of an election process. And that is exciting--as is the record-breaking turnout, the grassroots mobilization and registration of new and once-alienated voters in this campaign.
But when the polls close on June 3, superdelegates should move, expeditiously, to make their decision so that this campaign can refocus on what is at stake in this defining election. And their decision should follow the will of the people--that is, the pledged delegates who are the backbone of a party that --under Howard Dean has crafted a spirited fifty-state strategy seeking to connect with ordinary Americans in every part of this country. That decision, to follow the will of the pledged delegates is in sync with a party that should see its future linked to throwing off the establishment mantle that is truly elitist. After all, as The Nation's Ari Berman has reminded us in his close reporting on the delegate race this charged season, those supers were created as a firewall to protect the party establishment.
And at the end of the day, while Hillary Clinton has the grit, she ain't got the numbers. And the longer her fight drags on--with outlandish attempts to equate the status of the Michigan and Florida delegations with the fraudulent Zimbabwean elections or with the fraudulent Florida recount of 2000--the greater the disservice to the party, the people and the country.
Bill Clinton liked to say-and let me paraphrase-- we are a country in which people who play by the rules should get ahead.
The rules were the rules when the DNC laid them down to all the campaigns. At the time, the Clinton team, like all the others, agreed to abide by them. The rules are rules. Yet, in these last days, with Bill Clinton out there crying "coverup," it's as if Team Clinton has moved the goalposts so often, they're not even in the ballpark--they're somewhere out in the parking lot.
We have big issues and big differences to thrash out in this election. On June 4, I hope Hillary Clinton exits this historic race, gracefully, with dignity. That exit should win her the respect due her from all those in the Democratic party, whether they are Hillary or Barack supporters. It is an exit that is in the interest of the party and the nation. And she must know that how she exits will define the winner in November 2008.
It is time to for this election to turn to the defining issues.
This article was originally posted on May 26 in The Nation's group blog, Campaign Matters.
Share this article
News & Analysis »
Katrina vanden Heuvel
Thoughts on politics, current affairs, riffs and reflections on what’s in the news and what’s not--but should be.
RSS
Oh, dang....this means FRANK might come back before his requisite "I'm gone for good you fools" "six weeks later" waiting period!
heheh
BTW, yes, Bench...still sticking with the idea that she's trying to keep her fundraising going to pay off the debt (to herself and Bill).
Problem is, her folks still shoveling money in the furnace to keep warm (i.e. the campaign debt keeps rising, as the funds dry up).
It may be she's still hoping for Veep, but after the "RFK" "mention" (one of FOUR going back weeks, I hear)....that's finished.
It may even be as simple as she doesn't know HOW to quit....literally. That she can't figure out an exit strategy that either (A) paints her as a loser or (B) comes off as her trying to sabotage Obama and make her a pariah in the Party (and nation).
Rules Committee meets Saturday...if they make MI and FL a "wash" (no help to either side)....it is then TOTALLY impossible for her to make a case to the Supers to give it to her.
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 11:07pm
How do you defang this vapid volatile venomous vixen? Well, has there ever been some massive mafia power shiffle, where a Tony Montana is upended - but that by some miracle goes down without total Iraqi-level mayhem breaking out? Obama's got to tire of waking with a horse's head in his bed. Maybe some very auspicious sacrifice will appease her. Lord knows Obama's an appeaser. Let her sleep with Michell? Of course he should have more than enough cumulative credit based on all the nice things he's had to say about her.
Appealing to some higher calling is right out; her claim to being a tough fighter is actually confessional. Same with her vitriol regarding diplomacy. These are just indirect admissions of her limited skill set, not much there beyond Rovian morality and narcissism.
www.hillaryistonymontana.com
Posted by winyahn at 05/28/2008 @ 11:16pm
Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008
You still think she will try to make a deal with Obama and Dean to pay off a chunk of that debt if she exits most humbly and gracefully in June? I know her campaign has to spend some just so it isn't obvious what she's up to.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 11:21pm
Obama can easily heal the rift with older white women by naming Kansas Governor Kathleen Sibelius as his running mate. A popular, successful two term Democratic governor in a Red state, Sibelius is a pro choice Catholic who stood up to Blue Cross & Blue Shield and blocked a merger that was not in the public interest. She also had the guts to veto a concealed carry law that had NRA support -- she easily won reelection. She is also 60 years old this month; precisely the gender and age demographic he needs to heal this quarrel. After taking a close look at Sibelius, most of Hillary's most ardent supporters will wonder what it was they ever saw in Clinton.
Posted by slaskin at 05/28/2008 @ 11:27pm
Sebelius has a few negatives, mainly little name recognition and an ardent Republican opposition in Kansas that would love to be rid of her there. I still say his best option is Jim Webb, but we'll see how this plays out.
She can't be vice, can't get the big chair, and I have the strangest feeling she won't prevail on Saturday. Maybe I'm reading things wrong, but her best case scenario is a half-seat for FL and MI gets disqualified. And that will do zero for any of her arguments for staying in. If she presses for the convention after June 3 maybe someone in the DNC will grow a pair and tell her to get out. Or maybe I'm being too optimistic and Mask's 2012 or bust scenario is in effect.
Posted by yutsano at 05/29/2008 @ 12:08am
Sebelius doesn't often jack for the West Virginia - Kentucky jackass Gun God Gay vote dynamic. Webb will slow some of their bloodthirsty bigotry. Maybe just a percent or two, but this may really matter in ten or more states. Think Ohio!
Posted by winyahn at 05/29/2008 @ 12:21am
OBAMA/DUKE '08
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:36am
I saw something on CNN about Webb's biggest negative is that he talks a little too loose. If that's the biggest strike they could come up with then what's the big deal? Webb would be an awesme bulldog for Obama.
Posted by yutsano at 05/29/2008 @ 12:39am
RE: Obama Praised By US Foes ...
Dangerous, very dangerous. Who needs those foes while we've had enoygh of our problems.
--------- Obama Doged By Praise From America's Foes FOXNews.com Wednesday, May 28, 2008
In a presidential race in which unwanted, damaging endorsements seem far more plentiful than endorsements that actually could help, Barack Obama has had the unfortunate distinction of being a magnet for such well-wishers.
The latest unsought praise for the Democratic front-runner came from Fidel Castro, who wrote in a column for Cuba's Granma newspaper Monday that Obama is "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency."
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/29/2008 @ 02:24am
Who is "HRUSHCIOV"???
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 07:34am
Posted by marybretbrad at 05/29/2008
Darin, don't you think some of us might be a LITTLE suspicious of all this "help" coming from you and HAPPY and the guys on the RIGHT, for Hillary?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 09:04am
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008
Very transparent. Such generosity from our conservative friends here. Trying to persuade Democrats to nominate the candidate that will give McCain the most trouble. How kind.
Posted by Hman23 at 05/29/2008 @ 10:00am
Nikita Sergheevici Hruşciov
Никита Сергеевич Хрущёв
Secretar General al Partidului Comunist al Uniunii Sovietice
În funcţie:
7 septembrie 1953 – 14 octombrie 1964
Precedat de: Iosif Vissarionovici Stalin
Succedat de: Leonid Brejnev
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 10:25am
Yutsano,
I too have a feeling about Puerto Rico. People tend to think that, because Clinton generally does better with Hispanics than Obama, she will win by a wide margin. But people forget that, unlike Mexican Americans or even Cuban Americans (who themselves have issues with the Clintons -- can you say, Elian Gonzales?), Puerto Rico is an actual US political entity. As such, the island had issues with Bill over his pardon of FALN terrorists and over military training exercises at Vieques. Puerto Ricans also have issues with Hillary over her support of a statehood bill that neither statehood nor Commonwealth advocates support. As for Sibelius, she is a lame duck governor and so has nothing to lose by running for VP. My employer's General Counsel lives in Lawrence, KS and sings her praises. In this transformative election year, Webb brings nothing to the ticket. An African American/female ticket would galvanize younger voters, independents and women of all ages.
Posted by slaskin at 05/29/2008 @ 10:25am
Yutsano,
I realized you were talking about the Rules Committee meeting on Saturday, not the Puerto Rican primary on Sunday. I share your feeling about Saturday. It's pretty obvious what the Rules Committee will do -- seat both the Michigan and Floriday delegations and give the delegates 1/2 vote apiece. As for apportioning the Michigan delegates, they'll go for Conyers's 69 (Clinton), 59 (Obama) split. That will satisfy most MI and FL Dems who will get a voice at the convention roughly commensurate with the actual, tainted results of the primaries. In fact, a large number of MI and FL Dems realize that there's no way to put Humpty Dumpty back together and accept that reality, as long as they get a voice at the convention. Only Hillary will be dissatisfied, because she won't be able to steal the nomination. But she'll be completely isolated. It will be nakedly transparent that she's just trying to manipulate the numbers in her favor. In any event, by June 10th the superdelegates will have spoken, MI and FL will be moot, this thing will be over and Obama will be the nominee.
Posted by slaskin at 05/29/2008 @ 10:41am
Posted by slaskin
who cares about Puerto Rico, in the political sense. they cannot vote in the election.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/29/2008 @ 10:43am
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008
I THOUGHT that might be who miny is talking about...just never seen it spelled that way. Must be Romanian of Russian.
Odd choice too...why not just go ahead and compare Obama to STALIN!?!??!?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 10:46am
Posted by Hman23 at 05/29/2008
Yes, isn't it though?
Good ol' HAPPY and MARYBRET, out of the kindness of their hearts, trying to do their little part to see that Hillary still has a shot at the nomination!
You know a suspicious mind (to quote Elvis) might think they were trying to keep things in turmoil in the Democratic Party because they know they're going to get shellac'ed running on "four more years!" with McSame.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 10:48am
I suspect that mihnea,libzsuk,frankshitz and all his/her other ids is a clown that is just playing on here.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 11:54am
'Clinton has argued the primary results of two of the nation's largest states should count because otherwise millions of voters are being disenfranchised. Obama has said he is willing to work out some compromise. ...
In his first race for office, seeking a state senate seat on Chicago's gritty South Side in 1996, Obama effectively used election rules to eliminate his Democratic competition. As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of new voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.' -- CNN.com -- 29 May, 2008
'The reformists suffered a setback before the March election, when 70 percent of their candidates were disqualified. Iran's conservative Guardian Council screened candidates and disqualified about 1,700 it deemed unsuitable. They were predominantly reformists.' -- CNN.com -- 26 April, 2008
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/29/2008 @ 12:11pm
mihnea-Your broken English is OBVIOUSLY fake, as are you.Your looney response provides more evidence that you are libzsuk/frankshitz and that you are a clown who is just playing on here.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 12:13pm
Posted by mihnea at 05/29/2008
I think mihnea got labelled with a "psychiatric disorder" for being a dissident against Ceaucescu....
and the diagnosis eventually became reality!
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 12:14pm
mihnea-Your broken English is OBVIOUSLY fake,as are you.Your looney response provides even more evidence that you are libzsuk,frankshitz and that you are just playing on here..
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 12:15pm
mihnea-My response to you keeps ending up at the top of the board.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 12:16pm
can i be mcmurphy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:59pm
mihnea-Me no speekey onglish and wundur if u cun hep me speeky mo bettar?
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 1:02pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008
Sorry, my job. You can be "Chief" and smother me if Hillary wins and lobotomizes me!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 1:04pm
If you would like a little recap of the clinton tactics....please check out this olbermann video. Although I am not a huge fan, he does a great job summerizing all of hillary's dirty deeds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9Wduqr8yAk&feature=related
Another is him summarizing her and her campaigns insane metrics and fuzzy math for popular vote and electabilitiy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWSl6bEisUA
Posted by moochnips at 05/29/2008 @ 1:22pm
Posted by i'm nobody
how's your romanian?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:03pm
i know mask speaks romulan.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:03pm
Frosty-I can speak Romanian as well as mihnea can.
Posted by i'm nobody at 05/29/2008 @ 2:06pm
The Results Are Shocking!
http://www.votenic.com
Posted by votenic at 05/29/2008 @ 2:18pm
Tell you what, it's damned refreshing to come to the aid of a damsel in distress.....to keep her afloat without `reeling' her to shore....hehehehe!!!
Posted by HAPPY3
you guys are really hooked on that waterboarding thing, huh?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 2:50pm
tlhIngan maH!
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/29/2008 @ 2:55pm
tlhIngan maH!
Posted by HonestLiberal at 05/29/2008
Oh my Godlessness...a breakthrough. Besides "quotes"....HL speaks Klingon!
Honest, oH, tlhIngan Hol DajatlhlaH 'e' DaneH'a'?
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 3:13pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008
He still thinks "Operation: Chaos" was "real".
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/29/2008 @ 3:15pm
So does that mean we can hand out happy pills? Or lithium for Happy?
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 12:27am
BTW anyone else notice the distinct absence of H.T.O.T.D.s on this thread so far?
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 12:40am
RE: Obama ... Talking about high moral precepts, I don't see Mr. Obama has any. Time after time, he distances himself from his pastors. Even Dubya would never do that. And that's morale.
----------
Obama distances himself from another clergyman By CARYN ROUSSEAU, Associated Press Writer
CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that he was "deeply disappointed" by a supporter's sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/30/2008 @ 12:49am
Hey Helen, what exactly are you gonna blog about when Hillary gives up playing Don Quixote?
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 02:23am
RE: Hillary ...
Well, I look at Jesse Jackson who, unlike Mr. Obama, has all rights to claim himself as MLK sussesor. Not quite.
And there is always a time bomb with this type of minority politicos, which is to say you should hear very soon there emerges Obama's out-of-wedlock child(s). But that's their culture of maso.
Posted by HelenDAO at 05/30/2008 @ 02:36am
I heard Olberman's comentary about Cliton and he was dead on. The list of her blunders is long and damning. I'm still amazed at how people are fooled by her. How can you support someone who can't/won't play by the rules she initially agreed to. She agreed to not campaign in Florida and she did. Everyone agreed to not put their name on the ballot yet she kept hers on anyway. And now you want people to count delegates for a primary that was held, early, against party rules. WTF? Is this is the kind of person people want to lead them. She can't even muster some semblance of honesty. At this point her words mean nothing. Her name is mud. For the last time FL and MI, your votes would have counted if your state party had followed the rules set by the DNC. If you want to be mad, be mad at your state party officials. They are to blame.
Posted by k330k at 05/30/2008 @ 08:54am
RE: Jesse Jackson
How can he claim to be a successor to MLK? 'Cause he was on the balcony when MLK wa shot? I say the true successor to MLK was Hosea Williams. Most people don't know him because he stayed in Atlanta and never sought the spotlight. He remained a grassroots activist and was always someone the people went to for help. His mantra was "unbought and unbossed" and indeed he was. I don't think Jesse Jackson can ever make that claim. However, I will admit that if you want to free hostages send Jesse Jackson.
Posted by k330k at 05/30/2008 @ 08:58am
BTW anyone else notice the distinct absence of H.T.O.T.D.s on this thread so far?----Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008
Hillary may have cut their budget...or given how the HRC Campaign is run....they stopped getting their pay-checks!
LOL
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 09:08am
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
I have been watching with anticipation after you made first contact with Honestliberal, hoping you could draw it out. I was planning on roping it, tying it up, and then we could poke it with a stick. It would probably hiss at us.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/30/2008 @ 10:56am
Posted by Benchrest at 05/30/2008 |
I've said before it might be as benign as glossophobia...fear of public speaking. HL simply can't bring himself to interact (if on even a TEXTUAL level) with others or say what he/she thinks for himself.
It also could be as bad as something on the autism spectrum...though his/her attempt at humor by quoting Klingon, probably belays that.
So, I'm back to some young glossophobe with right-of-center politics, isolated and with almost no social skills, but who knows how to Cut & Paste.
If he wanted, he could even communicate in QUOTES...go to IMDB and use movie quotes to speak, but even that may be too much "interaction" for him.
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
I don't know Mask. You might have lost a couple cool points with the Klingon speak. While I do love my Star Trek, to actually try to speak a fictional language is a bit lame in my book. Of course, to others you might be considered the coolest of the cool. In any case, I thought you might be on the verge of getting something, anything out of Honestlib. Then he posted in Klingon and shut down. You might be right in your assessment of him. I'm not giving up hope in his/her ability to converse, textually, with other human beings. C'mon Honestlib try, try. You can do it!
Posted by k330k at 05/30/2008 @ 12:21pm
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008
That is HL's second attempt at humor and they were both pretty good. I think he is warming up to everybody, just slowly.
Posted by Benchrest at 05/30/2008 @ 12:33pm
MCBUSH is not a conservative, he is another neocon....he does not favor private rights, and favors big govt....he is the antithesis of ron paul, which tells fed govt. to get lost.....and who would restore citizen's rights....any candidate who is willing to think outside the box is an improvement over our dumbed-down political pandering which benefits the already wealthy...
I personally have always supported Obama and think Clintons have exceeded their five minutes of fame, and their negatives are now weighing down the Dems.....if the party cannot get this right....I really honestly don't know what to do....I hope Obama picks a centrist VP such as Hagel...to appease everybody.....and who also has been outspoken against the war from the beginning, let bush/mcbush call hagel a coward, etc...and see what happens.....
Why can bush call mcbush crazy in 2000 when he is running against him, but the conservative media does a cover-up job about it now?????
McBush favors continuing to stockpile nuclear waste, bury greenhouse gases, this is all crazy...why not just have clean energy first....like occam's razor....instead of crazy unproven ideas????
McBush is extremely scary...I don't care if hillary anoints herself president...it is still safer for all of us......
Posted by jrs112 at 05/30/2008 @ 12:45pm
Posted by k330k at 05/30/2008
Well, in an attempt to "earn back my cool points"....I don't speak Klingon, I just Googled up the "Klingon Dictionary" website to try to see if I could get HL to talk in SOME language.
If he had posted in Swahili or Sinhalese....I'd have gone to THOSE language websites.
(Mind you, I still think Kirk is cooler than Picard....heheh)
Posted by Mask at 05/30/2008 @ 12:58pm
Dignity?
Shmignity.
The Clintons will instead treat us to a mob scene, attempting to intimidate the Rules & ByLaws committee, much the way the Brooks Bros GOP mob intimidated the vote recounters in FL '00.
No longer having a chance at the nomination, the Clintons want to be bought off, no surprise from the Pardon Sellers. And if they don't get their price soon, they'll escalate the mob scene for the convention.
The Obama administration will be heavily burdened by the Bush legacy & Clintonian sabotage, but it will certainly be a welcome change from both Clinton & Bush families.
Posted by sloper at 05/30/2008 @ 3:04pm
Totally agree - their lawyer's predictable pushing for all Fla/Mich delegates to be seated...
AND cool stuff from Californicate... thankfully not too many Kentucky types there.
Clinton's headstart in name awareness combined with her bratty behavior has had a nice result:
"Though Clinton beat Obama by 8 percentage points in February, the most recent poll has a majority of California Democrats preferring her rival - 51 percent to 38 percent."
Posted by winyahn at 05/30/2008 @ 6:26pm
Incidentally Klingon language is an actual minor at UC-Berkeley (no I cannot make this up!), almost but not quite makes up for the John Yoo PR mishegas.
If this goes to the convention, and Hillary loses, what then? Does she accept the loss, or does she totally gut the Democratic Party for her own selfish ends? And if you can't see that she's doing this only for the greater glory of her you're sipping more Kool-Aid than any Obama supporter allegedly has.
Posted by yutsano at 05/30/2008 @ 6:43pm
Since leaving a web letter at the article "Hillary's Nasty Pastorate" came up "ERROR", I though I'd bring it here instead. Afterall, Obama is being pounded again for the sermon given by a visting pastor at his current church, so here we go again with another Obama scrutiny -- and yet Hillary has yet to be scrutinized for her participation in The Fellowship (aka The Family).
Ms. Ehrenreich wrote a useful quick introductory overview.
I'm moved to write more since some of the other letters here reflect a dismissive attitude toward the alarming threat zealots like Doug and David Coe and their "THE FELLOWSHIP/THE FAMILY" present to our democracy and its required secular cultural setting.
Also, the campaign season permits voters an opportunity to get to know the candidates, and yet these letters indicate some intent to give Hillary Clinton a pass from a thorough vetting. No. Giving her a pass is not acceptable -- not in this era of organized religious pressure on government, and Bushworld propagandistic fear-mongering against Islam. Therefore, we need to know where Clinton is coming from, including an honest, open disclosure of the 'guiding principles' and guides she would take into the White House with her -- again.
Three areas that are of grave concern are:
1) how Clinton intends to let conservative reactionary religious "morality" effect a longtime Democratic commitment to Social Justice
2) how Clinton can justify her participation in a group such as THE FAMILY which holds a THEOCRATIC "long-term goal"
3) whether Clinton intends to further confuse the practice of radical religious evangelism with the secular duties of public service
Clinton did let conservative reactionary so-called 'morality' get in the way when she "joined the GOP on...an anti-human-trafficking law that withheld funding from groups working on the sex trade if they didn't condemn prostitution in the proper terms". At best, we could surmise it was just some personal prudery on Hillary's part that influenced her position; but if Clinton's motivation was a reactionary religious 'morally' judgmental viewpoint purposely imposed on legislation, it should be made known to voters.
Many of us want our representatives and elected officials to get busy RESTORING the civil rights and habeus corpus destroyed in the Bush years, and so we really don't need another president or senator who desires to restrict our lives even more in the name of conservative so-called 'morality'.
And Clinton is disregarding individual rights in the pursuit of religious indoctrination when she supports prayer in classrooms, religious lessons in public schools, and the presence of religious groups at public schools. And let's not forget her role reducing Separation of Church and State via the Clinton introduction of faith-based initiatives, which has grown and blossomed under Bush who now gives specific churches of his choice billions in taxpayer funds with little or no oversight. Now secular health and human services programs are being replaced by church-run programs. Are such examples of conservative religious positioning the result of Hillary's indoctrination in The Fellowship?
"The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God-leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by spirit." " That's what is expected of leaders in Coe's THEOCRATIC VISION. But in our country an elected official must be led by the Constitution and the rule of law that grows out of it. So Coe's goal is at odds with our democracy.
The Fellowship of Doug Coe allows anyone to participate "as long as they submit 'to the person of Jesus' as the source of their power". Is there anything wrong with that? Well, yes, if when The Fellowship members return to the business of government they forget that, in our Democracy, The Citizenry is the Source of the Power public servants wield when in the service of government!
I was shocked to read in the Mother Jones article Ms. Ehrnreich mentions (and from which I quoted above) that the authors sought to interview Clinton's Fellowship cell mates, but only one would agree to an interview and even then the woman "stressed that there's much she's not "at liberty" to reveal". Isn't this the antithesis of Reverend Wright's willingness -- ne enthusiasm -- for sharing the cause and depth of his religious practice?
The Fellowship's reliance on secrecy is alarming. It's alarming because secrecy a building block of the structure of a cult.
I am not privy to the classification of Doug Coe's institution and am curious if Mr. Sharlet's new book will cover its financial classification. Is it classified as a church or religious group getting tax-free status? If it does receive that status, I am curious just how a group seeking to replace our democracy with a theocracy would classify strictly as a church. Coe seems to care nothing for political party structure and the multiplicity of viewpoints it balances which is a basis of our democratic election process. He cares only for a common denominator -- that his congregation (?) "transcend left and right" and come to a singular elitest worldview and goal of elitest world rule.
Unfortunately, the scrutiny of Barack Obama's religious affiliations has been an unConstitutional 'religious test', especially when juxtaposed with the false charges about Obama being Muslim, which Clinton's clumsiness gave media traction. However, in contrast, the scrutiny of Clinton's association with Doug Coe and The Fellowship (aka The Family) goes directly to the issues of government office and what the public trust requires: Hillary must assure us that she will preserve the Constitutional guarantee of Separation of Church and State, the preservation of our democracy, and our continued freedom of belief -- especially when that belief is NOT the same as the belief of Doug Coe, a man who looks to world rule under a single vision of authority, that authority being Doug Coe's interpretation of Jesus!
Hillary owes us at least that much seeing as it appears she's going to take this to the convention and strain the Democratic Party over her candidacy, DNC rulings, and the Clinton campaign debt resolution.
Thank you to The Nation for Ms. Ehrenreich's article.
Posted by noratoo at 05/30/2008 @ 7:10pm
Happy can be happy because I am confident Hillary Clinton is going to Denver despite public opinion or delegate math.
Posted by SandyFeet at 05/30/2008 @ 7:43pm
Blogging you from South Dakota this morning
Posted by Euler
so?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008 @ 10:23pm
egad!
hillary's going to run lieberman style.........
you know,
an "independent".
<i>help.........
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/30/2008 @ 10:27pm
HAPPY3
actually, hsubfools was first.
canyon is foul.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/31/2008 @ 01:37am
"If this goes to the convention, and Hillary loses, what then? Does she accept the loss, or does she totally gut the Democratic Party for her own selfish ends?"
Ask not what you can do for your country ... or party ... or principles or ethics or moral character ... ask, instead, what would Tony & Carmela Soprano do in this situation. And the answer to that key Q will give you a good idea of what the Sopranos' TV ad emulators, the Clintons, will be doing from now on out.
Count on it.
Posted by sloper at 05/31/2008 @ 02:28am
The bottom line is simple. Clinton could not win under the rules that everyone, including Clinton, accepted. Having lost under these rules Clinton now asks that the rules be changed to favor her, basically punishing Obama for having respected the rules. It is an outrage and there will be hell to pay if the Democratic party submits to Clinton's blackmail, for basically that is what it is.
Posted by mikhailovich at 05/31/2008 @ 11:00am
I am sure many of you have heard the song, I have a crush on Obama.
Well, here are some lyrics for I had a Brush with Obama, sung to the same tune. Enjoy
I Had a Brush with Obama (And I Lost)(sung to the tune, with slight variation, of "I Got a Crush on Obama)
I was a Yale and Wellesley Girl Never knew about being poor But then I met Bill and became his whore Rose Law Firm but I wanted more An Attorney General's wife I was secure But I wanted even more The Governor's mansion was Arkansas lore But the paltry salary was a chore.
So like Barack at Convention 2-Oh-4,. In 1988 Bill was given the Floor Alas my advice Bill did ignore His speech an abysmal bore And when he said "in conclusion" they all cheered Our political future kicked in the rear Foretelling what was in store That I'd have a Brush with Obama That I'd have a Brush with Obama
And then the "Comeback Kid" Bill was defined Despite Jennifer Flowers and Paula Jones dropping a dime, Like Bush, I had a politically royal blood line Too bad Barack wouldn't bide his time So I had a brush with Obama So I had a brush with Obama And I lost, but I don't care I'm still with Bill, where the money is near Screw 2008, eight years later ain't too late, Even though I Iost a Brush with Obama
I am opportunist at heart, With Billy I got an early start And so I learned to stick by my man Although my move to New York was a sham. And when I scared Rudy away Elected to the Senate, I was talk of the dayBut then, like the other political whores, I glimpsed presidential opportunity and said yes to war.
I never read the National Intelligence Report War fervor, I thought there'd be no retort But unknown and a thousand miles away A lowly state senator was having his say
Six years later the war is still on The people now realizing it was a con But the press already had me crowned A new President allegedly found
But then out of the blue Barack did appear With a pledge to restore our integrity The invective I let fly the folks didn't buy Yes I lost my Brush with Obama. I lost my Brush with Obama.
So I'll have to wait past 2008 Because Barack Obama was simply the best candidate And tho I tried in vain to retaliate There was no way in hell I could break the spell of Obama Girl's Sell, And I ultimately fell Yes, I had a Brush with Obama (And I lost)
Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008 @ 4:32pm
>>>The bottom line is simple. Clinton could not win under the rules that everyone, including Clinton, accepted. Having lost under these rules Clinton now asks that the rules be changed to favor her, basically punishing Obama for having respected the rules. It is an outrage and there will be hell to pay if the Democratic party submits to Clinton's blackmail, for basically that is what it is.
Posted by mikhailovich at 05/31/2008 <<<
It is more than that! It is cheating by moving the goal posts after your opponent gets close to the goal line, which is CHEATING!!!
By including Florida and Michigan at THIS stage of the race, even at a 50% penalty, puts the total number of delegates needed for the nomination out of reach by Obama. Obama would need 2210 delegates at a 50% penalty for Florida (105.5) and Michigan (78.5), but there are only 86 delegates left in the remaining 3 contests.
This means even if Obama got 50% of the delegates in the remaining contests, with the new goal posts, he would be 118 delegates short of 2210 if you apportioned the Florida(50-33) and Michigan(55-40) votes according to their respective share of the vote in these elections (assumes Michigan's uncommitted are given to Obama, which is a BIG if). There are only 190 uncommitted superdelegates remaining, which means Obama would have to get 62% of the remaining superdelegates to hit the new 2210 goal post!
If the status quo were maintained, Obama would merely need to get 50% of the delegates (43) from the remaining 3 contests to surpass 2026, and not need ANY superdelegates at all!
In other words, Hillary could effectively block Obama from getting the nomination if she gets 39% of the remaining superdelegates with the new 2210 goal post in which Florida and Michigan are counted with a 50% penalty!
Blocking Obama's nomination means FORCING her way onto the ticket and hurting the Democrats in November by allowing the Republicans to use Hillary's Clinton baggage against the ticket and "even your VP doesn't think you are ready on day one" to defeat the ticket!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/31/2008 @ 5:36pm
Tom Hayden. Hell, he became irrelevant the moment he glommed on to Jane;s money. Sorry, Tommy boy, but Ted's is bigger than yours.
Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008 @ 6:24pm
Tom Hayden. Hell, he became irrelevant the moment he glommed on to Jane;s money. Sorry, Tommy boy, but Ted's is bigger than yours.
Posted by bobforer at 05/31/2008 @ 6:24pm
Cheating? Shmeating.
The Sopranos do it their way. To win. Regardless. You got a problem with that, pal?
So its dynamite in Denver, if the Sopranoesque Clintons don't get paid their extortionate price upfront.
Posted by sloper at 06/01/2008 @ 02:20am
And now she gets to trumpet her great victory among an electorate that can't vote in the general election. PLEASE Montana and South Dakota PUT HER AWAY!!!
Posted by yutsano at 06/01/2008 @ 5:24pm
Posted by Euler
i've seen lots, thank you very much.
great people, great food, beautiful forests, rivers and shores.
and the music.......
my comment was not regarding south dakota.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/01/2008 @ 11:18pm
Exit with dignity? Won't happen. Kicking, scratching, moving goalposts, trying to swipe committed delegates, changing the rules, and otherwise bringing forth every bad female stereotype that can be brought up without the aide of a sitcom writer? Now that'll happen.
Posted by edwriter at 06/02/2008 @ 5:12pm
You're out of your mind if you think Hillary Clinton is just going to bow out. I'd sooner expect capitalist pigs to come flying out of KVH's ass.
Posted by Person at 06/02/2008 @ 6:19pm
Posted by frankgrits at 06/2/2008
When Hillary quits and throws her support to Obama....FRANK in a pickle.
He either has to call her stupid (for not seeing how much "better" McCain is than Obama)....
or an "un-patriotic party hack" for supporting a man who is "less qualified" and "will destroy the country"...aka Obama.
This might actually be what gets FG off the "TN" blog for good.
What does he say when HILLARY'S OWN WORDS (at the concession speech) are thrown back at him?!?!?!?
Posted by Mask at 06/02/2008 @ 10:23pm
whatever will be, will be!!
Posted by HAPPY3
i dunno happy.
i think america just might be growing up.
and grown ups don't pay much mind to such fluff.
not when their brothers and sisters die for a commodity that nonetheless continues to cost them more.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/03/2008 @ 01:38am
Today we'll see how the back room deals and the disjointed power brokers are coming along licking their wounds.
This desperation is more than just the Clinton math coming up short, it is about the exodus of former power-brokers that, in addition to "seeing thing closer than they appear," are looking at a number of burned bridges in their rear-view mirrors as they leave town.
While there will be a little void in the - WTF moments, we're confident that John McCain will assume Hillary's role in delivering an occasional head jarring gasp of inter-dimensional vision, and the neo-con empire will take over the Keystone Cops comedy with William Krystol as the standard bearer.
Binx101 The Almost Daily Binx http://binx101.wordpress.com
Posted by Binx101 at 06/03/2008 @ 09:50am