Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
I'm not just running on a promise of change […] I'm running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies. […] I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change. And we don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered.
At last night's Democratic debate New Hampshire, a struggling candidate said real "change" demands a fight against corporate power – "drug companies," "health insurance companies" and "taking on the oil companies" – rather than settling for vague talk of "false hopes." The pundits swiftly labeled this an "angry" agenda. "Frankly, I don't even really understand" the argument, lamented ABC's Jake Tapper, "what I was getting was how angry" it sounded. Fierce change was definitely the priority last night: the word came up 80 times in the Democratic debate. (Bush and Iraq each netted 25 references, for comparison.) And sure, Hillary Clinton was fired up when she delivered the above remarks, channeling the messages of the two leading candidates in the Democratic race.
Clinton tried to portray herself as an experienced fighter who can deliver results on the issues that her rivals put on the agenda. She aims to co-opt Obama's change and Edwards' populism. It is an understandable strategy; most Iowa voters prioritized a candidate who "can bring change" over experience or electability, (according to entrance polls). But watching Hillary Clinton talk up change and the fight against corporate power is like slapping a Greenpeace bumper sticker on a Hummer. She has spent her entire campaign – and her career as an elected official – working within the framework of the Washington establishment. That's not a rare or terrible thing. It means she is a traditional domestic policy liberal and foreign policy centrist (by Washington standards), with an emphasis on solving problems through negotiation over social change. In other words, she's like most Democratic senators and the party's last nominee. But that makes it quite hard for her to co-opt change and populism in the coming days, even if her rhetoric now strikes some as "angry."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- 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
- ZNet
RSS
Perhaps the most exciting part of the debate was her almost screaming diatribe against Edwards and Obama.
Posted by ThePedro at 01/06/2008 @ 01:15am
Re true change: it might save considerable progressive Dem resources for the national election, if a huge change in primary practices were put into effect very soon. Whereby Richardson were to acknowledge his true purpose -- a shot at VP -- & Obama were to accept it, and the pair run as such after NH, with Edwards being offered & accepting the role of their fighting AG, out to restore the Const & bring corporate US back in line with the law & genuine democratic values. That would be a change & perhaps a victorious formula.
Posted by Lit at 01/06/2008 @ 04:26am
If LIT's proposal were miraculously to materialize in reality, Bloomberg would announce his "serious"candidacy in a shot, running ostensibly as a "pragmatic liberal" against the dreamy progressives, while aiming to discipline the progressives into accepting MidEast invasions/occupations & never, never returning to a more progressive income tax. These are Bloomberg's true objectives -- not culture issues like gay marriage & gun control, but a continuation of the status quo under the guise of cosmetic change. And should progressive Dems decline the Bloomberg discipline, his threat will be the Nader threat, I'll bring you down & my billion dollar TV blitz will end up putting the GOP nominee (Romney?) in the WH, if that's what it takes to continue MidEast invasions/occupations & retain, indeed extend, regressive taxation (national sales tax, anyone?). As Bloomberg has been saying in the NYTimes (since Iowa), the real Q is how are we going to pay for all these wonderful progressive programs? Message: don't you dare reintroduce genuine progressive taxes.
Posted by sloper at 01/06/2008 @ 04:43am
Nice posts, Lit and Sloper.
Edwards as the fightin' AG! That sounds great to me.
Regarding Bloomberg. Without having paid very close attention to what's been said regarding his actual purpose if he were to run, I did hear the sound bite the other day that he would run if "the candidates did not decide to be less partisan and run more centrist campaigns" --I'm paraphrasing.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?!
I thought prospective candidates basically decided to run if they thought they had a decent shot at winning and/or they had something important to add to the debate?
Bloomberg's standing on the sidelines and yelling at the players to "go centrist" sounded pretty absurd to me.
Anyway, if Bloomberg's threats start to look more serious --and we have a reasonably clear idea of who the Dem and Repug nominees are-- it'll be interesting to get some polling data to gauge what his actual effect would be.
I don't have a strong opinion on Michael Bloomberg, but it seems to me he'd end up swiping votes from both parties pretty evenly.
Feel free to torch me if I'm out to lunch on this point.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 06:58am
Perhaps the most exciting part of the debate was her almost screaming diatribe against Edwards and Obama.
~The Pedro @ 01:15am
Yep. She sounded really angry.
I have no idea why anyone would be so angry these days. It makes absolutely no sense. I mean seriously, what are these people -- on dope?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 01/06/2008 @ 07:12am
Gosh, I wish FRANKGRITS were here.
To "explain" how Her Nibs was "merely showing that she, and not Edwards, was the REAL fighter!"
And nobody believing it.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 09:52am
Posted by MASK 01/06/2008 @ 09:52am | ignore this person
All of them have disappeared, I think there was one pro Hillary poster yesterday ... , interesting.
Posted by V at 01/06/2008 @ 10:18am
"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!
For those of you who still have not heard:
There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O." You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama. The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.
It is an uplifting and informative campaign tool - so please, SPREAD THE WORD!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM
Together for Obama, Anne
Posted by annevilla at 01/06/2008 @ 11:11am
Republican Idiots, go to hell, the harm you have caused America is un-forgivable - on your watch Americas power and influence have been junked away, you idiots have spent billions of dollars, you have zero credibility, you are known liars, you are Authoritarians, AMERICA IS VERY ANGRY WITH YOU CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICANS FOR WHAT YOU HAVE DONE.
But, we are only going to be angry UNTIL YOU GET THE FUCCK OUT OF POSITIONS OF POWER. Then you fuccking idiot Republicans get your turn to be angry about blowjobs, you fucking idiot Republicans will have your turn to be twisted and bent all out of shape about blowjobs, and whether or not the President lied about getting a blowjob, you freaking scum.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 11:56am
Posted by V 01/06/2008 @ 10:18am
There's one over at "A Very Bad Omen for Hillary"..."BRUCE LLOYD".
Probably just a paid Hillary blogger trying to claim that sounding "pissed off" equals sounding "strong and forthright".
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 12:16pm
Well this is interesting. I for one don't think that the republican exists who can defeat Hillary in NY. In fact, it's a forgone conclusion that Hillary will make a run for the Presidency in '08 and New Yorkers aren't worried about it. They will be proud to have their Senator take back their country for them. Maybe Bill will run for her NY seat. It would be a perfect fit for him and for the people of NY. Stay tuned. As for the large number of Hillary haters out there, there are just as many if not more Clinton lovers. We don't have to worry about her being a polarizing figure. George Bush is by far the most polarizing President we've ever had and it didn't seem to hurt him any. But it will help Hillary and she knows it. Who cares what the Dick Morris's of the world have to say. Now all we need is a suitable VP candidate. Tipper Gore perhaps?
Posted by FRANKGRITS 08/09/2005 @ 3:13pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 12:16pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/06/2008 @ 12:16pm |
Now, now, FROSTY....you KNOW that going back and showing the embarassing stuff that people wrote months and years earlier...
is MY job!
heheh
Poor FRANKG...if She-Who-USED-TO-BE-Obeyed loses on Tuesday...
do you think he'll EVER come back? Given the ribbing he'll get?
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 12:18pm
"HRC FOR BLOGCATCHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 12:19pm
Pundits are calling the Democrats, "Angry". Obama is truly the #1 candidate because he has already begun innoculating himself against the Right-Wings only talking point this election. So called pundits who say Democrats are angry, go to hell. We know who the fucck is angry. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter - the mouthpieces of the right-wing. Youre gonna call us angry and put us down because we have a healthy emotional reaction to people trying to run America into the dirt? We dont like liars who start fuccking pre-emptive wars based on fuccking lies that kill Americans and deplete our power and prestige and treasure. Thats makes us angry? Fucck you. Go ahead and try that shhit, go ahead and call the Democrats angry see if you can scare people into voting for another 4 years of anti-American Conservative Authoritarian Bullshhit. Call us fuccking angry you god damn bastards, See if it fuccking works. Thank God Obama is ahead right now, because you can call Obama angry all god damn day and see if it fuccking works you fucckiing shhit for brains fuccking Republican assistant so-called fuccking pundits.
America knows who the fucck is righteously pissed off and who is just a sore hung up blow-job hating jealous fanatic.
Bloomberg you piece of shhit you know the polling says you will take more votes from Republicans than Democrats. All these god damn years of the idiot George Bush these same anti-American perverts who now call us angry, were biased referees looking the other way while the right-wing was absolutely 100% partisan 100% of the time, now theyre scared it might go the other way, and they want us to calm down because theyre going to call us angry if we dont start compromising. Bi-Partisanship has been forced only on one side, that will not stand, YOU FUCCKING RIGHT WINGERS COMPROMISE WITH US, you had your damn chance for us to be nice a long fuccking time ago.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 12:20pm
JOMAMMA - well I tell you loser, you still support Bush, you still support the disaster in Iraq. I recall you Jomamma the other day saying that you believe invading Iraq was a good idea.
I REST MY CASE IDIOT. I REALLY NEED NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE. GET RIGHT ON THE MAJOR ISSUES OF THE DAY AND THEN MAYBE YOU WILL HAVE AN OPINION WORTH LISTENING TO.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 12:22pm
Frank - I would vote for Hillary and I believe she would make a good President, but as she has not apologized for helping Bush get his war in Iraq - forget her - she is toast - she is done - and its completely fair.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 12:24pm
Democrats, they are going to call us angry - I'll take the blame. Obama, just tell them you arent responsible for what Conshame says. If Conshame got to destroy Republicans himself, it would take half the fun away. What I want to see is someone on my side with a great big smile, happy as can be, not an angry care in the world - just merrily cutting Republicans down.
I have long maintained that I am in favor of a more passionate and angry confrontation with the Conservatives. However I fully endorse the nice-appearing approach to carrying out this angry confrontation. Hurray for Obama - nothing against Edwards - but Obama is kicking ass with class.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 12:34pm
Posted by CONSHAME 01/06/2008 @ 12:24pm
Uh, CS....FRANK isn't here.
You don't SEE him....do you?
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 12:43pm
des·ti·ny (dĕs'tə-nē) n., pl. -nies.
The inevitable or necessary fate to which a particular person or thing is destined; one's lot.
A predetermined course of events considered as something beyond human power or control: "Marriage and hanging go by destiny" (Robert Burton).
The power or agency thought to predetermine events: Destiny brought them together.
[Middle English destine, from Old French destinee, from feminine past participle of destiner, to destine, from Latin
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/05/2007 @ 4:19pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 1:02pm
sorry, frank.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 1:03pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/06/2008 @ 1:03pm
I'll say 50-50...FRANKGRITS doesn't return to the "TN" blog for six months. 20% he never returns. Too many "Hillary-haters" here for him...and too much embarassment.
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 1:23pm
Posted by MASK 01/06/2008 @ 1:23pm
i sure hope he comes back. he had some good ideas. i couldn't understand the hillary think, though.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 01/06/2008 @ 1:26pm
He's an old traditionalist. The Party was telling him to support Hillary...so he did. Plus, like some of us, he liked the Clinton Years and hoped it'd come back.
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 1:37pm
"The pundits swiftly labeled this an "angry" agenda. "
Yeah, like, what's to be angry about? Things are going along just swimmingly for the Jake Tapper clan! I have the health care plan of a prince, a comfortable lifestyle, tony friends -- everything I need to insulate myself from the rest of you trash. All you pathetic losers do is bitch.
Posted by trippin at 01/06/2008 @ 1:57pm
these dem family squabbles will come to an end .full disclosure: I think all three dems are fine candidates and all would make acceptable presidents to me, and I will vote for any of them in the elections.
the primary in my state? dunno, too soon to tell.
Posted by brannigan at 01/06/2008 @ 2:04pm
Hillary would make a great president and it would be wonderful to have a woman president for the first time.
She made one too many bi-partisan compromises when she helped Bush get his Iraq war. All the candidates are taking too long to evolve an anti-war position, but Hillarys irresponsible attack on Obama, saying that Obama wants to appease our enemies and attack our friends, really sums up what went wrong with her campaign - Americans dont want compromise they want change.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:29pm
"I have the health care plan of a prince, a comfortable lifestyle, tony friends -- everything I need to insulate myself"
Posted by TRIPPIN 01/06/2008 @ 1:57pm | ignore this person
Everything you need to insulate yourself from the 2008 election in which the Republican Party will be permanently destroyed.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:32pm
Hey TRIPPIN, I can understand you not wanting to talk about politics, your side about to lose and all. So tell us, I understand you got alot of money - what - are we talking 6 figures??? Are you getting some pussy - or are you religious - maybe you dont care about that. But are banging lots of broads? What, you got alot of friends - I dont dis-believe that - I am sure you have alot of friends. Probably boring church folk though. I bet youre married. Probably your wife is - well I wont say that - I do have class. I bet one of your parties sucks. I bet, it doesnt matter how many people are over at your house, because I aint going there, I dont expect many cool people are going to your house anyway. I dont care if its 10,000 friends you got - who wants to hang out with 10,000 dullards. Sorry - just a joke - dont take it the wrong way - just funning you - I am sure the whole multitude of your friends are all very cool.
TRIPPIN, you still havent answered my question. What are we talking, $100,000 a year? $200,000 a year? $300,000 a year? Are we talking 7 digits???? I believe you that make alot of money.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:40pm
TRIPPIN has been bragging about being rich, but he wont disclose how rich he is. All I am asking is a range, I aint asking him for the exact amount. AND HE REFUSES TO DISCLOSE. Personally, I think he probably makes about $40,000 a year.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:43pm
TRIPPINS has "tony friends". Man, am I out of it. I dont even know what a "tony friend" is. Must mean a pathetic loser friend. Or maybe it means a friend who earns about $40,000 a year at his job like TRIPPIN. I bet TRIPPIN counts his whole right-wing mega church as his friends - all the right-wing christians at the mega church he goes to who earn less than $40,000 a year.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:46pm
TRIPPIN - say hi to them "tony friends" you got. Good luck with the insulation.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 2:49pm
I just found out that "tony friend", is gay slang, it means a friend who is willing to call a cross dressing male a "she", and play along that "she" is a woman.
This confirms what I was about to say about TRIPPINS wife - that she is probably a cross dresser. I wasnt going to mention that intuition I had about "her", but this tony thing confirms it so it isnt a speculation.
Posted by conshame at 01/06/2008 @ 3:19pm
Things are going along just swimmingly for the Jake Tapper clan! I have the health care plan of a prince, a comfortable lifestyle, tony friends -- everything I need to insulate myself from the rest of you trash. All you pathetic losers do is bitch.
Posted by TRIPPIN 01/06/2008 @ 1:57pm
jake tapper of abc news?
wow, on t.v. you don't seem like an asshole. you must be somebody else.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 9:18pm
CONSHAME, you really need to learn how to vent your anger. You keep all that inside and you'll explode. Every once in a while, you should just unleash it. Do it in a safe way, like on a blog or something. :D
Posted by FritztheCat at 01/06/2008 @ 10:19pm
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 01/06/2008 @ 10:19pm
There's a theory...not partisan or ideological, that...
CS isn't "quite right in the head".
Posted by Mask at 01/06/2008 @ 10:36pm
I like to think that Conch is actually a well situated banker, with a lovely home and a kindhearted family in the 'burbs'... and that every once in a while he needs to 'cut loose' and give it all up...;^)
It's a joke... O.K?
We all could use a little help sometimes, Mask... it's just that some of us burn really bright...;^)
Posted by ttr at 01/06/2008 @ 11:35pm
Come on Frosty..
Posted by JOMAMMA 01/06/2008 @ 10:12pm
john,
after reading your post, i went back to see if i had missed an earlier post by said "trippin".
however, that's the only one
to whit:
"The pundits swiftly labeled this an "angry" agenda. "
Yeah, like, what's to be angry about? Things are going along just swimmingly for the Jake Tapper clan! I have the health care plan of a prince, a comfortable lifestyle, tony friends -- everything I need to insulate myself from the rest of you trash. All you pathetic losers do is bitch.
Posted by TRIPPIN 01/06/2008 @ 1:57pm
Things are going along just swimmingly for the Jake Tapper clan!
a -- i'm-o.k.-so-who-cares-about-the things-i-choose-to-ignore attitude is smarmy..........
I have the health care plan of a prince
b -- i'm-o.k.-so-who-cares-about-people-from-my-homeland-dying-doctorless attitude is cruel..........
a comfortable lifestyle
c -- i'm-o.k.-and-i've-got-plasma-hidef-5D-surround-sound-better-than-you attitude is crass and wasteful...........
tony friends
d -- this is, how they say in méxico, "naco*".
everything I need to insulate myself from the rest of you trash.
e -- hey, HE called me "stinky".
All you pathetic losers do is bitch.
f -- this is an insult.
perhaps my tone shocked you, jm. to be honest, i don't remember jake tapper from t.v. i just googled. am i bitching now?
frankly, what he said shocked me.
*Naco (slang)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Naco (fmn. naca) is a pejorative word often used in Mexican Spanish to describe bad-mannered and poorly educated people. Recently, however, the word has been reclaimed by Mexican hipsters, particularly in Mexico City and in other places where the word has been popularized in fashions. A naco is usually associated with lower socio-economic classes, but could also sometimes include the nouveau-riche.
Posted by frosty zoom at 01/06/2008 @ 11:50pm