why I support Hillary Clinton:
http://nycweboy.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/the-hillary-cli.html

Obama's been making that "mindset" critique since at least last October. It's not a new theme for him, although it may have taken awhile to get traction.

Columbus Dispatch, 10/26/07: "[Obama] pledged that if he becomes president, “I will bring an end to this war.”

He advocated foreign policies that include talking with foes as well as friends to promote better understanding and diminish the chances for conflicts.

“We’ve got to change the mindset in Washington that got us into this war,” Obama said. “We’ve got to change the mindset of people around the world to help us.”

If these are the "elites," how would you describe Clinton's supporters?

Ackerman's argument is downright silly. Obama's so called consistency on the war is, no matter what the media may claim, a fiction. McCain will be able to hit him as hard on his inconsistency as he would Clinton, if not more so. McCain will say that he knows many principled consistent opponents of the war, like his colleague Russ Feingold; but Barack Obama is not one of them. Before he was running for President he was Russ Feingold on the war, after he was running for President he became Hillary Clinton on the war. His position on the war has consistenly lined up with his political ambitions. McCain will contrast that with his support of the surge that was politically very risky. McCain is a consistent, principled supporter of the war. Obama is not the anti war equivalent of that. Obama voting to not fund the war was not going to keep those bills from passing. He had a chance to take a bold principled stand like Feingold or Kucinich, but he passed because he didn't want to appear too extreme to win the Presidency. The media in its pro Obama/Anti-Clinton bias didn't run with this story, but come the general election I bet that will change. At least from the right wing noise machine that is.

"Thursday’s debate is any indication, in a replay of the "flip-flopper" charge that doomed Kerry four years ago. Unlike Obama, Clinton will have no way of pivoting to a broader indictment of the militarism that McCain cheerfully espouses."

How is voting to fund the war not flip-flopping? Again and again we hear Obama won't face the same crits that Kerry did and presumably Clinton will. Why not?

If you are against the war, you are against it. Period. Neither Obama nor Clinton has an answer to that. Also, how does not being in the mindset of war translate to entering into Pakistan unsolicited?

"The second was that Obama simply got more specific, particularly on foreign policy. When he began speaking about ending the 'politics of fear' and attacking the mindset" that led us into Iraq, he finally took, with clarity and force, a position against the politically convenient militarism which has been so deeply pernicious within the Democratic primary."

Force? a little. Clarity and Specifics? Nope.

These days? As caustic liars mostly…

David Geffen summed it up best. The ease with which the Clintons lie is disgusting.

Well, as the Clintons lead. So here faithful follow.

When he began speaking about ending the "politics of fear" and attacking the mindset" that led us into Iraq, he finally took, with clarity and force, a position against the politically convenient militarism which has been so deeply pernicious within the Democratic primary.

And that's your idea of specific? Ezra do you know how many military bases we've built in Iraq? They're not made of pre-fab aluminum siding you know. They're there to STAY. Lucian K. Truscott IV saw them all at the start of the war and said to me five years ago that it would take at least twwnty years of concerted effort to get us out if we started then.

Barack Obama's blather is indeed a fairy tale.

p.s. Progressives in agreement with such mainstays of the MSM should watch their backs.

To jj, RJ, and Ehrenstein: Is HRC any better than Obama on the issue(s) in question? If so, please give details.

Let's not kid ourselves that there is a progressive left in the primary... there is not. Edwards was the last and we're left with two pretty centrist candidates.

I'm voting for Hillary for many reasons, but one of them is that fact that Obama has raised the most money and received the most "elite" and connected endorsements. His base is the affluent elites and young voters. He speaks great, but I'm always left with no substance. In the end, he seems a great motivational speaker, but this old fart is sick of the "inspiring" candidate, got burned by Reagan, been told to vote for the "one you'd rather have a beer with", etc. and has gotten screwed every which way becauase of voting for a Predsident based on nothing more than personality. This time I want the boring, nerdy, manybe not very likable or popular,but totally competent person. I'm sick of the more "popular" one winning. I'm sick of bipartianship that means the left moving more towards the right, I'm sick of empty words and phrases and 7 years of Bush has left me with no illusions of hope. We need competence and I won't let my vote go to one who promises but won't define what change means.

how would you describe Clinton's supporters?

IME, the rank & file are mostly people who just want the nineties to come back (hint: not happening), and a subset of management-minded women.

in site

^site^spite

No, Clinton is not much better than Obama. Go ahead and vote for whoever you want to vote for. Just don't try to feed us bullshit about Obama the transformative candidate.

What Obama represents more than anything else is the betrayal of those who dug in their heels and stood and fought against movement conservatism for the past seven years. The hard-nosed partisan left was correct for all those years, and now is the time for vindication and repudiation of the right, not repudiation of partisanship. Casting a pox on both houses means letting the right wing off the hook easy, and that's what the Obama campaign is all about.

You're sick of the more charismatic candidates like Reagan and Bush winning, so you're voting for Hillary?

You realize that the reason these charismatic *Republicans* keep winning is that the Democrats, '92 aside, invariably nominate Fritz Mondale types, right? So now you want to send another Mondale type up to battle? How does this make any sense?

The self-destructive tendencies of the Democratic Party never cease to amaze me.

David, we're in a big mess in Iraq - you're right. I think Obama is less likely to create more of those messes than any other candidate currently running.

jj - I'm aware that Obama has drawbacks. Perhaps you should wonder if just maybe we all aren't as naive as you think.

Mike in SLO Wrote:

this old fart is sick of the "inspiring" candidate, got burned by Reagan, been told to vote for the "one you'd rather have a beer with", etc. and has gotten screwed every which way becauase of voting for a Predsident based on nothing more than personality. This time I want the boring, nerdy, manybe not very likable or popular,but totally competent person. I'm sick of the more "popular" one winning. I'm sick of bipartianship that means the left moving more towards the right, I'm sick of empty words and phrases and 7 years of Bush has left me with no illusions of hope.

Did your desire to have a beer with a candidate lead you to Al Gore? Or even John Kerry? I cannot believe that. As much as I respect these men, I would not want to have a beer with them.

I cannot imagine what you are trying to tell other people by posting this…. Hillary is so uninspiring she can win?

But hey. That’s just me.

It's Colin Powell day. Vote For Hillary, she wants him back

I'm genuinely trying to understand what it means to call Obama "progressive" with regard to foreign policy.

There seem to several different theories of this:
1) Obama is more willing to negotiate, enter into diplomatic relations, etc.
2) Obama's foreign policy *advisers* are significantly more anti-war than Clinton's
3) Obama is likely to redirect American attention to parts of the world often ignored, such as Africa
4) the rest of the world will like us more because of Obama's ancestry.

None of these, however, strike me as progressive in a substantive sense. A nicer, cuddlier, more cosmopolitan foreign policy perhaps.

When it comes to thorny situations where there are real costs (as opposed to the relatively cost-free attention to advisers or shaking hands abroad), however, there really isn't much I'd call "progessive" about his foreign policy. Designating the Iranian military a terrorist organization (albeit for nuclear, rather than Iraq-related reasons) isn't especially progressive, nor are most of his recent statements on Palestine.

I recognize, though, that this isn't something I've followed closely, so if someone wants to point out ways in which Obama deserves to be called progessive, I'm all ears (or is it all monitor?). At the moment, I really don't see it...

Paul Krugman takes Obama to task again today over health care. Is there anyway someone can get Obama to stop the garbage Krugman is talking about?

"So now you want to send another Mondale type up to battle? How does this make any sense?"

Actually, Ryan, I find Obama the more "Mondale" of the two. Fuzzies, though warm, are still fuzzies.

Henderstock, on the war, I don't find either candidate better than the other. A year ago, I said I'd never vote for Clinton based on that war vote. But then I had other choices that lasted until recently. Obama, as stated by someone else above, certainly did have the option of voting not to fund the war. It would have been unpopular as hell, and it would have gotten my vote. Those who tell me, "nobody couldn't vote against that," are proving not disproving my point that he is any better.

Not sure what other issues you mean but can say I am also in the camp, with anon above, that thinks we don't need a correction of partisanship, but a correction of repub policies. They were actually wrong. Obama's feel good Reagan/repub talk doesn't do it for me. Clinton may govern as centrist, but her presentation of it did not insult.

As for the elites, well, just great; they got the supporters of the first black and first woman candidates to go to war with each other.

I have to ask why?

What's weird, and I mean this in a descriptive, non-judgmental way, is that the netroots have rallied around a candidate that is in many ways a walking repudiation of the approach they've spent the last four years advocating. This approach consisted of two primary tenets:

1. Democrats should be fiercely partisan

2. Campaigns should be about substantive issues, not personality (essentially, a condemnation of Maureen Dowd-style punditry)

Quibble with my exact wording if you will, but I think this is a reasonable approximation of the netroots' argument. But Obama violates both tenets. He has based his candidacy on nonpartisanship and likability/charisma. Regardless of whether you think Obama's approach is a good one, it would take some pretty tortured logic to see it as anything but contrary to what the netroots has been arguing for.

"What Obama represents more than anything else is the betrayal of those who dug in their heels...The hard-nosed partisan left was correct for all those years, and now is the time for vindication and repudiation of the right...letting the right wing off the hook easy...that's what the Obama campaign is all about."

Someone wants revenge more than they want to build what Ezra rightly calls "a more progressive moment on social policy."

I swear, sometimes the commenters here remind me of Picard in First Contact: "And I will make them PAY for what they've done!"

Ahab:
And you want to deal with a resurrected Rethuglican party in 4 years? All of the basic tenets of the modern Rethuglican party have been shown to be window dressing, nothing more. So you'd refuse to drive the stake through the heart of the devil?

"Fuzzies, though warm, are still fuzzies."

Are you claiming that Walter Mondale was "warm and fuzzy" and the "personality candidate?"

No wonder you're voting for Hillary. Your knowledge of American politics apparently begins around 1992.

Don't leave out Brad Delong. He voted for Obama.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/i-just-voted-fo.html

"I swear, sometimes the commenters here remind me of Picard in First Contact: "And I will make them PAY for what they've done!""

Well why the fuck not? These people started out lying and stealing, got us into a war without end, trashed the Constitution en route to seeking an unchallenged Unitary Executive that brooks no opposition from Congress or the Courts, all the while backed by a Republican Party that whose motto might as well have been "See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil"

Bush/Cheney is evil. And corrupt. The Republican leadership are mirror images of that, instead they are corrupt and evil. They need to be crushed, we need to reclaim the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, not bending over begging to take another stroke from Bush's frat paddle.

Bush lied, GIs died. Hell yes there should be consequences for him and every single one of his remaining supporters.

thorin: I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Hillary. I am just expressing for me why I don't buy the transformational or change argument.

Do I have to have an agenda to post my opinion? If so, let me know and I'll quit posting.

Brewman,

Mondale, 92?

Have another brew.

Joe Klein's conscience: You raise an issue that's really important to me. The Bush administration has been packed to the gills with thugs who will never be called to account. If it were up to me I'd name Patrick Fitzgerald as special prosecutor and unleash him on the whole criminal gang of them (and if he convicts some corrupt Dems too, more the better.)

But neither Obama nor Clinton will do what I want. Obama based on temperament and on his conviction (possibly accurate) that moving forward on a progressive agenda requires us to pick off loosely affiliated Republicans and independents, which can only be done with a "positive" agenda. Hillary because she will have no political capital to spare, and even the slightest moves towards doing so will be loudly denounced as revenge, and "just more of the partisan Clinton wars."

So it won't happen. The only solution is to build a movement that keeps the Republicans out of power for most of the next generation. Of the two candidates, if elected, Obama seems more likely to do that. (Which is why, I think, the netroots has somewhat warmed to him, notwithstanding Jason C.'s astute observations.)

No way will Clinton, Mark Penn, and Terry McAuliffe have any interest in trying. That's why, after struggling with the decision, I voted for Obama here in NJ today.

Having done so, I confess having increasingly serious trepidations about his electability (as well as hers).

Why does the liberal elite, like you...just lie and misrepresent, either by commission or omission? Do you think that might have something to do with Obama's favor among elites...Liars stick together.

Why didn't you remind readers that Andrew Sullivan endorsed Ron Paul. Isn't that important to know? Does Sullivan get two votes? He gets to vote for Obama and Ron Paul? Isn't that odd? Is he a member of the elite you respect? Or maybe you don't respect your readers...so you hide this information instead of focusing on what hyocrites these media elites really are.

This is such dishonest coverage.

"Mondale, 92?"

I was saying that you can't remeber what went on before 1992. You're the idiot arguing the Fritz Mondale was "warm amd fuzzy," not me. I worked on his campaign in 1984.

He of course, was followed by the also decidedly not warm and fuzzy Dukakis.

The only remotely charismatic candidate we've had in my adult life was Clinton I. Of course, his adminsitration generally sucked if you were a progressive.

With Obama, we get progressive pedigree and tons of charisma. I'd rather take a chance on that than on another earnest, wonky, centrist. I already know how the second story ends.

Ezra, I'm not sure, but I think you mean to say that Hillary is more progressive on "economic policy" or "healthcare policy," not on "social policy." At least, that how I think of it. Or maybe I'm getting "social policy" and "cultural policy" mixed up, but at any rate, I think of "social policy" as meaning things like civil liberties, gay rights, etc, where, if there's a case that Obama isn't more progressive, he's certainly not less progressive either.

Obama has always been the candidate of the elite. What is odd is the support from partisans like Kos who for years rejected the idea of supporting candidates who distanced themselves from the Democratic party.

Call me cynical, but I have to assume with so many of the knowledge workers, online activists and the under 30 set supporting Obama some of this is just fear of being made irrelevant. Go back to the time of your "The Barackobubble" and read the lefty blogs and then ask what has changed besides the increasing likeliness that Obama wins the nomination?

Brewmn,

As always, thanks for the insult. Speaks well for your candidate's "above the fray" niceties.

"With Obama, we get progressive pedigree and tons of charisma. I'd rather take a chance on that than on another earnest, wonky, centrist. I already know how the second story ends."

wanna give me a refresher on that progressive pedigree, because, from where I stand he's at least as centrist as Clinton

as for the wonky centrist, who are you thinking of for the first one? Not charismatic Bill Clinton, whose campaign Obama has basically mirrored with "change" and "hope." If you already know how that story ends, why repeat it?

If Hillary's going to be so liberal on domestic policy, than how come she keeps attacking Obama on making the payroll tax less regressive than it currently is (lifting the cap wouldn't completely rectify that gap, the tax rate would also have to be progressive).

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/a_clinton_mailer_in_arizona.php

I mean, how is it possible that everyone jumps on Health Care and Hillary manages to keep this out of the news? Press bias in favor of Obama my left arm.

Or how about Hillary's attacks on Obama that distort his unimpeachable record on abortion rights? Little help here Ezra.

I'm not surprised to see boomer liberal pundits swayed to Obama after Hillary started engaging in some competitive politics, nothing terrifies the Democratic establishment like a fight. That is a big part of why Al Gore is not president, and why we have been so powerless since then. I am surprised to see the newer generation of pundits follow suit, I thought they believed in politics.

Not that I have any concern about Obama's competitive instincts, any candidate who can get liberal pundits to believe Bill Clinton was being racist has real skill going for the jugular.

"If you already know how that story ends, why repeat it?"

Because I'd still prefer an incremental, moderate Republican in the White House, i.e., a Bill Clinton, than the lunatics who have been leading that party since Reagan.

My point is that charisma matters with the American electorate. We can wish it otherwise, but it's a fact we have to deal with. And Hillary has next to none, her various "humanizing" moments notwithstanding.

And, as to their respective brands of centrism, I simply can not see Obama going along with a hard Republican line on things like trade and welfare like Bill did. Bill was also happy to throw blacks under the bus when his poll numbers needed a boost. I don't have any reason to think Hillary different from her husband in these regards.

If Hillary's going to be so liberal on domestic policy, than how come she keeps attacking Obama on making the payroll tax less regressive than it currently is (lifting the cap wouldn't completely rectify that gap, the tax rate would also have to be progressive).

Lifting the cap will barely do anything at all to rectify that gap. The tax would not only need to get much more progressive but it would also have to be levied on investment income and corporate income rather than on payroll alone. Obama's position on Social Security falls so far short that it is really false progressivism.

Indeed, it should really be considered anti-progressivism because it diverts attention away from the only legitimate goal, which is to ensure that the Social Security trust fund is repaid by the general fund, i.e. revenue from the income tax, which is already progressive and already levied on investment income. Any other "solution" is a distraction and should be treated as a false flag operation.

The second paragraph of brewmn's last comment is well taken. The last paragraph is not.

Thanks for the promotion to Elite-dom (or is that Elite-hood).

;)

I had always thought that my single payer advocacy put me more in the category of "DFH" compared to you "respectable liberal" bloggers. LOL.

Here's for more and better Democratic congresscritters so that we can have Peace & Health.

I appreciate the new tone, Brewmn.

"My point is that charisma matters with the American electorate. We can wish it otherwise, but it's a fact we have to deal with. And Hillary has next to none, her various 'humanizing' moments notwithstanding."

Not going to wade too far in on the "humanizing" moments, except to say I've only hearsay accounts, and that I have an inkling these were more press-created than anything else.

I respectfully disagree with you on her general level of charisma, though, but, then, I separate charisma from popularity.

Ezra noted, after watching the last debate, and I agreed, that watching Clinton, he LIKED her (gasps all around, I know.) Unfiltered, one on one with the American people, she registers. Don't know if you caught the cnn.com audience feedback site during the debate, but, and I think this important, when she spoke, her approval ratings went up, nearly every time.

I am not blind to the anti-Clinton hate out there, and would certainly not call her nearly as charismatic as Obama is, but I find her, when speaking directly to the American people, in detailed and precise language, to be charismatic enough for my tastes.

A lot of interesting posts here.

I think we are all really fatigued, or at least a lot of us are.

I've been wondering where the hell the Democratic Party has been for the past seven and a half years and it seemed like there was a glimmer of hope when Howard Dean appeared with his 50 state strategy. And I still think so; that's why I stumped for him in Iowa in 2004.

But so much has been uninspiring and depressing and the "pox on both houses" rankles deeply because I think everything EVERYTHING has been wrong with the Bush administration and the GOP all this time. And I despise the timidity of the Dems.

So, to be utterly contradictory because I am so fatigued and it took me a long time to come around and endorse someone I am endorsing Obama. Why? Because I am utterly sick and tired of the Clintons. If Reagan was right about anything (and he wasn't about much) it was that a president (sitting or former) behave with dignity. Bill Clinton does not do that. I don't want any more of that. And Hillary is using him as a primary weapon in her campaign.

I may have my doubts about Obama, but I am through with the Clintons. Through.

A footnote:

What's more; the lack of dignity of President Clinton's behaviour was an enabler for the Bush misbehaviour. Clinton is not responsible for Bush, but he sure as hell gave the GOP the perfect foil for anything and everything they did because he just could not conduct himself properly.

Funny enough, I never saw that until this campaign. But now I get it and it makes me hope in spite of the conventional wisdom that I will not have to hold my nose and pull the lever for Hillary because it will be a snowy day in Crawford, Texas before I vote GOP.

I think it would be more appropriate to call Obama a meta-visionary rather than a visionary.

It's clear enough that he's about having a vision, but what the vision might actually be, nobody knows.

Change, apparently. How Heracletian.

At one point, the vision was Unity. Now it seems to be Transformation. Maybe Belief?

Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.

Like war, which is too important to leave to the Generals, national and international policy is too important to leave to the economists. Viva la revolucion!

As the game is set to be released on September 18th many players will be pushing hard to level their characters as fast as possible as well as farming as much gold as they can on the process. Warhammer gold is valued the highest during the start of the game when every player is striving to get as much of it as possible into their own hands.

this years candidates seems a bit on the lower end to me. My votes would've been for hilary but unfortunately...

I think it would be more appropriate to call Obama a meta-visionary rather than a visionary.

Maybe the iron rule by (mostly conservative) economists over our legislative, regulatory, and taxing policies - principally associated with Friedmanomics - is being to be challenged. Certainly the walls of the fortress are under attack, and the hot oil to pour on the attackers is running low.

Ezra, I'm not sure, but I think you mean to say that Hillary is more progressive on "economic policy" or "healthcare policy," not on "social policy." At least, that how I think of it. Or maybe I'm getting "social policy" and "cultural policy" mixed up, but at any rate, I think of "social policy" as meaning things like civil liberties, gay rights, etc, where, if there's a case that Obama isn't more progressive, he's certainly not less progressive either.

I came to the bar following him and found secondlife money was so cheap. After that, I also go to play game with him.

sdafdsgdsgasfa

My friends like to play it and buy flyff penya.

I like to play last chaos, because I like its name, also I like last chaos gold.

Flyff is a very good game. Through buying flyff penya, I find fun in it.

I want give they happy time, twelve sky Gold

It is a very nice game silkroad gold

Do you know latale online gold?

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some [url=http://www.solsticeonlinekron.com/]Solstice Kron[/url]

It is the [url=http://www.gamekoo.com/product/Lord_of_The_Rings_Online_-_EU_gold.html]LOTRO Gold[/url] which make me very happy

it is good

The Colts rankworld of warcraft gold

I always heard something from my neighbor that he sometimes goes to the internet bar to play the game which will use him some

wow">http://www.toppowerlevel.net">wow power leveling

cheap wow gold buy wow power leveling

pa-1650-01

jfjd

hehe

By the way, if you are interested in high qualities but low price replica watch Please contact us.

091022050221PMhttp://www.requiemgold.net/ Requiem Gold | http://www.requiemgold.net/ Requiem Lant |

nice blog..

http://premiereopera.qb1.libsyn.com/index.php#comments