The Twin Cities line was perfect. Warner's "sidekick" crack was also very good.

Well- I am glad they are starting to attack. My one criticism is that they are still feeling like policy differences rather than going after McCain's character.

The Twin Cities line was classic. When does the YouTube video get made of McCain and Bush hugging, mugging, and laughing with the theme song to the Patty Duke Show as the soundtrack? Much fun can be had with that line.

Maybe it's also possible that Democrats who supported Barack Obama, in good faith, will extend a hand to Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in like good faith.

I for one nearly despaired during the two horse primary race when some progressives asserted that Hillary Clinton and her husband would work to bring down Obama if he became the nominee.

It's likely that a small minority of people who voted for her during the primaries will vote for John McCain. I hope it's a very small number, and the speech tonight, and all her actions since conceding the race to Obama, showed it won't be because of any action she takes or fails to take.

Ezra's right: "Her candidacy was about something, not someone."

They aren't going after McCain's character, because that's a losing arguement. If they can't win in a judge of character between Kerry and Bush. They don't have a snowball's chance of doing so with McCain.

Good folks at RCP were right in a way – it is the Media which has been looking for an hypothetical rift between Hillary and Obama. With today’s speech, more gas should go out of such nefarious efforts. The Media, especially cheap GOP leaning ones, still may not give up entirely this issue; but Hillary has done what any sane and rational leader would do – to rally behind Obama. It may be very well a politician in her who would not have let go this opportunity to pass, as Ezra pointed; but it is obvious that she earned at least this much gratitude from Democrats.

She basically thought through the problem quite well – what it means to be a Democrats and support to her was in the end support to Democratic ideals. Her emphasis on women’s emancipation and their contribution to American freedom efforts was dot on, essentially a core political act of goading women voters and backers to Obama.

For those of us from India, the bright Orange dress she wore aptly signified her ‘sacrifice’ for the party. Yes, she owned the convention. One hopes that when Obama gets elected, he understands his obligations to Hillary and along with what Ted Kennedy stood for; Obama stakes his Presidency for meaningful Health Reforms.

In normal circumstances, any political party will be blessed to have her as the leader. Democrats are quite rich this time when they have folks like Obama and Hillary both on the podium. The question is how all this translates in the end.

andrew....

i can almost promise you that if you come to the meetings for barack obama, you will be very encouraged to see the warm welcomes that the supporters of hillary clinton receive.
i can only speak from my experience, but there has been a real outpouring of appreciation and genuine good will shown to all of the supporters of hillary clinton who have come to join forces.

in my area, we have already been working together side by side with many supporters of hillary clinton for weeks and we are all working together as democrats. we even have republicans and many independents...we have all moved on and are all working happily under the same umbrella!
:-)

Ezra was right on about reactions to this speech: CNN was gushing over it. That's the way they play: whether they're tearing down or building up, they control the narrative. Political coverage seems to mimic celebrity gossip more and more.

Anyway, it was an excellent speech, and it was the best delivery I've seen her give, I think. Certainly the best this year. She's not my favorite public speaker, but she was definitely on tonight.

I was grateful to her. Her primary campaign did a number of things that annoyed me, but she did her part here, and she really has had to deal with a lot of crap over the years.

I also really liked her introduction video. I wonder why they don't craft more campaign ads (the positive ones) in that style, rather than the usual sappy God-Bless-America you usually see. Someday, someone's going to take a chance and bring election advertising in line with commercial advertising and be well rewarded for it.

Hillary did all that the unifiers could hope for and more. And she did it with apparent sincerity and conviction. I liked her emphasis on the Dem. party as a vehicle of positive change for the future.

The initial response from the McCain lobbyist, err campaign, staff pointed out that she did not take back her earlier statements that Obama lacked experience for the job - which has the virtue (if that's the word) of at least being true, instead of the usual lies, out-of-context quotes, and innuendos from the GOP. She could have dispatched that had she pointed out that both JFK and Bill Clinton were younger than Obama when first elected (I think that's so). But she didn't, so that's an item she needs to repair as the campaign proceeds.

Will her Dem. supporters that have been reluctant to commit to Obama follow her into full-hearted support? My guess is that most of them will, but some Dem. people will probably sit on their hands. Countering this, I'd also guess that lots of independents and some GOPers who haven't committed to Obama will absorb her argument on why a Dem. in the White House is essential to meet the challenges ahead, and follow the Obama path when they cast their votes.

Best line: 'no way, no how, no McCain.'

it is the Media which has been looking for an hypothetical rift between Hillary and Obama.

There's a very mundane reason for this: the media whores are on holida, working out of hotels, dealing with an environment that they don't control. So they take more of their own narratives into it. It's not that different from when people go on holiday to a city like London or Paris and have their impressions shaped by the cliches about them.

I wonder why they don't craft more campaign ads (the positive ones) in that style, rather than the usual sappy God-Bless-America you usually see.

A lot of it comes down to a few things: political ad makers are a specialised bunch, don't have a huge amount of competition, and stick with what they know.

And candidates, working within a relatively small window, tend towards the conservative. These are ads that get shown during local news and the Senior Hour (Wheel/Jeopardy) and they're aiming at the broadest possible demographic within that time window.

(American TV advertising, in general, is more conservative and hard-sell than, say, British ad making.)

To all those complaining about the fact that the convention yesterday was too mild, listen to Newsweek: "Consider the early conventional wisdom about last night: that the Democrats didn't spend much time hitting the Republicans. That's true, insofar as organizers didn't think it would be dignified to have two history-making speakers share the stage with a McCain piñata."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/155647

it's been quite a remarkable sight around various lefty blogs the past few days to read the number of comments from people who quite literally had such a twisted view of hillary clinton that they denied a speech like she gave was even possible.

i hope, for a few days at least, they all have the simple decency to simply stfu.

I'm afraid that this is the key sentence in this post: "The candidate left in the race with a similar set of beliefs is Barack Obama."

Hillary Clinton spoke passionately about the people she's met. She stated unequivocally that Barack Obama should be the next president. These are good things.

But she did not -- repeat, NOT -- assuage those who have doubts about Obama's character or conviction. She did not bear witness to the ways that he fights for us. She did not reassure us of his experience or readiness to be president. She did not rebut McCain's claims that Obama is practically guilty of treason (preferring to lose a war than lose an election). Instead, in Clinton's telling, Obama is merely someone who bears a similar set of beliefs to some generic Democrat.

"Tonight, she was the party's standard bearer." Yes, exactly, and so she made the chasm between her supporters and his wider rather than narrower.

Ezra - You have a real knack for writing memorable, short form reviews. Kind of a lyrical spontaneous quality, which evaporates whenever you get into longer, sustained arguments.

Mike H: well done with your copy-and-paste from the RNC talking points. That's circulated fast.

Take your 8 McCain points and put it towards the 425,000 you need for a set of campaign-branded BBQ tongs. Then fuck off.

Huh. No post from petey in this comment thread?

Instead, in Clinton's telling, Obama is merely someone who bears a similar set of beliefs to some generic Democrat.

Somebody on teevee said something similar - to the effect that, Hillary could have given the same speech if Chris Dodd had been the nominee.

But I think that was kind of the point: that this isn't about Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or any one person in particular. It's about saving the country and the world from another 4 years of a Republican in the White House.

I am an Obama supporter who was a fan of the Clintons in the 1990s and would have happily voted for Hillary if she had won the primary.

Having said that, I know both sides have their grievances and I often hear Hillary fans say they would like Obama (and his supporters) to reach out more in this campaign. From this point on, what would you like to see me (or Obama) doing to bridge the divide?

Maybe you feel those bridges have been burnt (would you accept me saying that if Hillary had won?) but if not please tell me specifics about what should be done.

You have my commitment to listen respectfully to your ideas and to tell those who do not to STFU. I'll do my best but I'm not sure where to go from here.

I would love to hear your ideas, PLEASE let me know...

BTW,

Hillary,

well done,

so well done,

Thanks!

well, my hope at 12:29 is betrayed immediately. for goodness sake: sure it was a great speech but it didn't name barack obama enough is just about as ridiculous a response as one can imagine.

only someone in the grips of terminal clinton hatred could lead with that.

sigh....

I agree with Howard, those who had issues with Sen Clinton wouldn't have been satisfied no matter what she had said.

MY MOM, a lifelong Republican, called me to say how good she thought Hillary's speech was.

It was very good,

let it go

Now can all the Clinton Haters please STFU?

She shoulda been on the ticket. But the Dems aren't that interested in winning.

sven

How about picking up the groceries this week or if you really want to go big taking care of my family's health insurance premium for September?

well that kerry argument would make sense if kerry actually went after bush's character. see how this works? some republican makes some silly claim, and we democrats buy it. well. most of the rest of you do anyway. the reality is that attacking mccain's character would sealt he election. it's his only perceived strength. go after that. he's gone. hence why the republicans can't allow that. didn't we learn anything from rove?

She shoulda been on the ticket.

I agree she would have brought a lot to the ticket. But she would also have brought Bill... with no clearly defined role, and no leverage to control him.

Surely even the most fervent Hillary supporters can see the problem with this? Bill got way off the reservation a number of times during the primary, spouting off in ways that were not helpful to Hillary. If Hillary cannot control him, how could Obama?

Ezra,

Hillary does everything, but kiss Barak's butt and you just keep making remarks to alienate women.

"...and those of her supporters who aren't using her candidacy as a means to elect John McCain, deserved that." - Ezra

Could you dial down your fringe rhetoric, I don't know any Clinton supporters who watched the speech with me who are looking to elect McCain. And I repeatedly asked whether any were voting for the guy.

That said, the Greens/Naderists I know have been turning away from Barak for while saying they wouldn't vote at all, but they never really supported any of the candidates so Obama's hard turn to the right only confirmed their determination not to vote.

Honestly Ezra, skip the parties tonight, get some rest, your remarks earlier today saying that you and your homies found "...a quiet sense of relief in his [Kerry's] loss" to Bush were...well...insane.

Look at lil' Ezra pretend he was above the fray. Hypocrite.

Jane/Chris does your husband/wife control you?

This is such a ridiculous trope for not selecting Hillary. Not really that difficult to install the man as ambassador to Farawaystan (would he really refuse Israel, Saudi Arabia, England or China?)if you want him out of the picture or the UN or NATO if you want him close but tied up with bureaucracy and protocol. Send him on a worldwide poverty or goodwill tour or nominate him for the Supreme Court. Obama could have come up with dozens of ways to keep Bill Clinton occupied for several years.

Thanks for asking,

How much do you spend on groceries in a given week? Which of Clinton's ideas, if adopted by Obama, would help you?

The chief difference between Obama's and Sen. Clinton's health care plans was a mandate for coverage. How would your insurance premium be different under a Hillary presidency? Under a McCain presidency?

I am being sincere, I keep hearing/reading Hillary supporters saying that Obama supporters need to make a greater effort.

Here I am, tell me what you want.

Of course, the best speech has been from the only actual progressive, but Kucinich is too "ugh" for the AT&TPepsi Democrats...

Jane/Chris does your husband/wife control you?

This is such a ridiculous trope for not selecting Hillary. Not really that difficult to install the man as ambassador to Farawaystan (would he really refuse Israel, Saudi Arabia, England or China?)if you want him out of the picture or the UN or NATO if you want him close but tied up with bureaucracy and protocol. Send him on a worldwide poverty or goodwill tour or nominate him for the Supreme Court. Obama could have come up with dozens of ways to keep Bill Clinton occupied for several years.

Well... I'm no longer married. And my spouse didn't, in fact, control me. But he didn't need to. I didn't do things that would embarrass him, or annoy his boss. Bill Clinton has a certain propensity to do both. He still has a reputation for womanizing, and people around the world still treat him as a powerful person (as indeed he is). Would Bill have been willing to check those potentially embarrassing traits at the door? Based on what I've seen of the guy--and I'm a Bill fan--I'd say no. Would he zip his libido and put all that that personal influence in service to his wife's VP job? It is possible. Not sure I'd want to bet on it.

CMhap: It's not about keeping Bill occupied for the duration of a potential Obama presidency, it's about keeping Bill from saying something as dumb as "Jesse Jackson also won South Carolina" during election season. Not many people even know Joe Biden's wife's name, if she says something stupid it won't be big news. Bill Clinton is a former president, if he says something unhelpful to the campaign, it'll be the talk of the cable news channels.

Sorry about the formatting in the previous post. The second paragraph was also a quote, and should therefore have also been italicized.

hangs head in shame

Jake, the "sidekick" line was Casey's. I wish Warner had been concerned enough about something other than his Senate race (after all, he's only ahead by 26 points in the polls) to put in something like that.

Andrew,

If having a potential gaffe-maker loose during the campaign was the determining factor in Obama's VP pick, then Biden is a transcendently odd selection, isn't he?

Hillary did great!

Which is all the more reason why Barack was an idiot for not picking her.

The sad thing was the Democrats conspired to put Hillary in the same position she was with Bill and his semen stained dress.

She had to go out and say she supported the guy, even though all he's done is screwed her over.

It was a great speech for Hillary, but her supporters know exactly what's going on....she was showing Obama what bad judgement he had in picking his VP.

Sorry, but Dennis' speech was much better.

As good as Clinton's speech was, I think she comes with too much baggage - and I'm thinking more about the frankly irrational hatred that the American right-wingers have for both Clintons, than about Bill.

So, she's not going to be the VP now, and maybe she's never going to be the president. That happens to most politicians, even the best ones. I expect she will focus on her Senate career from now on, or get a cabinet position in the Obama administration. Those aren't consolation prizes, either.

Mike H is right on. SHe did NOT express confidence in Obama or say anything specific about him. All she said was that he is for everything she is (not exactly true, either). But her delivery was fantastic, and completely lacking what had marred her speeches in the campaign -- the angry scowl after delivering a scolding line. She has obviously been madder at Obama than at McCain. The Obama campaign gave the Clintons so much at this convention, and have gotten nothing for it except a lot of griping from Clinton surrogates (Carville et. al.) about the failure to show adequate deference to the Clintons.

"Hillary Clinton wanted an individual mandate to bring health care closer to universality, but both wanted to reform the system and radically expand access. There are times when a vicious intraparty battle ends and reconciliation is an obvious heavy lift because a chasm separates the combatants. Not so here."

Q: How can you tell when Ezra Klein is lying?
A: When you can hear his keyboard clattering.

No chasm separates the candidates on healthcare?

Clinton supports universal healthcare and Obama viciously opposes it, even going so far as to run anti-Democratic Harry and Louise ads to savage universal healthcare.

Clinton wanted to bring healthcare closer to universality? What a fucking lie. Her plan would have achieved universality.

Ezra has taken many lessons from his misogynistic mentor, Chris Matthews. And the number one lesson Ezra learned is to always lie right through his bared teeth. Ezra thinks telling the truth is a sin.

"sven" has asked a good and very honest question: what more would recalcitrant Hillary-ites want? Do you REALLY think having her as VP would result in a productive, positive POTUS/VPOTUS partnership? Obama's hands were tied on the VP question, due mostly to Hill's and Bill's conduct of the campaign as well as irrational right-wing hatred of Hillary. So what other options does he have? I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he hasn't ruled her out for ANY cabinet position or the SC. So tell me, what has Obama NOT done to try to heal the "rift"?

I put "rift" in quotes because I've come to believe this is manufactured in part by shit-stirrers and in part by some fanatical Hillary dead-enders. Hillary gave a fantastic speech and she and Bill are on-board the Democratic victory train; why aren't her supporters?

"Chris Matthews has a pseudonym"

Yup. It's "Ezra Klein".

"Obama's hands were tied on the VP question"

Damn straight.

The anti-progressive "post-partisans" like Chris Matthews and Ezra Klein would've been up in arms if Clinton had been on the ticket.

The upscale anti-Democratic "donor class" that has been Obama's base would've been up in arms if Clinton had been on the ticket.

GE Money and GE Healthcare that have provided such strong propaganda support for Obama would've been up in arms if Clinton had been on the ticket.

Folks like Ezra want to honorable lose the election, and putting Clinton on the ticket would've put a crimp in their plans.

pat

i know throughout the course of this nominating season, you feel that things did not work out as you passionately hoped, for hillary clinton.
but i imagine that in your own personal life, things have not always worked out as you thought they should all of the time, either.
and things that are unfair and inexplicable to us, happen to people all of the time...in heartbreaking ways that make us feel passed over, angry and bitter. and for good reason.
at some point, we have to try to move forward from disappointment, and work with the cards we have been dealt.
at some point, comes the dawning that all of the wishing, working, hoping and anger is not going to change the way some things are.
with all due respect, it never seemed likely that obama could or would have selected hillary clinton for a vice president.
it is, after all, a personal choice, and it did not appear that the chemistry was there, either with hillary or bill clinton.
so, what might have appeared to be best from your perspective, was not what he thought was best from his perspective, and it was, after all, his choice to make, and he earned that as the nominee. that is just the unchangeable reality of the situation, whether we all agreed or not.
arent there jobs you thought you deserved? grades you thought should have been higher? relationships that should have worked out better? opportunities that you deserved?
that is the same for every single person. but at some point, there is nothing left to do, but to move forward.
you express your anger over perceived injustice here, especially directed at those who didnt agree with you.
but the page has now turned.
we are faced with a different set of circumstances.
the choice is no longer about the democratic nominee or the vice-presidential pick......it is about either john mccain or barack obamaa winning the election.
that is the decision that can be influenced now.
if you are a democrat, if you care about the things that hillary clinton was talking about, you must know that we can only accomplish them now with unity and not chaos.
whatever injustices you perceive against hillary, she still has, by all appearances, a wonderful life.
she is highly esteemed and loved by many. she still is lucky enough to have a mother. she has a daughter that adores her. she is one of the most influential and surely the most famous woman in the world. she seems to be robust and in excellent health.... and she leads a highly effective life, with every opportunity to affect legislation that can better the life of millions and affect global decisions.
she is an extraordinarily blessed and beloved woman.
she will do fine.
but the millions of people losing homes, not able to pay bills, without medical insurance, fighting wearily in wars, getting laid off from jobs, trying to raise single families....they need some of your righteous anger too.
let's try to work together for them too, in a highly imperfect world.
how about it?

"rarely is policy eschewed as a justification for support of one candidate or another"

This is quite true for Ezra, who thinks personality matters and policy doesn't.

But actual progressives do care about policy and do think it's a justification for supporting one candidate over another.

"Having said that, I know both sides have their grievances and I often hear Hillary fans say they would like Obama (and his supporters) to reach out more in this campaign. From this point on, what would you like to see me (or Obama) doing to bridge the divide?"

Endorse universal healthcare. Stop bashing Social Security.

Those things wouldn't be too hard to do for a Democrat or a progressive, but they are impossible for Obama to do.

From today's piece by Ezra's role model, Maureen Dowd:

“I’m telling you, man,” said one top Democrat, “it’s something about our party, the shtetl mentality.”

That's the mentality that causes "personality matters / policy doesn't" Ezra to say that losing honorably is a good thing!!! Un-fucking-believable.

"the upscale anti-democratic donor class that is obama's base"

petey, there are thousands and thousands of obama supporters who are not anti-democratic or upscale.
they are hard working, ordinary, overworked people.
that is really the truth.
you may disagree with their choices and you may think they are severely misguided, but surely you know that many of his supporters are just ordinary people, scraping by, and trying to make a living.
go to an obama meeting.
go see for yourself.
the majority of people there are just people that work at regular jobs five days a week and are doing the best that they can to get by.

"the majority of people there are just people that work at regular jobs five days a week and are doing the best that they can to get by."

And those folks could use a government that pursues progressive goals, rather than Obama's plan to pursue General Electric's goals.

But, hey, Ezra wants to have a beer with Obama, so policy doesn't matter.

"(Clinton) is a Democrat, not a Hillaryite."

Yup.

And Obama is a "post-partisan", not a Democrat.

Clinton was crystal clear last night, and I think that the only people not hearing her are Republicans intentionally stirring up trouble. In light of her - very specific - remarks last night the game that they are playing is now obvious.

Petey - your comments at this point are purely destructive. Way back somewhere you had something interesting to say. It's now all contempt and all nasty. If you give a damn at all about any of the progressive goals that you allegedly care about you'll stop attacking the only alternative to McCain. Instead I think that YOU want the democrats to lose - it's more important for you to think that you won some internet pissing match than for the country to get better.

And your personal insults against the columnists are, as far as I'm concerned, completely justifiable grounds for instabanning.

As a Democrat and a Hillary supporter I am planning to stay home on election day. My goal is to send a message to the Democratic party that I as a woman will not stand for the treatment of women that occurred in the Democratic primaries; and that my future support depends on equal representation for women.

I was outraged by the blatant, nasty sexism in the campaign. I was profoundly disappointed that Obama, the party and the media have all denied that sexism was a factor in the primaries - have completely denied an issue that is vitally important to women in the party. I was disgusted that Obama did not choose a woman to be his VP, or even to seriously consider the woman who got nearly half the vote. I continue to be appalled at the unequal treatment of Hillary as the losing candidate: no man has ever been expected to grovel to the winner so thoroughly.

Women represent 51% of the population and less than 10% of the power elite. I want the backroom boys to feel that they can't win an election without a woman on the ticket. I want them to start to get serious about moving to equal representation in congress, the cabinet, the judiciary, senior government posts, corporate directorships and senior management. I want them to see women as a demographic they have to take seriously.

I don’t dislike Obama or Biden; I just refuse to sit by and accept that the first serious female candidate could be driven out of the race by being demonized and ridiculed for being female. Some of the most widely watched and influential media personalities said they were afraid she’d castrate them. Her biggest failing, we were told, was that she had a sense of entitlement – and people accepted that as a fair criticism. She was criticized for her laugh, ankles, age. She was called shrill, a hypocrite, too mannish, too womanish. The media was more interested in the husband than the candidate. It was blatantly obvious that no woman would be taken seriously.

Women have always been mammothly under-represented in the power elite, and in this primary season women were sent a great big message that we are not welcome there. They'll remember us if we throw the election. It's short term pain for long term gain.

My boycott is not in support of Hillary. If Hillary’s supporters turn their backs on Obama it could rebound very negatively on Hillary: no matter what she does, she will probably be blamed for it and it might even doom her political future. But this is not about her. This is about drawing a line in the sand and saying I will not take this anymore.

"If you give a damn at all about any of the progressive goals that you allegedly care about you'll stop attacking the only alternative to McCain."

Disagree.

- Considering that Obama is running as a "post-partisan" who's attacking the Democratic policy agenda...

- Considering that there is a healthy Democratic Congress to stop McCain from passing his preferred legislation...

I don't see why standing by silently as Obama tries to remake the Democratic Party in General Electric's image makes any sense.

Obama is a "personality progressive" who attacks progressive policy. Pretending that situation doesn't exist is destructive to progressive goals.

Maybe you're against universal healthcare like Obama. Maybe you think Social Security is in crisis like Obama. Maybe you're opposed to campaign finance reform like Obama. Maybe you support Obama's stand on the FISA bill. I just happen to be on the other side of the divide.

Given the realities of this election, I don't see the merits for giving Obama a pass from the left.

Yappa,

I understand your commitment to your feelings about what happened but I question your commitment to the future of this country for the next generation of young women and men. Do you honestly think that if John McCain becomes president that life for them will improve? He will NOT support universal health care which is what Hillary believes in most. Are you so selfish as to withhold a vote that could possibly guarantee that right for all Americans young and old?

Your selfishness is astounding...and sad.

thank you, yappa.

thank you for staying home on election day.
for thereby disempowering all of hillary clinton's lifetime of best efforts.
for ensuring a mccain victory, so that women less fortunate, but still admiring of hillary clinton, will be guaranteed a harder and more painful life....so that our children will suffer with worse schools, a more polluted and asphyxiated world, fewer opportunities and poorer health care.
thank you for staying home on election day, so that those of us who are mothers, will be guaranteed the world we leave to future generations, will be even more riddled with problems than our own.
thank you for making a personal statement and casting a vote by staying home on election day, so that we can lose more young men and women in war and watch our infrastructure rust away.
thank you for helping us to watch the supreme court become deafened.
and on behalf of all women, thank you for helping to lay the groundwork for the repeal of roe versus wade.
i am old enough to remember when women used coat hangers on themselves to stop unwanted pregnancies.
thank you for abstaining from voting, so that we can move women back into the dark ages again.
we will ALL be punished by individual acts of selfishness.
there will be no long term gain.
you will punish future generations.
this is not about you.
this is not about me.
this is about the world we intend to leave for future generations.
you will be teaching no-one a lesson.
evil gains a foothold when enough good people stand by and do NOTHING.

there is nothing left to be said beyond pleading. women everywhere want a better world for future generations, and also for themselves.
thank long and hard before you stand between millions of women and their dream and right for a better life.
soon, there will be nothing left to say.
no further case to be made.
it will all be in the hands of the angels.

"(McCain) will NOT support universal health care which is what Hillary believes in most."

McCain and Obama both oppose universal healthcare.

And Obama has been a helluva lot louder in opposing it. Obama spent millions of dollars from the "donor class" to run TV ads and send out glossy brochures attacking Clinton for her support of universal healthcare.

Did you sleep through the last year?

Petey, it's getting increasingly hard to follow you as time goes on. But whatever.

I don't understand why you label Obama as the GE candidate when he had strong support from many unions, when he is heavily funded by individual donations, and when *Clinton* sat, for the love of God, on Wal-Mart's board.

She was a good candidate, and her health care plan, for what that's worth, was better, at least under pressure from John Edwards. You're right on that.

But doesn't the term DLC mean anything to you? What about Wal-Mart? What about her support of a neocon foreign policy?

Obama is a flawed candidate, as Clinton was, and most of us probably agree with you on health care. But seriously - you need to take a few hundred deep breaths and recognize the fact that all of us, including Ezra, care about multiple issues, and stop demonizing people for whom Iraq weighs more heavily in our calculations than it does for you.

And Yappa - there was sexism in the media, and there was racism too. If the media actually reported on reality, though, I'm sure they'd find that Obama's candidacy was driven first, last and always by opposition to the Iraq War - not by sexism, any more than her candidacy was driven by racism.

Please don't stay home - let's not have a war with Iran, or see Roe overturned or Social Security wrecked.

Clintonites are mourning a history that never was.

Clinton actually NETTED VOTES because of media sexism. Example: New Hampshire.

She lost because she couldn't manage the people in her campaign and gave too much power to IDIOTS.

Example: Mark Penn.

Petey, it's getting increasingly hard to follow you as time goes on.

Its easy to follow Petulant Petey: Find the popular position among left-center pundits like Ezra, turn it 180 degrees, and there you go. Also make sure to throw in the occasional position that's unpopular on InTrade, because Daddy's next house payment isn't going to fund itself.

Its also nice to see that, regardless of Hillary's enthusiasm last night, the usual suspects are up to their usual shenanigans.

Welcome to the Internet, where admitting you are wrong is apparently a mortal sin.

"Obama is a flawed candidate, as Clinton was"

Agreed.

But there is a big difference between a flawed "post-partisan" candidate and a flawed Democratic candidate.

"I don't understand why you label Obama as the GE candidate"

Because unlike a Democrat, Obama savages universal healthcare in order to receive General Electric's blessing.

Because unlike a Democrat, Obama says Social Security is "in crisis" in order to receive General Electric's blessing.

"But there is a big difference between a flawed "post-partisan" candidate and a flawed Democratic candidate."

I'm someone who I think shared your opinion early in the primaries that Edwards was by far the best of the main three and I think I held those opinions for similar reasons...but this is just absurd.

You're absolutely right, Hillary is better than Obama on healthcare. I thought the Harry and Louise flyers from Obama were absolutely shameful and disgusting. But that was one issue.

Do progressives care about the war? Because Obama has shown a stronger commitment to ending it and ending it sooner than Hillary ever did. Do progressives care about our foreign policy in the middle east? Because Hillary has been much more aggressive in her posturing towards countries like Iran.

I think the reason personality became such an issue in this election is that its an absolute undeniable fact that they are pretty similar in their policy pronouncements. Hillary has been a bit more progressive on domestic issues, while Obama has been a bit more progressive in the arena of foreign policy. Convincing oneself of a major gap between them is a significant act of self-delusion.

Now thats not to say that there's no reason to criticize Obama for things you feel he should be further to left on. By all means do so. However thats completely different from going so far as to support McCain. If Hillary was your preference because of her policy stances then Obama is still enormously better than McCain even if you think he's short of Hillary. Its mind-boggling that anyone could even think to suggest otherwise.

Because unlike a Democrat, Obama says Social Security is "in crisis" in order to receive General Electric's blessing.

The pallor of Clintonism must stretch far then:

http://tinyurl.com/4gedq

In 1998, the major policy question in Washington was what to do with enormous anticipated federal budget surpluses. Republicans, arguing that a surplus meant the government was taking in too much money, wanted to cut taxes. Clinton wanted to kill any tax-cut proposal before it had a chance to gather support. So in his 1998 State of the Union speech, he came up with a famous slogan.

"What should we do with this projected surplus?" Clinton said. "I have a simple four-word answer: Save Social Security first."

Soon Clinton was going around the country, touting a coming Social Security "crisis." All of his administration's economic achievements, he said in February 1998, "are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security." There should be no new spending — or, more importantly, no tax cuts — "before we take care of the crisis in Social Security that is looming when the baby boomers retire."

Or, if the National Review isn't your cup of tea:

http://tinyurl.com/6cny3y

Mr. Bush isn't the first to deploy the "c" word to describe Social Security's predicament. "This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation," President Bill Clinton warned in 1998.

I'll glady evict Bubba from the Democratic party, will you?

Off Topic
-----

Ezra, you were all over the Beauchamp's TNR Affair last year.

Here is an update - Beauchamp's First Sergeant, who derided his reporting, is accused of murder: First Sgt. Hatley and the Beauchamp TNR Affair

Fine, Josh R., I'll get down in the weeds with you.

Bill Clinton talked that way in 1998 in a defensive tactical maneuver to keep the Republican Congress from spending the budget surplus on tax cuts. I don't think it was a particularly wise choice, but the times were dire with Clinton weak from L'affair Lewinsky, and I understand why the choice was made.

Al Gore had a better defensive tactical maneuver in 2000 when he talked about the Social Security "lockbox" that prompted General Electric to spend so many resources attacking him.

But Gore's tactic and Bill Clinton's tactic were had identical purposes in protecting the budget surplus from the Republican Congress.

Compare and contrast to 2008 when we have a Democratic Congress, no budget surplus, and when Barack Obama was the only major Democratic Presidential candidate to adopt General Electric's false line that Social Security is "in crisis". There is absolutely no justifiable reason to be talking that way in 2008.

-----

"I'll glady evict Bubba from the Democratic party"

Funny. That's exactly what Ezra's been saying all year, that he wants to build a Democratic Party without the working class. Y'see, Ezra doesn't think the working class will help him advance his career the way the "donor class" will.

You, Ezra, and Obama can certainly try to evict all the bubbas and build a party solely out of the "donor class", but I think the working class will have the last laugh on all of your asses.

Please ignore those who are objectively trolling for McCain. If at this point they haven't rallied around Obama, they're not good Democrats.

Petey at this point is a Republican troll. We have no way of even knowing he's not some random person who came in and took Petey's old moniker.

If people are trying to spread division after Senator Clinton's fantastic speech last night, I think it's fair to draw the harshest conclusions about them.

I just refuse to sit by and accept that the first serious female candidate could be driven out of the race by being demonized and ridiculed for being female. Some of the most widely watched and influential media personalities said they were afraid she’d castrate them. Her biggest failing, we were told, was that she had a sense of entitlement – and people accepted that as a fair criticism. She was criticized for her laugh, ankles, age. She was called shrill, a hypocrite, too mannish, too womanish.

And certainly, the best way to punish the media is refrain from voting for Obama/Biden. That really makes perfect sense.

"Funny. That's exactly what Ezra's been saying all year, that he wants to build a Democratic Party without the working class. Y'see, Ezra doesn't think the working class will help him advance his career the way the "donor class" will."

Just to be clear, you're stating that evicting Bubba from the Democratic party would be the equivalent of removing the working class from the Democratic party? Really? You sure you don't want to rethink that because I can't tell you how unbelievably stupid it is to equate Bill Clinton with working class politics.

Given Clinton's decision to run a nasty and unnecessarily prolonged primary campaign, the "it's not about me" part of her speech rang completely false.

"Petey at this point is a Republican troll. We have no way of even knowing he's not some random person who came in and took Petey's old moniker."

I have the exact same concerns I had a year ago - the legislation of the Democratic policy agenda.

It's illustrative of just how hostile the "post-partisan" Obama has been to the Democratic policy agenda that I'm still unsure about whether or not to vote for him.

And FWIW, I heartily endorse all 435 Democratic House candidates and all 100 Democratic Senate candidates. Support Democrats, not "post-partisans". Send a check to the DCCC or the DSCC.

"yappa"= concern troll. ignore.

From yappa's own website (yappadingding.blogspot.com):

"I'm finding it difficult to support Barack Obama in part because I like John McCain. McCain is pretending to be more right-wing than he is to win over the Republican party, but his stance on issues is really quite moderate, as he has demonstrated for years."

McCain is pretending to be more right-wing than he is to win over the Republican party, but his stance on issues is really quite moderate, as he has demonstrated for years.

Oh good God. Yappa really is a fucking moron then. Good riddance.

"Just to be clear, you're stating that evicting Bubba from the Democratic party would be the equivalent of removing the working class from the Democratic party?"

According to Wikipedia:

bubba is often used outside the South as a pejorative meaning low economic status and limited education.

Given Ezra's call to build a Democratic Party without the working class, I assume that's the meaning of "bubba" that folks are using here.

"I can't tell you how unbelievably stupid it is to equate Bill Clinton with working class politics."

Huh. The Clinton administration is the only period in time when incomes at the median and below have risen since the early 70's.

I understand that incomes at the median and below aren't an important topic for the "donor class" that makes up Obama's base, but that is the core of the agenda of the Democratic working class.

Maybe you feel those bridges have been burnt (would you accept me saying that if Hillary had won?) but if not please tell me specifics about what should be done.

This would probably be considered concern trolling, but I'm just wonkin'--I'd say focus on the enemy. Keeping hitting McCain with solid ads (the Obama ads have been strong thus far) and focus on the issues. And have Hillary out their campaigning, if at all possible. She obviously is a good campaigner--she almost got the nomination--and she had the first decent speech of the convention. It'll only help Obama to have Hillary hitting the campaign trail, and it will only help the Democrats.

Perhaps I'm biased, being a conservative and all, but I'd advise them to leave Bill at home. I don't think he'd be nearly as much of an asset to Obama as Hillary would be, but maybe he'll convince me otherwise when he speaks. He made the stand-out speech at the 2004 convention, aside from Obama's.

"Now thats not to say that there's no reason to criticize Obama for things you feel he should be further to left on. By all means do so. However thats completely different from going so far as to support McCain."

I'm not supporting McCain. I will vote either Obama or Nader.

But given the Democratic Congress acting a safeguard against a Republican President's agenda, and given Obama's desire to run and govern as a "post-partisan" rather than as a Democrat, I see no reason to give him a pass from the left.

Obama has picked a war with the left in order to gain General Electric's support. And I'm no pacifist.

"However thats completely different from going so far as to support McCain"

I'm with Jose Rivera.

This is mentally ill -- why is it Democratic to back a Democratic Congress without a Democratic President?

Does Petey want us to be nostalgic for the Reagan years, in which we had another right wing President have his way destroying the working class with a Democratic Congress?

Petey, I'd be glad to wager I have been and still am more working class than you, so is my job, and so is my family, and you're a useless sniping douchebag.

You don't care about working people and an agenda to help them, you just care about your various candidate grievances.

As a Democrat and a Hillary supporter I am planning to stay home on election day. My goal is to send a message to the Democratic party that I as a woman will not stand for the treatment of women that occurred in the Democratic primaries; and that my future support depends on equal representation for women.

You certainly can do that if you like, but I'm betting the poles will show you were a tiny minority.

Do you really want a McCain presidency? I'm voting for McCain, and I don't particularly want a McCain presidency.

Do you think every person incensed by Hillary's treatment in the primaries (the blame for which belongs much more to the MSM than Obama, IMHO) is going to sit it out?

I dunno. But, heck, if you really want to "send the Democrats" a message, show up and vote for McCain.

Oh, and f*** all you people to hell with your bullsh*t about "sending a message".

Elections aren't about sending messages. That's what e-mail is for.

Elections are about rationally choosing between (in current reality) two competing candidates, one of which will back one likely agenda, one of which will back another.

"Does Petey want us to be nostalgic for the Reagan years, in which we had another right wing President have his way destroying the working class with a Democratic Congress?"

Reagan had a working majority in '81 - '83 because the "Democratic" Congress had a Republican Senate and a House that didn't have a majority willing to stand by the Democratic agenda due to the rump Southern faction.

That's not the situation we're going to have with the next two Congresses. We're going to have healthy Democratic majorities.

A President McCain would get to legislate as many of his priorities as Bush the Elder did from '89 - '93 or Clinton did from '97 - '01, aka none of them.

Does Petey want us to be nostalgic for the Reagan years, in which we had another right wing President have his way destroying the working class with a Democratic Congress?

Hell, that describes the first two and last two years of the Bush Administration too.

Petey, you're f***ing retarded. You're willing to bet our entire f***ing country and the working class you fake like you care about to gamble that the Democratic Congress under President McCain would resist McCain more than the current Congress has George W. Bush Jr.

F*** you and your stupid Maoist long march plans. There. You don't give a flying f*** about what happens to the working class over the next 4 years, and you're willing to gamble it.

And if you think Reagan's attack on the working classes was limited to 81-83, you're even more of a pathetic excuse for a faux proletarian than ever.

F*** you. You aren't pro working class, you don't give the slightest sh*t about us and our lives, you're willing to let us endure 4 more years of authoritarian Republican attack with a proven record of a Democratic Congress which dives for the Republican President's agenda, and you think everything is a fun Leninist game on where you think you can move the masses around on a chessboard to see where you'd like to be with your chosen forces in the distant future.

Please, please, I beg of you, stop caring for us working classes, because you do nothing but hurt us.

It's actually somewhat amusing to see how Petey's decline into insanity has fallen even further as the summer has progressed.

Why Petey thinks that 4-8 years of having Republicans staff thousands of political appointee positions throughout government agencies is a good idea -- regardless of the makeup of congress -- is beyond me.

"Huh. The Clinton administration is the only period in time when incomes at the median and below have risen since the early 70's."

Real wages at the median and below during the Clinton years stagnated until the very end of the Clinton era despite the massive growth. It would have been virtually impossible for real wages not to rise a little bit at the median with the economy as strong as it was during the Clinton years, but the limited growth in real wages for the median and below given the incredible growth in the economy is unprecedented in US History.

Bill Clinton decided to forgoe working class politics in 1993-1994 when he allowed the Robert Rubins in his adminstration to triumph over the Bob Reichs. Clinton did not pass a single bill to expand worker's rights in the workplace until signing the workplace ergonimics bill at the very end of his 2nd term and doing it so that GWB was in office before the 90 day window to strike down a law expired, which he promptly did. 8 years in office and he used his political capital for things like NAFTA and expansion of Bretton Woods institutions and didn't do a damn thing for workers in this country (unless of course you consider complicity in the destruction of welfare pro-worker.) And this guy is representative of working class politics in the democratic party?

"I understand that incomes at the median and below aren't an important topic for the "donor class" that makes up Obama's base, but that is the core of the agenda of the Democratic working class."

Oh please. Clinton's base wasn't the "donor class"? Hillary and Bill raise a much larger percent money from donor than Obama does.

Obama is far from perfect, but the idea that he represents something wholly different from our heroic proletarians the Clintons is patently absurd. I can understand objecting to the more centrist aspects of Obama's platform, but not in defense of Hillary, who has been more centrist in how she has legislated and her rhetoric for the past decade.

That's not the situation we're going to have with the next two Congresses. We're going to have healthy Democratic majorities.

A President McCain would get to legislate as many of his priorities as Bush the Elder did from '89 - '93 or Clinton did from '97 - '01, aka none of them.

Here Petey informs us that he's apparently oblivious to what's happened the last seven and a half years. Probably too busy ranting at all the Ezras and Matts that got the good jobs he deserved.

Funny. That's exactly what Ezra's been saying all year, that he wants to build a Democratic Party without the working class. Y'see, Ezra doesn't think the working class will help him advance his career the way the "donor class" will.

The workign class isn't some blind slave to the Clintons. Individuals within that class may have some affinity for them, but they do not jump at their every beck and call in the insulting manner that you are implying. [Hell, maybe someone should jsut whisper "NAFTA" to them and remind them whose back Billy Boy had back in the roaring 90s.]

McCain is pretending to be more right-wing than he is to win over the Republican party, but his stance on issues is really quite moderate, as he has demonstrated for years.

This is largely true, especially on domestic issues. To be clear, I consider that a bad thing. I'd actually be enthused about voting for him if his pandering to conservatives wasn't just pretend.

But I'd prefer Democrats and left-of-centers and moderates not vote for McCain, for whatever reason. It's gonna be bad news for the Republican party of the new long-term strategy is Nixonian (and, to some extent, Bush-ian)--run like some form of conservative, govern like a big government liberal, except on key issues (foreign policy or defense or tax cuts) that make sure the real liberals still hate your guts.

If McCain wins, I expect a lot of unhappiness from the base as McCain "reaches across the aisle" to "work with" (re: roll over for) Democrats. And watch his approval ratings beat Bush's to the bottom.

And now for some real news from a real blog in the public interest:

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=759&Itemid=1

by Bruce Dixon

"....[D]igital broadcasting technology enables thousands of new digital TV channels on the public broadcast spectrum, all of which broadcasters have allocated to themselves without the inconvenient public scrutiny issuing thousands of new station licenses might have attracted. Thus minorities and women, local entrepreneurs, colleges and universities, community, civic and labor organizations and local governments who otherwise might acquire a portion of the new digital TV channels and used them to broadcast local news, arts, information and public service in hundreds of US markets have been frozen out of the chance to serve the public over the public's airwaves without even the bother of public explanation or debate.

Utterly captured by the private broadcasters it is supposed to police and regulate, the FCC has been tasked with selling this piece of grand theft digital as a public service, and farmed out the job to the notorious PR firm of Ketchum Communications.

....A new Congress and a new administration in and of themselves are absolutely no guarantee that the transformation of public digital broadcast spectrum into the unregulated private property of existing broadcasters who have failed the tests of localism and public service every day for decades, will not be consummated in February 2009. While Republican and Democratic presidential candidates are both well aware of the issues involved in the digital transition, neither seems willing to question this theft of public property.

Barack Obama's chief advisor on telecom affairs, a black attorney who has so far raised the Obama campaign at least $500,000, presumably from broadcasters and their lawyers, is William Kennard. As the FCC's general counsel from 1993 to1996, and its chairman from 1996 to 2001, Kennard is arguably one of the fathers of this monstrously crooked deal, and of the disastrous Telecommunications Act of 1996. Upon leaving government at the beginning of the Bush administration, Kennard became managing director of media buyout operations for the bipartisan Carlyle Group. With the Bush administration having moved the ball downfield for broadcasters the last eight years, commercial broadcasters confidently expect their interests to prevail over the public's no matter who runs Congress or the White House."

"I can understand objecting to the more centrist aspects of Obama's platform, but not in defense of Hillary"

I hear you, Matt.

You think HRC's support for universal healthcare and Obama's savage and smearing opposition to universal healthcare doesn't matter.

You think HRC's support for Social Security and Obama's undermining bleating that the system is "in crisis" doesn't matter.

I just have a different politics than you.

I want a Democratic Party that pursues the Democratic economic agenda.

You and Ezra want a "Democratic" party that sells out its economic agenda to the "donor class" and acts as a post-partisan non-party, just as long as it's lead by someone you'd like to have a beer with.

I prefer a two party system. We're just different that way.

I have a feeling that Petey is somewhat nostalgic for the Reagan-era Democratic party: one where the leadership was still dominated by southern whites and where there was still a vestigal (conservative) Democratic dominance there. This was a world, of course, where there was still a Republican in the governor's mansion of California and where there was still a significant contingent of New England Republicans.

Things are different now: northern Democrats like Charlie Rangel now chair committees, not southerners still riding their 60s-era seniority to positions of leadership.

Petey's just determined to hold out until the circumstances to recreate the 70s and 80s-era Democratic party can return, and he'll be railing against those of us who believe otherwise until that happens.

S Brennan raises a hugely important matter; unfortunately, it's one of those that's really, really difficult to fight, because giving away a new digital telecommunications infrastructure to corporations has been a strong bipartisan goal for the last decade and a half.

If people will show up at these hearings, it at least might strengthen the few remaining somewhat friendly to democracy hands on the FCC's advisory board, such as Michael Copps. It may not be much, but it's something.

"you think everything is a fun Leninist game"

FWIW, El Cid, I have nothing but contempt for the "heighten the contradictions" school of political theory.

It's one of the reasons why I was so strongly for Gore over Nader in 2000. You don't make things better by first making them worse.

The only reason I feel free to (deservedly) criticize Obama from the left is that the stakes in this election are so bizarrely low.

And when the stakes are low, and when you have the most conservative Democratic nominee since 1976, there is no reason not to speak out.

I think Tyro's got it.

I think one of the things that supposed supporters of Hillary Clinton ought to want is for her to stop fighting for health care reform (and we'll forget that little episode in 1993 where she tried to hand all of U.S. health care to the 5 largest HMO's & insurers from their elite plans hatched at the super-exclusive Jackson Hole retreat meetings) and actually get health care reform.

Hillary Clinton wouldn't need for Barack Obama to give a health care plan. She's a United States Senator, and if she is willing to take the lead, she can push one through the Senate & House, and President Obama will sign it.

Otherwise, we'll get to hear people who don't give a sh*t about me and my working class colleagues and family members and neighbors whine about how they don't understand why President McCain made health care even more expensive and hard to obtain.

Why can't white guys write like this...the basketball thing is bad enough...but meaningful political writing too? Do we need affirmative action for political writers of Caucasian decent?

http://www.blackagendareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=755&Itemid=1

by Glen Ford

Barack Obama supporters would have you believe that their candidate's presidential nomination is the glorious, straight-line culmination of the Black Freedom Struggle whose previous high-water mark, they believe, was the 1963 March on Washington, the 45th anniversary of which coincides with this week's Democratic National Convention. Obama's public relations agents attempt to bracket the history of modern U.S. race relations within a marketable 45-year period that begins with a snippet from Dr. Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech and ends - for the time being - with the grand peroration of Obama's acceptance speech before the cheering multitudes, in Denver. These dates are presented as the bookends of Black struggle - to be amended and extended when President Obama delivers his State of the Union Address, in January.

To the most hopelessly besotted Obamites, their candidate's speech on Thursday will herald a crack in time, after which posterity will speak of Before-Obama (BO) and After-Obama (AO) eras, and the transcendental Age of Obama.

Having conjured up a nonexistent "mass movement" to describe what is actually a corporate financed and directed electoral campaign that has not championed a single issue worthy of historical note (don't dare cite partial Iraq withdrawal and for-profit health care schemes), the Democrats now patch Dr. King's speech into the prologue to the Book of Obama for the purpose of consigning real mass agitation strategies to the past, for all time.

Yet, the unedited version of history - the real deal - commemorates another imminent anniversary, one that starkly illuminates the true political character of the age: Katrina. The events that followed the hurricane's arrival in New Orleans on August 29, 2005, would reveal the diabolical intentions of U.S. rulers towards African Americans: to methodically remove Blacks from the central cities of the nation. The ongoing, orchestrated catastrophe also demonstrated beyond doubt the moral bankruptcy and political impotence of Black national "leadership." As I wrote in October, 2005:

"If Black America fails to configure its human, organizational and material resources to effectively resist the theft and ultimate disfigurement of New Orleans, then we will be forced to confront the existence of fundamental, crippling flaws in the African American polity."

The "the man-made disaster in the Gulf" provided what may have been "the last chance to build a real Movement, encompassing the broadest sectors of Black America." Certainly, a critical mass of "the people" were eager to intervene. Hardly a Black church was without some Katrina-aid project, thousands of students journeyed to New Orleans as soon as logistics were made available, and popular awareness of the raw injustice of government policy was universal. But pure rot pervaded national Black political circles - as was clearly evident within six months.

"The Congressional Black Caucus, which claims to be the ‘conscience of the congress,' has shown itself to be an appendage of the white House leadership," I wrote in February, 2006. "They slavishly followed Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's command to make the Democratic Party look good - as opposed to the Republicans - rather than directly address the crisis that was affecting their own people.

"Forty-one of the forty-two Black members of congress obeyed Pelosi's edict, that the House Committee on Katrina be boycotted. They accepted the order that Democratic legislators would not attend the meetings of the Katrina committee, because it was stacked against the Democratic Party."

Only Cynthia McKinney, who was soon to lose her House seat from suburban Atlanta, bucked Pelosi's edict to boycott the Katrina hearings. Pelosi's unspoken, but transparent, motive was to distance the Democratic Party from issues considered too "Black" in the run-up to congressional elections in November, 2006. The CBC, as a body, weighed compliance with their party leader versus rescue of Black New Orleans, and chose Pelosi - who would continue to smother the Katrina issue after Democrats gained control of the House.

"I have a feeling that Petey is somewhat nostalgic for the Reagan-era Democratic party: one where the leadership was still dominated by southern whites ... Things are different now: northern Democrats like Charlie Rangel now chair committees"

Charlie Rangel is one of my ten favorite Congressional Democrats.

Team Obama's decision to not give Rangel a speaking slot at the convention because he's not "post-partisan" enough, (a decision they relented on under heavy pressure only in the last 24 hours), is a good indication of what a Democrat-hating clusterfuck an Obama administration would actually be.

FWIW, El Cid, I have nothing but contempt for the "heighten the contradictions" school of political theory...

...And when the stakes are low, and when you have the most conservative Democratic nominee since 1976, there is no reason not to speak out.

Posted by: Petey

You have zero contempt for the theory of heightened contradictions. Rather, it's all you believe in and entirely what you care about, when it's in a cause that you support. I'm quite sure you're opposed to making things worse so that they can get better in all the cases you're not backing.

That's why you're making up this nonsense about the stakes being low and how Hillary Clinton was some revolutionary vanguard proletarian candidate and Barack Obama is the evil right winger taking over the Democrats, whereas in reality the two are on policy matters political twins and which is why you have to so desperately grasp at straws to draw the razor's edge between them.

They are both center-liberal mainstream Democrats whom if I had my magic preferences would not be anywhere near the mainstream of the party, given both of their conservative, pro-Big Biz orientations.

Again, f*** you. The stakes aren't low. I'm tired of your horse sh*t and your fake kabuki show to give a flip about the working classes like me and my coworkers and my neighbors, at least, the neighbors who haven't been evicted yet -- excuse me, me and my elite, arugula-chomping donor class neighbors.

"I think one of the things that supposed supporters of Hillary Clinton ought to want is for her to stop fighting for health care reform"

But Barack Obama is already so busy not fighting for universal healthcare.

Wouldn't having Clinton not fight for universal healthcare be unnecessarily duplicative of Obama's craven non-work?

You think HRC's support for universal healthcare and Obama's savage and smearing opposition to universal healthcare doesn't matter.

Universal health insurance is not the same as universal healthcare. The Romney/Clinton plan requiring everyone to have a bad insurance policy is not universal healthcare, it's an illusion.

The only reason I feel free to (deservedly) criticize Obama from the left is that the stakes in this election are so bizarrely low.

Petey doesn't care about war in Iran, or North Korea, or a possible new cold war. He doesn't care about our international standing; he doesn't care about the real (if somewhat unlikely) possibility of a draft under McCain. He doesn't care about a civil service staffed with McCain appointees and the problems that will cause with the environment, with regulation of business, etc.

The stakes are low? Even if you were right that Obama is a "post-partisan" (which is a slogan, not a fact) or a "G.E. Democrat," the stakes would *still* be very high. I'm really beginning to think that you *are* a Republican troll.

Petey,

you are certainly welcome to your opinion and welcome to keep posting but could you put some limit on the number of posts? I participate in comments because I like a diversity of ideas and you sometimes seem to reply to every single post made.

How about this, four comments per day. Think of this as a chance to improve your writing. Identify your most important points, refine them until they are presented in the best way, then publish them in a small number of comments.

You are not the only one using comments; strive to be respectful in your tone and behavior.

Finish the sentence, douchebag. If Hillary's tired of fighting "for" health care reform (when she's not destroying it by trying to give it to the 5 largest HMO's and insurers), why doesn't she step forth and get it under President Obama?

Or is it something her supporters would rather us working classes never get, just keep being there dangled near the horizon that if only selected superhero #5 had been elected, we would have had health care.

No, no, instead what we need to do is just f***ing hump it for the next 4 years under President McCain, safe in our assumptions that a stronger Democratic Congress will protect we working class people and our precarious circumstances for another 4 years, and of course such a do-nothing Democratic Congress will magically remain a majority in perpetuity (obviously, we are assured of it, just like in 1994!) and then maybe in 2012 Saint Hillary will be elected, and of course then the crooked places will be made straight and the high places will be made low, or mabye that will have to wait until 2016 after the 2nd entirely pleasant McCain term is over, given how is 2nd VP is basically running the country...

...Yeah, Petey, sounds great, man, much, much better than the nearly-identical-to-Hillary Obama being an actual Democratic President with a Democratic Congressional majority. Yeah, let's play some time-release games with the masses to see what fun we have.

Kevin,

In what ways would you like to see McCain change his platform to adopt a more conservative agenda?

"That's why you're making up this nonsense about ... how Hillary Clinton was some revolutionary vanguard proletarian candidate"

No.

Hillary Clinton is not some revolutionary vanguard proletarian candidate.

She's a pretty generic Democratic candidate supporting a pretty generic Democratic agenda.

Obama, on the other hand, is a "post-partisan" nominee who won't stand with the Party - the likes of which we haven't seen since Jimmy Carter in 1976 - who is not supporting the generic Democratic agenda.

-----

If you want to argue that we ought to be blindly supporting the most conservative Democratic nominee since 1976 because of the stakes, I think you're dead wrong.

I think we have a Congress that will keep McCain from legislating any of his policies. I think having McCain in office will almost definitely lead to Democratic pickups in 2010. And I think McCain will act to de-psycho-ize the Republican Party a bit, which will have good effects.

Also, I think there is a moral hazard in providing unblinking support to a nominee like Obama who is willing to Sister Souljah the entire Democratic Party. If folks don't speak up now, we're going to get Evan Bayh or Mark Warner as nominee next time around.

I may end up voting for Obama at the end of the day - I'm really not sure yet - but this is the most difficult election for progressives since 1976.

"You think HRC's support for universal healthcare and Obama's savage and smearing opposition to universal healthcare doesn't matter."

Wrong. I think it was a disgusting act by Obama. Having said that I actually don't think either proposal is nearly adequate and both are capitulations to special interests. In the real world where the choice is between the HRC and Obama plan, I certainly prefer the former, but given the weaknesses of both and the fact that the only major difference is a mandate for adults, which is good, but won't do nearly enough to address cost issues, I'm not going to make it central to my feeling about either candidates. Simply put the difference between the actual real world impact of Obama's vs Hillary's HC plans are much less than the difference between the actual real work impact of Obama's vs McCain's plan.

"You think HRC's support for Social Security and Obama's undermining bleating that the system is "in crisis" doesn't matter."

Wrong again. I just think you're vastly overstating this. Obama has pandered in that direction more than I would like, but so did Hillary. Both of them have made overtures to fairly right wing critiques of SS in the past few years. Both of them were also fought against privitazation, so I think they'd treat SS in a fairly similar manner.

"You and Ezra want a "Democratic" party that sells out its economic agenda to the "donor class" and acts as a post-partisan non-party, just as long as it's lead by someone you'd like to have a beer with."

Wrong again (you're batting 1.000 in stupidity here.) You don't know a damn thing about my politics. I've been uncomfortable with centrism in the Democratic party for my entire voting life. I also think that Bill Clinton did more than any other person in the past 20 years to pull the Dems sharply to the center. I've worked in the labor movement fighting for worker's rights since I was in college. I have huge problems with Dems who aren't doing enough to address rising health care costs in this country as I've seen it directly impact the members I work for. I also have huge problems with Senators who voted to send the kids of many of the members I work for off to die in Iraq. I also have huge problems with a president who worked tirelessly to pass legislation that ship the jobs of hundreds of thousands of the members of my union to other countries and left them with absolutely nothing.

You got a problem with Obama, I can understand that. I share many of those problems - though I think his policies are so enormously better than McCain's that I would never consider voting for anyone but him (just as I would never consider voting for anyone but HRC if she were the nominee.)

But you want to talk about centrism in the democratic agenda, then you need to study up on recent history because the Clinton's are more responsible for injecting that into the mainstream of Democratic discourse than any other people. It was Bill Clinton who allowed for the triumph of neo-liberal economics both domestically and internationally in the 90s. It was Bill Clinton who butchered welfare and cut government spending (as percentage of gross spending) on a variety of social welfare programs. It was Bill Clinton who maintained a hawkish foreign policy towards the middle east during his tenure, despite a very real cooling off period that would have allowed for a reframing.

Hillary, by cotnrast, has been a vast improvement from her husband when it comes to most domestic issues - her disgusting act of pandering on the flag burning ammendment aside. But she has embraced the most bellicose posturing of the Dems when it comes to foreign policy and really carved out some space to the right of some Republicans on those issues.

So please get out of that glass house if you want to throw more stones at Obama. I agree with many of your criticism of Obama, but trying to counterpose them with Hillary's positions is the equivalent of saying you should buy pick-up trucks because SUVs just guzzle too much damn gas.

But what do I know, I'm just a careerist hack who thinks I can advance myself in my profession (union organizer) by arguing against healthcare.

Petey,

is Ted Kennedy a post-partisan? Kennedy will have much more to do with the passing of healthcare legislation than either an Obama or Clinton administration would ever have. He seems pretty gung-ho about Obama and he was featured in a fairly prominent role at the convention.

I think we have a Congress that will keep McCain from legislating any of his policies. I think having McCain in office will almost definitely lead to Democratic pickups in 2010. And I think McCain will act to de-psycho-ize the Republican Party a bit, which will have good effects.

Yeah. Great. F*** you and your bullsh*t f***ing reckoning of the future.

Please take your grand schema plans and go shove them up your a** along with your fake, pantomime theater claims to be for us workin' people.

Petey,

I didn't like Obama's attacks on Hillary's health care plan/individual mandate, but to say he's "selling out" universal health care is ridiculous. Obama's proposal is more ambitious than any Democratic nominee since at least Bill Clinton in 1992.

"Kennedy will have much more to do with the passing of healthcare legislation than either an Obama or Clinton administration would ever have."

Disagree emphatically.

Every major expansion of social insurance since 1932 has been authored in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

Congress changes some details, but essentially just votes up or down on what the WH sends over.

Craven liars like Ezra will blame the failure of Obama's healthcare plan on Max Baucus, but they'll be, well, lying.

-----

BTW, I agree with about half of your 12:24pm post. Some badly flawed assumptions there, but it's otherwise well reasoned. I'll take on one point:

"Simply put the difference between the actual real world impact of Obama's vs Hillary's HC plans are much less than the difference between the actual real work impact of Obama's vs McCain's plan."

The "real work impact" of Obama's vs McCain's HC plan is identical. Neither will pass, since neither makes political/policy sense.

The Clinton plan would have made a real difference, since it did make political/policy sense, and thus had a very real shot at passing and becoming law.

Obama will perhaps accomplish a minor expansion of S-CHIP if the wheels don't come off his administration before he gets around to it, but his HC plan is a non-starter, and was designed to be a non-starter. Think about the implications of a Democratic nominee that intentionally designs a non-starter HC plan...

(Even douchebag John Kerry had a functional, if modest HC plan in '04.)

"Yeah. Great. F*** you and your bullsh*t f***ing"

Please stop using fucking asterisks. Thx.

I think we have a Congress that will keep McCain from legislating any of his policies. I think having McCain in office will almost definitely lead to Democratic pickups in 2010. And I think McCain will act to de-psycho-ize the Republican Party a bit, which will have good effects.

Okay, per request, this time only, Fuck You, Petey, and take your fake, bullshit concern for the working classes and shove it up your ass.

That is all.

think we have a Congress that will keep McCain from legislating any of his policies. I think having McCain in office will almost definitely lead to Democratic pickups in 2010. And I think McCain will act to de-psycho-ize the Republican Party a bit, which will have good effects.

And here Petey does his impression of a Nader voter circa 2000.

Matt,

This was good post, you stayed with the issues and did not attack Petey's person.

Unlike many Obama supporters you are not drinking the Kool-Aid and your positions are well reasoned.

Thumbs up.

Posted by: Matt | August 27, 2008 12:24 PM

"And here Petey does his impression of a Nader voter circa 2000."

- There was a Republican Congress in 2000
- Bush was not going to de-psycho-ize the GOP in 2000
- Gore was willing to stand with the Democratic Party in 2000.

Thus, I was a strong Gore supporter in 2000, and worked hard to bring Nader supporters home.

I'm not kidding when I say this is the first election since 1976 where progressives may not be locked into the Democratic nominee.

The rule is to support the Party in November. 2008 at the Presidential level may be shaping up to be the exception to the rule.

"Okay, per request, this time only, Fuck You, Petey, and take your fake, bullshit concern for the working classes and shove it up your ass."

There. Don't you feel better now?

If you use asterisks, you just keep it all bottled up inside yourself.

The Clinton plan would have made a real difference, since it did make political/policy sense, and thus had a very real shot at passing and becoming law.

Okay, then what's the big problem? Seeing as Clinton is still a Senator, and Senators (not Presidents) actually introduce bills for votes, then what does it matter if Obama's primary plan was different? Or do you think he'll veto the Ted Kennedy Health Care Expansion Act of 2009?

- There was a Republican Congress in 2000

Trending Democratic, which resulted in the Dems nominally winning control of the Senate that year.

- Bush was not going to de-psycho-ize the GOP in 2000

Hahahaha, no. Bush was sold as the "Compassionate Conservative(tm)", the kinder gentler counter to six years of Gingrich and Delay. Bush was going to restore "honor and dignity" to the White House. Bush had a lot of people - not just in the media - convinced he was a Republican moderate.

Well, we saw where that led us, didn't it?

- Gore was willing to stand with the Democratic Party in 2000.

Irrelevant to the discussion.

You're pulling the same 'Nach Bush, Uns' bull the Nader supporters tried feeding us eight years ago, and you know it.

Petey wrote, Every major expansion of social insurance since 1932 has been authored in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

Oops! Factual error there. Kennedy wrote most of the SCHIP bill. See this Times article from 1997. The Clinton White House eventually supported the bill, but Hillary had to cajole Bill to sign on to a particularly large increase on cigarette taxes (Bill had initially supported a small hike on cigs).

Anyway, kinda helps to know your facts.

Actually, here's an even better Times article from 1997 that lays out how SCHIP came into being.

Check this out! In the Senate, the majority leader, Trent Lott, criticized Mr. Kennedy's idea as a ''big-Government program'' with no chance of passage; and at the White House, Mr. Clinton, heeding Mr. Lott's threat that the idea was a ''deal buster,'' had actively worked to defeat the proposal when it came to the Senate floor in late May... Participants in the campaign for the health bill both on and off Capitol Hill said the First Lady had played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in lining up White House support. But Mr. Clinton did not appear to move on the issue until a meeting at the White House on July 22 with an agitated Mr. Kennedy.

"Oops! Factual error there. Kennedy wrote most of the SCHIP bill. See this Times article from 1997."

Definitional difference rather than factual error.

I was already partially aware of the history of S-CHIP, (though I learned more via your links), but I was defining "major" to be the larger, more comprehensive universal programs enacted in the 30's and 60's.

There certainly have been many smaller elements of social insurance enacted by the lead of Congress, with S-CHIP as one.

But if you want to do comprehensive things that have intrusive effects on people's lives, the machinery doesn't seem to work that way.

Think about the necessity of funding out of the cigarette tax for S-CHIP. That's indicative of a broader truth. And think about the dollars spent - less than $5b a year. That's also indicative of a broader truth.

To be slightly ungenerous, you can't do much more than charity via the Congressionally initiated route. To actually move pieces around on the budget board, historically you need Presidential leadership.

-----

"Anyway, kinda helps to know your facts."

Indeed. Good and interesting links.

I wrote dozens of blog posts supporting Hillary and Obama, but a commenter quoted one post (out of context) saying that I like McCain, and I get called a troll. Ha.

It shows how difficult it is to have any nuanced discussion in US politics. Also how "us" and "them" too many people are... it's not the ideas that matter, but the allegiance of the people who speak them. Even if the allegiance is there, the person will be reviled if it is questioned... even inaccurately.

Now that our guy has won and we're between elections, it might help if we all did a little soul-searching about how we approach politics and public discourse, what we want democracy to be at the grass roots, and the kind of respect we want to share with our fellow citizens, whether we agree with them or not. Americans like to claim they're the world's greatest democracy (which is utter bunk), but they do very little to maintain their democracy.