The Line Heard Across The Pond

I came to the Obama camp late. Obama was my fourth choice in this race and for a long time, I didn't have a preference at all. I was for Gore (who didn't declare) then for Kucinich and then for Edwards. When Edwards dropped out, I spent some time thinking that either of the remaining contenders would be decent presidents. Neither were perfect, both were a long way from my kind of progressive but they were good enough, they would "do". Obama hooked me late with his speech on race relations during the Wright fiasco. That hooked me. Not because it was a "moment of truth" or anything like that. I'm British and our attitude to politicians is, largely, "don't trust the bastards". Here, we know that with a few notable exceptions like Tony Benn (imagine Paul Wellstone in his seventies and you have Benn), all politicians are motivated, at least in part, by self-interest. No, what got me about that speech and caused me to support Obama was that it was the first time in a long time that I can remember a politician speaking to the populace like they were grown-ups. Like they could appreciate nuance and subtlety. For around thirty years now, US politicians have largely addressed voters as if they were small children, explaining why they would benefit you, not the nation; why their opponant was a bad person. Remember that scene from "Wayne's World" where Wayne is doing an interview with someone and holds up cue cards which include the line "He blows goats. We have proof"?. That's largely what US politics reminded me of. A gotcha game where vision mattered less than getting in a zing line before the commercials. That's what sunk John Kerry. A serious, thoughtful man, he couldn't express himself in soundbites. So when Obama came along and made that speech, addressed the voters as adults, capable of thinking about things and reasoning for themselves, I was sold.

Just.

Like I said, neither Hillary nor Obama were ever as progressive as I'd like. Both of them had some ethically questionable incidents in their past, neither said enough about what I considered (and still consider) the greatest danger to the US, unrestrained corporatism. Of the two, I felt Obama was marginally better, largely because he was willing to try engaging voters as adults. For his policies, I simply hoped that the base he'd built, which was very progressive, would hold his feet to the fire and either he'd listen to them or he'd provide an opening for a genuine progressive. Still, the primary dragged on. It was interesting at first. We don't have primaries here and I didn't pay much attention during the 2004 primary so watching it unfold was fascinating. Hanging out on DU though, I noticed a nasty undercurrent of divisiveness and hatred. First, there were the accusations of cult-like adoration of Obama. No doubt, a certain number of Obama's supporters did act like cultists, so did a certain number of Clinton's supporters. That's what happens with personality politics, a certain amount of supporters turn it into a personality cult. The closest thing we had here was Blair in 1997 and that was less about love for him and more about revulsion to the Tories. Slowly though, I noticed that one side of the crazies was actually acting worse and for all they protested, it was the Clinton supporters. Understand, it was never a large number of supporters from either side who were throwing verbal grenades. It was always a fairly small number of crazies in either camp. Still, of what I was seeing, the Clinton supporters seemed to be doing it slightly more often and slightly more viciously, even if there wasn't an awful lot to choose between them. Well, that was regrettable but ultimatly, no big deal.

Over the next few months though, it got worse. Although there were always a few Obama alligned crazies (who I choose to call "bots"), the Hillbots seemed to become the dominant, or certainly, the most vocal part of the Hillary supporting camp. There was the furore over "Bittergate" when Obama again tried to talk to voters as adults and the Hillary camp pilloried him for it. There was the accusation of seeing Obama as a messiah. True of a few Obamabots but equally true of about the same number of Hillbots. There was, and still is, the projection, the accusations that Obama had played the race card on every occasion, that he had run a dirty campaign, that he was an arrogant egotist. All accusations that, from my point of observation, fit Senator Clinton far more easily than Senator Obama. And always and everywhere, there was the accusation of sexism directed at anyone and everyone who did not support Senator Clinton's bid. To be sure, there was sexist language and actions from parts of the media (Chris Matthews being especially guilty) and from some Obama supporters. No-one's questioning that but the cries of "sexism" became so overused, so universal as an explanation and an excuse, that it devalued the term itself. When a Hillary supporter expresses outrage over genuinely sexist language, it's difficult to take it seriously when you've heard the Hillbots screaming the same thing at absolutely everyone for months. Not very rational perhaps but human nature. We all learned the story of the boy who cried wolf as children; the Hillary campaign became the story of the campaign that cried sexism. So many accusations, in fact, that no-one bothered to point out that if it was sexist to say that someone shouldn't vote for Senator Clinton because she was a woman, it was equally sexist to say that someone must vote for her due to her gender.

Then the crazies coined the term "Clinton Derangement Syndrome". Since the crazies had started to strongly remind me of Bush apologists, it seemed to fit. The insinuation that anyone who couldn't see how wonderful the "Goddess of Peace" (a nickname made for mockery) was must have been mentally ill. I actually am mentally ill. I suffer from what is in the US called Major Depressive Disorder (here, it's called Type III Clinical Depression). I'm not sure if that makes me more or less likely to spot mental illness in others but looking around, most of the Obama supporters (that's most, never forget the crazies) seemed relatively sane and well-balanced whereas the Clinton supporters I was seeing increasingly struck me as unbalanced, not because they were Clinton supporters but because the Hillbots seemed to have drowned out the more reasonable supporters. It probably reached it's ugliest point with the demonising of Keith Olbermann. Now, Olbermann's not perfect either. He's sometimes blustery, often pompous and probably thinks too highly of himself. He is, however, the veritible island in a sea of dross. As one of the very few liberal commentators on TV and the only one in such a prominent position (Stewert and Colbert are satirists, they don't count), he gives us some kind of voice, however imperfect, in the mainstream media. Plus, I have to love a guy whose main hobby is annoying Bill O'Reilly. Olbermann's Special Comments have always been framed forcefully as his personal opinion. If he uses facts to back them up, all well and good but he has never pretended they were anything other than his own opinion. So watching the reaction when he criticised Senator Clinton was nothing short of surreal. Suddenly, Olbermann became a sexist nazi, a failed sportscaster, Bill-O with better hair. I think that was the point where I realised exactly how cult-like the Hillbots had become and, like any cult, anyone who criticised Dear Leader was to be demonised. Yes, there were and still are Obama supporters who fit the same description but the contrast between actual offence and punishment was so extreme, so disproportionate that it forced some rather uncomfortable questions about the mindset of HRC's supporters. Olbermann expressed an opinion they found distasteful so they verbally eviscerated him in the same tone and with much the same language as the Bush apologists had always done.

By this point, the persecution complex had gotten wildly out of hand. Clinton Derangement Syndrome, Hillary-hatred and sexism had become the excuses for everything. Any fault of Hillary's, no matter how major or how clearly her own fault, was ignored. Any fault of Obama's, no matter how minor, was exagerated. To the Hillbots, this had become less a campaign than a crusade and like a crusade, any tactics were excusable. Most glaringly, the exploitation of the Florida and Michigan primaries. That's not to say that the contested primaries weren't a mess, nor is it to say that the "solution" reached didn't unfairly impact the voters in those two states but it was the flagrant dishonesty of the Clinton campaign that sticks in the memory. The blaming of Michigan's disenfranchisement on Senator Obama even while the Hillary campaign shut down one of the only two fair solutions, giving Obama the "Uncommitted" vote, despite previously stating that Obama had campaigned for that vote (the other, a re-vote, was shut down by the Michigan legislature). As I said, I'm British and we don't expect politicians to be honest but we do expect them to at least be convincing liars. Despite the Clinton campaign's now habitual portrayal of itself as the outraged victim, they had become the victimisers.

And then came the assassination remarks. I've listened to that five times now, I've tried to see how it could be interpreted any other way. I've tried to place myself in Senator Clinton's now exhausted shoes (how long must it have been since either of them had a decent night's sleep?), I've tried to see how it could be justified. The remarks about her husband's campaign were fair comment but, try as I might, I can't come up with another interpretation of the RFK reference than "I'm staying in just in case Obama gets shot". I'm sure that to Senator Clinton and her more mindless supporters, that makes sense or can be excused. To the rest of us, it looks vaguely akin to a vulture. I'm sure Senator Clinton doesn't wish to see Obama cut down but much like a drunken Henry II crying out in frustration "Will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest?", sometimes words have consequences their speaker did not intend. In a lesser politician, it would be easy to write this off as a gaffe but Senator Clinton is an extremely bright person and she has alluded to this scenario three times now. Her apology, if apology it was, was misdirected and insincere. Yes, politics is hardball. Yes, Senator Obama requested Secret Service protection due to the death threats he recieved as soon as he declared his candidacy (although I would be surprised if Senator Clinton didn't have such protection as well). Yes, this is a vicious and bruising campaign but there is a line. Unseen it may be and it is seen as much in the breach as the observance but there is a line which those of us who like to think of ourselves as moral or ethical people do not cross. To raise the specter of assassination, to point it's finger at the first black man with a shot at the presidency like some demented Banquo's ghost, that is a step too far. Once would have been too far but forgiveable but the three times Senator Clinton has alluded to the same thing, that is, at best, irresponsible, insensitive and callous. At worst, it is the reprehensible machinations of an immoral human being and in neither case, should the speaker be allowed near the levers of power.

Oh, that won't challenge the Hillbots of course. They will defend Senator Clinton's comment endlessly, they will mock us for our outrage and/or dismiss it as feigned. That's not surprising because the Obamabots would do the same. They will tell us that we should be nicer to them if we want their suppoort in November, returning again to the political model of quid pro quo; unable to put aside their hurt feelings or wounded pride for the greater good of nation and world.

Hillary Clinton's campaign for president did not fail because of sexism. It pains me to write this because I used to respect both Clintons and may well do so again but it failed because of Senator Clinton. She hired some staff who were truly diabolical (Penn being prime example); she misjudged the public mood badly by campaigning initially on a "back to the '90s" platform when the public wanted to move forward. Her cries of victimisation, true or not, backfired as anyone should have seen they would, confirming the sexist's prejudices and annoying the non-sexists. The complacency of assuming Super Tuesday would end the campaign and poor money management hurt her badly. She underestimated Senator Obama's appeal and then struggled to adapt quickly enough when he proved to have legs. She calculated and recalculated increasingly bizarre metrics to explain the math of the campaign. In the process, she squandered a huge campaign war chest, name recognition, a good senatorial record and the impression of inevitability. To be sure, sexism played a part in that but it was never as large a part as the Hillbots liked to claim and it could easily have been overcome if Senator Clinton had run a better campaign.

I don't know what Senator Clinton will do now. I imagine she'll go back to her Senate seat in New York and perhaps, given hard work and a little luck, she can re-earn our respect because she has been a very good senator. Perhaps she will retire, that would be fine too. But this race must be over now. The Hillary campaign has crossed the Rubicon, there can be no turning back from this. It's over now.

... right down to the succession of candidates I prefer, my take on the ideological positions of Clinton and Obama, and the Henry-II comparison.

Politicians RARELY speak with other than the objective of creating areaction/response in their audience.

Hillary portrays herself as a Victim/Martyr and wannabe Heroine in a BIZARRE melodrama version of reality. Only the most zealous and delusional of her sycophantic coterie could shift the blame for the reaction to her remarks to Obama ... but that's what they do. Insane. Bat-shit insane.

I too was a Clinton supporter since 1992. What I've seen this year has been appalling, and I don't think I can ever forgive them. It has been depressing watching this unfold.

Even though it took so long to read & made me think.

seriously, that was a well written post.

It's frustrating because so many Hillary supporters say that we hate her or have always been against her. That is so untrue!! I remember hearing that she was running for the Seante seat and thought "good for her! I hope she gets in and fights for NY!" I admired the Clintons, voted for Bill twice and thought that Hillary's fight for healthcare was great. Then Iraq happened and I was completely devastated that all these people gave Bush the right to go to war. I saw her name on the list, along with Edwards and more, and was pissed off.

I didn't even get interested in this race until January. I started doing my homework and decided that I preferred Kucinich to everyone. Then when he was gone, I looked at Edwards but was so-so on him because of Iraq. I had taken a pledge NOT to vote for anyone who had voted for the IWR. So it fell to Obama. I started getting into his message, his plans (yes, I read all the info on his website), and decided that he was the guy for me.

It's only been the last three or so months that I realised just how Hillary is, and what she will do for the presidential power. Before 2003, I respected her. It's just sad now.

what I was thinking but put into words much better than I could..

but there is something painfully persistent in her that will not let this go. I hope she will and agree she should but the quiet little voice inside tells me she has other plans.


Thank you for a well thought out and well written post.

appealing to the much-touted admiration for a "winner" everyone is supposed to have, in fact, has the opposite effect. She's like a child in the school playground, who's lost "hands down" in some argument, but insists she's right! It just jars terribly and is very off-putting.

I wonder how many other people were deeply impressed with the account of Obama's very unpolitician-like response when someone was taken ill in the audience at one of his events.

What a fascinating, informed and insightful post by OP Prophet 451! He is indeed a prophet.

Through your experience with British politics, I think you have a unique and valuable vantage point.

Your essay sums up this whole U.S. Democratic primary process quite correctly.

I'd only add that everyone should take notice that anytime a particular viewpoint has been expressed by Obama supporters that ventures near the mainstream media conscious, Senator Obama has been quick to shut it down. He hasn't used Clinton's numerous "gaffes" for political advantage. He's repeatedly acknowledged that he's made mistakes in the campaign, that he's felt at times to "elbow back." He's met with his staff and gotten them back on track: taking about the issues and policies that he believes will improve this nation and our international relationships.

Then take a look at Clinton's campaign. She has, at minimum, tacitly encouraged some of her most outrageous supporters. There was the introduction at an engagement that referenced RFK's assassination that Clinton had to apologize for. Where did that woman get the notion that it would be OK to make such comments? From Hillary, of course, who had already made the same sort of statement to Time magazine in March.

You can throw in Ferraro's continued diabolical rants about sexism and how Obama wouldn't be where he is if he wasn't a black man. Do you think either Clinton couldn't make one phone call and shut Ferraro down? They support her rants about sexism and victimization. Then there was the union guy who had to be talked down from his vitriolic introduction at a Clinton rally. That's where Democrats and liberals were painted as latte-sipping, Prius and Volvo-driving, Birkenstock-wearing elitists. This image was disseminated into the mainstream narrative, not by the opposing party, but by someone representing Team Clinton. A knife in the back, if you will. Why did that man feel he could get up there and say such hateful things about liberals? Well, he took his cue from the Clintons. Bill, in particular, had already indicated that we elitist liberals "didn't really need a President."

Never does Hillary stand up, take the reigns of her campaign, and shut the nonsense down. I've attended more than a few of Obama's town halls and there is always someone who wants to accuse the Clintons of inciting racism or being racists themselves. Obama shuts the talk down. In fact, his own gaffe over "bitter" remarks came as a partial rebuttal to the assertion that people didn't vote for him because he's black.

Think about the two candidates. Think about who steps up and takes responsibility for their actions and/or mistakes. Think about who sets the tone and example for their campaign.

There is a clear winner.

Obama up and stay away from tearing Hillary down. I believe he will change the tone of politics forever and that he will go down as one of the best presidents we will ever have.

if you can't build yourself up, shut up.

went from the kitchen sink to the bathroom toilet.

I think those kinds of terms are unnecessarily agressive, judgemental and denigrating. I don't think it's useful to impugn the very humanity of anyone. I would prefer to see less loaded words like "zealot" or "crusader" used in crafting your argument, I think it would strengthen it.

It seems to me that offering at least a modicum of respect to the beserkers (see, there's another alternative) is prudent, strategy-wise. One thing that motivates the ultra-dedicated warriors (besides the love of smashing their enemies and hearing the lamentations of their women) is their unshakeable belief in their own honor, and the honor of their cause. We should show them that we have honor, as well.

In case it's not obvious, I mean this to be applicable to both Clinton and Obama camps.

sw

Edited for grammar. And, to add that I really do appreciate your well-though and intelligent post.

I won't edit this one (I made myself a rule a long time ago that I would only ever edit for typos) but I'll keep that in mind going forward. Thanks.

I'm hoping for a way through all this that leaves as few mangled bodies behind as possible -- if such a way IS possible. I find myself relying on the Buddhist first principles of kindness and compassion toward all sentient beings as a useful lense through which to view the unfolding drama and measure my reactions.

Thank you again,
sw

:toast:

Really getting the sentient beings what they deserve involves removing mega-corporations

Might hard work.

proudly refer to myself as the "designated bitch." I'm the one who will tell off the bullies who have bludgeoned my friends. I'm the one who will blackball a person for attacking a friend for sexist, racist, or homophobic reasons.

And, trust me, "berserker" is at least as offensive as calling someone a "bot" or a "crazy." It refers to someone who gets so drunk or stoned before a battle that he fights like an animal.

(Baer-serk in the original Norse, of course, of course.)

A bearskin shirt, a few amanita muscaria mushrooms, and you're ready to roll!

:evilgrin:

sw

was when she came up with the "The skies will open and heavenly choirs will sing . . . " mockery not only of Obama, but of the millions of people who support him.

That was unnecessary and was a demeaning charade worthy of Karl Rove. Prior to that, I had been split about whether I thought Obama would be better or Hillary would be better. However, that was a direct slap in the face to millions of younger and independent voters who wanted a change from the old politics of personal destruction.

Since then, it's been downhill. Hillary and Bill have mimicked Karl Rove almost every time they have opened their mouths. The "slip of the tongue" happens (something Clintons don't do) and then the lame apology, which is too late because, by that time, the poison is already in the well. You can't take it out.

...Does it mean Obama/(Bernie)Sanders in your sig?

Although the chance of it happening is 0%.

And sums up perfectly my own feelings. Perhaps in some small part because I lived in Britain from 2001 - 2005, I share much of your reaction and political conclusions. I especially appreciate the Shakespearean analogies, although you do run the danger of furthering the stereotype that all Brits are of superior fluency with regards to canonical literary references.

Also, as a side note, I had the great pleasure of meeting Tony Benn in 2003, as an events manager for the now-defunct (gobbled up by Waterstone's) bookseller Ottakar's. He was lovely, and when he found out that I was Texas repeated to me a joke he'd told once at a banquet in Houston: "We Brits and Texans have one thing in common, for sure: we both have fairly good relationships with the United States of America." He was lovely.

Thank you for this post.

Remember that kid in school who was reading the classics at age 12? That was me. It could have been worse, my other great love is history so I could have started quoting Cicero.

is Marcus Aurelius.

I have a tiny paperback copy of Meditations that I take everywhere. :)

:hi:

I'm constantly amazed at how well the wisdom of the ancient Stoics can be applied to modern life. I keep Aurelius, Epictetus, and Seneca on my bedstand.

Haha!

I am naturally a kind of... confrontational person. I find that reading these works, despite some disagreements I have with the authors about their apparent submission to certain aspects of human life that approach "Providence" a bit too closely to appeal to me, helps me keep things in perspective. They are so contemporary. Also, far superior to the ethics presented in most "holy" books.

table. Just about everything you find yourself facing is addressed by the wisdom in those two books. I've had plenty of days at work where I've come home and had to dip into those books, and I always find something directly relevant.

"and leave the prospect of assassination lying out there in the sun until you couldn't ignore the stench of it if you tried..."

Well said indeed!

"A Wellstone in his seventies" gave you the respect you seek.

I would agree with your premise that she has crossed the Rubicon, except that she is a Clinton and the for two of them, there is no Rubicon.

I'd like to see this post rated higher than Skinner's apologist post.

the product of a mind, whose workings so closely resemble my own. An elegant summing up of the story thus far.

Your points are right on and the caliber of your essay, and many others on this website is what brings me back time and time again. Very much enjoyed this one.

Maybe I related to it because I'm also a Brit, albeit one now living in the United States.

I would correct you on one point, though. The term "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" (a term I use in my sig line) was originally coined in the 90's, to refer to the frothing, irrational hatred that Bill engendered in conservatives when he was president - a hatred that went far beyond disagreement with his (fairly centrist) policies or distaste for his extra-marital affairs. it only got applied to Hillary later, when it became clear that she was running for President.

Still, I imagine you can understand what I'm saying; the point-blank refusal to accept that any criticism could be founded on anything.

I'm just a pedant, that's all.

:D



Prince George: Well, now, look, Dr. Johnson, I may be as thick as a whale omelette, but even *I* know a book's got to have a *plot*.



:hi:

Maybe we can solve this by sending Hillary some Hessian underthings as a consolation prize? :D



Edmund: Right, now let's get down to business, shall we?

Percy: Business, My Lord?

Edmund: Yes. Baldrick has been looking at some of the ways we could actually make a bit of money on this job.

Baldrick: Well, basically, there appear to be four major profit areas: Curses, pardons, relics and selling the sexual favours of nuns.

Edmund: Selling the sexual favours of nuns?

Baldrick: Yeah.

Edmund: You mean some people will actually pay for them?

Baldrick: Well; foreign businessmen, other nuns, you know.

Edmund: Ah. Well, let's start with the pardons, shall we?

Baldrick: Right. Well, this is a fair selection. Basically, you seem to get what you pay for. They run all the way from this one, which is a pardon for talking with your mouth full, signed by an apprentice curate in Tukesbury.

Edmund: Ah. How much is that?

Baldrick: Two pebbles. ...all the way up to this one, which is a pardon for (reads) anything whatsoever, including murder, adultery, or dismemberment of (Edmund reads along) a friend or relative.

Edmund: Who's that signed by?

Baldrick: Both popes. Curses are pretty much the same, really. I got this one for half an egg.

Edmund: (reads) "Dear Enemy: I curse you, and hope that something slightly unpleasant happens to you, like an onion falling on your head."

Baldrick: Well, that is the bottom end of the market. They run all the way to this one, for four ducats.

Edmund: (reads) "Dear Enemy: may the Lord hate you and all your kind, may you be turned orange in hue, and may your head fall off at an awkward moment."

Percy: Does this work?

Baldrick: Yeah.

Percy: Really?

Baldrick: Yes!

Edmund: Really?

Baldrick: No... (chuckles)

(the two knights approach Canterbury)

Baldrick: Moving on to relics, we've got shrouds, from Turin; er, wine from the wedding at Cana; splinters from the cross (his finger gets a sliver from one of the splinters); er, and, of course, there's stuff made by Jesus in his days in the carpentry shoppe: got pipe racks, coffee tables, coatstands, bookends, crucifixes, a nice cheeseboard, fruit bowls, waterpoof sandals... (picks up a piece of wood that's partly carved) Oh, I haven't finished that one yet.

Percy: But this is disgraceful, My Lord! All of these are obviously fake!

Edmund: Hah, yes!

Percy: But, but how will people be able to tell the difference between these and the real relics?

Edmund: Well, they won't! That's the point!



... shh, don't mention the unicorn. :D

I can remember laughing so hard through that scene that I missed half of it. My favourite part is still "waterproof sandals".

Yes, that was hilarious... still is. As you said, "sheer genious." I really dig Rowan and his Black Adder crew. I guess it helps to have read a lot of British lit and history in order to undstand the majority of the references, but I believe there is something for everyone in the Black Adder series (I started with Chaucer, but never got past Alexander Pope). I was watching Fry and Laurie last night (Jeeves and Wooster). I admit I do not get a lot of the references, but they are so talanted and their delivery so superb I can watch it over and over. I credit this particular troop of British actors for keeping me sane while hurricane Katrina wiped out my city, killed my pets, trashed my house, books, musical instruments, and car, and scattered my friends to the four winds. They kept me laughing when things got really bad.

Speaking of things I dig, I saw these guys in New Orleans, in a park near my house about 20 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXB9XuSq5w

You have articulated so much of what I think is going on right now.

As a woman, I feel insulted at the overuse of sexism charges. I believe there have been sexist things said to and about Clinton, but not everything said about her is sexist. It becomes hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when such accusations are coming fast at furious against anyone who does not offer their blind support to her. Like the boy who cried "Wolf!", after awhile one just wants to brush all accusations off (though I will say that when I read something on DU that is obviously sexist, I alert on it).

Thanks for your perspective from across the pond.

Living in America? Can you vote in America? Not being an ass, I'm American living in Britain and I can't vote here. Just curious.

I live in the Midlands (Stoke-On-Trent, to be exact) and I can't vote in US elections. However, I work for an American company based in NYC (lovely thing about the internet, I can work with an American firm while never leaving my office) and the majority of my friends are American. With that, and the fact that I get paid in dollars, I very much have a stake in American politics and I took my minor in PoliSci so I can speak (at boring length) about how US internal politics affects the world (my major was in law).

You have expressed much of how I have felt and still feel as I have watched the unfolding of events during this Primary both in the "real" world and the community within DU. I was a member of DU during the 2004 Primary and it, too, was, at times, very, very rancorous. I did not see how the DU community would ever bridge the divide, I was wrong, it did happen.

I have hope that, like 2004 when the Democratic candidate is chosen, most DUers will coalesce behind the nominee and work together. As in 2004, some left but the majority rolled up their sleeves together and went to work for Kerry/Edwards.

Except for the "Hillbot" references. But you already addressed that issue up-thread with admirable humility. Lovely to behold amidst the constant right-mongering around here.

As for the Rubicon you say Hillary has crossed, I have a much more devastating view. Her campaign style has inadvertently illumined the hidden dark side of the alliance both Clintons have entered into with the Bushies: they're covering each other's backs. The country, ethics, Constitution, Bill of Rights etc. be damned. Who but those who profit from this unholy merger will support them anymore, apart from the ignorant?

One side of my mind wants to reject it, both because the thought is so horrible and because the right have treated Bill Clinton pretty much as the antichrist for years. And yet, if one is machiavellian enough...

Will McCain lead thorough investigations into the crimes of the Bushies? Certainly not.

Will Hillary do it? Highly unlikely. Why is that? I'd say it's a case of tit for tat.

Connecting the dots...

Will Obama clean both houses with, let's say, John Edwards as Attorney General at the helm? The likelihood of that happening becomes an imminent threat.

And that's why I think she's still running against all odds. Never mind her personal ambitions, megalomania, or sense of entitlement, which sure are formidable as well.

What's at stake is the destabilization of the entire way of doing business. Global business.

Happy to recommend. This part really made me chuckle:

Gotta love the British sense of humor. :)

It's largely true as well.

I'm just sick of the state of mind which insists that their vote must be bought by being nice to them, the refusal to put the greater good before personal feelings.

it's a case of empty vessels making the most noise. The nature of bots (in general) is to post LOUDLY and often without worrying much about making sense. One-liners (we all use them, but some use nothing else), daft counterfactual arguments or (my favorite) the double cut and paste double cut and paste all show that to a bot, the important thing is to respond with the latest talking point, rather than present a meaningful argument.

It's the message board equivalent of rushing together a 10 or 15 second attack ad and booking it onto every channel: domination through saturation. Incidentally, Prophet, I'm also from your side of the pond and it's certainly a different kettle of fish over here.

I mean with her consent, of course!

:kick:ed & rec'd. In the heat of the fray it has become difficult to articulate well the feelings. You have spoken for me on many levels here and you can't even come out to vote. Are you, perchance, an expat?

Due to the wonders of modern telecoms, I work for a company based in New York (essentially, I am the British office), work with Americans, most of my friends are American and due to a minor in PoliSci (major in law) and a love of history, I think I understand the process, it's historical context and how the US interacts with the world. It's not simply an academic discussion to me. I get paid in dollars so when the value of the dollar goes down, my standard of living is directly affected. American politics isn't just American anymore, it affects everybody everywhere, probably even more so than our own politics.

K & R

I've never read anything so well written on the subject!

Cheers!

Edit: To fix it so it makes sense! :)

Are politics over there any saner than here?

A British politician is someone who can make "my honourable friend" sound like the opening of hostilities.

I wish our congresscritters would do that.

The tie between politician and constituency is much stronger here and it's expected (not an enforceable rule but expected) that every politician (apart from the Cabinet) will hold an open surgery for their constituents at least once a month. The surgery is open to all constituents to ask questions, state their opinion or, if necessary, tear strips off their MP. You only get in trouble if you threaten the MP or something as extreme. The upshot of the process is that if an MPs constituents are unhappy, he can expect to hear about it and may well take it up with the PM.

They are way more petty about stuff. The one thing that's interesting it that the two main parties basically fight each other for the same platform. The debate is mostly over execution and not policies.

I've been reading some awesome posts here...
This ranks among the best.
Well worth the read....congratulations on a job well done!
Brilliant piece of writing.....


peace~

peace~

Thank you very much for your extremely well written, thoughtful and objective post.

I have rarely read such a well written piece, and that includes "professional" writers (i.e. journalists and columnists) as well as a lot of posts here on DU and on many other Websites!

Thank you!

for the same reasons. Your assessment of Clinton, her campaign and some of her more vicious supporters is right on.

The shame of it all is that those Democrats who are so blind to their candidate that they can not accept any positive in the other play right into the Republicans', especially Rove's, hands. We must set aside our differences and pull together. We are not the enemy--the Republican power structure is.

But being shot by your own side makes it tough to focus.

Your perspective is most valuable and appreciated.

Thank you for sharing it - I think it's ESSENTIAL to hear and read and see and study the reactions to the latest turbulence in this campaign season. It helps a great deal with the understanding.

It's like plotting a shape or curve. Two points will give you a general idea. But many other points along the way sharpen and refine the actual path or shape, so you get a much fuller and more accurate view.

I, too, started out as a Gore supporter. I wound up in Obama's camp fairly quickly (while still keeping a light in the window for President Gore - I will probably do so for the rest of my life), since I recognized that as terrific as Kucinich is, and as close to my own views as his are, he was not a viable candidate. Undeserved, unfair, and unfortunately true. As a woman I have LONGED to see a woman win the presidency, and for women as a large portion of the disenfranchised in American society to step up and take our turn in the driver's seat. Yes, some parts of me even feel strongly that we're owed. And yes, I can EASILY see how Hillary Clinton would be a perfect choice for FIRST. Hey, you know any other woman with quite the chops she has? We're only now looking at Kathleen Sibelius and Janet Napolitano and a few others this late in the game, long AFTER Hillary stuck her neck out and took the first step. I voted for Obama in the California primary three months ago, but when Clinton won, I felt great, and I celebrated her win just as much as I would have for Barack's.

I am aching over what's happened with Hillary Clinton - how many people who started out loving, admiring, and respecting her have changed their views, how this shitty business and everything that's happened and the actions of both Clintons has thrown dirt on the legacy of her husband. It just breaks my heart. It was such a thing of loveliness to see the contrast between how Bill Clinton was viewed compared to how the world sees junior. It gave me such feelings of pride and pleasure and satisfaction. And all that has now been messed up.

I think Hillary Clinton is resilient enough, and resourceful enough, and smart enough, to recover from this eventually, and to build up more of a positive and beneficial nature after this summer and onward - to overcome some, if not all, of this. And I think she has a huge contribution yet to make for the good of this nation. We are going to need ALL our talent to recover from this horrible period in our history - and she has LOADS of it. Talent, brains, and energy like hers, and that strong a commitment to activism, shouldn't be wasted, and I bet she'll always crave being where the action is and being positioned to be able to make a mark - that she won't go away. Hopefully she'll re-invent herself and keep making a contribution. We need the people like her who believe that government can be a force for good. That's a belief I remember her saying, back when the Clintons first took the country by storm almost two full decades ago. That kind of mentality is what we need to start the healing process after george w. bush, particularly when that whole philosophy - that was thoroughly discredited by the greedy, cheapskate, short-sighted, IGMFU CONservatives - appears poised to start making a comeback. We need people like her, whose first instincts are to roll up their sleeves and jump in with both feet. America does need her, still. STILL.

A very well written and perceptive analogy of a somewhat desperate and tragic conclusion. Or is this the conclusion?

the other side of the Pond, Prophet. Thanks for writing your thoughts down so eloquently even though I don't agree with everything..it's your view and it made for fascinating reading.

I'd like to amend, however, that there really are two reasons Hillary's days are numbered:

1) Iraq vote
2) 22nd amendment - these folks have had their 8 year executive rule. Be done with them.

And if the Dem populace really wanted a link to that 90's regime, Al Gore would have been the choice.

The evidence for the theft of the 2000 election is utterly conclusive and the evidence for 2004 is fairly convincing too.

I lurked for a long time before registering. At first I was ambivalent about both candidates but the increasing nastiness of the HRC supporters and their very ungracious welcome to scores of younger people getting involved in politics shocked me.

I raise a big toast to Obama's supporters who stuck it out through thick and thin and trounced the Old DLC Guard with humor and intellectual integrity.

Thank you Obama supporters :toast:

Thanks you Prophet 451 for an excellent analysis of what happened during these Primaries :toast: Rec'd

blew it and she should have recognized what was going on. The graceful thing now would be for her to step back and call it a day. I have great respect for her as a hard working, intelligent woman but in this case, regardless of whether it was a slip of the tongue or intentional, this kind of talk could give crazies the wrong idea.

Truly an excellent post!
Thank you Prophet.
:hi:

as well as insightful commentary about the election as a whole.

my path in this process. Excellent post. Thank you.

:patriot:

-Laelth

to ridicule Olbermann for complaining that Hillary was "implying, whether it was intended or not, that she was hanging around waiting for somebody to try something terrible?" Can't people see the stupidity of that? I can see the stupidity of suggesting that Obama claimed that babies are burdens, or that Michelle Obama suggested that Clinton couldn't keep Bill faithful, or that Obama's 20-year membership in a church with a pastor who believes X means that Obama must believe X. And I can also see the stupidity, to cite a recent post, of suggesting that Clinton's campaign visits to elderly voters are disgusting attempts to confuse the senile. One recent post suggested that Hillary has been claiming, contrary to what everyone knows, that the democratic nominee is chosen on the basis of the popular vote rather than the votes of delegates. No quotes were forthcoming when I questioned the veracity of that suggestion. Such silliness is rampant at DU these days. I'm not saying that all of the attacks on Clinton are unfair. She's definitely done things that merit criticism. But the majority of the attacks I read at DU are as dumb as Olbermann's remark.

edited to improve the quality of the writing

but the gist of her and her campaigns statements is that the winner of the popular vote should get the nomination. I've heard it many times. I must say that I don't disagree with that sentiment, except that the rules state the nomination is by delegate vote. Obama very intelligently ran his campaign to get the highest delegate count. Clinton did not have the foresight to do that. In addition to that, it is impossible to get a popular vote count because of the rules and regulations of the separate states involved.

but the post to which I am referring didn't claim merely that Clinton was making the argument that the superdelegates should support her because of the popular vote totals. The post was claiming that she was dishonestly claiming that the nominee is chosen by the popular vote totals rather than the delegate vote totals. Maybe the poster misspoke. There are countless other examples available.

not understand - it is a bit convoluted. :-)

Very rarely do I read every word of such a long post. Most of them aren't worth the attention. This one was.

:thumbsup:

The sharketh has been jumpethed.

from the standpoint of progressive-ness gore is a complete straggler to kucinich. however, i actually would have considered a gore/kerry ticket over kucinich, on the condition that they would have run on the platform of reclaiming their rightful place(s). one advantage over kucinich in that ticket would have been the educational value for the american people, which, however, could only have been conveyed would gore/kerry have campaigned on that premise (an extremely unlikely scenario). another is that of all the other candidates except kucinich, gore and kerry were the most progressive/experienced and would have been likely to have won, which of couse says much more about the backwardness of the american people than it does about dennis kucinich.

one more thing. clinton is my senator, and i don't consider her a good one. she put new york's vote behind the war. she also refused to debate tasini, a true progressive. she needs to be deposed and sent back to arkansas.

Firstly, Gore today is very different from Gore in 2000. He's either discovered (or, more likely, been allowed to display) a personality and from his statements, he's swung to the left. Secondly, as much as I love Dennis, he was always going to have a hard time being elected whereas Gore alreay had been twice. Thirdly and one you hit upon too, the restoration ticket.

I'll concede to your personal experiance of Hillary's Senatorial career.

However, I don't think hillary meant the RFK remark as an allusion to Obama being assassinated. I think she was using the verbal imagery of the slain hero to portray herself in the role of martyr.

She may have meant it that way but again, we're back to the anaology of Henry II. He didn't wish Thomas Beckett murdered, he was simply drunk and ranting in frustration but when powerful people use words carelessly, others can pay the price. Hillary isn't a martyr either, shye's done this to herself.

that not one person (and we see them elsewhere, all too often) who represents Hillary here has deigned to attack the OP's words.

Both personal and professional, well thought out, not antagonistic, and based on rational thinking, not a simple little talking point.

Thanks for this, and just as much, thanks to the hill supporters for not trying to ruin this fine post.

I did much the same (though I was Kucinich first, then hoping for Gore, then Edwards, etc). I still don't like either Obama or Clinton, to be honest. But I think I dislike Obama less.

Obama is, with due respect, marginally better than the alternatives.

I worked with a Brit professor for six years and reading your post was like hearing his preceptions of American politics reiterated again. Thank you and recommended.

K&R

And the rest of the world thinks we have gone insane:

http://www.newstatesman.com/north-america/2008/05/obama-clinton-vote-usa-media

I think the Statesman is overstating the sexism on display and also conflating sexism with a dislike of Senator Clinton. For many reasons (most of them not her fault), Hillary has always been disliked by the press corps. They're also flat wrong in a couple of places, such as "never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known" whereas that actually happens in virtually every primary contest and it's only the unusual closeness of this one that even makes the superdelegates relevant.

Forgive me if that made no sense, I just woke up.

And it is valid.

Only history will tell what the world will come to believe about the U.S. in this election cycle. But, it ain't lookin good for us right now.

campaign generally.