Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama should show you EXACTLY what is wrong with Hillary and her campaign.
First - It's shows you that people who respect and admire the Clintons are also growing tired of the brand of ridiculous kamikaze politics the Clintons are playing with the Democratic party. They are sick of watching them play racist politics and then blame Obama for it. They are sick of the constant stream of lies and attempts at character assassination that Hillary describes as "the fun part". They are sick of the Clintons, as Keith Olbermann pointed out, running as if she were the Republican against the Democrat, Barack Obama. They are sick of the Clintons handing John McCain a free pass in the general election when it comes to his temper and lack of knowledge in foreign policy, in order to tear down someone who isn't them. They are sick of the fear mongering advertising that only drives people away from the ballot box. They are sick of the Clintons "sacrifice the party and the nation so I can win" mentality, and scorched earth policy of Kissinger in Vietnam come to the Democratic Primary. They are sick of a Democratic Huckabee that just doesn't know when to give up (though, unlike Huckabee, isn't working at building up the other candidate). After months of it, they are finally sick of the bullshit. And it's about time.
Second - It's shows how much of a terrible, distorting, and disgusting effect Mark Penn and the tens of millions of dollars Hillary's donors are paying him have on Democracy. Mark Penn, and, by extension, the Clinton campaign as a whole, looks at people and states as numbers and statistics. They break everything down into infinitesimal parts and then give them completely subjective ranks based on how favorable they are to the Clinton campaign. It not only shows in the ludicrous claims he makes about Hillary winning Nevada and Texas, and that every important state, except Illinois, has voted for Hillary (that's 29 insigificant states for Obama) but shows itself in how much respect he has for the longtime Clinton friend, and still serving Governor from New Mexico (from the WSJ):
“The time that he could have been effective has long since passed. I don’t think it is a significant endorsement in this environment.”
Why is it not significant at this time? I'll let Bill Richardson explain why Mark Penn thinks he doesn't matter:
"I resent the fact that the Clinton people are now saying that my endorsement is too late because I only can help with Texans — with Texas and Hispanics, implying that that's my only value," the New Mexico governor told CNN's John King."That's typical of some of his advisers that kind of turned me off."
Basically, Bill Richardson is Latino, so he can only help with Latinos, and there aren't enough of them in PA, NC, or Indiana. Forget his years of service and experience, forget that he was a well respected (though unsuccessful) Presidential nominee, his skin is brown and that's no longer an important demographic.
Let me be the first to say: Fuck You, Mark Penn.
Lastly - it shows that Hillary Clinton feels entitlement because of favors done by her husband. That's why James Carville said the following about Richardson and his endorsement (in the NY Times):
“[It's] An act of betrayal. Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.
A couple of major problems with this:
First - If Bill Richardson is Judas, Hillary Clinton is Jesus in this analogy (or Jesus' wife, possibly?). (update- Matt Yglesias and Andrew Sullivan might have beaten me to it)
Second - Why does Bill Richardson owe Hillary Clinton anything? She didn't appoint him to anything. Essentially, Carville is explicitly making the argument that the Clinton camp has been admonishing, that they feel a sense of entitlement- that Democrats and, most disturbingly superdelegates (especially those who had ties to Bill's Presidency), owe Hillary their vote. Popular Votes be damned, Pledged Delegates be damned, Any state that dares vote for Obama be damned, We All Owe The Clintons. After all, Democrats did lose both houses of Congress and hand the presidency over to a stumbling moron and his greed driven puppeteers for eight years.
22 March 2008
09 March 2008
modus operandi
I remember turning on MSNBC some time in January, right after the Iowa Caucus, and seeing Hillary Clinton, in all her delusional magnificence, talking about how "of all the people running for president, I've been the most vetted, the most investigated and -- my goodness -- the most innocent." I remember both how hilarious I thought it was, as well as how terrified at how convincing a liar she was (or, at the very least, how she believes in a fantasy of her own creation, like some current Presidents I won't name). There are many problems with this statement:
First - The fallacy that being vetted makes you a good person (or being investigated, for that matter).
Second - The idea that someone so directly involved in so many documented scandals, with so many incarcerated business partners, is more innocent than, say, Obama, Kucinich, or even Huckabee.
Third- The logical fallacy implied, that someone who doesn't have a lifetime of public scandals behind them is just not vetted sufficiently. Also, saying, as Mark Penn did, "She's fully vetted . . . and I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama," is attempting to apply 'he's just as dirty as me, just wait until his secrets come out!' Additionally, the ridiculous conclusion that even the SMALLEST problem with Obama wouldn't be out there and harped on by the Clinton campaign (they have to lie about him instead). As we've all come to recognize, the Republican Attack Machine has NOTHING on the Clinton Attack Machine.
Fourth - The, again, logical disconnect that someone surrounded by scandal would suddenly 'get it out of their system,' and not, as logic would dictate, be more prone to future scandals.
Fifth - The incredulous idea that you can be vetted while refusing to release your:
1- tax returns from 2000-2006
2- minutes from your duties in the white house
3- minutes regarding the pardons of Mark Rich and Hillary's brother, amongst others, at the end of the Bill terms.
4- donors to the Clinton Library
5- earmarks
Vetted means everything is on the table. IAnd Everything Means Everything.
As the time passed and Edwards dropped out, I watched as Obama grew in national popularity and the Clinton campaign grew desperate. They tried race-baiting (and then having the unmitigated gall to blame Obama for bringing up the race card even after he didn't take the bait); they tried to hurt his credibility by bringing up his admitted past drug use; they circulated rumors about Obama's religion (as far as I know, anyway...); and any other failed tactic they could think of. The thing that never sat right with me was that Clinton was successfully keeping the attention off of herself by redirecting all attention on to the new guy, all while repeating "35 years of experience" and "ready on day one" as if saying them enough times makes them true. No one was asking her to define those 35 years, and how serving on the board of Wal-Mart counts. No one asked what made her ready on day one ('I had tea in Liberia!'). No one asked if she was in national security meetings, or had a real voice on security issues. On the rare occasion someone did, she just deflected and restated her false mantras.
Then something magical happened. She went on national television and said, three or four different ways:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,"
she later added
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
There were, again, several major problems with these statements:
First - The idea that speeches about policy are meaningless, when giving speeches about policy and discussing the mindset behind those speeches with people, is, basically, the definition of being president. Last I checked, the president hasn't split himself into 200k troops and every cabinet official. He, pretty much, gives speeches to people and tries to bring them on board.
Second - The nebulous idea of a threshold is undefined and can never be actually explained by Clinton. Just like the idea of a "big state," it is a completely arbitrary ideal set forth to disparage Obama indirectly with a standard he can never live up to, since it's defined by Clinton herself.
Third - Hillary broke the unwritten rule about not throwing your fellow party member under the bus.
Fourth - She GRANTED that John McCain has passed the threshold. Why has he? Why is she giving him a pass on this? Now, he can not only use this argument, but use this very language, against either of them in the General. McCain can almost cut and paste this in the fall. Furthermore and more importantly, she, basically, just let the Republicans set the agenda for the General Election. I would think Democrats would want to focus on the economy, the constitution, Iraq, our standing in the world, health care, or, basically, anything else but terrorism.
Fifth - The AMAZING logical disconnect- if she is setting this as the most important quality for president, John McCain will crush her in the General Election, even if she pulls the primary out. Crush her by her own standard.
BEST OF ALL, though, she opened the door to finally forcing people to ask her just what her wonderful foreign policy experience is (these statements, along with her 3am fearmongering debacle).
So John Dickerson from Slate asks 3 of Clinton's top advisers a nice, vetting question about her crisis experience and, after the longest and most telling silence in this entire campaign, they ramble on about a SPEECH she gave in China, and insist, without naming any specifics, that she had been tested. The campaign struggles for a couple of days, while Hillary continues to build up her and her new presumed running mate, McCain.
Eventually, Hillary comes up with an answer riddled with untruths- how her experience boils down to Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda, Macedonia, and the Speech in China (which doesn't count, by Hillary's own standards. It's just words.) Over the next few days, it became very apparent that she did no negotiating, had no security clearance, and played no legitimate, vital role for which she could claim she crossed any threshold, much less one that makes her qualified to be president.
So why am I doing this?
I studied Rwanda passionately. When I discuss failures of the Clinton administration, this issue is always my first point- insisting on pulling out UN peacekeepers against overwhelming evidence of an iminant genocide, and against the vocal pleas by people and volunteers in the country.
A genocide of almost One Million People, many by machete and being burned to death, many innocent women and children. A genocide that could easily have been prevented (or stopped) by, simply, NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A genocide being used falsely and shamelessly by Hillary Clinton to get votes in a campaign.
I realized Andrew Sullivan was right. We can't just show our support for anyone, we have to actively get the Clintons as far away from power as we can.
And So We Begin. If I miss an argument, feel free to send me an email or comment.
First - The fallacy that being vetted makes you a good person (or being investigated, for that matter).
Second - The idea that someone so directly involved in so many documented scandals, with so many incarcerated business partners, is more innocent than, say, Obama, Kucinich, or even Huckabee.
Third- The logical fallacy implied, that someone who doesn't have a lifetime of public scandals behind them is just not vetted sufficiently. Also, saying, as Mark Penn did, "She's fully vetted . . . and I don't think that process has occurred with Barack Obama," is attempting to apply 'he's just as dirty as me, just wait until his secrets come out!' Additionally, the ridiculous conclusion that even the SMALLEST problem with Obama wouldn't be out there and harped on by the Clinton campaign (they have to lie about him instead). As we've all come to recognize, the Republican Attack Machine has NOTHING on the Clinton Attack Machine.
Fourth - The, again, logical disconnect that someone surrounded by scandal would suddenly 'get it out of their system,' and not, as logic would dictate, be more prone to future scandals.
Fifth - The incredulous idea that you can be vetted while refusing to release your:
1- tax returns from 2000-2006
2- minutes from your duties in the white house
3- minutes regarding the pardons of Mark Rich and Hillary's brother, amongst others, at the end of the Bill terms.
4- donors to the Clinton Library
5- earmarks
Vetted means everything is on the table. IAnd Everything Means Everything.
As the time passed and Edwards dropped out, I watched as Obama grew in national popularity and the Clinton campaign grew desperate. They tried race-baiting (and then having the unmitigated gall to blame Obama for bringing up the race card even after he didn't take the bait); they tried to hurt his credibility by bringing up his admitted past drug use; they circulated rumors about Obama's religion (as far as I know, anyway...); and any other failed tactic they could think of. The thing that never sat right with me was that Clinton was successfully keeping the attention off of herself by redirecting all attention on to the new guy, all while repeating "35 years of experience" and "ready on day one" as if saying them enough times makes them true. No one was asking her to define those 35 years, and how serving on the board of Wal-Mart counts. No one asked what made her ready on day one ('I had tea in Liberia!'). No one asked if she was in national security meetings, or had a real voice on security issues. On the rare occasion someone did, she just deflected and restated her false mantras.
Then something magical happened. She went on national television and said, three or four different ways:
"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002,"
she later added
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”
There were, again, several major problems with these statements:
First - The idea that speeches about policy are meaningless, when giving speeches about policy and discussing the mindset behind those speeches with people, is, basically, the definition of being president. Last I checked, the president hasn't split himself into 200k troops and every cabinet official. He, pretty much, gives speeches to people and tries to bring them on board.
Second - The nebulous idea of a threshold is undefined and can never be actually explained by Clinton. Just like the idea of a "big state," it is a completely arbitrary ideal set forth to disparage Obama indirectly with a standard he can never live up to, since it's defined by Clinton herself.
Third - Hillary broke the unwritten rule about not throwing your fellow party member under the bus.
Fourth - She GRANTED that John McCain has passed the threshold. Why has he? Why is she giving him a pass on this? Now, he can not only use this argument, but use this very language, against either of them in the General. McCain can almost cut and paste this in the fall. Furthermore and more importantly, she, basically, just let the Republicans set the agenda for the General Election. I would think Democrats would want to focus on the economy, the constitution, Iraq, our standing in the world, health care, or, basically, anything else but terrorism.
Fifth - The AMAZING logical disconnect- if she is setting this as the most important quality for president, John McCain will crush her in the General Election, even if she pulls the primary out. Crush her by her own standard.
BEST OF ALL, though, she opened the door to finally forcing people to ask her just what her wonderful foreign policy experience is (these statements, along with her 3am fearmongering debacle).
So John Dickerson from Slate asks 3 of Clinton's top advisers a nice, vetting question about her crisis experience and, after the longest and most telling silence in this entire campaign, they ramble on about a SPEECH she gave in China, and insist, without naming any specifics, that she had been tested. The campaign struggles for a couple of days, while Hillary continues to build up her and her new presumed running mate, McCain.
Eventually, Hillary comes up with an answer riddled with untruths- how her experience boils down to Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Rwanda, Macedonia, and the Speech in China (which doesn't count, by Hillary's own standards. It's just words.) Over the next few days, it became very apparent that she did no negotiating, had no security clearance, and played no legitimate, vital role for which she could claim she crossed any threshold, much less one that makes her qualified to be president.
So why am I doing this?
I studied Rwanda passionately. When I discuss failures of the Clinton administration, this issue is always my first point- insisting on pulling out UN peacekeepers against overwhelming evidence of an iminant genocide, and against the vocal pleas by people and volunteers in the country.
A genocide of almost One Million People, many by machete and being burned to death, many innocent women and children. A genocide that could easily have been prevented (or stopped) by, simply, NOT DOING ANYTHING.
A genocide being used falsely and shamelessly by Hillary Clinton to get votes in a campaign.
I realized Andrew Sullivan was right. We can't just show our support for anyone, we have to actively get the Clintons as far away from power as we can.
And So We Begin. If I miss an argument, feel free to send me an email or comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)