Skip to main content

View Diary: It’s Time To Pick A President (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  broui (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopscotch1997

    See, I and many many people like me will not ever under any circumstances vote for Senator Clinton.  

    We have a myriad of reasons and NONE of them have to do with her sex.  It's her record and the way she does politics.  It's her divisiveness.  It's the feeling she gives us.  It's that we have to call her by her first name.  It's the K-L vote.  It's the Iraq vote.  And so much more.

    I hope you will reconsider on Senator Clinton. You do not have to call her by her first name, you can call her Senator Clinton. She sometimes uses her first name to distinguish herself from her husband, as a reminder that she is, after all, a different person. Sen. Clinton's vote on Iraq was wrong, but she is no warmonger, and K-L was no vote for war with Iran, which is looking less likely by the month. It is important that the Democratic party nominates a candidate who reflects its strengths on national security but not its weaknesses. Her record is progressive, but not ultra-liberal-- from issues alone, basically your generic Democrat as far as the Senate is concerned. The way she does politics has changed over the years-- and continues to change. She worked hard in the Senate and did her best to be a good Senator for her state. She worked across the aisle with conservative Republicans. She doesn't try to hide the fact that she talks with special interests, as do all politicians including Obama and Edwards, but nor does she let them tell her what to do.

    I cannot speak to the feeling that she gives you, except to say that many people who have met her have come away with a very positive feeling, and many others who have seen her have come away with the same, including myself. Finally, on her divisiveness, if her record is any indication, she will not give the Republicans the same cause as Bush gave the Democrats to polarize; and although she may seem polarizing to some now, that is based on the fear on the Republican side that she is much more liberal than she really is-- and that will change if she proves them wrong.

    Finally, there is so much more to reccommend her as well.

    •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poblano

      You did not persuade.

      I disagree vehemently with your assessment of K-L.  It was in my estimation, written in the language of the NeoCons and tantamount to trusting GW again.  Bad judgement.

      I used to work with these people.  It is IMPOSSIBLE for a politician to take special interest money, and not at a minimum be kind to them when you vote.  What actually tends to happen is, well, nothing, which is what most of these special interests would prefer so they can keep doing business as usual.

      She already has and so I have no reason to believe that she won't continue to give Republicans cause to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

      Look, as I said, I used to work with these people.  By that I mean I used to work in politics.  My specialty was spin and advance (creating media events).  I knew the Clintons from way back in '91.  My feeling then is the same as today.  Capable politicians but the type of people who are ruthless and would do anything to get and keep power.  It's that which takes priority over serving people.  They are not inherently bad people per se.  But they are looking out for themselves first.

      That does not describe all politicians.

      The Gores, the Tsongas's (when he was alive), Biden, Warren Rudman, Patty Murray, and Robert Kennedy Jr. (not actually a politician, but close enough) were people who I knew that I really got the impression were there to serve.

      So, all due respect, you didn't make your case, because I just know too much about the Clintons to ever back them.

      But I want you to know that I truly appreciate the respect you've shown me by trying.

      Most Hillary supporters seem to make personal attacks in some way or pay little attention to the merits of my arguments.

      Peace.

      What Washington needs is adult supervision. --BARACK OBAMA

      by broui on Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 11:15:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  hm (0+ / 0-)

        I disagree vehemently with your assessment of K-L.  It was in my estimation, written in the language of the NeoCons and tantamount to trusting GW again.  Bad judgement.

        May I ask, under what criteria are you judging this piece of legislation? My criteria is-- does K-L lead to war or the authorization of war by Congress on Iran? Sec. of State Rice's admission that it does neither of those things settles my criteria. I think the substantive, meaningful criteria of actuality supercedes the empty criteria of rhetoric, just as actions supercede words.

        It is IMPOSSIBLE for a politician to take special interest money, and not at a minimum be kind to them when you vote.  What actually tends to happen is, well, nothing, which is what most of these special interests would prefer so they can keep doing business as usual
        ...
        Look, as I said, I used to work with these people.  By that I mean I used to work in politics.  My specialty was spin and advance (creating media events).  I knew the Clintons from way back in '91.  My feeling then is the same as today.  Capable politicians but the type of people who are ruthless and would do anything to get and keep power.  It's that which takes priority over serving people.  They are not inherently bad people per se.  But they are looking out for themselves first.

        That does not describe all politicians.

        The Gores, the Tsongas's (when he was alive), Biden, Warren Rudman, Patty Murray, and Robert Kennedy Jr. (not actually a politician, but close enough) were people who I knew that I really got the impression were there to serve.

        That's well and fair.

        May I ask what advantage adherence to the purity of a few 'noble' (or self-perceived as noble) politicians gets you in politics? Of the people whom you mentioned above, only Al Gore Jr. has come close to the Presidency in living memory, and when he ran he was villified by the media as an exaggerator who would say anything to get elected. IIRC the exit polls in 2000, more people believed that Gore attacked Bush unfairly than the other way around, and more people said Gore was more likely to say anything to get elected (74%) than Bush (58%). Of those who believed that an 'honest and trustworthy' was the most important qualify for the next President, 80% voted for Bush, only %18 voted for Gore. Of those who believed qualities in general more important, 62% voted for Bush.

        Here was a rare man who you say (and you have 5 of thousands) was out to serve the people above himself. Yet it got him nothing.

        Nothing. 62% of those who believed character was most important voted for his opponent. And at the time, there were very few to defend him. There was certainly no progressive blogosphere.

        Public perceptions then may not have been accurate, but if that can happen to people who you got the impression 'were really there to serve' (I did too about Gore, btw), then what? How effective could Gore have been as President? He would have been villified after 9/11 for not 'protecting the country' and for the recession. In short, public perceptions of him may never have changed to what they are now. Jimmy Carter may have been an earnest President, but he was not an effective one. No matter how innocent, how committed Gore was, he would not have been able to get things done.

        The above is not meant to diminish the importance of character but rather to point out the importance of effectiveness. One is worth nothing without character, but you also can't do anything without effectiveness. The classical means-ends dilemma is a matter of balance. You try to be effective with the system you're given (and in 2007, this includes money and endorsements from special interests, of which the blogosphere is arguably one) but you don't give up your core principles. There's a fine line, but you do your best not to cross it.

        The attacks on Sen. Clinton's character today echo the attacks on Al Gore's character in 2000. Far more people today, than in 2000, have a positive opinion of Gore, because they see now what should have been obvious at the time-- that a man who worked in the public sector for his whole life, whose very passion for leading the country led him to stiffen up and become awkward on the campaign, was a man who, at the very least, cared about the issues. Those same qualities that made me see Mr. Gore as a man who was really there to serve-- beneath all the ups and downs and gotchas of the campaign-- which is essentially a sad game-- those same qualities are in Sen. Clinton today. The question is not do you think this candidate is above politics? I still maintain that is a too naive question-- no one who participates in politics is above politics. The question is has this person given up their core principles in the service of politics? And Senator Clinton emphatically has not. She is still fighting for the same things she has been fighting for her entire professional life- arguably harder than ever.  When early polls showed her and Mr. Giuliani doing far worse in Iowa than nationally in bigger, more delegate-rich states, Giuliani withdrew his strategy. But Sen. Clinton stayed to fight for those votes, for those people who were in a place skeptical of her; just as she did for the votes of the upstate residents of New York.

        Btw, both Gore, Biden, Tsongas, Murray- they all have taken or take money from 'special interests'. So have Obama and Edwards.

        She already has and so I have no reason to believe that she won't continue to give Republicans cause to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

        What about her Senate record of expanding her appeal to those in rural, Republican areas? Working with Republican Congressmen? Her generic Democratic voting record, which is no more polarizing than the average Democrat? Her relatively middle-of-the-road positions and rhetoric compared to for example Senator Edwards? Sen. Clinton has already denounced Bush's practices of politiczing the federal bureaucracy and use of signing statements. These are all evidence that she will not give the Republicans reason to remain as polarized as we have since '94.

        Polarization does not exist in a vaccuum. It exists because of the way that leaders-- particularly Congressional leaders and Presidents, behave.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site