Skip to main content

This is an election about who we are, who we want to be.  If America does not regain its can-do, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self.

The Clintons continue their drive to not talk about race, race, race, race, race, race.  Before South Carolina was over Bill Clinton was comparing Obama to Jessie Jackson.  Last time the Clintons’ campaign looked to be on the decline, on the heels of Iowa, Hillary Clinton resorted to trying to minimize the achievements of Dr. King as dependent on someone who looked more like her – an older white person.  Hillary Clinton also threw in for good measure that if Obama is elected we will be attacked by terrorists.  The Clintons are doing their best to drag America into the divisive, selfish, scared muck of identity politics.  

It’s pretty easy to see how the Clintons are trying to frame this election.  The Clintons are trying to incite women and whites to gang up for them against blacks.  The degree to which the Clinton tactics mirror the Rove-Bush tactics of the past seven years is scary.  Very scary.  The Clintons desperately want to make the decisive element of this campaign old fashioned, dirty identity politics.  

The Clintons are trying to scare America into putting aside their hopes in favor of their fears.  They know that America wants change.  America wants hope.  America wants to work together to achieve change. In the twenty first century, America does not want to be simply divided along the lines of race, gender, sexual orientation or otherwise.  

The reason the Clintons are resorting to old-style low-ball campaign tactics is they lose on substance.  The Clintons set out to sell something America doesn’t need - her "experience."  Even on cursory review, Hillary Clinton’s positive "experience" basically consists of her relation to her husband, which is why he is trying so hard to bail her out.  Hillary’s other seminal experiences consist of colossally bad decisions, such as crafting a secretive and byzantine process to reform healthcare in the early 1990s which failed so badly that the crises has snowballed nearly a decade later; America lags pathetically far behind other first world countries in coverage, cost and quality of care.  Hillary Clinton is still in denial over her horrible vote for the Iraq war.  In another sign of her bad judgment and inability to recognize her mistakes, she supported the war longer than most of her Democratic colleagues well into 2005.  And her decision to vote for Bush’s warmongering resolution last Fall declaring Iran’s military to be terrorists (a declaration of war), can leave no doubt that Hillary Clinton does not learn from her experience and that she continues to exercise the bad judgment.  This is not to mention her bad judgment in her current campaign strategy.  

On the other hand, Barack Obama, has fought for transparency in government.  Unlike Hillary Clinton who still refuses to release her official records as First Lady, thanks to Obama we now have a web site where everyone can see which contractors get which projects and how much of our money from our government.  Unlike Hillary Clinton who along with her husband will not reveal the records for their half a billion dollar "charity" which has employed key campaign staffers and has taken tens of millions from unnamed campaign donors including Mark Rich types (his wife I believe), thanks to Obama we now also can see on a web site what the lobbyists are up to, who they are donating to and bundling for.  

Unlike Hillary who is sucking up lobbyist money in this election, Obama has set the bar higher by not taking money from lobbyists – no bundled money for him thank you very much.  Unlike the Clintons who are happy to appear on the Fox News network of their new friend Murdoch, Obama prefers not to appear on that network that repeatedly confuses his name with a terrorist.  And Obama showed guts by pushing back hard against the FCC’s recent attempt to gut the anti-media consolidation rules as a bone to Murdoch’s ever expanding empire – Obama did this at personal risk during this election when he needs positive media coverage.

We have not even talked about the Giant White Elephant in the Democratic Party – Hillary Clinton’s Faustian bargain.  Without a doubt, the Clintons would not be here today had Hillary, the self-proclaimed champion of women, not gone to the mats countless times to defend Bill from outrageous, true charges of illegal sexual harassment and worse by his numerous women victims.  The charges also came from officers of the Arkansas State Police who Bill used as unwilling accomplices to his hedonistic, illegal sexual escapades.  

So really, it’s not surprising that the Clintons’ are treating Barack Obama more like a target in old style political knife fight than as a distinguished opponent in the Democratic Primary.  It is even more disgusting because Barack Obama is a member of the Clintons’ own party.  The Clintons have shown, once again, that they take the high ground only when they feel they don’t need to pull a low blow to get what they want.  They will not hesitate to sacrifice the good of America or their party for that matter if they feel that’s what it takes for them to win.  They are selfish.  We have seen it over and over.  

The ultimate proof of the Clintons’ selfishness lies in the answer to this question, "Where have you been Bill since you left office?"  You have been MIA in helping the Democratic Party, that’s for sure (other than helping Hillary on your four-point plan to get back into the White House).  We love your comment Bill the other day that you don’t plan to interfere in the day to day activities of the White House.  We know what you mean.  You mean that you won’t bother yourself anymore with the details of running the Administration and will be like our CEO President, only weighing in on the big decisions that you think matter in your historical scheme.  You’ve said that Hillary will complete your Administration the way FDR completed TR’s, so clearly you’ve got some more plans (fairytales?) you’re not fully sharing with us.

Just as Barack Obama asked, who am I running against?  We ask, who are we voting for?    Hillary can’t reign you in now, and there’s no indication she will be able to if you get into the White House.  America needs to get the focus back on hope.  Without hope there can be no achievement and no change.  Ted Kennedy has endorsed Barack Obama saying he is ready to lead like JFK from Day 1.  Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barack Obama saying he is the first candidate like her father.  http://www.nytimes.com/...  JFK’s former advisors, includling Sorensen who helped write his best speeches, have come out strongly in favor of him saying the same thing.  

It is about time we get away from bickering with each other to start asking questions like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."  This is an election about who we are, who we want to be.  If America does not regain its can-do, we’re in it together, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self.

Originally posted to prouddemocrat on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:10 AM PST.

Tags

Poll

Who will win the Democratic Primary?

14%87 votes
5%33 votes
79%471 votes

| 591 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah, O.K. (4+ / 0-)

    Nice, typical DKOS diary.

    STFU

    •  Do you really think (0+ / 0-)

      that was helpful?

      Ils n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubliƩ. - Talleyrand on the restoration of the House of Bourbon

      by MBNYC on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:16:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and the diary was helpful how? (4+ / 0-)

        no facts
        pure conjecture
        zero reasoned arguments
        added absolutely zero to the debate.

        The end game is the presidency not the nomination

        by stevej on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:18:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nor does (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          anna

          a STFU comment. That the diary is crap is beyond debate.

          Ils n'ont rien appris, ni rien oubliƩ. - Talleyrand on the restoration of the House of Bourbon

          by MBNYC on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It did add this... (0+ / 0-)

          The Republican talking points re: Clinton's allegedly sexually harassing countless women.

          There's no doubt Bill's a serious tomcat, but it has yet to be proven that he "illegally" sexually harassed anyone.  Did he make propositions that were unaccepted?  Apparently yes, if you believe Paula Jones.  Did he make proposition that were accepted?  Yes.  See Gennifer Flowers.

          Trying to blame his wife for this stuff in any shape, form, or fashion is reprehensible.  She's a victim.  The only proven victim (other than Chelsea, who was unavoidably exposed to months of Republican scandal-mongering, eagerly lapped up by the "news").

          Hillary is not my choice, but we need to avoid adopting Republican smears.

  •  Great (0+ / 0-)

    Recommended!!

    Obama, save me from your followers.

    by bink on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:16:46 AM PST

  •  Load of conjecture (2+ / 0-)

    based on nothing.

    The end game is the presidency not the nomination

    by stevej on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:17:04 AM PST

    •  What conjecture? (0+ / 0-)

      I tried to be as factual as possible.  If Hillary didn't fail to reform health care in the early 1990s, if she didn't vote for the war in Iraq, if she didn't vote for the warmongering proposal against Iran, if she didn't race bait while denying she is race baiting, if she didn't help Bill cover up all that illegal sexual harassment against the gender she claims to champion, then she would be a much better candidate that I would seriously consider. This is not conjecture. It's about the facts.  

      The conjecture lies in all the Clinton insinuations in their race baiting, identity politics.

  •  I never wanted a a DYNASTY (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Akonitum

    I never wanted a Bush dynasty and I hope the democratic party doesn't make the same mistake.

    Never give up on peace!!! What are you left with if you do???

    by Gator on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:18:31 AM PST

  •  The Clenis! Fear the Clenis! (2+ / 0-)

    Good grief.

  •  Couldn't Publish On Redstate Today? (2+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Kentucky DeanDemocrat, SignalSuzie
    Hidden by:
    IndianaDemocrat

    Was there a waiting line to lay out this crap over there?

    •  Uprated for TR abuse (0+ / 0-)

      this was a perfectly valid comment.  There was nothing here I have not read on Redstate over the years, from Hillary's "faustian bargain" to Bill's sexual harassment "and worse" (wink wink).  

      Barack Obama is an empty suit into which people pour their dreams.

      by dhonig on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I can see you are an avid Clintonite (0+ / 0-)

      What you fail to see is that the Clintons are the aggressors.  America sees this.  Democrats and progressives see this.  Your view that somehow the "experienced" politician and her ex-President husband dealing out all the blows are the poor little victims is in the minority.

  •  Where Clintons went wrong (0+ / 0-)

    THey should have concentrated on their SUCCESSES during the Clinton years - instead they acted like Republicans and attacked their party member personally.

    Coonsey's View http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/

    by cscmm on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM PST

  •  Count Me Onboard (0+ / 0-)

    Much as the Aztecs would offer virgin sacrifices to manipulate the gods, dems evidently must sacrifice one of their own.  Before doing so, it must be necessary to demonize the offering, paint him or her in such dark and foul colors that there's a sense of relief once they're sacrificed.  

    And in that moment, that moment of vicious, pure vilification, where all that is my candidate shines with righteousness and all that is evil squirms in it's repugnance and absolute rovian malevolence, there is such a sense of release ....  

    Sign me on. It's the RIGHT thing to do.  

  •  Bye Bye Billary (0+ / 0-)

    The Clintons are disgusting politicians.
    Finally becoming apparent to everyone

    Former Democrat - Now Independent Obama supporter

    by tom3256 on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 12:18:55 PM PST

  •  great diary, except that it stinks (0+ / 0-)

    I agree w/ your assessment of the Clintons, but Obama fans are blind to the faults of their guy.  Obama is a media creation, a myth sculpted from a $150 million warchest that began accumulating EVEN BEFORE he was elected US Senator, unopposed.

    I like Obama, but he is all sizzle, no steak.  Why would corporations give him $90 million if they didn't believe he'd repay them?  he always has in the past.

    The Democrats in 2008 are fighting over the soul of their Party, and so far the pro-soul side is losing.

    by Zacapoet on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 01:25:08 PM PST

    •  Sounds like a Republican argument to me (0+ / 0-)

      It's the old line we keep hearing from the Republicans - everybody does it.  Only they don't.  Obama has not taken money from corporate entities or bundled lobbyist money.  He has run on a platform highlighting the need for reform in this area.  Hillary Clinton couldn't be more further away.  She takes all that money in this campaign.  And she says, unbelievably, lobbyists are good for America. Uh huh.  

      •  you need to open your eyes.. (0+ / 0-)

        The Democrats in 2008 are fighting over the soul of their Party, and so far the pro-soul side is losing.

        by Zacapoet on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:18:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read it. (0+ / 0-)

          Doesn't bother me at all.  Obama is not taking money from corps, pacs or bundled lobbyist money in this campaign.  It's a lot more than Hillary Clinton can say.  She says lobbyists serve a legitimate role.  Obama says we need to stop the undue influence of lobbyists.

          Yes, rich people, including those who work for corporations, make personal contributions to his campaign.  They want a better America.  He is not going to reject their contributions as long as they are within campaign limits.  He has also raised a ton of money through small contributions.  That is what makes him special.  He is a unifier.  Rich and poor.  Black and white.  And when he got control, as the article notes, he acted by passing a flurry of progressive bills.

          Yes, he is connected with powerful people.  Name me a President who isn't.  Don't we want them to be??

          As for his position on Ethanol, I don't like it.  I don't agree with it.  I think it would be cheaper to buy sugar-based Ethanol from Brazil.  I think Obama did it in part as a concession to interests in his state.  It's a mark against him.  He is not perfect.  If that's the worst we can say about him, in my mind that's just fine.  He voted right on the war.  He didn't vote for Bush's ridiculous warmongering resolution against Iran.  He didn't have any massive screw ups like Hillary Clinton's aborted effort at healthcare reform.  That's not to say he hasn't taken his punches - in this campaign and in losing a campaign for a seat in Congress.  Rezko is a drop in the bucket of all the Clinton scandals too.

          So no, Obama does not walk on water.  No one does.  Neither did JFK.  Neither did FDR.  But they were still pretty good, at least in my book.

  •  If it's progressive you want ... (0+ / 0-)

    I get frustrated when I read news, "analysis," blogs, posts, and comments that forget that a) it is only January 27, 2008, and the Democratic convention starts on August 25, 2008; and that b) there is another viable candidate out there who actually has laid out a very progressive platform.

    It's not Edwards' fault that he's a white male.  In spite of that deficiency, he has proposed a cogent and integrated set of goals that are truly progressive.

    It may be Clinton's and Obama's faults, however, even though they superficially are the "radical" choices for president due to gender and race, that their platforms are nowhere as specific, progressive, and integrated as Edwards' is.

    If Democrats keep ignoring the Edwards' possibility, then yes, it is a race between only two candidates.  But if the nomination is already locked up even before "Super Tuesday," this doesn't say much about the power of individual votes.

    Yes, I support Edwards.  But I support him because of his platform, my belief that (for whatever reason) he now truly understands what the country needs to restore more than a semblance of fairness, and his bravery in NOT compromising his message so that he will seem more palatable to timid moderates.

    I wish I could feel that Clinton and Obama had the same desire to push for changes that will break the stranglehold corporate and moneyed interests have over this government, but I haven't seen it, either in their platforms or in their debates and speeches.  

    But I'm not going to support a woman because she is a woman or a black man because he is black if they aren't willing to be progressive.  Their goals need to be as innovative as not electing a white Christian man to the presidency before I'll vote against one just to change the face of the country.  The change needs to be internal, not just window dressing.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site