Skip to main content

There are quite a few of us here, and in the country, former Edwards supporters, folks leaning towards Kucinich (because of his program more than his actual chances), who are not particularly in love with either Hillary or Obama.

I'd like to say a few words on their behalf.

Let's start with Hillary. She looks insincere even when she is probably sincere (as Josh Marshall pointed out) and will say or do anything to get elected. Not necessarily a bad thing in a politician, but hardly likable.

As for Obama, I'm sorry to say this but he's got that kind of slick Werner Ehrard charm/charisma which totally rubs some people (myself included) the wrong way. I just don't like the guy.

Now let's look at their programs; they are not that different, and frankly, they both suck.

Let's review below the fold:

On energy, do we find anything in Obama's or Hillary's programs (I'm referring to what's written on their respective websites) that takes into account what our own Jerome à Paris or Kunstler say almost on a daily basis about peak oil and its likely consequences? No.

On health care, do their programs reflect or go towards what our own nyceve advocates? No.

On foreign policy, do their programs account for what Jerome à Paris and the good and smart folks at European Tribune write about? No.

On the economy, do their programs acknowledge what Professor Roubini or Bondad have diagnosed or are predicting -- the impending cost of bailing out the US financial system? No.

On FISA, does either Obama or Hillary have shown any leadership on the issue, à la , say, Dodd? No.

So explain to me why I should feel enthused about these two, except of course that they are both a gazillion times better than McCain (which is enough reason for me, BTW).

Now, I do understand that, in order to be elected in America, even by liberals, one must deliver the kind of delusional pablum that will not get you torn apart by the media.

In fact, Evans' defeat, Kucinich's, and on the right side of the aisle, Ron Paul's inability to get traction, are ample proof that the truth is still an electoral poison pill.  To quote Jack Nicholson, present company excepted, we can't handle the truth. Point taken.

So while I sound somewhat peevish above, I don't really mind that Obama and Hillary are -- let's be blunt about it -- LYING to us in order to get elected.  

In the case of Hillary, it's quite transparent, in fact. That woman would wear a monkey suit if it could get her two more votes.

Obama is more of a cypher. I'm not 100% sure if he believes his pablum or not; I just pray that he doesn't and isn't a doofus like Jimmy Carter (and I love Jimmy) and is a lot worldwise than what he seems to be. I suspect he really is.  Like Werner Ehrard, those folks don't buy into their own spiel. Change, my ass.

When our next Leader to be has to deal with $5 trillion in Iraq war costs, $3 trillion in bailout costs, with the US$ likely to lose its world currency reserve, "YES WE CAN!" and 3 a.m. phone calls will be rosy fantasies best forgotten, and "CHANGE" will the bitter pill we'll all have to swallow.

So, the bottom line is, I respect both Obama and Hillary, who are both very intelligent people, and quite capable, I'm sure, and I feel comfortable voting for either one of them, but I don't particularly like either of them, and their present platforms are mostly delusional fantasies.

Not everybody loves Obama. Or Hillary. BUT THAT'S OKAY!

update: And it goes without saying, either will be a gazillion times better than Scrooge McCain.

Originally posted to Lupin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:33 AM PST.

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

  •  That woman would wear a monkey suit if it could (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, BenGoshi, seanarama

    get her two more votes.

    Haha that is really funny!

    "We need men who can dream of things that never were." John F. Kennedy,

    by norahschronicles on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:38:23 AM PST

  •  Before this thread totally devolves, (11+ / 0-)

    I am enthused about neither candidate as well. I got nuthin' for either one. Oh, maybe a little contempt here and there, or a spot of admiration on occasion. Generally, just nothing.

    When the candidate is determined, that's when I go to work. I only hope that too many eyes aren't scratched out in the meantime.

    John McCain cannot be the next president of the US.

    "You'd be surprised at what kind of party you can throw for the same amount of money that it takes to get someone to fuck Paul Wolfowitz. " --TBOGG

    by vicki on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:45:23 AM PST

    •  If you want to see a threed devolve (5+ / 0-)

      I think teacherken's dairy will be on the rec list with oh, 300+ comment in an hour.  I'm not sure how many comments will be worth reading.

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:55:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Want to do a diary that's goes straight to the (7+ / 0-)


        Obama:  Second Coming of Jesus, or RFK?  Discuss.

        And should someone like me point out that he hasn't done such a whale of a good job uniting the party, then there'd be 2,109,845 troll ratings and a bunch of response comments going, "You're just full of SHIT!" and the like.

        I wish Barack would take a moment out of one of his stock speeches to remind his most ardent supporters that once a nominee is picked, then all Democrats are going to need to rally 'round that pick.  


        I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

        by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:08:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Conundrum: Unite or Destroy? (4+ / 0-)

          If you look at the evidence - the answer is neither.  Voter turnout has been amazing - not the sign of a party disintegrating.  (The GOP turnout - not so good.)   There is no unity as of yet, in fact the two top candidates have almost split the votes between them.

          Add in record breaking Democratic fundraising (and spending) and you have a party that appears vigorous, but undecided.    

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:15:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gotta change that title. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          First:  Assume that Obama will win the primary and will win the general and then will forge a unified ruling coalition.  (People love a winner and hate tough questions.)

          Then what you should ask is HOW the unity should be implemented and WHO should be in and out?  Would it be right to woo Republicans by giving them powerful political appointments even if it means snubbing the people who helped to get him elected?  

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:21:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  A breath of fresh air. (13+ / 0-)

    It's diaries like these that give me some hope that this site might be valuable again.

    It's weird to be accused of frequenting MyDD or Hillaryis44(sp?) simply because I don't buy into the latest narratives.  I don't think Hillary is destroying the party.  I think both of them are playing it safe because in the world of high stakes politics, taking a bold stand is something one does after careful analysis of the risks.  

    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

    by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:47:23 AM PST

    •  Gawd, yes. You said it. (7+ / 0-)

      I, too, wrote a dairy yesterday about much of this idiocy.  Of course one Obamanoid leapt on me for not having The Purity in my soul for Obama, which is now (it seems) required for all diarists and comment-writers here.

      Thing is, as I note repeatedly, I'm going with Obama now -  but that doesn't mean I have to think he'd be more effective than Edwards at fighting against the GOP and for the middle- and working-classes (ha!) or that I've decided to throw-in with all of the crazy-making over him.  

      No, I just think Obama stands a better chance in Nov. than Hillary, and her refusal to apologize for her boneheaded AUMF vote sunk her in my book.


      I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

      by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:56:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You don't think spewing Republican talking points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      in order to try to take down a Democrat who has almost double the number of states won and a majority of the popular vote isn't destroying the party? Trying to get the DNC to change the rules that everyone agreed to in Michigan and Florida (and Nevada and Texas) in order to win isn't destroying the party? Floating the possibility of going after your opponents pledged delegates isn't destroying the party? Telling states that voted for your opponent that they don't matter isn't destroying the party?

      If those are acceptable acts in your opinion, I'd hate to see what you think would be beyond the pale.

      •  Talking of destroying the party... (0+ / 0-)
      •  And none of Obama's, shall we say... (4+ / 0-)

        . . . "heartiest" supporters haven't gone wiggy-mad over how Hillary-is-Satan?

        The notion that seems completely and utterly lost (from Hillary re  Obama, and Obama-supporters re  Hillary's supporters) that after the nomination process is done the rank and file's going to have to come-together.  

        I'm pulling for Obama, but that doesn't mean I have to pull for all of the nuttiness that's glommed onto his campaign.

        He'd make a more formidable opponent to McCain in November.  It's pretty much that simple to me.  No reason for me to get swept-up in the notion that Jesus has now come to his senses and wishes He was Obama.  Obama's most ardent supporters don't see how  creepy many of them appear to we "regular" supporters.  We'll give money, time and support (and votes); we just don't figure we have to go freaky over him.  He'll make a good President.  He won't be God.  Hillary'd make a MUCH better President than W. McCain.  Obama's most vocal supporters should acknowledge that, too.



        I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

        by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:24:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're going to compare Hillary's antics (0+ / 0-)

          with the behavior of Obama supporters? For someone who is so proud of being a lawyer, you know that's not an honest debate tactic.

          How about an honest apples to apples comparison instead? Compare all of Hillary's behavior I noted above with how Obama has acted. Or compare all of Hillary's supporters behavior with Obama supporters.
          Because I guarantee you that for every "Hillary is Satan" story, I can match it with a "Obama is a Muslim" smear.

          But that doesn't help the "Hillary is a victim" meme that her apologists insist mitigates her slash-and-burn politics.

          •  Obama's a good guy. (0+ / 0-)

            His most infatuated supporters are his greatest liability, in my opinion.  They ain't doin' him any favors.


            I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

            by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Republican talking points? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, seanarama

        Both sides are using those.  Have done and will continue to do.

        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

        by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:59:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Almost totally agree (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, vicki, sophie, flatford39

    With the addition that Clinton has been my senator for awhile, so I know from experience she won't willingly do anything remotely liberal.  So I tend to prefer Obama so at least I'm getting screwed by someone new.

  •  This bears repeating: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, vicki, sophie, flatford39, Fabian, seanarama


    "On FISA, (has) either Obama or Hillary shown any leadership on the issue, à la , say, Dodd? No."

    Well said.  Well said.

    Of course, your diary won't make the Rec list because it doesn't squeal with crazy delight over a percentage point Obama picked up in Wyoming, or over a faux pas one of Hillary's second cousins made at lunch the other day about how few former Chicago politicians will be mistaken for Jesus anytime soon . . . save for one.

    Utter silliness.  And I'm hoping (now) for an Obama nomination.  But so much of this stuff is ridiculous.


    I shall never misuse Rex Kwon Do.

    by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:03:32 AM PST

  •  It took me a long time to come around (5+ / 0-)

    to Obama, but now that I have I really have no qualms or hesitations about supporting him.  I always liked, going back to that convention speech in 2004, his stress on unity, on overcoming the polarization that has characterized our country for pretty much all my adult life (I first voted for Jimmy Carter for president, when Carter lost to Reagan).

    I was never real happy with his moderate positions in the Senate, but I guess I accept those as the compromises a politician has to make in order to accomplish the more progressive things he wants to accomplish.

    I really like a couple of things about Obama.  In the first place, this country needs to elect a black man to the Oval Office.  We are on the cusp of overcoming the most profound social division characterizing our society throughout almost its entire history -- the first African slaves disembarked in the Virginia colony in the early 1600s.  That transformation may finally happen without a black president, but electing Obama will certainly make it come much sooner.

    Second, unlike some of the leftists who posture here, I have no doubt Obama is an authentic progressive.  This is a guy who grew up in the black power movement in the seventies, when he was in high school and college.  He became an anti-apartheid activist during the divestiture days of the early 1980s.  He gave up a corporate career in Manhattan to become a poorly-paid community activist in the hardest-hit Chicago slums in the mid-1980s.  He trained in the Midwest Academy -- the school of organizers that produced both ACORN and the PIRG movement.  Upon returning to Chicago after receiving his law degree, he chose to work at a community interest/civil rights law firm.

    This guy is on our side of the issues.  But he also knows what he has to do to get himself elected, and to get more moderate folks on board with his programs.

    This country needs both unity and progressive politics.  Obama offers us both.

  •  Obama has written 7 energy bills in 2 years (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, followyourbliss
    * S. 2202: Renewable Fuel Standard Extension Act of 2007
    * S. 1324: National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007
    * X. 1151: Healthcare for Hybrids Act
    * S. 768: Fuel Economy Reform Act
    * S. 767: Fuel Economy Reform Act
    * S. 133: American Fuels Act of 2007
    * S. 115: Oil SENSE Act

    He hasn't been M.I.A. on this issue. But let's get real. He doesn't sit on the Energy Committee, and no Democrat in a Republican-controlled administration is going to be able to enact the kind of energy reform we need.

    So if you are complaining about Obama's not being active on energy, you obviously haven't looked at what he's tried to do.

    On healthcare, same thing. He's had at least 6 pieces of legislation proposing changes to our healthcare system and our VA system. The fact that most of these proposals won't be acted on in a Republican presidency doesn't mean that he doesn't support healthcare reform. It means it's a lot easier to blog on it than get any real reform in Washington.

    So I'm not telling you to believe Obama's "pablum", and I don't think he's going to pass whatever purity litmus test you seem to have. But if you are going to claim that he "hasn't" done anything on these issues, at least take the time to look at his legislation or what he's cosponsored before representing his stand on the issues.

    •  In recd your comment because.. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian, blueintheface, Jacques's a honest argument.

      I specifically referenced what my "litmus tests" were by quoting diarists or thinkers who are well known here and whose writings reflect my views of where we are, where we're going & what needs to be done in various major segments of our society.

      Let's take energy, for example. Does what Obama is saying right now accord with peak oil and its likely consequences?  No.

      Healthcare. Would nyceve endorse Obama's plan? No.

      There you are.  

      OVER HERE: AN AMERICAN EXPAT IN THE SOUTH OF FRANCE, is now available on Amazon US

      by Lupin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:30:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You are right. (0+ / 0-)

        I want someone who will not only make an effort, but figuratively shoot for the moon with a real change and real vision and not just say "Well, let's just stick with I can get done in four years.".

        We can't address Climate Change in four years.  We can't create universal health care in four years.  We can't transition off of our fossil fuel economy in four years.

        The things we desperately need to do can not be done IN FOUR YEARS!

        But that's how a politician thinks - "How will this help me get re-elected?".  Pragmatism, I do respect pragmatism.  But I don't respect selling out.

        Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

        by Fabian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:06:49 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I can agree to disagree about the validity of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the process or a political approach.

        I've said before, with 3 uninsured kids I'll take incremental healthcare over single payer. When we get that, then I'll be right there demanding more. But I don't think we can get there from where we are now.

        And for those who prefer a different approach to alternative energy, I can listen to their argument as well. But as you indicated, it's a reasoned debate that we need that looks at the energy policy that Obama has laid out and his record on energy and the environment vs Clinton's, Edwards' or anyone else's. And that's not a discussion I see from any of us often here (and I include myself in that).

  •  Good diary Lupin (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, vicki, sophie, mango, followyourbliss

    I am sure there are a number of people here at KOS that share your opinion including me. Obama is my Senator and although I am supporting him over Clinton right now he certainly wasn't my first choice.

    Neither of their platforms was what I was looking for in a candidate but as far as electability goes I feel like bengoshi, Obama will defeat McCain but Clinton won't.

    We cannot have another republican in the white house for at least another twelve years. It's going to take that long to repair the damage from bushco.

    " In our every deliberation,we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations" From the great law of the Iroquois confederacy.

    by flatford39 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:09:39 AM PST

  •  I agree completely (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lupin, mango

    ... which means you must be a genius (lol)!  I'm an Edwards supporter who sees little difference between Obama and Clinton, except that Clinton fights a harder, dirtier campaign. In a general election, having a candidate who fights for every vote might be an asset.  On the other hand, my wife (a former Edwards supporter) is now an Obama backer, so for her sake I hope her candidate wins.  

    Or something.  Seriously, either one would be much, much better than McCain.  I just hope Clinton's hard-ball tactics don't alienate the Kos/Obama wing of the Democratic party.

  •  Ah, how nice. (9+ / 0-)

    Thank you for writing this diary to remind me that I'm not alone in my lack of enthusiasm for these two candidates.

    My guy was Dodd because I liked his stand on FISA. A man of action who was also campaigning! Nice trick, that. I also liked Biden, who's nothing if not competent, and Edwards for his ass-kicking rhetoric.

    You know how those three worked out. Oh, well. A new round of supporters are up sometime soon for the next round of bitter disappointment. They can get over it if I got over three whole doses of it.

  •  If Florida has a do-over, (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sophie, BenGoshi, seanarama, Jacques

    do you think I'd get to vote for Edwards again?

    They should keep the ballot the same, no?

    "You'd be surprised at what kind of party you can throw for the same amount of money that it takes to get someone to fuck Paul Wolfowitz. " --TBOGG

    by vicki on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:17:46 AM PST

  •  I wasn't trying to get any mojo out of this... (7+ / 0-)

    ...but if you insist. :-)

    As Atrios said, we can respect both candidates, and their supporters, without going overboard.


    by Lupin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:23:30 AM PST

  •  I am just the opposite of you... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I love both Barack and Hillary for different reasons...

    Barack Obama:  Charisma, enthusiasm, ideas, inspiration, conviction, Charming (in his own way)

    Hillary Clinton:  Fighter, strong, capable, pragmatic, never gives up, Charming (in her own way)

    Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama '08 Winning Change for America and the Democratic Party

    by dvogel001 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 05:44:25 AM PST

  •  I was going to vote for Edwards (0+ / 0-)

    here in So. Ca. but when he dropped out I went for Obama. Why? Because I don't want the Clinton's getting rid of Dean and the 50 state strategy.

  •  I hate Kucinich and Nader voters. (0+ / 0-)

    Gee, I wish I was so idealistic that I thought that every vote counts but I don't.  The votes that count are the ones that have a chance to have an effect.  I have even told my friends (Kucinch and Nader voters) the same.  Have you ever heard the term "pissing in the wind"? Well, that is what you are doing.

    Oh, and, Obama voted on FISA as did other democratic candidates but not Hllary Clinton.  I wonder why?

  •  On the Senate's website... (0+ / 0-)

    Obama is shown as Non-Voting:

    Senate voting record


    by Lupin on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:31:26 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site