Bill Clinton on Fox News Sunday: "And you’ve got that little smirk on your face. It looks like you’re so clever…"

But charismatically I like him even more now.

Well, of course! So does Carter.

It reflects on him in an even-handed manner, but in the end, he goes on about having no power compared to actual current presidents to make changes in the world, including changes he regreted not making when he was an actual president, but he is running around with the Gates and other combining money and connections to at least make an effort.

seconded.

o godz

Well, see, Carter -- who's about as charismatic as an avocado -- never looked more shriveled and ridiculous than during his visit to Cuba four years ago.

but that's how you accomplish things!

I was at a party 2 weeks ago where I had to defend being "liberal" and a "demon-crat." These two things were something I tried to explain were simply not me. Liberal has the connotation of being essential pro-human rights, but is that so bad? No, the thing that is bad and associated with "liberals" is "big government"... but, by that definition, Bush is the most LIBERAL motherfucker we've seen in a long time. Demon-crat? That's just a guy that's in the center and supports most of what I hate about Republicans, anyway, at this point. There is no left worth giving a fuck about.

One guy asked me sarcastically, "Oh, you're going to say you're a centrist, right?"

I said, "no, I'm more of a Buddhist, I think," jokingly. And his response was literally: "OH! OH! Watch out! Terrorist! You getting on planes with bombs like, uh, Cat Stevens?"

I said, "I'm pretty sure he's Muslim. And that really has nothing to do with Buddhism."

There were hours of nonsense in-between the end of the night, but the final outcome, to my UTTER SHOCK, was him asking me defiantly where I got my news from. I said, "Everywhere." He persisted and so I finally named various online sources, some of which were British or Canadian... his response was, each time, "Oh! Canada!" and "Oh! British!" as if he was holding back uproarious laughter. Finally, I asked him where he got his news and, horrifically, he proudly shot back in an instant, "FOX NEWS, BABY!" as if somehow that was the wooden stake in my vampire heart. I was flabbergasted.

perhaps you should have told him that his imagination of liberals and demoncrats and the reality of them were indistinguishable, dude

You know, morons.

-- Nathalie (stevi...), September 24th, 2006.

Clinton had fairly hardline crime policies, passed "welfare reform" (i.e. kicking people off the rolls and calling it an accomplishment), and was generally as pro "free trade" agreements as Bush or anyone else. Still, I think anyone who continues to cling to the 2000-election-era cliche that there's "no difference" between Republicans and Democrats has not been paying attention.

Ha! Little did he know that his president practically runs our country as well! The joke's on him!

Wait...

True -- there's "little difference" between Republican and Democratic politicians.

tell it to iraq

On Sept. 7, the Senate agreed by a 98-0 vote to allocate an additional $63 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

Fuck, we really ARE screwed!

I don't think voting to give more money to troops already over there is what jhoshea had in mind when he said "tell it to Iraq," but whatever.

The problem is that, much like Clinton, the Democrats remain morally bankrupt in the face of 'electability.'

While true enough, it wouldn't have helped me out at all.

I mean, I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill right now and though I don't work there, I get that it's like a sport around here, it's a chess match. that doesn't mean it's not serious. but, everything covered by a veneer of diplomacy. being "amused" by karl rove is not a compliment to karl rove. it's dismissive. it's said with the awareness that plenty of dems do have trepidation about the political talent of karl rove and how he manages to strategically pull out election wins again and again. but Clinton is a smart guy, and he doesn't go on TV and say "Hey Democrats, don't be afraid of the big bad Rove," he says "Yeah that guy, he's funny, I'm amused by him, whatever." he's saying rove isn't all that.

then say you're "amused" by him

I like your tactic, but I wonder if it will reach a point where he says, "what do you mean you don't understand?!" and then it will get more hostile than ever once he catches on I'm fucking with him.

I had thought up some one-liners for next time such as, "trickle down economics really worked-- trickled right down to India" and a couple other dumb joke-points, but what's the point? Too bad I can't just post 500 images of Burger King...

I dunno, I think he has a legitimate grievance here, considering he actually did make SOME attempt to kill Bin Laden, then warned Bush, only to have Bush do nothing at all. As if this weren't frustrating enough, having the GOP try to put all the blame on HIM must make him a bit livid.

find me a politician who is concerned ABOVE ALL ELSE with the views of the majority of voters. actually, don't. i don't know what my problem is today. just cranky.

and i guess i'm just not "amused" by political gamesmanship. or who is best at snowing people. clinton likes the game. he gets off on it. most politicians do.

i agree, i guess. i just don't know what good it does to get pissed off on fox news about it. they, and their viewers, are just gonna cackle about getting him pissed off. i don't know what it accomplishes. it just reads like he's trying to cover his butt, which is what everyone has tried to do regarding osama.

There's a vast gulf about being concerned with one's appearance and pandering to the complete exclusion of one's principles. The Democrats were afraid to lead - they went along for the ride, because it was the easiest thing to do, couldn't look weak on war. All this did (since 2002 was a disaster and 2004 wasn't much better) was painting what anti-war opposition existed as extremist and indefensible. "Well, even the Democrats aren't anti-war, what kind of terrorist-lovin' commies are you?!"

And if supporting the war, lies and all, isn't a sign of cowardice but a sign that Congressional Democrats were acting completely within their principles - well, then they're simply worthless.

I dunno why you want Democrats to try being the moral authority for the rest of us, I thought that was one of the more annoying/disturbing qualities of the far right
The problem with the far right is that they want to impose an archaic authoritarian morality on all of us. (Sub-problem with far right politicians, they're all hypocrites of the highest order - one moral code for 'us,' one moral code for the rest of you.)

I don't know that you can mount an effective government or opposition - or do anything - without a moral grounding. That's the problem with Abu Ghraib and torture, innit? America not living up to its stated principles, losing the moral high ground to terrorism, etc. (though I would question whether or not it lost that high ground some time around 1981, if not '64, if not '45, if not 1777, etc.)

What good does it do to get mad about anything ever? He lost his composure a little bit and then made the political equivalent of a flame internet post, but it was a good post!

left has decidedly mixed feelings (at best) re: WJC, more like dem party faithful and centrists. of course, left these days could mean anyone to the left of Lieberman, so in that sense, yeah

I don't even think he did! What's wrong with having an honest emotion about someone laying some crap on you?

James Lee Witt vs Michael fucking Brown.

There's just a bit of contrast to these guys, and consequently the guys who nominated them.

Question: how can anyone watch news and actually think they're getting the full story? It's unbelievable to me. Clinton kicked that guy's ass, but just by the brief intro, you know that FOX Nuisance is spending all their free time trying to spin it, so if you hear that shit long enough it's bound to sway your opinion of the debate there (if you're a moron), but how could someone not be aware of the massive daily efforts at spin?

i was reacting to the interview transcript. it bugs me. i try to stay off of political threads as a rule though.

x-post

*because a lot of the time he's open-minded, and has admitted that he votes Republican mainly because his dad did, and I keep thinking I could turn him away from the Dark Side.

x-post

unless the point of this is to keep ILXors from discussing the smaller elements of this worthless political game, in which case...good luck!

seriously, dude, just get some ribs removed.

Sure it is. On the surface, it appears to be rejecting the discussion completely, but underneath it is planting seeds and growing in your brain, creating an entirely new discussion which erupts from the corpse of the previous one. This is the most subtle nuance you can get. Something that initially appears to reject all sides is really saying, "Well, let's examine what's wrong with both sides and see how we can fix it." It's approaching the discussion from the outside instead of being trapped within it.

Hahahaha. Yeah, OK. It's the people who don't support Democrats who voted to invade Iraq who caused the war, not the people who do support Democrats who voted to invade Iraq.

It's all a stunning game of reverse psychology - to oppose the war, you had to support the war!

I can't foresee anyone who engenders so much irrational hatred among men (before getting into people who dislike her politics) going up against the Straight Talk Everybody Loves A (Faux) Moderate Express.

Like I said, your reverse psychology is a brilliant gambit that's worked well for the last six years. Those Democrats sure have stuck it to the neocons.

http://drudgereport.com/bc2.jpg

PURPLE FACED RAGE, apparently.

i guess we know what tomorrow's yakking points will cover.

if this is sports radio, maybe it's like arguing that punting when you're at 4th down and 5 is always a weak assed move because you're too cowardly to try for the end zone

-- milo z (wooderso...), September 24th, 2006.

The Democrats also did not have the political capital to stick it to the neocons, largely because they don't have enough seats in Congress. The Bush admin. used the GOP majority and the post-9/11 fear to make it very difficult for anyone to oppose its machinations. But you're totally above political calculations, right?

But when you run hard to the right at every opportunity, when you're more concerned with being lead than leading, when you give cover to the assholes in the White House, you marginalize those Democrats who aren't weak and worthless, because they've suddenly become RADICALS. And (for instance) you've done even worse for those working on the left, because now the anti-war movement is 'secretly run by pro-North Korean Maoists' rather than a respectable group, like, you know, the Democratic Party.

You wanna talk political acumen, what were my options. Why should I be ra-ra gung-ho for the Democratic Party? Who should I support and why?

um, a lot of elections this decade haven't been landslides for the republications. including both presidential ones. "zero chance" is kind of a stretch.

What were you to gain? Well, if this country would be better off having a somewhat COMPETENT party in power with the ability to have real oversight of this administration, and electing more Democrats (even if conservative Democrats) moves toward putting a more competent party in power, then I suppose the country in general has something to gain.

What is with the black and white thinking though? It is not black and white. You don't have to be rah-rah-gung-ho. You take the better option.

x-post

In 2000, I voted for Nader - which, if you add his percentage to Gore's, puts Bush at only 65%, give or take?

In 2002, I voted for a Libertarian or Green gubernatorial candidate (don't remember which) - if you add them together plus Sanchez, he might have broken 35-38%.

In 2004, I voted for Kerry (no Green on the ballot, the Libertarian was nutty and there was no chance to get 5% for a third party) - yes, I was part of that raging 38% who stuck it to Bush. Grrrr!

Down-ballot, those three races actually look comparatively competitive. So please, don't tell me how things were close. Had I lived in the old folks enclaves of Florida, maybe it's an argument, but not here and not for a lot of other people.

old David Broder in the Washington Post wrote a column about a week ago on how it's time for an independent party because enough folks out there are fed up. I see that. trouble is 3rd parties never really gain traction in this country. and the GOP absolutely expert at turning out enough of their base every election, targeting closely enough to find enough votes, & enough new votes. A numbers and resources GOTV game, datamining is key. What third party is going to put together than kind of infrastructure?

it's not impossible to change the game again, what was it, only 15-20 years ago that TX was an absolutely entrenched Dem stronghold?

48.3% of those who voted stuck it to Bush. 50.7% said they loved Bush. Not a landslide.

How many anti-war movements had that much support from the start? You've had a sum total of three elections during wars or leading up to wars in modern history - 1968 (RFK would have won; Nixon was promising to begin a slow withdrawal, 1972 ('no, really, we're easing our involvement' - as I recall, McGovern did put some pressure on accelerating the peace process) and 2004 (when his newfound anti-war stance was the only thing that kept Kerry competitive). (Ike in '52 was elected by promising to 'go to Korea' and take care of the issue - but without specifically outlining what that meant)

Futhermore, Democrats don't hold the cards as far as doing anything to stop this worthless, hideous clusterfuck of a pointless war in Iraq.

They hold no cards because they folded, they ceded the authority to offer up an alternative. You claim it's the fault of the right-wing media apparatus (which is vaguely reminiscent of 'lib'rul media' complaints) - but really, it's the fault of the Democrats. Of course a solution right now looks callow and opportunistic - because it is! They had no interest in an alternative, or to stopping an invasion, or legitimately questioning intelligence when it didn't look politically tenable.

Because these threads inevitably devolve into yelling at anyone who doesn't toe the Democratic line - that we're responsible for this and that, and if not for us the Democrats would have power and blah blah blah. But there are never any specifics - never any examples of why one should support Democrats aside from "well, they might have been less awful" (with little evidence in its favor).

The blame somehow never falls on Democratic politicians who help enact the policies you oppose.

48.3% of those who voted stuck it to Bush. 50.7% said they loved Bush. Not a landslide.
Uh, Anthony. The 60% who voted for Kerry in Hawaii don't actually have anything to do with my vote here. 38%.

Over at FOX News its Sunday morning guy hosted Chris Wallace briefly and offered his "congratulations." It was getting queasy.

Here's Byron York's response.

Are you under house arrest?

The Democratic base is expected to take their lumps and come back asking for more - why? At what point should the base not become disillusioned and apathetic? That's the question it always come back to for me, and what I find absurd about people like Dan berating anyone who doesn't blindly vote for the Dems.

it's not impossible to change the game again, what was it, only 15-20 years ago that TX was an absolutely entrenched Dem stronghold?
We've been electing GOP governors since the early '70s (our Dixiecrats jumped ship earlier than most), and elections statewide were fairly competitive from the mid-70s to the mid-90s. It hasn't been a one-party Democratic state in 30-35 years, really.

I'd love to see them mount a challenge down the road (and it's certainly possible as whites become a minority), but they don't even bother to articulate a cause, a concern, anything to get progressives working for them again.

They couldn't stop an invasion. They simply couldn't, and they knew it. Bush was going to invade no matter what. The resolution in Congress at least got him to go through the UN and pin down the WMD as being the cause which was the best anyone in Congress could do.

Otherwise, re: TX, I don't know what to say. It's a shitty situation and I'm not on the ground there. Dean, whether or not this be wise in light of the resources needed to win back Congress this year, is working on rebuilding parties at the state/local level where we haven't been competitive for some time, on grounds that Dems need to be a truly national party that competes nationwide instead of just targeting certain states/districts. Plenty to work on, message wise, in that sense - a clear, coherent baseline message to build on nationwide and relate to the local level.

I dunno, like most anything in life there's always the option of being disillusioned and apathetic and sometimes all you can do is decide to fight it even if it's a natural response to the circumstances.

Yes, and swing states remain swing states in perpetuity, i.e. the swing states in 2004 were exactly the same as the swing states in 2000 and every election that came before it dating back to 1776. Don't vote because the government always wins, etc.

Apart from relying on Richard Clarke's testimony and book as some kind of palimpsest rather too doggedly, he was relatively articulate

I agree with this, but I assume he only focused on Clarke because he worked for the great and holy Reagan + Bush senior admins, which makes it more difficult for the Fox bunch to claim that he was appointed by smart, responsible presidents only to magically morph into a dumbass sometime in 1993.

They couldn't stop an invasion. They simply couldn't, and they knew it. Bush was going to invade no matter what. The resolution in Congress at least got him to go through the UN and pin down the WMD as being the cause which was the best anyone in Congress could do.
Again, even if true, this isn't an excuse for SUPPORTING the invasion. It's not even an excuse for sitting quietly on the sidelines.

If the Democrats who've suddenly come round to embracing the idea that Iraq was a bad idea and the intel was cooked (which, sorry, but I call bullshit on any Congressman who claims to have been fooled - millions of citizens saw through it) had articulated a principled alternative then, the anti-war consensus might have been enough to, say, get Kerry that extra 2% (assuming you don't hold to the idea that the election was rigged - a view I don't find entirely unbelievable).

Isolated people aside (Feingold, Kucinich, several other HoR members), the Democrats abdicated any leadership role on this. Either out of political cowardice, or out of genuine acceptance and support of the invasion. I'm not sure which I find more objectionable.

(Is it too much to point out that what you're defending Democrats on - choosing apathy rather than noble martyrdom - is exactly what Dan, et al. are holding against people who don't vote for those Democrats?)

Oh yeah, cuz we live in the dumbest country on Earth.

Texan electees are overwhelmingly Republican, yes, yet somehow Dems like Chet Edwards manage to beat Republicans there. strangely, those Dems are the spineless, secretly-Republican kind who are supposed to be so bad for the party.

No and no, try again.

yup. previous to this, usually there was some interest in good policy and competent government. these guys, the ideological/campaign arm runs everything.

And if the alternative is the case - that widespread Congressional Dem support was genuine and true, then what in God's name would have been gained by supporting them?

Gabbneb, do you want to pretend that Chet Edwards is the average elected Dem in Texas, rather than an oddity? Cuz he don't look much (politically or culturally) like Sheila Jackson Lee or Eddie Bernice Johnson. (And, of course, Edwards is hardly a poster-boy for GOP-suck ups. Unless being pro-choice in Waco is a new move I haven't heard about.)

Clinton leans way forward into Wallace's space. He even jabs him in the knee a few times with his finger. Meanwhile, he seems unaware of his own ungainly body. He's gotten quite fat, and his suits -- which he keeps buttoned -- don't fit him properly anymore. He's sitting with his feet apart and planted on the floor, and the pantlegs get hiked way up so that a wide band of white leg shows above each sock...

There's a flaw in this logic, Gabbneb: people in general may hold different single-issue opinions than voters, but everything I've seen tends to suggest that non-voters back candidates along about the same lines as voters do. (The obvious problem here would be that people's specific beliefs don't really get a chance to map onto candidates with any real precision.)

I haven't followed this thread well enough to see exactly what the argument is, apart from the usual "Democratics are the same as Republicans and we are so clever and daring for saying so" versus "umm no, not really." But I'm kind of hoping the current elections are teaching lessons on this front: five years ago, the overwhelming fear seemed to be that anti-war votes would get Democrats tarred as gutless unpatriotic troublemakers and cranks, but -- in some places -- anyone who honestly believed the war wouldn't work out and voted that way is reaping some benefits. (I think some Democrats might have overestimated the US just as much as the administration did, which is to say that they feared voting against a war that might turn out as quick and easy and popular as it was pitched.) (I also think this why lots of Democratics like to talk about how 9/11 created a sense of bipartisan unity, which Bush then squandered; it's a way of casting those pro-war votes as a favor, a kind of deference: "We had our reservations but we decided to trust and back our leader in a time of crisis, and you fucked it up.")

"Democratics are the same as Republicans and we are so clever and daring for saying so" versus "umm no, not really

this is kind of a loaded sentence, there are many differences, but there is much commonality, a shared view on the role of capitalism, for one, separation of church and state (mainly), for another. to someone outside the consensus market economic viewpoint, these do make the two parties identical

but this viewpoint neglects the fact that differences, however minor, are differences, and overlooks the fact that politics is often not a question of the overarching, but of the day to day. and i think this is why, the differences between two parties, no matter how small, are still of importance, and why voting is essential. it might be a small zoning law that swings one way or the other, but politics of the small is just as important as politics of the big

and i think this also stretches to peoples disillusionment with the political system in many western countries, a feeling that large scale change isn't possible (the anti-war protests over in london achieving absolutely nothing), but if people focused more on the small changes that can be effected, the local changes that can be effected, the politics seems less of a monolith, and participation more recognisable effects.

but it seems that this is something the right is perhaps more adept at exploiting?

Except that no one has said "Democrats ares the same as Republicans" so you might want to skim it again.

hitchens' anti-clinton screed is precisely when he went completely off the rails and convinced me that he's a self-important misogynist loser. his more or less uncritical support of the iraq war was just the icing on the cake.

haha.

I feel like FOX News guys go further than just "knowing where there bread is buttered" and following the sort of Murdochian spin propaganda orders you see in the movie "Outfoxed." Watching this guy smirk and lie, at the ready with his bullshit one-liner attacks on a former president (for fuck's sakes), is the sort of ballsy that seems like it goes beyond typical arrogant, ascot-wearing fathead. I feel like I'm watching a paid disinformation special agent, which is really what he is, I know. But, I mean in a very literal way, as if he is part of a secret branch of the government and has the confidence that comes with secretly knowing he is above the law or something. When a guest visits Fox News, he must feel like he's just wandered onto a playground full of bullies.

I think one of the things that Democrats profoundly underestimate is the number of people who vote Republican for one overriding reason: their opposition to abortion. There are certainly hundreds of thousands, and very likely millions, of people who would by their own admission otherwise vote Democrat, but who are so strongly pro-life that they're willing to let that one issue trump their other beliefs. I don't think there's any other issue quite like it, really -- not even the war (one way or the other). And these people go to the voting booths, year after year.

So all this handwringing over the direction of the party kind of begs the question -- or more accurately, if you're pro-choice, staying home, and not voting, you're making the choice NOT to cancel out an anti-abortion vote.

What makes Miami strange is that while its Cuban-American voting bloc is overwhelmingly Republican (dismissed in the press as "far-right Cuban exiles," of course) they are (largely) indifferent to social conservatism. My parents, for instance, will NEVER vote for a Democrat (the retired Bob Graham excepted) but they are intractably pro-choice. Moreover, I know plenty of liberals opposed to abortion.

To hold his Democratic base together enough to prevail in the election and avoid McGovern's impending fate, Daschle emphasized his Catholic credentials. Daschle sent a letter to voters saying "I am opposed to abortion. I do not support it. I have never supported it. It is an abhorrent practice. As a citizen and as a lifelong member of the Catholic faith I will do everything in my power to persuade others that abortion is wrong." To solidify his Catholic bona fides, Daschle enclosed a letter from eight Catholic nuns saying "We know and we tell those with whom we speak of your abhorrence for abortion — and of your commitment to life."

has there ever been a democratic candidate for president who was anti-death penalty? i honestly don't know. i'm asking. maybe not just REALLY pro-death penalty.

i'm not ashamed of where i stand and i'm not apathetic and i have one life and i'll live it the best way i know how. if i don't want someone representing me in the world at large than i won't allow them to by voting for them. i am showing my big fat NON-approval by not voting for them. i respect other people's choices. maria is very active politically. i understand how people feel about the choices that they have to make. and its fine if liberals think i started the iraq war by not voting for kerry. i can take it.

cool! thanks.

that seems to be more about you than the people who are impacted by the policies they vote for or against. and the idea that a single vote doesn't make much difference (i know you're not saying that right here, but others who make the same argument do say that) is rather inconsistent with the idea that your vote of disapproval is so significant, no?

btw, karl rove would love few things more than to take away your mailman.

"Fox News Sunday" anchorman Chris Wallace says father Mike Wallace has "lost it" - after the legendary CBS newsman told the Boston Globe last week that the fact George Bush had been elected president shows America is "[expletive]-up."

"He's lost it. The man has lost it. What can I say," the younger Wallace lamented to WRKO Boston radio host Howie Carr on Friday.

"He's 87-years old and things have set in," the Fox anchor continued. "I mean, we're going to have a competence hearing pretty soon."

Wallace Jr. quickly dispelled any notion that he was joking. When Carr suggested that his comments were likely to be covered by NewsMax, he responded: "You know what? Fine. Go ahead. Call them. That's fine. I'll stand by that."

Returning to the topic of his father's competence, Wallace Jr. explained: "He's checked out. I don't understand it," beyond the fact that Wallace Sr. has "problems with the war."

"I don't know why he said what he said," he added.

On Thursday, the elder Wallace told the Boston Globe that if he had the chance to interview President Bush, he'd ask:

"What in the world prepared you to be the commander in chief of the largest superpower in the world? In your background, Mr. President, you apparently were incurious. You didn't want to travel. You knew very little about the military. . . . The governor of Texas doesn't have the kind of power that some governors have. . . . Why do you think they nominated you? . . . Do you think that has anything to do with the fact that the country is so [expletive] up?"

i think the world can do without me just fine. i keep to myself a lot. i try to blend in to the woodwork.

x-post

Good Lord, what an utterly terrible person.

(my point, i think, is that maybe more people would vote if their were more people to vote for that spoke to them?)

But friends won't allow me this; they will be satisfied only if I agree with them. Whatever - friendship's more important than principle, so I do what they want. But I think they're kinda bein' dicks to ask that of me.

after three years, i'm only just now starting to feel like i live here! and having a job now is a big part of that. i've always worked in public places in the heart of the community that i lived in and now is no exception. the hospital is a real hub here. and i enjoy it a lot. most of my other time is spent watching my kids. any time after that is spent trying to sleep and/or write heavy metal album reviews. BUT in the near future i really do want to get involved with local stuff. something different. maybe start small. take a CPR course. the hospital has lots of fun stuff like that. find another place to hang out. volunteer at the dump store maybe. we shall see. but the kids are my big priority now.

x-post

Don't forget the near-genocidal war on drugs! okay, now i really do have to hit the hay.

Doddering Mike Wallace smarter than Fox Whore son? No huge surprise.

Now that I've seen the footage on ABC (not of Chris W's questioning smirk, of course), let's face it, this hit the news because the legendary Clinton temper actually showed its face with cameras rolling. It's an entertainment item.

Still can't work up a shred of sympathy for the Aspirin Factory Bomber.

This was a bit refreshing. After years of photo-ops with George H.W. Bush and making nice with tsunami victims we saw the gargoyle that : George Stephanopoulos and Sidney Blumenthal feared.

This week's known unknowns, leading up to the midterm elections:

1. Will Democrats take what Jay Carson and Howard Wolfson call the "Chappaqua Hint" and realize that the Clintons' aggressive pushback against formidable targets such as ABC Entertainment, Fox News, Jerry Falwell, and John Spencer is meant in part to set an example for how they want the party to behave between now and Election Day?

(Anticipating skulls thinker than skins, Carson keeps saying about the Chris Wallace interview, "President Clinton fought back hard, just like any Democrat should when they are attacked with a baseless attack.")

JUSS TALKIN BOUT THA BLOOOZ, PUNK

Clinton's highly partisan version of history — and Greenwald's typically scorched-earth partisan version — holds that "Wag the Dog" denunciations and similar barbs came solely from partisan Republicans and conservatives. This is a self-serving and cartoonish re-telling of the 1990s.

My intent was not to defend GOP behavior on foreign policy in the 1990s, but to dispel the shabby and flawed parallelism between what Democrats have done in response to the war on terror with what Republicans did to Clinton. Indeed, even if you think Republicans were purely partisan in their criticisms of Clinton's foreign policies, why that should empower Democrats to act likewise remains a mystery to me.

Look: as far as I'm concerned nobody colored themselves in too much glory prior to 9/11. But al Qaeda rose to power in the 1990s largely in response to the Clinton administration's failure to take numerous provocations seriously enough. I honestly don't see how that can be denied. Republicans should have pushed Clinton to do the right thing, and didn't. I don't see how that can be denied. And when Bush came to office, he didn't do enough in those eight months prior to the attacks. That's undebiable too. Everyone deserves blame. The question is how should it be divided up.

I can understand feeling all principled for abstaining from specific elections, but to just flat out say "I don't vote" is just laz-y-boy reductivity. Especially if you pay taxes.

Plz to stop patting selves on back, Mr. Voter Man.

Any given hour of volunteer work that Scott (or anyone else) has ever done outweighs a lifetime of voting.

Plz to stop patting self on back, Mr. Voter Man.

Any given hour of volunteer work that Scott (or anyone else) has ever done outweighs a lifetime of voting.

Case in point: the "Vote Or Die" campaign from 2004.

if that's true, it's exactly why you should do it. the thing is, I get the sense it's hard for certain people. like, psychically injurious. i freely admit there are lots of things i don't do because they're not as easy as voting. but i also know that i don't do those things in part because i wouldn't be very good at them\. voting in a presidential election doesn't present the same issue - even if you think both sides are evil, the lesser evil is fairly clear. and as far as i'm concerned, while voting might not be the greatest thing an individual can do in the political sphere, the power of the electee far exceeds that of almost every private individual. i think nonvoters to at least some extent don't want to admit that those evil-or-at-least-cheesy dudes are the only ones who can really get much done.

2xpost

(If I were American, I'd have been hard-pressed to find any reason to get excited about Kerry last election.)

xpost

BECAUSE ACTUAL PEOPLE ARE LIKE ACTUALLY AFFECTED IN ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANT WAYS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THINGS OTHER THAN PERSONALITY AND IDENTITY BY WHO WINS THE ELECTION

I'm not patting myself on the back; it would be very hard for me not to vote.

Any given hour of volunteer work that Scott (or anyone else) has ever done outweighs a lifetime of voting.

afaic, that's utter horsehit. even in the commonwealth of massachusetts.

the power of the electee far exceeds that of almost every private individual

um, well, that sounds good in theory. especially in the context of value in impact.

What you have some trouble grasping is that people may, in fact, have genuine and valid qualms with what the 'lesser evil' will 'get done.' Which, hey, it comes down to morality again - is it better to boycott an election in which both options violate my moral code (or core principles or core moral principles or however you want to phrase the identity-defining issues one holds), or should I support the option that violates my moral code less? How you think this is a clear-cut decision is beyond me.

afaic, that's utter horsehit. even in the commonwealth of massachusetts.
No, it's not. Voting for John Kerry - or even voting for Bill Clinton - from a progressive perspective, did absolutely nothing 'good.' Zero. Nada. At best it signalled your participation in political society and nothing more. Whereas any small time of volunteering - whether it be political activism or just ladling up soup in the nearest shelter - actually accomplished something, no matter how small.

and since when did the amount of effort you put into your political activity automatically equal the value of its impact?
I didn't say that - I was responding to the usual nonsense that voting separates some from the herd, that in voting one has taken a stand, done something meaningful, effected change. It doesn't matter if voting took you twenty hours of hiking through snow uphill or a two-minute stroll in the cool breeze - the idea is that voting isn't an act of accomplishment.

Voting obviously has aggregate value - but doing so does not make one politically active or privilege one's politics or activity any more than someone who did not vote.

once again. horse. shit. complete. total.

no. it's not. and you should think about why.

oh i see. you want a guarantee that your candidate wins? that's possibly the most morally offensive thing i can imagine in this context.

this is as concise an argument i've ever heard for a "fuck politics" attitude.

this is as concise an argument i've ever heard for a "fuck politics" attitude.

And this is a concise an argument I've ever heard for why you're such a fucking load.

i'm sorry, i'm not going to argue this further because it makes me too angry. but i seriously can't believe that you regard your participation in democracy as an "investment." you really think that's an appropriate way of looking at it? seriously?

the argument you seem to be making milo is that your vote only counts if your candidate wins. or if could possibly win. even if put into the context of this value vs. the value of working in a soup kithen (or hurrah, in the context of this thread, interning for Bill Clinton), you're kind of making a wild ass argument.

uh, you were being sarcastic here, right?

x-post no JD, I vote for Democrats because I feel that voting is a pointless act that props up a system I don't support, but since the system isn't going anywhere and there aren't any barricades to storm, I figure what's it gonna hurt, besides my pride a little & in the final analysis who cares about my pride, if I show up and vote for people who are supported by those whose values I share. I think those people - my friends - are deeply misguided in imagining that their candidates actually share their values, or even give 1/2 of 1 shit about anything save getting that vote. But my own argument for voting, in fact, is "why the fuck not" - I got half a day to do what people I respect think is right, it ain't gonna kill me and my refusal to participate won't actually effect any of the changes I want.

Which is why voting for a loser, no matter how noble and idealistic that vote might have been, returns less good (from my progressive perspective) than spending a day tutoring children or picketing or passing out fliers for a cause. And voting for a winner who does very little that I would consider good isn't much better.

x-post rofl at "voting for a loser" bad, "passing out fliers for a cause" good.

do you think that say, russ feingold is every bit as much of a "worthless asshole" as dick cheney?

I think appeals to conscience would be a damn sight better, and more effective, than the relentless bullying that my Democratic friends practice in this respect.

your conscience needs to be appealed to in this regard?

also, i always get irritated when people talk about voting as if the strategy only exists for presidential elections. local votes have an amazing untapped power to make positive and concentrated change for a community. it's also there that one should really be pushing for fringe parties, if that's one's thing.

where have i heard that recently?

JD, Feingold & Boxer are glaring exceptions to the party norm & don't represent any kind of movement, & everybody who raises their names knows it; do I misremember 81 of the noble elected Dems authorizing Iraq? But I know, rah-rah Dem types will only be content when people not only vote for your shitty candidates but lend them lip service as well. Fuck off, I'll vote for these scumbags but they're still scumbags, ant they'll sell out your lefty values the second it becomes politically expedient to do so.

x-post Results 1 - 8 of about 45 for "people of conscience can disagree". (0.33 seconds) Not sure which tar-by-associating you're shooting for but whatever.

actually, I think it's far more effective to appeal to things other than conscience, which is to some extent what I'm doing here. but I'm not really trying to convince you - i'm trying to make the best argument, not the most effective one.

maybe if you ignore the existence of the House of Representatives. or the purpose of the United States Senate.

k thx bye, I promise to continue voting for people I fucking hate with my body & soul

Hey, settle down, dude. They're just people doing a job. It's not an easy job at all. Campaigning is a game in which the candidate is only one player, and sometimes to play the game you have to behave like a jackass. And I really cringe sometimes seeing Democrats behave that way. But being sort of smarmy and jackass-y and cheesy probably plays well if you want to get more votes. Hey, Leno always beats Letterman in the ratings.

Plus, somebody's got to run the country. I'd rather those people were at least somewhat competent, which seems to be a good reason for voting the way I do. And if you're that consumed with anger over voting for Democrats, why don't you stand up to your friends and not vote for Democrats, instead of bitching about how fucking angry you are about it and how fucking worthless they are. fer crying out loud! It makes me angry when people get all bent out of shape pretending they've got no choice but to do something they don't want to.. when, guess what, it's still a free country somewhere, and you are 100% free to not do stuff if it makes you feel that bad.

compromise, for better or worse, is pretty much the essence of politics.

I agree. Wondering if 'compromise' is the thing that makes some feel that politics dirty and horrible.

massively OTM

But it's still the only way to get anything done. And that's why Gabbneb is mostly right on this.

milo, it doesn't matter if you're saying that they're mutually exclusive or if you're weighing them to see which tips the good-deed scale the most. when you set up a hypothetical situation in which someone voted for a loser rather than, say, tutored a struggling student, you're arguing that doing one is superior to doing the other. to me, that's silly. there's no need to compare (voting and altruism) when neither of them need to be in conflict of any other daily activity. and if this isn't at all about how one spends their time and instead is about who gets to wear the good-doer badge over the other, i think you're missing the whole point completely--as is anyone else arguing the same thing in opposite terms.

also, the voting-for-losers-is-a-total-waste-of-time argument ignores that losing votes are still valuable in that they reflect voter sentiments. and voter sentiments can carry over into other related decision making strategies.

arguably, the only loss one has by voting or not voting is when they are irrational about their own strategy. i think the christian-right feels this way now about their growing coalition with the neo-cons since the 1970s. and that's why we're seeing a division in the party this early on. with no sign of an anti-abortion law coming about and nothing but a few faith based initiatives, they're wondering what they "compromised."

I can't believe you're seriously complaining about this. How about you not do what you don't want to do, and not complain about it? Easy!

That's tens of thousands of lives that wouldn't have been lost, with a different president -- let alone a Middle East that wouldn't have been fucked up 10x worse than it already was.

So there's at least one perspective from which a person's desire to position themselves just so -- to find the candidate who perfectly encapsulates their views, to find the one who's vegan enough, or whatever -- seems like the self-indulgence of a person unaware of his/her own decadence.

strike "the" for more sense, less awesome syntax

otm. and this is reinforced by imagining a large community of others who feel similarly so as to justify same.

(TT: I was also wondering why you don't just lie about who you vote for if it's really that big of a deal. Or just say that it's private.)

I'm not Gabbneb, but I think the answer is: both.

i.e. in a 2-party system there's no room for the kind of lefty opposition parties they have in other countries; meanwhile the American public, as a whole, is way to the right of Western Europe, Canada, New Zealand, etc. It's been shifting ever-rightward ever since the Sixties, really, despite advances on some fronts (gay rights comes to mind). Some see it as a persistent backlash against the perceived excesses of the Sixties, though that's speculative at best.

xpost

i think you're right. i hate pulling out something like duverger's law this late and night and right after you pretty much summed it up in a few words, but i am going to anyway. the concept is explained in fairly good terms on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_Law). but basically, the idea is the american political system and its infamous two-party system is deterministically bound by the very structure of its voter system. no amount of enthusiasm (the one exception being the election in 1860) is going to bring more probable options than two. so, knowing that, i wish people would use less of this resentment towards the unchangeable and more towards changing local political voting systems to something like IRV with hopes that the future may be able to choose from more options. that would at least be a better approach to their personal strategy.
----------
and milo, i said you were comparing two things that didn't need to be compared and you did that when you said one instance "returns less good" than another.

anyway, i think it is unfair and unreasoned to pass judgment on voters and non-voters so simply when we all have different voting strategies--like the democrat in utah who votes for kerry in relationship to the green in ohio who votes for kerry, or the californian democrat who stays home that night. it is fair to say each can have well-reasoned choices, as each have different internal and external variables acting on their decision. in that way, i agree with you milo. it's sorta too simple to say "everyone who doesn't vote is giving a vote to bush," because it doesn't work like that. it doesn't matter so much in utah, but it does in ohio.

As I say, though: I just resent what dicks Dems tend to be about all this - they'll distort anything to present the party as some progressive force, when it isn't at all, and present ridiculous hypotheticals ("if Gore'd won, we woudn't be at war" - right, Clinton never bombed the shit out of anybody, no blood on those hands at all) to make points in arguments. Here's a thought: run a decent candidate sometime instead of following CNN polls like sheep, see where it gets y'all.

like Walter Mondale?

every vote counts toward the popular totals. and if some people get their way, the popular totals will count. i want to get rid of the electoral college because i think it's become detrimental to a democratic culture.

agreed.

Can you show me the place on the ballot where you sign a statement that says "I personally support this candidate in a moral sense?"

IT'S NOT A DECLARATION OF CONSCIENCE PEOPLE. JUST GO PICK THE BEST OPTION.

And can give me one example of a person on this thread who has said "I vote, so I aint really gotta do shit?" I'd wager that voters are, on the whole, more politically active otherwise than non-voters.

Your point about progressive change is specious - getting out the vote has often been a key part of progressive strategy, and when politicians have responded to mass movements, it's often been in part because they see potential votes.

the manufacturing share of employment has declined steadily since the mid-50's, when it was 3 times what it is today - about 10% of the workforce

it kind of is, though - I know that's inconvenient, and I DO FUCKING GO PICK THE BEST OPTION OK, but it's dishonest to pretend that there isn't more ethically in play than your oversimplification

and i don't know why paying taxes doesn't bother me that much. maybe i'm not much of a radical or an outlaw. i see it as paying rent of some sort. or a tithing. plus, they've got the guns and i ain't fucking with that.

Scott...

anthony, i don't know why you think i'm being so smug and proud of myself. i was just trying to be honest. which was a mistake, i suppose.

get over one self.

xxx-post: haha woodrow wilson = even worse pres than W, on most counts

always thought it made more sense to think of the repubs as the radical party and the dems as the moderate party

that binary has a lot to do with why the dems aren't doing so well these days. it's just not very hip to be for the status quo, even if the alternative is worse.

Er?

so i should just shut up. okay, fine, i'll shut up.

i know that you don't -- and i suggest that that is the problem with your approach (and the democratic party these days).

ever read any Thomas Frank?

I haven't read Thomas Frank's Kansas book, but I've read shorter things he's written and think he's got it all wrong.

Anthony where did you get the impression that I don't think exactly that - that the Republicans are also wretched, I mean? The only thing is that I think that sort of goes without saying.

William Kristol: Clinton knows what he's doing. 3 reasons for "losing his temper"--Helping Democrats in 2006, Helping Hillary, Intimidating Critics.

Fox News Hounds: Gingrich and Gibson illustrate exactly why Clinton needed to react the way he did.

Cal Thomas: Finger wagging reminds us of Lewinsky.

Think Progress: The battle over facts continues.

Even worse than when sports fans use it about the team. YOU voted for em, THEY laughed at what a low-expectation schmuck you are.

xpost: good

No, I didn't say that social pressure is no big deal. Your friends aren't standing with you in the voting booth though! And if they're pushing you around that much so that you don't tell them how you really feel are they really your friends? I grew up Catholic myself and sometimes you gotta fight the urge to go be a martyr. Furthermore I'm kind of annoyed because there are PLENTY of reality-based, practical, reasonable, non-crazed arguments for voting Democrat that we don't NEED this guilt-ridden BS about how X candidate is really a progressive and how much revolutionary change his/her election can bring about.

haha "mindlessly" standing on principle vs. whining that friends get me to do things I think are negative (something for which we have programs to keep elementary schoolers from thinking is a worthwhile argument)

it kind of is, though - I know that's inconvenient, and I DO FUCKING GO PICK THE BEST OPTION OK, but it's dishonest to pretend that there isn't more ethically in play than your oversimplification

-- Thomas Tallis (tallis4...), September 26th, 2006.

Uh, but it isn't. All a ballot really asks you is "Who would you rather have as president, x, y, (or z roffle at you!)" -- you're not asked to personally, vouch for the candidate. Hell, you're not even asked to put your name behind the candidate. So what makes it anything more than a selection of the best option?

Is there no scenario where the 'best option' would be so bad you couldn't vote? If it was a race between Dubya and Pat Buchanan, you'd eagerly vote for the 'best' one?

There it is. I understand that people don't have the time, money or energy to agitate for change, or to work to create a viable party that actually corresponds to their own beliefs. However, if you don't have the opportunity to do so, adopting the practice above is a good way to avoid at least the appearance of infantilism. I'm not saying one may not ever say "fuck it, include me OUT," and just stay home on election day, but I think the past 6 years show that smallish differences in input can result in huge differences in outcome. By this I mean that the Dems may be operatively similar to the Repubs, but have governed far differently than the Dems would have done.

If it was a contest between Hilter and Satlin, who would you vote for, huh? HUH?

a race between Dubya and Pat Buchanan

more fantastic than Feingold '08 (which isn't completely impossible, but would likely be more of a "waste of energy" than voting for Kerry. I like Feingold fine; I just don't think he'd be a good candidate.)

uh huh. big fan of putting fundies and ed meese-types into power, clinton was. just as big a fan at nominating authoritarian apparatchik(sp)-types into local, district, or supreme judgeships.

i mean, christ, clinton was pretty much more conservative than dwight d. eisenhower, and believed a little too much in the power of unregulated markets to fix things, but let's cut that other shit right now.

xp deez cox v. deez nutz

Oh what about the GLOBAL INITIATIVE logo behind that interview, the project that makes room for Laura Lithium Bush to get a photo op...

Unless gabbneb has gotten his salary from the Dems for 14 years, he might need some Dershowitz-style torture for that "we" shit.

Was Clinton's reaction justified?

Was Clinton factually correct or incorrect?

Was this another "conservative hit-piece"?

it was reported on the local morning show yesterday that the FBI/CIA didn't certify that bin Laden was responsible for the U.S.S. Cole bombing until about a week after Dubya took office. Condi's reaction was essentially "BFD."

I'm trying to find a better source for this, tho.

Was this another "conservative hit-piece"

(1) Yes, insofar as his ego was chuffed. He should lose his temper more often. It's great theatre: he's so much more attractive when he's not being oligeanous.

(2) Like Bush, he simply lacked the will or interest, as in not pushing the CIA and FBI to approve his finding after the Cole explosion. However, when it was time to bomb a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and kill a few innocents, he was ready.

(3) Chris Wallace is one of FOX News' better reporters. Without the cowardly our-viewers-really-wanna-know preface, his question was "60 Minutes"-worthy.

Chris Wallace slams ABC on 9/11 project: “I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account"

Sept. 24th:

CW: When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question: Why didn’t you do more to put Bin Laden and al Qaeda out of business when you were President? There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole

WJC: Okay…

CW: …May I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response. I understand that hindsight is 20/20…

WJC: No, let’s talk about…

CW: …but the question is why didn’t you do more? Connect the dots and put them out of business?

But as for the subject of this thread: Bill Clinton in ongoing crusade for his legacy non-shockah.

Certainly, the Clarke memo is a primary source document, not speculation.

ALF already shot down the "cowardly our-viewers-really-wanna-know preface":

When we announced that you were going to be on FOX News Sunday, I got a lot of email from viewers, and I’ve got to say, I was surprised most of them wanted me to ask you this question:

The next portion of his question isn't exactly a question:

There’s a new book out which I suspect you’ve read called The Looming Tower. And it talks about how the fact that when you pulled troops out of Somalia in 1993, Bin Laden said, "I have seen the frailty and the weakness and the cowardice of US troops." Then there was the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole...may I just finish the question, sir? And after the attack, the book says Bin Laden separated his leaders because he expected an attack and there was no response.

So CW throws the entire Black Hawk Down story in Clinton's face with a bragardly quote from our enemy, who has certainly made many bragardly quotes in reaction to American actions since 9/11. Does anybody remember the course of events leading up to the American withdrawl from Somalia? That's an incredibly complicated story that few people understand. That is a totally loaded question within a question that is more of an insinuation than a question.

All we are really left with is the basic question: Why didn't you do more during your presidency about Bin Laden and Al Queda? That's a good, legitimate question.

But let's not pretend that this question came up randomly out of the hat. The media has been full of attacks on Clinton's failiures leading up to 9/11 and a lot of those allegations and insinuations have been historically and factually inacurate.

This question right on the heels of "the path to 9/11", during the peak of an election cycle where a major part of the RNC's election strategy has been to label Democrats as weak Republicans as strong on the GWOT? I'd be pissed too. Run-on-sentance pissed.

Olbermann setting the bar pretty damn low given a presidency based on such brave benchmarks as the V-chip and "taking the politics out of welfare."

The truth of the matter is that we are never, ever going to make our message or delivery perfect enough that it can't be butchered by the MSM. Ever. Whatever we do, it will always be wrong. That's their storyline, and they are sticking to it to the end. Anybody who thinks we're going to change that status quo by simply having better manners or eating more cocktail weenies with them is delusional. These people are not our friends.

The first step in dealing with this situation is acknowledging that cold and immutable reality, accepting it, and deciding how we're going to respond to it.

When it comes to the left, the mainstream media have exactly two all-purpose storylines going. We will always be portrayed as either spineless wussies, or angry loonies. The only choice we have here is to decide which one we're going to play to.

And yet, through all of that, he never once raised his voice. There was plenty of energy -- but it was bound up in the lucid delivery of facts, and a dogged refusal to let go. He didn't waste it on digust, insult, hollering, or making wild gestures (beyond the poking). There was plenty of emotion -- but it was backed up to the hilt by reason, compassion, honesty, and intelligence. He stuck to the facts -- and made them stick.

http://members.aol.com/lupinaccim/kerry-debate.jpg

I agree with that on a personal level but the unfortunate reality is that a majority of Americans right now are in favor of domestic wiretapping and a lot of them aren't that worked up about torture either. they just assume that if someone's having that done to them well then they must have done something wrong.

Allen: The point is, is we made a decision. You got to stand by your decision and you can't be constantly second-guessing, Monday-morning quarterbacking. My opponent is -- the whole theme of his campaign is we should not have gone in. The question is: where do we go from now? And as a practical matter, listening to Mr. Webb's ...

Webb: Let's not go into that, too, George.

Allen: ... listening to Mr. Webb's statements ...

Webb: I don't -- I'm waiting for you to say where you want to go.

Allen: ... there isn't, there isn't that much of a difference insofar as the future.

Russert: Is that true?

Webb: That's absolutely not true, you know. I, I have not ...

Russert: Could the money have been better spent?

Webb: Yes. We could have, we could have contained Iraq. If you want to take out Saddam Hussein, there are ways to take out Saddam Hussein. We did not need to go into a country, decapitate the government and inherit the, the responsibility of rebuilding it. And eventually that is going to fall to the other countries in the region. It's just going to.

in fact that may be the most dishonest & stupid thing posted in a very very stupid thread

Clinton shows up on Fox, realizing that they'll pounce on him about this shit with that "many viewers want me to ask" bullshit, then proceeds to play the body language and wordplay game. He didn't take action against Al Qaeda, he "tried to kill' Bin Laden. He doesn't hash out intellectual details calmly, he goes on the offensive. It's almost a cookie cutter scheme to put any counterarguments on the defensive against the angry man!

Note also the complete lack of acknowledgement that it wasn't just republicans posing the "wag the dog" accusations in the late 90s.

xpost

lots of people have said that's what it was. see The Note excerpt I posted above, for instance.

Man, what great framing. Because Chris Wallace obviously wasn't trying to provoke him at all! More like he came to the interview packing heat because he knew it was coming.

link?

http://www.robertscheer.com/1_natcolumn/01_columns/052201.htm