Cooper-ation

by: Chris Bowers

Mon May 12, 2008 at 02:59


There was a story in the Memphis Daily News over the weekend about how Jim Cooper thinks that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Hillary Clinton was too mean to him. Naturally, it resulted in a diary that stayed on top of the Daily Kos recommended list for several hours yesterday. This bothers me for several reasons, including the following:

While the Daily Kos diary in question is specifically arguing that the Cooper plan was great (although that is implied), it does take as its main point that health care reform failed in 1993-1994 because Democrats, specifically Hillary Clinton, weren't nice enough to conservatives. If only Hillary Clinton had been nicer to conservatives, then we could have had great health care plans like Jim Cooper's. Hell, Jim Cooper himself says so. And look, David Brooks agrees, so it much be right.

This is a very disturbing argument. The moment when dislike of Hillary Clinton is combined with calls for Democrats to compromise in the manner of Jim Cooper, and it is all justified by citing David Brooks, is a moment when I really fear for the internal logic of some Barack Obama support. It is the moment when I fear we all become practioners of High Broderism: mean, left-wing Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, are holding up reasonable compromises on Social Security, Iraq, FISA, torture, bankruptcy protection, global warming, etc. It is an argument I heard for years from the national media, long before the primary campaign began. To now be hearing it in the top recommended dairy at Daily Kos bothers me quite a bit.

If there is a short-term solution to this, it should be that more Obama supporters online should start practicing what Obama himself preaches. Rather than continuing to focus attention to Bush Dog attacks on Hillary Clinton, perhaps it is time to actually start reaching out to Clinton supporters themselves. This would seem particularly wise, given that the outcome of the nomination campaign isn't actually in doubt anymore. Perhaps people are still engaging in primary flame wars out of some sort of reflex motion, given that we have been doing it for so long now. However, at a time when we need to start unifying the party, doesn't it seem slightly contradictory to be attacking the losing candidate for not being better at outreach and forging consensus? Rather than praising the like of right-wing Jim Cooper for continuing primary season attacks at a time when the outcome of the nomination campaign is no longer in doubt, maybe it is time we start reaching across our own aisle. I mean, isn't Obama's ability to reach across the aisle one of the things that is supposed to make him so great, anyway?
Chris Bowers :: Cooper-ation

Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Cooper-ation | 75 comments
bothers me (3.33 / 6)
Well, at least you are acknowledging just one tiny example of the broad misogynist attacks on Hillary that have been going on for some time now.  It's been so bad for so long there are many who now say there is no way they will vote for Obama.

I didn't like either of them, or pretty much anyone who was running from day 1 but I must say it is this behavior that has completely turned me off to the Obama campaign.  I'm not going to make any sort of declaration of my vote, beyond I'm focusing in on races, candidates who are solid, who will caucus with a strong Progressive/Populist Congressional members,  but in the Presidential race, my reaction to the rampant sexism and misogyny has gone from embarrassment to disassociation to plain outrage on my part.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

I'm with you... (4.00 / 6)
though I am completely committed to supporting our nominee.

I stopped reading diaries at Daily Kos awhile back when 98% of them were either praising Obama for something as mundane as waking up in the morning (BREAKING w/PHOTOS!), or slamming Hillary Clinton for daring to breathe.  I've been appalled that the front-pagers, not only didn't put a stop to it, but some of them fell into the same trap themselves.  I read the diary Chris refers to only because I'm originally from Tennessee and wanted to know more.  When I saw that the diarist linked to Brooks to support his arguments, I almost vomited.  

I have many older women friends who support Clinton but are so turned off by the way she's (and they've) been treated that they are threatening to vote down ticket races only.  They find it difficult to separate Obama from the behavior of his supporters.  

[ Parent ]
Hahaha (4.00 / 8)
How is criticizing Hillary Clinton's management of health care reform in 1993 "misogyny"?  There is nothing in either the above-mentioned newspaper article or the DailyKos diary to suggest hatred of Clinton for her gender.  Congressman Cooper is angry at her for shooting down his bill.  That's what congressmen do.

When you throw around words like that, you demean the experiences of people who have suffered actual discrimination in their lives.

[ Parent ]
You should read the link (4.00 / 3)
Chris provided of Mike Lux's post. Chris should have at least mentioned some quotes from it but his intent is more to draw Clinton supporter votes than to rightfully tarnish Obama too much.

From Lux's post:

"the Obama campaign is now using Rep. Jim Cooper as a spokesperson/surrogate on health care".

Yeah Obama is using the same guy who actually help squash Hillary's health care plan as his spokesman and as a leader for his campaign in Tennessee. Read Lux's post. The failure of the health care plan was more the fault of those trying to water down Hillary's true Universal coverage and Cooper spearheaded that effort and that is who Obama is KNOWINGLY using as his spokesman. Combine that with Obama's Harry and Louise ads and thing don't look good for health care from Obama. Bush Dogs like Cooper are going to be empowered by Obama not voted out of office. They are his exact model of post-partisanship otherwise known as Republican Lite because that is what Bush Dogs are - Republican Lite. Post-partisanship is all about compromise and being in the middle (triangulation) and that is what Obama's Cooper is.

[ Parent ]
Obama is the Democratic Party Nominee in all but formality. (4.00 / 3)
I don't know what kind of populist you are, but John Edwards who called both candidates excellent choices, said that "the numbers are not there" anymore for Hillary Clinton, and seemed to have let sl;ip that he had voted for Obama in his home state primary.

Continually carping on Obama 'supporters' being mysogynistic, and saying that will drive people away from Obama in November is very close to marking you as a being a third term Republican.

If instead you are a Naderite, I offer no apologies, because in fact you would still be a Bush third termer.

I look forward to your posts calling for a Democratic Party President, an article on the disastrous economic policies of the Bush administration that McCain plans to continue, or a proposal on how to increase voter registration for the Democratic Party.

I look forward to suggestions on how best to move our Party toward more progressive positions.

I fear that I will read instead more vitriol against our nominee our party and our policies.

Change
"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy.

[ Parent ]
Calling out misogyny and pressing Obama (4.00 / 6)
to take more progressive positions on the issues is not vitriol or concern trolling. It's called having principles.



Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!

[ Parent ]
Calling out imaginary misogyny is (4.00 / 6)
Look, as much as Cooper is a dick, this is criticism of Clinton that isn't based on her gender. As such, calling this misogynist is OTT, certainly vitriolic and arguably concern trolling.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
Criticism of Clinton? (4.00 / 2)
That is a laugh. Go read Lux's post. This is a case of the kettle calling the pot black as it was Cooper who spearheaded the demise of the Clinton Universal health plan.

It's funny how the guy who killed the plan is saying she didn't listen to him. It's also funny how Cooper is now Obama's spokesman for health care. When you have a guy who helped kill Uni Healthcare as your spokesman for healthcare that doesn't sound too good for Uni healthcare.

[ Parent ]
What? (0.00 / 0)
I know Obama's healthcare proposal is crap. I know Cooper shouldn't be allowed near the issue.

But Cooper is criticising Clinton. Yes, he has no right to do so, but he is doing it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Oh it is easy to understand (0.00 / 0)
the world is full of irony and amazement.

Just like your response is amazement. I mean why bother with the response you did? What is it's purpose? Cooper is what he is  and in this case the irony is that Obama knows exactly who this guy is too.

[ Parent ]
Talking oneself into a corner... (4.00 / 4)
So the supposed misogyny of the Obama campaign outweighs the overt racism of the Clinton campaign in your eyes.  I agree with you that neither candidate excites me, but the Clinton campaign has been much uglier than the the Obama campaign, especially on the worst of the identity smears.

Online, I would say Obama commenters have generally been worse that Clinton commenters only by shear quantity not because they have necessarily sunk any lower. Kos may have come unhinged, but compared to the Jerome Armstrong's of the world he's still mostly in the reality camp. Now if you want to make your voting decisions based on the quality and content of online supporters of the candidates, more power to you, but it might be one of the most pathetic ways to choose for whom you will vote.

It certainly has little link to what this article is about, which is the continued demonization of anything 'liberal' within in the party by members of the party like Cooper.  The healthcare reform might have been last big idea Clinton tried to enact before he took our party on its long sojourn to the right and to defeat after defeat.

I am increasingly saddened by this idea that Hillary Clinton represents the liberal end of the party to so many within the party.  I can understand the right wanting to portray her as the worst the Democrats can offer to conservatives, but within our own party she is a centrist.  Cooper needs to be called out for what he is, a conservative, and we need to position ourselves to boot him from his seat as soon as possible.  Its not the Clintons or the Obamas that will do this for us.  They will support the status quo because they aren't liberals or progressives, they are just slightly left-of-center and need Cooper and his ilk to justify their half measures for us, the majority, and the sops to businesses and the wealthy who make funding a lot easier and also provide them their jobs and speaking engagements when their lives in politics end.

[ Parent ]
Chris mentioned (4.00 / 4)
the progressive rating site, ProgressivePunch.com. I suggest you go to that site and you will find out that in fact Clinton is on of the most Progressive/Liberals in the Senate.

The misconception that she is not very progressive by uninformed Obama supporters is troubling as I feel many have not done the easy homework but instead just repeat false talking points they find online. It's easy to go to ProgressivePunch and see the ratings of all reps.

[ Parent ]
Or if you have followed any legislation through congress (4.00 / 3)
I have been horrified by Obamas feeble clean energy plan by Democratic standards.

One example:

This Democratic congress has been trying to pass a

10 year extension of the Production Tax Credit for Wind power.
Obama's site says he would only extend it for 5 years.
Clinton's site says she would make it permanent.

Making the PTC permanent would prevent Republicans shutting down clean energy every 5 years as they have been doing since Jimmy Carters time.

Like McCain, Obama talks clean energy: to McCain that means more trillions in nuke subsidies http://climateprogress.org/200...
but only Clinton has a clean energy plan that actually delivers clean energy.

It is very obvious to this eco voter that hers is the more progressive eco policy of the three.

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

[ Parent ]
Reading comp... (4.00 / 2)
I would have assumed the tone of my message would first make it obvious that I am not an Obama supporter per se. I also thought I made it clear that I find ProgressivePunch and other such indexes useless when it comes to making minor distinctions.  I could go on an on about how useless the punch index is in the current environment, but in a nutshell, with progressives in a decided minority, progressive punch for the past decade or so has really only measured reliability of opposition to conservatives.  No real progressive legislation has come up for a vote.  SCHIP and ending the war, while covering things progressives support are hardly in and of themselves policies fundamentally addressing core progressive principles, they are just policies slightly more progressive than the status quo.  Neither Clinton or Obama has introduced any major progressive legislation and they certainly weren't vocal opposition to the worst crimes of the administration in their roles as Senators. In my book neither candidate is a progressive or a populist.  I will vote for either one because I refuse to abet a McCain presidency.

I have read enough of your comments to know you are a shill for the Clintons, so I know what you are trying to do in sowing your dissension here.  Since Obama is the nominee in all but the narrowest of metrics, I will continue to attack pure anti-Obama rhetoric when I see it, especially when it is the falsely galling theme that Clinton is either a progressive or populist or that she is decidedly more of one or the other than Obama.  It is clear to me that she isn't much different than Obama, certainly not enough to ever give her the mantle of 'THE progressive' or 'THE populist' in this campaign.  If she wants to overcome her horrific war votes she had better be far to the left of Edwards, who set the bar for successfully overcoming his war vote in my book.

[ Parent ]
Sorry about confusing posts... (0.00 / 0)
I had another post that mentioned my disdain for the voting indexes as reliably showing anything about a rep's progressive credentials, but the gist of my earlier post certainly doesn't show me as an ardent Obama supporter.
[ Parent ]
re: definition of progressive (4.00 / 2)
For some, foreign policy is such an important issue that her hawkishness overcomes the good will earned by Clinton via her consistent, progressive stance on numerous other issues.

And then, of course, there is the problem of her campaign tactics -- repeatedly promoting ridiculous right-wing frames.  And her top-down approach to governance.  And also consider that the issues in which she loudly and proudly advocated her positions include more than just abortion rights and health care -- they include Iraq, Iran, flagburning, gas tax, violence in video games, etc.

If I am merely spouting false talking points, then by all means please show me how she is "progressive" on the above issues.  Otherwise, refrain from accusing liberal Dems of being uninformed simply because they have serious qualms about Clinton's progressiveness.

[ Parent ]
Yeah like (0.00 / 0)
Obama's Harry and Louise ad against Hillary's better health plan is not problem of his campaign tactics and promoting ridiculous right-wing frames. LOL

I could name a host of other right wing smears by Obama but I have learned by now that his supporters just turn a blind eye to them as they are out there for all of you to see but you refuse to.

[ Parent ]
"rampant sexism and misogyny" (0.00 / 0)
Really? The main "sexism and misogyny" that I noticed was coming from the media, mainly leading up to New Hampshire. I am not a Hillary supporter, but in the lead-up to New Hampshire, I found myself frequently yelling at the TV rebutting sexist nonsense directed at her. Certainly you can find sexist comments from random Obama supporters online. I honestly think it's about as moronic to attribute such comments to Obama and his campaign as it is to ask him to account for the statements of Bill Ayers or some dude from Hamas.

Let me get this straight: Are you accusing Obama himself or any of his official surrogates of "broad misogynist attacks"? If so, I'd love to see some specific examples. If this Kos diary about Cooper is an example of misogyny, then you must be seeing misogyny everywhere you look. The Clinton camp's instances of race-baiting, on the other hand, are pretty blatant, especially Hillary's recent boast of having the support of hard-working people = white people.

The bottom line is that Hillary assumed that she would have no trouble securing the nomination, so she worked hard to position herself as a centrist hawk for the general election. She voted for the war. Obama opposed it. That is the main reason that Obama has more support than Hillary. Naturally, people defend the candidate they prefer and trash their opponent. Back in 2003 Dean supporters, including myself were attacking Kerry. The dynamic was very similar to today and for mainly the same reasons - anti-war vs pro-war. I really think that a lot of Hillary supporters are reading sexism where it doesn't exist. An attack on a female politician is not necessarily an attack on women in general.

And to all the Hillary supporters who are contemplating voting for McCain, I have to point out the absurdity of helping elect the guy who said this:

Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno."
because you're upset about misogyny and sexism.

I am really pissed at Clinton at this point, but I never considered not voting for her if she were the nominee. Every Democrat who doesn't vote for Obama will feel like a childish shithead if McCain is elected and starts a war with Iran.

miasmo.com

[ Parent ]
I remember 1993 (4.00 / 13)
Chris --

I don't know how old you are, but my sense is that in 1993 you were not out there in the world, so to speak. And therefore, your "remembrance" of what happened in '93 is more historical than memory.

In 1993, I was a physician in private practice here in Pennsylvania. I was watching a state change from fee for service to massive managed care to the detriment of patient care. I believed, then and now, in universal care with the services provided by private practitioners, and the payments controlled by the government, acting as a non-profit payer.

And while I will go on with some specifics, the bottom line is that Hillary's health care plan was, on it's face, bad for patient care AND her closed-door methods ensured that not only would her plan NOT be enacted, but also would set the course of universal health care back for decades. I said that then, and have been proved right.

Had Hillary been willing to work not just with conservative Democrats, but also with progressive Democrats, and ANY Republicans, we would have been much closer to universal health care.

Had she worked with progressives, they would have shown her how simple compromises in her proposals could have been slightly modified to allow for passage. Most specifically, the "we will tell you what to do preventive medicine" sections would have been deleted. The doctor payments would have been modified. The pharma portions would have answered to the R&D needs of the industry. Under her plan, we would have ended up with the worst of socialized medicine (a two-tiered system) and none of the good parts (true preventive health care, and rationality in treatment plans).

I could go on about what was MEDICALLY wrong with her plan -- and point out that while people in America decry the British and Canadian systems (and others) for long waits, they actually have better mortality and morbidity rates than we do, and those are a function of how health care is dispensed there.

But this list is about politics, and not the medical side of health care. And politically, by betting on insular secrecy and a defiant refusal to accept help from what could have been colleagues ON THIS ISSUE -- Hillary not only set back universal care, but also directly encouraged Newt et. al. to rally and take over Congress in 1994.

Hillary doesn't get a walk on this because she has not learned from this egregious error. If you look at her campaign, she is still choosing people on loyalty and not on ability, she still puts "Hillary winning" above "Good of the party, good of the country".

Like all of us, she is doomed to repeat history until she learns from it, and remembers it.

I DO reach out to Clinton supporters -- and point out that voting Republican is a vote against not only individual self-interest, but also against the good of the country. Even if they do not feel that they can be Obama-supporters, they need to realize that a vote for McSame is a vote for torture, for war, for the continued dismemberment of the middle class, for ignorance, for lies, for Gitmo, and against intelligence, civil rights, and human rights. That should be enough for ANY Democrat. (And in the same way, despite my long term negative feeling for Hillary, I would have voted for her in November because John McCain is just plain the worst choice.)

But there is no "win" in avoiding holding Hillary's actions up to the prism of what actually occurred 15 years ago.  

Good to get your perspective (4.00 / 3)
on the medical side of this, however, what's missing in your analysis is the mood of the country towards Hillary at that time.  She and Bill came into office with the Arkansas Project hanging over them, not to mention the antipathy towards her because she dared take a role in anything governmental (remember, she was supposed to stay home and bake cookies).  I would guess her desire to keep the plan secret, as well as her need to surrounded by staff who are loyal to her above all else, is related to that.  

The experience she's gained since the early 90's, especially in the Senate, has probably taught her a different way of dealing with and formulating policy.

 

[ Parent ]
Poltics vs. Medicine (4.00 / 4)
I guess the reason I don't discuss what was happening in the political times relative to the new Clinton administration is that at the time, in addition to 'regular' patients -- I did volunteer work for people too "rich" for Medicaid and who couldn't afford private insurance and needed care.

What mattered to me -- as a lifelong, left-wing, Democrat -- was NOT the politics, but getting my patients (and other people's patients) the care they needed, BEFORE they died unnecessarily.

I supported the Clinton run in '92, and viewed Hillary's foray into the health care revamp as "GO GIRL!" -- and yes, people were against her for being a woman -- but she shares culpability for being unwilling to "play within the rules".

What got me then was that people were dying. Here in America. Of diabetic complications because they couldn't afford blood glucose monitors nor the insulin (which was predominantly what we had then). The women who died of breast cancer AFTER it had metasticized to the spine, and we found it on a back-x-ray, the woman never having had a mammogram. The still borne children due to a complete lack of prenatal care.

So my concerns then WERE medical NOT political.

Hillary Clinton is smart, formidable, diligent, a policy wonk, and actually CARED about my patients, and all the other patients. Her intentions were honorable and commendable.

But she was felled by her refusal to listen to Senator Moynahan, and others, WHO WERE ON HER SIDE and WHO WANTED THE HEALTH PROGRAM -- who saw the issue as more important than the individual, and the outcome more important than who received credit.

I want to believe that you are correct when you say:

The experience she's gained since the early 90's, especially in the Senate, has probably taught her a different way of dealing with and formulating policy.

But I'm not so sure. Running a campaign, choosing the issues to play, the style of conflict, the people with whom one surrounds him/herself show the kind of candidate one is, and the kind of president one would be.  

I'm not so sure about that learning curve in this instance....

[ Parent ]
The Arkansas Project?! (0.00 / 0)
You mean the one launched by the right-wing dead-enders Hillary is now working WITH in her attempt to destroy Obama?

Probably not the best example you should bring up at the moment....

Howard Dean in 2016

[ Parent ]
met with (0.00 / 0)
and "working WITH" are two different things.
[ Parent ]
Where Have YOU Been? (4.00 / 8)
Have you not been paying attention to what the liberal blogosphere has been doing all these months? I can't believe you're "upset" about this NOW. Clinton supporters have been sounding alarms for MONTHS about crap like this, all to no effect. We were "overreacting." God! Isn't that what it always is with women? We overreact!

Why do you think Hillary Clinton's supporters left Daily Kos and other liberal blogs to start their own? It was exactly because of s*** like this - sometimes in smaller doses and certainly not done all at one time - but rarely a day goes by that some diarist, blogger or journalist isn't either digging up crap like this or channeling the 90s wing-nuts to fill their own "narratives" about Hillary Clinton.

And, hey, what about that Barbara Ehrenreich? Her article about the religious/prayer group on Capital Hill (that has also been attended by Obama and countless senators and congressional reps) was a hit piece, pure and simple. She didn't write that to "inform." She wrote it to smear. It was as bad as any right-wing article/commentary about Clinton.

The one thing that I absolutely can't abide anymore about so-called progressives is their tolerance of hatred that has been and is directed at Hillary Clinton and her supporters, on nearly EVERY liberal blog, and the way that they have used right-wing smears, talking points and tactics to bring down the Clintons.

So, I ask again: Where have you been all these months, that you are JUST NOW noticing this "troubling" behavior?

If you think this is a smear.... (4.00 / 2)
you have no idea what "smear" is....telling the truth is what it is -- "smearing" is lying and colouring things to twist the truth.

But I have a question for you Mabelle -- will you vote for McCain in November, or whoever the Democrat is? And if your answer is "McCain" or "I won't vote" -- in what way does that promote ANY progressive agenda? Would you be happy with 4 more years of Republican antics?

[ Parent ]
Every criticism of Obama is an endorsment of Clinton, apparently (4.00 / 2)
There has been endless bullshit going both ways.  This primary race abandoned any resemblance to rationality sometime around New Hampshire, probably earlier.  Since then it has been about stupid memes, personality attacks, and the candidates proving who is more 'centrist.'  It has been coming from both sides, with both sides selectively remembering which attacks have been happening.  
[ Parent ]
If the Rev. Wright issue was relevant enough for 10+ (4.00 / 1)
diaries, then Clinton's association with the Family, or the Fellowship is worthy of some scrutiny.  From what I've read (not from Ehrenreich, BTW) its a mixed story, anyway - it may have even worked to her favor because apparently, the group has been instrumental in helping bring together foreign leaders that were not ready to be seen communicating in public.  The extreme privacy of the Family was used in a positive way and had positive results.  But, no one ever got to talk about that because for some reason, the spiritual life of Hillary Clinton was not an acceptable topic - while that of Barack Obama was fair game for everyone to poke, and prod.

Likewise the kid gloves used to address the radical, right-wing preachers that Mr. McCain has been fawning over to gain their support - and those have practically no positive aspects.  McCain, parading around N.O. talking about how much he cares about the people devastated by Katrina - empty fuckin' words from a guy that has sought the support of not ONE, but TWO racist preachers that told us all that the folks in N.O. deserved what they got.  Any coverage about that?  NOPE - too busy pickin' over the bones of the Rev. Wright "story".

I won't belabor those points - but what I've seen this campaign is ONE candidate held to a different standard than the others when it comes to these, and other issues - and its not Hillary Clinton.

I've said it before - its very likely that Clinton would get my vote for Clinton if she were the nominee, but it would be - at the root - a vote AGAINST McCain - and mostly because of the Supreme Court issues.  I can actually vote FOR Obama - not because I see much substative difference in the policies (past, or present) that he puts forth - but because he has managed to deal with the whole heap o' BS that this campaign has become with, at least a shred of dignity and grace.  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Non-Ehrenreich link to the Family (0.00 / 0)
Written in 2003 - and not about Hillary Clinton.  Gives background on the Family.  

http://www.harpers.org/archive...


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
I noticed (0.00 / 0)
a long time ago and frankly I think feminists should raise this issue up on high.  You are now also pointing out the hit men surrogates who are specialty activists,  who seemingly betrayed their principles and objectives to sway the race.  I've noticed that one too, with credibility compromised. and c Many of them complete not factual smears, misinformation.  I find this all very frightening.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
A-freakin-men! (4.00 / 8)
the pretzel logic that goes: "hmm... negative about Hillary? Must be right!" has become so pervasive at so many Dem/lefty blogs that it'd be funny if it weren't so suicidal and so much wasn't at stake.

In fact, I started drifting over here to Open Left largely because I was looking for a realistic breakdown of how the primary race was shaping up, and so much of the then-recent discourse at DKos had become so poisonous and loopy. I just couldn't handle one more fangs-bared flaming of someone who had the audacity to suggest that Obama didn't have things all wrapped up after Super Tuesday. (AS I recall Markos himself set the rather hysterical and premature tone that day by officially declaring Hillary's campaign "a farce". )

BTW, I am not now nor have I ever been a Hillary supporter. Far from it.

I started out as one of those "hey, Al Gore could probably mop the floor with any of these Republican jokers... maybe he'll run" types, then was attracted to Edwards on a lot of issues, but I had no problem trading those in for an Obama '08 sticker. I just wanna make sure we drive these incompetent criminals out of the White House, and that's great because Barack is an amazing candidate.

But the circular firing squad routine is so demoralizing and asinine, and waaay too many of the Obama supporters on blogs are the worst offenders.

I'm sure you saw what James Wolcott wrote about the UnCivil War in the recent Vanity Fair: http://www.vanityfair.com/poli...

JW's not kiddin'. There's probably just about as many posts at Daily Kos these days claiming that Bill Clinton should have been driven out of Washington on a rail as you'll find at Little Green Footballs.

So anyway, yeah, instead of jumping on the long discredited Ken Starr bandwagon maybe some of you self appointed political bulldogs for Obama should take a hint from Barack's own playbook. Be gracious in victory and stay cool in defeat. Remain focused. Win friends and influence others. Do NOT vilify your necessary allies.  

Of course if I posted this at DKos right now I'd probably be branded a Concern Troll...

Bill Clinton is a matter for the history books. (4.00 / 2)
Just because he was a D or a Clinton doesn't mean he was a great/good president.  I have been a life long Democrat, and Bill and his politics are what I have against Hillary.  He was the best Republican president since Ike.  

If Hillary had walked away from the DLC, free trade, media consolidation, and his give the baby to the corporations and Republicans with the bath water politics, I would have supported her.  Before you call me an Obamabot, I am an Edwards supporter supporting the candidates I have and not the candidates I wish I had.  I started this as anybody but Hillary, and it is how I finished.    I am also a white female, so don't anyone tell me I'm sexist or racist or anything else.  I am simply an upper middle class grandmother fighting for a future for my grandkids.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
I agree. (4.00 / 2)
Your statement about Bill Clinton being "...the best Republican President since Ike" is pretty accurate in many ways. He was no FDR, that's fo' sho.

Still, coming as it did on the heels of 12 bloody, demoralizing years of rule by two of the the worst, most rapacious Republican Presidents since, I dunno, the McKinley Administartion probably, Clinton seemed like a respite because, by comparison, he was.

Anyway, that's neither here nor there. I don't in any way think Hillary deserved or earned the nomination, and I'm excited about where things could go this fall.

My only point is blogging by far too many Obama supporters has turned into a blood sport that is deeply divisive to the party and detrimental to Barack's chances in November.

I guarantee that Hillary will be up on a podium in Denver in a few weeks, arm in arm with Obama, urging everyone to vote for him in November. I only hope that kind of necessary unity can be forged here in the Netroots, because Barack is going to need it, and it's up to his supporters to make it happen.  

[ Parent ]
Not to mention (4.00 / 1)
he only had what, two years of a Democratic Congress before Newt Gingrich put out his "Contract on America?" It was all defense from then on out.

And that wasn't a liberal Democratic Congress for those two years, either.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Didn't rec, didn't tip (4.00 / 3)
The rec list at DailyKos is what it is.  Some good, some bad.  There have been plenty of times when the rec list at MyDD was just as bad, if not worse (though obviously that's a somewhat lower profile site).  

Simply put, all Obama partisans, myself and most rational others included, cannot be held responsible for this kind of stuff (much less the Obama campaign, though I don't think that's what you're arguing, their own Cooper-related flaws aside). I agree it has far too many recommends, but that's pretty much a natural part of the process.  

So who is responsible? (0.00 / 0)
Does the buck stop anywhere?

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
My Way or the Highway? (0.00 / 0)
I think it's wrong to claim that the being nicer to conservatives means automatically making big compromises.  I want to treat conservatives more respectfully than the way that the Republicans have treated progressives in recent times.  That doesn't mean that I endorse "High Broderism".  I think that if Hillary Clinton had been nicer to conservatives, maybe we would have had a plan that was closer to hers than it was to Cooper's.

This also fits into the narrative that Hillary Clinton has a personal style similar to George W. Bush, one that I believe has some accuracy.  She overvalues personal loyalty. (See Patti Solis-Doyle.)  She surrounds her efforts with unnecessary clouds of secrecy.  She treats people with minor disagreements as enemies and traitors.

This process isn't over.  Right now, it's still important to stave off any notion of an Obama-Clinton unity ticket.  That idea needs to be closed off.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

Nicer? (4.00 / 1)
What does being nicer entail? If it means being polite to them, giving them some say but still trying to craft the most progressive bill possible, I'm fine with that.

If it means making a bill a corporate giveaway just to get a few extra yes votes, then I think we're better off nicely telling conservatives not to let the door hit their arse on the way out.

This distinction is recognised to some degree by just about everyone, but it's very hard to get across succinctly. To that extent, I think partisans should take a hard line on compromises, since that way those compromises that our leaders will inevitably make are likely to be tilted more in a progressive direction.

Obama shouldn't always threaten, he can frequently use the carrot rather than the stick. But the knowledge that he has a large stick with a nail in it (and that his base is itching for him to try it out) also helps keep the debate 'nice'.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Nicer Can Mean Many Things (0.00 / 0)
I'm not sure that any of them apply in this case to Hillary Clinton.

When it comes to health care, I tend to like the style and reasoning behind Howard Dean's 2004 health care plan, rather than competing plans put forth by his opponents such as Dick Gephardt. That puts me on the Obama side of the Obama-Clinton health care wars. Since Dean has signaled that he doesn't intend to continue on as DNC chairman, I wouldn't mind the idea of him heading up a health care task force under an Obama administration.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
It Bothers Me... (0.00 / 0)
It also bothers me when some of the Clinton supporters use right-wing quotes in news stories to attack Obama. Unfortunately there have been people in both camps that have allowed themselves to be manipulated by the media into attacking each others candidate. I wish they would all wise up.
Enemy of my enemy (4.00 / 1)
The problem with this long one-on-one fight is that it tends to make people perceive the contest as between two entirely separate camps. Therefore if somebody is critical of the out-group, they must be on your side.

The fact that this is completely ludicrous doesn't make it any less attractive a proposition on an instinctive level. That is, after all, how our brains perceive identity.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Honest brokers (0.00 / 0)
What the insurance companies really wanted was no health insurance bill passed.  Hillary got that done.

I think the more disturbing argument is the idea of raising up a model of failure and a great success for Republicans as something we should repeat.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com

Are you saying (0.00 / 0)
that Clinton screwed up health care reform on purpose???

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
I think she probably just didn't care enough about those without insurance to get something passed.

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
[ Parent ]
that's ridiculous (4.00 / 2)
Firstly she was first lady, which is not an elected position and as I recall by that alone, she got some serious sexist heat.  Secondly, if there is any issue you can tell Hillary gives a damn about it's health care.  You can tell by her tone, her discussing it constantly, her analysis.  If anything she's clearly trying to fix all the things that went wrong in the 90's.


NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Silly (0.00 / 0)
Your criticism is correct but since when does the blogosphere act rationally? Was there some Golden Age where blogospherian discourse was 100% sophisticated and rational? Atrios has a much better attitude towards this silliness. He recognizes that there is little to be done about it and that you can't draw meaningful political conclusions from it.

Of course, here at Open Left, the top diarists take every silly excuse they can get to attack Obama supporters. The behavior seen here happens with supporters of every candidate.

By the way, when is Open Left going to respond to the continued questions about WVWV?

I don't think anyone expects the blogosphere to act 100% rationally (4.00 / 1)
but it shouldn't stop people with some bigger megaphones from saying something about it every once in a while.

Join us at the Missouri community blog Show Me Progress!
[ Parent ]
I believe... (4.00 / 2)
Markos could have set the tone early in the Primary campaign and let his subscribers know that there would be limits to how Democrats attack each other on his blog.

Instead he chose to let it devolve into a free-for-all, and in my opinion he fueled a lot of the animosity himself by writing some fairly outlandish Diaries and comments once the race had narrowed to Obama and Hillary.

As James Wolcott points out (and as most people who hung out at DailyKos at the time will probably attest) the discourse was typical blog-tone up until the point when Edwards dropped out. Maybe not displaying the decorum and courtesies of a debate in the House of Lords or whatever, but at least there was a semblance of "the main thing is to beat those Republican bastards" .

Once it was the last two standing however, things got real ugly in a hurry. MarKos attitude about the way things have gone down seems to basically be "...so?", and who knows, maybe he's right. In any case, it's his blog.

I just hope people who post this stuff realize that this is politics and tomorrow you might need the support of the guy you're flaming today.    

[ Parent ]
The nasty words about Hillary... (0.00 / 0)
will come back and be used against her in her next run for the Senate.  
[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
most of the top Diarists at Open Left ARE Obama supporters, Semblance.  
[ Parent ]
Great piece, Chris! (4.00 / 2)
Once we start using the arguments of David Broder and Jim Cooper we're doomed.   It's not the first time during this campaign that the blogosphere has done this, and we need to ask ourselves why this is happening.

John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
Too little, too late (4.00 / 2)
The people who left Kos over the treatment of Clinton aren't coming back just because they might stop bashing her after the primary is over.  The same is true, to a lesser extent, for the party itself.  An after-the-fact, insincere "reaching out" only goes so far.
I'm torn: (4.00 / 3)
there are sure some comfy amenities over there...

I really enjoyed writing my own eco diaries there, and still bounce off to the blogosphere via my blogroll there...yet now I hardly bother venturing into the main halls because of teh stupid...

its like a spacious, well designed, well appointed, well lit mansion that I used to live in, but it is now abandoned to tumbleweeds absently blowing across its diary lists...

Because of the well appointed space though, including the 800 strong dailykos environmentalists, I might eventually start back there and try to educate those Obamanoobs there...because we who were pushed out still must organise and push for better legislation, even if they don't know what that is.

And for organising a mob to push our more environmentally less educated Senators like Obama on correct Democratic legislation there really is no comparison.

Soon we will need to organise that rabble against the worst of the climaticidal legislation to come down the pike under Republican-lite ecopolicy to come, whether because we all now want the Unity Pony with Republican energy policy now, or more likely: McCain beats him.

Because in fact big electoral-college vote states do matter more than little red caucus states.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/...
Clinton by 40 over McCain this morning
http://www.electoral-vote.com/...
McCain over Obama by 50 electoral college votes!  

John McCain vetoes every Environmental Bill already.

[ Parent ]
There are several things mixed together here ... (4.00 / 4)
1) stopping the attacks on Clinton: I totally agree.  now is the time to be thinking about unifying the party -- and the progressive movement.  I also agree with mabelle's points that this has been going on for a while and that there's a huge amount of sexism underlying a lot of these attacks.  The lack of reaction from the guys who run most of the major progressive blogs has been really disappointing.

2) buying into right-wing narratives without questioning: also totally agree.

3) why the 93/94 health care plan failed: first of all, it's an important issue, and one worth discussing, so I don't think we should take it off the table.  echoing docjess' comment one thing I have consistently heard from people who were involved at the time is that Hillary and the others putting together the plan did it without involving many of the different stakeholders.  so i really do think that there's a lot to learn here -- and i say that as somebody who doesn't buy into Brooks' narrative or Cooper's view that the insurance companies' needs should drive things,  

Point 1 ... (4.00 / 1)
If there is no truce .. the attacks aren't going to stop .. meaning .. it's become a tit for tat thing ... for instance .. what do you expect Obama supporters to say .. when Hillary says that Obama hasn't crossed the CiC threshold .. but McCain and her have? .. They aren't going to get swiftboated .. so somoene(Pelosi?  Dean?) has to sit down both groups and tell them to knock it off
[ Parent ]
Brad Delong on HillaryCare (4.00 / 2)
Brad Delong was on the on HillaryCare White House task force, and his review of the Haynes Johnson and David Broder 1997 book, The System is an insiders look at what went wrong. Brad does not have good things to say about the book, but his most damning criticism is leveled at Ira Magaziner and the Clintons for their catastrophic  mismanagement of the Health Care Reform process.

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/...

I had been avoiding reading The System--Washington reporters Haynes Johnson and David Broder's account of the catastrophic collapse of the Clinton Administration health care reform effort--for a number of years. The worst hours of my life in 1993-1994 were those I spent providing analytical support for health care reform. I watched the catastrophe approach and then saw the crash, the product of a three-fold bankruptcy: moral, intellectual, and political. The moral bankruptcy was on the part of the Republican Party's power structure, which thought (correctly) that placing the government into total gridlock was a road to political success, and cared not at all for making public policy better along any dimension. The intellectual bankruptcy was on the part of President Clinton and the senior White House domestic policy staff, which never solved the puzzle of how to construct and sell a plan to make the American health care system better and how to construct a coalition to support reform. The political bankruptcy was on the part of the Democratic congressional majorities in the House and Senate, which ultimately failed to pass even a ghost of a bill to reform America's health care system along any dimension. The combination of these three bankruptcies has left America in 2000 with a health-care system even more wasteful and inefficient and even worse at delivering health care to the poor than we had a decade ago. ...

Thus after his election, President Clinton set up a policy-planning process to prepare a health-care reform plan for congress to pass. He chose his wife, the First Lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton to head up the planning process. He chose his long-time friend Ira Magaziner to be her deputy. He told them to think big.

It is hard to tell how much power Hillary Rodham Clinton had. Certainly she did not effectively manage the process. But I did see Ira Magaziner in action. And it seems to me that the process was impossible to manage as long as Ira Magaziner was involved, and perhaps she did not have the power to fire him.

Magaziner, you see, had two major flaws. His first was that his instinct was always to make things more complicated. Faced with a choice between doing 90% of a job with an organization that has 10% of the present complexity and doing 100% of a job with 200% of the present complexity, he would always choose the second. He had no sense that complicated organizations tend to break, to exhibit bizarre and unplanned behaviors, and are hard to explain--but he had never run and had spent little time working in large human organizations, and when he got his chance to do so during health-care reform he rapidly proved to be incompetent at marshalling resources and using his people's time effectively.

His second flaw was that he thought like a management consultant. A management consultant's principal goal is to win a debate in front of his employer, the senior decision maker, the "Principal." You win a debate by making intellectual arguments, controlling the flow of information to the senior decision maker, walling-off potential adversaries from the process, and winning the confidence of the Principal by telling him things that he likes to hear: that he is smart, that his goals can be achieved, that the nay-sayers just don't grasp the issues. But that's not how you develop a policy. You develop a policy by forming a large coalition all of whom agree that the proposal will make the world a better place, and that it is close to the best that can be attained at the current moment. Then you have a large group of people who are enthusiastic about the proposal: they will go out and make your arguments for you. The compromises and concessions that had to be made within the policy-planning group in order to form the coalition will then perform a very important exterior purpose: just as they brought people within the process onboard, so they will bring other people outside the process who think in a similar fashion onboard as well. For a management consultant, it doesn't matter if everyone else in the organization hates your guts as long as the Principal--the CEO--is convinced, for the CEO is the boss and can then make things happen. For a policy planner, winning the confidence of the Principal is almost beside the point: instead, the point is forming a coalition that can then be extended to win a majority of the House of Representatives, the 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster, and a Presidential signature.

My biggest concern about Obama is that he thinks like a Principal, and seems to actually believe in his health care plan.

Having seen the Clintons screw up health care and every thing else they touched in their first two years, and then fail to retake the House in 1996 because of Bill Clinton's narcissism, I have zero confidence that Hillary would do any better this time. The mistakes they made in this campaign are cut of the same cloth, and the reason they lost the race.

Obama is far from perfect, and he may be a major disappointment as President -- but at least he is changing the political landscape, which may be the best we can hope for.

Thanks for this info, but let me add (4.00 / 1)
or clarify something--The political landscape has been changing for several years.  Obama is continuing the work that was begun by other progressives.  We have been building an infrastructure that didn't exist when Clinton was in office.  He might have had more success if it had.
[ Parent ]
1st Chris, good post... (4.00 / 5)
and I would really like to see the attacks stop, period.

But for some of this posting, I just can't believe it. Chris is not trying to give you some platform to diss Hillary some more, He was commenting on how we keep shooting ourselves in the foot, time after time, but letting the conservative party, and some DINO blue dogs, keep us divided and losing. Wake Up, folks, our republic has been slipping away, and you all think that is time to pile on Hillary. WTF?

If any of you will bother looking at this historically, the GOP made a plan to wipe us off the face of the political map completely, and they created the "movement" conservative. They funded think tanks, got control of the media, got control of the religious right, and basically took thirty years to turn us into a mostly fascist, warmongering failed state.

Could it be the Clinton's kind of got run over by that right wing smear machine they created. Every whining person who says how much they hate Hillary for this or that reason, generally comes out with a right wing talking point, blah, blah, blah. Tired of it. Over it, already.

Ya want to do some good? OK, Hillary lost already. Obama is a nice enough candidate. He might be great, but I do not know that yet. Not much more impressed with his candidacy over hers, but he did run a better campaign, and sure raises money. And I concede that she did not run a good campaign. But this kind of divisive sniping at your own side HAS TO STOP. Are you all witless?

We better get used to the idea of sticking around to hold his feet to the fire, , (and a lot of down ticket candidate conservative Dems), because this country of ours is so screwed up, that "we the people" may never get it back. I am so not proud of so many of you so called "fellow Americans", I am sure a lot of you were 2 time bu$h/GOP supporters just over here trolling, tryiong hard to keep us pissied off and fighting each other.

What I Still Care About (3.00 / 4)
Is forestalling any possibility or even any wasted media blabbering about a potential Obama-Clinton unity ticket, which I consider a very bad idea.  I don't consider it likely, but as long as the chance is out there and people are discussing the possibility, I'm going to keep sniping.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
If that's your agenda (4.00 / 1)
then why not stick to arguments about why the ticket is a bad idea (there are many, based on demographics, Hillary's polling negatives, or the experience needed to boost Obama), instead of continuing to make attacks on Hillary?  
[ Parent ]
Because (0.00 / 1)
I want to poison the well.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Just so you know (4.00 / 1)
that well your poisoning could contaminate your candidate too.
[ Parent ]
It's the same well (0.00 / 0)
we all drink from.

The sooner you figure that out the better.

Besides, I've seen you elsewhere, aren't you anti-choice/anti-gay? I seem to recall some conversations along that line.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Health care reform's prospects (4.00 / 3)
Progressives have to face the fact that Obama means what he says. He will reach out to and compromise with Republicans, he will not fight for the progressive position on the "culture wars from the '60s and '70s", and he prefers market based solutions over more government. Most of his supporters hear this and agree with him, "old coalition" Democrats hear this and do not.

Health care reform is not at the top of his agenda, and to be honest I don't believe issues generally are particularly important to him. Congressional Democrats have seen the writing on the wall and are talking down prospects for health care reform under the next president. We won't have broad-based reform unless the president is committed to pushing it, and Obama is not willing to put the political or financial capital behind the effort.

Even if you don't support Hillary Clinton one reason she should fight to the convention is to keep the issue of health care reform at the top of the agenda. She is the only person with the power to force Obama to put health care reform at the top of his agenda, and to keep it there.  

The problem is Clinton's plan is almost as crappy as Obama's (0.00 / 0)
I would love to see healthcare as a top line policy, but both of them have horrible plans that are likely to set up back even farther when they fail.  If the insurance industry is going to be a major player then the plan is doomed to fail.  
[ Parent ]
plans versus commitment (0.00 / 0)
I disagree, I think Clinton's plan is better and puts insurance companies in a box, but that is not my point. No plan, regardless of how crappy, will pass unless the president pushes it. Clinton is intent on pushing health care reform through, Obama is not. Absent the will to push reform through the relative merits of different plans is moot.
[ Parent ]
A crappy plan is worse than no plan... (0.00 / 0)
My concern is indeed that Clinton would push her crappy plan and get it passed.  The insurance companies would sabotage it and then when we get another GOP majority and president in 2012 or 2016 they would only at best return us to the status quo and would likely take us into even worse territory.  Insurance companies have too much skin in this not to either corrupt it in the policy stages or game something that was passed to ensure their place in the structure.  If the plan is to eliminate them from the start we can quickly get down to identifying which representatives are owned by the industry and which ones are looking out for us.

While it may be currently impossible to pass a true Medicare-for-all policy in the current political environment, or even that of the near future, I think that is where we should be pushing things.  Half-measures like what Clinton and Obama propose are just the types of plans that are doomed for failure and then when they fail the people vote in conservatives to "clean up" the mess even though the whole disaster was caused by their backward thinking in both parties.

[ Parent ]
Cooper's my rep, & I have no use for him (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I always have to resist the urge to barge into his local office & vent at random staffers when passing by, especially since the FISA issue came up, but that diary wasn't about what a great guy Cooper is or how great his plan was, but what a complete asshole (note: non-misogynist epithet) HRC was and how everyone ended up suffering for it.  What kind of even marginally competent politician acts like that?- of course, her real experience is actually as a political operative, sometimes a tactician (she's not a strategist either, apparently) and sometimes a kneecapper, but not much of a politician.  A real politician would have been vague, maybe mildly supportive of Cooper, possibly made some approving noises, given him some token representation, and made sure that what little of his plan survived was highly publicized & credited to him. For that matter, a real political wonk would have picked his plan apart and figured out how to adapt it to better goals, deliberately weakened some of its industry-friendly components, and used it as a stripped-down foundation for the plan s/he actually wanted to see implemented within ten years.

You're a better person than I am. (4.00 / 1)
Lincoln Davis is my rep and my instinct is to throw something through his window.

Haven't given in to it, yet.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
great entry (0.00 / 0)

accommodation (0.00 / 0)
Obama has been saying clearly, and demonstrating, all along that his approach is to accommodate the right-wing conservatives as an alternative to the right-wing defined phony issue of "divisiveness" and "partisan bickering" (the imagined reason for all problems). We already know what that accomodation leads to because it is what Dems have been doing for years as they cave on every issue of importance. It is also his familiar triangulating campaign strategy. There is nothing new here. Sadly.
No thanks, I already have a date (0.00 / 0)
"perhaps it is time to actually start reaching out to Clinton supporters themselves."

Too late.  At this point, it just looks like certain date-rape to me.  I'm not buying any reaching out from guys who think Cooper's plan is still a good one.

There's always a selection of half a dozen presidential candidates on the ballot to choose from.  I think I'll go with the Socialists this year.

why does this disturb you, chris? (0.00 / 0)
nothing about obama has changed; he's always been a libertarian beneath his unity suit.  reaching out and being "nice" to those of us who consider ourselves FDR dems isn't going to accomplish squat.  i'm one of those dems, and i'm not voting for obama in november.

it's one thing to triangulate when you have a strong conservative movement working against you, as bill clinton did--and a diametrically different thing to do so when you have a popular groundswell for a leftward shift, as obama is doing now.  i mean jesus, if he's already selling us out now--when we have a rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity to move the country leftward and to get some real progressive policy enacted--what can we realistically expect from him once he gets to the white house?

in any case, i think the issue is moot because more and more clinton supporters are hardening against obama and refuse to vote for him.  last i checked, about 40% and growing.  it's all but certain now that obama will lose the GE.  i'd suggest you get used to it, lest you have a nervous breakdown in november.

What I still don't get... (0.00 / 0)
I just find it jaw droppingly amazing that it is Clinton supporters who have hardened themselves in hopes of seeing Obama defeated.  I could understand it if it were Edwards or other more lefty Dems who were stridently opposing a centrist candidate.  Everything kangeroo uses to define Obama could be equally applied to Clinton.  She is so throughly and pathetically DLC-centric (which might be worse  that having libertarian leanings!) it just baffles me that anyone would consider not voting for Obama in order to protest someone of her ilk not being the nominee.

It is only the reaching out and being nice thing that is a noticeable and important difference between these two.  Yet kangeroo wants to defend Bill's triangulation and selling of the party to conservative elements as being due to a strong conservative movement.  Kangaroo, you do realize don't you, that another Clinton presidency will rebuild the 'strong' conservative movement?  The GOP is only effective as opposition and it won't take much shift in the electorate to create another Gingrich shift.  While Obama's platitudes on unity and post-partisanship may fail, it is certainly no worse than Clinton inevitably wasting time whining about character and cultural attacks while at the same time only getting passed those DLC-GOP policies she and her opposition agree on.

As a hardcore lefty, I should be the one saying I wouldn't vote for Obama, but then I would be saying I wouldn't vote for Clinton either.  But to harden yourself between these two it seems to me you either have to be focusing on some single issue (none of which are as important as the Supreme Court) or for racial/gender issues (won't vote for a black or won't vote for anyone who isn't a women).  If your feelings have been hurt by harsh words on blogs and you are going let that affect your vote then you should just hand over your voter registration now because that is perhaps the saddest indictment of character I can fathom!

[ Parent ]
you're clearly naive (0.00 / 0)
about politics, and woefully uninformed about hillary clinton's actual voting history and life record.  with people like you on our side helping the GOP, we'll actually deserve getting demolished this november.
[ Parent ]
Cooper was once moderate (0.00 / 0)
 I remember Cooper as being rather moderate holding the rural 4th congressional seat.I remember liking what I read about Cooper's healthcare proposals. I was excited when Cooper abandoned Congress to run for Al Gore's old seat in the senate.The 4th congressional seat was won by Republican knuckle dragger Van Hilliary until captured by DINO Lincoln Davis four years later.I remember being disappointed by Cooper's surprising sharp turn to the right in his senate campaign against Fred Thompson.
In 2002 Cooper campaigns and wins the 5th congressional district encompassing urban Nashville vacated by moderate Bob Clement whom also took on Fred Thompson and lost.The 5th district being as safe a democratic seat as you can get in Tn,I expected him to be much more progressive.What a disappointment he has been.
Every single congressman and congresswoman of both parties in Tn with the exception of Congressman Cohen from Memphis are sell outs to the military industrial complex and corporate lobbyists.I am disgusted with my birth state.Even Lamar Alexander has no serious challenger in a change election.It's like he's invisible.What will it take to grow the grassroots in Tn and get better reps?
Cooper-ation | 75 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox