Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

All the Baggage, None of the Charm - She's not Bill, and Bill's not running-thank god

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 12:47 PM
Original message
All the Baggage, None of the Charm - She's not Bill, and Bill's not running-thank god
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_daniel_p_080126_all_the_baggage_2c_non.htm


All the Baggage, None of the Charm - She's not Bill, and Bill's not running-thank god

By Daniel Patrick Welch


I should start with full disclaimer: The only Democratic candidate I hold in lower esteem than Hilary Clinton might be Barack Obama. This is not a pro-Obama piece. In a recent argument with a potential Clinton voter who accepted the critique of Obama but rejected it for Clinton, I reminded my interlocutor that they were, in fact, the same candidate: twin cheeks on the same fat corporate ass, as it were.

So why do I care that the HillBilly Machine got so roundly trounced in South Carolina? In the first place, with no discussion of any substance anywhere in the current "debate," the only genuine emotion left is the bookie’s adrenaline rush, which from a distance amounts to a sort of minor high on some vague perception that the good guys won or the bad guys lost.

South Carolina seems to be the race where the mud gets slung, viz the repulsive re-torture of John McCain by Karl Rove’s machine in 2000 to Clinton 42’s shameless patronizing this week. I would call it the mud race, but in a state so officially racist that it still flies the confederate flag it would certainly be twisted. Hillary—let’s call her Clinton 44 with a question mark—tried to flee the state and let 42 do her dirty work. Nice try, Hil. The only thing as ugly as seeing Slick Willie get pounced on by the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is the underlying slickness of the Willie itself-—or himself.

Bill led the not-so-subtle charge, carefully calculated to be in his wife's absence, against Obama in a thinly veiled race appeal that was so widely rejected as to discredit the entire campaign. Deader Clintons have risen before, and this race race is far from over. It may be that voters were just sick of being told—-in the tone he once used for Sista Souljah and Christiane Amanpour—that they had to vote for his wife. It may just have been too much, and after the dust settles the money and the machine will turn back the Obama tide.

I suspect, though, that something deeper is at work. Bill's charm failed so miserably to carry the day, or even to stem the tide just a little bit, that it augurs a shift in voter consciousness, if any such oxymoron can be written about the US electorate without the computer screen exploding at the end of this sentence. Whew—glad I got away with that. But face it-—Bill is pretty much the ultimate weapon. HillBilly Inc. will now start to ratchet down the reliance on Hurricane Bill to storm through a state to move constituencies with a wink and a nod. They will say it was never their intention for Hil to be overshadowed by Bill, and on and on ad nauseam. But the die has been cast. Clinton’s whole shtick—-an enormous fraud though it be—is the sham repetition of her vaunted "experience," even in her own words, of "knowing the White House from the inside."

Ugh. Even the Republicans know to run from this canard, taking their traditional pains to distance themselves from the same Washington that keeps feeding their fattest warmonger paymasters. Bill stands at her side, or behind her or in another state altogether, but always as the word made flesh-y, or pudgy, perhaps, the living example of all the experience the two of them can muster. But with Clinton, the claims are no less sleazy or hollow. With eleven years' legislative experience to Clinton's seven, Obama has yet to effectively expose this ponzi scheme for what it is: a sort of peek-a-boo reliance on HillBilly history when it suits, and pandering to the need for "change" when it doesn't.

Hillary Clinton's experience, from Rose Law to her awful health care attempt to standing by Bill at every turn to her complete failure to mobilize any resistance to the ongoing War Crime that is the US government of which she is part—-this so-called experience is nothing anyone should be touting. Yet tout away she does, at every opportunity-—it is, in fact, her entire campaign. It is wearing, tiresome, boring, and above all, fraudulent. It is simply amazing that she has not been called on it; the tired repetition about hard work and nose-to-the-grindstone crap is the refuge of the candidate who has nothing else to sell. It all amounts to a sort of cranky my-turnism, a la Bob Dole or John McCain, the notion that she somehow deserves it while others don’t.

Of course, it goes without saying that the US should be able to elect a woman president. After Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel and a host of others, Americans are decidedly behind the curve, as in so many other things despite our high opinion of ourselves. Besides, even this short list gives an inkling that gender is no guarantee of good leadership or policy; the bottom line is it may very well not happen this time, and for god’s sake nobody said it had to be you.

Bill brought up the specter of Jesse Jackson this week, in a decidedly negative way, saying that he won a few primaries and caucuses but obviously didn't win the nomination. The clear implication was a warning to South Carolina's huge Black Democratic constituency not to cast a feel-good vote that wouldn't have national impact. It is also coded with the obvious message that the US is readier for a woman president than a Black one, and that they should stay the course and "leave with the guy what brung ya." God bless the democrat voters of South Carolina for telling him figuratively to shove it up his ass.

Not only is HillBilly playing with fire for the obvious reason that the race/gender card can be flipped. His slick and calculating (albeit backfiring, thankfully) use of Jackson’s history there is especially revolting. When Jesse Jackson won South Carolina and the south, with an actual Black base and as an actual Black candidate, it was against a deck stacked by Clinton's mentors and friends in the nascent Democratic Leadership Council, who thought that a southern Super Tuesday would prevent just such a spectre from becoming the party’s albatross in the general election.

When Jackson proved them wrong, further rigging and fine-tuning led to the now complete banishment of anyone with a progressive agenda from advancing anywhere near the national stage, apart from a few border collies left nipping at the party’s left flank to keep voters who want actual change from bolting. Make no mistake: choosing Obama over Clinton is just as silly as vice versa: Obama's campaign itself held Jackson at arms' length in his home state. There will not be another democrat who calls for cutting the war budget, or who has the guts to say to a national audience that Arabs "cannot continue to be made paraiahs." Campaign sloganeering aside, there will be no change trickling down from any candidate in this race.

The first and greatest beneficiary of this shame was none other than Clinton himself, and his finger-in-the-wind complicity and cowardice yields the two sanitized, corporate approved war-friendly candidates we have today. It is beyond appalling for him to try to make hay out of this wreckage of his own party’s history. Shame on him. He should know when to keep his fat, fake ass, philandering mouth shut. No matter what they say, increasing numbers of democrats will flock to Obama for the simple reason that he is not Clinton. It holds little meaning, of course, but who can blame them?

See the author's recent articles
No Change for me--I Want Bills--Election circus awash in cliches
http://danielpwelch.com/0801ncfm.htm
Sing ‘til the power of the Lord comes down: teaching civil rights through song
http://danielpwelch.com/0801sttp.htm

© 2008 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted with credit and link to http://danielpwelch.com. Writer, singer, linguist and activist Daniel Patrick Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School (http://www.greenhouseschool.org) and run workshops and seminars on music and history. Translations of articles are available in over two dozen languages. Links to the website are appreciated at danielpwelch.com. New CD available through the website at http://danielpwelch.com/dansshop.htm#CD: Let It Snow





Authors Website: http://danielpwelch.com

Authors Bio: (c) 2006 Daniel Patrick Welch. Reprint permission granted with credit and link to http://danielpwelch.com. Writer, singer, linguist and activist Daniel Patrick Welch lives and writes in Salem, Massachusetts, with his wife, Julia Nambalirwa-Lugudde. Together they run The Greenhouse School (http://www.greenhouseschool.org). Translations of articles are available in two dozen languages. Links to the website are appreciated at danielpwelch.com.


POSTED FOR ITS ENTERTAINMENT VALUE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. What's Setting Up...
...is a massive 1968-style intraparty fight at the convention this summer, followed by a Republican victory in the Fall. The Clintons won't give up easily. It's not in their DNA. This is personal for them. Everything is personal for them.

Do you want a President who reminds you of Bob Eubanks? I don't, but I have a feeling it's gonna happen.

Makin' Whoopee...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Thanks for the Obscure Reference
I had to look up Eubanks, and I still don't get it, really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Let Me Guess...
...you're twenty years old. Right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. No, My Younger Child Is 20
I just don't watch television.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kirby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Funny, I just mentioned Wink Martindale
to my wife last night when watching him speak in Miami last night...

The point is that he oozes the schmaltziness of a game show host.
(Or perhaps the stereotypical used car salesman).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes, Wink Is Still Around...
...and lives in Calabasas, about thirty minutes from me. He's way up in years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Its just as personal for the old white men in the Senate.
They don't want to share power and they are trying to be relevant (Kerry, Kennedy, Leahy, also Daschel from the bleachers). I would make the argument that they are tearing the party apart.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. We'll see how many of those old white men are left
after 2008. People are angry at the last 8 years of do-nothing Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Yeah, Well...
...the left always says they're gonna do this, that and the other. It never happens. Their lack of focus and chronic emotionalism is why the party can't ever seem to get its act together. It happened in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. It happened all through the Fifties.

Bill and Hillary were talking about national healthcare fifteen years ago and couldn't get it done. Truman was talking about it sixty years ago and couldn't get it done.

Fact is, it's never gonna happen. We can't fund the entitlements we have. Medicare will have to be cut back and taxes raised to fund the benefits we do have. Everyone knows it but doesn't want to talk about it. I had a doctor in Texas who said fee-for-service is the only way we'll survive, long term.

Did you know that every single bit of economic output we have (every barrel of domestic oil, every ear of corn, every hour worked) won't equal what we've already committed to in terms of entitlements to the Baby Boomer generation?

We're broke. That means national healthcare cannot and will not happen. There's no money.

With regard to Congress, the simple fact is that incumbents always have the edge. They always have had and they always will. That's Political Science 101 stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 03:00 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. I don't understand
Why be Democrats? If it is "the left" in your view that has botched everything up going back to the fifties, and if "we" can't afford to take care of people, and can't afford to take care of the "entitlements we have" such as "baby boomers" what remains to being a Democrat? You don't mention all of the entitlements to the wealthy and to corporations, so I assume you think that "we" can afford those. Apparently there is plenty of money for some.

Who are you, and who is your "we" - not the needy, not the baby boomers, not the people getting entitlements, not the left, not those getting benefits...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. What You Obviously...
...don't understand is that they are in charge. We are not. It's their game. It always has been.

Did you know that it was the business community who put Roosevelt in office in 1932? Yes...a little known fact. They wanted to keep us from turning socialist or communist, so they elected one of their own.

It's always been this way! The bankers have always been in charge here, as they are in other countries.

You can rail against the system if you want, but you'll lose. This isn't Sweden. Rebellion for rebellion's sake is a good format for college radio but that's all.

You'll resist...and you'll lose...and then you'll try and find a way to justify it.

I don't have time for that shit. Life's too short.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. ok
I have a few more questions for you then.

Why be interested in politics at all?

Why post here?

Your "little know facts" come as no news to me, and your assumptions about me are wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #19
22. The Little Known Fact...
...came from a fairly liberal Political Science grad student who used to date my then fiancee and who became a friend of ours after she and I got together.

Obama's got the right idea in trying to reach across party lines. He may not win the general this year but he's a very attractive candidate and will almost certainly be back again.

Problem is, I don't think most Democrats are in a reaching out mood this year.

That's why I said what I said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #9
21. You forgot the absolute biggest drain on the national wealth, bar none
Edited on Mon Jan-28-08 06:50 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
The compulsion to act as the world's policeman, with a military presence in dozens of countries, most of which could defend themselves, an illegal and immoral war (read my sig line), and a runaway military budget that serves mostly to enrich aerospace and weapons producers than to meet the modest actual defense needs of this countrty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. I would have to concur.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. I think he resembles Lyle Waggoner
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You Gotta Admit...
...they're both very photogenic guys.

I suppose that's why Mitt ended up marrying a prep school girl from Michigan. She's an award winning dressage rider, so they say.

Now I have to find a nice girl with a Private and Instrument rating who owns a Bonanza....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Eeeeew. No, I can't own up to that
Plastic Mittens makes my skin crawl. I don't find one thing about him attractive.

Bleeck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
16. Wallace
There was a third party in the 1968 election that pulled votes away from the Democrats. Had RFK not been killed, or had Humphrey taken a strong anti-war position, the convention may not have been so contentious. I am not seeing how you can draw a parallel between that and the situation today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
N4457S Donating Member (415 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. OK, So You...
...don't see it.

That's fine.

But when we end up with Romney, don't bitch. I told you it was coming.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Two Americas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. don't see what?
Whom are you lecturing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
8. Ouch - that is certainly pointed.
"twin cheeks on the same fat corporate ass"

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC