Diatribune - Democrats - Comments

"Why was it so important for

Catzoned — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:34:42 -0600

"Why was it so important for Hillary Clinton to concede to Barack Obama"? It's just my opinion but it seems to me that by "suspending" her campaign instead of conceding the Democration nomination process just has her hand on the knife into Obamas back. After all, "things can change". And yes, they certainly can. The woman is no fool. Like I said, don't count her out, she is very, very clever. She is still eligible for nomination at the convention by "suspending". And, in the other hand she has it holding out to Obama to pay off her $22.5 million debt. And that's not counting the attorney fees for the vendors hauling her into small claims courts to get her to pay up. Oh yes, those blue collar and union workers that she claims to own are hauling her into court for unpaid services. She'll still win. Obama will pay her bills while she keeps twisting the knife in Obama. Do not count her out of her potentially great run for the Presidency in the future. Maybe the damn MSM will have learned some political correctnessness about sexism by them. She has the greatest potential to win - just not yet.

It wasn't because Hillary

Jacob Freeze — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:08:43 -0600

It wasn't because Hillary Clinton "sexed it up" that the mainstream media and the political establishment launched an unprecedented onslaught to force her out of contention for the Presidency.

Why was it so important for Hillary Clinton to concede to Barack Obama? Timing was relatively insignificant in every other race for the nomination, and candidates dropped out when they ran out of money or their vote-count fell into single digits.

Now we have an electorate more polarized by race and gender than anyone imagined it could possibly be, only six months ago, and now Barack Obama decides it's the right time to insult Hillary Clinton by hiring Patti Solis Doyle.

Maybe the Obamabots think they can scare the rest of us into voting for their hypocritical Messiah Barack Obama, by threatening us with the bogey-man John McCain, but it may not work.

"We have de jure equality,

Catzoned — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 11:59:11 -0600

"We have de jure equality, and de facto discrimination against women, and it may even be getting worse instead of better".

I believe that is a fair statement of the facts. Now, I'd like to add that I also believe that many women are doing it to themselves. They "sex it up" instead of "braining" themselves up. And then they wonder why they are sex symbols instead of intelligence equals. I swear there really is a lack of common sense going around.

I think that place is the

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 13:03:49 -0600

I think that place is the White House, if it's anywhere, and in spite of many protestations to the contrary, I think the primary campaign demonstrated that sexism is still alive and well in the political establishment of the United States.

We have de jure equality, and de facto discrimination against women, and it may even be getting worse instead of better.

I address exactly the

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:43:18 -0600

I address exactly the shifting line between populism and elitism in the diatribe I just posted on Diatribune, and we might as well continue this discussion on a new thread, if you're still interested.

I appreciate the way you maintain a civil level of discourse even though we disagree about Obama, and you inspired me to rethink Andrew Jackson's career for the first time in a long time.

This sort of exchange is virtually impossible on most websites devoted to political discussion, and I hope we can keep it going.

So if you believe grassroots

wyll12 — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:53:21 -0600

So if you believe grassroots politics and government by the people results in legacies marred by genocide and economic disaster, what exactly is your solution? Exclusive government by the highly educated, government by, say, elitists? Grassroots politics is how "change" happens in America, for better or for worse. It's the only way Obama is going to be able to deliver on his whole "change" platform--a platform that, I'm sure, doesn't include genocide and economic ruin. In fact, I think, in their places are the issues of health care and leaving Iraq. So if Obama won his grassroots popularity by offering prospective solutions to these problems, how can that be a bad thing? We know they will at least be given a chance to work.

I love the idea of Obama as

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 02:05:01 -0600

I love the idea of Obama as a "grassroots" politician like Andrew Jackson!

Andrew Jackson won his "grassroots" popularity by perpetrating a racist Holocaust against the Creek nations in Florida, and redistributing their land almost for free to white settlers. He continued the same policy as President with the destruction of the Cherokee nation in North Carolina.

His immediate legacy was the nationwide depression of 1837, produced by a weirdly erratic fiscal policy that violently contracted the supply of precious metals and made paper money worthless.

Maybe Obama should wait until after the election to embrace the Jacksonian principles of genocide and economic disaster. There's probably more snake-oil in this particular brew than even an absolutely unscrupulous salesman like Obama can peddle to the American public in one campaign.

But the truth is that's what

wyll12 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 15:54:03 -0600

But the truth is that's what grassroots politics is. The uneducated and politically inexperienced taking a stand on issues when they see a problem. That's what grassroots politics was back when it was praised under Andrew Jackson, and that's what it is today. True, Barack Obama is a true grassroots candidate, and has recognized that and has tailored himself to fit that bill--it's true, no denying it. He has adapted to the media, which I know you have a problem with, and maybe justifiably so, but a little optimism never hurts. Maybe if enough paramecia swim into the Petri Dish of Universal Health Care, there will be an effect in the form of a progressive response from a candidate who so clearly has his house built on the rock of grassroots politics.

I'd like her some place

Catzoned — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:51:36 -0600

I'd like her some place where she can get equal pay for women!

At this point, I'd like to

Jacob Freeze — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:14:32 -0600

At this point, I'd like to see a McCain/Clinton ticket, as absurd and impossible as such a thing may be. At least it would be a change from watching the con-man Obama play out his little games in the current media landscape.

The only sure thing about Obama is that he isn't what he appears to be... which is to say, he isn't what he appears to be to people whose baseline of reality is television.

What do American voters have to think with? How can they judge the distant figures they observe on the national stage? Most of them have never met a Washington politician even at the level of the House of Representatives, and they never will. Most of them have never met a mayor. So they think with television, insofar as they think about politicians at all.

Obama has made himself for television, and he isn't much different from all the other TV products: smooth, shallow, and manipulative.

The internet has encouraged all sorts of semi-educated and inexperienced people to express themselves about manufactured "issues," and they react to the political scene almost as simply as paramecia swimming around in a Petri dish... If the sugar concentration is higher over there, they swim that way.

Yes We Can! Yes We Can! YES WE CAN!

Doesn't that sound sweet?

I agree with all of your

wyll12 — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:12:52 -0600

I agree with all of your points concerning LBJ, but it must also be pointed out that, I believe, Great Society plans had their beginnings and organization under Kennedy. Of course, that doesn't interfere with any of your points.

Do you really believe an Obama-Clinton ticket is best for the party? I personally believe that a position such as Senate majority leader or even just a prominence like that of Ted Kennedy in the Senate would better serve the country. That way, she could present and hopefully carry out her ideas more effectively, as she wouldn't be trying to do so from under Obama's shadow as vice-president. A cabinet post, anything to keep her going is necessary. For the sake of progressiveness in the arena of health care and others, Hillary Clinton must have a prominent post, but I don't believe vice-president is that position. What are your thoughts?

I wish society was more

Catzoned — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 13:58:32 -0600

I wish society was more evolved in their thinking. However, since the issue of sexism and racism just doesn't seem to go away so we can all move on to beat McCain, I'd like to point out something else President Johnson said when he signed the Civil Rights Act. He said that racism was going make a lot more Republicans. I was in the South and was true and terrible. I certainly hope history isn't going to repeat itself again.

Also, I would love to congratulate the younger voters of today who are gender and race blind. We have President Johnson to help thank for that progressiveness.

Re: Ides of

Cinderella — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 07:38:01 -0600

Re: Ides of March

Wilty,
Your blog has said so much,so elequently.
Hillary and, O'Whatshisname are part of the 'system' which means they are nothing more than sewage...they were ordered
and paid to do exactly what they are doing....to make room for the ninny-comi-poop McCain to ooze into office as you said.
The Ides of March 2008 will leave us with the same thing we
get every year from this rotten system.....another big
'BLOW JOB'.

Still can't find a reply

mole333 — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:24:15 -0700

Still can't find a reply button. Oh well, this seems to work.

Yeah, by the end I figured we were aiming to similar goals but from different angles. I know full well the insidious effect big money has on our political system...and I am almost always backing the grassroots candidates against big money candidates, and so often lose. Right now I have about six friends running for various offices in NY State (City Council, State Senate, NYC Public Advocate, Congress). ALL of them are grassroots progressives opposed in primaries by big money candidates. All six of my friends may well lose. But we are putting up the best fight we can...and who knows, maybe one or two will win.

Hey, Sorry to lag in

alexwierbinski — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 05:59:53 -0700

Hey,
Sorry to lag in responding. I've been terrible busy. Check my site, committeefordemocracy.org. I'm building its organizational twin at nextrevolution.org. This has pulled my attention away from our interaction.

About that. I am sorry to have insulted you. I take shit seriously, and if I did go over the line of what I would say to someone I'm face to face with, I regret that.

But yeah, you can see that I'm seriously pissed at the top-down political bullshit we are suffering under. The corporate special interests are the easiest targets, yet the subordinate players, composed of the various environmental, labor, gender, race, and class based lobbies are playing the same crooked game, and are, in my opinion, equally complicit. And then there's the parties...

Personally, i am a capatilist in my economic life, yet i believe that our political decision making process that makes the laws and policies that regulate and guide our country must be held widely, through a resonable facsimilie of real bottom up democracy.

I don't expect, or look for corruption and greed, let alone corporate power to dissappear. but i do insist that we have the political power to regulate them, rathar than the opposite.

I think we have similar destinations, but we may see, and have to walk down, different paths to get there.

Alex