Will Someone Shut this Guy Up, Please?
I was actually trying to avoid talking about this, but I just can't take Bill Clinton anymore. The way he and his wife are running their latest campaign is nothing more than another shameful example of American politics at its very worst, and it seems that the media is falling for it, as expected, hook, line and sinker. The fact that Clinton has the nerve to try and play the victim card in all this is just laughable, but really, it isn't surprising. Did you expect them to do anything less than this? Did you think they wouldn't be willing to diminish the tone of the debate in an effort to destroy Barak Obama? Did you think they were actually going to address substantive policy issues in a primary where most of the potential voters really don't agree with them?The Clintons have demonstrated time and time again over the past 15 years that they have no principles, and, despite what many on the left seem to think, they have no affiliation with leftist or progressive ideas. Whether it is foreign policy, health care, Iraq, or commercial and business regulation, the Clintons are far to the right of most in the Democratic party, yet they act as though the progressive vote should be theirs for the taking. Well those two spineless corporate whores aren't getting my vote, and I think that anyone on the left who is considering a vote for Hillary Clinton should really ask themselves whether we need four more years of divisive partisan bickering and a cowardly Democratic Party operating far to the right of common sense.
posted by stonedranger at 10:53 AM
53 Comments:
are you coming w/ this now simply because youre an obama supporter and you dont like your man being challenged? because i promise you that the republicans wont be half as nice.
that being said.
ive always been a fan of big bill, however, the attitude that has been put forth from the clinton campaign from the beginning is one of sheer arrogance and annoyance that anyone would even dare challenge them in the primarys, that they should have had the right to waltz into the nomination w/o any sort of fight, so theyve decided to fight dirty.
its all the nature of politics and it always pans out the same way every 4 years in both parties. the only difference here is that we have a much more visible former president in the mix instead of james carville giving talking points to his candidate.
This shit is a shame. Oh, well... I hear Nader might run. I'll be in my bunk.
well if you agree with the what the Clintons stand for and have done over the past 15 years, then we'll just have to agree to disagree for the most part.
But you're right, their arrogance is really what gets me. And I'm actually a Kucinich and Edwards supporter who was persuaded to support Obama as the only chance I have as a leftist to win.
I just hate that people like me are expected to suck it up and settle for someone like Hillary. The right wing DLC has driven the Democratic Party into the ground over the past decade, and the Clintons played a major role in it.
I'll take the Clinton's economic plans over someone like Edwards, who doesnt really have an economic plan other than trying to strongarm and tax corporations. raise taxes on corporations? sure, but whats the first thing they do? cut headcount, raising unemployment, decreasing tax base. I'm all for them paying their fair share, but sew up the corporate tax loopholes and dont just raise the % they have to pay.
sometimes you have to settle. when you dont (as a lot of people didnt when Nader played spoiler in 2000) you get GWB. Thanks, but I'd have taken Gore any day over the last 7 years.
And yes, I'm pissed at the arrogance displayed as well, but I read a story yesterday on CNN yesterday detailing distortion by both candidates teams.
well what is the clintons economic plan, exactly?
Clinton's tactics are as slippery as the ones used to keep Little Brite at the top of the charts every week.
lol @ 12:05
And I completely agree with this post. I think everyone will be kicking their own asses if Hillary is the nomineee. The GOP will make sure she won't get elected. Enter: Karl Rove.
Does anyone realize that we've already got a pretty polarizing figure in the White House right now? Just think about four more years of stand-still politics with no real resolution on any of the important issues. We need someone to lead our country who can speak to peeps on both sides of the aisle (which Obama has proven he can do). This goddamned two-party system can only work when compromise is on the table, and the Clintons are already saying loud and proud that they're the ones with the answers. Pfffffffft.
A gigantic and hunormous WORD to this blog post. I know we all like to get on the "anyone but dubya" wagon a lot, but the politics that the Clintons are playing right now are pretty disappointing. Sorry Bill, but I'm firmly in the Obama camp now. I can't take 4 more years of this bickering.
More than anything, the assumed average age of readership here leads me to believe most of you have never known anything other than a Clinton or Bush in the White House. Enough is enough...it's time to move on...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=MD9F1t9GQzA
Haven't been watching the comments section lately so sorry if this is been posted. Observer has a really good article on Sloppyworld this week. That things getting a lot better.
NSP @ STRAWBERRY FIELDS TONITE 1/24
NSP @ STRAWBERRY FIELDS TONITE 1/24
so because the observer is writing about things we shot jr covered in 2006 or (to be fair} in this case- six months ago, things are getting a lot better? Try again. at least we shot jr can spell Transona 5.
and I believe their feature music story last week was about... a cover band. Again.
where?
They ain't talkin bout She-Dick. It's better not the best. Jus sayin.
yeah i dont care for hilary. kuicinicchch or however you spell his name, would be my choice, but the guy doesnt have a chance. Oh well. Edwards it is i gues.s. .... er Obama... whatever.
I love how the Clintons are running on experience, but most of the experience they have on the important issues help set up the problems we have now.
Hillary couldn't get Health Care going before, and was paid by drug companies to stop her fight for it. She couldn't reach across the aisle and get things done before, how is that going to change if the democrats don't get the 60 votes in congress?
Nafta isn't helping our economy, which was passed while they were in office. They also opened up trade with China, who damn near owns us now. Yes the economy was great before the tech bubble burst, but that had little to do with the Clintons.
For Music fans, The Clintons were also on watch when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 let corporations like Clear Channel destroy radio by buying out competition.
I wish Obama, Edwards, or the media would bring this stuff up.
John Edwards needs to check the score and drop out. He's only hurting Obama, and it's obvious that the Dems are set on nominating either a woman or an African American.
yep. Clinton is responsible for shitty radio and the massive amounts of stations on cable tv. %100 true.
Poor Edwards. He found his soul again after his wife got terminal cancer, just in time to get cut off at the knees.
I'm just so fucking glad there aren't a bunch of Ron Paul Zombies on here like every other corner of the internet.
People should focus their energy on other things than the American political system. You're gonna get the same thing no matter who is President. Everyone is operating from within the system. You're voting yes for the system when you discuss this shit. That's the ONLY thing your vote stands for. I saw the KERA democratic candidates debate several months ago at a black university in the south, and Cornell West was front and center and so enthralled by Obama. Why? Because his skin is black he's gonna make a difference? Please, he ain't gonna do shit except dupe the public more than they've ever been duped. Here's the test, if Obama gets elected and is alive in 4 years, you've been super-fuckin' duped. Hilary. you already know what you're gonna get. Fucked. Edwards? Come on, this shit isn't even funny. Stop voting and start creating. It's impossible to change the system from within. Separate from it. There was a former senator from Alaska, Mike Gravel, at that same debate who told it like it is, and he will never be elected because he won't make money for the corporations. He was the one person who gets my politics pants excited. But people won't hear from him except in the one or two fair-ish debates. I don't even know if he's still a candidate. This kinda sums up a few things from the guy at that debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PU9Lm6V1rc&NR=1
to jpt. man you are dead on!!
Hellz yes!
I agree on most levels, and I liked Mike Gravel too, but I still think there is enough at stake right now to make some kind of difference, at least as far as foreign policy.
And to 334: yes, indirectly, it IS his fault. Read about the Telecommunications Act of 1996 if you want to learn how and why.
Calling a turd a turd is not rocket science. But the way you're acting, you would just leave the turd on your kitchen floor.
As opposed to taking a bite out of the turd?
bite that turd jpt!
Although I have little faith in politicians in general, it's a mistake to boycott the election, because you don't like politicians. If people had voted out George W Bush, would we right now be in freakin Iraq? No. It does make a difference in my opinion.
I will vote for Obama, because I don't think Hillary is electable and we'll have four more years of a Republican. He will appoint new Supreme Court Justices and your civil liberties will continue to be restricted.
Sit it out if you want to, it's your choice, but don't pretend it doesn't make a difference.
As opposed to taking a bite out of the turd?
I didn't type that last one, but it ain't just taking a bite out of the turd, it's calling the turd a turd, picking it up, caressing it, carrying it around in your pocket, showing it to your friends and telling them, while chewing on the turd, "This is not a turd. It's nutritional and absolutely necessary. Here, have some."
Look, it's pretty obvious who is bought in this and every election. These candidates are, 99% of the time, looking to hit the jackpot. Maybe at some point in their lives public service was a passion. Now that is a facade. Democrats exist to make people think change is occurring when the Republicans have turned the screw a little tight for the majority's comfort. The democrats merely turn the screw in a more sophisticated manner. People are still ass-raped globally by the government to make the wealthiest and most powerful more wealthy and powerful. When you protest the government within the system, sure, maybe funding will change, but there is never more help, there is only the reassigning of help. Somebody else is now getting fucked for what you believe is change. That is why the turd should be left alone. Talk to other humans, tell them how you feel about life in a human way, not an American way. You're fucking people.
!NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT!...
also, did anybody see the article where bill clinton said one of his favorite saxophonists is peter brotzmann?
the man makes sense!
Fuck that guy. Turds FTW!
What is all this turd shit?
Ha.
Your politics are your politics. I of course think you're very wrong about the things you atribute to "The Clintons" but over the last 10 years Clinton bashing from both sides has become such a cottage industry, attributing all types of crimes and body counts to them that I'm mostly oblivious to it. But if you think Obama is more progressive than Clinton, you are sadly mistaken. As Paul Krugman, after a series where he reviewed the various policy proposals, health care plans and economic stimulus plans of the major candidates, wrote;
"I know that Mr. Obama’s supporters hate to hear this, but he really is less progressive than his rivals on matters of domestic policy."
For the latest, see his recent demolishing of Obama who recently praised St. Ronald Reagan's reign of terror in office for bringing the country "“a sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.” For all the accusations against Bill Clinton for being a right wing corporatist, he at least said that "The Reagan-Bush years, have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”
That's not even a knock against Obama, I like Obama. I think each of the major 3 candidates have good (and bad) points and each would make a good president. There's certainly no law against holding up your noses at them, but then again the people who stand around claiming Dennis Kucinich is their first choice, only to be disappointed again when he gains no traction among the vaunted Democratic base, are people privileged and comfortable enough that they (obviously) don't have to take American politics very seriously.
Krugman is a liberal columnist who supports Edwards. I like Edwards, but no one has ever been elected President on a populist message of rich vs poor. What Obama is trying to say is that if we want real change in this country we have to reach out across our own party to independents and even Republicans to build a working majority that overcomes Congressional gridlock by saying we are sick and tired of more of the same crap. Reagan did it, as much as we hated it. Electing Hillary won't do it- it will produce more polarization. The Republican party is shattering into pieces and only her nomination will put them back together.
dtconservative, the only thing that beat Gore in 2000 was his crap-ass campaign that failed to take a stand on much of anything. He deserved to lose, just like Kerry (too little too late) did in 04, He didn't start talking about the issues until the poll data told him he should a month before the election.
People who pick on the fearless Naders, Kuciniches and Pauls of the world are insane. Especially when the Dems could very well have won either election OFFICIALLY if they had just been a little more truthful about how bad the Reublican's shit stinks instead of sugar-coating and wishy-washing in pathetic, hollow attempts to capture the "moderates" while Bush kept rolling out his simple & direct platform of all warmongering, all the time.
6:50-
Gore ran a mediocre campaign. But because he didn't lambast Republicans and their policies like Nader did after 8 years of a Democratic Presidency that produced economic growth and budget surpluses he deserved to lose? Was he supposed to scare the voters the way campaigns are run now? Or is this just a rationale for those who didn't realize the consequences of giving the Presidency to George Bush over Al Gore to appease themselves. Are the Nader voters so stubborn they would really make that vote again, knowing the consequences?
Aaron .... dude Clinton did NOT say that!!!
did he?
7:07 --
I will always vote for who I think is the best choice, especially when choice A and B are completely unsatisfactory. Gore dropped the ball. Period. He lost his own home state. And he didn't really even contest the election results. This ain't Kenya.
7:21
While I disagree with you in saying Gore was completely unsatisfactory and that Nader was a viable alternative, I respect your standing by your vote.
It was embarrassing for Gore to lose his home state.
In an election base that is basically 40% given Democratic, 40% given Republican with the 20% balance in the middle I can only hope to see more republican Independents to siphon off Republican votes. Bill Clinton never would have been elected without Ross Perot- he got only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.
Not that I support the Clintons anymore. Their time has come and gone. Obama '08
7:07
12:05/12:04 pm,
point it somewhere else.
your anger is boring.
maybe i'm watching the wrong news channel, but can someone tell me what is happening in the world? all i can find is presidential election coverage like its about to happen, talking about it like some sort of dog fight, cage match, or like a race of horses or something.
Does anyone else here see that choosing a party is an excersize in futility. all politicians are out for there own gain. None of them really care about the american public. It's eletism.
"It smells like CHEEZITS ALL UP IN THIS"
-b. clinton
If you want some very interesting insight and brave perspective re: this particular issue, read the blogs at:
myspace.com/glitzqueen
"And I'm actually a Kucinich and Edwards supporter who was persuaded to support Obama as the only chance I have as a leftist to win."
If you think Obama is a leftist you must not be a leftist.
"leftist". hilarious.
I can tell some of you have your hearts in the right place, but the fact of the matter is you are lame-ass suckas who are accomplishing about as much as you would watching an episode of Seinfeld. Go humans! Nationalism kills! Stop rooting for a team! There has been nothing interesting or brave going on in this thread, including that woman's blogs. You are all bein' pimped out.
jpt... I feel you. But you need to vote. You live in a country where people vote. What is you alternative? Seriously wondering. So if everybody sits out, what is the next step?
No alternative, simply one option. Live life and love life. Whatever that means to any individual. For me it has absolutely nothing to do with voting "yes" to fucking all of planet Earth. You realize that you are responsible for this shit. YOU. I am trying to live and learn about life and in turn communicate what I've learned while continuing to learn from others. It's all love, really, and I don't mean in a kumbaya kinda way, man. I mean in an active way, which voting is not. You are part of the machine. I'm just gonna do my thing, basically. Y'all can deal with this bullshit all day if you want, and apparently you will. Peace.
Post a Comment
<< Home