Thursday, March 06, 2008

The cold, hard truth

Am I mad?

Hell, yes.

Listen, I'm going to be as blunt as I can be about this ... but if you're a Democrat and somehow you can rationalize supporting Hillary Clinton either throughout the remainder of the primary season or in the general election, then you need to take a good, hard look in the mirror and begin to assess exactly what it is you believe in.

The record of the Clintons is built upon them tearing down people - good people - for their own personal success. They care little about party or principle, but rather what can enable them to hold power for as long as possible, and in that case they are no better than the Rovian Republicans I so strongly desire removing from our government.

At this point, if she's the nominee, I'm damn near considering voting for John McCain. At least he's honest about staying in Iraq for a long period of time or waging reckless foreign policy. I know that I'm supposed to be a good foot soldier and march in line with the rest of the party come this fall, but I don't have it in me anymore. She is singlehandedly killing the party, and that's something I can't tolerate ... and if that means destroying the village in order to save it, so be it.

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The record of the Clintons is built upon them tearing down people - good people - for their own personal success."

Odd, then, that you don't support them. Why don't YOU take a long hard look in the mirror that you want everyone else to look into?

1:52 AM  
Blogger Rusty said...

If Clinton and McCain are exactly alike, which is what is sounds like she wants us to think here, then I may as well vote for McCain.

8:48 AM  
Blogger paveplanet said...

JMac -

Your recent posts have taken on a very surprisingly almost blubbering, cry-baby tone in my opinion. Your guy has taken some hits this past month - minor ones in my opinion as compared to what the GOP pacs will be throwing in a few months. That is politics, he is by no means done and there is no reason why he can't regroup and still win - he is still ahead after all, right?


Politics is after all a game - always has been, always will be. It is a game that the Clintons play very well and Obama is learning as he goes. Neither candidate is the second coming, neither candidate is perfect and to expect that campaigning is just about the opportunity to hang out and discuss life and what we should be doing in it, shows a bit of naivety. The campaign is a chance for him to prove that one is a capable leader and one who can stand up to the criticism that the position will have to face every day. That is where is has stumbled recently.

If he can get still back on topic, he can do fine. I prefer him over her as well, but at the end of the summer if the delegates support Hilliary over Obama, I can accept that decision and support her run for the White House with the hope that a Democratic (even if it is a lesser candidate than my first two choices) is still better than what the Republican leadership has shown these past few years.

9:45 AM  
Blogger Xon said...

Pave, the good Lord knows I'm not voting for McCain either, but I don't get this argument (of which you are only a recent example) where ppl compare HRC to the previous Repub administration. McCain famously opposed Bush on a number of points; he is not the same. You have to compare the Dem nominee to McCain, not to the hypothetical Bush residue that you think will be there if the GOP remains in office. And, if on that comparison, Hillary and McCain look about the same...

10:59 AM  
Blogger paveplanet said...

Xon-

A fair critique of my statements. I plead guilty in making the broad generalization that all Republicans are evil. And that any Democrat is better than any Republican.

McCain could be a great example of how a moderate (either moderate democrat or republican) can appeal to a broad range of voters.

I disagree that McCain and HRC look the same. I trust McCain more than HRC - but the suspected GOP influenced and hand-picked advisors that will make up his inner circle and cabinet is what I am afraid of and why I will vote for HRC in the end, if necessary.

11:29 AM  
Blogger Nicki said...

I'm going to disagree big time here...

McCain and HRC don't resemble each other much at all when it comes to reproductive rights and women, and on those issues I have no trouble distinguishing them.

And JMac, I'm a bit disappointed in this post. For one thing, your post is really dramatic. For that matter, I might as well note that I neither agree with nor have enjoyed any of your anti-HRC/pro-Obama posts for months now, because they have a strident, righteous tone that I just cannot get behind. And frankly it depresses me.

Going beyond that, I don't understand why we need to fight each other. We have two great candidates -- and we should be celebrating that, rather than inventing reasons to disparage one or the other. I made my decision about who I want to support based on my opinion of their political positions -- but I do not feel the need to diminish the other candidate. Because that candidate is a great candidate -- he/she simply is not my candidate while I have the choice to choose one who is better for me.

Going beyond your post, though, I really, really don't buy Andrew Sullivan's post that you linked.

The old saying goes (paraphrasing)that politics is one of few things you don't want to see made, sausage being another. I don't care what the Clinton campaign is doing within its own ranks. I am not interested. Because it has jack to do with how the HRC campaign serves me as a voter. Furthermore, Sullivan has an axe to grind, and it's not a pretty sight. "They need to risk?" My ass -- Sullivan needs to hate, and if he can't back it up with factual evidence then he'll back it up with unsourced characterizations of nebulous emotional states.

As to "their dysfunctional marriage" again, I don't care. Second, even if I cared, I am tired of people who are supposedly above nasty personal politics giving credence to...you got it...nasty personal politics. I never want to see another impeachment proceeding based on besmirched frocks and personal vendettas -- but that is where we will go if the democratic party does not repudiate personal politics.

11:55 AM  
Blogger Mike said...

Regarding that Bush residue, it's tangible, and measured in appointed staffers (aka "Bush Babies") and contracts, at least some of whom should be around into the next administration.

2:57 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

If she does win the nomination in this fashion, which is completely impossible mathematically, then it will be worthless in November.

I have to hand it to her. She has just about completely driven me away from writing about the race any more.

I just cant take any more of listening to her fawn over McCain. I am not too shocked. They sure do think a lot alike on things like Iraq. Maybe she will keep us there for 100 years like her good, seasoned and experienced friend John McCain.

4:12 PM  
Blogger Jmac said...

Well, the comments are typically what I figured them to be ...

I do like this one ...

Odd, then, that you don't support them. Why don't YOU take a long hard look in the mirror that you want everyone else to look into?

My mirror reveals that I need to shave, but that's about all. And I've been tearing down folks for my gain, then I haven't been terribly successful at it.

That's cute though.

Your recent posts have taken on a very surprisingly almost blubbering, cry-baby tone in my opinion.

Pave, I like you. I like that you post here, and I think I'd really enjoy hanging out with you ... but, all due respect, this is a pathetic response. When I point that Clinton said something which most progressives concede is crossing a line you don't cross in primary politics - since she just argued that John McCain has more of the necessary experience to be president that Obama - and how such a statement deeply offends me and reeks of the politics that I thought we were all so vehemently against, I'm a cry-baby.

Really? That's what you've got?

Listen, politics is a rough-and-tumble sport, and speaking as someone who's got some experience in politics, I know this and respect that. But, to me, there's a distinct difference between running a campaign in the primary and running one in the general election. You want me to go the mattresses against McCain? Absolutely, if it means we can turn a corner and put together a working progressive coalition and is growing, not stagnant.

If you'd like a more concrete argument, Clinton doesn't have this deep well of national security experience to draw from as she likes to claim. And, quite frankly, neither candidate is suited to go toe-to-toe with McCain in terms of the length of experience regarding national security, which is why vision and judgement is key (and why long before Clinton began throwing everything at Obama, I backed the latter).

And Nicki, I like you too. We agree on more than we disagree, and I feel bad that you're so disappointed in me expressing my disappointment with Clinton. However, rather than instruct me to not express it, why not contact your candidate and instruct her to run a more honest race that involves a debate of the issues rather than misleading and over-the-top distortions (though I understand why she's doing just that since when she runs on ideas, she gets clobbered in the elections) because I ain't alone in feeling this way.

Now, one final thing about this being so 'historic' ... yes, in terms of our usual identity-based politics, it's beyond remarkable to have a woman and an African-American as our final two candidates. That's to be applauded, for sure.

However, I'm not voting for Clinton because she's the woman or Obama because he's the black guy ... I favor Obama because I think he represents what could be a profound, generational shift in how we do business in this country. For Clinton, we return to the status quo, just titled a little more to the left (not that I would ultimately mind that), but to suggest something is earth-shattering about electing her beyond her gender has baffled me for quite a some time.

Let's elect Jennifer Granholm or Katherine Sebelius or Nancy Pelosi, and then I'll start talking true history.

1:54 PM  
Blogger Jmac said...

And, to be clear, I feel somewhat like I'm in an alternate universe when we have these discussions. Seeing how the Clinton campaign has gone rather negative - personally and by distorting issue positions - when I defend my candidate by noting either my disagreeements or my disappointment/anger over such moves ... people say I'm being 'whiny' or 'unfair.'

Are criticisms of her positions and actions off-limits? Did I miss the memo? Do none of her supporters feel as if she's run rather dysfunctional and misleading campaign? Or do we march in blind allegiance to her and her will?

And, just so everyone is clear here, I think the tact the Obama campaign has taken since Tuesday has been equally as depressing. I don't care at all about her tax returns, and I think Samantha Powers calling her a monster is beyond excuse.

Again, though I accept it as the reality of our world, this type of politics provides no benefit for anyone.

2:15 PM  
Blogger Nicki said...

Various responses...

Do none of her supporters feel as if she's run rather dysfunctional and misleading campaign? Or do we march in blind allegiance to her and her will?

Is Hillary Clinton a nazi? Does she crush people under her steel-toed boots while clubbing baby seals on the way to the speaker's dais? 'Cause that's what the statement above evokes. I really don't care what her campaign does (particularly "dysfunctional," because that's private business), within reason. For one thing, I haven't seen any proof of any nasty behavior that goes beyond customary campaign behavior. (And as I noted before, some of the behavior you alleged isn't accurate.) And for another, I prefer Clinton as a candidate, not as a person. I am highly skeptical of all candidates as people, and it remains notable that most of my favorite presidents were terrible people. However, it really bums me out to see other democrats characterizing any of our candidates in such inflammatory language, particularly when a lot of it was coined by our right-wing brethren.

However, rather than instruct me to not express it, why not contact your candidate and instruct her to run a more honest race...

Translation: I'm sorry you're wrong. Thanks. I would ask you to consider the source you linked (which is slanderous, conjectural, and nasty) and your own language above -- that is what I am objecting to. You can note what you perceive as happening without going below the belt.

because I ain't alone in feeling this way.

Interesting. I didn't realize this was a popularity contest. But if it is, we need to give up on both candidates, since I'm sure there are plenty of people who aren't alone in disliking Barack Obama because he's too educated, he's black, he's of foreign extraction, or whatever. Does that make it correct, or fair, or right? Hell, no. And it doesn't make it right when the criticisms are leveled at anyone else, either.

Oh, and also? I don't care that Obama is black or that Hillary Clinton is female or John McCain is old (well, actually, I do kinda care about McCain's age...but I'll care less if the veep turns out to be competent), but I do recognize the unique opportunities that both characteristics create for slander.

And I have said multiple times that I want the two to combine. Obama is going to need someone who can fill the kind of role that HRC is likely to fill, and vice versa -- they would be an incredibly competitive duo. And they're both exceptional candidates.

10:59 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home