Gore. I would love it if he would run. I'm pretty sickened by Hillary's fecklessness, and I think Feingold has a pre-existing reputation as a leftist that would be much harder to overcome than Dean's was. (The last is basically a flip of MY's argument.) Edwards seems to have even less governing depth than before. Biden is an eternal punchline. And the rest I can't even remember.
I second Molly Ivins latest column. I have come to fucking hate the DC Democrats, and Hillary Clinton epitomizes everything about them that I hate. Practically the entire party seems afflicted with Battered Wife Syndrome. They are congenitally unable to hit back and completely ready to sell out any principle to try to get the Republicans to like them. Which they never ever will.
Feingold is the only one up there I could even get a little bit excited about. His lone vote against the Patriot Act ought to be the proudest moment of his political career so far. Can he win? I have no idea.
I'm not crazy about Clinton, but I will be enthusiastic about any Dem who looks electable -- theyr'e all better than the alternative.
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
I haven't seen anyone suggest that this could be a positive, but it doesn't seem absolutely impossible to me.
They are congenitally unable to hit back and completely ready to sell out any principle to try to get the Republicans to like them.
Can you really say this about HRC? It may be true that she will sell out any priciples that you care about but it seems unlikely that there is anyone in politics less likely than HRC to want "the Republicans to like them" or less interested in taking a swing at the Republicans if there is an opening.
I hope that Hillary doesn't run in 2008, but I don't think this captures the reason why.
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
Well, she could certainly run to the right by saying, "The last time I was in charge of trying to get universal health care coverage, I so bolloxed our best chance at it that it became a poisonous subject for 12 years. Elect me and I can promise you at least another twenty years without it."
Feingold may in fact be "tough," but he doesn't exude it and he is certainly not "folksy." His substantive politics aside, he would be a disaster as a general election candidate. He embodies precisely the kind of prissy narcissism which Gore was wrongly accused of possessing. All that matters to him, in any political fight, is that he come off looking virtuous. That means both that he would refuse to fight back if slandered, *and* that he would give off the "I think I'm better than you" vibe that caused some people who should have known better to chose W over Gore.
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
I know that Ezra Klein has blogged about this a little bit. He's no fan of hillary, but he thinks it is, in fact, a weakness of hers that she's still pushing the sort of incrementalism that she pushed in 1994. It depends on whether you think that single-payer UHC is the right way to go politically, but see these two posts here
I know that he's had more on the politics of it, but I can't find that post.
Yeah, the unfortunate truth is that HRC did a really, really bad job running the health care thing in '94. I expect it's going to be an albatross around her neck the remainder of her career.
The last DC cabdriver I had (best cabbies in the country for interesting conversations, BTW) spent the entire ride to the airport trying to sell me on Romney in 2008. And he was a Democrat.
Being a divorced Jewish liberal only hurts Feingold with people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. Does have have any issues positions that "our side" would have a problem with?
I think Gore is too damaged -- I'd vote for him; I just can't see his candidacy getting off the ground. (Although the slogan possibilities are intriguing: "Gore '08: Make it didn't happen").
Edwards, anyone? I really like the poverty/labor rights focus.
I don't see Gore as particularly damaged. If anything, I saw him emerging from the 2000 election fiasco looking better than ever. I remember his concession speech as being one of the most moving speeches I'd ever heard. And every thing he has done since then has reinforced my view of him as someone who I could enthusiastically support, not just someone who is better than the Republican alternative.
I should add that, if Gore runs, I really, really want it to be the bearded Gore. That would kick ass.
I simply do not understand where Hillary's appeal comes from. On top of the fact that she has zero executive branch experience (yes, yes, First Lady, but come on) and a single unspectacular term in office as a Senator from one of the bluest of blue states, she's a frickin' legacy candidate, the very last thing our democracy needs. If New York wants to keep her as a Senator, great, but I just can't see her playing well on the national stage, and even if she did, why anyone would want her to.
I like Edwards. He was the guy I wanted last time. I think he genuinely has ideas, rather than just lip service, about poverty. I'm lukewarm on Easley as governor. I really wish somebody had picked Jim Hunt for a VP slot, but now he's getting on up there in the years.
I like Edwards. The democrats need to produce a southern candidate to win in the general election. Since JFK there have been no non-southern democratic presidents. Southern democratic presidents include Johnson, Carter and Clinton. And, Gore won the popular vote.
I simply do not understand where Hillary's appeal comes from.
She's got Great White Hope appeal, on a couple of different levels. She's a woman - it would be historic if she to take a direct shot at the Presidency, and women are the largest voting block in the party, IIRC. She's also assumed to be a liberal's liberal despite the way she's behaved as of late.
Unfortunately, if she's our nominee, she'll be our Gerry Cooney.
On the right, because they're misogynist Clinton-hating twerps. On the left, she's just not excitingly left -- she's, if I recall correctly, still pro-war, makes depressingly accomodating noises on all the culture-war bullshit... there just doesn't seem to be that much to love other than her gender. She's a perfectly competent Senator, better than most at the go-along-to-get-along than you need to actually get legislation passed, but I'm not crazy about her setting the direction for the party.
I don't hate her any more than the rest of opposition party members who refuse to oppose. Especially those in safe seats who don't stand to lose anything. Like LB said, if NYers want to keep sending her to the Senate, that's fine. If the people of Connecticut want to keep sending Lieberman, that's fine, too. But I sure as hell won't pull their lever in a presidential primary.
The first link ("Ezra sez') links to MY's column. You've got two links to MY's Prospect piece. Where did EZra say what he said?
I'm with LB on Hillary. Also, healthcare is my biggest issue, and I don't think she is capable of handling it, both because she couldn't do it the last time and because she's politically perceived to be no good on that issue.
See, I think she's competent, she's pragmatic, her central domestic issues are basically good ones inasmuch as they seem to me to be focused on stability for working families, she's a feminist for god's sake. Yes, she was pro the war. I'm not crazy about that; on the other hand, after 9/11 I was reluctantly willing to concede that some kind of military action in Afghanistan was probably not only inevitable, but unavoidable, and I think that once we went into Iraq, we ought not to have fucked it up to the point where I now think we really have to pull out. I think as a Senator she's shown that she can get shit done, that she can work with even the far right freakazoids and stay focused on practical policy. And I think that, weilding the "mama" and "I pray" tools, she's probably in about the best position to actually get some reasonable legislation passed on health care, reproductive rights, and tax policy.
The Hillary/African American theory was first floated by Joe Trippi, I think. If he's right about her levels of support among African American voters, he is likewise right about her unstoppability, I fear.
Gore might be able to stop her.
It all depends on who the Republican nominee is. Gore could likely beat any of them, except McCain, who couldn't even be stopped by a reincarnated FDR/JFK ticket. But it's silly to talk about McCain getting the nomination, because in order to do that, he'd have to, you know, get the nomination.
Allen might be the guy. He's smooth and appealing, but the dude is on record as having both a Confederate flag and a fuckingnoose in his office back home. Which the Democratic nominee should constantly mention, in a joking way ("It's somewhat of an old tradition; lots of Southern senators in our history have been big fans of nooses and Confederate flags"; etc.), like Republicans endlessly joked about John Kerry being a French-speaking quivering Brokeback-inspiring nelly bottom. That's my dream, but I don't think they'll be smart enough to do it. ("I needed some rope the other day, so I called up Senator Allen and asked me if he would lend me his noose" -- how hard is that?)
The thing is, every Republican nominee will have an uphill battle, facing massive Bush fatigue. Most any Democratic nominee will have a very good shot, unless it's Hillary, in which case I think her chances are zero. For anyone else: I think Allen's easy to beat, McCain is impossible, Frist is Dr. Kevorkian, Guiliani has less chance to get the nomination than even McCain, and the list goes down from there. Of course, there will be some surprise candidates, but the GOP tends to control those sorts of unpredictable elements much better than the Dems do (see: Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson).
Gore would be a strong candidate. He'd beat just about anyone they put up, I think, except for McCain.
Let's see, if a Republican opposes Clinton, its because he or she is a misogynist, but if a Democrat opposes her, it's on policy grounds. You might consider that there are other reasons all around.
For what the input of a Republican is worth here, Clinton is the only Democrat mentioned so far for whom I would consider voting. Indeed, I can think of several possible Republican nominees who would cause me to vote for Clinton. The reasons cited in 35 for Democrats not to vote for her are reasons that make her electable in the general election, because people like me might vote for her. She has to her great credit developed for herself the reputation as a Senator who--while not above political posturing--will put political posturing aside to get things done in an adult manner. It would be nice to have an adult in the White House.
Idealist, it's great that you would consider voting for her, but she has, by far, the highest built-in unfavorability ratings among Republicans and Independents of any candidate remotely in the running.
Let's see, if a Republican opposes Clinton, its because he or she is a misogynist, but if a Democrat opposes her, it's on policy grounds.... For what the input of a Republican is worth here, Clinton is the only Democrat mentioned so far for whom I would consider voting.
This rather makes my point. Her substantive positions and behavior have been such as to appeal to Republicans -- a Democrat who's opposed to her is probably, therefore, opposed on policy reasons, while a Republican who's opposed to her (more fervently than the simple "Not going to vote for a Democrat" which one would reasonably expect from a Republican) is likelier to have some more personal and less political reason for opposing her -- something, like, say, misogyny, or generalized Clinton-hating.
So, congratulations on not being a Clinton-hating misogynist. I still don't like her in the Democratic primary.l
That's Clinton-hating misogynist. You will, I hope, acknowledge that many Republicans are prone to Clinton-hatred.
Anyway, your comment sort of confirms LB's point. You're a grown-up non-misogynist Republican, and you like Hillary better than the other Democrats because she's hawkish, bipartisan, and centrist. Democrats like us don't like her because she's not so far to the left. But that's not a good reason for Republicans not to like her. So why do so many Republicans hate her so? Part of it may be that she's still too far left for most Republicans, and she's more prominent than other Democrats, but I think there's some irrationality there that doesn't extend to people who dislike her from the left.
Clinton is innoculated against swiftboat-type strategies. A national bestseller that claims she's a dyke is only the tip of that iceburg, and she's not suffering politically for it. I find the idea of a candidate who's already been through the gauntlet and survived—without having campaigned and lost to show for it—very appealing.
I like Feingold, too, but who knows what kind of gay he's been hiding from the American people?
It *would* be nice to have an adult in the white house, but really, what are the odds?
As for Clinton, while clearly she can play the DC game (is this *really* such a plus? That is one badly broken game...) some policy stances, as described, have to undermine her with what should be core voters --- is picking erstwhile repubs who are tired of the current nonsense really going to counterbalance that?
48, 50: God damn it. (Weiner-pwning of Weiner is by no means rare, though; in fact one of its common uses was my pointing out that other people were pwning me.)
I think as a Senator she's shown that she can get shit done, that she can work with even the far right freakazoids and stay focused on practical policy.
As a Senator, this isn't a bad thing. As a President, I don't want her to work with the far-right-wing freakazoids. I want them marginalized, hard. I want the centrist Republicans to be afraid that people will think they talk to the freakazoids, and making a lot of TV appearances with Bernie Sanders to make the point that they can work with the left. I don't see Hillary getting us there.
Proofread very carefully from now on, LB. I'm gunning for you.
On substance, I think working with freakazoids is bad as a candidate too. I fear that a candidate who works with freakazoids might not realize how Republicans will say and do anything to get elected, and being reasonable won't help. Maybe, as per 46, Hillary of all people is immune from that, but bipartisanship is a bad thing.
I want them marginalized, hard. I want the centrist Republicans to be afraid that people will think they talk to the freakazoids, and making a lot of TV appearances with Bernie Sanders to make the point that they can work with the left. I don't see Hillary getting us there.
I don't think any president can get us there. I think this is a job for us culture warriors on the Left. I think Richard Mellon Scaife has done a lot more to marginalize the Left than Reagan did.
More broadly, while I like this vision, I think it puts the cart before the horse. There is no way in which that vision can be realized without first changing the cultural / political landscape in a way that will result in Democrats winning a lot more elections. This isn't to say that all that matters is winning elections but that if you think we need a vast cultural shift then there's a natural tension between politicians who are, understandably, trying to win in the landscape we have and activists who want to change thing.
I know Kerry gave a very bad name to the idea of trying to win within the landscape as it's currently configured, but I don't think you can blame politicians for having that as a large part of their calculations.
See Mark Schmitt for an example of this in practice.
Can you think of any other major policy issue that's (a) universally supported by liberal bloggers but (b) almost universally feared by major Democratic politicians?"
...
Let's rephrase this and say that universal health care is "universally supported by people who don't have to win elections and universally feared by people who do."
...
A colleague recently pointed out that the right, for all its factions and philosophical disagreements, all share a commitment to one simple thing: lower taxes. Could the great unifying commitment among progressives, he asked, be universal health care? Greg's answer is yes, so is mine. But saying that is a tiny thing in a process that will take many years and some big risks.
Because it would be too much up-is-down, tit-for-tat, and lame as it sounds to say, people would like to see an end of that. I have too many conservative friends, or friends who are conservative or nationalist on some issues, to want them to be made to feel like I've been made to feel. I'd reach across, Mark Schmidt style, in setting the tone of the congress. It helps that I believe that's the only thing we're going to be able to do anyway.
Mind you, this is just left-right I'm talking about; there is plenty of room in my fantasy for strictly partisan, that is Democrat-Republican pay-back, especially wrt K Street.
I think she's basically been operating under a 1992 strategy since being elected. Democrats won big in 92 by conceding foreign policy issues to the right and highlighting economic issues: the "it's the economy stupid" strategy. It worked back then, but frankly, it was a little disengenuous even at the time. It no longer fits at all and that should be obvious to anyone. She's an extraordinary woman. I think she's got bad advisors.
Joe Klein also seems wistful for the "it's the economy, stupid" strategy. In my darkest fantasies, I come to think that the way to win the next election is to convince the average conservative that he or she has been taken for the past 8 years. Nobody wants to hear that. But it's true. People who think they have been casting a vote for limited government -- no matter how bankrupt that idea is in of itself -- have been rubes, are suckers. But you've got to put it more gently than that, or you just make them angry and even more blind.
Here's the problem: Democrats desperately, desperately need a fighter at the top of the ticket. Here is the archetypal image of a Democrat right now: Dick Durbin, apologizing and crying on the Senate floor for saying something that was undeniably, absolutely true. How did he arrive there? By getting sucked into the GOP's bullshit semantic games, rather than just telling them to go fuck themselves and read a little history while they're at it.
One cannot overestimate the amount of damage that image has wreaked on the party. And did he get any slack cut as a result? Hell no. Go along to get along is necessary in the Senate, except Senate Dems aren't getting along. They are just going along and still getting pantsed afterwards.
We need someone who is willing to smash the other side in the face with a shovel in 2008. Hillary Clinton just isn't it.
Because it would be too much up-is-down, tit-for-tat, and lame as it sounds to say, people would like to see an end of that.
The last one, maybe. The first two, no. It is the gospel truth that the GOP's right wing are lunatic scum who have destroyed the budget, taken the country into an unnecessary war, shat on our national honor with torture, trampled the rule of law and refused to enforce the law when other Republicans break it, staked out positions on moral issues that are far to the right of the American people, done nothing to protect Americans from terrorism or natural disasters, and treated matters of the gravest concern as fodder for partisan politics and nothing but repeatedly, and I'm sure I left some things out. It is also gospel truth that the alleged GOP moderates have abetted the right-wingers on this about 90% of the time.
There would be nothing up-is-down or tit-for-tat about stigmatizing the loony wing of the GOP, or about tying the alleged moderates to them. It would be a good thing. Maybe it's not politically feasible, but in an ideal world these motherfuckers would pay for what they've done.
I'm pretty virulently anti-Hillary, in part because I feel so betrayed by her.
1. She's easily the most powerful Democrat in the nation, and she hasn't taken any stands against the Republicans worth noting. At the end of the day, I want a hitter - she's shown no real willingness to mix it up during her brief electoral career. It may also be that she lacks the ability to effectively mix it up.
2. Her playing pattycake with the Right smacks of betrayal. That was a knock on her husband, too, but it's one think to betray the base when it feels strong-ish ('92) and really isn't very centrist, and another when the base is weak and centrist. (This is roughly an anti-Scalia argument; after 2001, I hated him much more than Rehnquist, who was objectively worse.)
3. I'm sure she'd be competent, but other than maybe Edwards and Clark, I can't think of anyone who would be less competent.
4. The right wing hates, hates, HATES her. She'll get them out, because they all truly believe that she's a pinko feminazi whose marriage to Bill is a complete sham. She hasn't been innoculated - she's had to compete for Blue State votes, and that's not the population that thinks her most vile. (Note that Idealist is a NY Republican - that's nice, but we don't need his vote.)
5. Women won't vote for her as a block in the way that, for example, African-Americans would vote for an African-American candidate. Democrats have been clearly better on women's issues than Republicans for all of my life. White women (Clinton's core constituency) voted for Bush in 2004. It's not even clear that she'll be great for the strong women vote; you can use Molly Ivins as a proxy for that, and she loathes Clinton. (All in all, this is a good thing. We've moved far enough along that women expect to be taken seriously, I think. We can pick and choose amongst them on other grounds. Good for us.)
5. If she loses, people will wrongly spin it as a loss by a woman, as that's her most salient feature. We've got a fair bit of depth in female candidates, and her loss will stunt a lot of them, if only briefly.
6. Her political machine is the DLC. If she wins the nomination, we'll be committed to trying to win the South. It won't happen, especially not with her. Apo's convinced me that we can pick up some of the states in time, but our best electoral options are in the Southwest/West. Moreover, I don't trust the DLC to deal with the Republicans with any kind of strength; that's not their bag.
7. Her position on the war blows. Rahm Emmanuel is basically a proxy for her, and his position is that it was rright to go to war in Iraq even if we'd known there were no nukes. She's going to say the same thing sooner or later, if she hasn't already, and that's going to be a killer in '08 - if only because it removes a huge arrow from our quiver.
I'm sure there's more; that's off the top of my head.
The people I want to pay and to be marginalized are conservative politicians, btw. Your conservative friends I don't particularly want them to feel bad. I do sort of think that the world would be a better place if they, along with everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, lost the franchise--there was a clearcut political test, and they flunked--but making people feel bad is a bad thing, and ceterus paribus I'm against it.
On the other hand, our most prominent politicians are dangerous evil radicals who should not be within a hundred miles of power, and if some nice folks' feelings get hurt when these politicians get attacked, that's kind of too bad.
The Poor Man, in the section titled "Changing the Subject," has wise words on the need to be an asshole sometimes.
I should add that, if Gore runs, I really, really want it to be the bearded Gore.
Me too. I could enthusiastically work and vote for Gore, Feingold, Edwards, or Clark. I'd vote for HRC, or, say, a second Kerry adventure, but without much enthusiasm. I don't know enough about Warner, Bayh, or Vilsack to say. I do know that Vilsack needs his own line of men's cologne.
It's a shame about Gary Hart. He was the first candidate I was ever enthusiastic about. And when I hear him say things like:
"Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on."
then I still think it's our loss that he isn't more influential than he is.
As I said, I've nothing against punishing Republicans, but the most of the country, and a lot of the Democratic party, are way to the right of people like us. Turning the country's head around, without which nothing much is possible, is going to take time.
Isn't another problem with an HRC candidacy, at least at the primary level, is that this is the only candidate about whom progressives need to articulate, in exceeding detail, supervailing reasons to not vote for her --- and hence killing the possibility of an actually interesting discussion. Other candidates you are allowed to dislike; this one, you really need to make your case. 64 is essentially correct, but it is too bad these objections have to be repeated over and over by everyone who makes them.
SCMT in 64: W/r/t your no. 3. I don't think that Clark is less qualified than Hillary. In fact, I was thinking that I might be willing to vote for him in a primary. (I didn't like him at all in 2004, but I'm warming up to him.) He's come out pretty strongly in favor of single-payer healthcare.
I was really devastated by the election results in 04. I agree with Weiner: it was a poly sci test that lots of people failed. I think what I underestimated in expecting a Kerry victory was how resistant people are to considering themselves suckers. If In the righty blogosphere, you will find many, many interesting examples of that resistance: intelligent people who continue to believe the war was a a good idea, that voting for Bush was the right thing to do, etc. These are people who decided, long before they ever heard of GW Bush, that limited government was a better alternative than an active government, and since one of the parties proclaimed itself the party of limited government, they chose that party as their own. There were political writers who they trusted, and those writers said: vote bush. Then the writers said: we gotta invade iraq. Bush said: we gotta invade iraq. And sure, Bush and the pundits gave reasons, but the average conservative voter didn't spend a long time evaluating those reasons, they simply stocked them up; it's what all people do, having chosen a party.
Since the time of W and maybe before, the republican party has basically been a fraud. But its supporters, they will cling to any kind of justification for its decisions to the bitter end. And we are nowhere near that end. Otherwise is to admit themselves fools.
We need a candidate who is firm enough to tell people they have been fools, and to do it in a way that they will respect. Hillary can do neither of these things, as far as I can tell.
Otherwise we will end up with another Republican presidency. It won't just be a Republican, but one with obvious ties to the set that is in power now, and no less corrupt.
But an excellent comment. I've been thinking about that in an inchoate kind of way -- is it at all possible to win elections with the theme "You've been taken."?
It's right up there with "you guys are dumb! SO dumb!" as losing Democratic tactics go. If it weren't for the obvious damage caused by Republicans, I'd like to see 'em try it on '08, just for lols. (as we say on the internest)
Thinking about it a little longer I will note that it seems that the best way to take advantage of a major scandal by an opposition president is to run on "morality."
Note that both Carter and GWB won by promising to be "honest" while Dukakis lost (following the Iran Contra scandal) by promising to be "competent."
I know that -gg-d questioned that description, but I think it's true that voters are far more likely to consider themselves able to judge a condidates honesty than they are able to just a candidate's competence. I don't think this is true, in practice, but I think it's the dynamic.
What would be great is if we could get a moderate repub to give an "I've been taken" speech at the primary -- zel miller cubed. But then it would also be great if somebody made me a sandwich right now.
77: That's something like what I mean by "You've been taken." Does it make a huge difference to say it as "They've been lying. Every reason you voted for those guys - greater national security, lower taxes, smaller government - was a lie."?
Would an open-face sandwich need a mouth with which to eat itself? An open face should allow direct esophageal insertion, I would think. We may yet be able to square this circle, text. Do not abandon hope!
Does it make a huge difference to say it as "They've been lying. Every reason you voted for those guys - greater national security, lower taxes, smaller government - was a lie."
No, because we still would have to say, "And we can delivr those things to you." Which would be hard to credibly do on at least two of those things.
I've given up looking for a candidate. The ones I like lose. The ones that win lose me. I'm going to be bitter and frustrated no matter who wins. Just less war crimes next time, okay?
prior to my sandwichness I possessed only an occasional, passive desire to be eaten, whereas presently that desire is all consuming, maddening.
Therefore it is only ironic now that I am a sandwich, and particularly tasty, begging to be eaten, that I cannot eat myself. Before it was merely unfortunate.
If I were a burrito, or as previously mentioned, a pita sandwich, I would be even more tasty, but also I would already contain myself, and be full. But I am not certain that would improve my condition, for I would never have the hope of eating myself at some future state, being already self-contained.
If I were to become an open-faced sandwich I might be able to eat myself, but I would not be able to hide my emotions; every thought and emotion would pass immediately to my surroundings. I would, in an instant, lose my own sense of identity and instead become an open thing, merged with my environment, the plate. That is horror.
An open-faced sandwich is, properly speaking, an oxymoron, and indeed, an abomination -- I will have no part of it and I advise all of you to exclude it from your discourse.
The sandwich lemming, native to the North Ameircan and European continents, is unable to hurl itself off of cliffs, barring the assistance of the occasional kindly klutz. Lacking ambulatory power, the sandwich lemming has focussed it's suicidal impulse on being eaten one bite at a time, savored only briefly and then going to it's final resting place. Sandwich to sandwich, shit to shit.
As for Clinton, while clearly she can play the DC game (is this *really* such a plus? That is one badly broken game...) some policy stances, as described, have to undermine her with what should be core voters
It's a plus b/c it shows she is politically savvy and, as someone else pointed out upthread, knows what her job is as a Senator. I'm not at all convinced that her ability to play the game means she won't stand up to the freakazoids if she gets into the White House because, as we're pointing out, it's a different game. She's not an idiot: she stood up to people when she was the first lady and then reinvented herself when she became a Senator.
I also think that she's got the "morality" thing down. She's a woman who didn't leave her philandering husband because she believes in marriage. Beats all the cheating Republican divorced guys hollow. The "angry feminist dyke" thing pretty much counters the "waffle" possibility, as does her position on defense. I don't see her crying in public any time soon. And I think that the desire for a candidate who's going to come out swinging for "core Democratic values" is unrealistic; any candidate that appeals to the far left is going to seriously piss off everyone else. I think the way that Clinton has tempered the "angry feminist" perception with the "reasonable middle-of-the-roader" image shows she knows what she's doing, and I think it suggests she's way more electable than people give her credit for.
That said, my record for picking winning candidates sucks. But I will say that I, for one, don't plan on doing any public carping about *whoever* the Dems nominate. If they put up a yellow dog, I'm gonna be on record saying loudly that it's the best yellow dog I've ever seen.
But I will say that I, for one, don't plan on doing any public carping about *whoever* the Dems nominate. If they put up a yellow dog, I'm gonna be on record saying loudly that it's the best yellow dog I've ever seen.
This, for sure. (With reservations for Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.)
only part of the sandwich is composed of shit. The other part is honey. Unless you were to create a sandwich of pure honey (or pure bear, which is honey) and in that case, it could not be said: sandwich to sandwich, shit to shit.
You could make a sandwich of pure shit too, I suppose.
A branch of Congress would mean as much to me as the presidency. A majority of the country has been against the administration for a long time but stuff keeps coming through.
There are so many who perform the Sputnik Bosom Dalliance—which is always terminated with a slimy underface—that I cannot tally them on all of my hands.
I am on a campaign to make people who don't already know about him read more than Bai's article on Warner. He managed to get many progressive things done in VA with a very reactionary Republican dominated state legislature, and retain popularity in a conservative state (granted, it is becoming more blue).
50% of you are suckers. Luckily, 50% of you are not suckers. But 1% of you fooled 50% of you. That's bad. 49% of you, keep on doing what you're doing.
I'm going to leave off talking to the 1% as well. You are smart enough, and I take my hat off to you, really, for fooling that 50%. Please don't assassinate me.
I will speak now to that 50%. You are all rubes and suckers. You voted for a man in expectation that he would reduce the role of government, and make you richer. Suckers! He started a costly war, substantially impaired your civil freedoms, ran up the federal budget, and made you all poorer. And then you reelected him. I don't mean to insult you for being suckers. We are all suckers at one time or another. I paid too much for my auto insurance. I once bought a computer for more than I should have paid for it, and it was not a very good computer. You elected a person who started a war on false pretences, for what reason we still aren't certain. Don't get angry! I know you don't like it when people bring that up.
So you're suckers. But look at me, I'm just an open faced sandwich. I am tasty, but I've got no arms or legs and I'm stuck here on this plate. Someday I will be devoured, and while interred in some belly or other, the honey will be separated from the shit and I will form some person's arm or leg, black bile or yellow bile.
But as my face is open, I cannot lie to you. I will not make you richer, but neither will anyone, you rube.
I think we'd all commit to voting for whomever the Democratic Party puts up (except Idealist and baa, I guess). But as long as we're dreaming, I want some hot Gore and Napolitano or Gore and Obama action.
I think I've already committed myself to voting for baa if he runs for anything. Probably Idealist too, although if I have, it wasn't in a blog comment.
Maybe a baa/Idealist candidacy. I distrust the self-regard of one who capitalizes the "I" in his name. There is no "I" in team, Apostropher. (Where's the bracket post?)
Pseudonymous candidates! What is this country coming to?
And 110, you've been warned -- don't let it happen again. I'll give a pass to 108, since an open-faced club sandwich is a ludicrous enough concept not to offend.
I have linked to The Poor Man on Chumps before. And I have linked to The Poor Man on something else on this very thread. Why? Because The Poor Man is the fount of all wisdom.
115: If you think the Rs are going to have a harder time with Clinton than Gore, you and I just see vastly different worlds. At a minimum, Clinton means endless rehashing of all her husband's perceived moral faults. (The one time I really liked (IIRC) Trent Lott was when he said something like this: "An affair? Are you crazy? If my wife found out about it, the next thing I knew, I'd be on the floor bleeding, my wife standing over me with a shotgun asking me, 'Honey, how do you reload this?'")
The usually-loathsome Lott was also good when, during the Kelly Flynn fracas, when the Air Force was going apeshit--for a while a top general's career was derailed because he'd had sex with his second wife before his divorce came through--Lott told them to "Get real."
Gee, thanks (blushing). Sadly, I suspect that many of you would run screaming from the room if you heard all of my political views. Ah, the long, acrimonious hours LizardBreath and I have spent arguing about abortion, feminism and affirmative action.
re: 112 Concerns about the capitalization of the "I" in my name should come from someone other than the man who capitalizes the "Me" in his!
119: Well he visited our close ally Saudi Arabia, and while there said true things. Isn't that a normal reason to view a former vice president and son of a prominent senator as an insane traitor?
Ezra occasionally links polling showing that Gore has crazy high negatives.
Well, this sucks if it's true. I haven't seen it, but I guess I'd revise my opinion of his electability if I did.
Also, seriously, no one is talking about who the Republicans are going to nominate. This is a far bigger factor than whoever we nominate, unless it's Hillary. We've got it tough, but they've got it much tougher. Their national reputation is way more in the toilet than that of the Democrats, to the tune of about 15 points or so. Unless it's McCain, virtually any Republican is going to have a hard time getting to 270. Or, at least, as hard a time as any Democrat capable of winning the nomination. Except Hillary.
That's true -- the real question is going to be how possible it is for the Republican to run away from Bush (which is, I think, the same question in all the contested Congressional races).
Then again, we could very well be involved in a much bigger war at that point, depending on how this Iraqi civil war plays out. If Iran and Israel get involved, then it's World War I all over again. Which makes people much more nervous about major changes in leadership.
131: One thing that I wish Dems would do is make the argument that George Bush is the natural product of today's Republican Party. That is, George Bush isn't responsible for how crappy a President he is - he is, after all, an idiot - the Republican Party is the group that put him there. If Republicans were able to do this to us with Clinton (though I don't know why that was a bad thing), we should be able to manage the same with them.
I think we'd all commit to voting for whomever the Democratic Party puts up.
I'm not we, but *I* won't. And I'm not voting for Hillary.
The problem for D's is that I'm ~2 million votes to the left of center, using the fairly coarse measurement of comparing my past votes to the votes of the electorate. Specifically, the candidate I detest the most loses.
And I have been not at all fond of the Bush-Clinton-Bush(-Clinton?)/Greenspan administration. I am not going to vote for another round. That she's popular with 'grownup' R's (meaning, blue-state Republicans/neo-con types) is um...a red herring.
Further, I'd point out that were Clinton not married to the other Clinton and not female, she'd be approximately as popular as death on the D side. And I still would not vote for him (her). She only offers me the same shit I've already rejected with Bush. And the other Clinton.
Nonetheless, the fix is obviously in with the D establishment (they need jobs, man!) and that's yet another excellent reason to vote against her as the choice of the Feckless Idiot Generation.
Megadittoes on 136. Bush got in by pretending he wasn't like those nasty impeachment-minded Republicans. It needs to be emphasized (or anyway, it'd be nice if it were) that Republicans are all of a piece. Sold their souls wholesale, not retail.
This, btw, is one of the reason I don't like the "people are sick of this and we have to be nice" thing. If Gore had tied Bush to Gingrich it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.
(1) What do the Bushes (any of them) and the Clintons (any of them) offer in common aside from the sort of thing that any candidate from either major party would offer (e.g. continuation of the postal system).
(2) do you mean to say that, in the last election, you detested Kerry the most out of all the candidates?
there will be answers to (1) I suppose, such as support of international free trade, which not all democrats are on board with. Nevertheless, what you are saying is akin to what Nader said in '00, a lie with horrible consequences, that there was no cognizable difference between Gore and Bush. There are good reasons to dislike political dynasties, but these are two different dynasties, by any measurement.
I like Hillary because she reminds me of a number of highly impressive women I've worked with or for over the years. That said, I'm not really interested in voting for anyone who counts a former President among their family members. Enough of that.
Enough of wondering about the nominees, for my taste, anyway. My current favorite topic of speculation is the subtextual, no doubt mostly imaginary, catfight between Amy Sullivan and Roxanne Cooper at the Washington Monthly. Far more rewarding to contemplate.
Coming in late. I'm a Feingold liberal, but I can verify that Clinton has really intense support among the Democratic rank and file, including the white rank and file. This shows up on sites like Democratic Underground, where I used to go, and also on Bartcop, but I see it here in small-town Minnesota too. I lot of people just plain like Bill and Hillary. The Hillary-haters have the megaphone, but a lot of regular people love her.
I used to say about Bill, and I think it's even more true about Hillary, that she's "our Nixon." That is, because people we despise attack her constantly, are driven insane by her continued success, we have become invested in that success. Like Nixon to his supporters, this becoming our champion is despite policy differences, and a lack of warmth towards her on our part. If they hate her so, she's our girl.
148 A lot of people say something along the lines of: I'm not really interested in voting for anyone who counts a former President among their family members. But while I've been convincced that there is more than no substance to this criticism, I don't think it would make my hypothetical list of top twenty factors in deciding whom to vote for, nor can I understand why it would be any higher than that in someone else's estimattion. Perhaps it isn't any higher than that in yours, in which case I'm in agreement.
If, as various opponents of Bush have argued over the last 6 years, competence is at least as important as ideology shouldn't we have some respect for Clinton?
I am aware that I fall into the pattern described in 150, but I also think it's notable the degree to which the Clinton administration actually cared about policy.
Or, to put it differently, while the constant attacks on both Clintons make me feel more sympathetic to both of them, I don't think I support them because I will see success on thier part as a sign of victory over their antagonists. I'd like to think it's because Bill, in particular, had a number of policy successes that please me.
(Remember when "midnight basketball" was a major topic of debate? Doesn't that feel like a different political era?)
I still don't know how I feel about the idea of Hillary running, but I definitely don't hate her.
Perhaps it isn't any higher than that in yours, in which case I'm in agreement.
Well, in a sense it probably isn't, or rather shouldn't be, in my top twenty reasons for deciding on a candidate. But then I tend to think the actual, substantive differences between potential Democratic nominees will be rather small, so why not judge on style points? If someone truly unacceptable were to seem like a possibility, I'd get alarmed. But as long as the conversation is will it be Edwards, Clinton, Clark, whomever, I'm not worried about the nominee's ideology per se.
To address the style point, which I do think has some substance, I find it unseemly for the Presidency to become something passed between families. I'm not so unacquainted with sociology that I imagine that elites don't exist, nor do I think that any one event means a norm has been created. Yet all in all, it's not an example I'd like to see the country set.
There's another point I'd sort of like to make about the "competence" issue and how popular it is among liberals right now leads back into the problems the party has encountered in the past half-century or so. But instead I'd rather note that you failed to address the most salient issue of my comment: catfight.
151: I disagree. Nothing has made me fonder of the 22nd Amendment than the last five years, and for me the issue is similar. It's too easy for the President to create a machine as it is. If he or she can simply hand off the Presidency to kin - which is much of what we're seeing with Hilary - it increases the incentives to create a machine. I don't love machine politics, as I find them, like the DLC, anti-democratic.
I know that you all are blue-dog Democrats,but if Biden manages to gab the nomination, then I'll be leaving the presidential line blank. His behavior on the bankruptcy bill was just unforgivable. Luckil enough, I highly doubt that he'll gain any traction in the primaries. His failure there may be enough to nudge him out of the Senate too. He said that he could decide tp run for the Senate post New Hampshire, but I think that would be pretty embarassing. I'd be glad to be rid of him.
As an interested outsider, comment 63 seems to get it right.
Hopefully they *will* pay. However, making them pay depends on electing a candidate with (metaphorical) balls and I don't see anyone who seems to be demonstrating that.
"Well, in a sense it probably isn't, or rather shouldn't be, in my top twenty reasons for deciding on a candidate. But then I tend to think the actual, substantive differences between potential Democratic nominees will be rather small, so why not judge on style points?"
That was true in 04, but won't be in 08.
Richardson, Vilsack, Daschle, Warner, and Clinton are firmly DLC and hawkish. Kerry, Edwards and Clark are fairly progressive, and Feingold is very progressive. (Biden is fairly progressive, except he's really hawkish.)
Of course, their differences are insignificant compared to the distance to either McCain or Allen.
163: I have to run to a meeting, but I don't see it that way. I'll grant that Feingold is in some ways further to the left than others, but I don't think he has a chance to get the nomination. I tend to agree with those who argue that the differences between the DLC-type candidates and the others do not actually run very deep compared to what they have in common. Add in the constraints that will act on any of them should they get elected, and the differences shrink further.
I agree with Yglesias. And governors doesn't make for beter cnadidates than senators.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:19 AM
Gore. I would love it if he would run. I'm pretty sickened by Hillary's fecklessness, and I think Feingold has a pre-existing reputation as a leftist that would be much harder to overcome than Dean's was. (The last is basically a flip of MY's argument.) Edwards seems to have even less governing depth than before. Biden is an eternal punchline. And the rest I can't even remember.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:22 AM
Feingold is divorced, jewish, and liberal, all things which will not play well to tthe religious right, but he's my personal favorite.
Gore would be good.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:25 AM
I second Molly Ivins latest column. I have come to fucking hate the DC Democrats, and Hillary Clinton epitomizes everything about them that I hate. Practically the entire party seems afflicted with Battered Wife Syndrome. They are congenitally unable to hit back and completely ready to sell out any principle to try to get the Republicans to like them. Which they never ever will.
Feingold is the only one up there I could even get a little bit excited about. His lone vote against the Patriot Act ought to be the proudest moment of his political career so far. Can he win? I have no idea.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:25 AM
Rats. Molly Ivins' latest column
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:27 AM
Oh, and Schweitzer from Montana is unafraid of a fight and might bring us the mountain west.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:27 AM
Is Gore even interested in running again? I'd love it if he got into the race, but I don't know if that's a realistic hope.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:28 AM
You know what would be sweet? The Jewish Feingold facing the Mormon Romney in the general election and watching 2/3 of the South's heads exploding.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:30 AM
I'm not crazy about Clinton, but I will be enthusiastic about any Dem who looks electable -- theyr'e all better than the alternative.
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
I haven't seen anyone suggest that this could be a positive, but it doesn't seem absolutely impossible to me.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:30 AM
They are congenitally unable to hit back and completely ready to sell out any principle to try to get the Republicans to like them.
Can you really say this about HRC? It may be true that she will sell out any priciples that you care about but it seems unlikely that there is anyone in politics less likely than HRC to want "the Republicans to like them" or less interested in taking a swing at the Republicans if there is an opening.
I hope that Hillary doesn't run in 2008, but I don't think this captures the reason why.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:31 AM
Can you really say this about HRC?
I just did.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:36 AM
Right now all I'm sure about is that I'm tired of lilywhite, boring, cornfed Iowa being so goddamned central in our government.
That said, 8 would be wonderful.
Posted by Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:37 AM
I will be enthusiastic about any Dem who looks electable
I will *vote* for any Dem who looks electable, but I'm having a really hard time working up any enthusiasm.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:43 AM
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
Well, she could certainly run to the right by saying, "The last time I was in charge of trying to get universal health care coverage, I so bolloxed our best chance at it that it became a poisonous subject for 12 years. Elect me and I can promise you at least another twenty years without it."
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:43 AM
Feingold may in fact be "tough," but he doesn't exude it and he is certainly not "folksy." His substantive politics aside, he would be a disaster as a general election candidate. He embodies precisely the kind of prissy narcissism which Gore was wrongly accused of possessing. All that matters to him, in any political fight, is that he come off looking virtuous. That means both that he would refuse to fight back if slandered, *and* that he would give off the "I think I'm better than you" vibe that caused some people who should have known better to chose W over Gore.
Please, anyone, but Feingold.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:44 AM
Does anyone think that the health care situation has changed enough that Hillary could run on her previous attempt: "Are you worried about losing your health care? If the Republicans in Congress hadn't blocked me back in 1994, you wouldn't be. Elect me, and I'll make sure you're covered."
I know that Ezra Klein has blogged about this a little bit. He's no fan of hillary, but he thinks it is, in fact, a weakness of hers that she's still pushing the sort of incrementalism that she pushed in 1994. It depends on whether you think that single-payer UHC is the right way to go politically, but see these two posts here
I know that he's had more on the politics of it, but I can't find that post.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:45 AM
Yeah, the unfortunate truth is that HRC did a really, really bad job running the health care thing in '94. I expect it's going to be an albatross around her neck the remainder of her career.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:45 AM
having a really hard time working up any enthusiasm
At this point I would breathe a sigh of relief at Lieberman's inaugural address.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:46 AM
The last DC cabdriver I had (best cabbies in the country for interesting conversations, BTW) spent the entire ride to the airport trying to sell me on Romney in 2008. And he was a Democrat.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:47 AM
I would love to see Gore run again.
Hey, apo, how would you rate the chances of a Mike Easley candidacy?
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:48 AM
Being a divorced Jewish liberal only hurts Feingold with people who wouldn't vote for him anyway. Does have have any issues positions that "our side" would have a problem with?
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:48 AM
I think Gore is too damaged -- I'd vote for him; I just can't see his candidacy getting off the ground. (Although the slogan possibilities are intriguing: "Gore '08: Make it didn't happen").
Edwards, anyone? I really like the poverty/labor rights focus.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:51 AM
Some unqualified guesses, not meant to be taken seriously:
Likelihood of winning primary
Clinton
Feingold
Warner
Edwards
Kerry
Richardson
Bayh
Clark
Biden
Likelihood of winning the general
Edwards
Kerry
Warner
Feingold
Clinton
Bayh
Richardson
Clark
Biden
Likelihood of being a good president
Feingold
Kerry
Edwards
Warner
Clinton
Clark
Biden
Bayh
Richardson
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:58 AM
I'm not that enthusiastic of Feingold: protectionist, bit isolationist, probably sme other boneheaded economic ideas.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:01 AM
I don't see Gore as particularly damaged. If anything, I saw him emerging from the 2000 election fiasco looking better than ever. I remember his concession speech as being one of the most moving speeches I'd ever heard. And every thing he has done since then has reinforced my view of him as someone who I could enthusiastically support, not just someone who is better than the Republican alternative.
I should add that, if Gore runs, I really, really want it to be the bearded Gore. That would kick ass.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:02 AM
It'd be like that episode of Star Trek!
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:05 AM
I should add that, if Gore runs, I really, really want it to be the bearded Gore.
I want to see the bearded Gore run on a mustachioed Gore platform. That would be awesome.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:07 AM
I simply do not understand where Hillary's appeal comes from. On top of the fact that she has zero executive branch experience (yes, yes, First Lady, but come on) and a single unspectacular term in office as a Senator from one of the bluest of blue states, she's a frickin' legacy candidate, the very last thing our democracy needs. If New York wants to keep her as a Senator, great, but I just can't see her playing well on the national stage, and even if she did, why anyone would want her to.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:14 AM
I like Edwards. He was the guy I wanted last time. I think he genuinely has ideas, rather than just lip service, about poverty. I'm lukewarm on Easley as governor. I really wish somebody had picked Jim Hunt for a VP slot, but now he's getting on up there in the years.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:15 AM
I like Edwards. The democrats need to produce a southern candidate to win in the general election. Since JFK there have been no non-southern democratic presidents. Southern democratic presidents include Johnson, Carter and Clinton. And, Gore won the popular vote.
Posted by Joe O | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:16 AM
Feingold/Edwards? Now that's some folksy charm!
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:17 AM
Wha'bout this governor-of-Virginia(?) guy that Matt Bai thinks is the anti-Hillary?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:18 AM
I simply do not understand where Hillary's appeal comes from.
She's got Great White Hope appeal, on a couple of different levels. She's a woman - it would be historic if she to take a direct shot at the Presidency, and women are the largest voting block in the party, IIRC. She's also assumed to be a liberal's liberal despite the way she's behaved as of late.
Unfortunately, if she's our nominee, she'll be our Gerry Cooney.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:19 AM
I don't understand why everyone is so determined to hate her, myself.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:22 AM
On the right, because they're misogynist Clinton-hating twerps. On the left, she's just not excitingly left -- she's, if I recall correctly, still pro-war, makes depressingly accomodating noises on all the culture-war bullshit... there just doesn't seem to be that much to love other than her gender. She's a perfectly competent Senator, better than most at the go-along-to-get-along than you need to actually get legislation passed, but I'm not crazy about her setting the direction for the party.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:27 AM
I don't hate her any more than the rest of opposition party members who refuse to oppose. Especially those in safe seats who don't stand to lose anything. Like LB said, if NYers want to keep sending her to the Senate, that's fine. If the people of Connecticut want to keep sending Lieberman, that's fine, too. But I sure as hell won't pull their lever in a presidential primary.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:40 AM
Tia,
The first link ("Ezra sez') links to MY's column. You've got two links to MY's Prospect piece. Where did EZra say what he said?
I'm with LB on Hillary. Also, healthcare is my biggest issue, and I don't think she is capable of handling it, both because she couldn't do it the last time and because she's politically perceived to be no good on that issue.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:41 AM
See, I think she's competent, she's pragmatic, her central domestic issues are basically good ones inasmuch as they seem to me to be focused on stability for working families, she's a feminist for god's sake. Yes, she was pro the war. I'm not crazy about that; on the other hand, after 9/11 I was reluctantly willing to concede that some kind of military action in Afghanistan was probably not only inevitable, but unavoidable, and I think that once we went into Iraq, we ought not to have fucked it up to the point where I now think we really have to pull out. I think as a Senator she's shown that she can get shit done, that she can work with even the far right freakazoids and stay focused on practical policy. And I think that, weilding the "mama" and "I pray" tools, she's probably in about the best position to actually get some reasonable legislation passed on health care, reproductive rights, and tax policy.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:45 AM
The Hillary/African American theory was first floated by Joe Trippi, I think. If he's right about her levels of support among African American voters, he is likewise right about her unstoppability, I fear.
Gore might be able to stop her.
It all depends on who the Republican nominee is. Gore could likely beat any of them, except McCain, who couldn't even be stopped by a reincarnated FDR/JFK ticket. But it's silly to talk about McCain getting the nomination, because in order to do that, he'd have to, you know, get the nomination.
Allen might be the guy. He's smooth and appealing, but the dude is on record as having both a Confederate flag and a fuckingnoose in his office back home. Which the Democratic nominee should constantly mention, in a joking way ("It's somewhat of an old tradition; lots of Southern senators in our history have been big fans of nooses and Confederate flags"; etc.), like Republicans endlessly joked about John Kerry being a French-speaking quivering Brokeback-inspiring nelly bottom. That's my dream, but I don't think they'll be smart enough to do it. ("I needed some rope the other day, so I called up Senator Allen and asked me if he would lend me his noose" -- how hard is that?)
The thing is, every Republican nominee will have an uphill battle, facing massive Bush fatigue. Most any Democratic nominee will have a very good shot, unless it's Hillary, in which case I think her chances are zero. For anyone else: I think Allen's easy to beat, McCain is impossible, Frist is Dr. Kevorkian, Guiliani has less chance to get the nomination than even McCain, and the list goes down from there. Of course, there will be some surprise candidates, but the GOP tends to control those sorts of unpredictable elements much better than the Dems do (see: Lamar Alexander, Steve Forbes, Pat Robertson).
Gore would be a strong candidate. He'd beat just about anyone they put up, I think, except for McCain.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:46 AM
I fixed it, BG.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:46 AM
re: 35
Let's see, if a Republican opposes Clinton, its because he or she is a misogynist, but if a Democrat opposes her, it's on policy grounds. You might consider that there are other reasons all around.
For what the input of a Republican is worth here, Clinton is the only Democrat mentioned so far for whom I would consider voting. Indeed, I can think of several possible Republican nominees who would cause me to vote for Clinton. The reasons cited in 35 for Democrats not to vote for her are reasons that make her electable in the general election, because people like me might vote for her. She has to her great credit developed for herself the reputation as a Senator who--while not above political posturing--will put political posturing aside to get things done in an adult manner. It would be nice to have an adult in the White House.
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:48 AM
Idealist, it's great that you would consider voting for her, but she has, by far, the highest built-in unfavorability ratings among Republicans and Independents of any candidate remotely in the running.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:53 AM
Let's see, if a Republican opposes Clinton, its because he or she is a misogynist, but if a Democrat opposes her, it's on policy grounds.... For what the input of a Republican is worth here, Clinton is the only Democrat mentioned so far for whom I would consider voting.
This rather makes my point. Her substantive positions and behavior have been such as to appeal to Republicans -- a Democrat who's opposed to her is probably, therefore, opposed on policy reasons, while a Republican who's opposed to her (more fervently than the simple "Not going to vote for a Democrat" which one would reasonably expect from a Republican) is likelier to have some more personal and less political reason for opposing her -- something, like, say, misogyny, or generalized Clinton-hating.
So, congratulations on not being a Clinton-hating misogynist. I still don't like her in the Democratic primary.l
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:54 AM
I'm fine with her. I've never had any hand in selecting a candidate; by the time of the Illinois primary, it's always been all over.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:55 AM
That's Clinton-hating misogynist. You will, I hope, acknowledge that many Republicans are prone to Clinton-hatred.
Anyway, your comment sort of confirms LB's point. You're a grown-up non-misogynist Republican, and you like Hillary better than the other Democrats because she's hawkish, bipartisan, and centrist. Democrats like us don't like her because she's not so far to the left. But that's not a good reason for Republicans not to like her. So why do so many Republicans hate her so? Part of it may be that she's still too far left for most Republicans, and she's more prominent than other Democrats, but I think there's some irrationality there that doesn't extend to people who dislike her from the left.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:59 AM
Clinton is innoculated against swiftboat-type strategies. A national bestseller that claims she's a dyke is only the tip of that iceburg, and she's not suffering politically for it. I find the idea of a candidate who's already been through the gauntlet and survived—without having campaigned and lost to show for it—very appealing.
I like Feingold, too, but who knows what kind of gay he's been hiding from the American people?
Posted by Armsmasher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:00 PM
re 41:
It *would* be nice to have an adult in the white house, but really, what are the odds?
As for Clinton, while clearly she can play the DC game (is this *really* such a plus? That is one badly broken game...) some policy stances, as described, have to undermine her with what should be core voters --- is picking erstwhile repubs who are tired of the current nonsense really going to counterbalance that?
Posted by soubzriquet | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:00 PM
43, 45: I believe that constitutes a full-scale Weiner-pwning, and what's more, a Weiner-pwning of Weiner himself.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:01 PM
A Magic Meat Man Pwn!
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:03 PM
No point in my defending LB when she's going to say everything I say better and sooner.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:03 PM
48, 50: God damn it. (Weiner-pwning of Weiner is by no means rare, though; in fact one of its common uses was my pointing out that other people were pwning me.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:06 PM
I think as a Senator she's shown that she can get shit done, that she can work with even the far right freakazoids and stay focused on practical policy.
As a Senator, this isn't a bad thing. As a President, I don't want her to work with the far-right-wing freakazoids. I want them marginalized, hard. I want the centrist Republicans to be afraid that people will think they talk to the freakazoids, and making a lot of TV appearances with Bernie Sanders to make the point that they can work with the left. I don't see Hillary getting us there.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:07 PM
51: Ooo, twice in a row. I win.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:13 PM
I don't see anybody getting us there. I'm not sure I want to go there and I hate the right as much as anybody I know.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:15 PM
I'm not sure I want to go there
Really? Why not?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:16 PM
Proofread very carefully from now on, LB. I'm gunning for you.
On substance, I think working with freakazoids is bad as a candidate too. I fear that a candidate who works with freakazoids might not realize how Republicans will say and do anything to get elected, and being reasonable won't help. Maybe, as per 46, Hillary of all people is immune from that, but bipartisanship is a bad thing.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:20 PM
I want them marginalized, hard. I want the centrist Republicans to be afraid that people will think they talk to the freakazoids, and making a lot of TV appearances with Bernie Sanders to make the point that they can work with the left. I don't see Hillary getting us there.
I don't think any president can get us there. I think this is a job for us culture warriors on the Left. I think Richard Mellon Scaife has done a lot more to marginalize the Left than Reagan did.
More broadly, while I like this vision, I think it puts the cart before the horse. There is no way in which that vision can be realized without first changing the cultural / political landscape in a way that will result in Democrats winning a lot more elections. This isn't to say that all that matters is winning elections but that if you think we need a vast cultural shift then there's a natural tension between politicians who are, understandably, trying to win in the landscape we have and activists who want to change thing.
I know Kerry gave a very bad name to the idea of trying to win within the landscape as it's currently configured, but I don't think you can blame politicians for having that as a large part of their calculations.
See Mark Schmitt for an example of this in practice.
...
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:27 PM
Because it would be too much up-is-down, tit-for-tat, and lame as it sounds to say, people would like to see an end of that. I have too many conservative friends, or friends who are conservative or nationalist on some issues, to want them to be made to feel like I've been made to feel. I'd reach across, Mark Schmidt style, in setting the tone of the congress. It helps that I believe that's the only thing we're going to be able to do anyway.
Mind you, this is just left-right I'm talking about; there is plenty of room in my fantasy for strictly partisan, that is Democrat-Republican pay-back, especially wrt K Street.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:30 PM
I think she's basically been operating under a 1992 strategy since being elected. Democrats won big in 92 by conceding foreign policy issues to the right and highlighting economic issues: the "it's the economy stupid" strategy. It worked back then, but frankly, it was a little disengenuous even at the time. It no longer fits at all and that should be obvious to anyone. She's an extraordinary woman. I think she's got bad advisors.
Joe Klein also seems wistful for the "it's the economy, stupid" strategy. In my darkest fantasies, I come to think that the way to win the next election is to convince the average conservative that he or she has been taken for the past 8 years. Nobody wants to hear that. But it's true. People who think they have been casting a vote for limited government -- no matter how bankrupt that idea is in of itself -- have been rubes, are suckers. But you've got to put it more gently than that, or you just make them angry and even more blind.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:32 PM
Here's the problem: Democrats desperately, desperately need a fighter at the top of the ticket. Here is the archetypal image of a Democrat right now: Dick Durbin, apologizing and crying on the Senate floor for saying something that was undeniably, absolutely true. How did he arrive there? By getting sucked into the GOP's bullshit semantic games, rather than just telling them to go fuck themselves and read a little history while they're at it.
One cannot overestimate the amount of damage that image has wreaked on the party. And did he get any slack cut as a result? Hell no. Go along to get along is necessary in the Senate, except Senate Dems aren't getting along. They are just going along and still getting pantsed afterwards.
We need someone who is willing to smash the other side in the face with a shovel in 2008. Hillary Clinton just isn't it.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:32 PM
NickS: Not only great minds, but ours too.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:32 PM
Durbin was undercut, unforgivably, by Richard M. Daley. Now that is something I intend to get retribution for.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:34 PM
Because it would be too much up-is-down, tit-for-tat, and lame as it sounds to say, people would like to see an end of that.
The last one, maybe. The first two, no. It is the gospel truth that the GOP's right wing are lunatic scum who have destroyed the budget, taken the country into an unnecessary war, shat on our national honor with torture, trampled the rule of law and refused to enforce the law when other Republicans break it, staked out positions on moral issues that are far to the right of the American people, done nothing to protect Americans from terrorism or natural disasters, and treated matters of the gravest concern as fodder for partisan politics and nothing but repeatedly, and I'm sure I left some things out. It is also gospel truth that the alleged GOP moderates have abetted the right-wingers on this about 90% of the time.
There would be nothing up-is-down or tit-for-tat about stigmatizing the loony wing of the GOP, or about tying the alleged moderates to them. It would be a good thing. Maybe it's not politically feasible, but in an ideal world these motherfuckers would pay for what they've done.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:42 PM
I'm pretty virulently anti-Hillary, in part because I feel so betrayed by her.
1. She's easily the most powerful Democrat in the nation, and she hasn't taken any stands against the Republicans worth noting. At the end of the day, I want a hitter - she's shown no real willingness to mix it up during her brief electoral career. It may also be that she lacks the ability to effectively mix it up.
2. Her playing pattycake with the Right smacks of betrayal. That was a knock on her husband, too, but it's one think to betray the base when it feels strong-ish ('92) and really isn't very centrist, and another when the base is weak and centrist. (This is roughly an anti-Scalia argument; after 2001, I hated him much more than Rehnquist, who was objectively worse.)
3. I'm sure she'd be competent, but other than maybe Edwards and Clark, I can't think of anyone who would be less competent.
4. The right wing hates, hates, HATES her. She'll get them out, because they all truly believe that she's a pinko feminazi whose marriage to Bill is a complete sham. She hasn't been innoculated - she's had to compete for Blue State votes, and that's not the population that thinks her most vile. (Note that Idealist is a NY Republican - that's nice, but we don't need his vote.)
5. Women won't vote for her as a block in the way that, for example, African-Americans would vote for an African-American candidate. Democrats have been clearly better on women's issues than Republicans for all of my life. White women (Clinton's core constituency) voted for Bush in 2004. It's not even clear that she'll be great for the strong women vote; you can use Molly Ivins as a proxy for that, and she loathes Clinton. (All in all, this is a good thing. We've moved far enough along that women expect to be taken seriously, I think. We can pick and choose amongst them on other grounds. Good for us.)
5. If she loses, people will wrongly spin it as a loss by a woman, as that's her most salient feature. We've got a fair bit of depth in female candidates, and her loss will stunt a lot of them, if only briefly.
6. Her political machine is the DLC. If she wins the nomination, we'll be committed to trying to win the South. It won't happen, especially not with her. Apo's convinced me that we can pick up some of the states in time, but our best electoral options are in the Southwest/West. Moreover, I don't trust the DLC to deal with the Republicans with any kind of strength; that's not their bag.
7. Her position on the war blows. Rahm Emmanuel is basically a proxy for her, and his position is that it was rright to go to war in Iraq even if we'd known there were no nukes. She's going to say the same thing sooner or later, if she hasn't already, and that's going to be a killer in '08 - if only because it removes a huge arrow from our quiver.
I'm sure there's more; that's off the top of my head.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:46 PM
The people I want to pay and to be marginalized are conservative politicians, btw. Your conservative friends I don't particularly want them to feel bad. I do sort of think that the world would be a better place if they, along with everyone who voted for Bush in 2004, lost the franchise--there was a clearcut political test, and they flunked--but making people feel bad is a bad thing, and ceterus paribus I'm against it.
On the other hand, our most prominent politicians are dangerous evil radicals who should not be within a hundred miles of power, and if some nice folks' feelings get hurt when these politicians get attacked, that's kind of too bad.
The Poor Man, in the section titled "Changing the Subject," has wise words on the need to be an asshole sometimes.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:48 PM
I should add that, if Gore runs, I really, really want it to be the bearded Gore.
Me too. I could enthusiastically work and vote for Gore, Feingold, Edwards, or Clark. I'd vote for HRC, or, say, a second Kerry adventure, but without much enthusiasm. I don't know enough about Warner, Bayh, or Vilsack to say. I do know that Vilsack needs his own line of men's cologne.
It's a shame about Gary Hart. He was the first candidate I was ever enthusiastic about. And when I hear him say things like:
then I still think it's our loss that he isn't more influential than he is.
Posted by Paul | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:50 PM
As I said, I've nothing against punishing Republicans, but the most of the country, and a lot of the Democratic party, are way to the right of people like us. Turning the country's head around, without which nothing much is possible, is going to take time.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:53 PM
Isn't another problem with an HRC candidacy, at least at the primary level, is that this is the only candidate about whom progressives need to articulate, in exceeding detail, supervailing reasons to not vote for her --- and hence killing the possibility of an actually interesting discussion. Other candidates you are allowed to dislike; this one, you really need to make your case. 64 is essentially correct, but it is too bad these objections have to be repeated over and over by everyone who makes them.
Posted by sparacando | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:57 PM
SCMT in 64: W/r/t your no. 3. I don't think that Clark is less qualified than Hillary. In fact, I was thinking that I might be willing to vote for him in a primary. (I didn't like him at all in 2004, but I'm warming up to him.) He's come out pretty strongly in favor of single-payer healthcare.
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 12:59 PM
I was really devastated by the election results in 04. I agree with Weiner: it was a poly sci test that lots of people failed. I think what I underestimated in expecting a Kerry victory was how resistant people are to considering themselves suckers. If In the righty blogosphere, you will find many, many interesting examples of that resistance: intelligent people who continue to believe the war was a a good idea, that voting for Bush was the right thing to do, etc. These are people who decided, long before they ever heard of GW Bush, that limited government was a better alternative than an active government, and since one of the parties proclaimed itself the party of limited government, they chose that party as their own. There were political writers who they trusted, and those writers said: vote bush. Then the writers said: we gotta invade iraq. Bush said: we gotta invade iraq. And sure, Bush and the pundits gave reasons, but the average conservative voter didn't spend a long time evaluating those reasons, they simply stocked them up; it's what all people do, having chosen a party.
Since the time of W and maybe before, the republican party has basically been a fraud. But its supporters, they will cling to any kind of justification for its decisions to the bitter end. And we are nowhere near that end. Otherwise is to admit themselves fools.
We need a candidate who is firm enough to tell people they have been fools, and to do it in a way that they will respect. Hillary can do neither of these things, as far as I can tell.
Otherwise we will end up with another Republican presidency. It won't just be a Republican, but one with obvious ties to the set that is in power now, and no less corrupt.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:05 PM
I've got a purposeless If in there.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:08 PM
But an excellent comment. I've been thinking about that in an inchoate kind of way -- is it at all possible to win elections with the theme "You've been taken."?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:13 PM
is it at all possible to win elections with the theme "You've been taken."?
No.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:14 PM
It's right up there with "you guys are dumb! SO dumb!" as losing Democratic tactics go. If it weren't for the obvious damage caused by Republicans, I'd like to see 'em try it on '08, just for lols. (as we say on the internest)
Posted by mjh | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:19 PM
I don't know. I think Dean might have done it, if we hadn't all wussed out.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:20 PM
'on' s/b 'in'. internest could go either way.
Posted by mjh | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:20 PM
Thinking about it a little longer I will note that it seems that the best way to take advantage of a major scandal by an opposition president is to run on "morality."
Note that both Carter and GWB won by promising to be "honest" while Dukakis lost (following the Iran Contra scandal) by promising to be "competent."
I know that -gg-d questioned that description, but I think it's true that voters are far more likely to consider themselves able to judge a condidates honesty than they are able to just a candidate's competence. I don't think this is true, in practice, but I think it's the dynamic.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:21 PM
What would be great is if we could get a moderate repub to give an "I've been taken" speech at the primary -- zel miller cubed. But then it would also be great if somebody made me a sandwich right now.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:23 PM
*Poof* You're a sandwich.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:26 PM
77: That's something like what I mean by "You've been taken." Does it make a huge difference to say it as "They've been lying. Every reason you voted for those guys - greater national security, lower taxes, smaller government - was a lie."?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:28 PM
sweet! I'm lightly toasted and taste delicious. But I've got no mouth! I cannot eat myself. The bitter irony of being a sandwich.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:31 PM
If you had only thought to be made with pita bread, you would already contain yourself, and the eating would be as superfluous as it is impossible.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:36 PM
Would an open-face sandwich need a mouth with which to eat itself? An open face should allow direct esophageal insertion, I would think. We may yet be able to square this circle, text. Do not abandon hope!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:37 PM
Does it make a huge difference to say it as "They've been lying. Every reason you voted for those guys - greater national security, lower taxes, smaller government - was a lie."
No, because we still would have to say, "And we can delivr those things to you." Which would be hard to credibly do on at least two of those things.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:38 PM
But I've got no mouth! I cannot eat myself. The bitter irony of being a sandwich.
Were you particularly bendy prior to becoming a sandwich? Otherwise, how is this bitter irony unique to your new sandwichness?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:45 PM
how is this bitter irony unique to your new sandwichness
Because humans are stringy and not particularly appetizing (except for babies), whereas sandwiches are delectable.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:50 PM
BTW text -- Must you scream?
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:50 PM
'Postropher: Not if they're human sandwiches!
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:51 PM
I'll have the BLText on toasted wheat, please. With extra mayo and irony.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:53 PM
I've given up looking for a candidate. The ones I like lose. The ones that win lose me. I'm going to be bitter and frustrated no matter who wins. Just less war crimes next time, okay?
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:53 PM
prior to my sandwichness I possessed only an occasional, passive desire to be eaten, whereas presently that desire is all consuming, maddening.
Therefore it is only ironic now that I am a sandwich, and particularly tasty, begging to be eaten, that I cannot eat myself. Before it was merely unfortunate.
If I were a burrito, or as previously mentioned, a pita sandwich, I would be even more tasty, but also I would already contain myself, and be full. But I am not certain that would improve my condition, for I would never have the hope of eating myself at some future state, being already self-contained.
If I were to become an open-faced sandwich I might be able to eat myself, but I would not be able to hide my emotions; every thought and emotion would pass immediately to my surroundings. I would, in an instant, lose my own sense of identity and instead become an open thing, merged with my environment, the plate. That is horror.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 1:58 PM
OpenFaceSandwich/Obama '08!
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:01 PM
An open-faced sandwich is, properly speaking, an oxymoron, and indeed, an abomination -- I will have no part of it and I advise all of you to exclude it from your discourse.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:03 PM
The sandwich lemming, native to the North Ameircan and European continents, is unable to hurl itself off of cliffs, barring the assistance of the occasional kindly klutz. Lacking ambulatory power, the sandwich lemming has focussed it's suicidal impulse on being eaten one bite at a time, savored only briefly and then going to it's final resting place. Sandwich to sandwich, shit to shit.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:06 PM
As for Clinton, while clearly she can play the DC game (is this *really* such a plus? That is one badly broken game...) some policy stances, as described, have to undermine her with what should be core voters
It's a plus b/c it shows she is politically savvy and, as someone else pointed out upthread, knows what her job is as a Senator. I'm not at all convinced that her ability to play the game means she won't stand up to the freakazoids if she gets into the White House because, as we're pointing out, it's a different game. She's not an idiot: she stood up to people when she was the first lady and then reinvented herself when she became a Senator.
I also think that she's got the "morality" thing down. She's a woman who didn't leave her philandering husband because she believes in marriage. Beats all the cheating Republican divorced guys hollow. The "angry feminist dyke" thing pretty much counters the "waffle" possibility, as does her position on defense. I don't see her crying in public any time soon. And I think that the desire for a candidate who's going to come out swinging for "core Democratic values" is unrealistic; any candidate that appeals to the far left is going to seriously piss off everyone else. I think the way that Clinton has tempered the "angry feminist" perception with the "reasonable middle-of-the-roader" image shows she knows what she's doing, and I think it suggests she's way more electable than people give her credit for.
That said, my record for picking winning candidates sucks. But I will say that I, for one, don't plan on doing any public carping about *whoever* the Dems nominate. If they put up a yellow dog, I'm gonna be on record saying loudly that it's the best yellow dog I've ever seen.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:06 PM
Fear the textwich electoral juggernaut!
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:10 PM
Sandwich to sandwich, shit to shit.
Unless you separate the shit from the sandwich ahead of time.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:10 PM
But I will say that I, for one, don't plan on doing any public carping about *whoever* the Dems nominate. If they put up a yellow dog, I'm gonna be on record saying loudly that it's the best yellow dog I've ever seen.
This, for sure. (With reservations for Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:10 PM
only part of the sandwich is composed of shit. The other part is honey. Unless you were to create a sandwich of pure honey (or pure bear, which is honey) and in that case, it could not be said: sandwich to sandwich, shit to shit.
You could make a sandwich of pure shit too, I suppose.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:11 PM
Hear, hear.
I'm also going to punch any left-of-center 3rd party supporters in the fucking nuts. Right-wing nutjob 3rd party supporters? Them I'm all for.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:12 PM
A branch of Congress would mean as much to me as the presidency. A majority of the country has been against the administration for a long time but stuff keeps coming through.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:13 PM
99: Over 71,000 hits for "shit sandwich".
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:13 PM
There are so many who perform the Sputnik Bosom Dalliance—which is always terminated with a slimy underface—that I cannot tally them on all of my hands.
Likewise for the textwich electoral juggernaut.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:20 PM
I am on a campaign to make people who don't already know about him read more than Bai's article on Warner. He managed to get many progressive things done in VA with a very reactionary Republican dominated state legislature, and retain popularity in a conservative state (granted, it is becoming more blue).
Here is Warner as policy wonk -- Warner interviewed on health care issues
Here is Warner not throwing gays overboard
Warner restores voting rights to ex-felons
Salon article about Warner
He actually got the Rethugs in the Va. legislature to raise taxes to pay for their school and medicaid costs.
Posted by cafl | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:22 PM
Text -- and all others who dream of autoingestion -- should take to heart the lesson of Hungry Mungry.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:22 PM
Dear Voting Americans:
50% of you are suckers. Luckily, 50% of you are not suckers. But 1% of you fooled 50% of you. That's bad. 49% of you, keep on doing what you're doing.
I'm going to leave off talking to the 1% as well. You are smart enough, and I take my hat off to you, really, for fooling that 50%. Please don't assassinate me.
I will speak now to that 50%. You are all rubes and suckers. You voted for a man in expectation that he would reduce the role of government, and make you richer. Suckers! He started a costly war, substantially impaired your civil freedoms, ran up the federal budget, and made you all poorer. And then you reelected him. I don't mean to insult you for being suckers. We are all suckers at one time or another. I paid too much for my auto insurance. I once bought a computer for more than I should have paid for it, and it was not a very good computer. You elected a person who started a war on false pretences, for what reason we still aren't certain. Don't get angry! I know you don't like it when people bring that up.
So you're suckers. But look at me, I'm just an open faced sandwich. I am tasty, but I've got no arms or legs and I'm stuck here on this plate. Someday I will be devoured, and while interred in some belly or other, the honey will be separated from the shit and I will form some person's arm or leg, black bile or yellow bile.
But as my face is open, I cannot lie to you. I will not make you richer, but neither will anyone, you rube.
the end
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:23 PM
I think we'd all commit to voting for whomever the Democratic Party puts up (except Idealist and baa, I guess). But as long as we're dreaming, I want some hot Gore and Napolitano or Gore and Obama action.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:23 PM
"[U]se an open-faced club. The sand wedge!"
"Mmm... open-faced club sandwich."
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:25 PM
107, No, I'd vote for Idealist and baa if the Democratic Party nominated them.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:26 PM
Open-Faced Sandwich Surprisingly Tasty: I Give It An A-.
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:27 PM
I think I've already committed myself to voting for baa if he runs for anything. Probably Idealist too, although if I have, it wasn't in a blog comment.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:28 PM
Maybe a baa/Idealist candidacy. I distrust the self-regard of one who capitalizes the "I" in his name. There is no "I" in team, Apostropher. (Where's the bracket post?)
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:29 PM
Gore tried the hot action at the convention. Didn't work.
Posted by Mo MacArbie | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:29 PM
Pseudonymous candidates! What is this country coming to?
And 110, you've been warned -- don't let it happen again. I'll give a pass to 108, since an open-faced club sandwich is a ludicrous enough concept not to offend.
Posted by The Modesto Kid | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:30 PM
I don't imagine Gore as electable, to be honest. The obvious R criticism is "he's a loser who already lost once."
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:31 PM
I have linked to The Poor Man on Chumps before. And I have linked to The Poor Man on something else on this very thread. Why? Because The Poor Man is the fount of all wisdom.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:31 PM
115: If you think the Rs are going to have a harder time with Clinton than Gore, you and I just see vastly different worlds. At a minimum, Clinton means endless rehashing of all her husband's perceived moral faults. (The one time I really liked (IIRC) Trent Lott was when he said something like this: "An affair? Are you crazy? If my wife found out about it, the next thing I knew, I'd be on the floor bleeding, my wife standing over me with a shotgun asking me, 'Honey, how do you reload this?'")
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:40 PM
I don't imagine Gore as electable, to be honest. The obvious R criticism is "he's a loser who already lost once."
As someone recently said, "'Republicans will just say X' should only be dispositive if you also think 'And I don't have a good answer to that.'"
Posted by My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:40 PM
Ezra occasionally links polling showing that Gore has crazy high negatives.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:42 PM
The usually-loathsome Lott was also good when, during the Kelly Flynn fracas, when the Air Force was going apeshit--for a while a top general's career was derailed because he'd had sex with his second wife before his divorce came through--Lott told them to "Get real."
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:46 PM
re: 109, 111, 112
Gee, thanks (blushing). Sadly, I suspect that many of you would run screaming from the room if you heard all of my political views. Ah, the long, acrimonious hours LizardBreath and I have spent arguing about abortion, feminism and affirmative action.
re: 112 Concerns about the capitalization of the "I" in my name should come from someone other than the man who capitalizes the "Me" in his!
Posted by Idealist | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:50 PM
What say you, Unfoggedtariat?
This question, to the extent that it's a wordier, less clickable "comments" link, probably goes without asking.
(No little bitches were harmed in the making of this comment.)
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:53 PM
There's a "me" in "team," though.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:54 PM
there's also a "meat"
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:55 PM
And if you look a little further, a 'meta'.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:57 PM
119: Well he visited our close ally Saudi Arabia, and while there said true things. Isn't that a normal reason to view a former vice president and son of a prominent senator as an insane traitor?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 2:58 PM
Update: Various lefty readers email to say that OpenFacedSandwich is not the authentic face of the Sandwich.
I wish I agreed with that. But, sadly, he is its very image today.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:00 PM
Ezra occasionally links polling showing that Gore has crazy high negatives.
Well, this sucks if it's true. I haven't seen it, but I guess I'd revise my opinion of his electability if I did.
Also, seriously, no one is talking about who the Republicans are going to nominate. This is a far bigger factor than whoever we nominate, unless it's Hillary. We've got it tough, but they've got it much tougher. Their national reputation is way more in the toilet than that of the Democrats, to the tune of about 15 points or so. Unless it's McCain, virtually any Republican is going to have a hard time getting to 270. Or, at least, as hard a time as any Democrat capable of winning the nomination. Except Hillary.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:01 PM
By the way, I just saw the new floaty text on the Insty link - funny. Please tell me Wolfson didn't come up with it.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:02 PM
And if you look a little further, a 'meta'.
Stop looking! When I find a tame meta-meatmate, the terrorists will have won.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:03 PM
That's true -- the real question is going to be how possible it is for the Republican to run away from Bush (which is, I think, the same question in all the contested Congressional races).
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:03 PM
129: Guilty.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:03 PM
Then again, we could very well be involved in a much bigger war at that point, depending on how this Iraqi civil war plays out. If Iran and Israel get involved, then it's World War I all over again. Which makes people much more nervous about major changes in leadership.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:05 PM
virtually any Republican is going to have a hard time getting to 270
If the election were held today. Unfortunately, it will be held two-and-a-half years from now, which is infinity-minus-seven in political years.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:06 PM
Speaking of McCain, if you can get around the firewall, Krugman's execration of him this morning is good.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:10 PM
131: One thing that I wish Dems would do is make the argument that George Bush is the natural product of today's Republican Party. That is, George Bush isn't responsible for how crappy a President he is - he is, after all, an idiot - the Republican Party is the group that put him there. If Republicans were able to do this to us with Clinton (though I don't know why that was a bad thing), we should be able to manage the same with them.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:13 PM
As in 127?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:14 PM
I think we'd all commit to voting for whomever the Democratic Party puts up.
I'm not we, but *I* won't. And I'm not voting for Hillary.
The problem for D's is that I'm ~2 million votes to the left of center, using the fairly coarse measurement of comparing my past votes to the votes of the electorate. Specifically, the candidate I detest the most loses.
And I have been not at all fond of the Bush-Clinton-Bush(-Clinton?)/Greenspan administration. I am not going to vote for another round. That she's popular with 'grownup' R's (meaning, blue-state Republicans/neo-con types) is um...a red herring.
Further, I'd point out that were Clinton not married to the other Clinton and not female, she'd be approximately as popular as death on the D side. And I still would not vote for him (her). She only offers me the same shit I've already rejected with Bush. And the other Clinton.
Nonetheless, the fix is obviously in with the D establishment (they need jobs, man!) and that's yet another excellent reason to vote against her as the choice of the Feckless Idiot Generation.
ash
['That is all.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:36 PM
Megadittoes on 136. Bush got in by pretending he wasn't like those nasty impeachment-minded Republicans. It needs to be emphasized (or anyway, it'd be nice if it were) that Republicans are all of a piece. Sold their souls wholesale, not retail.
This, btw, is one of the reason I don't like the "people are sick of this and we have to be nice" thing. If Gore had tied Bush to Gingrich it wouldn't have been close enough to steal.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:49 PM
Ash:
(1) What do the Bushes (any of them) and the Clintons (any of them) offer in common aside from the sort of thing that any candidate from either major party would offer (e.g. continuation of the postal system).
(2) do you mean to say that, in the last election, you detested Kerry the most out of all the candidates?
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:50 PM
Shorter 139: When I hear "uniter, not a divider," I reach for my... barf bag.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:54 PM
there will be answers to (1) I suppose, such as support of international free trade, which not all democrats are on board with. Nevertheless, what you are saying is akin to what Nader said in '00, a lie with horrible consequences, that there was no cognizable difference between Gore and Bush. There are good reasons to dislike political dynasties, but these are two different dynasties, by any measurement.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 3:54 PM
129: Ooh, that is good. I wanna know why I'm not re-linked, though. Bastards.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:20 PM
I'll buy that very little distinguished Bush 41 from Clinton. But Bush 43 is a radical departure from both.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:22 PM
143: Your tone isn't congenial.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:23 PM
Yeah, well, fuck you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:25 PM
That's more like it, nutsack.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:35 PM
I like Hillary because she reminds me of a number of highly impressive women I've worked with or for over the years. That said, I'm not really interested in voting for anyone who counts a former President among their family members. Enough of that.
Enough of wondering about the nominees, for my taste, anyway. My current favorite topic of speculation is the subtextual, no doubt mostly imaginary, catfight between Amy Sullivan and Roxanne Cooper at the Washington Monthly. Far more rewarding to contemplate.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 4:37 PM
Coming in late. I'm a Feingold liberal, but I can verify that Clinton has really intense support among the Democratic rank and file, including the white rank and file. This shows up on sites like Democratic Underground, where I used to go, and also on Bartcop, but I see it here in small-town Minnesota too. I lot of people just plain like Bill and Hillary. The Hillary-haters have the megaphone, but a lot of regular people love her.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:08 PM
I used to say about Bill, and I think it's even more true about Hillary, that she's "our Nixon." That is, because people we despise attack her constantly, are driven insane by her continued success, we have become invested in that success. Like Nixon to his supporters, this becoming our champion is despite policy differences, and a lack of warmth towards her on our part. If they hate her so, she's our girl.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:22 PM
148 A lot of people say something along the lines of: I'm not really interested in voting for anyone who counts a former President among their family members. But while I've been convincced that there is more than no substance to this criticism, I don't think it would make my hypothetical list of top twenty factors in deciding whom to vote for, nor can I understand why it would be any higher than that in someone else's estimattion. Perhaps it isn't any higher than that in yours, in which case I'm in agreement.
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:31 PM
If, as various opponents of Bush have argued over the last 6 years, competence is at least as important as ideology shouldn't we have some respect for Clinton?
I am aware that I fall into the pattern described in 150, but I also think it's notable the degree to which the Clinton administration actually cared about policy.
Or, to put it differently, while the constant attacks on both Clintons make me feel more sympathetic to both of them, I don't think I support them because I will see success on thier part as a sign of victory over their antagonists. I'd like to think it's because Bill, in particular, had a number of policy successes that please me.
(Remember when "midnight basketball" was a major topic of debate? Doesn't that feel like a different political era?)
I still don't know how I feel about the idea of Hillary running, but I definitely don't hate her.
Posted by NickS | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:31 PM
Perhaps it isn't any higher than that in yours, in which case I'm in agreement.
Well, in a sense it probably isn't, or rather shouldn't be, in my top twenty reasons for deciding on a candidate. But then I tend to think the actual, substantive differences between potential Democratic nominees will be rather small, so why not judge on style points? If someone truly unacceptable were to seem like a possibility, I'd get alarmed. But as long as the conversation is will it be Edwards, Clinton, Clark, whomever, I'm not worried about the nominee's ideology per se.
To address the style point, which I do think has some substance, I find it unseemly for the Presidency to become something passed between families. I'm not so unacquainted with sociology that I imagine that elites don't exist, nor do I think that any one event means a norm has been created. Yet all in all, it's not an example I'd like to see the country set.
There's another point I'd sort of like to make about the "competence" issue and how popular it is among liberals right now leads back into the problems the party has encountered in the past half-century or so. But instead I'd rather note that you failed to address the most salient issue of my comment: catfight.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:53 PM
JL: could you spoon-feed us a link, please? I love watching Amy Sullivan try to express the inexpressible, but don't like going there much anymore.
Posted by John Tingley | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 5:57 PM
154: no link, just the Washington Monthly. It's a joke, people. I'm simply amused by how their posts have contrasted over the past couple of days:
Cooper: Let's speculate on who will be the GOP nominee! I'm guessing it might be Huckabee.
Sullivan: Playing that guessing game is stupid. Also, anyone who thinks Huckabee has a chance has no idea what they're talking about.
Cooper: Oh yeah? You know who's stupid? People who complain about how liberals deal with religion, that's who.
And so forth.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 6:05 PM
151: I disagree. Nothing has made me fonder of the 22nd Amendment than the last five years, and for me the issue is similar. It's too easy for the President to create a machine as it is. If he or she can simply hand off the Presidency to kin - which is much of what we're seeing with Hilary - it increases the incentives to create a machine. I don't love machine politics, as I find them, like the DLC, anti-democratic.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 6:18 PM
Be glad you don't live in New Mexico, SCMT.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 6:21 PM
To reiterate.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 6:39 PM
I know that you all are blue-dog Democrats,but if Biden manages to gab the nomination, then I'll be leaving the presidential line blank. His behavior on the bankruptcy bill was just unforgivable. Luckil enough, I highly doubt that he'll gain any traction in the primaries. His failure there may be enough to nudge him out of the Senate too. He said that he could decide tp run for the Senate post New Hampshire, but I think that would be pretty embarassing. I'd be glad to be rid of him.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:13 PM
I think you mean yellow-dog.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:17 PM
Yellow, blue, purple with green spots, whatthefuckever, as long as it's got a "D" plastered next to it on the ballot.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 10:47 PM
As an interested outsider, comment 63 seems to get it right.
Hopefully they *will* pay. However, making them pay depends on electing a candidate with (metaphorical) balls and I don't see anyone who seems to be demonstrating that.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 03-14-06 12:16 AM
"Well, in a sense it probably isn't, or rather shouldn't be, in my top twenty reasons for deciding on a candidate. But then I tend to think the actual, substantive differences between potential Democratic nominees will be rather small, so why not judge on style points?"
That was true in 04, but won't be in 08.
Richardson, Vilsack, Daschle, Warner, and Clinton are firmly DLC and hawkish. Kerry, Edwards and Clark are fairly progressive, and Feingold is very progressive. (Biden is fairly progressive, except he's really hawkish.)
Of course, their differences are insignificant compared to the distance to either McCain or Allen.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 03-14-06 4:39 AM
163: I have to run to a meeting, but I don't see it that way. I'll grant that Feingold is in some ways further to the left than others, but I don't think he has a chance to get the nomination. I tend to agree with those who argue that the differences between the DLC-type candidates and the others do not actually run very deep compared to what they have in common. Add in the constraints that will act on any of them should they get elected, and the differences shrink further.
Posted by JL | Link to this comment | 03-14-06 6:45 AM