1
   

It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary

 
 
snood
 
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 08:00 am
We all know this, but I think it not unwise to remind ourselves every so often - the attacks of the Republicans are going to get wa-ay nastier…

As November draws nearer, the race is likely to become much nastier. Republican strategist Richard Viguerie has promised to figure the Democratic Party as the umbrella of women, wusses and special interests. The powers that outed Valerie Plame, the lobbies that mocked Clinton's proposals for healthcare as an ungodly communist plot, the Swift Boat gang and the deep-pocketed Scaife Foundation--they haven't gone anywhere.

Republicans can't win on their record; their strategy will depend on having us forget that when Bill Clinton left office, he not only had balanced the budget but left a significant surplus of strong dollars. In casting the Clintons as a power-hungry "dynasty," they would have us forget that it is Republicans who have reinterpreted the presidency as a monarchic "unitary executive." It is my hope that we can inoculate ourselves against the apocalyptic nastiness that the past two elections indicate we may be in for. In anticipation of that turn to the low, however, it's worth looking at the race and gender narratives already circulating, whose exploitation we need to resist. /snip/

But there are things to brace for: if history is any guide, his suavity will be construed as too silky smooth, his suits too tailored, his "agenda" too black. Maureen Dowd says that the Obamas "radiate a sense that they are owed." Newsweek sneaked in that Obama tends "toward the grandiose" and that his wife, Michelle, keeps him from "getting too full of himself." Owed? Grandiose? Intimations of "uppityness" will waft up in new guises./snip/

If the script of a strong woman who controls her husband is for now just background noise in depicting the Obamas, it is a full-scale derangement as applied to Hillary Clinton. Much is made of Obama's winning in overwhelmingly white Iowa, but less is said about the fact that he and John Edwards, who came in second, are men. As Senator Clinton campaigned there, it was to the snarky drone of Rush Limbaugh's chuckling about her wrinkles and babbling about how no one wants to watch a middle-aged woman grow old. Dowd cast Clinton as a "dominatrix" "control freak" who "whips" men into line, who "owns" Obama by snubbing him.

On NPR, an Iowan who identified herself as 95 tittered in her papery voice that "all the women are in love" with Obama. No such happy flirtation with "all the guys" is attributed to Clinton, the pants-wearing, perpetually suspected lesbian murderess of Vince Foster. At Christmas, Hillary Clinton nutcrackers were quite the snapped-up item. /snip/

I hope that we Americans can resist the vicious vacuity of politics at the level of whether Tara Reid has hit "scarily skinny." We will have enough to deal with as the right's Rovian spinmeisters kick into action, wrapping both Obama and Clinton in sticky webs of hybridized stereotypes. She will be too "mannish," he too "boyish." She'll be too familiar, he too foreign. He'll be a wimp, she'll be a pimp. Yet this is an extraordinary moment in American history--we have our first serious black and female presidential candidates.

It is my audacious little hope that the two of them, in whatever order, will become running mates by November. They must not fall prey to those who would love to see them wound each other before then, in the scramble to be top dog.

The whole article is here:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/williams
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 20,352 • Replies: 469
No top replies

 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:09 am
And, yet, the Republicans still had to rig the vote in enough precincts to win the last two elections. The only people who buy into the meat machine politics of Republicans are other Republicans and the uninformed, easily swayed few.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 09:14 am
Re: It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
snood wrote:
We all know this, but I think it not unwise to remind ourselves every so often - the attacks of the Republicans are going to get wa-ay nastier…


A fairly odd point to make now given that (1) it hasn't happened yet; and (2) the Democrats have already set the example with their far fetched suggestions of racism & sexism as the only plausible (or most likely) reasons for support of Hillary or Obama respectively, in a race that is rapidly narrowing to a contest between them.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 10:00 am
Re: It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
georgeob1 wrote:
snood wrote:
We all know this, but I think it not unwise to remind ourselves every so often - the attacks of the Republicans are going to get wa-ay nastier…


A fairly odd point to make now given that (1) it hasn't happened yet; and (2) the Democrats have already set the example with their far fetched suggestions of racism & sexism as the only plausible (or most likely) reasons for support of Hillary or Obama respectively, in a race that is rapidly narrowing to a contest between them.


It "hasn't happened yet"? How about we have this conversation after a race begins between two clear nominees? I also reject your convoluted point that Democrats have somehow put forth that race and sex are the "only" likely reasons to support them. In fact, your whole post was "odd" in my view, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 01:32 pm
Isn't it something of a question whether America wants a woman or a black President irrespective of who the candidates happened to be.

All the jibes aginst Mrs Clinton are from the general catalogue of anti-career-woman through the ages. They would be trotted out for any woman who we would presume to be reasonably qualified by having got that far.

Similarly with Mr Obama only with the Race and Americanism catalogue having been trawled and re-wired a bit.

The Republican spin docs better watch out in case they puff a lot of air out and the Convention switches to Al Gore and they've nowhere to go. He then represents all the opposites to the jibe fodder. And has Mrs Clinton as Veep where he can keep an eye on her and her husband is posted to Outer Mongolia on a peace and goodwill mission as a penance for all his infractions. That might slow wrinkle formation down. I'm sure a nice job could be found for Mr Obama while he awaits America being ready for a black President. And the GOP is OUT. Goodstyle.

You owe Al one. You're are complicit in his having had the Presidency magically wrested from his grasp.

Anyway- he would present much the more imposing companion to Her Majesty at a parade inspection in Whitehall. A white man is something of a novelty these days on those occasions. One with a Nobel Prize and with Charles on the planet saving mission as well would be great.

The English Establishment are quite well read you know.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Jan, 2008 01:37 pm
They know a lot more snidey jibes than "mannish" or "boyish" or "wimp" or "pimp". They even make jokes about people who stoop so low as to use such banalities. Sneakily of course. Only the faintest of smirk.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 09:56 am
Snood is right; however ugly it is now; it will get uglier when it comes down to the two candidates.

I got to admit; it was a social blunder to say the least what Hillary said about Martin Luther King and it taking a president to get it done. While true; it leaves a racial bad taste because it someone makes an inference that because Obama is black he will need a white president to make good laws. Surely Hillary is not so stupid as to mean something that backward and racist.

On the other hand I don't see Bill Clinton's comment about Obama's treatment from the press is a fairytale can be taken into a racial context unless people think he meant that it is a fairy tale for the media to be so supportive of a black president.

I think both are kind of stretching myself; but maybe I am biased in favor of the clintons and not seeing it for what it is. I don't know.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 10:00 am
edgarblythe wrote:
And, yet, the Republicans still had to rig the vote in enough precincts to win the last two elections. The only people who buy into the meat machine politics of Republicans are other Republicans and the uninformed, easily swayed few.


And Hillary had to rig the vote in NH to get the victory.
How else can you explain the vast difference between the pre-election polls and the actual results?
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 10:23 am
edgarblythe wrote:
And, yet, the Republicans still had to rig the vote in enough precincts to win the last two elections. The only people who buy into the meat machine politics of Republicans are other Republicans and the uninformed, easily swayed few.


I'm confused. Wasn't there supposed to be a Republican winner?

Democrats have a machine going too. They arn't got no halo's or wings.
0 Replies
 
Gala
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 10:39 am
I'm impressed with Obama going after Hillary Clinton with the MartinLuther King/Johnson comment. I don't like what he's doing, but he is one smart guy and this latest kerfuffle between the two makes him appear presidential.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:23 am
Re: It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
snood wrote:
We all know this, but I think it not unwise to remind ourselves every so often - the attacks of the Republicans are going to get wa-ay nastier…

Come on snood, wake up. The ugliness is between Senator Clinton and Barack Obama. Whichever candidate wins the Democratic race will then have to convince the electorate to vote for them, but I see more ugliness between the candidates in each party right now. If you ever thought some Democrats would never use the race card in their own party instead of just on Republicans as they have always done, I would encourage you to analyze a bit more about what is going on right now.

Remember, I warned you about the Clintons many months ago, and you dismissed it, but you need to pay attention to what is happening right now. The Clintons will stop at nothing that they think might be necessary or that they think might work in order to win. And if they beat Obama, they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:34 am
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:44 am
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.


So you approve of vote fraud, rigging the voting machines, voter intimidation, throwing away of ballots, and anything else it would take for the dems to win?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:50 am
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.


So you approve of vote fraud, rigging the voting machines, voter intimidation, throwing away of ballots, and anything else it would take for the dems to win?
absolutely.
Barry Goldwater wrote:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:56 am
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.


So you approve of vote fraud, rigging the voting machines, voter intimidation, throwing away of ballots, and anything else it would take for the dems to win?
absolutely.
Barry Goldwater wrote:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.


So then you cannot say the repubs did anything wrong in the 2000 or the 2004 elections.
IF the repubs had committed the vote fraud they were accused of, especially in Florida and Ohio,then they would have been "defending liberty" as they saw it.

So, you can never say they did anything wrong.
And whatever measures Bush has taken since 9/11, especially the Patriot Act, can also seen to be "extremism in the defense of liberty" so again its not wrong, by your own admission.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:58 am
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.


So you approve of vote fraud, rigging the voting machines, voter intimidation, throwing away of ballots, and anything else it would take for the dems to win?
absolutely.
Barry Goldwater wrote:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.


So then you cannot say the repubs did anything wrong in the 2000 or the 2004 elections.
IF the repubs had committed the vote fraud they were accused of, especially in Florida and Ohio,then they would have been "defending liberty" as they saw it.

So, you can never say they did anything wrong.
And whatever measures Bush has taken since 9/11, especially the Patriot Act, can also seen to be "extremism in the defense of liberty" so again its not wrong, by your own admission.
perhaps MM you have not actually read my posts for the past 5 years; that's ok I don't really expect wither you or okie to be literate anyway.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 11:59 am
So dyslexia is all for cheating to win. And the Goldwater guy is a liberal now. Go figure. I think he needs a shrink.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 12:01 pm
okie wrote:
So dyslexia is all for cheating to win. And the Goldwater guy is a liberal now. Go figure. I think he needs a shrink.
okie it's kinda funny how last year you were so confused when I stated that I had voted for Goldwater, I see life still confuses you. Okie, I don't really mind stupidity, there's certainly enough of it on these boards but your wilfull stupidity is often hard to tolerate.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 12:03 pm
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
mysteryman wrote:
dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
they will use the same stuff to beat any Republican.
good, whatever it takes to bring democracy back to the U.S.A.


So you approve of vote fraud, rigging the voting machines, voter intimidation, throwing away of ballots, and anything else it would take for the dems to win?
absolutely.
Barry Goldwater wrote:
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.


So then you cannot say the repubs did anything wrong in the 2000 or the 2004 elections.
IF the repubs had committed the vote fraud they were accused of, especially in Florida and Ohio,then they would have been "defending liberty" as they saw it.

So, you can never say they did anything wrong.
And whatever measures Bush has taken since 9/11, especially the Patriot Act, can also seen to be "extremism in the defense of liberty" so again its not wrong, by your own admission.
perhaps MM you have not actually read my posts for the past 5 years; that's ok I don't really expect wither you or okie to be literate anyway.


I have read most of your posts, but I just wanted to be clear.
Now that you have said that doing whatever it takes, legal or not, to win an election is fine with you That clears everything up.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 12:05 pm
MM wrote:
but I just wanted to be clear.

Liar.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » It's Gonna Get Ugly For Barack and Hillary
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/12/2021 at 11:28:41