Obama '08?

Not one dam thing! That's what.

If you know anything about Irish-Americans, you'd say that the Kennedy clan is the Clinton clan with dough and power, ie
"lace curtain" vs "shanty-Irish".

miller said

And apparently ("Searching for the White Radiance of Eternity") we have a theme here.

Awright, Blatham. Lets amend Soz's original post by one word then and instead say:


That point stands.

(And yes, there seem to be an awful lot of cases of husband/wife following each other up in political office in the US recently - I dont know of that happening in any other country - except, yeah, Phillipines, Pakistan, India. Its odd. The US political scene appears to be getting very... dont know what word to use. Incestuous is not right, of course, and interbred is probably true but a different can of worms again. But somehow disturbing, definitely.)

Then why disarm their law abiding citizenry? Why tell people they cannot defend themselves in their own homes?

Why destroy Meigs in the middle of the night, with planes still sitting on the tarmac?

Daley's a lib-nazi. Pure and simple.

nimh

I guess that points to my disagreement with this soz et nimhian argument. With the two Clintons, we are looking at the unique situation of a President's wife who herself has serious political ambitions. This seems to me almost more analogous with two candidates who by chance have the same name but aren't even related than it is with the oligarchical nature of the Bush family's situation.

What I'll surely grant you is that US politics (particularly re nominations/elections) is now so intertwined with big money influence and corporate influence that certain and serious dangers arise for the republican experiment. Imagine, for example, if we shift and modernize our thinking a bit here and consider the term "dynasty" applying not just to families but to corporate entities.

In any case, the critical or over-reaching matter at this time seems the same to all three of us...power cannot stay in the hands of these madmen any longer.

Well, theres another difference: I think it wont be, period. A McCain or Giluliani administration will not be Bush III. Change is going to come in any case.

Now most voters feel the same way. That also means that the Democratic message has to take that into account. "Vote against the madmen that were in power these least eight years" is not a message that will stop anyone from voting McCain or Giuliani. The anti-Bush message may work (to some extent) this November, but wont have anything like the same mobilisation power in '08.

To have any shot at defeating either of those two, the Dems will therefore need a positive "over-reaching matter", rather than merely the danger of the neocons and religious right. It will need a positive, appealing candidate, because there wont be the Anyone-But-Bush impulse to rely on.

Take me, for example - Im not American, but if I were, Id be on the left, obviously. I would have voted Hillary against GWB in '04 - hell, I would have voted Oprah against GWB. But when its Hillary vs Giuliani, say, the Republican alternative does not look threatening enough to discipline me into a vote for someone I sincerely viscerally dislike and distrust. I'd go third party. I'm sure many others would, too; just like many in the center, who would by now have voted an(y) Dem against more Bush, wouldn't be afraid to vote for Giuliani.

Of course, if the Republicans dont nominate either and instead go for, I dont know, George Allen, than she stands a chance again. But thats a hell of a chance to take.

As for the husband/wife thing. No, I dont think this is in any remote way analogous with two candidates "who by chance have the same name but aren't even related". Theyre related. Theyre husband and wife. Theyre family. Not a dynastic family like the Bushes I'll grant you, but they're family. And you may like it or not, think its irrational or not, but Hillary would either attract or repel votes largely on associations with the 1990s Clinton presidency. Period. She's not someone who just happens to be named Clinton.

And I think its weird. You had your voters in, what was it? Tennessee voting a widow instead of her late husband. Just this week I read an article about a man running for Congress who was following in his wife's steps. You have all the parents/children following in each others footsteps, not over a dynastic span of generations perhaps, but all the same. To me, that symbolises the increasingly claustrophobic parallel world which Washington politics has become, relying ever more on an ever smaller circle of people who a) still have the stomach for it b) believe its worth it c) (last but not least) have the money and the contacts to stand a chance. And who are ever more in a wholly separate dimension from regular Americans.

You have a country of a coupla hundred million people out there. If candidates increasingly come from a set of families - husbands and wives, fathers and sons - that highlights a jarring disconnect. It definitely indicates that any system in which its the best that rise up is broken, because what are the chances of the best, among two, three hundred million Americans, just happening to be the brother / wife / daughter of..?

Hillary is a perfect example of that. She's ambitious and she's smart. But she would never have been the current, all-dominating front-runner in the Democratic race if she hadnt been Bill's First Lady. In that sense she's the same as Corazon Aquino or Benazir Bhutto - also smart and ambitious, but became president thanks to the last name.

And for Xs sake, isnt it time for a new leaf? The culture wars between the Bushes and the Clintons have dominated the US political scene for over a decade now. The entrenched visceral reactions on both sides have poisoned the political atmosphere. Even if you replace the dogmatic, polarising politics of the current administration, those entrenched reactions and associations, both in the political class and (far more still) among voters at large, are a major obstacle for any sense of sensible cross-aisle co-operation.

Another decade of that? God.

Time for new names, literally and figuratively.

Absolutely.

By the way, with that observation (an aside, really), I'm not accusing Bill or Hillary of anything nefarious. I think it's more about the populace, more about branding + familiarity (people see lots of Tide commercials, people reach for Tide at the store) and almost sport-team-like rivalries. "Yeah, well your guy got ahead that time, but take THAT! Ha! My guy won this time, yeaaaaaaaah!" <fist-pumping>

Hillary becoming president -- even if she wouldn't be beating a Bush to do so (but if Jeb ran, it'd be too sickeningly perfect) -- would be very much in that vein, I think. And I think it would instantly put her campaign at a disadvantage, compared to anyone else (except Gore).

Anyone want to hazard a guess about those New Hampshire Democrats being so vehement in their criticism of Hillary?

It's just bizarre, unless I'm missing something about New Hampshire, in general.

Or, is it just that they're pissed off because she's been hawk-like on the war?

I think they just dont like her. Or rather: that there are many there who just dont like her.


Not so bizarre, really. I'm guessing NH is no different from what you might find in other places. Plenty of Democrats & Democrat-leaners who really dont like Hillary. You find em here on a2k too. And not just because of Iraq - the antipathy predates that. And to some extent, as the article pointed out, its an irrational dislike, on top of anything else.

I'm not sure which part of the article you're referring to which says it's an 'irrational' dislike.

You're right. I hadnt looked the article back up, and had misremembered. (Or rather, probably, was projecting.) It doesnt call the opinions that the poll found irrational.

I would, though:


Anti-Hillary sentiment, the article does call it, and although that's a fairly run-of-the-mill phrase, I think "sentiment" covers it here. Hillary provokes strong emotional reactions, as well as reasoned disagreement. "Satanic", "devil incarnate" - with such reactions we are firmly in the realm of the irrational.

And that is something to take into account. That the opposition to Hillary, even among the Democratic grassroots, goes beyond disagreement on Iraq or some other issue, which could be neutralised in discussion - it's visceral.

(I, for one, feel an irrational dislike of Hillary as well as a rational disapproval with what she stands for.)

I don't know the guy from Adam, but had to laugh when I read what he wrote here:



Maybe he's being honest, or maybe he's on Rove's payroll, who knows.

He also opines she can't get the nod without NH. Not sure if there's precedent for that statement or not.

He's wrong there.

George W Bush lost NH against McCain. Dole lost NH against Buchanan (!). Bill Clinton lost NH in '92 against Tsongas. Mondale lost NH against Hart.

NH actually got quite a tradition of bucking the trend.

nimh

I didn't reference that article you bring up (re family etc running/holding office) as I wasn't sure where I'd bumped into it or if you'd read it. Another key indicator of the problem you point to is the incumbent re-election rate. Otherwise, I have no great interest in continuing the analogy part of this.

I am befuddled, however, by the personal dislike and mistrust you hold for Hillary. You use the term visceral, so that means what it means, and it is personal and not much ammenable to discussion. I don't share that response.

Certainly, as with Bill, I'd rather her politics were more revolutionary (outside the box of existing interests, corporate and military mainly, and outside the framework of american exceptionalism) but America will surely have to suffer some serious degradation for such a new vision to appear necessary. But what's desireable and what's possible seem presently rather far apart.

You fear a continued or increased divisiveness in American politics given a Hillary candidacy. I think you misunderstand the nature and the genesis of this divisiveness. It would not have mattered, I conclude, who might have beaten Bush Sr in that election...the very same forces, entities, dollars and effort would have been directed towards over-turning a Dem president. As Clinton's popularity ratings remained very high throughout, we ought to understand the efforts against him as something quite other than an expression of the popular will. And it wasn't Rove or the team now around Bush who implemented or drove that enterprise. I grant that they continued or created new strategies to further this divisiveness for political gain and power consolidation, but the bulk of the political and ideological and media machinery benearth them remains in place. Whoever is the next Dem candidate will be attacked with ferocity. The divisiveness you fear is, I also conclude, best understood as a strategy or technique, and not a mere consequence. Is that clear?

So a key question for me, re the Repub candidate, is whether he or she might reject the apparatus and strategies underlying the modern party. Guiliani won't, I think. He needs it to win and I doubt he has the integrity to put principles above personal aggrandizement. McCain holds promise but he's already been kissing the wrong asses for a long time now and he'll have to turn traitor to many powerful repub interests AFTER nomination/election. He might, I am simply not sure. His stated policies/notions re the "war on terror" may be tactical or not. Again, I'm not sure. He's not a crazed ideologue like Bush or the Cheney and neocon crowd, and he's not a "I hate all things Clintonian or democrat" sort, so his presidency is probably as 'desireable' as a modern repub presidency might be. He could even be a force to remake the party into a constructive rather than a destructive factor in US politics. Of course, if he does continue with a mid-east policy similar to what is now going on, then the US is up shitcreek, along with much of the rest of the world.

My guess too is that she will lose an election against McCain. I'm not sure about Guiliani but I suspect she would win that (for a bunch of reasons I won't bother going into). No one else is presently a threat.

So for me, Obama is the preferred fellow here because of the possibilities for significant changes in domestic politics and for changes in policies regarding the US's operations in the world.

Miller:

You are obviously prejudiced about Hyde Park/Kenwood. We lived 7 wonderful years there and my husband walked to the University to work. That would have been about 12 or so blocks. It has changed and for the better. Our neighborhood was wonderfully mixed ethnically and it was a successful mix. Our house was two doors down from Mohammed Ali's former home and we did not feel afraid to walk the dogs at night in the park. The U. Of Chicago police helped that a lot with their presence. It was a different place in the 70's and 80's but there has been a great change in the 90's and today.

We had a large home with a coach house in back and rented apartments to doctoral students. We obviously disagree about the area. I love it and miss my friends that I did community gardening with. We were three blocks from Lake Michigan and 15 min from shopping and the theater or opera. Hard to beat that plus the academic atmosphere at the University.

I'll just add another thought to that last post...

A truly positive consequence of a McCain candidacy (in tandem with Lindsey Grapham, assumed VP running mate) might well be the rejection of the sorts of dirty tricks Rove used against them 6 years ago. I like both these men in terms of integrity and principled behavior/speech and if they put the lid on garbage campaigning and divisive strategies, that would go a long way towards bringing American discourse back towards the rational, honest and careful. McCain clearly wants the presidency. I guess one has to hope that the motives behind this ambition are good ones, and I do think they are.

The question really seems to me to be whether or not this modern Republican party is structurally available for changes in ideology and methodology. That's really hard to estimate. How much resistance would, for just two examples, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter offer not merely to a change in ideology but to a reduction in their personal incomes and imagined social/political profiles? What would happen if, after McCain is elected President, he publicly goes after either one of them for coarsening public discourse? If he backs off on present middle east policy, how long before Krauthammer and Kristol begin working to take him down?

As you can decipher, I'm far less concerned about a "republican" presidency than I am about the modern Republican party (with all its backup structures) remaining unchanged.

By heck Bernie you sure are some idealist.

Watching the "dirty tricks" being performed is the only point of interest as it is in the similarly well regulated game of cricket.

I think that is why media has a troughing session when a real good dirty trick comes to light.

Media doesn't underestimate the public's love of dirty tricks and it doesn't overestimate their idealism. It has been said that it is impossible to underestimate the public's idealism.

When there's not enough dirty tricks they invent what are known as "conspiracy theories" which are ghosts of dirty tricks and some of those have been known to move the furniture around in the night in the west-wing gallery.

I wish I could be an idealist. Everything seems so simple for idealists.

But they are a small minority.

What is your category, spendi?