Please join in the Valley of the Shadow Annual Fundraiser. We are raising $7,700. Please hit the Tip Jar here to contribute. Thank you
Recently, I saw the movie "Recount," Also, tonight, Senator Obama became the presumptive nominee. And at the tail end of Democratic Rules Committee, Harold Ickes attacked:
How do they all tie together? All these actions are responses to the motions of the Clinton Machine.
Ready for a ride on the Wayback machine? Here we go.....
Fall 1998 and Winter 1999: The Clinton Impeachment. Most of my friends on Capitol Hill (on the R side) were discussing during this time, the incoming Gore Administration and which Democratic members of Congress wrere going to ask the Clintons to leave.
During the 90's, the Democrats loved the Clintons because they did not play by the rules (FBI files anyone?); To be shocked in 2008 about the same Clintons, is stupidity. So, the press does not like the Clinton's now. Boo-freaking-hoo. The press were willing supplicants of a Democratic President in the 90's (accused of perjury), this is leading to an upcoming post. Just remember this thought.
When the World needed the Democrats to enact their "Goldwater to Nixon" moment, none stood up. Because there was no Gore installation, you had a V.P. fight a Governor when the trend in the past thirty years (1968 - 2000), only one Governor lost -- that was Dukakis (D-MA). If Gore was a sitting President, there would have been no recount because he could have shored up his support.
The Republican Congress had already sold out their 1996 candidate, if Gore rose, 2000 might not have been contested. However, since the Democrats did not stand up to the Clintons.....
In 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton stayed in the Presidential primary as long as possible. All this talk of how she didn't follow the rules -- as I said before, that is why the Democrats loved the Clintons in the 90's. As Ickes said, the fight goes on. She has only suspended her campaign, not ended it.
If Democrats learned to hate the GOP less (we did warn you guys in the 90's), and clean up their House more, they might have had an easier time this election cycle. What does it matter if a Democrat stands up to the Clintons now? They are not in power.
Truth to power only begins when someone is still in power.
From the the shores of Los Angeles, analysis of Politics and Culture from the Valley of the Shadow!
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Ickes, Recount and the Clinton Machine
Welcome to the Valley! Please comment about the post and keep to the subject.
There is only one person (JSF) keeping track of comments, so as long as what you write is civil and close to the purpose of the post, you will see it.
Keep this in mind: Politics should not be Personal; then you have a place here.
Write! History will remember your words!
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
I think this is all about strategic perception, and the specific strategic perception of the Democratic party.ReplyDelete
The strategic and tactical perceptions of the leadership of both parties are skewed toward the the traditional bases of both partiesReplyDelete
The strategies of Obama and his overtures to the youth characterizes a paradigm shift in the sense that powers that be within the parties tended up to untill recently a hierarchical model in which their exists a master and an apprentice. For example John Nance Garner mentored Sam Rayburn who in turn tutored LBJ and so forth.
This model was especially effective and popular in Texas, the results from the Texas primaries and caucuses demonstrated the reticence to abandon the established nodel in favor of a newer approach.
Oh, the Goldwater moment again! Is a lie about a blowjob really on the same scale as burglary to the opposition party? Don't be ridiculous! I think that now Clinton doesn't have the benefit of presiding over a very strong economy, many people who were under his spell of extreme charisma in the 90's (yes, myself included) are seeing now that he's kind of a douche, and looking back to realize that he was kind of a douche back then too (have you read that Vanity Fair piece yet? Huh? Huh? Didya?). He still did a better job as president than Bush (which isn't saying much), but his divisiveness could be blamed for giving us 8 years of Bush, as Bush's divisiveness will be to blame for democratic wins in November.ReplyDelete
As far as less hate toward republicans goes, I think once this current administration is gone, even if by some stroke of insanity McCain actually wins, you might see some toned down rhetoric. But hate doesn't come out of nowhere, right? There are always going to be haters on both sides and I sure don't see a whole lot of mention here about the hate coming from the right (and why would I? That wouldn't serve your partisan purposes, would it?), even when you've got an extremist wingnut like Aurora spewing it right here on your blog. I still think so much attention is being paid to the asshats on the fringes, nothing of any significant importance gets discussed.
There are many people on your side (and in the press -- check the next post) who keep track on Hate Speech for the Right. But Liberal hate Speech or Democratic Anti-semitism? Where is the Media? Where is Howard Dean?
And why should Liberal hate be determined by who has power, a guy like me can reverse the same logic and start saying: No Democratic victory is ever legitamite (because of Political machines and unions), thus why should I support the next Democratic president?
Doesn't that sound stupid? But the precedent is now there.
My point, again, Democrats are willing to do the wrong thing if they can get great polls -- to hell with their beliefs (Wilsonianism anyone or shall I say, Liberal Internationalism?).
When I read the vanity fair article, I thought of two things:
1) I heard it all before.
2) This article is 12 years late, why did it take so long?
Proving my point.
JSF, to point out hate without looking at the reasons behind it is kind of pointless. Let me know when you're ready to get real on this topic.ReplyDelete
Some people you can negotiate with and make deals; The Palestinians shoot missiles and discuss how they can take over Israel -- should we find out why they hate?
The past 7 years have been enlightening for me, hate, if done by Democrats is permissible, anything can be explained, anything can be a "joke,"
And I thought Hate speech was bad. If you know the reason, it can be excused. Got it.
But I have been proven right. No Democrat ever goes after another Democrat in power (especially the Executive Branch). I await an example of that.
JSF, once again you miss my point entirely. Let me know when you want to talk about what it is in the last 16 years that has brought the levels of hate to what the are now. Unlike this thread, that would be an interesting discussion.ReplyDelete