Clinton/Gaga 2012
Or maybe 2016. We gotta plan ahead.
Read Falstaff on the incompetence of the Obama administration (more on that later) and Hillary Clinton’s prospects:
The most interesting thing to me, political-leader-wise, is Hillary’s position. I think she’s holding a remarkable hand. If/when it becomes obvious to a majority of Americans that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter II — i.e., a flop as president — she’s got two options: She can either resign from the Administration over some matter of principle — and ipso facto become the presumptive nominee (doing to this one-term Carter what Teddy couldn’t do to the first one) — or she can choose to ensure his re-election by accepting his desperate plea to run with him as Veep in 2012… and then get elected President on her own in 2016.
Kinda reminds me of Wanda Sykes on “Clinton panties”:
As for Lady Gaga, I’m very pleased to see that she’s evolved from her earlier “I’m not a feminist, but…” stage to “Of course I’m a feminist!” By 2012 she’ll be leading Take Back The Night marches (wearing a phosphorescent bodysuit and fishnet stockings, I’m sure). We all saw last year that fame, youth, and a good voice is what packs ‘em in at the polls, so put Gaga on the ticket!
But seriously (and yes, I’m kidding about Lady Gaga), let me circle back now to this business of Obama’s alleged incompetence. Incompetent at what? At good government? At enacting progressive policies? Yes, if such a thing was ever his intention. But I don’t think it was. I’ve been saying since March 2008 that he’s a Republican in everything but name. Obama’s great gift is his ability to pretend he’s on the side of the progressive angels. And in our sound-bite culture, pretending is apparently enough.
Did you all see that news item the other day about the White House issuing a directive for government transparency? If you’re a political junkie and you know that behind the scenes Obama is pushing hard to renew the Patriot Act, then you know that the “Open Government Directive” is just bread and circuses. But most people aren’t political junkies. Most people probably don’t know about the Patriot Act renewal. All they see is a headline about Obama calling for transparency in government, and they think, “Gosh, he’s doing exactly what he promised! What a great guy!”
Same thing with healthcare. My own mother says, “Isn’t he trying to get real reform? Isn’t it the Republicans who are stopping him?” That’s certainly what Obama wants us to believe:
“As we head into the final stretch on health reform, big insurance company lobbyists and their partisan allies hope that their relentless attacks and millions of dollars can intimidate us into accepting the status quo.
“So I have a message for them, from all of us: Not this time. We have come too far. We will not turn back. We will not back down.”
Gawd. It’s soul-stirring, isn’t it? Obama’s emails should come with embedded mp3s of the theme from Ben Hur. But Jane Hamsher sets the record straight:
It’s time that people took off the rose colored glasses and faced the fact that Obama’s “leadership” on health care was empty and passive. He went for the corporate-friendly “win” that enriches the insurance and drug companies, just as he has enriched the banks and failed to hold them to account. Those who look first to others as scapegoats for his actions have apparently not come to grips with the fact that as President of the United States, he’s a very powerful man who is not using that power to advance the progressive agenda they attribute to him.
I’m not sure about the “empty and passive” bit; in that same post Jane stresses that Obama has been closely involved in the healthcare reform process all along. It seems to me he’s pretty active — just not on behalf of progressive interests.
And now the banking regulation deal looks like the same thing. The Huffington Post reports that “the Obama administration” is pushing for tougher regulation of the financial services industry. The administration is opposed, allegedly, by a group of pro-bank Democrats led by Representative Melissa Bean. But it turns out that Melissa Bean is part of the same money-soaked Chicago circle as Obama (hat tip to lambert). As Little Isis summarizes:
Regardless of who Bean is taking her marching orders from, Obama’s inner circle retains significant leverage over the Representative from Illinois. To understand her as a rogue element within her party, doing Wall Street’s bidding and crossing senior leadership, is to completely disregard the roots of power in the White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress.
This kind of two-faced strategy reminds me of the Obama campaign in 2008: nice on the outside, nasty as shit behind the scenes. That was one reason it was so hard to get dazzled Obama fans to understand how awful his team really was. “He’s such a lovely man!” people would say. Yeah, right.
45 Responses to “Clinton/Gaga 2012”
-
lambert strether says:
Not empty and passive. This “little single payer advocate” says active and maligant. Single payer advocates were excluded and censored by the same White House that promised an open and transparent process live on CSPAN. And the Czar who reneged on that promise most definitely knew.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:36 pm EST -
Violet says:
There is great reluctance to come right out and say that Obama is working for his corporate donors. I just read Matt Taibbi’s latest piece, and it’s interesting that he’s still floating the possibility that Obama is just a naive tool who doesn’t understand what’s happening. At the same time, he argues that Obama’s 2008 campaign gave no hint of Obama’s true political inclinations.
I would argue that, first of all, Obama’s true political inclinations were not difficult to discern for anyone who was really looking. I don’t think journalists like Taibbi really have an out on that one. The posturing was for the gullible and the uninformed, as it still is.
I would also suggest that apologists (for themselves or for the President) are rapidly reaching the point where Obama has to be a moron or a vegetable for the apology to work. His administration is doing bad things, but he doesn’t know/doesn’t understand/is powerless to intervene? His campaign told lies but he didn’t know/didn’t understand/was powerless to intervene? Gracious.
-
lambert strether says:
I wish Hillary would resign sooner rather than later, and I applauded her move to State because it got her out from under the falling safe of Obama’s domestic policy. That said, I don’t see anybody coming away from an association with Obama with their reputation enhanced.
-
Violet says:
If Hillary can figure out how to run on this and actually win, I’ll be amazed. The problem is that she (or somebody) needs to run against Obama. Even if it’s 2016, she (or somebody) will need to run against every fuck-up of his administration. But that’s going to be very hard for any Democrat to do.
-
Northwest rain says:
The people running the Dem party (which is the Chicago crooks) are so misogynistic that it is doubtful that they would allow a woman to run for prez.
My theory is that the first break through for a women candidate for Prez will be on the GOP side. THEN the Dems will consider offering a female candidate that they think they can control.
There will be no changes until the Dem party crawls back out of the grave and gets away from Chicago and the foul stench of political corruption come from that city.
Plus 0bowma has the $$$$ from his backers — unless they see that their puppet is a sure loser. Who will these guys back next?
-
femina says:
The only scenario I can think of for a Hillary 2012 presidential run and win is, with 2 more years of Obama FAIL, that many of the dem hot-shots and we underlings clamor for her to run. That way, she doesn’t have to explain and answer for why she supported Obama after her primary “loss” and why later became SoS in his Cabinet. As much as I have wanted her to be elected president, I don’t want her to become Obama’s vice-president and then run in 2016. Being Secretary of State gives Hillary some distance from him and his domestic policies, independence, and foreign policy experience.
Of the 7 democratic primary candidates in 2008, she is by far the most qualified and experienced. I’d hate the second misogynist campaign gauntlet and the cleaning-up after Obama’s one term when she won. Still, we don’t know if she’s interested in a second shot at the WH.
-
lalala says:
OT: I wonder what grade Obama will give to himself during Oprah’s Christmas at the White House special. I’ve been seeing that commercial constantly on ABC. I’m guessing he’ll give himself a B-. An A would be ridiculous and he’s too narcissistic to believe that he really deserves a D.
-
jumpjet says:
Reading that article makes me wonder, why not Lady Gaga as Clinton’s VP? She’s certainly got a good head on her shoulders, and she knows how to move a crowd.
I maintain, though, that Elizabeth Warren would be our best bet to run against Obama in 2012.
-
Aspen says:
Back when I heard that Lady Gaga made the comment that she rejected feminism because feminists hate men too much, I had to chuckle, because in the only two of her videos I’ve seen, Bad Romance and Paparazzi, she kills men. Typical feminist basher hypocrite.
I am glad to see she changed her tune. I knew she was involved in gay and lesbian rights, so maybe that pulled her in the right direction.
-
falstaff says:
Violet – Thanks for the props, sorta. Anyway, I’m a big fan, regardless. For the record, I’m not excusing him on ideological grounds, nor am I saying he’s an idiot. I’m saying something more, well, I guess, lit-crit than that. I’m saying he isn’t a leader (and was obviously not one, to anyone with eyes to see, from the get-go). I don’t actually believe that he came in with a very concrete agenda, either benign or malignant. I think he never seriously framed in his head what it would mean to govern. As Anglachel has argued persuasively for a long time now (though, sadly, she hasn’t been offering her perspective much of late), he isn’t a serious political actor. He doesn’t have anything in particular he wants accomplished, no legacy really beyond the historically important fact of his simple election. He doesn’t build constituency, doesn’t frame a cogent agenda and mobilize populations to support it, etc. He simply wants to be liked — or, more precisely, he wants to hide in plain sight. He wrote two whole autobiographies in which he becomes more opaque by the page.
You may well feel, “Six of one, half a dozen of trhe other… If the results are a crappy healthcare plan and lack of serious regulation of the banksters, etc…. then it’s a matter of indifference whether it’s brilliant Machiavellian planning or passivity in the face of Versailles.” Through that lens, I’d agree. But I would respectfully argue that there are other lenses, and other forms of discourse in which all of us can (and do) engage sometimes besides ideology — including on the subject of politics.
So, if one were analyzing this guy’s life as one would a character in a novel, if one were looking at the entire arc for what fuels his engine, I think it’s implausible to see him as some diabolical plotter from the age of 18 (when he surely began to run for President), intent from the beginning on being a stealth Republican. But, different readers of this novel may have other thesis statements…
And I still hope Hillary’s story has a few more chapters left.
-
Violet says:
Hey Falstaff — definitely props. I didn’t mean to imply any criticism. Thought your post was great.
I’m not arguing that he’s a diabolical plotter or a ringer. I agree with you that his personal goal is simply to be liked — in fact I did at least one post on that theme (probably more, but I’ve forgotten): The Willy Loman presidency.
I think he does whatever his corporate donors want him to do is because he knows where the money is. And he needs the money to keep being popular and live out his personal Willy Loman dream. I don’t really believe it’s any deeper than that.
Nevertheless, that’s dangerous enough. He’s not passive, not an ineffectual buffoon being tossed about. I think he deliberately takes steps to please the people he needs to please — his backers.
-
Violet says:
To expand on the point I just made: I’ve been reading tonight about the Dorgan amendment and the threat it poses to the White House deal with Big Pharma. Huffington post:
Earlier this year, the administration struck a deal with PhRMA and the Senate Finance Committee limiting the industry’s hit to $80 billion over ten years. The deal has never been officially confirmed, but the Huffington Post reported at the time that the White House agreed to oppose re-importation. The Senate Finance Committee bill, as well as the merged bill sent to the floor by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), stuck to that deal.
Along with its pledge of support, PhRMA offered to spend $150 million on ads backing reform.
Emphasis mine.
It’s my contention that the $150 million in ad money is the real consideration in that deal for Obama. Does he personally care whether Americans can get their drugs from Canada? No. What he cares about is being popular and getting re-elected and putting a happy checkmark by his name for “healthcare reform.” Big Pharma has the money to buy that image for him. And he knows it.
-
jumpjet says:
If Al Franken can win a Senate seat, Lady Gaga can be Vice President.
-
octogalore says:
Looks like some of the dazzle’s wearing off.
I liked Falstaff’s post too, but had some difficulty with the following:
Of course, [Hillary] may not want to. She may actually have moved past all this… may have found an existential center of peace and strength in her life that frees her from the need to grab for the brass ring. She may have evolved past all of us, to a place where actual expertise, smarts and self-knowledge rule, and where the person who possesses them in superior quantities can have a significant (perhaps sufficient) impact on the world, independent of power relationships and institutions.
Huh? I’m assuming this isn’t antifeminist, but if I didn’t know the context, I’d wonder. It sounds a bit patronizing to suggest that for this woman to want to run, it would have to be out of a “need to grab for the brass ring.” What if she felt she was most qualified? What if she felt it was not enough to have a “sufficient” impact? What if she had half a brain and realized that “actual expertise” doesn’t stand half a chance when up against “power relationships and institutions” such as the Presidency?
Maybe she doesn’t want to, of course. But if that’s the case, I think it’s doubtful that any of the reasons set forth in that post are the reasons why not.
-
myiq2xu says:
I can’t see Hillary running against Obama in 2012 – if she was going to challenge the whole party she would have done it last year.
The DNC is going to renominate Obama even if his poll numbers are in the toilet. They’ll figure that he can win by being better than whoever the GOP nominates.
If anybody challenges Obama in the primaries it will be an outsider like Jerry Brown.
-
Violet says:
I don’t know, Octo; wasn’t that the same kind of thing that was said about Al Gore?
-
myiq2xu says:
Well, speak of the Devil:
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: President Obama is grappling with growing frustration from among liberal grass-roots, with many of the activists who worked hard for his election a year ago feeling alienated over his handling of health care, Afghanistan, Wall Street reforms, gay rights, and a host of other issues.
But, Obama’s 2008 campaign manager said today on ABC’s “Top Line,” liberals will ultimately come back into the fold when it matters in forthcoming elections.
“Of course there’s some people upset. But I think, I think people will look at the balance of his leadership to help us lead through the economy — that we finally got health insurance done,” said David Plouffe, the author of a new book about the Obama campaign, “The Audacity to Win.”
IOW – “Where else can they go?”
-
Swannie says:
Underwear?? BO is a skidmark on the underwear of the world . He will try and rewrite his administrations and ” accomplishments ” history the same way he rewrote his own in glowing spinning lies. The problem is , he cannot be the new kid on the block twice , no matter how much they spin. The latest one is amazing , BO cannot govern because the USA is ungovernable ; so if BO cannot do it it cannot be done.
So I guess we should give him another four years to not do what cannot be done ???
I am seriously hoping he will decide not to run !My Clinton Panties are the old fashioned ones with each day of the week embroidered on ;)
-
Kookaburra says:
I am convinced that Lady Gaga started out as an elaborate send up of the entire Hollywood farce. Then when they bought it hook, line, and sinker, she decided to ride that pony as far as it would take her.
Also, her Minnie Mouse glasses have grown on me like a fungus.
-
Nessum says:
All they see is a headline about Obama calling for transparency in government, and they think, “Gosh, he’s doing exactly what he promised! What a great guy!”
Actually what I generally see (in Northern Europe) is more like: “Gosh, he promised! What a great guy!”
It’s “Obama believes that…”, and “I’m sure that Obama wants to/thinks that/works hard at…”, and “If only Congress would let him…”, and “All Republicans are racist!” Constant over-the-top adoration and apologism. The 24/7 news of him receiving the NPP far outweighed news about the other Nobel Laureates. Even as an unprecedented 5 women were among them!
I believe he is armoured with the best protection against criticism any US President could ever have in this time and age: The colour of his skin!
We were so many that looked forward to the day when the US was ready, willing, and able to elect a black President, so now that it has happened, it takes a lot, and is for many nigh impossible, to criticize him. Besides, by doing so one risks being seen as counterproductive, regressive, and, yes, racist!
-
gxm17 says:
If Obama won the election on a so-called liberal agenda but enacts a corporate agenda (which is what he’s been doing so far) then he was, and is, a ringer. He was put into the race by TPTB to advance their, not the people’s, agenda. He was sold as change when a course shift was never on the itinerary.
The truth is that most politicians are ringers. But at least they have the savvy to walk the thin line between delivering for their constituents and bending over for their owners. The Obama administration seems to believe that given King Nothing’s cult appeal, they don’t have to walk that line, they can crash right through it. And, as Nessum, IMO rightly, points out, the average white Obama supporter is not going to say a word because they are deathly afraid of being called a racist. (While, conversely, they embrace misogyny as a unifying ideal.) I will be curious, however, to see what they do in the privacy of a voting booth after three more years of this incompetent puppet.
Gee, whatever happened to the whole 11D chess analogies. Guess it’s become clear that they were giving the man about 10 dimensions too many.
-
GnomeDigest says:
Obama is just Bush 2.0. He is continuing the large, large majority of Bush positions, and even expanding some of the most heinous programs (rendition, Bagram as the new Gitmo, Patriot act, predator drone assassination strikes to name just a few).
Worse is the fact that Obama’s election gutted most of the opposition to those extreme Bush positions. Now that Obama holds the SAME positions they are considered “centrist”. This is even more dangerous than a McCain presidency in my opinion, because at least these extreme unconstitutional policies would face more opposition from those who opposed those same policies under Bush.
However I think anyone who thinks a Hillary Clinton presidency would be much different is deluding themselves. Dems, repubs, its basically all one big party; a Corporate Party. So much of Obama’s team are former Bill Clinton folks, and I would expect alot of them would be on Hillary’s staff if she had been elected. Many of these “advisors” set the stage under Bill Clinton for the economic collapse we have been undergoing now.
-
purplefinn says:
GnomeDigest, I agree that the Reps and Dems are corporate controlled. Unless one is independently wealthy and/or famous, it is nearly impossible to win an election without corporate donations.
To say that given the same staff, but a different leader, the outcome would be pretty much the same doesn’t make sense to me. Also to assert that Clinton would have chosen the exact same people doesn’t compute.
I believe that Clinton would have had the savvy to play the corps off each other and other constituencies to “get things done.”
We’ll never know. Sadly.
Not particularly delusional in PA, I didn’t vote for O.
-
Things are not always as they appear « Blue Lyon says:
[...] along the same line of things not being what they appear, go read Violet’s latest. But seriously (and yes, I’m kidding about Lady Gaga), let me circle back now to this business of [...]
-
Aspen says:
The Dems didn’t fight Bush, so I don’t see why I’d believe the would fight McCain or any Repub. The only time they fight is when against O’s most extreme socialist policies [insert thunderous laughter].
-
Janis says:
“We” were caught up, Wanda? Ironic though it may be to use this turn of phrase in the current context, “Who we, white man?”
-
Janis says:
And can I ask who is this gaga person? I’ve had a few people I know try to sell me on her, but I don’t even know what she looks like. They’ve said she’s so different and totally uncategorizeable but I’m afraid I’m still sitting here thinking, “Yeah yeah, one more surgically enhanced 85 pound twenty year old with a passable voice in small clothing who sings a bit and gyrates, gosh never seen that before … ” So, is she?
-
Violet says:
So, is she?
No. She’s more like a cross between David Bowie and Madonna. Not surgically enhanced. Started as a songwriter writing hits for others. Quite talented musically. Good singer. Her shtick is just over-the-top theatricalism.
-
octogalore says:
I don’t know. Having looked into the Gore situation, the press suggested he might prefer to enjoy a life that is “filled with his newfound Hollywood fame, but also has been lucrative.”
Or here: “Of course, he would like to be President, but he has to figure out if he wants to do what he’d have to do to become president — that is, run, and go through all that again. And he has to figure out whether he has enough of a chance to win to make it worth trying.“
Or here: “He’s in a really good place, and he’s succeeding fabulously. Why would he want to walk away from it all?”
Or because his popularity and hero status might slip: “But why would he do this? He stands to lose so much. His current popularity, earned largely by commitment to environmentalism, would be threatened. As a candidate, he’d be required to take stands on issues he’s been able to leave behind. The world would lose the focused commitment of a dedicated environmentalist, as he’d be enmeshed in extricating the U.S. from Iraq, perhaps from Iran if all goes in George Bush’s favor, and also from Afghanistan and Pakistan where there is now a dangerous resurgence of the Taliban.”
And many others that are versions of one of these. So basically, the reasons given for Gore not running were enjoying his lucrative existence, not knowing for sure if he had a chance, being a big star on the environmentalism stage. NOT being in a zen-type state with no need for fame and glory, or being willing to settle for a back-room, lesser impact. Sorry, not seeing the parallel.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
Agree with Falstaff about Hillary holding a very good hand at this point in time. This also leapt out at me:
It’s quite remarkable how little shit has landed on her shoes from the leadership failure of this Administration.
To extend this metaphor and mash it up with one of Lambert’s about blooming where you’re planted, Hillary’s not only blooming compared to the rest of O’s misadministration, but she’s using the bullshit that is the natural end product of the O hype machine to fertilize her roots. When all around you cannot be bothered to even pretend competence, leadership, or simple keeping of your word, someone who sets goals, leads by example, and relentlessly and tirelessly achieves those goals without complaint comes off smelling like a rose. It’s no accident that her approval ratings are steadily climbing whilst O’s are diving – on Day One, as promised, she was ready to go on the job, and set the parameters and expectations of her role, which also served to inoculate her from the inevitable FUBAR resulting from O’s foreign policy inexperience coupled with his being owned by TPTB:
There are three legs to the stool of American foreign policy: defense, diplomacy, and development. And we are responsible for two of the three legs. And we will make clear, as we go forward, that diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long-term objectives of the United States. And I will do all that I can, working with you, to make it abundantly clear that robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America’s future.
Although there are still those suffering under the misapprehension that Hillary, as SoS, is in charge of O’s War on Terra, as always, boys are in charge of the war toys, and the vast majority of funds are going to the DoD rather than the State Department:
I’m going to demand a lot. I don’t think we have a choice. We have, with President Obama, someone who believes in development and diplomacy. Coming to the State Department yesterday sent a very strong signal. A few of you may even know, as I mentioned in my testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee, that the President’s late mother was an expert in microfinance and worked in Indonesia. I have been involved in microfinance since 1983, when I first met Muhammad Yunus and had Muhammad come to see us in Arkansas so that we could use the lessons from the Grameen Bank in our own country. I was actually looking forward to being on a panel with the President’s mother in Beijing on microfinance.
So his understanding and commitment to these important human issues runs very deep. But we must be the best we can be to merit his support. It’s not going to be given freely; we have to demonstrate how prepared we are to perform.
It will also not surprise you to learn that we have to regain some credibility in order to regain the authorities and the resources that have drifted elsewhere. It is, as I said publicly in my testimony, ironic that our very best young military leaders – captains and majors and lieutenant colonels – are given unfettered resources through the Commander’s Emergency Response Program to spend as they see fit to build a school, to open a health clinic, to pave a road, and our diplomats and our development experts have to go through miles of paperwork to spend ten cents. It is not a sensible approach.
The bolded bits are interesting for many reasons, one of which is a personal theory that O has issues with anyone resembling his mother, which unfortunately, Hillary does on more than one count. I say unfortunately, because O has a history of stabbing such women in the back. That said, I think Hillary can and will take care of herself. I suspect that her passion in her current role is pursuing a feminist agenda on a global scale over and above what any other SoS would do. Any SoS would be required to dutifully execute the role of American empire spokesperson. It’s ironic that her pursuit of the global feminist agenda actually subverts American empire, and doubly ironic that she’s largely able to make great strides on her passion precisely because TPTB don’t consider anything women do to be of any consequence! If she ever does choose to run again, these intense relationships she’s forged with women and fair-minded men the world over will stand her in good stead. People who’ve been invisible all their lives don’t tend to forget someone who recognizes them for the first time as a fellow human being, especially when that someone officially represents the USA, and not only listens, but hears.
-
la-t-da says:
HeroesGetMade, in her testimony with Gates regarding the escalation of troops, she, as well as a few senators and Gates talked about the escalation of civilians as well. Civilians will be tripled in the initial deployment. Gates and a couple of senators brought up the Commander’s Emergency Response Program and said State needed the same.
One of the senators said that the appropriations bill should deal with the DOD and DOS funds at the same time, granting State immediate access to their budget funds. Gates fully agreed. He and Hillary seemed to have a good working relationship. They both talked much more about the civilian buildup in the Senate hearing than was ever mentioned or asked about on the news programs.
-
lambert strether says:
HeroesGetMade, “bloom where you’re planted” comes from Hillary Clinton, and though I’m sure I’ve quoted it, I can find the links. Thanks for a great comment, which really gives perspective.
-
Violet says:
NOT being in a zen-type state with no need for fame and glory, or being willing to settle for a back-room, lesser impact.
As Michael Hirsch said in 2007 (http://www.newsweek.com/id/77828), “Yes, we’ve all heard that Gore’s reached a kind of peace within himself, and what fire that is left in his belly is guttering out.”
I’ve heard countless variations on “Gore is at peace with himself” since 2002, when he announced he would definitely not run in 2004. The post-beard Gore, etc. Lots of articles and profiles about how he came to terms with losing the presidency and found his Zen… I don’t have links off-hand, but I’m sure I didn’t dream them!
-
HeroesGetMade says:
I have no idea whether Hillary would actually want to take another run at the dem party gauntlet again, but I think one of the glaring differences between her campaign and O’s points out a serious handicap. It kills me when people gush about what a brilliant campaign O ran; it wasn’t so much brilliant as unprincipled. It’s not hard to win at anything if you don’t much care how you win. One thing that continuously cropped up during the primaries was the Obotic projection mode whereby they would accuse Hillary’s campaign of the very things they were getting up to behind the scenes. Hillary will say or do anything to become president! Hillary is leveraging hate to ruin Obama! Hillary is destroying the Democratic Party! ad nauseum
After the primaries were over and the big behind the scenes tell-all came out on Hillary’s campaign, we actually found out that the worst thing Hillary was advised to do was claim to be more American than Obama, which admittedly has the aroma of racism, but I’m not quite sure whether it actually qualifies. (As a lily-white person, I have no business deciding what’s racist, but I do tend to take liberties since sexism serves as the model and blueprint for racism, and sexism I get.) No matter though, she refused to take that tack, showing she had a personal code of honor – she knew ahead of time which things she would do and which she wouldn’t, no matter what. That personal code of honor is important to me, because part of my own demanded that if she did indeed use racism, I’d drop my support of her like a bad smell. Luckily, that bridge was never crossed. On the flip side, O very ably demonstrated that he had no personal code of honor whatsoever, there was nothing and no one he wouldn’t betray to win.
IIRC, the big tell-all revealed the most stinging (and effective) criticism of O, taking the form of the 3am call ad, was actually approved by Bill, not Hillary. If the big tell-all piece in The Atlantic is to be believed, Hillary abdicated on the decision of whether to run the ad. I think this sort of the thing is a serious handicap running against O precisely because the dude cannot handle criticism at all. I distinctly recall one debate where Hillary was standing beside him giving him what for on his record on health care policy, and this whole pissy demeanor came over him with an attendant semi-eye roll. If you want to see drama that’s not pretty at all, all you have to go for is hard-hitting criticism based on his record, which he’ll actually have next time around. I don’t know whether Hillary is willing to do that, but if he does get up in her business in the parts of being SoS that she actually loves, well, karma is a bitch with an infinitely long memory. Right now though, it looks like karma is taking the form of Sarah Palin, and I have no doubt that she has no problem whatsoever making a very plainspoken and effective critique of his non-performance and non-leadership as leader of the free world, especially on populist grounds. And yes, I know, GOP economic policies fly in the face of true populism, but I also believe there’s not a chance in the world that McCain and/or Palin would’ve handed over the trillions to banksters that O did and continues to do.
-
falstaff says:
Octogalore — Thoughtful… thoughts. Thanks. To clarify a bit: I’m not talking about self-knowledge and inner peace as an alternative to action or impact. I’m talking about getting beyond the game, getting to a place — if I were a religious person, I’d call it spiritual, but since I’m not, I’ll call it an advanced evolutionary state — where you know yourself and your stuff at a deeper level. We’ve all been in meetings where someone shapes the thinking and the impact by sheer force of intellect and groundedness, without regard to position in a hierarchy. Admittedly, those events are rarer than they should be — but they do happen. And I think Hillary has fought and earned her way to a historical and human significance that transcend our politics. That’s what I meant when I said she’s gotten to a new place — one that no other political figure in my lifetime, male or female, has achieved.
And as a practical matter — and this was obviously the main point of my post — I think she has options that are unique. She had the presidency stolen from her (as did Al Gore), and yet emerged more powerful in the culture, to the reality of governing and in the hearts and minds of the world than ever before. She’s become a transformational figure in ways even fans of hers (or, I’m sure, Hillary herself) didn’t anticipate.
Whatever is going to happen to her is far more up to her than it is to circumstances… far more in her control than for any other politician or world leader around now, I think… and that’s really moving and inspiring — especially, given our species’ evolutionary limitations, for a woman.
-
myiq2xu says:
It kills me when people gush about what a brilliant campaign O ran; it wasn’t so much brilliant as unprincipled.
Obama had lots more money as well as the support of the media and the Democratic establishment. But Hillary got more votes. She won the big states and the swing states. Obama won the red states. Hillary was winning primaries by big margins long after Obama was declared unbeatable.
With a huge advantage of money and an anti-GOP mood in the country,Obama was still trailing McCain until the financial meltdown.
What was brilliant about any of that?
-
a little night musing says:
Oh Violet oh Violet. I’m not even waiting to read all the other comments before writing this one. I read your headline and I cried out Yes I said yes I will yes… and I fell unconscious and went into a dream, a dream in which we are all judged not by the color of our skins or the nature of our genitalia… and then I woke up and thought, “write a comment, you must”.
How about Violet/Gaga 2012? If HRC doesn’t want to run.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
Lambert, thank you – I remember latching onto “bloom where you’re planted” from your site, but didn’t remember it was herself who said it. For some reason, it has stayed with me ever since.
la-t-da, can’t speak to the civilian buildup discussed in the Senate, but do remember hearing that just as many military contractors were going to be sent as rank-and-file military, which did not instill confidence. It actually makes me feel somewhat better about things if diplomacy/development is being funded and deployed in concert with the military buildup, but I don’t kid myself that peace is truly being given a chance there. The military specializes in killing people, period.
I also remember Gates being very complimentary wrt Hillary’s abilities and vice versa. She’s a quintessential team player as well as a leader, and I’m convinced that she can work with anyone after seeing her rise above the cesspit that was the 2008 election and take on being a SoS unlike any we’ve ever had. I suspect this good working relationship with Gates is paying off for State, as in liberating some DoD funding to actually do something besides kill people. Also from the USAID remarks:
Now, there are many new missions that many of you have undertaken in the last several years: the reconstruction and stabilization missions, the kinds of post-conflict missions, the role working hand-in-hand with our military colleagues. And in every instance where we look at what the United States is doing abroad, we will find someone, maybe from this very room or colleagues of yours across the world, who is there. Time and again, when I speak to my friends over at the Defense Department, they will confess that they very often have to turn to you to determine how best to spend the money they’ve been given for development, reconstruction, and stabilization.
myiq, completely agree about the Obama hype machine being a major factor in his ‘winning’. It was a very sorry comment on his vote-earning ability that he poured more money into the Pennsylvania primary than I believe anyone has ever spent on a state race anywhere in history and still could not win it. Whatever, I’m sure it must be on account of all those racists in PA clinging to their bibles and guns; money and personal awesomeness are simply powerless in the face of all that.
-
HeroesGetMade says:
Also agree about Hillary being a highly evolved person and/or transcendent figure of our times. This also goes to another aspect of the Obotic projection mode – the unsubstantiated claims of O being a transcendent, transformational, unifying figure. Someone once put it very well that the only thing he ever transformed was soccer moms into PUMAs.
Hillary on the other hand, yeah, I’d say she had to evolve in order to rise above the muck and mire that was slung at her during Bill’s term. Nothing she ever did was right – her hair, her clothes, her causes, her lack of Stepfordness, her outspokeness, her staff, not leaving her philandering husband, not keeping Bill happy, healthcare reform, and on and on. I think when someone is under this kind of duress, the choices are to find a way to rise above or be driven to self-medication, as has been the tradition with many political wives. The fact that she didn’t end up at the Betty speaks to which path she took. Also the fact of the same 3rd grade thinking employed by the likes of Rush being recycled by people supposedly on her team must’ve added a whole new dimension to the abuse she endured. Come to think of it, I can’t fathom why she’d ever do that again, but I’m not her.
It’s also hard to imagine the strength of will it would take to not only outlast all the slings and arrows and rise above, but to reach out to others undergoing similar torment and actually make oneself useful. Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame’s account of how she reached out to them and advised them as to how to persevere during their bout with the politics of personal destruction was quite memorable and telling. For once, Joe Biden was right when he said, “She’s first class.”
I’m sure I would’ve ended up at the Betty, and so would Steve Earle.
-
S Brennan says:
“…that Barack Obama is Jimmy Carter II — i.e., a flop as president”
I don’t disagree with this post, but I do have a problem with the quote.
First off, Carters economic numbers were pretty good, certainly better than Reagan’s.
Secondly, Carter was the first Dem to receive the “media treatment” and Reagan rewarded them for it. The hostage thing was inexcusable, the media acted as an agent for a hostile foreign government.
Third, Bush’s [The First] politically purged CIA gave Carter absolute bullshit about Iran.
Fourth, Carter did a pretty good job managing the US while we were being rocked by an oil shock of unparalleled proportions. His energy policies created cheap oil which his successors squandered.
Fifth, the Fed was most unkind to Carter, it deliberately tanked the election year economy.
-
lambert strether says:
I will absolutely never forget “You are not invisible to me.” My cynicism (or realism) is weapons-grade by this point, but I still will never forget that; and in some ways the hell she was put through validates it. Maybe that’s not something we can look to anymore from The Powers That Be — we have to be “not invisible” to each other.
-
Nessum says:
Great post and comments from falstaff. I couldn’t agree more with this
He doesn’t have anything in particular he wants accomplished, no legacy really beyond the historically important fact of his simple election.
and this brilliant observation
…he wants to hide in plain sight.
As for Hillary Clinton’s campaign ethics compared to those of Obama, I also remember how she during the GE refrained from attacking Sarah Palin. The furthest she ever went was adding to her “No way, no how, no McCain” a “…no Palin.”
-
octogalore says:
Falstaff — appreciate the clarification. So, I see that the point being made wasn’t aimed at gender.
I guess I continue to disagree on other grounds. One of the things I love about Hillary is: she’s a player. She knows the rules, the score, and the realities. She also knows that women traditionally occupy the “power behind the throne” out-of-the-spotlight role and has stood up to earn and demand something different.
So, I just don’t see her concluding that accepting a still-subservient, powerful-but-limited, in ways women traditionally get limited, role is “evolving.”
In my view, if she decided not to run, it would be for one simple, practical reason — because I see her as practical at root. It would be because she has concluded she cannot win.
-
RalphB says:
Thank you Lambert.
I will absolutely never forget “You are not invisible to me.”
That to me forms the core of Clintonism. If a new party is founded, please put that in the platform.
-
falstaff says:
lambert – and not-inaudible. From the same speech: “I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice.”
- and not immobile: “Keep going.”
She does.
