Good Saturday morning,
I linked Thursday to John Edwards first TV commercial, a sentimental piece making the non-controversial case that ordinary people are the real heroes of America.
On Friday, he released a tougher piece. (My thanks to commenter Peder, who called attention to it in the thread under the previous post.) This one, titled “The Politics of Parsing,” is not at this point headed for the airwaves but is viewable on the web only. It uses clips from a recent MSNBC Democratic candidates debate in which Hillary Clinton appears to waffling or contradicting herself on three issues, the future of the U.S. project in Iraq, whether she supports allowing illegal aliens to have drivers’ licenses, and what to do about about the long-term solvency of Social Security. Here it is:
What think?
I think Edwards does a good job and the right thing in calling out Mrs. Clinton’s double talk on these issues. The problem is that in our political culture, it’s not important where a candidate really stands on issues but whether the candidate is “electable”. if this country were looking to a real candidate on the issues, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards or Chris Dodd would be a far better choice.
Hillary Clinton will be nominated because she is a capable woman and is seen as being “electable” for some occult reason. Many others see her as being the least electable against a Republican and that her nomination plays into Karl Rove’s playbook. I don’t think so. I think she is “electable” just because people say she is and so it doesn’t make any difference to people what she says about the issues or if she right about any of them. I personally I don’t think our country needs another 4 years of any Clinton in the White House because they are GATT/NAFTA-loving, corporatists, right at home with the big business Republican Party. I am not a Clinton-hater or basher either. I voted for Bill twice and will vote for Hillary if she is nominated and I will defend her against the inevitable, right-wing venom spewing that will be occurring during and after the campaign. But I also think Hillary Clinton will double-talk her way out of these contradictions as far as she double-talked them in the first place. Hillary Clinton will be elected because Big Business says she is “electable” and therefore the rest of us will approve.
Jonerik, the idea that millions in the Democratic party are going to vote for Hillary because of ‘Big Business’ is nothing short of ridiculous. She’ll be nominated because many on the left will refuse to condemn the same things in her that they spent all of 2005 and 2006 complaining about. Things like excessive secrecy, dirty money and lying about her record. Have fun with that. I know it’s fun to blame everyone else, but sometimes a good look in the mirror is helpful.
This week is a good example. Tim Russert (who I guess would be scary Big Business in the form of Media) asked her some tough questions. Media Matters, among others, stepped forward to carry her water. http://mediamatters.org/items/200711010001?f=h_top
I guess we can watch the polls and see how many on the left are going to put their votes where their mouths have been.
First, Peder, I didn’t say that “millions in the Democratic Party are going to vote for Hillary because of ‘Big Business’.” I said I think Hillary Clinton is much too controlled by “Big Business” for me (and many other democrats) but we will support her if she wins the nomination. Millions of non-Democrats will help elect her to become President because there will be no other real choice.
It remains to be seen whether Hillary will do any of things those on the so-called left spent 2005 and 2006 complaining about. Little things like rule of law, illegal electronic eavesdropping, suspension of habeas corpus and destruction of the Constitution I expect to not occur unde a Democratic administration. If they happen under a Democratic President, you’ll hear from me. I don’t know where you’re getting the “excessive secrecy, dirty money and lying about her record” about H.C. but find me a Republican who hasn’t done anything H.C. has done but squared, and we can have a discussion. Money is all dirty in my book but until someone has the guts to turn the country to all public finance elections, that’s what we’ll be stuck with.
Media Matters carries no one’s water, Peder. Their point, which has been consistent, is that Tim Russert is basically a right-wing Republican shill who carries the water of the right wing in repeating the right-wing’s talking points. Just as he did with respect to Al Gore during the 2000 election. Apparently you have no problem with this country being controlled by a junta. I do.
Jonerik, “Hillary Clinton will be elected because Big Business says she is “electable” and therefore the rest of us will approve.” I read that as Big Business gets to decide who the Dems vote for. It’s a handy excuse, but I think it’s just that, an excuse.
Is it unfair to tar Hillary with all the sins of the her husband’s administration? She sat there in an unquestionable position of power while everything happened. Many of the same people would be back in power. You must not remember much of what happened back in the 90’s.
‘Excessive secrecy’, think back to the only major initiative that Hillary spearheaded, health care. She closed off any access to her meeting notes in the same way that Cheney did with his energy meetings. Her answer on why her records haven’t been released from the archives was pathetic.
‘Dirty money’, she is easily and without a doubt the dirty money champion of this campaign cycle. On the face of it, she’s preying on immigrants who don’t understand the rules. ‘Lying about her record’, this is kind of a universal thing amongst politicians. She hasn’t been as bad as Gore or Kerry, so maybe it’s unfair of me to throw this at her.
Policy aside, if you’re a fan of clean and open government, she is the worst candidate on either side of the aisle.
Tim Russert, right wing Republican. This is almost breathtaking. Do you know what Russert’s history is? He was chief of staff for a Democratic senator. He’s well known on both sides of the aisle for preparing tough questions for anyone that comes on his show. Get a grip.
Junta - A military junta is government by a committee of military leaders. I don’t know what you think you’re describing with this. Is it just a word that you mean to say ‘the other side’?
I see that the ‘Tim Russert is a right wing meanie’ meme is really taking off in some circles. Here’s a guy who has probably voted Dem all of his life and because he dared ask tough questions of The Chosen One, he’s now condemned as the enemy. Whatever happened to ‘Speaking truth to power’? Did you guys ever really believe that? Or was it just code for ’sticking it to Republicans’?
“Junta” is my word for the Bush, Cheney, David Addington ruling troika that has usurped constitutional government in the USA. It doesn’t necessarily mean just military leaders but since the “decider” also demands that we obey him as “commander in chief” he considers himself a military ruler. “Junta” fits about right. (I would have said “Fuehrer” but that has baggage too and there are some obvious dissimilarities.)
The “Tim Russert is a meanie” meme as you put is not new and the problem is he is just tough on Democrats, but not on the entrenched power elite. Russert kisses ujp to Bush and his cronies. But along with the Beltway elite, Russert considers the Clintons as upstart white trash. So when Russert tries to sand bag H.C. with a false and misleading question, he is speaking for them. Compare the kid gloves treatment given Scooter Libbey, Rove and the other Bush insiders by Russert over the Plame leak where Russert admitted under oath he won’t leak stuff that might make them look bad.
By the way, for some of us the fact that Russert was an aide for a Democratic Senator ten-fifteen years ago does not carry much weight. First, that was then, this is now. Second, many Democrats are coming to realize that other Democrats who pander to Bush (Bush Dogs) are DINO, like Joe Lieberman. Russert is not a politician but a media elite who is in a position to speak truth to power but he doesn’t. It’s is a disgrace that someone who was an aid to a Senator, Like Moynihan, who did speak truth to the power of Reagan and Bush I in Iran Contra, acts like a lap dog to those who are committing worse crimes than Weinberger, Poindexter, North, etc. did in Iran-Contra.