Today on Blogcritics
Home » Clintons Doubleteam Obama – Will It Backfire On Them?

Clintons Doubleteam Obama – Will It Backfire On Them?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Ever since Senator Barack Obama’s win in the Iowa caucuses, the Clinton political machine has swung into overdrive attack mode, with former President William Jefferson Clinton, “America’s first ‘black’ President” in the Genghis Khan role, leading the Mongol hordes of the Clinton faithful in an all-out charge against Hillary’s leading opponent and America’s first Black Presidential candidate with a real shot at actually winning the Presidency.

Running scared after Iowa, the Clintons devised a clever team effort, with Bill playing the “bad cop,” attacking Obama at every opportunity, while affording Hillary the leisure of staying above the mean streets of the campaign, as the “good cop” half of the Democratic Dynamic Duo. Early poll returns after implementation of the new strategy seemed to indicate it is working very well; the gap between Obama and Clinton narrowed quickly and decisively, with Hillary winning in New Hampshire and Nevada, virtually erasing Obama’s national lead almost overnight.

As successful as the “tag team” campaign has been on the surface, I can’t help wondering, given the Clintons’ unrivaled success in political campaigning and defeating formidable opponents on the left and the right over the past two decades in Washington, and before that in Arkansas, whether all we see is all there is to their strategy. One has only to recall Bill replying, disingenuously, “Depends on what the definition of ‘is,’ is;” or Hillary wearing a Yankees cap and bragging about her longstanding affection for Bronx Bombers to establish her bonafides for seeking to become Senator of a state with which she had hitherto had very little association to realize that this couple are very clever, disingenuous campaigners. 

Not all was roses, however, as Bill repeatedly attacked Obama in speeches and in the press.  A number of the Democratic party leaders, alarmed  at the image and spectacle Bill was becoming, and their concern over possible perceived harm to the image of the Democratic Party, urged him to tone it down.

In light of their proven deviousness, their unrelenting and steadfast pursuit of the pinnacle in American politics, first for Bill, and now for Hillary, I began to marvel at, and then to examine, their flawlessly choreographed footwork. They both danced around Senator Obama, Bill jabbing and feinting, “stinging like a bee,” while Hillary remained serenely “floating like a butterfly,” keeping her hands relatively clean and leaving the dirty work to the former President.

Until Monday, January 21's CNN-sponsored Democratic Debate in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Variously described by the pundits as a mud wrestling match and a slug fest, Monday night’s event marked the first time in the current race when the Hillary’s gloves really came off and she personally began freely swinging at Obama.

Though also present, John Edwards largely was relegated to the unenviable role of third wheel as the debate progressed. Ironically, this resulted in what might have been his best debate performance to date, as he attempted to bring the debate back on topic several times during the evening.

The most shocking aspect of the debate was Obama’s performance. As Hillary hammered away at him, Obama lost his cool; his admirable and statesmanlike demeanor slipped as he responded in kind to Mrs. Clinton, finally (and devastatingly, for him) lowering himself to her level. Though, in my opinion, he gave as good as he got, I realized as I watched that Obama was giving what I considered to be the worst performance of his campaign so far; gone were the cool, considered and statesmanlike demeanor, the sophisticated, intelligent responses, in short, all the charisma and impressiveness that have stood Senator Obama in such good stead as his star rose during this campaign.

And that’s when it hit me: here was the reason for all of the Clinton attacks, the playing of the race card, all the baiting and sly innuendo of the past few weeks. All of it was aimed at getting Obama to crack; to lose that persona which so many had been admiring, and which was so impressing voters that even Republicans were noticing this dynamic young man from Illinois. It was aimed at bringing Obama down from the lofty position in which he had so successfully placed himself; his frequent invoking of the mantras of Change and Hope, and his skillful depiction of himself as different, a living, breathing symbol of change.

It was working; people across the nation were embracing the Obama campaign precisely because they saw in this young, handsome, energetic man someone who not only talked the talk, but who also looked the part and walked the walk. A consummate orator, and an obviously very bright man, Obama was offering not only change, but hope to an electorate thoroughly fed up with the “same old, same old” of the establishment Washington politicians of both parties.

The Clintons, consummate political pros that they are, realized they were not going to be able to beat an icon, a symbol; a candidate who was perceived in a totally new and different way by the voters. They had to destroy that image; had to make the voters look at Obama as just another politician, not the symbol on a pedestal he had become. By reducing him to just another politician, they decided, Hillary could beat him.

And so began the war on Obama. Bill began to talk to the press, belittling, criticizing, implying, alleging. Spreading innuendo and outright accusations (but cleverly never alleging anything that was an outright lie), they wore him down over the last few weeks, until finally, baited and tormented by Hillary on Monday night, he broke.

And Obama lowered himself to their level, fighting tooth and nail with Hillary until both took on a strong resemblance to kids in a playground, squabbling over possession of the marbles.

Which may well have been the Clintons’ goal.

Obama will be easier to beat now.

Unless the electorate catches on.

Powered by

About Clavos

Raised in Mexico by American parents, Clavos is proudly bi-cultural, and considers both Spanish and English as his native languages. A lifelong boating enthusiast, Clavos lives aboard his ancient trawler, Second Act, in Coconut Grove, Florida and enjoys cruising the Bahamas and Florida Keys from that base. When not dealing with the never-ending maintenance issues inherent in ancient trawlers, Clavos sells yachts to finance his boat habit, but his real love (after boating, of course) is writing and editing; a craft he has practiced at Blogcritics since 2006.
  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I think you’ve hit the nail on the head here. The question to me is why this type of vindictive campaigning doesn’t just make more people hate Hillary, if that’s even possible.

    Dave

  • john

    Obviously your are a Obama supporter. You are overlooking the fact that he started the potshots at the debate.

    Also, you are granting him that the aura like demeanor is natural and the pot-shot taking one is something he is putting on or is being forced too!

    Don’t you find his performance week when he is talking issues and not oratory?

    Clintons have their faults but putting wool over woolly eyed can hardly be a charge.

  • troll

    …pobre muchacho Obama

  • troll

    on c-span this morning Zogby is reporting that the black vote is breaking 5 to 1 for Obama in SC in his most recent polling

  • Bart

    The Clintons are ruthless in their pursuit of Power. Obama is special, he wants honesty. Campaign your heart out, Clintons, but be HONEST. They aren’t. Thank God, I’m Canadian! God Help America!

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer/abel_keogh Abel

    The Clinton Obama feud reminds me of what Henry Kissinger said the Iran-Iraq War: “It’s too bad both sides can’t lose.”

  • Clavos

    “Obviously your are a Obama supporter.”

    Actually, I’m not. I’m a lifelong right-of-center Conservative Libertarian who, at Presidential level has always voted Libertarian or Republican; never Democratic.

    But I hate to see dirty pool.

    “You are overlooking the fact that he started the potshots at the debate.”

    Did you actually read the article?? The Clintons were taking potshots at Obama for weeks before the debate.

    “Also, you are granting him that the aura like demeanor is natural and the pot-shot taking one is something he is putting on or is being forced too!”

    Since he started out statesmanlike and maintained it for weeks until the sniping by the Clintons became incessant, I think it’s the obvious conclusion.

    “Don’t you find his performance week when he is talking issues and not oratory?”

    Saying he is weak on the issues is the stock criticism of Obama, employed by all his opponents. Seemingly, it’s the worst thing they can find to say about him, and it’s easily refuted by a quick read of his positions on his website, where they are all clearly spelled out.

  • Clavos

    …pobre muchacho Obama

    De acuerdo.

    Y pobres de nosotros si la vieja le gana…

  • Clavos

    “The question to me is why this type of vindictive campaigning doesn’t just make more people hate Hillary, if that’s even possible.”

    If they continue their sniping at, and manipulation of Obama, that may well happen.

    And they may; they are certainly afraid of him.

  • Dan Miller

    I live in a rural area of Panama and have pretty good internet but no TV; hence, I may have missed something. However, I have read that in one of her few public appearances, Mrs. Obama did pretty well.

    How would it be if Mrs. Obama took up the game for her husband, and responded to former President Clinton’s garbage? It would be a dirty game, and she might not enjoy it; but maybe, just maybe, it might earn Obama some female votes, and put Mr. Hillary where the Clintons are trying to stash Obama.

    Just an idea, but might be better for Obama than his various male surrogates.

    Dan

  • Baronius

    Heck of an analysis, Clavos. I hadn’t thought about it that way.

    I’ve always tried to make the distinction between Bill and Hillary, because they’re two different politicians with very different styles, and different advisors. I’ve found a lot of analysis of “the Clintons” to be wrong. But the last couple of weeks, I’ve noticed Hillary adopting some of Bill’s moves. Like the crying – that was the big one for me.

    In this past debate, Hillary did another Bill trick. When caught lying, she repeated her lie with righteous indignation. That was always her husband’s specialty, sticking to a false story so loyally that you start to think it’s the truth.

    This “praising Reagan and Republicans” thing is interesting. My theory is that she’s backed Obama into a corner where he has to say the one thing Democrats aren’t allowed to: that Bill Clinton is a habitual liar. Then, BOOM: Hillary’s going to accuse Obama of being a right-winger. It’s demented, but it’s the only possible reason for her effort to paint him as a Reaganite.

  • Arch Conservative

    My theory is that she’s backed Obama into a corner where he has to say the one thing Democrats aren’t allowed to:

    I thought saying Ronald Reagan was a human being was the one thing scumbag moonbats weren’t allowed to say.

    Oh well I guess they are forbidden by their masters to give Reagan even the slightest praise or offer even the slightest criticism of that sexual predator known as slick willie.

  • Clavos

    Thanks, B-tone.

    You raise some very interesting points; I hadn’t caught the correlation on the lie.

    Dick Morris (who, admittedly, has a strong bias against Hillary) has an interesting take on Hillary’s strategy for the SC primary; have you seen it?

  • jacksmith

    Bottom Line:

    Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! “Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care” free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has.

    “HR 676:
    For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
    Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

    But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

    But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

    We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

    I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven’t forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it’s her.

    Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

    The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton’s are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

    As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

    My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all… You are doing great!

  • Clavos

    Baronius,

    HUMBLE apologies. I of course know that you are not Baritone.

    I have no explanations or excuses; only apologies.

    Mea culpa.

  • Baronius

    I don’t give much credence to anything Dick Morris says about the Clintons (or about anything else). Interesting theory of his, though.

    BTW, this is the second time today I’ve been B-toned. He’s the guy who disagrees with everything I say.

  • Dan

    I think Hillary got a good slap in with the inner-city slum lord connection to Obama. I’m not sure that Obama’s counter charge of her being on the board of Wal-Mart will turn too many people off.

    Slum lord vs. Wal-Mart.

    There are reams and reams of nastiness these two can throw at each other. I just hope the race stays close enough to give them time to get around to it.

    God knows a white Republican wouldn’t get away with saying “Obama hasn’t done the spade work…”

  • REMF

    “I think Hillary got a good slap in with the inner-city slum lord connection to Obama.”

    Yeah, all FIVE HOURS of it. Whoopee!

  • REMF

    “…which she had hitherto had very little association…”
    – Clavos

    Was the second “had” really necessary?

  • REMF

    I just wish that Barack would “accidentally” refer to her as “Monica” just one time. You know, like a Freudian thing:

    “Um, excuse me Monica, Oh! I mean Hillary. Sorry.”

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    My goodness, REMF. Three straight comments without a single mention of who served or didn’t serve. What’s up with you tonight?

  • troll

    Morris is another one of Bill’s used and abused ‘lovers’ –

    in the RCP article he says: *Obama has done everything he possibly could to keep race out of this election.*

    but (absurd questions about degrees of blackness aside) I first caught a serious glimmer of the race card in Obama’s Iowa victory speech where he patted voters on their collective head for being ready to vote black…er ‘for change’ that is

  • Clavos

    Ah, troll, ever the skeptic/cynic.

    I like that about you.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    Fascinating analysis but I’m not sure I agree. We are, after all, still talking about the Democratic party here, more than the general electorate…and there’s a very interesting article in the Washington Post today about how the Democrats have begun to turn away from Hillary for her sheer nastiness and insistence on rehashing things that have already been discredited.

    That said, I’m not sure it’ll be Obama who benefits from that turning away. I think people are turned off by both of them squabbling with each other. This may, instead, be the thing that raises Edwards’ numbers and keeps him in the race.

  • Clavos

    I saw that article, too, Michael.

    I would hope that the Democratic voters would take a close look at the chronology of the squabbling before turning away from Obama.

    One thing that does seem to have become crystal clear from the new Clinton tactic: Hillary is not running alone; nor, IMO, would she govern alone if elected. It’s a twofer package deal; that’s obvious, now.

    Can’t say I agree with your idea of Edwards being the beneficiary of the “turn off” from the squabbling. Most pundits consider Edwards to be a dead man walking already, and I agree.

    It would be a real shame if the electorate tars Obama with the same brush that the Clintons so richly deserve, given that he tried very hard to refrain from descending to their level in the fray.

    He should at least get some credit for that.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    As someone who likes both candidates very much, I haven’t enjoyed the bickering and sniping of the last month. But I also think non-Democrats, in particular those who strongly dislike the Clintons, are overreacting to what’s going on, and allowing their own I-hate-Bill-and-Hillary prejudice to cloud their vision.

    This is a tough primary battle. But it’s not even close to the nastiness of Bush-McCain in 2000. I don’t remember whether Republicans were wringing their hands over that at the time.

    And I would still be surprised if the result is not a Clinton-Obama ticket in the fall. By then, all this January finger-pointing will seem a very distant memory.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.

    Walmart vs. slum lords? I think that the average Democrat hates Walmart more.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Nice article Clavos. Clearly they were trying to make Obama crack. Although I think people may hate Hillary so much so that seeing Obama crack under the relentless clinton attack machine might be a good thing for Obama.

    The Washington Times had a very interesting article today that also tries to explain why the clintons are putting forth such a strong offense – WT says it is really a defensive measure, but I will let yall read that one:

    A GOP Ace In the Hole

  • http://absent-mind.blogspot.com/ Jet in Columbus

    Please participate in a BC Forum presidential poll by clicking here

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    It’s hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. It’s more about Clinton bashing than defending Obama, whom few of these commentators [possibly excepting Clavos] would vote for in the fall anyway. Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so.

  • Clavos

    Handy,

    “Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so.”

    Of course he is; I also would say a little more so, because he’s less of the political establishment than they are, and that, obviously, is a large part of his attraction. It’s all kind of tied together.

  • The Obnoxious American

    “It’s hard not to notice that the most conservative commentators [here and elsewhere] are the ones most likely to believe, or pretend, that this is really a big deal. ”

    Handyguy,

    I think in the context of a primary, it is a big deal. There is no question that there has been a backlash against both campaigns for engaging in what many would consider politics as usual. Especially damaging for a candidate who is running on the platform of change, but also adds fuel to the fire for those who hate hillary already.

    Will this have a meaningful net effect? Who knows, might just galvanize supporters. Worse things have happened before a primary without negative impact. That said, I have to wonder how sincere a hillary/obama general election ticket can be at this point.

  • REMF

    “Obama is at least as much a classic social/economic liberal as either of the Clintons, and probably more so.”

    The difference being, of course, that Obama has morals and the Clintons don’t.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Clavos, I was wrong. According to the news, Bill Clinton has said that S Carolina will be decided by race, just like Dick Morris predicted.

    I think Morris is one of the sharper analysts out there. He worked for Clinton and presumably knows how he thinks. I tend to find him bery believable.

    Dave

  • Baronius

    My problem with Morris is that he’s a betrayer. You can never tell what’s motivating the analysis of that sort of person.

  • Clavos

    I’ll grant you that Morris is obviously very much opposed to the Clintons, but that does beg the question of why?

    What did they do to him to warrant that vindictiveness?

    There’s more to the story than meets the eye, and given how Machiavellian the Clintons (especially Bill) are, whatever it is has got to be a doozy.

    Incidentally, following up on the article and Morris’s analysis: there’s no question that Bill, by attacking Obama so viciously, managed to manipulate the sentiments of the African American South Carolinians to rally behind Obama to such an extent that he (Bill) can now believably work to death the claim that Obama’s win in SC was racial.

    That’s not a put down of the Black folks in SC; rather, it’s a recognition of the deviousness of William Jefferson Clinton.

    Watch for it; in not more than 24 hours the point will be made, if not by Bill or Hillary, by someone highly placed in their campaign. It will then be repeated incessantly until they can turn the white voters in other states who might have been considering him, against Obama, him in a political race war. They managed to transform Obama into a “Black” man running for President, just as Morris predicted.

    I hope Obama is able to deal with it successfully.

    Now I’m really starting to root for Senator Obama…

  • Baronius

    I’ve already seen the angle. Yesterday on the news, there were juxtaposed pictures of Obama at a southern black church and Hillary Clinton at a staid (probably New England) service.

  • Clavos

    The press doesn’t want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com/ handyguy

    The press doesn’t want Obama to win, but they will be subtle about undermining him.

    Astonishing comment. Chris Matthews, to name one, seems shamelessly pro-Obama and anti-Clinton.

    Some of us who voted for HRC are not anti-Obama and wouldn’t object to his being nominated. I assume that applies to the NY Times editorial page as well.

    But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly.

  • Les Slater

    handyguy,

    “But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly.”

    I don’t think racism is that much of an issue here. It does exist and is significant, but not decisive, as to whether Obama is allowed at the top of the ticket.

    Obama is very popular to many people, especially those who want ‘change’. The problem is he can’t deliver. If he is either housebroken, or just fails, there will be plenty of frustration and a further decline of credibility of the two-party shell game. Nobody has ANY expectations for Clinton.

    I could see Clinton coming out and saying, ‘I think Obama SHOULD be president, but… not this time. Eight years experience as Vice President will give him the preparation that he, and our country, needs.’

    In face of powerful opposition it would be hard for Obama to refuse if he wants to be on the ticket at all.

    This would neutralize some of the anti-Clinton hatred. Obama would give Clinton a ‘progressive’ cover. Many would swallow their pride and vote for that ticket.

    Les

  • Clavos

    “But some of us also fear that the latent [and not so latent] racism in this country would lead to a loss in the general election. And Dems want to win this one, baby. Badly.”

    You mean racism on the part of Dems? Coz any Republicans that might vote for Obama are certainly not going to be racists, and the Reps who are racists certainly won’t vote for a black man, much less one who’s a Democrat.

    So you’re saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don’t lose you the election…

  • Les Slater

    Clavos,

    “So you’re saying that you Dems will put party first and nominate Hillary so that your own racists don’t lose you the election…”

    Of course that’s what he’s saying. And they would if they thought that was the best solution.

    Les

  • troll

    for those of you who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class I offer the following:

    class war is a real phenomenon with practical manifestations…and in this election party actually might make a difference in the war

    since Taft-Hartley tore the heart out of the Wagner Act labor’s power to engage in collective action has been held in check – over the years lame attempts to push back in statute have been forwarded (by Democrats) without success

    Ted Kennedy introduced Senate Bill s.1041 last year and it has been sent to Committees – the House has already passed the similar HR 800

    while this legislation does not repeal Taft-Hartley it is a small step in the left direction – it re-empowers labor by protecting workers trying to unionize and offers the beginnings of a solution to the right-to-work ‘free rider’ problem which has caused the decline in worker participation in unions over the years

    the only way that this legislation has a chance of becoming law is with a dem in the White House and a dem Congress

    so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic

  • Clavos

    I love it when you talk worker to me, troll…

    If I ever have to start working I’ll certainly start voting dem.

  • Les Slater

    troll,

    “so if you are worker looking for union representation you probably should vote democratic”

    As bad as Taft-Hartley is, it is not THE problem. The problem IS that most of the union ‘leadership’ has had their heads up the asses of the two major parties, mostly Democrat, at least since the beginning of the Roosevelt era.

    The building of the CIO was primarily a battle between workers, with some, at times of the highest caliber, class-conscious leadership, and industry, which used both parties to its advantage. One big handicap was a sector, usually at the top, of the union ‘leadership’, collaborated, in one form or another, with the bosses and their political stooges.

    We need to fight to rebuild our unions and begin to organize all working people. Along the way we will need to build our own political party, completely independent of the capitalist class and their political stooges.

    Anyone believing that voting for Democrats is a step forward for workers is deluding themselves, and unfortunately, any they influence. It is just a continuation of politically tying the hands of workers to the interests of their class enemy. This needs to be rejected.

    Les

  • troll

    (…oh yeah – to keep myself ‘on-topic’ – both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill)

  • troll

    Les – I agree that revolutionary change will occur outside of the existing political avenues and question whether or not partial measures like s.1041 are counter productive

    I offered my comment to those – *who still have faith that the US government can be anything more than a rubber stamp for the owner class*

  • Les Slater

    troll,

    “… both Clinton and Obama are cosponsors of the bill”

    The bill ain’t goin’ to do shit. To the extent we tie ourselves to the enemy, it only weakens us.

    Les

  • troll

    …I’m sick of ‘corruption’

    why hasn’t unionism led to equity – ?…corruption
    why hasn’t capitalism fed the poor – ?…corruption
    why hasn’t politics led to just governance – ?…corruption
    why hasn’t religion led to enlightenment – ?…corruption

    if ever there was a concept in need of deconstruction this is it

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    You want corruption? Keep an eye out for an upcoming ABC expose on Hillary Clinton in her role as a board member at WalMart sitting in enthusiastically on discussions of how to bar unions from getting a foothold in their stores. Another example of her bottomless well of hypocrisy.

    Dave

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Gotta love that liberal media that desperately wants Hillary to be President…

  • http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/01/23/023450.php delban

    if americans want a democracy, rather than the plutocracy they have, the solution is simple … abolish the presidency, and fold its powers into the house, plus severely trim the powers of the senate

    this’d reverse the bizarre diffusion of power between the three legislative bodies [ the presidency, house and senate], which simply creates a power vacuum filled with bribes, and obliterate the independent uncontrollable powers of typically deranged characters who become presidents, and who additonally quickly commence a couple of large scale wasteful imperial wars, in an effort to steal from other nations and cut down on the backlog of enemies the nation’s paranoids, including relgious nuts see as needing to be attacked

    such a new arrangement’d be a novelty in one surprising area … with a greater concentration of power would come political accountability of the politicians to the citizens, who for the first time would experience the joys of inflicting massive electoral retribution on the crooks and scoundrels currently in congress

    i suspect the taft-hartley act would be repealed in 6 months, and the nation would enjoy universal single payer health care within a year

    the latter change would simply rip one trillion away from the current annual two trillion dollar health care bill, and give it to the citizens, from the current annual us gdp of fourteen trillion

    politicians would become flunkeys for the citizens, not the large corporations