PDA

View Full Version : Dems v. Clinton


JCMElway
06-07-2008, 03:17 AM
A very good article. Insightful.



DECLARATIONS
By PEGGY NOONAN



Recoil Election
June 6, 2008; Page A11

It is the most amazing thing that a young black man who was just a few short years ago unknown to most of his countrymen—really, unknown—could, this week, win the presidential nomination of one of our two great political parties. It is even more amazing that this historic news could be overshadowed by the personal drama and spite of the woman who lost to him.
[Recoil Election]
M.E. Cohen

I like it that she spent the campaign accusing America of being sexist, of treating her differently because she is a woman, and then, when she lacked the grace to congratulate the victor, she sent her stewards out to tell the press she just needs time, it's so emotional. In other words, she needs space because she's a woman.

A friend sent, by instant message, the AP flash that ran at 16:56 ET on 06-03-2008. There it was suddenly on my screen:

"*** WASHINGTON (AP)—Obama clinches Democratic nomination, making him first black candidate to lead his party."

A great old-school bulletin, and of course it carried a huge and moving message. It is good when barriers fall; it's good when possibilities seem to open up to more people, especially the young, who are always watching. (That's what's wrong with them, they're always watching, and we're always doing terrible things, like, say, not congratulating the winner on the night he won.)

But what I thought of when the friend sent the flash was something another friend told me months ago. It was the night Mr. Obama won Alabama. My friend was watching on TV, in his suburban den. His 10-year-old daughter walked in, looked, saw "Obama Wins" and "Alabama." She said, "Daddy, we saw a documentary on Martin Luther King Day in school." She said, "That's where they used the hoses." Suddenly my friend saw it new. That's the place they used the water hoses on the civil rights marchers crossing the bridge. And now look. The black man thanking Alabama for his victory.

What kind of place makes a change like this? Only a great nation. We should love it tenderly every day of our lives.

* * *

We will hear a lot of tasteful tributes this weekend to Hillary Clinton's grit and fortitude. The Washington-based media may go a little over the top, but only out of relief. They know her well and recoil at what she stands for. They also know they don't like her, so to balance it out they'll gush.

But this I believe is the truth: America dodged a bullet. That was the other meaning of the culminating events of this week.

Mrs. Clinton would have been a disaster as president. Mr. Obama may prove a disaster, and John McCain may, but she would be. Mr. Obama may lie, and Mr. McCain may lie, but she would lie. And she would have brought the whole rattling caravan of Clintonism with her—the scandal-making that is compulsive, the drama that is unending, the sheer, daily madness that is her, and him.

We have been spared this. Those who did it deserve to be thanked. May I rise in a toast to the Democratic Party.

They had a great and roaring fight, a state-by-state struggle unprecedented in the history of presidential primaries. They created the truly national primary. They brought 36 million people to the polls, including the young, minorities and first-time voters. They brought a kind of dogged brio to the year.

All of this is impressive, but more than that, they threw off Clintonism. They threw off the idea that corruption is part of the game, an acceptable fact. They threw off the idea that dynasticism was an unstoppable dynamic in modern politics, that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton could, would, go on forever. They said: "No, that is not the way we do it."

They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.

But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party.

* * *

Should he make her his vice president? He shouldn't, and he won't.

The reasons:

The only ones who could force him to do it are party elders, and they don't like Mrs. Clinton. They're the ones who finally forced her from the race. Their antipathy was not apparent when she was inevitable. It is obvious now.

She would never be content to be vice president. She'd be plotting against him from day one. She'd put poison in his tea.

She brings Bill.

She undercuts the cleanness of Obama's message. She doesn't turn the page, she is the page.

She would give Republicans something to get excited about. She will revivify them. They're not excited about Mr. McCain, but they could become excited about opposing her.

Her presence on the ticket would force the party to have two breakthrough moments when a rule of political life, and life in general, is: one breakthrough at a time.

He doesn't need her. He needs a boring white man. Because he's an interesting black man. He needs a sober, experienced, older establishment player who will be respected by the press, the first responders of the political game. They'll set the tone in which the choice is celebrated, or not. He needs someone like Sam Nunn. Or, actually, Sam Nunn. He could throw a wild pass at Jim Webb because he has a real-guy, Southern, semi-working-class persona, and a Scots-Irish grit and chippiness. He is from important Virginia, has Vietnam boots and is moderate.

Choosing Mrs. Clinton would make Mr. Obama look weak. No one would believe he picked her because he respected or liked her. They'd think he was appeasing her. This is not something he can afford! And in any case some people cannot be appeased. Voters would assume she and her people did their voodoo—I have 18 million voters!—and he fell for it. She doesn't have 18 million voters, she got 18 million votes. It is telling the way she thinks of them, as if they are working-class automatons awaiting her command.

As for reports of their rage, there are always dead-enders, and frantic lovers of this candidate or that. This goes under the larger heading "lonely people." But there's reason to think, and some Democratic insiders do think it, that a lot of the supposed pro-Clinton furor is ginned up on Web sites by the Clinton campaign, and even manufactured by the Clinton campaign, to prove Clinton loyalists are real and their demands must be met. In any case, you can see how Mrs. Clinton views her supposed working-class heroes by what she is doing with them now: using them as a bargaining chip to get whatever she wants.

Democrats this year have the winning fever, and Democrats will come out. By November they will be united.

Also, he doesn't like her. He recoils. Just like his party

TexanBob
06-07-2008, 04:00 PM
I tend to think the Democrat Party were like cultists when it came to the Clintons. The more you tried to explain to them how self-serving and wrong the Clintons were, the more they would refuse to believe it and defend him like he was a prophet.

It's taken 18 years for some people to see what frauds they are and how they cared only about themselves. It's like watching cultists being deprogrammed. I'd like to think they've matured and not just moved their idol worship to the newer, shinier Obama. But, for now, I congratulate the Democrats for throwing last year's spoiled goods in the garbage where they belong. Hopefully a new leaderwill come along that can govern without the nastiness and vitriol of the Clintons.

Spider
06-07-2008, 04:33 PM
Dems Vs Clintons :rofl: 18 million Dems voted for the Bitch , if FLA and Mich went according ot plan , She is the nominee ........ WTF is noonan babbling about ?

Spider
06-07-2008, 04:35 PM
I tend to think the Democrat Party were like cultists when it came to the Clintons. The more you tried to explain to them how self-serving and wrong the Clintons were, the more they would refuse to believe it and defend him like he was a prophet.

It's taken 18 years for some people to see what frauds they are and how they cared only about themselves. It's like watching cultists being deprogrammed. I'd like to think they've matured and not just moved their idol worship to the newer, shinier Obama. But, for now, I congratulate the Democrats for throwing last year's spoiled goods in the garbage where they belong. Hopefully a new leaderwill come along that can govern without the nastiness and vitriol of the Clintons.

you know what ? take that **** and Shove it ......... Clintons havent done no where Near the Damage you ****ers have electing Bush ..... Everyone of you republicans should just shut your ****ing pie holes ... you guys have along ways to go to make up for Bush

Spider
06-07-2008, 04:39 PM
****ing amazing , you idiots babble on about the Clintons , you guys voted for Bush ......you guys already showed how well you judge Character , and to be blunt , showed you dont know what in the hell you are ****ing doing ...

TexanBob
06-07-2008, 07:21 PM
You miss the point, but that's par for the course for you.

The Dems clung to Clinton and all his flaws and believed - REALLY BELIEVED - that all his problems was because those mean old Republicans were persecuting the guy. You even hung together during impeachment to save his ass when it probably cost you the 2000 election. Defeating *President* Gore would have been far tougher than defeating *Vice President* Gore because he would have had two years to demonstrate his presidential timber in front of a sympathetic media.

But, no, you clung to Bubba for all he was worth and he led you through the wilderness for eight years. Ever noticed that most of the candidates Clinton stumped for during the past three election cycles LOST - even his wife this time around. Gore didn't want him anywhere near in 2000 and that's because he saw how radioactive the guy was.

The difference between Democrats and Clinton versus Republicans and Bush is that Republicans have no problem voicing their own displeasure about Bush where they disagree with him. They don't hold him up to be some sort of God like the Democrats do their leaders. Heck, look what the Dems are doing to Obama now! It's like a cult.

But, of course, Spider, you wouldn't understand that because all you can do is rage against Republicans. Fine. Every cult has to have some Satan to rage against - so the mind-numbed twits in the pews will buy whatever lies their latest Messiah tells them.

Spider
06-07-2008, 07:26 PM
You miss the point, but that's par for the course for you.

The Dems clung to Clinton and all his flaws and believed - REALLY BELIEVED - that all his problems was because those mean old Republicans were persecuting the guy. You even hung together during impeachment to save his ass when it probably cost you the 2000 election. Defeating *President* Gore would have been far tougher than defeating *Vice President* Gore because he would have had two years to demonstrate his presidential timber in front of a sympathetic media.

But, no, you clung to Bubba for all he was worth and he led you through the wilderness for eight years. Ever noticed that most of the candidates Clinton stumped for during the past three election cycles LOST - even his wife this time around. Gore didn't want him anywhere near in 2000 and that's because he saw how radioactive the guy was.

The difference between Democrats and Clinton versus Republicans and Bush is that Republicans have no problem voicing their own displeasure about Bush where they disagree with him. They don't hold him up to be some sort of God like the Democrats do their leaders. Heck, look what the Dems are doing to Obama now! It's like a cult.

But, of course, Spider, you wouldn't understand that because all you can do is rage against Republicans. Fine. Every cult has to have some Satan to rage against - so the mind-numbed twits in the pews will buy whatever lies their latest Messiah tells them.

****ing point my ass , I lived through the Clinton years , and the Bush years .... Clinton Years were a hellva alot better ...Thats all the ****ing point you need , and dont even go there about voicing displeasure over Bush , you are lying through your teeth on that one ....... I cant tell you how many arguments i have been in , over people defending Bush , both on line and in Person

L.A. BRONCOS FAN
06-08-2008, 05:22 AM
I lived through the Clinton years , and the Bush years .... Clinton Years were a hellva alot better ...Thats all the ****ing point you need

QFT.

It's amazing to watch the Orwellian doublespeak clowns like TexassBob and W*GS use to deny something as obvious as this.

Rohirrim
06-08-2008, 07:29 AM
It's not really as complex as all Noonan's rant tries to make it. The Clintons are moderates. There's nothing the Left wing of the Dem party hates more than than moderates in their party. Who are the powers that lined up against Clinton? Clyburn, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. The Hard Left Wing - with the assistance of the media. They took the Clintons that (like Spider says above) everybody loved eight years ago, and turned them into some kind of avaricious clawing demon spawn racist warmongers. Forgive me if I don't accept the opinion of one of the mouthpieces (Noonan) of the WSJ regarding the corruption of the Clintons. Compared to the last eight years, the Clintons were Boy Scouts. I also find it interesting that many on this board who defended the Clintons against the rabid partisan hysteria that led to Bubba's farce of an impeachment now nod in approval when the Clinton's are smeared as if they were guilty of something.

JCMElway
06-08-2008, 10:21 AM
The thing I liked about the article is the fact that there is no way Clinton is the VP nom. None. She creates too many problems with not enough gain. Let's be honest, the group that will vote for Clinton and not vote for Obama is going to be really small, especially after the sting of losing wears off.

Spider
06-08-2008, 10:27 AM
The thing I liked about the article is the fact that there is no way Clinton is the VP nom. None. She creates too many problems with not enough gain. Let's be honest, the group that will vote for Clinton and not vote for Obama is going to be really small, especially after the sting of losing wears off.

the only thing Noonan got right was the party Elders , and she left out the far left elders .. the rest is bull**** ...... Hillary won over alot of people ....No problems for Hillary , the bitch took Reilly's on one on one and won ....
Let me put it this way , the only real problem Hillary has Is idiots that believe hit pieces like this one .......