• Marccooper5_1

Back To Home Page

« Indiana's Arnold | Main | Weekenders »

Friday, June 03, 2005


"Jim, I would add to that Richard M(eglamoniacal) Nixon... lost in '60, humiliated in '62 and President in Jan. '68."

Zombie Reagan in 08! Ain't nothin' in the constitution about the undead running, no?


Richard, Steve's got a point though, ya gotta admit that. Marc's support for large military expenditures and social democratic programs is a recipe for economic irrationality. Ya can't have both without a price. No other country in the world that has social democratic policies also has military adventures all around the world. I've never seen anyone respond to Steve on that point. At least not from Marc.

Josh Legere

Leave it to La La land to donate so much dough to Hilary. It is predictable that the delusional “liberal” capitalist class our here in Los Angeles thinks she has a chance in hell. The best way to ensure a Republican victory is for Hilary to run.

Take Back America. Another delusional bunch of upper class wealthy folks that are shielded from the economic policy of the Bush administration who are mad as hell about Gay Marriage and a war that none of their children will EVER have to fight no matter what. Hallow.

Lastly, to all of the Villagrosa fans. Another hallow figure that took, about a week to prove that he is more of the same. Check our Robert Greene in the LA Weekly http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/28/news-greene.php.

richard lo cicero

Back in the 1880's there people called Mugwumps, whom the great humorist Richard Armour said were people who sat on a fence witheir mugs in one hand and their wumps on the other. Actually they were refined types who were appalled at the low estate of politics and didn't want to soil themselves with contact. Henry James was one, in one of his stories he has a husband tell his wife who is having a dinner party in Washington: "Very well then let us be common. Let us invite the President!". Henry Adams wrote DEMOCRACY which is far more scathing about the DC scene than anything Gore Vidal has penned. My point is it is easy to speak of two groups of competing gangsters and sneer at the particiapants. Lord knows the Dems have a lot of sins to answer for and I wish they would show more backbone. But this sneering at Howard Dean defies me. What did he do to you? Was it the fact that he was right about Iraq? That he calls DeLay a crook? You may think he'll be an asterisk and maybe he will but the State Chairs love him and he's raised more money in an off year than any other Dem chair. And the fact that he stirs up the faithful is not bad either.
He is the man in the arena and so far I think he is doing just fine.

Look you don't like the Democrats fine. But why should they listen to you? Back in 1971 I used to argue with people that bashing AMERIKA was not going to get people to listen to your critiques, and I think the same thing applies here. KOS or Atrios may be wrong but they want to play the game. You don't have to but since we have electoral politics I want to know what your plan is. I think you and Arianna were wrong about the Clinton Impeachment; I think you were wrong abou Al Gore and I KNOW you were wrong about the governator! You can feel the same way about me. But I am trying to make things better by using the tools, flawed as they are, at my disposal.




If Hillary can get Terry McAuliffe to come back and challenge Howard Dean, then she can sing another golden oldie--"My Boyfriend's Back (and you're going to be in trouble.)"

Take it from me, and you know you can always trust what I say, Hillary will not be a candidate in 2008.


For anybody who actually cares about liberal electoral politics, go check out Rick Perlstein's mini-essay, excerpted from a new manifesto for Democrats, at Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly blog. Good stuff...


Woody...are you saying she won't be a candidate, i.e. even in the Dem primaries, or that she won't get the nomination ? Just curious...also curious why you're so emphatic.

If I had to bet money now, I'd go for Clinton/Clark as the 2008 Dem ticket. Just a hunch...


reg, my opinion comes more from a synthesis of experiences and knowledge of history rather than from calculation. In other words, I'm relying on my feelings rather than logic--which would make me a perfect Democrat.

Just a few thoughts in no order.... (a) Do you remember when Ted Kennedy was a favorite to get the nomination when Jimmy Carter said, "I'm going to kick his ass." Front runners may run out of steam or may not be able to hold off rapidly rising opponents. (b) Before that there was Robert Kennedy and no one wants that end to come to Hillary, but there could be health or other issues between now and then. (c) While her hubby may relish a return to Pennsylvania Avenue, he also might be jealous and may not settle to be "First Husband." He could throw a wrench into things--even if ever so subtle. (d) I think that her undoing will not come from the Republicans but from competing Democrats throwing mud in trying to dethrone her. And my main reason: (e) She could get pregnant and decide to stay home to raise the child.


Oh, I forgot to answer your first question. I'm confident that Hillary will campaign but will not get the Democratic nomination. You know...Bush just might nominate her to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--unless the Democrats would filibuster her.


I'm very, very sorry for one more comment, and then I promise to cut off the computer....

I really can see Hillary cutting a deal with a front-running Democratic nominee that she will support him with the understanding that, if he is elected, she gets nominated to the Supreme Court--which gives her lifetime power.

Good night.

Mark A. York

Well, you make it sound like the two parties are playing a different game? It's the same game with different prescriptions. As for Iraq, they put us there. Leadership from Iraqis trained by us will get us out. But will they listen to the military experts calling for leader training? I doubt it. The Democrats would. That's the key difference on that policy.

I see Woody is still as full of shit as ever. Well he knows the kind of totalitarian power that he likes anyway. Some folks with power are fine, others are terrible. That's what we think too.


"Before that there was Robert Kennedy and no one wants that end to come to Hillary"

I wouldn't be so sure...Ann Coulter suggested that "if we were a healthier country the only question" the only question in the Lewinsky scandal would have been "assassination or impeachment." And those were her public remarks...

Mark A. York

"In other words, I'm relying on my feelings rather than logic--which would make me a perfect Democrat."

Feeling, not thinking is the biggest problem with discourse today. It makes you a perfect conservative since that requires NO thought, only a laundry list of buzz-weasel-words from a consultant. I mean how hard is it to keep track of four backward views that encompass everything?

richard lo cicero

I'd reverse Reg's slate and go with Clark/Clinton. Since I think the current crowd will refuse to see the obvious in Iraq the country will be ready for some adult leadership. And it will also be obvious that the Bush crowd will have ruined the Army (see William Lind's posting at ANTIWAR.COM) a General who opposed this mess will be more than acceptable. So I'm going for Wes Clark in 2008! Plenty of time to reconsider though and I'm not set in stone. I suspect that's the way most Dems feel.


rlc - my heart would reverse the ticket also, but my hunch is Hillary on top.



What if God told you to vote for Clinton?

Since, you are so logical, how do you determine which voice in your head is God's or Satan's?

green dem

Listen to Newt: nobody should underestimate Hillary. She's smarter and tougher and meaner than more than a few folks in this thread seem to know, and she wants it more than any other Democrat (aside from her husband). What's more: she is the only national Democrat who understands the new populist tilt in the country (we've heard her smarmy opportunistic speech "reframing" her position on abortion...it's only a matter of time before we hear her smarmy opportunistic speech where she announces her born again economic populism), and the fact that the "promotion" of Arab "democracy" (read: drafting a multi-million man army and occupying half the mideast until they tire of blowing themselves up and learn to love the new boss) is the new organizing principle in American politics, and the key to the electability of any president (Democrat or Republican) at least in 2008 if not for two or three or four cycles. I don't trust her a lick. I don't know if I'd vote for her, but no one should underestimate her.

richard (lymanlover)

properfunction - hi steve?

anyway, i've never seen that claim sourced. but i don't find it outrageous to suggest that the u.s. should have a standing army and, say, a rational healthcare system.

What's wrong with Joe Lieberman for President?

GreenDem, Woody knows God could ask him to sacrifice the life of his own son, but would never ask him to vote for Hillary. That would have to be....SATAN!

Jim R

The previous comment was me.

Michael Turner

I'd like to know where David Brooks gets this one:

"Republicans have barely thought about how to use government to offer practical encouragement to the would-be Horatio Alger heroes. They've barely explored their biggest growth market. If Republicans can't pass programs like KidSave, which would help poor families build assets for education or retirement, then HILLARY CLINTON, WHO IS SURPRISINGLY POPULAR WITH POOR REPUBLICANS [my emph. added - MT], will take their place."


Maybe Brooks' definition of "surprisingly popular with poor Republicans" is "10% of them would vote for her over Jeb Bush". I don't know. Does anybody know?


Michael - BoBo's referring to the "pro-government conservatives" tracked in the Pew Report he references - they tend to be religious, lifestyle conservatives who don't oppose government programs - they tend to fit the classic "blue-collar" profile, folks with a high school diploma, not a lot of money, etc. More likely than not voted for Reagan and Bush. Hillary gets over 50% favorable with them.

richard lo cicero

Ruy Texiera has looked at the populism issue on his RISING DONKEY site and the abandonment of the Democratic Party by the White Working Class is well known. And the solution is also well known: Abandon neoliberal economic policies that tout a "Globalisation" that favors corporate over human interests. You can list the policies:

1. National Health Care
2. renegotiated NAFTA and WTO with real labor rights.
3. Improved access to union membership.
4. REAL immigation reform putting the onus on exploitative employers.
That is a progressive slate and most Dems in the house would go along. Unfortunately a large minority in the house and half of the senate are too beholden to large corporate sources to espouse this. That is why Dr Dean is so important. He has shown that you can raise large amounts from small donors over the net. It will take time but I think that is the direction the party will go. Remember the right didn't take over the GOP overnight.

Jim Rockford

A lot of what Deano is doing looks stupid unless you filter it through the man's Presidential ambitions. He's meeting PERSONALLY with every mover and shaker in the Party activists, and not doing any Ken Melmen (sp?) outreach. This isn't party building but it does give him a network for turnout in the very activist dominated early primaries. Donations to the Dem's National Committee have dropped considerably, and yet Dean trots out the red meat to the true believers, Reps voters are evil and haven't worked a day in their lives, Bush stole the election, Iraq is wrong, Osama deserves a fair trial, etc. This is exactly the stuff that gets him the Activist vote early on and the big mo. There's more than just raw cash, Deano himself found that out last time round.

I expect him to resign in 2007 and call in those activist chips for his run. Kerry is also running again and trying to introduce a resolution to impeach Bush for Iraq. That's where the Party is these days. Recall GWB built up a lot of activist chips in his early run, meeting with all the Evangelicals, NRA, and other activist types in 98.

Hillary is the best of the bad lot for National Dems. Unfortunately her image (I don't know what the reality of the real Hillary is) seems to be of a naked ambition and calculation, people just don't like her (she's a lot like Nixon). That doesn't mean she can't succeed but she doesn't have Bill Clinton's charm (or at least the public perception of same, the real Bill Clinton may be different). That being said she's made very savvy centrist moves, criticizing violent video games (that brought her condemnation among the activists btw) and supporting victory in Iraq (same). In a general election she's probably the best the Dems have so far (I think Clark just has too much baggage now) and is sadly lacking amongst the activist network that seems to me to hold the key to sweeping the Primaries.

Dems ought to nominate a centrist Southern or Western Governor, someone breezy with the charm of a Reagan or Clinton, who's viewed as a hard-nosed guy on National Security and moderate socially and domestically. Failing that a Tommy Franks or Schwartzkopf seems the best bet.

Can you have large social spending and military expenditures? Sure. We had em both in WWII. What's needed is a concentrated effort to win the war and then go home to a safer and transformed world. This requires leadership which used to be central to the classical liberal Democrats of FDR and Truman.

Wildcards are of course another 9/11 (which would simply DESTROY the Democratic Party which outside of Hillary has hitched it's wagon to anti-War/Iraq/War on Terror policies) and Bill Clinton's health. He doesn't look good, I wish Hillary and Chelsea would lay down the law to him and make him rest. His party and Country IMHO will need him still.

The comments to this entry are closed.