Hillary Clinton cares nothing for democracy

From the Atlantic Monthly:
Will Clinton Over-Reach?

12 Apr 2008 08:17 pm

The "bitter" spat is gold for Morris-Rove politics, which is why Clinton is exploiting it so baldly. It is exactly the kind of debate that has constructed American politics since Vietnam; it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend. Clinton will use anything at this point to destroy Obama's candidacy and message; but by adopting Rovism at its reddest, the Clintons do risk looking too obvious. Check out the comments in CNN's Politicker. At some point people will realize that the Clintons represent a continuation of the kind of politics that has made a serious engagement with this country's profound problems impossible. Or is acknowledging profound problems now unpatriotic?
Is this election about how to salvage the least worst option in the Iraq disaster? Is it about restoring some kind of fiscal sanity? Is it about doing all we can to unite Americans in a war against Islamic terrorism? Is it about restoring America's compliance with the Geneva Conventions? Or is it again about red-blue culture wars? We know what the professional political class is comfortable with. We know what Rove and Bush and Penn and Clinton believe. What we will find out soon is if Americans want more of the same. It's a free country - and people can vote. Goodbye to all that? Or hello again - for yet another cycle? A reader writes:

I am a rustbelt native. I live near Gary, Indiana and have never lived anywhere else. I’ll probably die here.
I read and, more importantly, listened to Barack Obama’s response to the Clinton cacophony after his remarks about blue collar/regular people/rustbelt voters. The difference between the two politicians is amazing. One is thoughtful and unafraid while defending a politically risky yet righteous position. The other is just noise.

My husband and I already have one child and grandchild living thousands of miles away and I fully expect the other to leave within a few years. I don’t blame them. In fact I always encouraged them to leave because I wanted them to realize the full measure of their talents and abilities and that isn’t possible here.
Obama’s right about guns and religion in that there simply isn’t much to do in an economically depressed area but hunt and pray. There’s nothing insulting or elitist about this, but people can be easily persuaded that an elitist has indeed insulted them.
That’s what worries me. People will forget their interests, will forget that their children are moving away en masse, will forget the political idiocy of the Clintonian hypocrisy that inspires Howard Beale-like angst in all of us. They may forget all of that just for the misguided privilege of feeling insulted.

And that's their right. Americans have had the presidency they deserved these past four years; the war they voted to continue; the debt they voted to increase; the incompetence they decided to reward. They also get to pick who comes next. If they want more of the same, they know who to vote for.

Wow, that's a blast from the past!

I recall seeing Bajos Instintos at a cinema in Santiago! A couple of weeks or so earlier I'd taken a very cold (2nd class in June - I couldn't afford the bus) train from Buenos Aries across northern Patagonia to San Carlos de Bariloche - so cold that it was nearer suspended animation than suspended disbelief.

However, after a 24 Hr combination of cold and lack of sleep and looking out the window late on the second day I recall thinking that the shrubs were beginning to resemble various dinosaur species, mentioning this in a letter I was writing to a friend at the time she later remarked on it, wondering if I were inhaling something! The second night was the hardest - I was saved from an icy insanity by a train employee bringing round small cups of hot sweet coffee every hour or so.

Great trip, but I wasn't sad to reach San Carlos the next morning.

Sorry for the slight diversion, but it's funny how 'random' comments trigger memories, isn't it!

If you don't care, you don't care. I tend to care if someone stares me in the face and lies. Sorry that you don't.
Emphasis on "seems". As in, not in reality. Because there is no apparent "drama" surrounding his name. Because he's not in a polarizing debate about who's 7" penis is larger. It'd do justice if you read the words that I typed. And we'll get to THAT later.
No, I'm pretty sure I interpreted it the best way that I could. And honestly, I don't think you addressed my point. Why not just throw a random vote in and hope for the best?
I asked a question. Simple as that. Hit dogs do holler, though. And I'm pretty sure accountability has something to do with who one chooses to vote for.
Do you understand the definition of connotation? If not, then maybe you should grab the thesaurus, the dictionary, a college English teacher or something. I wasn't aware that "incongruent" was a $5 word.

Any simpleton who takes Algebra in High School knows what "congruent" means. In latin, the prefix "in" denotes the opposite of. Seems like preschool reasoning to me.
First lady, a political office, is not. It's not an elected position. Age is nothing but a number, dude. Knowledge is power.
They use sound bites of real news to twist, misconstrue, and spin into the fake news that they produce. Honestly, they are journalistic jokes.
I noticed you didn't highlight "objectivity". It being the operative word and not "pure". So let's break this down for you.

The bias perceived. As in what one may think is bias is an actual misinterpretation of pure objectivity.
I think you've misinterpreted here, dude. Journalists ALWAYS do research and check sources. However, journalist are not supposed to put their own personal biases into the news stories that they tell. In other words, if the sources check, then you don't go off spouting conspiracy theories, that hold no weight objectively.

Yes, the sources do not always add up, but then again, that's why you have to check your sources. You don't find ALL your information from the same sources. You don't ONLY check Hillary Clinton blogs to find out the truth about Hillary Clinton. You check other sources. But if you only do research on a person, by going to the person, then you have nothing to corroborate with and therefore you haven't checked all the possible sources to begin with.
The truly wise know that they know nothing at all.
I was merely stating my own views, not calling yours into question.

As my favorite character from the musical Dreamgirls said, "I'm no kid, mister." It'd do you best not to treat me like one.

You know I'm glad we have youtube and other news sites with video and the myriad of bloggers with the full story whenever one of these "incidents" is cropped and put up on tv news. I think back to prior elections and the news media of the evening had the option to play which piece of news they wanted to push and it really manipulated people, with ads that targeted popular culture, not sound decision making. For those that wouldn't have the opportunity to see Obama's speeches or respond to his criticisms eloquently - showing the respect he has for voters, while talking tough. He doesn't placate us for votes, the way some other candidates do. I think about voters that would only watch one news broadcast and believe the spin taken out of context.

So I clicked that link with all the comments that the article mentioned. I'm amazed...they all say "so Hillary is putting a happy face on how voters lost their jobs?" So that's cnn. I imagine fox news might say something different.

It's too bad that sniper fire didn't hit her 10 years ago. Oh wait, that was made up too!

Obama in 2004 saying exactly the same thing he has been saying recently:

YouTube - Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America, Circa 2004


Remarkably consistent!

you gotta stop doing that Indy. I'm starting to develop a crush.

Colin Powell does not YET endorse Obama, but Praises him.

YouTube - Colin Powell Doesn't Endorse, But Praises Barack Obama

I cannot stand wolf blitzer, but he got the right take on this:

YouTube - Is Obama an Out of Touch Elitist? Are Blue Collar Voters Bit

Now this is just funny!

YouTube - Hillary Can't Answer Question on Colombia

Yep, and he just said in January that his pastor is not controversial and he agrees with everything he has said. Oh, wait!! But then he changed his stance on that!! Is that the kind of change he is talking about?

Now you can back up that charge please.

I find it funny you (doug) call Obama socialist. Who are you voting for again?

Wow...LMAO.

I'd like to see what she said after that, too...but that is CRAZY!

There was nothing after that, the reporter asked her a question that she couldn't answer without looking bad, or lying.