Love me and despair

I know Demetrius just meant this for a comment link, but what the heck....
-Renee

Funny comment on a NYT.com article:

"And now we have Bobby-Gate. Apparently, Hillary’s heart has greatly desired the death of her rival. I’m getting images of a tempted Galadriel from Tolkien’s “Lord of the Rings”: “in place of a dark Lord you would have a Queen; beautiful and treacherous as the sea!

Hillary Cheney is unhinged. She wants to take a blood-soaked White House.

And all of this because he beat her and won’t choose her as his running mate.

...couldn't resist an accompanying picture.





Haloscan comment thread

News and links

I've added a number of new articles to my Google shared items here. This headline in particular caught my attention.

Is Clinton acting out because Obama told her no to VP?

The words "acting out" evoke a certain image in my mind. Something like this...

And a couple of not-so-new but possibly forgotten quotes...

From October 2007

"It's clear, this election they're having is not going to count for anything," Clinton said Thursday during an interview on New Hampshire Public Radio's call-in program, "The Exchange." "But I just personally did not want to set up a situation where the Republicans are going to be campaigning between now and whenever, and then after the nomination, we have to go in and repair the damage to be ready to win Michigan in 2008."

And from February 2007...

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Honestly, Hil--it's like you don't think hard working Americans know how to use the internets to look this kind of stuff up.

Haloscan comment thread

The Daily Show takes on Hillary's "I'm winning" spin

The Daily Show did a segment on The Long, Flat, Seemingly Endless Bataan Death March To The White House last night. In addition to mocking the corporate media's penchant for overly dramatic life-and-death analogies, Jon Stewart took on the absurd metrics put forth by Hillary and her supporters. Culminating in:

So what it comes down to is that you would win the nomination if Democrats were Republicans? That sounds like one tremendous "if you" to the process.

The Colbert Report also had some fun with this subject.

Haloscan comment thread

Hillary fails to capture much needed high-margin victory in PA

With 22% of the vote counted, Clinton only leads Obama 53 to 47%, falling far short of the decisive win her campaign desperately needed. Results here.


Updated at 10 p.m. Eastern Time, with 47% of the vote in, the margin is now Clinton 54% to Obama 46%. Still nothing like the 20 point margin she enjoyed in Pennsylvania just a few weeks ago.

Haloscan comment thread

Bitter much?

Sorry to continue the front page griping about Clinton, but, dang, she's getting on my nerves....

After stressing the financial burdens Americans are suffering, problems with education, and more, Clinton stressed the critical decision these voters have to make. She jabbed her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, who Saturday held his largest rally ever miles from the site where Clinton spoke.

“I don’t want to show up and give one of these whoop-de-do speeches and, you know, and just kind of get everybody whipped up," she said, "and those [of you who are for me] feel great and, you know, try to convince some of you to be for me.”

Clinton again made her argument that the White House is not a place for wimps, saying, “When you get into the general election and when you get into the White House, the stresses and pressures of the general election and the job are overwhelming. And we know we have to have a president ready on day one to take charge.”

Clinton refrained from criticizing the Republican frontrunner John McCain, and instead shared a story about their accommodations when they traveled oversees together.

Presumably, if Hillary Clinton received a visit from the Delegate Fairy, and somehow ended up securing the nomination, she would actually shift gears and turn her attacks on John McCain. At this point that's kind of hard to imagine, since the Clinton snark and condescension has thus far been reserved for Barack Obama and grassroots activists. And friends who end up endorsing Obama rather than Clinton.

Pennsylvania Democrats, please end thing for us.

Haloscan comment thread

Hillary seeking the "Colbert bump"

She's scheduled to appear on The Colbert Report tonight.

It's been taped already, as reported here.

“Are you telling me there is no one in this theater who can fix the mess we’re in?” Mr. Colbert said.

Enter Mrs. Clinton, who strode out on stage, smiling.

“I can,” she said. “I can, Stephen!”

After pausing for applause, Mrs. Clinton said, “Let me handle this,” and squinted up into some imaginary rafters to talk a technician through the problem.

Then she moved onto the issue of Mr. Colbert’s appearance.

“You know what, Stephen?” she said. “Your forehead is a little shiny. Makeup! Makeup! Can we get some translucent powder, please?”

Mr. Colbert said in mock amazement, “Wow, Senator Clinton! You’re so prepared for any situation!”

Mrs. Clinton replied, “That’s O.K., Stephen. I just love solving problems.”

I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

John Edwards will also be making an appearance on stage, and Barack Obama will be on via satellite.

(I still think a "Colbert bump" sounds like what you get when you're expecting a little Colbert.)

Haloscan comment thread

People who should know better

Hat tip to Jed Report for reminding us of Hillary's "tea and cookies" remark.

"Those of us who have tried to have a career, tried to have an independent life, certainly somebody like myself...you know, I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas but what I decided to do was fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life."

I remember when she said that. I sympathized. I was in grad school, and had no plans (at that time) to do the "stay at home" thing. And I hadn't yet developed a real respect for how challenging and rewarding such a choice could be.

But I liked her back then. I recognized that she was treated unfairly. She's the one who talked about a "vast right wing conspiracy", remember? Knowing from personal experience what it's like to be hammered with your own ill-chosen words, she should be the first person to denounce such attacks on her fellow Democrats. Instead, she seeks to profit from them. That's just sad...and wrong.

Haloscan comment thread

If wishes were ponies...

Also posted at Booman

Via Oliver Willis, I found this post on Salon.com. I recommend going to Oliver's site for the commentary, but you don't want to miss the title of the pro-Hillary piece in Salon. It's classic Hillary-think:

Why Hillary Clinton should be winning

You see, while Hillary is not actually winning, she really should be. But reality is well-known for having a pro-Obama bias.

And the subhead reads: Under a winner-take-all primary system, Hillary Clinton would have a wide lead over Barack Obama -- and enough delegates to clinch the nomination by June.

As Oliver points out, "If Senator Clinton wished to run for the nomination of a party with a winner-take-all nomination process, she would be well within her legal rights to do so - she simply needed to have changed her party affiliation to Republican."

Well, yeah. And actually, Demetrius told me a while back that he saw Paul Begala on some cable news show saying the Democrats should have a winner-take-all system like the Republicans, because it has "built-in momentum" or some such.

Wouldn't that be rather, well, "undemocratic"? Especially coming from someone associated with Hillary, who is currently presenting herself as would-be champion of the downtodden, disenfranchised voters in Florida and Michigan.

I also saw this earlier today, via Pho's Akron Pages. Part of the plea Hillary is currently sending out to her mailing list

With 14 days to go until the people of Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign has decided to go all-out. They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz. Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television.

So now, here's what we have to ask ourselves: Have we come this far in our history-making contest for the Democratic nomination only to see the race decided not by the quality of our ideas but by the size of our opponent's media budget?

Maybe I'm misremembering this, but isn't that how Hillary was planning to win the nomination? By crushing any and all challengers under the weight of her mighty campaign war chest?

But, I do understand. What it comes down to is that Hillary Clinton really really wants to be president. She wants it so much that she seems unable to even consider the possibility that it won't happen.

I am reminded of a moms' group I attended when Son and Daughter in Ohio were much younger. One of the other mothers was asking how to respond to her little one's meltdown over being denied something s/he desperately wanted. Like maybe the child wanted a pony, but couldn't have one. The group leader suggested saying something like, "You wish you could have a pony." When I first heard that suggestion, I couldn't help laughing, because it sounded like sarcasm to me. "You wish!" But I learned to say it in a way that didn't feel that way to me. "You really wish you could have..." It was kind of Rogerian, actually. A way of acknowledging kids' feelings and making sure they know they've been heard...even if the answer is still "no".

I'm glad I had some good role models to teach me the importance of showing empathy toward toddlers and preschoolers. The "you can't always get what you want" lesson is a tough one for little kids, and they deserve our compassion as they are learning it.

But when we're talking about 60 year old senators, my patience and compassion wear a bit thin...

Here's your pony, Hillary.

Now get out of the damn race!

Haloscan comment thread

Clinton donors push. Howard pushes back

This primary season certainly puts Howard Dean in a tough spot.

Clinton Donors Press Dean at Fifth Avenue Bundler Summit
More on Clinton Donors Versus Dean

From the second link:

Dean then responded, heatedly, that in his experience, those who sought the intervention of party leadership were motivated by their own particular agendas. And that was not the sort of leadership he intended to provide.

You tell 'em, Howard!

I recall during the 2004 primaries, Terry McAuliffe was not exactly an unbiased arbiter. Working, as Howard Dean has in his tenure as DNC chair, to make sure everyone is treated fairly, is certainly a thankless job. But, as Hillary Clinton's campaign chair, McAuliffe should consider himself damn lucky that the current DNC chair is making a genuine effort to remain neutral.

Haloscan comment thread

Olbermann's special comment on Clinton/Ferraro

You can watch it here, and read the transcript here.

And this picture has nothing to do with anything, but I found it when looking for images for my psych class, and felt like posting something whimsical.


Haloscan comment thread

Odds and ends

I didn't end up working a full day today, so I wanted to do a quick post before getting ready for tonight's class.

First, before I forget to mention it, here's a link to a Clinton Attacks Obama Incident Tracker. I don't think everything is there, but it might jog our memories about the long history of such attacks.

Geraldine Ferraro, who supports Hillary Clinton, has said some downright offensive things about how lucky Barack Obama is that he's black.

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Tim Russo at Buckeye State Blog wonders who this is meant to appeal to, musing that it might be designed to push certain buttons with the white blue-collar demographic in Pennsylvania.

Will Hillary "reject and denounce" Ferraro's remarks?

Pennsylvania, as we were reminded by many in the media right after last Tuesday's elections, is "next up" in the schedule of nominating contests. Well, yeah, there was that thing in the Wyoming over the weekend, but that's just a caucus. The views of the "latte-sipping crowd" are irrelelvant. And there's something going on in Mississippi today, but...big whoop. That state doesn't count, because there are a lot of African Americans living there. In fact, according to Ed Rendell, it's the Big Four states that really are important to determining the nominee. And Hillary has even reminded us that even pledged delegates are free to change their minds. Exactly how little regard does this woman have for the will of the voters?

As I've already mused here:

Regarding superdelegates, the common refrain from people speaking on Clinton's behalf is that they are supposed to use their independent judgment, based on what's best for the party. So, rather than voting to reflect the wishes of their constituents, they are supposed to vote for the person who is most "electable".

Is it possible that Clinton's goal is to get Obama "bloodied" enough by (or before) the convention that she and her surrogates could make the case that he's simply not electable?

Presumably, if Hillary Clinton keeps up the attacks on Obama (which have been a lot more negative and unrelenting than Obama's NAFTA/healthcare mailer that she found so egregious that she had to hold a big press conference/photo op. You know, the one where she made strategic use of my governor as a nodding backdrop, while she waved the offending mailer in the air and scolded "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" Hillary Clinton's attacks, however have been constant and disturbing, saying that she and John McCain have passed the "commander in chief threshold, but Obama's entire campaign is built on a speech he made in 2002.

Condescend much? She has actually compared the man who *could* become her party's nominee unfavorably, not just to herself, but to the presumpive nominee of the Republican party. Obama has faired favorably in head-to-head polling matchups against John McCain. That could certainly be seen as a positive indicator of Obama's "electability" in the general election. But if Clinton and her surrogates continue to trash talk Obama while talking up John McCain in the same breath, maybe those numbers will change. If Team Clinton somehow manages to throw enough buckets of mud at Barack Obama, will she then make the case to the superdelegates *and* the pledged delegates that they need to cast their votes for her? Even if any appearance that Obama might have a hard time winning against McCain came as a direct result of her efforts? I have no doubt that she would be willing to do that. My concerns are about whether the delegates will go for that, thus rewarding Hillary Clinton's "say or do anything to win" tactics.

And I'm hoping that, even if Hillary Clinton is willing to stoop that low, the delegates will look at the big picture, and won't let the scenario play out that way.

Haloscan comment thread

Girl in "red phone" ad supports Obama

From yesterday, but hope interest in the story can carry into the week, when more people will be paying attention.

This is too good not to pass along. Remember that "who do you want answering the phone at 3 a.m. ad"? Remember this sleeping girl?

According to a report on KING5, an NBC affiliate station in Seattle, Washington:

The first girl in the ad is young Casey Knowles. It's stock footage from 8 years ago when she worked as a TV extra - footage owned now by Getty Images and used by the Clinton campaign.

Here's Casey today. She's 17 years old and an Obama supporter (and will turn 18 well before the general election in November).

"It's perfect timing because I have a candidate that I really identify with,"; she said. "I've been campaigning for Barack Obama for a few months now," she said. "I was actually a precinct captain at the caucuses a few months ago. I attended his rally a few months ago and I'm, a very, very avid supporter."

The Knowles family admit they have no control over how the footage is used. And while they see the humor of it all, they are mildly annoyed.

"I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad," she laughed.

Update: Thank you, Denise, for pointing to video of Howard Dean on ABC this morning (on right side of page.)

Haloscan comment thread

In which I don the tinfoil hat

I need to go in for a half day of training at my temp job this morning, so forgive me for just doing a copy and paste of a post I did at My Left Wing last night. The bottom line, whatever you think of my nutty speculations below, is that rapid response is going to be crucial. I recommend keeping an eye on Huffington Post, which has been a useful source of information to me recently. For example, it pointed me to this story in the Canadian press:

Harper aide accused of sparking NAFTA-gate
Prime minister calls leak 'blatantly unfair' to Obama

Interesting that Maryscott should have a post today about Hillary Clinton and the state of the delegate math. Will add my 2 paranoid, conspiratorial cents, which I just posted in the comments at another blog earlier this evening.

Here's what Rush Limbaugh has said:

"I want Hillary to stay in this…this is too good a soap opera," Limbaugh told fellow conservative talk-show host Laura Ingraham on Fox News Friday. He reiterated the comments on his Monday show and replayed the exchange with Ingram.

He also said Clinton is more willing than the Republican National Committee and John McCain's campaign to criticize Barack Obama.

"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically. It's obvious that the Republicans are not going to do it, they don't have the stomach for it," Limbaugh continued. "As you probably know we're getting all kinds of memos from the RNC saying we're not going to be critical. Mark McKinnon of McCain's campaign said he'll quit if they get critical over Obama. This is the presidency of the United States we're talking about. I want our party to win I want the Democrats to lose.”

We hear again and again that it's nearly impossible for Clinton to earn enough delegates in the primaries and caucuses to clinch the nomination. But isn't it mathematically impossible for Obama to clinch the nomination without superdelegates?

Regarding superdelegates, the common refrain from people speaking on Clinton's behalf is that they are supposed to use their independent judgment, based on what's best for the party. So, rather than voting to reflect the wishes of their constituents, they are supposed to vote for the person who is most "electable".

Is it possible that Clinton's goal is to get Obama "bloodied" enough by (or before) the convention that she and her surrogates could make the case that he's simply not electable?


Haloscan comment thread

Thoughts on the so-called "dream ticket"

Apparently Hillary Clinton, while making the morning show rounds to bolster her "important states have spoken" narrative, has said that it's possible that she would select Barack Obama as her running mate. I'm seeing headlines everywhere saying "Dream ticket is possible".

I've never agreed with the idea that having both candidates on one ticket would be a "dream ticket". I suppose in a superficial, identity politics way, it would make some sort of statement. But I don't see the appeal. At all.

And I think this is really about Hillary hoping to undercut some of Obama's softer support. Read: "He can still be president, when it's his turn".

Except...why would she select someone as her vice president when, in her own words, his only accomplishment is a speech he gave in 2002? The man she chastised, with my governor nodding in the background, saying "shame on" Barack Obama for using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. (And then pulled out her own dog-eared copy of the Karl Rove Playbook, and used it every single day leading up to yesterday's primaries.)

I agree with Demetrius' assessment:

Why on *EARTH* would Obama want to be Hillary's second banana? He would have to stuff his honesty and integrity into a tiny hidden box and go out on the trail to say what a great POTUS she would be. (Pardon me... I just threw up a little bit in my *soul*.) Then, if they *won* he would have to rubber stamp whatever stupid idea she came up with. He could kiss his "Agent of Change" mantle goodbye.

Obama is a young man. He can run again. And, no one would be able to say then that he doesn't have enough experience. Hillary's chances of another run are significantly worse. She needs *him* on the ticket much more than he needs *her*. If Obama doesn't win it in his own right he should stay clear of this next administration!

(Didn't mean to displace floridagal's post so soon, but I wanted to respond to this "dream ticket" nonsense while it was timely.)

By the way, the Strickland bumper sticker is officially off our car now.

Haloscan comment thread

Clinton claims Richards' "endorsement", over family objections

This is just *wrong*. To use Hillary's own words, shame on you, Hillary Clinton.

"So many women around Texas and America are saying, `Wish Ann was here, for us and for Hillary,'" a female voiceover says on the video.

"Today Ann would be asking all of us to make a statement. She would be traveling to every small town and big city in Texas, urging us all to take a stand, be counted, to make a difference, to make history," it says while a picture of Richards and Clinton appears on the screen. "This one's for Texas. This one's for our country. This one's for Ann."

Click here for more. Richards' two sons, Dan and Clark Richards, have asked the Clinton campaign not to use the video.

Update: via Brilliant at Breakfast, here's the video



By way of clarification, Richards' daughter gave permission. But since the sons asked the campaign not to run the ad, the classy thing to do would be to honor that.
Haloscan comment thread

Dear Governor Strickland...

Governor Strickland, I supported you in your run for governor. Participated in a blogger conference call and transcribed it, and also did a bit of transcribing of your debates against Ken Blackwell. A Strickland bumper sticker still graces the back of my car. Admittedly, that's partly because we haven't bothered to scrape it off, but also because we haven't felt any pressing need to remove it. After all, we're kind of proud that our state has moved beyond Taft/Blackwell style corruption.

Please don't make me want to remove that bumper sticker. I don't want to become disgusted and fed up with you, so I've avoided following your remarks at Hillary Clinton events. Yesterday, though, it was impossible to miss you standing behind Senator Clinton and nodding as she delivered her "shame on you" tirade. This morning, I was disheartened to read your remark about Obama supporters “following their heart without engaging their head in the process.” Yes, I know you said some Obama supporters, but you're playing into stereotypes, which I hope you don't really believe. Please be careful. Once you've said something, you can't really unsay it, you know?

Hillary is already going very negative these days, insulting both Senator Obama and his supporters. Her behavior right now is so off-putting that even if she does find a way to turn this thing around and somehow secures the nomination, some Democrats are going to have a hard time supporting her. And that has the potential to affect not only the presidential race, but down-ticket contests as well.

Haloscan comment thread

Some thoughts on Hillary

In response to a diary making the rather asinine argument that Hillary's nomination is a "done deal" and we need to stop fighting it, Demetrius had a few things to say. I thought his comments were worth sharing here. -Renee

I actually really used to like Hillary. This was before she became a politician. She seems doomed to be the kind of politician I hate. Having James Carville's hand up her backside moving her mouth certainly doesn't help her AFAIC.

One thing I learned shopping for used cars is that if they know you aren't willing to leave without That Car you will never get the deal you want/deserve. If they know you are really willing to walk away the advantage shifts to your side. Democrats have been playing us that way for YEARS. I know I am going to work against Hillary in the primary. But, I'm probably part of a very small minority of Democrats who isn't sure, even, if he would vote for Hillary in the GE. As important to me as electing Democrats is - just as important is changing the political "game". Hillary is the antithesis of changing the political game. A shift is just beginning to occur. And, I'm not so bent on electing Democrats that I'm willing to turn the game back over to the old consultants and power brokers in Washington.

But, that's just me.

It was Bill that said "fall in love in the primary, and fall in line in the general." The problem is that they are not willing to let us fall in love in the primaries, anymore. Earlier and earlier we are expected to give up on what/whom WE want and support the Presumptive Nominee.

We get all this "It's a done deal...", "He/She's inevitable", "There's no point in voting for anyone else.", "There's no point in building anything but a shoe shop..." " crap before the primary. We got stuck with Kerry the last time and we bent over and took it for the Team. Never again!

Hillary seems far more interested in gaming political advantage than in doing what is right much of the time. She strikes me as lacking for real political courage. Either her judgment, or her commitment to principles I share, or both are cast into doubt by her voting record (...particularly giving a "known drunk" the "keys to the car".) I don't want another Bush - who runs every decision thru his/her political wing. I want a president who is more interested in good governance than winning re-election.

Hillary has learned the old political game. But, she doesn't seem to have learned good governance. If she has learned anything else, why won't she admit her mistakes (especially Iraq) and apologize for them? ('Cause some consultant advised her not to look "weak" or "wishy-washy"?) What do you call someone who is in possession of all the facts but is none the wiser? ...Other than "Dubya".

Haloscan comment thread

Kicking the "war on terror" habit

I saw this headline a couple days ago while on a break at work, but didn't get a chance to look for the story until now. Thought this was worth sharing--from Time Magazine...

Edwards rejects the "War on Terror"

At last month's Democrat (sic) debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her. Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror." And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards tells TIME that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."

It's about bloody time. More like this, please, Dems? 'K thanx.

Alternate link for comments

Nothing "new" about the DLC

In the comments, floridagal wrote:

Reposting from last thread because I can't figure how they want to make the New Democrats "new" again. It gets tiresome when they keep redefining.

On a related note, Booman has a post entitled Ford, Clinton, and the DLC.

As the good people of Nevada explained, you can not represent us and give legitimacy to Fox News (let alone accept a paycheck from them) at the same time. The DLC is dead to anyone that has payed even a remote amount of attention over the last six years. Forget policy. It's not about policy. It's about dishonesty and complicity in a stunningly failed foreign policy and it is about cowering wimpishness in the face of an executive power grab, lamely served to us as being tough on defense.

The war in Iraq will have consequences. One of those consequences will be a renewed vigor on the left, as it has devised tools to overcome the crap served up to us by the Washington political establishment. The only way the progressive backlash can be avoided is if it is stopped in its tracks by the nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. If that happens, it won't be possible to stop a massive splintering on the left and will not matter how many people write STFU diaries or invoke the ghost of Ralph Nader. People should be well advised to oppose her nomination NOW, so that we go forth with unity and take the White House AWAY from the establishment that got us into this mess.

None of our candidates are saviors and they each have their own taint with the establishment. But they are not all DLC/Harold Ford/Joe Lieberman warmongering Fox News Democrats.

Click here for the rest.

Alternate link for comments

Hillary's call to "conversation"

Lately, if one visits many of the high traffic Democratic/progressive blogs, one can't help but be greeted by Hillary Clinton's face, with words along the lines of "Be part of the conversation from the start." Oh, that's rich. In *so* many ways.

She's using that conversation meme pretty consistently. Now, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, Howard Dean said something about a "Great American Conversation" didn't he?

But, Hillary, what on earth do you mean, "from the start"? We've been *having* a conversation for several years now, and we've done a lot more than talk. We *knew* with every fiber of our beings that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a *bad* idea. And we did everything we could to make our voices heard. But very few people have access to the kind of megaphone that would allow us to *really* be heard, so we were thrilled to find people like Howard Dean who were willing to carry *our* message to a larger audience. Want to know why some of us get so upset when people attack Howard Dean? Because he's often speaking for *us*--he's saying what *we* would say, if we had access to that kind of megaphone. So, when you diss Howard, you *are* dissing us. Please keep that in mind, and try not to act too surprised when we don't want to jump on your bandwagon after you've attacked our messenger.

Another reaction I have is that this whole "conversation" meme must be something that Hillary and her advisers decided would "sell" to bloggers. Sort of the way she came up with this:

In her statement, she also called for “bold but practical changes” in national policy, a four-word formulation that her advisers said was carefully chosen, given that she has sought to portray herself as both a pragmatist and someone who thinks big. Some Democrats dismiss the latter image, finding her too cautious. Yet her pledge of boldness reflects her well-known desire to disprove the notion that she is hesitant or calculating.

So, I *do* have my eyes open here, Hillary. I don't believe you want to have a conversation. I believe that you're using those words because you think they are effective marketing tools.

And besides, how *can* we have anything resembling a real "conversation" when it is to take place on your turf, on your terms? I would *love* to have a real conversation, where we talk about who we are as America, at our best, and how to find our way back there--or at least get closer to that place. It would be wonderful to talk about another way of relating to other nations, rather than just accepting the "Bush doctrine" as status quo. But from you, today, I heard this:

Clinton said her view is that the nation is engaged in a deadly fight against terrorism, a battle that she contends Bush has botched.

"I do think we are engaged in a war against heartless, ruthless enemies," she said. "If they could come after us again tomorrow they would do so."

So, even though he "botched" things, you can't resist using the fear tactic that has been (apparently) so successful for Bush. And that's another thing that bugs me, by the way. For all the hoopla about you potentially being the first woman elected president, you are way too closely aligned with the patriarchy for my liking. And, for me at least, mindset and worldview are more important than whether a candidate has a matching set of X chromosomes or an X and a Y.

Bumper sticker by jc

Alternate link for comments