Suburban Guerrilla

« Breaking News

Attack Monkeys »

Yep

May 20th, 2008 at 2:35 pm by Susie

Gene Lyons.

Posted in Politics As Usual

26 Responses to “Yep”

on 20 May 2008 at 4:15 pm1snuzy mandrake

i think it’s odd that in all the clinton post-mortems (or pre-mortems), very few of them mention her vote for the iraq war and continuing support for the war for the next 3.5 years. it’s rather stunning because that’s the main reason that i had such a hard time supporting her and continue to have a hard time taking her claims of foreign policy exerience seriously. many obama supporters seem to feel the same way as me. and yet when people speculate why the immediate front runner, who started this race with much of the party apparatus supporting her fumbled this badly, they don’t seem to acknowledge that being completely out of touch with one of the biggest issues facing the american public might have hurt her.

i realize that sexism also played a role. but clinton also benefitted from an anti-sexist backlash. a lot of clinton supporters i know cite the way she was treated as the reason they ended up voting for clinton. her early support for the war has no such countervailing force. why do so many monday morning quarterbacks ignore it?
on 20 May 2008 at 4:25 pm2orson

Can’t we all just get along?

I’m a Hillary supporter. I think she might well make the best president. But I keep my eye on the Big Picture: Elect a Democratic prez and a Democratic Congress. If Hillary gets the nod from the voters she gets my vote. If Obama gets the nod, he gets my vote. The show must go on.
on 20 May 2008 at 4:32 pm3brendancalling

“her early support for the war has no such countervailing force. why do so many monday morning quarterbacks ignore it?”

It’s the Tinkerbell strategy, except instead of clapping louder everyone yells “sexist” at the top of their lungs and the bad vote disappears.

Goodness noz, don’t you see? Accountability is SO 20th century.
on 20 May 2008 at 4:39 pm4Bob

How convenient also to overlook the fact she ran an incompetent campaign. Ignore caucus states, grossly overspend early, have no plan in place for anything after Super Tuesday. Sorry, sexism played no role in any of that yet, all that, coupled with AUMF, most certainly played some small role in her defeat, no?
on 20 May 2008 at 4:42 pm5k

Okay. We get the picture. You don’t like Clinton because of her war vote. I’m not happy with that either.
(I’m sorry - I’m going to shout here.)
WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE REFERENCED????? Please and thank you.
on 20 May 2008 at 4:47 pm6snuzy mandrake

WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE REFERENCED?????

to expand on what i said in comment #1, the article talks about how clinton hit a “perfect storm” that derailed her candidacy. there have been a bunch of articles talking about how clinton went from being the presumed front runner to (probably) losing the nomination. i’m just puzzled by how no matter how many i read, none of them seem to mention the main reason that i had trouble supporting clinton: her support for the war.

that’s what it had to do with the article. i realize lyons didn’t mention the war, but that’s my point.
on 20 May 2008 at 4:57 pm7Bob

K: I’ll shout too: THE ARTICLE REFERENCED BLAMED IT ALL ON SEXISM. ALL SOME OF US ARE SAYING IS MAYBE OTHER FACTORS PLAYED A PART.
on 20 May 2008 at 4:58 pm8zuzu

I don’t buy the war-vote rationale for the seething hatred against Clinton. Otherwise, we’d have heard the same for Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Kerry, etc. Not to mention Obama, who hasn’t exactly been a strong anti-war voice since his 2002 speech.
on 20 May 2008 at 5:10 pm9Chris

Not to interrupt, but I’ve been fairly clear that I hold Biden, Dodd, Edwards and Kerry in the very same contempt I hold Clinton in. None of those people would have gotten my vote in this, or any primary, specifically due to their vote on the authorization. Indeed, I’ve been fairly clear that I hold Obama in a great deal of contempt for not leading on the issue once he was elected. Don’t buy it if you don’t want to, but it’s the truth.
on 20 May 2008 at 5:10 pm10Zon

Bob: the Lyons article did not blame it all on sexism. Yes, the word “misogyny” was there somewhere in the article, but that was really not the focus. Many other factors were discussed at much greater length.
on 20 May 2008 at 5:11 pm11snuzy mandrake

I don’t buy the war-vote rationale for the seething hatred against Clinton.

oh, i agree. but not all people who don’t support clinton have a seething hatred for her. indeed, most of the obama supporters i know told me they would be quite willing to work for her if she became the nominee. i know i would.
on 20 May 2008 at 5:19 pm12Chris

I guess I missed the “seething hatred” part of Zuzu’s comment. I get stupid this time of afternoon. Ignore.
on 20 May 2008 at 5:54 pm13Bob

Zon: “Bob: the Lyons article did not blame it all on sexism.”
You know how any time someone questions every last charge of sexism – maybe using the word periodically – correctly – isn’t sexist – the immediate rejoinder is “your failure to see sexism doesn’t mean it isn’t there.”? Believe it or not, I am open to that suggestion. I do find myself questioning my own beliefs – maybe there’s some truth to that. But here’s the catch – it’s an argument about subtext. What’s being debated is what is really meant beneath the surface – not weather or not periodically means every so often.
So – the Lyons article. Clinton would put Lincoln and FDR to shame. No one ever in the history of the US could possibly be a better leader. And that racist Obama, my God he just plays the race card.
I’m arguing the subtext. Why is the second coming of Christ losing to the second coming of Jesse Helms? What is the larger point Lyons is making? There’s a word for it……
on 20 May 2008 at 6:02 pm14Bob

Zon: one more thing, and honestly, I’m not trying to attack you here – just pointing out why I responded the way I did. I also object to Lyons due to an earlier column he wrote on that racist Obama. Frankly, it was filled with the kind of left-wing concern-troll racism that sickens me. You know, my Irish-immigrant dad told me, and poor Geraldine Ferrarro should was treated unfairly, and racist, moi? How dare you, but man that Obama keeps using that great advantage he has and playing the race card…..
And I gotta admit, until a few months ago it had never occurred to me that the greatest asset one could have in presidential politics is black skin. But Lyons and his ilk keep arguing that with a straight face. Poor Clinton….stuck in that white skin.
It’s enough to make me ask: is America yet ready for a white president?
on 20 May 2008 at 7:34 pm15Macjazz

Yep, right on Bob. The “Obama played the race card” angle of the article is bullshit. We’ve already been over this in some detail in other threads. We can do it all again if necessary, though I’d really rather not slog through it again.
.
The war vote looms very, very large in Sen. Clinton’s campaign difficulties, as I and others have been saying for quite some time. It’s the 800 pound gorilla in the room which the Lyons article totally ignores. That’s why Snuzy’s original point is valid - her vote is NOT mentioned in the article, but there it is, all 8oo pouinds of it, grunting and scowling in the corner. How can one not say wtf? How can Lyons cite other (dubious) factors and ignore this huge one?

For a pre-primary glimpse of factors at the core of Clinton’s disrepute among many lefties, consider this:

http://susiemadrak.com/2008/01/14/15/44/i-will-not-support-hillary-clinton-for-president/

Whup! There it is! It’s not that Obama is some knight in shining armor who will stand up for truth justice and the American way. It’s just that Sen. Clinton is so VERY not that person, as has been true for many years. There are real, substantive reasons to prefer Obama over Clinton. As I’ve said before, I think the great divide in these primaries is between paople who marched against the war and those who didn’t. If you marched against the war, chances are slim to none that you support Sen. Clinton.

And yes, I’d hold my nose and vote for Clinton in the general if it came to that, as I did with John Kerry, though I voted against him in the primary (”I was against John Kerry before I was for him” … no, wait a minute, that can’t be right …)
on 20 May 2008 at 8:12 pm16David Parsons

I marched against the war and I prefer Ms. Clinton. There’s not much political difference between Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton (despite all the ponies-and-cake that his campaign is promising; and given his senate record, I believe he would have signed onto the “okay to commit war crimes” bill just as quickly as Ms. Clinton did) but Ms. Clinton didn’t cozy up to homophobes in South Carolina like Mr. Obama did.
on 20 May 2008 at 11:52 pm17Macjazz

Well, that’s one. I”m sure there are a handful of fervently anti-war Clinton supporters, but not many that I know of. Her vote was a stab in the back to the anti-war folks, as was Kerry’s - I wrote him a scathing letter at the time, as he’s my Senator and I felt his vote was a betrayal of principle and of his constituents.

And no matter how you spin it about what Obama “might” have done, the fact remains that he spoke out against the war when it was not a safe thing to do for a politician with national aspirations (or for talk show hosts and country singers, or for people selling “French” fries). While Hillary … voted for the war. And continued supporting such efforts right along. They simply have a different record on this, no matter how much spin is applied to it.

Hillary has gone on to reinforce this streak in her political philosophy, saying quite recently:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I am president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that. Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society. ” “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Alrighty then! Considering that Iran doesn’t even HAVE nuclear weapons, and has never attacked ANYONE IN THE LAST CENTURY (”You could look it up!”) that’s quite a statement from good ol’ shot ‘n’ a beer Hill … “totally obliterate them”. If there were any lingering doubt remaining that her vote to invade Iraq was some sort of aberration, I think it’s been erased. She’ll do it again, given the opportunity. As will McCain, clearly.

Obama … might do it, if that becomes his job, as it were. But the chance remains that he might not. He’s certainly repudiated such bellicose rhetoric a number of times, and has advocated dialogue and face to face talks instead. Certainly a better starting point. Reason enough to vote for him, in my book, along with other things. There actually is a difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama on this. Factually.
on 21 May 2008 at 12:52 am18David Parsons

If Mr. Obama hadn’t immediately tacked to the right after his election to the Senate I might pay some attention to his campaign statements. But the problem is that I’ve seen other candidates campaign on a fairly moderate platform, only to shift rightwards almost as soon as the ink was dry on the election results document.

Did you believe Maximum Leader Genius’s campaign speeches decrying Clinton’s interventionism? I didn’t. And I can see Mr. Obama’s senate record, and it isn’t the ponies and cake that’s being promised right now.

And the difference between him and Ms. Clinton? He consorted with homophobes to win South Carolina, and she didn’t.
on 21 May 2008 at 1:21 am19Macjazz

You’ve probably seen Obama’s statement on this:

“I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country.

I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division.”

My understanding is that Donnie McClurkin (to whom I assume you’re referring) only performed, as a gospel singer (for which he’s reputed to have some talent), at one concert in the S.C. events, which Obama didn’t even attend. I could be mistaken about that, but that’s the story of it that I saw. Obama has marched in gay pride events, he’s very clearly not a homophobe or anti-gay. Better if this Mclurkin fellow hadn’t appeared at all, but honestly … rather small potatoes compared to voting for a war which has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the waste of God knows how many billion dollars. There’s just a sliiiight difference there in magnitude, no matter how you spin it.
on 21 May 2008 at 1:49 am20sister of ye

Sorry, Obama’s “gay support” statement is just another of his play-both-sides gambits. There are many, many, good gospel singers in the world. Why pick one who is also an anti-gay activist unless you’re trying to send dog whistles to anti-gay religious people? I didn’t buy “plausible deniability” from Bush, and I’m not buying it from Obama.
on 21 May 2008 at 7:57 am21Macjazz

The guy was one of a number of gospel singers at the event, was there to sing, not preach, and was not a part of the Obama campaign. I certainly agree it would have been better not to have him there at all, but it’s making a mountain out of a molehill to pretend this means Obama has an anti gay streak. His record on this is clear.

You could perhaps compare it to Hillary cozying up to Richard Mellon Scaife and his nasty right wing media machine in Pennsylvania, except that Hillary’s move on that was more overt. In any case, those all pale next to the war vote and its consequences, which is the main point I’m making.
on 21 May 2008 at 8:59 am22steveeboy

cause you would never support a candidate whose prior stint in the White House brought us both “don’t ask don’t tell” AND DOMA right?????

no dog whistling there eh, just actual policies enacted and laws signed!

separate but equal YEAH!!!
on 21 May 2008 at 12:39 pm23Zon

I”m sure there are a handful of fervently anti-war Clinton supporters, but not many that I know of.

Here’s another one. I’m a pacifist, I’ve donated $$ to anti-war organization, and I come from two generations of conscientious objectors (including my father, who faced a criminal trial for refusing to fight in Vietnam). I don’t appreciate having my anti-war credentials questioned. And yes, I voted for Clinton. Her vote for the war did trouble me, for sure, and I understand why many people voted for Obama for that very reason. At the same time, in weighing the two candidates, I also considered other issues of equal importance to me. For example, people die every day due to lack of health insurance coverage, and Clinton is stronger on that issue. That’s important, too. It was a tough decision. But just because I voted for Clinton doesn’t mean that I’m indifferent to the war or the suffering of the Iraqi people.
on 21 May 2008 at 2:09 pm24JKFriz

Can we declare a moratorium on ever mentioning the Sean Wilentz article again (as Lyons does here)? I’ve seen it linked to about 50892 times as OMG DEFINITIVE PROOF that Obama’s a flaming race-baiter, because Princeton historian Sean Wilentz says Jesse Jackson Jr. said something mean after the NH primary.

Can we at least find a new dead horse to flog?
on 21 May 2008 at 6:49 pm25Macjazz

Zon, I’m not questioning your anti-war credentials (though your logic circuits might need some tweaking). What I’m saying is that the great majority of strongly anti-war people I’ve encountered have a real problem with Hillary, not only for her war vote but also for her ongoing stance on these matters, as evidenced most recently in her statements about obliterating Iran. Pacifist … not hardly. Neo Liberal. Yup, pretty much - not the choice of most anti-war folks.

There are areas where I like Clinton slightly more than Obama - his talk about “fixing” Social Security is certainly worrisome to me, if he really means it, which … who knows? But then there’s that 800 pound gorilla again, Hillary’s bellicose mentality. She’s a war hawk - it’s how she’s voted and it’s what she proclaims as well. Obama just doesn’t have those same … credentials … as a cheerleader for the military industrial machine. It remains to be seen how he’ll act as president, but I’ll take my chances with those unknowns over what I already know about Clinton.
on 21 May 2008 at 10:45 pm26Zon

Macjazz, it sounds like we don’t really disagree that much. I was just reacting to what I thought was your implication that the war doesn’t matter to Clinton supporters. (Perhaps I read too much into what you were saying, in which case I apologize.) That struck a nerve, because the war is an important moral issue to me, just as health care and women’s status around the globe are important moral issues to me. I totally understand why a person who is voting solely on the war would vote against Clinton. I’m just saying, some of us who voted for Clinton really wrestled with these issues a lot too, and just came out in a different place. That doesn’t mean that we are excusing her vote on the war.

Comments RSS

Yep

26 Responses to “Yep”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Archives

My Liberal Identity:

Categories

Tags

Pages