Smoldering Turd
May 27th, 2008 at 2:49 pm by Chris
Just another thought on Zuzu’s post. Zuzu asks Obama supporters to provide positive positive reasons to vote for Obama in the fall. To summarize my reply my reply is something along the lines of “I’ve got nothing.” The reason being that I find myself in the familiar position of voting against something rather than voting for something. Obama’s policy prescriptions are rather meek and not at all what I would hope for. Luckily, he doesn’t have to rely on me to sell his candidacy.
Rather than rewrite the same post I’ve written a number of times now, I’m just going to reprint some crap I wrote back in 2006.
The judgement of any elected official who voted in favor of the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq is highly suspect, to say the least. Indeed, their judgement should be mocked and ridiculed at every opportunity and all of their positions on Iraq, or any other matter of importance, should be considered questionable until proven otherwise. I include the ones who are really very sorry and weepy about their decision and have come to their senses a few years too late. If their decision to support the resolution was in any way influenced by some ass backwards political calculus, dreamt up by morons who thought that authorizing a war would somehow get that very same war off the table prior to the 2002 mid term elections, they don’t belong in public office. If they were too stupid to realize that the resolution would lead war, and that the war it would lead to would be an unmitigated disaster, then they should probably go back to pre-school.
I know I’m throwing a lot of babies out with the bath water, but how a member of Congress voted on that resolution should be at the forefront of any discussion about their reelection, or their desire for a higher office. That vote is a relevant gauge of any politician who participated. When presented with a very clear choice, did they choose to make one of the worst decisions in modern American history? Sorry to be an ass, but that does matter.
My view on that remains constant. In comments, Zuzu writes
Where’s the clear and forceful opposition to the war after his 2002 speech? This is a serious question. Because he really hasn’t been the anti-war candidate, and since that speech — which cost him nothing politically, given the leanings of his district — he’s been rather silent.
This is all true. Unfortunately, we have to make due with what we have, not what we might wish we had. I don’t expect everybody to agree with my all or nothing approach. Obama is, of course, lucky that he wasn’t in the Senate in 2002. It’s true that we don’t know what he would have done had he been in that position, though his speech does give us some indication that he would have made the right choice. I tend to rely on what did happen rather than on any attempt to divine what might have happened. It’s also true that being right in 2002 didn’t cost him anything, but being right wouldn’t have hurt a Senator from New York, or Connecticut, or Delaware. It may well have hurt a Senator from North Carolina, but he didn’t bother to run again anyway, so I’m not sure what the hell his problem was.
But, whatever. If there were grand prescriptions for massive wealth redistribution, single payer heathcare, the nationalization of the utilities, a firm commitment to honor the Fourth Amendment and the restoration of Habeas Corpus, then maybe I’d have something to try and pitch. I’ll stop now before I start pulling out the old Hunter S. Thompson quotes.
It’s also true that being right in 2002 didn’t cost him anything, but being right wouldn’t have hurt a Senator from New York, or Connecticut, or Delaware.
It might very well have hurt a Senator from New York or Connecticut. Or New Jersey or Pennsylvania, for that matter.
You might be right about that, but protracted ground wars in Asia don’t tend poll well in those places, so I think they would have been Ok.
with the exception of Pennsylvania, BULLSHIT, Zuzu.
I’ll just throw in that I mention New York, Connecticut, Delaware and North Carolina for a reason. I’m not just being random.
funny too that the guy that is “not that anti-war” is the one that can credibly claim that iraq war is a disaster and indicative of the need to reconfigure US foreign policy while the woman that voted for the war and refuses to apologize for that collossal fuck up–even as her surrogates and supporters demand that people that didn’t vote for her apologize for a variety of slights at the hands of media pundits, other candidates, random blog posters, etc.–will be unable to run on the issue in the fall because she was one of the enablers.
AND, she was an enabler that didn’t even bother to read the intel to which she privy before she cast her vote.
But, somehow, the true arbiters of progressivism–who picked the losing candidate, try to claim that refusing to vote for a candidate that got the most important issue of the campaign WRONG is indicative of sexism, irrational hatred, political naivete, etc.
had hrc shown as much balls as say the Dixie Chicks, I suspect the outcome of this primary would have been different. She failed an important test that Obama did not.
She demonstrates she still doesn’t get it when she tries to compete in the neo-con/military industrial complex/pro-zionist dick-waving contest by promising to totally obliterate nations that may be a bit hostile due to the US invasion of both neighbors on their borders. A policy that she has helped enable.
So much for those positive reasons to vote Obama.
Come on, zuzu. I live in Buffalo, NY and Clinton was in absolutely no danger if she’d voted against it. If she had done so, she would have been #1 on my list rather than dead last.
if you don’t think opposing the war BEFORE it happened is a positive then you really should just abstain from voting.
Clinton’s Senate seat wasn’t in danger if she’d voted against the war. But she, like John Kerry, calculated that a vote for the war would be a more viable position to have taken if running for presidential. Bad call.
steveeboy
had hrc shown as much balls as say the Dixie Chicks, I suspect the outcome of this primary would have been different. She failed an important test that Obama did not
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Iraq is my number ONE criteria, and has been since Bushco attacked them. Hillary Clinton failed that test completely.
It’s come down to these two. Neither was my first pick but since we got Obama/Clinto, Iraq wins it for Obama. I’d vote for Hillary if I had to but I don’t want to and I’d have to hold my nose. Obama’s character and his courage if/when he gets the Presidency worry me somewhat since they’re unknowns, but he’s sharp as a tack and when he’s attacked he returns the punch immediately.
Mainly on Iraq he got it right though. He got it right.
On a related note I saw that cranky old bastard McCain threw the “surrender” meme at Obama.:-) The next clip was Obama punching him back.
zuzu
So much for those positive reasons to vote Obama.
One reason, and one only. John McCain, and the Supreme Court goes progressive and not wingnut for at least a generation.
BOOYAH! What do I win?
Macjazz
But she, like John Kerry, calculated that a vote for the war would be a more viable position to have taken if running for presidential. Bad call.
Yep, they thought the war would be over quickly and afraid Bush would be proved right. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy decision but it was a political one.
zuzu: In all honesty, I don’t get what it is you are looking for. Yesterday you asked for reasons to vote for Obama. I saw literally dozens of reasons provided over a hundred comments. And through it all you kept interjecting “you’re not saying anything, you’re not saying anything.” I guess you were reading a different comment string.
Today steveboy @ 5 provides a perfectly valid argument vis-a-vis the two candidate’s positions on the war and you dismiss it.
I’m beginning to suspect no amount of evidence will matter.
Why do you ask for reasons if you are going to ignore the perfectly valid reasons proffered? That’s not to say you have to agree with the reasons. But to pretend no reasons were listed is a sign of either perfidy or really low reading skills.
“It might very well have hurt a Senator from New York or Connecticut. Or New Jersey or Pennsylvania, for that matter.”
It’s called leadership. How can she be far and away the best choice to run the nation if she got the single biggest issue of the 21st century wrong out of fear of consquences? A mistake which has meant for hundreds of thousands, a countries infrastructure destroyed, and our economy ruined. I don’t want a leader who make the right choice when making the right choice is easy and beneficial. I want a leader who make the right choice regardless of consequences.
again…zuzu’s essay was an obvious attempt to validate feelings that OB doesn’t stand for anything…the more s/he can reply “so much for reasons to vote for him” the more s/she feels a self-fullfilling prophesy.
stop falling for it. Mrs. Clinton lost - miserably, when you consider all the advantages she had. I believe her supporters, when they see comments that “OB and HRC are so alike in policies, etc” they feel the obvious reason hrc is losing HAS to be because hrc is a woman. Period (end of argument). Of course it is not true. sure, some idiots vote for OB because they won’t vote for a woman just like some idiots vote for hrc because they won’t vote for a black. hrc’s negatives are through the roof - most of which have NOTHING to do with her being a woman.
The charges/excuses of sexism/misogony from her camp sound hollow when you ask for an explanation of mr clinton’s behavior towards woman, including his wife, and how that relates to hrc’s “feminist” credentials…touchy subject, I know…but it exists!
zuzu will troll through the comments reminding everyone s/he is not convinced OB has any positives…so what! Vote however you want, zuzu! weigh the pros/cons yourself and vote. arguing/attempting to convince you/other firm hrc supporters is a zero-sum game. One more thing…I’ll look forward to your vapor-lock posts and comments when Roe v Wade gets overturned if Pres McCrazy-brain wins…