|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: Molly Ivans R. Dale in Utah
Bart,
I'm a long time reader and I agree with you about
80% of the time
And I've got to say I admire your patience.
Yesterday's "Dale," should lighten up.
Bart for all his centrist tendencies is a BIG
TENT Democrat in the best sense of the word.
He's willing to concede the need for support
from hard core socialists like myself and centrist conservatives
like Kerry and the DLC. It's a disaster
for us on the far left to support political nincompoops (like Nader)
whose naivety play right into the hands of the
fascists. Molly wrote some great commentary and Bart praises that.
But, Molly and nearly every other commentator
of the political left suffered from that know-it-all patronizing
attitude that is a cancer on political success.
Even the self-proclaimed populist Jim Hightower comes off as
insultingly patronizing in spite of his man-of-the-people
posturing.
All of that holier-than-thou BS with regard to
the Clintons does nothing but aid the opposition.
I still can't believe the appalling hypocrisy
of the Democrats who still blame Clinton for the coordinated
political hit-job that was the impeachment.
Blame him? He should be held up as an example to all the
stubborn jackasses who, because they are too
arrogant to apologize to their wives, pack divorce courts
all over the country. Great as she was,
ol' Molly was one of those hypocrites.
Bart, I promise you, I'll vote for the Dem. nominee
just like I did for that idiot Kerry,
but I won't support Clinton in the primary because:
1) She's a political novice.
Really?
Compared to second-place Obama?
2) Her success has largely been due to the failures
of her opponents.
Frankly any Democratic candidate could have won
(maybe with less of a margin) in that NY district.
She's never really been tested as a candidate.
She scared Rudy out of the race and won her senate
seat twice.
She's "never really been tested" because she's
so strong, decent candidates refused to run against her..
3) She showed appallingly bad judgment in her promotion of health-care reform
You might have something there.
She stupidly assumed her party would stick with
their president.
One should never expect loyalty
from
a Democrat.
In politics, "Democratic loyalty" doesn't exist.
Loyalty is strictly a Republican trait.
4) She showed poor political judgment in her 'it takes a village' campaign
Disagree.
Bob Dole proved "it takes a village" when his
entire home town adopted him when he was hurt.
But the yellow Democrats ran from that fight
- as always.
5) She has become increasingly mush-mouthed about her positions after every failure.
Every failure?
Can you name a few of her "failures?"
That is not a record that inspires confidence.
You're comparing her to some perceived "perfect
candidate" in your head.
When you compare her to the real world candidates,
she looks like a winner.
Even if she somehow manages to win the presidency,
her administration is likely to be a repeat of
the warfare between the White House and Congress
that helped sink the Carter administration.
No doubt, the Democrats will turn on Clinton 44 like they did Clinton 42.
We need another Roosevelt, Bart, (although another
Clinton would do), but Rodham is no Roosevelt
capable of replacing a corrupted system with
a new one she's not even a Clinton able to work the
current system to her (and the country's) advantage.
Nevertheless, if she wins I'll be celebrating right along with you.
--joe in Japan
Joe, I hate to break it to you, but Roosevelt's dead.
Instead of invoking ghosts, why not compare her to the other real world
candidates?
She's "worked the system" to put herself in the position that the nomination
is her's to lose.
But you apparently are hell-bent to label her a loser, anyway.
Why can't Democrats accept victory when it's presented to them?
Discuss
it on The Bartcop Forum
Discuss it on the BartBlog