Comments on: Somerby: incomparable! Ehrenreich: now comparable to Dowd. History and sexual politics, 1492 to the present Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 By: Historiann Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:37:10 +0000 Of course she will want Obama to win–because she’s spent a lifetime in the Democratic party! Because her health care plan is almost exactly like his! Because they’d appoint the same kinds of people to the Supreme Court! Because she loves her country and her party, despite the fact that people like you continue to question that!

Really, all of this conspiracy theorizing about her secret movtivations and her undercover interests is outrageous, and calls to mind the rantings of Rush Limbaugh about how she murdered Vince Foster, and how she used to run drugs out of the Little Rock airport in the 1980s. Why are Democrats so eager to adopt talking points from the right wing about Clinton? No other democratic contender in my memory has been subjected to such suspicion, hostility, and calumny, and that includes Al Gore who was raked over both as a primary contender and as the party nominee. It’s insinuations like this that just reinforce my deeply held view that a man with her exact voting record would never be subjected to the same level of hostility and suspicion that she is now.

The reason she is fighting now for the nomination is that she’s fighting to win the nomination. This is her one shot, and she thinks she’s a better bet than Obama. Obama thinks he’s a better bet than Clinton. That’s all there is to it. Neither one of them should drop out of the race. Too many people have yet to vote. Then, let the chips fall where they may.

By: David Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:45:16 +0000 Historiann,

If Obama is the nominee, do you think that HRC will want him to beat McCain? If so, why?

By: Historiann Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:26:34 +0000 Hi BEW–I’ve been reading Correntewire, but I didn’t know about NYCweboy–thanks! has been good on the MI/FL disaster. I was optimistic that there would be a fair and square re-vote a few weeks ago, because I agree that seating Clinton delegates based on the earlier votes would have been unfair. (Moreso for MI, where Obama wasn’t on the ballot, less so for FL, where everyone was on the ballot.) I can’t totally blame him for pursuing what’s in his political best interests, but think it’s a stunning admission of weakness of the “inevitable” “frontrunner” candidate that he’s fearful of a re-vote. If the media weren’t so in love with their anti-Clinton, they might get around to asking him why he’s willing to throw away and/or suppress the votes in Michigan and Florida. And, because those states are going to be key in November, I think it’s monumentally stupid for the DNC and Obama to say to Michigan and Florida voters that they can go pound sand. (Just ask GayProf–the second comment in this thread.)

But: I think it’s too extreme not to vote for Obama in November. He would be infinitely preferable to McCain, and that’s who we all have to remember is the real foe of all Democrats. I don’t agree with Obamaphiles who threaten not to vote for HRC if she’s the nominee, and I can’t go along with it the other way. (But, if you live in Florida or Michigan, can I say that “I feel your pain?” My mother’s vote got tossed in Michigan, and she’s angry too.)

This mess all gets back to the DNC’s inexplicable protection racket for vainglorious politicians, innkeepers, and restauranteurs in Iowa and New Hampshire. What gives with that? I say in 2012, let the FIRST states to vote be Michigan and Florida. Make candidates campaign in at least one state that has a complex, diverse, and significant population. I don’t get how Iowa and New Hampshire get to be first among equals to the point that we’re going to toss votes out. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

By: BEW Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:56:06 +0000 Hi Historiann,

Glad to see you are holding down the Clinton fort! I don’t know if you’ve been to these 2 sites, but they are pro-Clinton

(The correntewire is a group blog where most but not all are pro-Clinton.)

What do you think of Obama’s positions against the revotes in Mi and Fla? While politically this helps him in the short term since he would have been whumped by the evil Hillary, I think it could hurt him in the general election. For me, blocking the revote is close to a dealbreaker as far as I supporting him. Before he block the vote, I was prepared to vote him, albeit reluctantly. Now, I may sit out the election or vote Green. I did see the Prohibition party got 100 votes in the 2004 election so that is a possibility as well.

What do you think?

By: Historiann Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:57:03 +0000 Interesting how Hillary Clinton never brought up Rev. Wright until specifically asked about it in a newspaper interview yesterday. Interesting how she only said “he wouldn’t be my minister,” instead of attacking Obama. Interesting how she answered probably 20 questions in that interview, and that’s the only answer she gave that got airplay. Interesting, isn’t it?

I understand that you support Obama, David. Why are you so evangelical in your hatred of Hillary Clinton that you won’t accept that some of us still admire and support her, no matter how hard you stamp your feet?

By: David Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:09:32 +0000 Interesting how Donna Brazile noted today that when Bill was in deep trouble over the Ken Starr report, Jeremiah Wright stood by him and supported him. But, of course, as soon as it is in Clinton’s interest to say so, she throws the guy under the bus and acts as if he’s the black David Duke. As I said, she’s a real class act. I’d be so honored to have her as my president.

And please, enough with the toughness and experience arguments. Her major foreign policy decision was wrong. Her major domestic policy initiative was an unmitigated disaster. What has she actually accomplished in the Senate to merit running as the “experience” candidate?

By: Historiann Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:35:53 +0000 p.s. Some links from Talk Left with interesting data points and arguments:

In sum, the nastiness of the campaign seems to be turning more Clinton voters off of the notion of supporting Obama, not vice-versa; and there are equal numbers (although still a minority) of Democrats who want Obama to drop out of the race as want Clinton to drop out. So, it looks like the fun will continue, LT, David, and Rad! Yay?

By: Historiann Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:29:44 +0000 Hey LT–thanks for stopping by and commenting. No need to apologize for your fervor–I respect your decision to support Obama. I don’t dislike him or think he’s the devil, but I’m saddened that many Obama supporters think that about Clinton. I think the nastiness of this campaign is due to the fact that there’s very little room between HRC and BO ideologically or politically. I support Clinton because of her health care plan (Obama is running to Clinton’s right on health care), and because of her greater experience. I just think she will be better politically and strategically in dealing with U.S. politics as it is now.

There’s a surprising amount of Clinton hatred taken from 1990s right-wing talking points that many Democrats have been too happy to claim and make their own in making the case against Clinton, and the media and left blogosphere have been very effective in painting Devil horns on a person who has devoted her life to public service. She has to run a campaign, after all, but she’s being judged much more severely for this than any man has ever been. I guess I’m not surprised, but I’m very resentful. I wish the candidates would do a 3-hour long town hall on health care reform, and stop feeding the media’s frenzy for conflict. Bore everyone to death, please, rather than fight over these stupid side issues of who called whom a monster, etc.

I think the effort by Obama supporters to make George Bush’s war in Iraq all Hillary Clinton’s fault is foolish and short-sighted. Yes, she voted for the AUMF in 2002, but SO DID EVERY SINGLE MAN WHO WAS IN THE SENATE IN 2002 AND RAN FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 2004 AND 2008 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF BOB GRAHAM. Where were the Grahamiacs, and why isn’t he president now, if the AUMF vote that so many Obama supporters cite as their reason for not supporting Clinton are *really* so up in arms over Iraq? John Kerrey won the support of every Democrat in 2004, and no man has been so demonized or villified for that vote the way Clinton has been for that vote. Let’s not forget who is really to blame for Iraq: Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Also, please note that since he joined the U.S. Senate in January 2005, Obama’s voting record on Iraq issues has been identical to Clinton’s.

Democrats should be very wary of falling for this analysis, but they seem to have forgotten what happened in 2000. We had an excellent candidate in Gore, but we allowed the media to beat him up, portray him as a serial fabulist, and tell us that he and Bush were really the same Corporate America candidate. The same script is being run on Hillary Clinton, so I don’t mind it at all that she’s pushing back and fighting hard. I know many people are offended because it’s not ladylike or becoming of a proper woman, but I think that we Democrats need someone who’s going to kick ass and take names. Isn’t that what many of us would have preferred in Gore and Kerry–a little more fight?

I really liked Obama’s speech on race–it was brave, smart, and sophisticated. I fear that it may have been a little too sophisticated, but I really appreciate that he took the high road although it may yield fewer immediate political rewards. I still think Clinton would be a better President because of her policies and her experience. Obama hasn’t had to fight the way Clinton has–he cleared the field for his one race for the U.S. Senate, and he’s coasting on a wave of love from a media that hates Hillary Clinton. He benefits from being the not-Clinton, but sadly I think his luck will run out when he becomes the not-McCain. The real McCain says the unbelieveably stupid things like RadReadr cites, and the press spins it for him to say that “he really didn’t mean that,” or “it was just a McCain moment.” No matter what, McCain wins the news cycle, every time, and it won’t matter if the candidate is Clinton or Obama.

By: LTownsend Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:39:11 +0000 Historiann,

I love your blog. It makes me laugh out loud. But I cannot understand how you can continue to support Hillary after all the dirty tricks her campaign has engaged in. OK, forget about Hillary and her campaign, whatever it has or hasn’t done, forget about her support for the war and her inability to take her lumps for this mistake. Obama’s speech on race was path-breaking. As Historiann, don’t you agree? When someone can write and deliver such a thoughtful speech in the teeth of so much negative campaigning, he essentially has my vote. It shows me that he can think through complex issues and truly try to find some kind of way forward.

OK, but I must return to Hillary for a moment. I was a huge supporter in the beginning but she just continues to lose credibility with me as events transpire. The fact is that her campaign is not just bloodying Obama during this fight for the Democratic nomination (this is politics as usual, unappealing as it may be), but worse, from where I sit, is it is bloodying Hillary herself — with lies about what happened in Tuzla (OK, it’s funny with Sinbad and all, but really worries me when our current administration plays so fast and loose with the truth), with her ridiculous phone call at 3:00 in the morning advertisement, and all the rest. The fact is, the more she takes the low road, the more beat-able she will be by McCain if the unthinkable happens.

Setting aside all the unsavory moments in her campaign and with those associated with her campaign — Geraldine Ferraro’s statement, the release of picture of Obama in Kenyan garb to the Drudge Report, her “as far as I know Obama’s not a Muslim” statement, Bob Kerrey’s “Barack HUSSEIN Obama will have an advantage in foreign policy when dealing with the Muslim world,” let’s return to Obama again. How great is it that, instead of casting aside Reverend Wright and denying his importance in Obama’s life and religious development, Obama OWNS his relationship with the Rev. and has the balls to say that he cannot disavow the relationship? Contrast that with the Clintons’ shucking off inconvenient attachments and relationships (can you say “Lani Guanier”?).

Anyway, I apologize for my fervor here. I haven’t been reading this blog regularly of late so I may have missed important points raised on your ever-interesting and thought-provoking site, so if I am out of line here, I apologize.


By: Rad readr Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:32:15 +0000 Although it’s completely in the realm of speculation, I think Hillary’s latest salvo on Wright (which keeps it in the news) is an indication that her people might have pushed the Wright story. I’m getting increasingly disgusted by the level of the discussion — stupid comments on Bosnia, what “my” pastor says.

But did you hear? Mc is back — he did a speech yesterday saying the government shouldn’t help people with default mortgages. That should play well in economically distressed areas — might be the best comment since the 100 years in Iraq.