The last person I ever thought would endorse Hillary Clinton

[lwcon]

Me: http://www.correntewire.com/vastleft_endorses_hillary_rodham_clinton

* * *

In life, some things happen that you never could have predicted.

Who would have predicted that a song from a Swedish porno film would become a Muppets signature song?

No one could have predicted that "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US" meant that Bin Ladin planned to attack the United States.

And I never would have predicted that my vote on Super Duper Tuesday would go to Hillary Clinton, who began the race as my least Democratic candidate.

Here's what I wrote today to a relative who — to my pleasant surprise — recently told me I'd convinced him to switch from Obama to Edwards:

Thanks for taking my counsel on Edwards. I can imagine a million reasons why he pulled out. I’m sure the pressure was coming at him from all sides (when Russ Feingold takes a low blow at you, times are tough, for sure), but it’s a huge disappointment for me.

I have decided to vote for Hillary, not because I think her politics are better than Obama’s. They’re similar, and probably a little worse. But I trust her more.

Obamism is becoming a religion, and I think it’s insulating him from legitimate criticism from the left, whereas Hillary feels the need to improve her bona fides with the progressive base.

Can’t remember if I sent this to you, but here’s what I hope is one of my last posts describing my disillusionment with Obama, written in the style of JD Salinger, and getting to the heart of how I both think and feel about all this: http://www.correntewire.com/no_ponies_for_holden

I can’t knock anyone for picking Obama over Hillary or the other way around. We’re pitting charisma/raw electability vs. the battle-hardened object of largely unfair scorn. For me, it comes down to trust, our ability to influence her to “do the right thing,” and the certainty that she understands the shark tank she’s signing up to live in for the next four to eight years. There is certainly the risk that the animus against her will be our undoing, but I think she’s got a fighting chance. And for one thing, people should be impressed that she isn’t wilting from the fight. A tough cookie, that one.

May the Good Lord have mercy on us all!

If not, say hello to President McCain.

Note: This is my personal endorsement. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, speaking for any other denizens of the Mighty Corrente Building.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[REDFISHBLUEFISH]

1. Hillary in 08!

[wyldwolf]

2. "Obamism is becoming a religion... it's insulating him from legitimate criticism from the left"

I've heard many variations of this both this year and in election years past. It's what happens when people view a candidate in Messianic terms. In regards to Obama, David Sirota (who I don't normally like) gave a subdued warning about him a couple of years ago.

All I can say to the sincere progressives who really lean left but who support Obama - read 'Audacity of Hope.' Obama is not the guy you think he is.

On the other hand, being a centrist, there is a lot about his policy ideas I do like.

[MoonRiver]

6. Obamania is really starting to look cultish.

[SammyWinstonJack]

31. Starting to?

I think that ship sailed long ago.

[adabfree]

32. Yeah blame the messenger because those receiving

the message want to follow the man..

Cultish? You guys need to put down the crack pipe and also need to stop sucking down the haterade...

[Dogmudgeon]

7. How did Obama get this rep?

It surprises me. I thought that the hipsters actually read a lot. That they missed the non-progressive parts of his agenda is astounding.

It's like the MoveOn.com vote -- they went for BHO nearly 3:1 in spite of Obama's strong criticism of the "Betray-Us" ad.

The second surprise is how strong the emotional element is. In any other circumstance, emotional voting would be condemned and the works of Hannah Arendt and Theodore Adorno would be frequently quoted.

Obama himself is a decent enough candidate. It's (some of) his followers, especially the ones online, who give me pause. I am extremely wary of cults of personality, bandwagons, and emotion-based movements. Wary? Actually, "scared" is more like it.

We also forget that messiahs usually disappoint us -- and sometimes cripple us. Turning Obama into a secular messiah is a serious mistake. He has enough substance to run without needing the fanaticism.

--p!
Tommy, can you hear me?

[Zodiak]

10. Do you see any cult of personality for Hillary?

Because I sure do.

It exists for both of those candidates. Both of whom who have supporters who have become hateful, nasty, dishonest, divisive, and judgemental all while ignoring the glaring shortcomings of their candidate when it comes to principles and votes. They are turning DU into a cesspool of one-line zingers.

This is not a one-sided thing.

"Tough, experienced, and smart" are not policy positions.
"Inspiring, full of hope" are not a policy positions, either.

It's ALL about personality....and those of us that care about issues are left in the cold.

ON EDIT: whoever responded to this, you are on ignore. Go poison the well with someone else playing the role of punching bag.

[wyldwolf]

12. not nearly as much. Not even close.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. Yes indeed

But it is Obama who is campaigning, not on policy and proposals, but emotional issues. On actual substantive matters, Obama and Hillary are extremely close.

DU is getting hostile for a very simple reason -- most of the partisans can not relax enough to talk policy. From my own point of view, the hatred of Clinton now exceeds what we see on FreeRepublic. A week ago, it seemed like it was all Obama partisans doing the sniping, but several Clinton partisans have joined in. I would expect DU to trend the same way most of the web is, 2-to-1 for Obama.

To a certain extent, the fighting is fun. But our cup runneth over.

The messianic intensity that Obama's campaign engenders, though, is a little different from DU's combat. A large number of Obama's endorsements cite the emotional frisson the endorsers have gotten from him. Both Kennedy speeches were about this emotional charge, as well. We are asked to vote for Obama out of a sense of hope. But Ronald Reagan made the same appeal. I do not equate the two, but the effects of emotional voting have usually not been politically wise.

It also has led a number of his supporters to see what they want to see -- that Obama is a pacifist, that he is anti-nuclear, that he is anti-corporate. None of these things are true, though none of them are bad per se, either. He is a complex thinker; the passions of many of his supporters make for simple-minded politics.

I strongly fear political movements that get like this; perhaps it is a case of mistaken paranoia.

It is easy to say "Hillary does it too" -- it's the press corps' favorite talking point. But there are big differences between the campaigns, much more than the differences between the candidates. But Hillary presents far less of a "crystal ball" approach, so it is not nearly as easy to project onto her. She presents the ultimate political poker face. She has always been like this. The approaches could not be more opposite.

Hopefully, this long-winded reply clarifies my own less-than-temperate remarks somewhat better. What was once a pleasant form of rough play has become a drag, and you pointed it out well. But the day after the candidate is chosen, I will be stuffing their envelopes.

--p!

[ellisonz]

9. I've read the Audacity of Hope and he's exactly what I think he is.

[wyldwolf]

11. So do you support his centrist and DLC-rooted policies?

Welfare reform... private companion accounts for social security... the shunning of the 60s era 'progressive' movement... free market capitalism... national service... merit pay for teachers... health insurance that still gives insurance companies influence... among other thing?

Just curious. Because I was expecting a populist progressive manifesto when I read "Audacity." Imagine my delight when I found it to be the most well written book on New Democratic/DLC policies ever.

[AdHocSolver]

13. Edwards had the populist progressive manifesto and look at what happened to him.

This country is not ready for real policy leadership. If it were, Kucinich would do better in presidential races.

Most Americans live in a fantasy world. Hillary's entire campaign is based on Bill's charisma plus a lot of effort to diminish her corporate image. Bill Clinton was a corporate shill who got away with a lot of actions that hurt "poor" people and the middle class (NAFTA, welfare "reform", media deregulation, etc.).

Clinton is backed by a faction within the Democratic party most closely identified with the DLC. We have seen that the DLCers primary goal is to maintain its own power, even at the expense of losing elections and disaffecting party members.

Obama is backed by a group that is trying to preserve the party and WIN elections. They are not very progressive, but they understand that they need progressive support to prevail. I would trust them to accommodate progressive policies much more so than to think that the arrogant, self-centered DLC faction would.

For mamy reasons, including Edwards telling us that it is not about him, it is about helping America, I believe that John prefers Obama to Clinton. Therefore, I am going to vote for Obama in our primary.

[wyldwolf]

14. "Clinton is backed by a faction within the Democratic party most closely identified with the DLC. "

People like Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Ben Nelson - former and current prominant DLCers? No, they're backing Obama.

Obama is just a DLCer without the membership card.

[rodeodance]

24. and Obama PRETENDS he is not. That is what bothers me.

[ellisonz]

17. LOL.

1. The Clinton's passed cruel welfare reform, I don't think that's what Obama means.

2. All he said is that most people probably won't be able to rely on Social Security alone, this is the passage I believe you're referring too:

"Take the Administration’s attempt to privatize Social Security. The Administration argues that the stock market can provide individuals a better return on investment, and in the aggregate at least they are right; historically, the market outperforms Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustments. But individual investment decisions will always produce winners and losers - those who bought Microsoft early and those who bought Enron late. What would the Ownership Society do with the losers? Unless we’re willing to see seniors starve on the street, we’re going to have to cover their retirement expenses one way or another and since we don’t know in advance which of us will be losers, it makes sense for all of us to chip in to a pool that gives us at least some guaranteed income in our golden years. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t encourage individuals to pursue higher-risk, higher-return investment strategies. They should. It just means that they should do so with savings other than those put into Social Security." (p. 179).

3. I'm sick of Vietnam being re-fought every election. I'm sick of individualism impeding communalism. I'm sick of the Us. vs. Them mentality that ran through so much of the cultural clash.

4. Got Marx?

5. Yes.

6. Yes.

7. Somehow I don't think nationalization will pass.

[wyldwolf]

21. LOL! Obama said Clinton was right to pass welfare reform. What else could he have meant?

"conservatives — and Bill Clinton — were right about welfare as it was previously structured: By detaching income from work and by making no demands on welfare recipients other than a tolerance for intrusive bureaucracy and an assurance that no man lived in the same house as the mother of his children, the old A.F.D.C. program sapped people of their initiative and eroded their self respect.” Pg. 256

2. All he said is that most people probably won't be able to rely on Social Security alone, this is the passage I believe you're referring too:

Nope. Pg. 183:

Former Clinton economic advisor Gene Sperling has suggested the creation of a Universal 401(K), in which the government would match contributions made into a new retirement account by low and moderate-low income famlies. Other experts have suggested the simple (and cost free) step of having employees automatically enroll their employees in their 401(k) plans at the maximum allowable level; people could still choose to contribute less than the maximum or not participate at all, but evidece shows that by changing the default rule, employee participation rates go up dramatically. As a complement to Social Security, we should take the best and most affordable of these ideas and begin moving toward a beefed-up, universally available pension system that not only promotes savings but gives all Americans a bigger stake in the fruits of globalization.

Here comes the part where you tell us what he meant, right?

[ellisonz]

30. You know what...

...I'm just going to up and denounce the pigeonholing of Obama supporters here as cultists or mirror reflections of their candidate.

1. That doesn't mean he was for the unadulturated Clinton reform.

2. That's just good policy. Do you have a 401(K)?

"As a complement to Social Security, we should take the best and most affordable of these ideas and begin moving toward a beefed-up, universally available pension system that not only promotes savings but gives all Americans a bigger stake in the fruits of globalization."

Just what am I supposed to be deluded by?

If Obama supporters are cultist, the Clinton supporters are the Russian Mafia.

[wyldwolf]

37. that's exactly what the DLC says - it's good policy.

[rodeodance]

42. "he's exactly what I think he is"---that is the problem isn't it?? wool over your eyes.

[ellisonz]

43. As opposed to gray hairs?

[rodeodance]

25. I read Audicity==lots of ME ME ME

[BenDavid]

3. Oh ye of lil' faith. You are writing off HRC if she goes against

McCain but you obama folks are over-looking one thing. For her to have gained the nomination she had to fight to get it. Not any of this feel good crap but fighting for something she truly believes she is better to do the job and all its responsibilities. I say it is McCain that should be on look out for HRC.

This will not be like the gore bush election where gore did not fight. This will not be like the kerry bush election where kerry did not fight.....but you all wanted a bear in this election and well my friends we have us a damn grizzley!

How many times if obama gets the nomination will everything be racial? He will not get the msm behind him on this and he will be seen as the boy who cried wolf too damn often....

[lwcon]

4. Which Obama folks??? n/t

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[AdHocSolver]

16. The right wing has spent sixteen years demonizing Clinton. You think that aura wil just vanish?

If it comes down to Clinton versus McCain, non-Democrats, some of whose votes will be needed to win, will use the following logic.

They will look at McCain and will see a Republican who, although he is very right wing, has generated the aura of being a "moderate" Republican on the issues. McCain-Feingold will give him credibility (undesrved) of having some integrity.

They will look at Clinton. They will think first of her husband Bill who has this image of being a progressive (also, undeserved). Then when they go to actually vote, the Pavlovian conditioning by the right wing will take over, and the average American will conjure up an image of Hillary "eating puppies for breakfast".

Crazy, you say. True. However, the billion dollar advertising industry has proven again and again how the craziest advertisements played over and over again can influence large numbers of people to shell out huge amounts of money for worthless crap, even when it harms them.

Obama isn't burdened with that kind of image, built up over a sixteen year time period. I believe he has the best chance to beat McCain and become president.

[rodeodance]

28. poo in them---and she will blast em back to before time. Don't be scared of those poopheads. Be brav

e.

[blm]

5. Another blind supporter of CLOSED Government.

I say blind because I believe only a small percetage of Democrats have even read the historic record provided in the congressional records maintained by the National Security Archives.

I don't see why ANY Democrat wants the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes to continue.

To me, their opinions about WHO they THINK Hillary is and what Clintons will do for this country are uninformed.


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

The day TRuth Matters to a majority of Democrats is the day this country has a chance at REAL democracy that has OPEN GOVERNMENT as its foundation.

[UALRBSofL]

8. What I find interesting about the "blind faith" slang

It's demeaning, a put down, disrespectful, and frankly divisive. I'm sorry I don't agree with everyone but I make logical decisions without any outside influences. I don't make a decision based on the flavor of the month.

[goldcanyonaz]

18. I've really been enjoying reading your posts lately. Happy to have you on board.

:woohoo:

[lwcon]

33. Thank you

I've been pretty busy since I posted this on DU, so I haven't been able to participate in the discussion, which has been lively.

My latest comments on my Obama qualms can be found here:

http://www.correntewire.com/he_challenged_many_of_those_ideas

[robbedvoter]

19. Welcome! Some of your reasons are mine as well.

Plus respect for voters - which is big with me.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. That's odd...I picked Hillary as the least likely to listen to progressive influence.

She's certainly rebuffed our demands for an apology for IWR often enough. She also surrounds herself with elitist beltway advisors like Mark Penn, who think they are entitled to tell the American people what we should want, rather than listening to what we say we want, and then doing it.

Obama doesn't listen that well either, (McClurkin/Caldwell), but at least with Caldwell, his campaign had the decency to show some shame at getting caught again by trying to hide Caldwell's ex-gay ties.

Edwards listened, and he risked looking bad to listen. That's one of the main reasons why he was my favorite.

[AGirl]

22. Wow, I read "No Ponies for Holden"

That's amazing, I love catcher in the rye, that was really really well written and thought out. Good job.

[lwcon]

34. I really appreciate that.

Gotta love Salinger.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[rodeodance]

23. "Obamism is becoming a religion,"---this really stuck me. I have tried to

put a finger on what the heck is Obamamaina is all about. whow. i think i found it.

[Maribelle]

26. Obamamaina

blind faith
cannot be dealt with, with logic
why would democrats allow themselves to be swept away this way

Obumma

[rodeodance]

29. its the Changy thingy. Simple answer, but i have for now.

[Cameron27]

39. ROFL

"its the Changy thingy."

:thumbsup:

[rodeodance]

27. ~~ALL FIRED-UP FOR THE LADY~~ YES SHE CAN, YES WE CAN.~

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lwcon]

41. Like the Supreme Court said

You know it when you see it.

___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[robbedvoter]

36. My friends and naighbors seem as surprised as you are (and as I was)

[capi888]

38. Iwcon: Watch her tonight at 8:00 On C-Span..

Her rally in LA...It was unbelievable...it is worth watching...PLEASE watch and LISTEN..she is for The PEOPLE with REAL PLANS and EXPLAINS them...

[Cameron27]

40. Welcome aboard!

I'm more impressed with her now than when I first decided to support her. I knew she was a fighter, but now I know that she's also brilliant and caring. I know that she's the one who will fight to get our progressive ideals enacted into law.