A suggestion-- Don't complain when you get what you want from Democrats

[Armstead]

One of the sub'themes that seems to have emerged after Clinton's Fox interview is the complaint: "Clinton should have done this before." And a slight variation: "The Democrats should have been counterattacking like this all along."

The implication is that Clinton's aggressive counter-offensive in that interview doesn't matter, becauase it is too little too late.

I tend to agree with the basic complaint there. This interview should have occurred much sooner -- like as soon as the GOP/riught wing started floating their "It's all Clinton's fault" crap shortly after 9-11.

I also tend to agree that the Democrats have been way too reluctant to fight back ever since the election fiasco of 2000. Starting in December 2000, the Democrats got rolled into "healing the wounds" and being conciliatory and "bi-partisan" about many things in an effort not to be "divisive."....But at the same time, Bush was already thumbing his nose at the Democrats (and at all moderates) by doing things like appointing controversial right-wing fundamentalist authoritarian John Ashcroft, and others who were clearly and obviously unsuitable -- such as former Iran-Contra figures.

BUT....

What's ultimately most important is Now and The Future. Rather than complaining, we all ought to be supporting actions like Clinton's punching back on Fox. That's what so many have wanted to see. And if we see more of it now, that's what counts.

The anger and frustration is understandable. I share it to a large degree. But staying stuck in the past, and refusing to give credit where credit is due now, is sort of like a kid who badgers his parents for a higher allowance -- and then complains when he finally gets it.

If we want to see more Democrats Standing Up, we ought to rally behind them when they do. That's how we'll see more of it.

[RoBear]

1. I've been wanting to post something similar to this all morning.

Couldn't think how I wanted to state it.

I get really weary of the circular firing squad some on this site engage in. IT'S WHY WE DON'T WIN ELECTIONS, guys!

Quit trashing our own...

:nuke:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. The fact of the matter is, to a lot of people here, they aren't "our own".

Which is not to say that they're freepers as much as it is to say they're not Democrats. They care more about advancing a Green or Socialist agenda than they do the success of a feasible progressive agenda under the Democratic Party.

[blm]

16. We can both APPLAUD Clinton's words AND be chagrined he waited 5 years.

And be angry that Carville and Begala are using it to LIE ABOUT and beat at all the Democrats who HAVE been speaking out and opposing BushInc for many years, and DIDN'T wait for 5 years to do so.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. We can, but it is counter-productive and makes zero sense.

Can't we just be happy for once?

[blm]

24. Tell that to Carville and Begala. THEY are the ones spinning it against

other Dems.

And I was happy that Dems were defending Clinton on terror for years, and speaking out on Tora Bora, and challenging Bush's decision to invade Iraq even though weapon inspections were working, and on Abu Ghraib, and calling for Rumsfeld to be fired, and on the DSM, and Katrina, etc...........

So Carville and Begala spinning this into a political divide - they don't fool me and I refuse to play into their lies.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Hey, I have no love whatsoever for Carville and Begala.

Carville has turned himself into a fucking quote machine for Cheney and Begala just sucks as a pundit.

All I'm saying is don't put that on Clinton. He did a fantastic job and we need to JUST praise him for that.

[blm]

28. And I appreciate many of you too much to argue for much longer - but -

I just really want the FACTS to stay STRAIGHT and for no strategist to spin and lie against other Democrats just for some temporary political gain.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. That's just not going to happen.

In the history of the world, facts have never gone un-spun, and in today's communication age, it will absolutely never happen now. And yes, that's an incredibly sad fact, but it's true.

[blm]

31. But against our own? Against our own Dems right before another election?

In 2002 and 2004 the Dem candidates were burdened with the Dems are weak on terror because Clinton did nothing meme.

Now they are being hit with the Dems are weak and spineless and need Clinton to show them how to oppose Bush meme.

Both lies. Both burdens.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

33. Oh, I agree with that completely.

Dems need to just fucking support each other once and for all for a change instead of engaging in the circular firing squad. I was totally not on the same page as you there, and I apologize.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Couldn't have said it better. K&R

[MrCoffee]

3. Not just yes but hell yes. n/t

[jobycom]

4. Good post. That drives me crazy, too. It's like

some people can't seem to compliment anyone or see good anywhere. A Democrat makes a good move, and half the responses are "Now all the other spineless Democrats need to start growing balls," or some such disgusting anatomical reference.

A good move deserves compliments, and should not be used to slam the rest of the party.

[magellan]

5. Hell yeah

No complaints here. Clinton rocked. If the other side is silent, we aren't yelling loud enough!

[Armstead]

9. Great statement....Should be the motto for our side

"If the other side is silent, we aren't yelling loud enough!"

Exactly. The more they gripe and try to dismiss what Democrats and progressive left say, the more it means they are afraid it will get through to people.

[Warpy]

7. It IS too little and it may indeed be too late, but....

The problem is that Democrsats have been speaking truth to the fascists in Congress for a couple of years, but you'd never know it unless you were a C-Span junkie or read comments from those who are on this board.

Clinton's interview was the first televised response to the right wing lie machine. They're usually a little more careful in picking their guests.

Pox News is now trying to make it all go away, which is why they insisted the video be pulled from You Tube (while leaving many other Pox videos there).

That it's too little isn't the fault of courageous Democrats. That it's too late reflects the poor access strong Democrats have to corporate media.

[RoBear]

8. Pox News! I love it!

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

10. An angry Clinton interview was all that was missing from the counterattack

Leading the charge was Richard Clarke and a host of others. I never had a problem getting the information I required to demonstrate without question the relative roles of the Clinton vs Bush admins.

The difference today, and it is the only difference, is that the right actually wanted Clinton to be on their network defending himself in an explosive manner. The GOP is in huge trouble on many fronts. What better way to rally the troops than to parade Clinton in front of them?

The Fox interview was a scripted charade that Clinton fell into. It worked out well from our perspective, but it was just what the doctor ordered for the knuckledraggers.

[Armstead]

27. To quote from a poster above....

If the other side is silent we atren't yelling loud enough.

In other words, whatever our side does will rouse the knuckledraggers. Better to rouse them this way than by inaction and silence on our part.

So if Clinton also energized some wingnutts too, than that's fine. It was going to happen anyway.

[blm]

11. I'm completely behind Clinton speaking up forcefully - Carville and Begala

and others are using it as an attack on all other Dems as if they NEEDED an example of how to defend themselves. And THAT is why it's important they be called on it.

If all other Dems REALLY followed Clinton's example, they'd wait for lies to fester for five years before they counter them publically.

Democrats have been countering BushInc's lies for YEARS. Post 9-11, Tora Bora was HUGE and Clinton said nothing and gave NO BACK UP to those few who even spoke out.

The same with Iraq - Clinton made no bones about being behind Bush 100%.

Clinton also did nothing to address the charges against him during his book tour. All of this happened before the 2002 or 2004 elections.

And then in 2005 Clinton publically DENIED even knowing about the Downing Street Memos when other Democrats were working their butts off to get the DSM information out to the public.

WE did more to back up Clinton on his terrorism efforts over the last 5 years than he did to back up us and all other Dems on the big issues we've been working on to counter BushInc.

[madfloridian]

14. Not just Carville and Begala using it. Many DUers are as well.

About half of DU seems totally unaware of what other Democratic leaders have been doing. They are ecstatic that someone is "finally" speaking out...that is baloney.

[Armstead]

17. I wish more Democrats were like Waxman, Kucinich, Conyers, etc. too

In some ways it can be seen as part of the larger friction between those Democratic leaders who have always been forcefully telling the truth and those who have chosen to be more, er, indirect and discreet (a polite word).

But that is one reason I think we ought to focus more on Clinton's coming out now, and be positive about it. If he can inspire more of the middle-of-the-road Aardvark Democrats to move to the side of Conyers, Waxman, Kucinich, etc. then that should be encouraged.

[blm]

19. I'm fighting the inevitable SPIN that the Carville types are doing now

I fight it because it DESERVES to be fought for the LIE that it is.

Clinton has DONE MORE to quietly help Bush over the last 5 1/2yrs since he took office than any other Democrat because he remained SILENT at the most crucial times when Bush needed to be backed against the wall, not backed up. And we had TWO elections where Clinton's public siding with Bush on leadership issues DID MATTER to overall perception of Bush the person and leader.

Fer chrissakes, we're just NOW getting the public debate from Clinton on what led to 9-11? How fair is THAT to the Democratic PARTY who have CRUCIAL other issues like the NIE report, Iraq, and TIRTURE to deal with at this time?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. That'll never happen.

Conyers, Waxman, Kucinich, etc. (and Clinton, for that matter) do not have to worry about their re-election.

For a direct corolation to the other side, Santorum has been roughly a counterpart to the people you mention, and he's going to get pummelled in November.

Politics just does not work that way.

[Armstead]

26. Their directness is one reason why they get elected

IMO politicians who stand up and take clear positions are usually popular.

The best object lesson in politics is Bernie Sanders, who is perhaps more honest and outspoken than anyone else in the Congress.

And he became so popular in Vermont that the GOP didn't really bother trying to campaign against him.

And Sanders did not appeal just to the granola and Birnenstock set. He also got the support of moderate and conservative Vermonters who -- even when they disagree with him -- respect his honesty and forthrightness.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. No it's not.

Vermont is a pretty poor example, quite frankly. They don't exactly follow traditional political models up there. Those guys get elected because of high concentrations of Democrats. You could not just put them into another district and expect them to get elected. It would simply not happen.

[Armstead]

34. Vermont is a pretty hardass place.

Despite it's Ben and Jerry image, Vermont has a lot of bedrock conservatism in it. And a lot of middle-of-the-road types, both GOP and Democratic.

The fact that Bernie is so popular has more to do with his oen political skills than some esoteric aspect of Vermont. It's true that Vermonters tend to be more independent minded than some regions -- but that also tranbslates into a form of individualism that would be expected to be more libertarian and contrary to an avowed socialist.

And many of the other plain-spoken progressive Democrats like Marcy Kaptur, Jan Schiakovski, Kucinish and others (pardon my spelling) come from districts that are basically middle America mainstream.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. Mainstream America?!?

Cuyahoga County (Kucinich): Kerry 67%, Bush 33%

Cook County (Schakowski) - Kerry 70.25%, Bush 29.15%

How is that mainstream at all?

[Armstead]

36. Liberalism ands Democrats are still mainsteram, ya know

If one is in East CowShit, Alabama maybe urban and suburban and northern and midwest rural America doesn't seem mainstream.

But Cleveland is about mainstream American as it gets. And so is Toldeo and Sandusky Ohio which sends Marcy Kaptur to the House, as is Akron, Oh which sends Sherrod Brown to the House. As is Chicago and Vermont. And so is North Dakota which sends Byron Dorgan back to the senate. And so is Iowa which sends Tom Harkin to the Senate. and California, which sends Barbara Boxer.....etc.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

37. North Dakota is more mainstream than Cuyahoga county.

And no one would accuse Byron Dorgan of being very much like Dennis Kucinich. So I'm not sure where you're going with this at all.

[Armstead]

38. Dorgan has been very direct and progressive on many issues

He's not a showhorse, but Dorgan has been a very outspoken and tireless advocate for the progressive side on issues like trade, media concentration and others.

I also think you are applying a somewhat narrow definition of "mainstream." Does mainstream mean "rural" and that urban is "non-mainstream"? And is southern rural more mainstream than northeast rural? Are the somewhat isolated wilds of North Dakoka more mainstream than the higher population areas of California?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. "Mainstream" is a place where either party can legitimately win.

And without an uphill battle. It could be urban, it could be rural, though in reality, they tend to be places somewhere in between those extremes (at least as far as Congressional Districts are concerned). Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Ohio are all states that are mainstream.

Cuyahoga county, a place that votes Democratic nearly 70% of the time, is NOT mainstream. No Republican can walk in there and expect to win.

[Armstead]

40. Well, this is getting outside the original scope of my OP but...

I think you ought to use another term for that besides Mainstream.

"Predominantly Democratic" or "Reedominantly Republican" or "Competative" is more accurate, because it is based on recent voting patterns, rather than a value judgement.

I also think that many places are more purple rather than red or blue.

Paul Wellstone had a lot of support in Minnesota, for example. He looked like he would withstand an influx of opposition money from the GOP in 02. But after his death and a hurried "fill in the gap" candidacy by Mondale, he was replaced by a Bush-clone Republican. Does that mean Minnesota should be written off, or is Coleman an abberation?

Also, I think it's also important to look at the quality of particular politicians. I would venture to say that the "New Age" personal style of Dennis Kucinich doesn't reflect the personal lifestyle of most of his constituients. But he's a damn good politician who stands for traditional Democratic liberal and progressive values, so they overlook his flaky side.

And despite your stereotype, Vermont could be considered fertile territory for libertarianism. So the popularity of Bernie Sanders there is by no means based on some automatic support for progressives there.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. I'm sorry, we seem to be at a major disconnect here.

And it is pointless to continue. I don't wish any ill will, so I'm not going to further the discussion. We'll just have to remain on separate pages.

For the record, however, this is my quote on Vermont: "Vermont is a pretty poor example, quite frankly. They don't exactly follow traditional political models up there."

[Armstead]

42. I don't mind discussing it elsewhere....

Actually, I think it's productive to look at different pages in all of this. There probably are similar pages too. Finding them is what our side needs to do in a larger sense, to create more unity...They just take a little effort to find them.

My comment about getting beyond the scope of the original post was merely to say that it is somewhat different than what I had originally tried to point out in that.

[Lerkfish]

12. valid point.

[PsN2Wind]

13. The Democrats always seem to allow thmselves

to be snookered into a position of campaigning (and debating) in a fashion that won't hurt their opponents feelings. They need to learn that showing up at a gunfight with a knife will always make you the loser.

[madfloridian]

15. Clinton needed badly to do this sooner.

That is why so many are saying it. He did not just hurt himself by waiting, it hurt the country and the party.

Other Democratic leaders have been fighting in many ways.

[Armstead]

18. I agree, but we can;t rewind history

What I'm basically saying is that instead of focusing on woulda, shoulda, coulda, we ought to be more positive about it and encourage all Democratic leaders to become more aggressive.

It's a good thing if some Democrats who feel more comfortable following the lead of Clinton rather than a Conyers are persuaded to become more aggressive as Clinton has done. Supporting that would do a lot to helping develop a more unified and strong opposition to the right wing GOP in the big picture.

[madfloridian]

23. Well, I keep remembering others...

who got shot down for speaking out. Most of the ones who defended speaking out in 03 and 04 are now gone from here.

It is amazing to me that not one soul remembers anything anyone else has said.

If Clinton knew Iraq was not a threat to us, he should have spoken out. That is one of the biggest things now that hurt so bad. It is painful. He had to have known.

And I agree with you, better now than never.

[blondeatlast]

20. Word. Woooord! WORD! Thank you for expressing my feelings too. nt

[Bake]

32. Clinton needed to "age" a bit - I think this was GOOD timing

Had he done it five years ago, it would have been seen as divisive, particularly after 9/11 when everyone (except us, apparently) was giving * a free pass. Now that people have had time to see what a real "divider, not uniter" looks like, Clinton has shown everyone how it's done.

The only pulpit comparable to the POTUS bully pulpit is that of a FORMER POTUS. The Big Dog has had time now to ripen (like wine), be seen as a statesman (look at CGI!), so he has even more weight now to come out swinging. Plus, the mood in the country has changed.

In short, I think (and hope) that NOW is OUR time.

Bake