So last night I went down to a local watering hole to watch the debate. I had a nice evening - as long as I didn't concentrate on the debate too deeply because, well, the whole spectacle was appalling. Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan, among others, have commented on how bad the moderators were. They've received scathing reviews in both the press and from the veiwing public. But while ABC was putting on a "shoddy, despicable" affair, Hillary Clinton was matching their performance. I really don't know quite what to say about it, so I'll just repeat an e-mail I sent to a friend (a Clinton supporter) this morning:
Clinton was beastly and as well as seeming to embrace being a smiling liar. She seems to implicitly argue that Obama has to be able withstand mendacious attacks that demean lots of Democrats as well as Obama himself. That may or may not be true - but how in the world does it follow that it's appropriate for her to make such attacks? Shouldn't that be the job of FoxNews, not the job of Sen. Clinton who tells us again and again that what she really cares about is a Democrat winning in November? Why should Democrats reward that behavior - and put her at the head of their party no less? I've been trying to think of who she seemed most like last night. The best I can come up with is a more pandering, less principled version of George Wallace. I mean I'd still vote for her in November if it came to that (though it won't, and that makes her attacks all the more horrible) - but she's really a rather terrible person who's more than happy to throw parts of the Democratic alliance (including some of its best parts and some of its weakest parts) under the bus of her own ambition. All she's done is legitimize the worst parts of the Republican attack machine and the politics of personal destruction, while making it hard to turn this election's focus on issues that directly affect the lives of most American. Well that, and snearingly stereotype Democrats by bringing up "San Francisco", Farrakhan, and implying that the Democrat's presidential nominee isn't patriotic and doesn't understand or honor 9/11 appropriately.Posted by armand at April 17, 2008 11:59 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Media | Politics
I don't know what you're talking about armand, she wasn't lying... she was merely saying "some things that weren't in keeping with what [she] knew not to be the case... [she] said some things that didn't jive with what [she] knew to be the truth"
Posted by: ryan at April 17, 2008 12:20 PM | PERMALINKI've come to think that - yeah.
She's running against "San Francisco", she's strengthening the political position of the most harmful parts of the Republican attack machine, she's absurdly linking the party's nominee to Farrakhan, she's strengthening the idea that Democrats are elitists and not "real Americans", and implying that Obama doesn't understand the true meaning of 9/11 and is disrespecting Americans on that point - playing that kind of Nixonian politics, and doing it with a smile, yeah, I think she is a terrible person. And she's surely doing more than anyone else right now to elect John McCain. Which I think is pretty terrible in its own right.
Posted by: Armand at April 17, 2008 12:32 PM | PERMALINKAnd another thing: jibe. It's not just you ryan, I'm seeing it everywhere. Argh!
Posted by: binky at April 17, 2008 12:33 PM | PERMALINKOops! Thanks binky. I don't think that I knew that, to be honest.
Posted by: ryan at April 17, 2008 01:02 PM | PERMALINKLike it or not, she's running to part of the Democratic party. If by the most harmful you mean the racist, I think that gives a pretty big pass to the sexist (both are awful) which is getting plenty of encouragement in this race.
She's doing whatever she can to win.
I look forward to your criticism of Obama when he does the same against McCain in the general.
Posted by: binky at April 17, 2008 01:08 PM | PERMALINKthanks, binky, for sharing my issue with the jive / jibe thing. it drives me crazy.
as for holding obama to the same standard as hillary, i really doubt he's going to turn into hillary in the general, or nixon, or whomever, because he's had every reason to do so already and he's displayed far more class than to sink to that level, even as polling suggests that hillary's smears are having a salutary effect on her candidacy, and her machiavellian determination to hijack the nomination away from the will of its voters.
at least she hasn't accused obama of having a mixed-race love child. yet.
i started this cycle disliking her, and early on she won me over, and at that for the first time in her, ahem, distinguished career as an accoutrement of power. but she's lost me now. i'm not voting for a candidate in november but a party, so i really don't care if she's the nominee on that level. but i am voting for a candidate on tuesday, and if she'd been up against someone i despised, and behaved as she has, i would be planning to stay home. tuesday, i'm not voting for a party, i'm voting for a candidate.
she's same shit different day, no matter what genitalia she happens to have. and i'm done voting for the same shit.
Posted by: moon at April 17, 2008 01:40 PM | PERMALINKBut why would I criticize Obama for doing the same to McCain in the general? You think Obama's going to link McCain to "San Francisco"? Or try to out "9/11" him? McCain's already pulling this shit - so if he gets it in return I really don't care.
But of course that's only part of. A big part of my outrage with this is that I see Clinton basically doing the bidding of the Republican party at this point. If she actually had a chance to win I'd take Obama's tone and agree that it's all part of the political process. But the thing is, I don't see any way possible for her to win. So presuming she doesn't uncover Obama's links to a dead girl or live boy in the coming days (which she'd no doubt do with glee), all she's doing is spending millions to make the case the Republicans are going to make. So she's thereby doing her part and more to put John McCain in the White House. And given the effect that'd have on race and gender issues, among others, yeah, I think her actions are deplorable.
Posted by: Armand at April 17, 2008 09:26 PM | PERMALINK