group was mostly from Indiana. This group started as supporters for
Evan Bayh for President a long time ago. Indiana. We do NOT vote
until May 6th,2008.
Obama Rocks!!! He is the reason I am a Democrat. And I think that
the Clintons are the biggest liars on planet earth. Why is Rush
Limbaugh supporting Hillary Clinton (Limbaugh calls it "Operation
Chaos").
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "chemicalcatalysis"
<chemicalcatalysis@...> wrote:
>
> the charge that Clinton is Nixonian is as scurrilous as the smears
> that Obama is a closet Muslim or that John McCain sired a bastard
> child. Her campaign, simply put, is not categorically different
from
> any other hard-driving presidential bid, including Obama's own. It
> should be recalled that, back in the fall, when Obama trailed in
the
> polls by double digits, friendly columnists positively begged him
to
> go after the front-runner. In an October 30 debate, Obama charged
> that Clinton was "changing positions whenever it's politically
> convenient" and that "she has not been truthful" about her Social
> Security plans. The jibes grew so strident that Bill Richardson
> called a time-out in the middle of the debate, declaring, "It's
> pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need."
>
> The point isn't to taunt, as if in the schoolyard, that
> Obama "started it"; the point is that no presidential aspirant
enters
> the arena an innocent. Both candidates have flip-flopped, ducked
> questions, taken potshots, made dubious campaign promises, and spun
> the facts in disingenuous ways. They have done so for the same
reason
> that fish swim and birds fly: It's in the nature and job
description
> of politicians to do so. To plead that one or the other has done
> these things more, or more nefariously, is to launch a litany of
tit-
> for-tat charges that would outrun the pages of this magazine.
>
> Besides, objectively quantifying the cheap shots is impossible at
> this fraught moment, when any incident is read through the
distorting
> lens of candidate preference. In a famous experiment from the
1950s,
> the public opinion analysts Hadley Cantril and Albert Hastorf had
> fans of Princeton and Dartmouth's football teams watch a film of a
> rough game between the two--in which, most egregiously, Princeton's
> star player was injured--and tally up the penalties. Dartmouth fans
> were more likely to judge the game as rough but fair, with
penalties
> committed almost equally on both sides. Princeton fans said
Dartmouth
> was responsible for more than two-thirds of the infractions. Team
> loyalty shaped or dictated perceptions. It is doing so today among
> Democrats and pundits.
>
> Take a test: Did you think Clinton's "3 a.m." ad doubting Obama's
> readiness to handle crises was fear-mongering, rather than a valid,
> if slightly lurid, gambit? Did you read her "as far as I know"
> response to a question about Obama's religion as a shameful effort
to
> stoke rumors rather than an unfortunate verbal tic amid a firm slap-
> down of those rumors? If so, you probably voted for Obama.
>
> On the other hand, did you think Obama's health care mailers that
> echoed the old "Harry and Louise" ads were following the Republican
> playbook rather than "drawing distinctions" on the issues? Did you
> hear sexism when Obama spoke of Hillary's "claws com[ing] out,"
> rather than an innocent remark? If so, you no doubt prefer Clinton.
>
> This (very) partial list of mini-controversies may not persuade
> either aspirant's enthusiasts that this year's contest does not
> exactly pit Richard Nixon against Mahatma Gandhi, whomever you
would
> cast in either role. But it should lead us all to think twice about
> feeling confident in our candidate's moral superiority--and
> especially about slinging terms like "Nixonian." Lines exist in
> politics that shouldn't be crossed, but, unlike Tricky Dick,
Hillary
> Clinton hasn't tapped her rival's phones or broken into his
> psychiatrist's office. She hasn't stolen his debate briefing book
or
> convened a mob of rioters to shut down a vote count. She hasn't
used
> the machinery of impeachment for partisan gain. It's been just
words.
>
> None of Clinton's alleged offenses even departs from historical
> norms. Some detractors have cried foul at her hints--and they've
been
> only hints--that she might woo some of Obama's pledged delegates.
> But, until recently, when primaries and caucuses became the norm,
> jockeying for delegates was standard practice, and, even in recent
> decades, it's hardly been unheard of. Late in the 1980 primaries,
> President Jimmy Carter had all but sewn up the nomination, but
> challenger Ted Kennedy stayed in the race, hoping that, if he won
> some key primaries--as he did--he could peel off Carter's
supporters,
> who might not want to back a likely loser in the fall. Kennedy
> continued to pursue delegates even after the party rules committee
> barred first-ballot switching at the convention. In 1984, Gary
Hart,
> despite losing in the primaries, planned a challenge to the
> legitimacy of roughly 500 of front-runner Walter Mondale's
delegates,
> though he ultimately relented. If no Democrat has tried flipping
> delegates since then, it's only because the races haven't been
close
> enough for the option to be worth considering.
>
> Nor should Clinton's tactics be faulted for giving ammunition to
the
> Republicans for the fall campaign. Harping on a rival's weaknesses
is
> part and parcel of any campaign. Al Gore denounced Michael
Dukakis's
> prison furlough program in 1988. Bill Bradley branded Gore a serial
> exaggerator in 2000. Whether these attacks serve to toughen or
soften
> up the eventual nominee can't be proved either way. But
historically
> Republicans have needed no help in finding ways to bash Democrats.
> And, while it's not the job of journalists and intellectuals to
look
> after the Democrats' interests, a single standard should prevail.
If
> questioning Obama's readiness for prime time is to be shunned lest
it
> abet John McCain, Democrats should likewise avoid the potentially
> destructive notion that Clinton is an unusually dirty campaigner.
>
> The most compelling reason to stop the demonization of Clinton is a
> philosophical one. For the claim that Clinton's attacks are somehow
> beyond the pale rests on and revives a distressing view of
> liberalism, politics, and power that, only recently, liberals
seemed
> quite united in overcoming.
>
> With its emphasis on fairness, openness, and playing by the rules,
> liberalism has always fostered an ambivalence about the exercise of
> power. A well-placed concern not to let ends justify means has
often
> led to a misplaced sacrifice of ends to means. Fears of power's
abuse
> have often constrained its use. In the 1950s, when Adlai Stevenson
> carried the Democrats' standard, party chairman Stephen Mitchell
> argued that liberals had to respond to the underhanded tactics of
men
> like Nixon in kind. In the opinion journals, he was rebutted. If
won
> on such terms, asked William Lee Miller in The Reporter, "then
whose
> is the victory?" In contrast, Miller argued, "if we stick by what
we
> believe, we may not win as often, but when we do we shall know what
> the victory means." That's how Stevenson ran--and lost. Since the
> 1980s, Democrats have explained away defeats by arguing that
> Republicans won only by playing dirty--a rationalization that is
both
> inaccurate and self-deluding.
>
> Yet, in contrast to this "doughface" liberalism, as Arthur
> Schlesinger famously termed it, another liberal tradition also
> exists. Under Franklin Roosevelt, wrote Schlesinger, "American
> liberalism ... had a positive and confident ring. It has stood for
> responsibility and for achievement." FDR and the New Deal's
> lieutenants respected fair play and fair procedures, but they put
> results first. They understood that politics is, inherently, a
field
> of combat, not for the faint-hearted.
>
> John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and Robert Kennedy--than whom no one
> was called "ruthless" more often--grasped the importance of
> confidently using power for progressive ends. They knew that
> vanquishing adversaries is essential to winning elections,
> implementing policies, and improving people's lives. No liberal
> should excuse the occasions when these men crossed inviolable
lines,
> but none should forget either that the raft of legislation that
> Washington produced in the 1960s was not a product of chummy
> bipartisan committees and painless consensus-building.
>
> One of the few bright spots of the Bush presidency was the
> rediscovery of this liberal tradition. The Florida recount fight,
the
> post-September 11 patriotism politics, the rush to war in Iraq, and
> the swift-boating of John Kerry--all united liberals in disdain for
> the spinelessness of so many of their leaders. A hundred score op-
eds
> demanded more Democratic mettle. The netroots gathered force not
from
> any well-formed policy agenda but from a desire to fire up the
base.
> E.J. Dionne Jr.'s 2004 book Stand Up, Fight Back: Republican
Toughs,
> Democratic Wimps, and the Politics of Revenge was just the most
> pointedly titled of a shelf-load of tracts arguing for a liberalism
> that didn't regard an appetite for battle and a compassionate
spirit
> as antithetical.
>
> Recently, though, the Bush administration's implosion and the
> Democrats' capture of Congress eased the demand for a fighter. The
> launch of Obama's campaign, with its Stevensonian appeals to our
> better natures, dovetailed with a new--and complacent--optimism
that
> the Democrats would regain the White House in 2008 all but
> inevitably. It's as if the angry populism from which Bush and the
> right have long drawn strength has vanished from the scene. And,
> while Obama has shown his own ability to fight fiercely, he has all
> along retained the posture of the reluctant warrior. Accordingly,
he
> wins plaudits from an elite that clings to--or has reverted to--an
> ideal of bloodless political warfare. In contrast, when, last
> December, Clinton, after being pummeled for a month,
announced, "Now
> the fun part starts"--heralding her plans to strike back--she was
> trashed for taking pleasure in the fisticuffs. The climate brooks
no
> place for a happy warrior.
>
> None of this is to celebrate the current tenor of the race. Good
> people on both sides have been needlessly caught in the crossfire.
> The demand for heads to roll whenever an aide misspeaks has reached
a
> pitch that is dangerous, not for any singular ugliness but for its
> pettiness. And the press, to its discredit, lets these campaign-
> generated pseudo-events shape its coverage. But, as noted recently
by
> James Carville--no stranger to political combat--campaigning is
> training for governing, preparing candidates to "get hit, stand
> strong, and, if necessary, hit back." Without a certain humility
and
> hesitation about hitting back, neither Clinton nor Obama would be a
> good liberal. But, without the requisite readiness to do so,
neither
> would be a very good politician either--or, more to the point, a
very
> good president.
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Dems2008/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Dems2008-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Dems2008-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Dems2008-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder