Monday: So much going on

Update: So, TPM is trying its hand with a little expectation setting. To TPM, it is unthinkable that Hillary will get a crack at the nomination until 2016. The subtext is, “don’t even think about it, bitches”. Like we’re going to be satisfied with that. Hokay, suit yourself. But don’t expect me to vote for YOUR guy in 2012 just because you think I don’t have anywhere else to go. And if it turns out that you find you need me come late October, I’m just going to tell you to wait until 2016.

Also, Rick Warren is a dick. It now looks like both sides of the aisle are engaging in a lot of black-white thinking on welfare reform without considering that there was a right way to do it that would have been both liberal and not redistributory. Europe does it all over the place. So, you know, I reject arguments from both sides while putting myself firmly in the liberal camp. I can promise you that Hillary would never have Rick Warren at her inauguration.

Nothing good ever comes of a bad seed.
**********************************************
I’m in the local Starbucks (found a bit of serendipitous change in my pocket this am) waiting for my car to be fixed. It’s going to be painful but I can’t get around central NJ without a car, so there’s that.

There’s so much worth commenting on that I’m not quite sure where to start. Let’s start with an answer to Violet Socks’ question, “Why are we hearing so much about Hillary 2016?“. This is related to the question, “Why are we hearing so much about welfare reform?”, although at first, you might have missed the connection. In case you missed it, the NYTimes had a big piece on its frontpage yesterday about how welfare reform has left so many people without any visible means of support. It quotes some former Clinton officials who actually *resigned* over welfare reform. {{rolling eyes}} And while the abandonment of so many families during this little Depression is indeed disgraceful and horrifying, the NYTimes is most definitely slanting this story. Here’s why:

1.) Welfare Reform, or Clinton’s promise to “end welfare as we know it” was about putting people to work. I think I’ve mentioned this before but if you’re a liberal, the last thing you want is to create a permanent underclass of people whose lives are tied up in generational poverty. What the vast majority of welfare recipients really want is a job. Yes, there are people who will never be ready for the workplace. Yes, there will be people who have problems with substance abuse or criminal behavior. We need different solutions for those people and while a job is better for people who have run afoul of the criminal justice system, there are just some poor people who shouldn’t have to work in the same way that some middle class stay at home mothers and rich heiresses don’t have to work. Some poor people may not have the emotional wherewithal to go to work each day. We need to do something about that and help them. But the vast majority of people on welfare want to work. It’s not easy to survive on a measly check each month and it’s no way to raise your kids. Putting people on the road to work is a good thing and if that’s what Clinton meant (and I’m pretty sure that it was) then a liberal should be for it.

2.) Clinton’s plan included housing vouchers, healthcare, childcare, training, all the support mechanisms you needed to put people back to work. The Republicans shot that down. Repeatedly. There are votes on the issue and you can go back and look them up. The Clinton reform bill was generous. The Republican bills were much less so. MUCH less so. Eventually, Clinton signed a bill and it was awful but he was able to soften it in his next term. But liberals seem determined to whack Clinton over this for even bringing the subject up. That’s called denial, my friends. They want to deny that welfare had a problem by trapping people in poverty. If you’re a lefty and you’re still pissed over this, get over it. Being poor forever, even if the government is giving you a check is not a life and expecting people to be grateful to you for that is delusional. In fact, you could have seen Clinton’s Welfare Reform bill as a way to strengthen the social safety net for all of us. I know I would have been delighted if after my severance bennies had run out I would have been able to sign onto a government healthcare program while I worked my way back into the middle class. Yeah, that would have been great. No wonder the Republicans were so agin’ it.

3.) In the present, there’s nothing stopping the federal and state Congresses all around the country from approving a second stimulus package for a giant jobs bill or extending welfare benefits. You could call it “emergency TANF extension” or something suitably mellifluous. We do it for unemployed people all the damn time. I am a lucky recipient of such an extension and I am extremely grateful that it has allowed me to pay my insurance bills, my heating bills, food for my adolescent eating machine. I also paid a shitload of taxes from my severance benefits so, youknow, I don’t feel the least bit guilty about this. Last year after I was laid off I still managed to support a family of four on the taxes I paid. The thing is, Republicans would like it if I wasn’t so calm right now. They would prefer it if I and my other unemployed colleagues were desperate and completely broke. Why? So I would turn on Obama and the Democrats. That’s part of their plan. The only thing that is standing between frantic welfare recipients and stability for them and their children is the fact that Republicans want us to get to the point where we are so angry we will turn on the politicians who may still have a conscience (the jury is stil out on that one.)

I’m no fan of Obama and I have plenty of reasons to vote for someone to the left of the Democratic party so what the Republicans are doing has absolutely no impact on me. I wasn’t going to vote for him under any circumstances and I sure as hell won’t vote for a Republican, whose current behavior is rapidly changing my mind about the existence of supernatural forces of evil. But what would make me change my mind about electing a Democrat to the White House? Well, it would matter a great deal to me if Obama bowed out and Hillary threw her hat in the ring. Yep. I’d vote for that ticket.

And, I suspect, there are a LOT of women who have finally woken up and smelled the coffee and realized that we need a champion for us in government. It sure as hell isn’t coming from NOW, NARAL or Planned Parenthood, who seem scared of their own shadows and afraid to rock Obama’s boat. But if they roll over for Obama and demand almost nothing from him, they’ll be completely useless to women going forward and the attacks on us will start to accelerate. So, really, women’s organizations are worse than useless. What we need is a big, dramatic thing to happen that would say loud and clear that things are about to change in a big way.

Why does it have to be Hillary? Because she is a legitimate player. If her own party hadn’t turned on her in 2008, she’d be president right now and running for her second turn. She’s been our “foreign president” and the world loves her and respects her. Even the State Department seems to be running smoothly and hers was the first department to give gay employees all the rights of their straight colleagues. AND she is unabashedly pro-female. She doesn’t shrink from this. No one has managed to shut her up about it and she’s not afraid to confront congressmen about reproductive rights in the strongest possible terms. I haven’t seen Obama even come *close* to confronting the Republicans on these issues in the way that Hillary has.

So, she’s very popular, capable, committed, competent and women are starting to see that we need her. THAT’S why Pelosi is trying to deflect pro-Hillary sentiment to 2016. You know, it’s utter bullshit to believe that Hillary will run in 2016. She’s not. By then, she really will need to dial it back and retire. And by 2016, the damage will be done to the economy, my generation and women. No matter who makes it to the White House, Obama or Romney, the result is going to be the same. On this reality, the lefties are also closing their eyes and wishing. I’m looking at reality straight in the face and you know, it’s not going to happen, guys. There is no 11 dimensional chess game. And if what I read in Karen Ho’s book is correct, we are teetering on the edge of a true catastrophe. In fact, this is not a game. To be perfectly honest, your best hope of turning things around in all respects, is Hillary.

Which is why the NYTimes rolled out that piece about Welfare Reform. The purpose was to taint the Clinton legacy. Just watch, every time people get a little wistful for the Clintons, welfare reform and banging the drums for war in Iran start to ramp up. It’s so damn predictable I rarely read the papers anymore. And you know WHY these two things keep coming up over and over again? It’s because just like right wingnuts, lefties have buttons that can be pushed and these are the two that the political operatives and wealthy know drive lefties absolutely crazy and cause them to vote against their best interests.

So, there you go, Violet. Pelosi is trying to make people wait for Hillary in a scenario she knows is never going to happen. It’s 2012 for Hillary or never. She’d prefer it was never, for reasons known only to Pelosi. I suspect that Pelosi has been in power for so long that she has lost perspective and doesn’t realize that it’s not all about her. Being a liberal doesn’t mean a damn thing if you can never vote liberal on anything. But it sounds like Pelosi is fighting a losing battle. People around her must be whispering about calling Hillary up from the bench. So, the NYTimes rolls out the welfare reform bill and makes it sound like it was all Bill’s fault. A few years ago they and the Washington Post engaged in a series of “The State Department is being run by HillaryLand” posts, remember those? Yep, we were supposed to overlook all the evidence that she was doing a great job and be suspicious of the fact that she manages the department in a different style than her predecessors.

Too late. She’s good. And she projects confidence and command everywhere she goes as the Hillary texting tumblr shows:

Now, I know that Obama doesn’t lay around on the couch texting. (*I* do that) He’s probably playing golf. But here’s the thing, lefties: there’s nothing you can do or say to make me prefer him to her. Nothing. You can call me a racist, Republican, stupid, uneducated, insane, It. Does. Not. Matter. I want HER and not him. He is not entitled to a second term. He’s a lousy president and under him, women’s rights are eroding at an alarming rate. He’s too close to Wall Street and the culture of “smartness”. I see the future, guys, and you do too. It’s not going to be good. And no matter how much Pelosi protests, I am not going to wait until 2016. What the hell does she think we are? Children? Does she think she can get all parental and say something that will make us wait and that will somehow satisfy us or make our concerns less urgent? Well, it won’t. Get Obama out and put him on some fricking speaking tour. Let *HIM* do fundraising and supporting the Democratic party loyally. Get him and Geithner and all of the rest of his Wall Street crowd out of there and give us a dramatic change. Make the Republicans cower in their holy skivvies. Give us Hillary.

About these ads

34 Responses

  1. Joe Cannon has a post up about holding your nose and voting for Obama because a Mitt Romney (R-Bat-shit) in the White House will end our way of life here in the Big PX as we know it.

    As for Nancy Pelosi one of the architects of the loss of D seats in the House, when she was made Minority Leader instead of sent packing I knew the was no “Change”. I am not surprised Pelosi would stab Hillary in the back because she couldn’t abide a woman in Washington with more power.

    • Bring it on. Romney doesn’t scare me more than Obama does. My eyes are opened by that fricking book. I see now what I was missing before.
      If you’re really worried about Republicans taking over, split your ballot and vote for Democrats for Congress. Gridlock is the best you can hope for right now.

      • That’s a version of what I am going to do. I will vote for the beloved Dingellsaurus paleocraticus for House, and for our fbp Senator Stabenow for Senate. If the Senate stays so-called “Democratic” majority while the House maybe and the Presidency likely switches to Republican, this will be the so-called “Democrats’s” last chance in the Senate to pretend to support Medicare and Social Security, and make their pretense appear credible. This will be the so-called “Democratic” Senators’s last chance to defend the so-called “brand value” of their so-called “brand”. We will see what they value most, if the elective branches break out that way.

    • I read that blogpost. It seems like Mr. Cannon is going to scare himself into voting for Obama. As for me, Romney is one of the Lords of Money that Tea Party Democrat Obama fronts for, so far as I am concerned. To paraphrase Malcolm X, an avowed enemy in plain view is less dangerous than a slithering hypocrite in the grass. So I will be voting for the most aggressive Class War Socialist for President this time around.

      ( What!? I dare to call President Obama a “Tea Party Democrat”? Go a ways back in the Naked Capitalism Archives and you will find an intriguing guest-post by Michael Auerback called Is Obama a Tea Party President? And Auerback explains how yes-indeed, Obama is indeed a Tea Party President. Maybe you can find it by search-engining combinations of the words Naked Capitalism Michael Auerback Obama Tea Party President.)

  2. How long can you hang out at Starbucks before they make you buy more coffee?

    • Forever If you leave a little in the cup….

    • I’ve sat at a Peet’s Tea for about 3 hours. I was chatting with a good friend and didn’t even realize that my coffee had run out!

      • Yep, I’ve been here about that long. Time to move on. Besides, I’m hungry again and I don’t much fancy spending more money here. I should have brought my lunch. Too far to walk home. Hmmm, maybe a slice of pizza…

    • In the same sad/infuriating vein, I recently experienced how, amid an otherwise very serious talk of German politics, one of the participants for some reason found it opportune to point out that Merkel always appeared “dreary, in buttoned up suits”. :roll: As if men aren’t ever … ahem, buttoned up; wearing suits.

  3. good for Ashley.they need a slap in the face. :)

  4. In his speech at at the White House Forum on Women and the Economy recently, Obama said this:

    … and she was smart and tough and disciplined, and she worked hard. And eventually she rose from being a secretary to being vice president at this bank, and I’m convinced she would have been the best president that bank had ever seen, if she had gotten the chance. But at some point she hit the glass ceiling, and for a big chunk of her career, she watched other men that she had trained — younger men that she had trained — pass her up that ladder.

    … said about his grandmother, but leave out the mentioning of ‘bank’ and it fits pretty well with what you/we have been saying about Hillary Clinton ever since early 2008.

    But my (qualified I’m sure!) guess is, that the ironi of this is totally wasted on Obama.

    • And that affects him HOW, exactly?
      It doesn’t. It just makes a good story. But Obama, personally, can’t relate. It’s like, wow, she got screwed. Good thing that’ll never happen to me.

      • Exactly. His sorry ass is dragged over every hurdle and finish line, he has no idea what it is like to work hard and then be passed over because his life is completely opposite.

      • No, it doesn’t affect him. After all, he’s just reading off the teleprompter. Reading words that someone else put there.

        But what affects me about this pandering to women(‘s votes) is that his focus is still mostly just on his own narrow circle: His wife, his daughters, his grandmother, and his mother-in-law. And, when it’s opportune to mention her too, his ‘single, food stamp collecting’ mother.

        What an appaling, navel gazing world view for the most powerful man in the world to have.

        Even when he comments on raçial affairs it’s still primarily about him and his family: “If I had a son …” Or in mentioning what came across as the only raçial incident he had experienced growing up – once again – his poor exploited ‘raçist’ grandmother came in handy.

        Even if he himself can’t see the ironi – no, make that hypocricy – in mentioning the story about his grandmother, when that was exactly what, thanks to him, happened to Hillary Clinton, I’m appalled that his speechwriters don’t see it. Or the media. Or … at least most women.

        But then maybe most women don’t even realize that Hillary Clinton was robbed of a presidency in pretty much the same fashion that Obama’s grandmother was?

        • I think they may be catching on.

        • Was it thanks to Obama, or was it thanks to Pelosi and Reid and Obama’s other owners and backers and patrons? I still can’t get over remembering that it was Senator Reid in particular who armtwisted Obama into running for President THIS time around even though Obama himself felt at first that Obama needed more seasoning-time in the Senate. So was it due to Obama? Or was it due to Rubinite CorpoRat filth like Reid and Pelosi?

    • and he turns around and screws Hillary exactly the same way, except he does it with an awful lot of cheating and no real training. I wonder if when he ever he looks in the mirror does he see a reflection?

  5. I agree 100% RD..with what you said about Hillary for 2012..not waiting for 2016.
    This is what makes me so frigging angry at all this bulls^*t with the DNC who runs the D Party.Why should we , have to wait for someone we know would be so much stronger, more effective, and efficient President, than what we have now? This man has been shoved down America’s throat, because the DNC would have rather had an inexperienced black man in the Presidents seat than a woman who had more cahones to sit down with men and Unions and women than Obama ever will have.
    I want Hillary NOW…to get us back on track, and show how it’s done.Trust me, if she were in …we’d never be having these ridiculous discussion about birth control and who should be in charge of women’s health care!
    Why can’t we go to the DNC and tell them we want BO to step down and put Hillary in, because it’s best for the country and the American people? Please, if you know, explain it to me.

    • Ahem, even though we know that Obama benefitted from penis years in 2008 and that older baby boomers are somewhat obsessed by the civil rights era almost to the exclusion of everything else, I would prefer not to refer to race- at all. With Obama, the biggest problem is who championed him external to the party. It’s all about the culture of wall street, as I will explain in an upcoming post, that, more than anything else explains our current problems and how we are unlikely to get better under Obama.

  6. Ah. You want to exchange one war-mongering DLC corporate centrist for another war-mongering DLC corporate centrist. I see. Because once she starts wars with Syria and Iran (as she did with Iraq) everyone will be begging her to be president?

    Perhaps you should look into Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.

    • I don’t like Jill stein or the Greens. I’ll probably vote socialist or leave the top spot blank.
      In fact, I’m just going to call Pelosi’s bluff. If she’s so certain that Hilary is running in 2016, then I’ll just wait until 2016 to cast my presidential vote for a president and not a second earlier. In fact, I encourage everybody who is yearning for a competent, responsive government to wait until 2016 when pelosi says Hillary will be on the ballot. I’m sure nancy will wait. :-)

    • Yawn. This is so tired – I’m surprised you even bother.

      Some people have more important (and tangible) things to worry about than dreaming up some war HRC is going to initiate *maybe* someday.

      I love logical consistency, you should try it some time.

    • I would have somewhat agreed with you, Mr. Allen, until Riverdaughter pointed out that champion-of-the-poor Edwards also voted to invade Iraq and I and other people didn’t seem to quite think about it at the time. What’s my excuse? Well. . . I supported the lovable hobbitelf from Cleveland so I didn’t much think about Edward’s “me-too” vote on Iraq at the time. For me the choice was between Kucinich or not-Kucinich. ( Sticklers for detail will tell me that Edwards and Clinton and all the others didn’t really vote to invade Iraq. Technically no, but actually yes. If they didn’t know this was a malleable fig-leaf for the Bushites, they should have known. I think a few DemWing Democrats DID know, and they voted against AFUOF.

      As to Green? In an earlier comment I explained how voting for Green is dancing on Paul Wellstone’s grave . . . after spitting on it.
      Voting for the vile and filthy scum who backed Nader precisely in order to get Bush elected in 2000 ( which was certainly their goal even
      if they were not the primary contributors to that outcome) is a bridge-too-far for me to cross.

  7. Love the texts from Hillary site. Given the media went into overdrive to make her out to be the less exciting candidate and Obama was the cool one, now everyone finds out (what we’ve always known) is that she has all along been the coolest one of all. 3AM call – on it! Damn, what we could have had!

  8. Without Clinton as president–and I think it very likely we’ll have to do without–I think that voting for gridlock is the best strategy, particularly as Wall Street will be going after Social Security in the next quadrennium. My reasoning is that a Republican president and Democratic Congress will make it at least marginally more difficult for the thieves to accomplish their obvious goal. The Kossacks and Pandagonians and who-all can’t very well cheer Obama on as he signs legislation turning over the last of the New Deal to Wall Street, can they? Well, CAN they?

    In general, I am out to punish traitorous Democrats as much as possible. When voting against them, though, I am careful not to vote for for right-wingers at the state level–particularly for governor and state legislators.They can quickly make life miserable for women, the underprivileged, and minorities; look what happened over relatively few years in Arizona. It once was a model for reproductive and immigration rights, and now is a horror show on both counts. And it looks like they’re about to start making unemployment recipients pay for their own drug tests in order to receive unemployment benefits in the Grand Canyon State. This all has to do with who gets voted in at the state level, and even I’m not mad enough at the Dims (that’s not a spelling error) to do this to people.

    • “My reasoning is that a Republican president and Democratic Congress will make it at least marginally more difficult for the thieves to accomplish their obvious goal.”

      Huh? Do you mean the other way around? I heard a Republican Congress and Senate was quite likely this time.

  9. Perfectly said as ever. Read top 2 pieces. Personally? Jill Stein appeals. Not that she will get any press. But if you listen to her in the youtubes on the speeches — well? Sounds like a green liberal to me from Hillary’s gen. Made of same stuff. Hugs RD & Co.

    • Stein appeals to me as a protest/message vote because she’s the only liberal running that I’ve ever heard of (except Darcy Richardson, and he’s in the primary only).

      Either voting GOP or not voting at all, gets your message lumped in with a lot of other messages or non-messages.

      • Defeating Obama by default through vote-subtraction sends a message all by itself no matter where those votes go otherwise. And that message is: ” you wouldn’t give us the candidate we wanted, therefor we have destroyed your candidate.” If that message can be successfully delivered, the next part of the message emerges as a credible threat: “if you don’t give us the candidate we want next time, we will destroy your candidate next time as well.”

        The so-called “Democratic” Party will not replace Obama with Clinton under any circumstances whatsoever. The so-called “Democratic” Party would rather lose the Presidency with Obama than win the Presidency with Clinton. So Clinton will not be running for President on the so-called “Democratic” Party ticket in 2012. I can predict that even more confidently than I can predict that the Roberts Court will uphold the B O Romneycare forced mandate. And in 2016?
        Clinton will have other things to do by then anyway, as is her perfect right.

        Why does Pelosi support Obama? Because Pelosi is a multimilionaire with several million shares of AT&T stock, among other
        valuable holdings. Millionaires of a feather flock together, and reasons of simple Upper Class interest are all the reasons Pelosi needs. ( Tinfoil alert: one of David Emory’s broadcasts was titled
        “Bormann Democrat? Interrogating Pelosi”. I am not sure just how serously I can take Emory’s theory in this particular case, but it certainly is an interesting excercise in tinfoil links and ties, how Emory ties Pelosi back to Gavin Newsome and notes that the Newsome family are long term family friends with the Getty family, and how John Paul Getty ((do I remember that name right?)) was a very close personal friend, supporter, and admirer of Adolph Hitler. Nancy Pelosi… Bormann Democrat? hmmmm . . . )

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 455 other followers

%d bloggers like this: