But the Dems have acted like such whipped poodles since ‘00, maybe they’ll listen to him
Democrats can’t be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.
“You can’t say ‘Please don’t be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.’ Give me a break here,” Clinton said. “If you don’t want to fight for the future and you can’t figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do.”
I wish certain members of the press would take these words to heart as well.
Holy shit! He really said that. That’s blunt. Much more confrontational then I have ever heard from the “I feel your pain” man.
And what do you mean ‘00? Dems as a national party have been whipped puppies as long as I’ve been alive. In 68 and 72 they self-destructed (largely over Vietnam), and haven’t been back except tentatively: a brief Carter interlude after Nixon (jeebus, it was a gimme!), and then coasted and played defense and appeasement (including Clinton and the DLC) for 20 years, until Gingrich finally broke through and slaughtered them. Where’ve you been?
But it’s surreal seeing even Big Dog take the gloves off. Clinton was never very committed to fighting for progressive principles. Then again, he was always 100% committed to winning. I can’t deny him that; it was his signature contribution to the party: actually winning elections. And he knows how to do it, too. I guess he feels that there’s enough of a grassroots base now (as opposed to none in 1992) that standing and fighting is now a viable strategy.
I agree with your conclusion though: I hope his call to arms gets the party’s attention. If Clinton has given up on his signature DLC appeasement and is joining or at least encouraging the Dean, Reid, Pelosi street-fighters, this is gonna be fun.
So is Bloomberg, pictured in that article in a loving hand-clasp with Clinton, one of “these people” the Democrats are supposed to not be afraid to beat?
Sometimes it seems that politicians will never change - say one thing, do another…
People outside the ring are always more aggressive than the people inside — it’s a lot safer!
Howard Dean could be called, technically, outside the ring. Pelosi and Reid?
Yeah, I guess people who can poo-poo this whole run-up-to-war fraud with the Plame-crack in Humpty’s shell, could call them outside and safe as well.
Dugger;
I actually found your reference to McGovern/Eagleton almost humorous.
Your (unintentionally) connecting the ‘hydrophobic’ wing of the Party to the winner of ‘72 campaign who authored “Watergate, was a classic ‘gaffe’.
You owe me a new irony meter to replace the one you just broke.
Count on Bubba to talk in generalities. Why does he do this? Because he’s pandering to the hydrophobic wing of the party, without actually risking any of Hill’s political capital by actually going out into the hater fringes. What hot button positions does Bubba really recommend Dems take? And which of his actual postiions would be suitable to the Kos crowd, short of: Surrender in Iraq? Raising taxes? When push got to shove, Kerry did not take these extremist positons and barely lost. The yahoos think that means he would have won running from the hater fringe.
Bubba says: “Huh. Huh. Yaw go right on out here with Kos and Cindy Sheehan. Me and my DLC buds will stand behind you. Just like McGovern behind Eagleton.
Dugger
OW is right. For Dugger to criticize generalities when he supports an idiot who talks about “they hate our freedoms” and “evildoers” is the epitome of goofy.
Our last democratically-elected President is exactly right; you have to fight rather than try to be the lite-version of your opponent. Most of the country holds decidedly liberal views; Dems have to stand up for those positions.
“Surrender in Iraq?”
You mean we aren’t doing that already?
Our last democratically-elected President is exactly right
You guys crack me up with this shit.
I think you meant to say the the last impeached President, as that would be a more accurate description.
Also, Dugger, I find it hilarious that cons always claim to wait specifics from Democrats while marching for a Republican president whose strategy to kill terrorists is “trust me”.
No, Hedley, you didn’t think.
Wingnuts like Hedley would like to pretend impeachment is a legal act on a par with the Plamegate criminality. In reality, impeachment is a political act and the fact is a President can be impeached on the basis that the opposition holding sway in Congress doesn’t like his choice of ties.
Jadegold once again attempts to impress with his reading comprehension which is just oh sooooo off the mark.
Please show me where I pretend or equate impeachment to the “Plamegate” non-conspiracy criminality. Good try with the obfuscation, though.
Nutjobs like Jadegold still hold desperately to the illusion that Bush wasn’t twice “democratically-elected” as if the U.S. Constitution only applies selectively in favor of Democrats. Keep carrying your torch for Gore. Maybe you can make him come back. Please, please, please.
Lets put it this way. 2008 is out there for Dems to win in my opinion. Bush fatigue and the fact that the Repubs have had the whole government for a while should work against them. However, hear this: the American people will not buy overt or tacit surrender in Iraq. They will not buy higher taxes. They will not buy “understanding” instead of fighting terrorism. That means that the Kos/Sheehan wing of the party, wherein Hodean resides, can actually lose an otherwise winnable election for the Dems. Its really going to get interesting on the left. Bush will leave the Republicans in some dissarray. But, for the Dems, the extremist fringe controls the bucks and politicians have to kiss their butts, without actually telling them their ideas are wacko and dangerous. Hills has to walk a tightrope between these yahoos and the adults. Can you imagine if she gets backed into a tacit ’surrender in Iraq’ position’ and runs against Guliani. The contrast would be devastating for the Dems.
Dugger
Actually George Bush is right now giving the entire country an excellent lesson in why democrat elections matter.
In 2000, the wingnuts didn’t care that the election wasn’t fair and square. Their only argument was, “He’s in office now, what difference does it make how he got there? Trust us.” By 2004 the GOP was able to implement black-box voting to such an extent that we will never truly know who won.
But now we see why it matters. Didn’t we all study Shakespeare’s Julius Ceasar in high school? Do you remember that Ceasar was killed by one hundred stab wounds? Did your teacher tell you why? I remember mine did. Obviously, it doesn’t take one hundred stab wounds to kill a man. One or two well-placed ones will do the job.
Caesar was killed by 100 knives because the conspirators knew, if things didn’t turn out the way they planned, they needed to have the entire senate implicated. They couldn’t afford to let anyone walk out of there with clean hands.
And this is where the Bush administration finds itself today. Because they took power in a shady, back-stage way, none of the rest of us are implicated. We are not responsible for them, and we have no obligation to pull their chesnuts out of the fire.
Please run Giuliani, please. Or McCain.
Either way, a significant part of the GOP base stays home.
Frist might be your savior if he doesn’t get indicted first and stops saying something idiotic each week.
Dugger;
I have to say you were doing fine, until you got to the unbeatable Giuliani.
Let’s leave that sleeping dog in a prone position for now.
I would agree with your analysis to a point, but divert on the
radical meltdown you seem to forsee should Centrist Democrats go to their
base. I have maintained, for some time, the american people want to see
conviction. They really don’t want to be bothered with the mess. That’s
why they hire Senators and Presidents.
They want you to get the job done. Do it right. If you get caught cheating
on your watch, they are pretty forgiving unless you start lying to them.
So, the Dems could win even with your inaccurate assessment of them as
a burden. They are an asset. They keep folks honest about what they say
versus what they do. They are driving the normally pacifist D’s into the
passionate conviction necessary to capture the hearts and minds of the
voter.
Giuliani: a pro-choice italian adulterer. Yeah, sounds like the GOP base will be all over that.
So, you guys have figured out that Giuliani won’t be nominated. Welcome to 2003, you astute political observers {Hehe}…
McCain’s out, too.. I and Dick Morris agree on that, too..
Guess who his money’s on?
Me, too…
Go, Condi,Go!
I would like to see nothing more than a Clinton/Rice match up in 2008. The Republican base would meltdown so fast the party wouldn’t know what hit it. Clinton would take it by an easy mile.
To any and all in range: You do whatever you can to get Sen Clinton into that race, and i’ll do whatever I can to get Secretary Rice into that race, and we’ll see.
One thing I’m sure of — absolutely sure of — is that Secretary Rice accepts a draft, she will run and win.
It would be the biggest mistake in Democratic strategy and tactics since the nomination of McGovern in 1972, for Dems to believe that “the Republican base” won’t go for Condi.
Check this out:
http://tinyurl.com/7c9to
Duggerpedia definiton: ‘Stolen Election’ : an important election won by epublicans.
Semant,
Lets say this then: You and I would be quite happy to see the Dems go back to their ‘conviction’ base. Again, in an election between an “understand the root causes” , “run from Iraq” Democrat’ versus Rudy or Condi or McCain - I’ll go with the Repubs. A moderate, centrist positioned Hillary who wants to fight terrorism by killing terrorists would be harder for Rs. What great pleasure to read this site in 2009 and see Jadegold et al whimpering out three stolen presidential elections.
Dugger
Dugger –
“Understand the root causes”? “Run from Iraq”? Don’t claim to have honestly weighed the decision when you begin with bullshit spin like this.
However, hear this: the American people will not buy overt or tacit surrender in Iraq. They will not buy higher taxes. They will not buy understanding instead of fighting terrorism.
I doubt the American people will “buy” surrender, but our ultimate withdrawal from Iraq, whenever that occurs, should be based on the situation in Iraq instead of the tenor here at home.
Americans have been turning against the Bush tax cuts for some time now, since they understand that fighting a war on multiple fronts (and other services) requires the government to have enough money to do so. If you told the average American that their choices are (a) lower taxes or (b) a functional FEMA, most of us would rather have (b).
And go shove your “understanding” talking point back in Karl Rove’s facehole. The vast majority of the left doesn’t talk about empathizing with terrorists, but they think that winning the war on terror is about eliminating the root causes, not just the limitless supply of recruits.
BD,
“vast majority of the left doesn t talk about empathizing with terrorists, but they think that winning the war on terror is about eliminating the root causes,”
And I truly, truly hope your nominee, who will have to placate the extremist money men, runs on this platform.
For tonight’s debate, first up is Democratic contender Senator Albert Kucedwards:”My fellow, Americans, as your (Democratic) President, I will look at worldwide terrorism, the attacks of 9-11, the Russian schoolchildren massacre, the beheading of Christian schoolchildren and I will say to these terrorists, we need to understand what makes you do this, the root causes!! Talk to us and we’ll try to stop doing those things which drive you to this.”
And now Ms. Rice: “We plan on killing the terrorist SOBs.”
We have killed hundreds upon hundreds of terrorist SOBs since 9/11/01. We continue to arrest and kill more of them each time a firefight breaks out with insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan. Ask London, Madrid, and Bali, among other places, if our ability to kill terrorists has stopped terrorist attacks from happening. Oh, sure, it’s not America. It’s just our allies.
It’s the exact same boneheaded strategy that has left us deadlocked in the War on Drugs…fighting the supply side without also attacking the demand.
Killing terrorists is not a difficult thing to do. They die just as easily as any of us do. Killing the conditions that create terrorism is much harder, unless you’re willing to advocate the genocide of all Muslims who might possibly one day maybe perhaps get a little more fundamentalist.
And maybe you can do that. Maybe it is that easy for you.
Dugger;
So you agree with my post except for ;
a) Bush (to his credit) did not brag about his military service, a point I was
not making, and;
b) Dems hould not take conservative advice.
My error;
b.) Dems should take conservative advice on who to run
Lets say this then: You and I would be quite happy to see the Dems go back to their conviction base. Again, in an election between an understand the root causes , run from Iraq Democrat versus Rudy or Condi or McCain - I ll go with the Repubs. A moderate, centrist positioned Hillary who wants to fight terrorism by killing terrorists would be harder for Rs. What great pleasure to read this site in 2009 and see Jadegold et al whimpering out three stolen presidential elections.
Dugger;
Are you kidding me?
Normally, I would cut and paste the portion of your post that I disagree with. In this case, the whole thing is wet.
First, the “conviction” and passion is what was missing in 2000 and 2004.
Second; being driven by the Republican base has worked for this President, but won’t work for Dems?
Third; I think the conservatives are salivating over Hillary. Imagine, if they could cold-cock McCain, what will be the limits of their principles
on Hillary?
If they could make Bush look like a war-hero and Kerry an anti-war child killer who believes in war, what will they do to HC?
No, Dugger. I don’t think Dems should ask conservatives who has the best chance in 2008.
BD,
Killing is very hard for ordinary moral men and women. Finding and killing Ts is extremely difficult. You may think its easy, but I think the military would disagree.
And the only ‘condition’ I care about regarding Ts is that one where he decides he has any reason in the world to murder me, my family and my countrymen. Thats all I need. And until I hear a D say something similar and not how we must understand same said SOB, I’m voting R.
Semant,
I agree Dems should decide for themselves. Thats their right. Equally it is mine to comment on the wisdom or lack thereof in their decison making process. And you must have observed a different election than I. Bush never, never ballyhooed his military record, which was decent (He flew a fairly dangerous fighter. A lot more than Clinton did, less than Kerry). Kerry bragged at every opportunity about his ervice, something you never hear other heros do. And by all means, don’t run Hillary. I’m sure a centrist mainstream, common sense Democratic politiican would be an easy mark versus men of conviction like Kucinich or Edwards. Please, not those two!
Dugger
Semant,
Yes. I’m saying Demorats should follow your advice.
Dugger
Dugger -
I meant biologically. Biologically, terrorists die as easily as any of us.
And you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth now–if it’s so difficult for us to kill terrorists, then why would you applaud a Condi Rice “I plan to kill the terrorists” platform as if it were anything more than empty rhetoric?
I find it far too optimistic to think that we can find and kill *every* terrorist, especially when those other conditions, the ones you don’t care about, foster more recruits all the time.
You’re trying to cut off the hands of the beast. I’m asking for somebody who can cut off the head.
“Finding and killing Ts is extremely difficult. You may think its easy, but I think the military would disagree.”
Really? Seems to me all we had to do was invade Iraq. Shit, radical Islamists are booking package deals to Baghdad to come kill Americans. A fat lot of good that’s done for reducing global terrorism. It’s easy enough to find and kill terrorists. Stopping terrorism by doing so? Not so easy as our two year war in Iraq would seem to prove.
BD,
No conflict at all. IF something is difficult, I want a leader who will say its difficult, that we must do the hard thing. My fictional Ms Rice would be saying we must do a very difficult thing. There are no shortcuts. IMO its much easier to throw money or hot air at a problem (and not fix it) than ask young men and women to risk their lives - for, hopefully a true fix. Rs and Ds have all recognized this necesity at certain times and made the hard, difficult decison to send soldiers in harms way.
frame,
“It s easy enough to find and kill terrorists. ”
This is an asinine remark. You just caveated a similar statement earlier twith the startling revelation that Ts are biolically similar to all of us. OK. But then this. Please tell us exactly where these easy to find Ts are.
Dugger
Your fictional Ms. Rice said no such thing. Your fictional Ms. Rice offered a simple button-pushing statement without the qualification you now tack on…”oh, by the way, that will be difficult.”
This is, appropriately, what the Bush administration did in the run up to Iraqi Freedom. They told us it would be easy, that we’d be greeted as liberators, and that once Saddam was forced to flee that the mission was accomplished.
Later, they tell us “well, it’s still going to be hard to stabilize a country and deal with the insurgents.”
Off topic: “hard, difficult decision”? Dept of Redundancy Department?
BD, We are quibbling. We have never said that killing finding and killing Ts was easy (you did). Its a simple statement of a hard thing to do.
And yes, affirmative, I was repetitively redundant.
Dugger Dugger