How ironic that less than a week after the premier of “Recount” on HBO, with its graphic reenactment of “the Brooks Brothers riot” that interrupted the hand counting of votes in Palm Beach County, Florida, another Brooks Brothers (or is it “Sisters”) demonstration-riot is brewing – organized, this time, by persons whom we can presume to have been Al Gore supporters. It will take place tomorrow, Saturday, in Washington as the Democratic Party’s Rules and By-Laws Committee meets to decide what to do about the Florida and Michigan delegations. We owe this reenactment to the Clintons. Evidently, they have forgotten Karl Marx’s amply corroborated observation that when history repeats itself, the first time is tragedy, the second farce. The Republican operatives mobilized eight years ago by James Baker and other Bush family fixers ultimately got their way. Not only were the Gore forces inept; Baker & Co. had already lined up Tony “Two Vote” Scalia and his co-“thinkers” on the Supreme Court in order to preempt all rules and by-laws. The ladies pouring into DC are up against a more competent political operation than Al Gore mustered, and there are no Supremes this time eager to supersede what little democratic governance our “founders” bequeathed us. Thus Scalia’s sneering advice to the American people, “get over it,” applies in this instance. The Hillary fans will just be acting out, much like their grand daughters might. It is fitting, I suppose; after all, it is for their sake, they say, that they’ll do whatever it takes to hand the nomination to Hillary Clinton, the “role model” who got where she is by hard work and indomitable pluck and, oh yes, by being a wife and not only that, a wife who stands by her philandering husband.
The Clintons and their boosters want all the votes from Florida and Michigan to count (no matter that they thought otherwise when they still thought they would end the primary season ahead in delegates), so that they can change the goal posts (again) to a point where they can make a barely plausible argument to the “super delegates” to cast good sense aside in order to give the nomination to Hillary. It’s the Clintons’ only chance – so long as no disaster (hint!, hint!) befalls Obama. This is not only farcical; it is disgraceful – not for the Clintons (that would be impossible because there is nothing they have not disgraced already), but for politically active Democratic women of a certain age. From the Raging Grannies and the Grey Panthers to lets call them “War Democrats are Us.” Who would have thought!
I confess, though, that I like the theatrics, and hope it continues – all the way to Denver. The more obstinate the Clintons become and the more obstreperous their supporters are the better. The harder they’ll fall. Let them compare their quest to the struggle for Civil Rights in the South or for “democracy” in Zimbabwe. Yes, Obama, the lesser evil, may need Hillary’s ardent supporters on his side when the Swift Boaters get back into business full time. But probably not. Even our benighted electorate has no taste, at this point, for a John McBush III. In any case, if our politics can’t be bold and visionary or even serious, at least let it be entertaining!
In a slightly better possible world, the Bush crime family would long ago have been impeached and the worst among them would be doing hard time in orange jump suits. In that same world, Bill Clinton would be brought to justice for his actionable offenses – his murderous sanctions in Iraq, his illegal wars in Yugoslavia, his wanton bombing of defenseless Third World countries for the sake of political expediency. That won’t happen, however; not with our Democrats. Ignominious defeat for his official wife is the most justice that Bill Clinton will ever see. It isn’t much, but it’s not to be despised. In any case, it’s a necessary stage in the most urgent, feasible political task of the present conjuncture: the liberation of the Democratic Party and the larger political culture from the dreadful legacy of Clintonism.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Yet Again, Carter Dares Utter the Unutterable
Over the weekend, at a press conference in the UK, Jimmy Carter “revealed” that Israel has at least 150 nuclear weapons. Israel has never admitted to having any, though no one doubts that it does. Nevertheless it tries hard to keep the facts from view. Mordecai Vanunu can testify to that. Since 1986, when he delivered indisputable evidence of Israel’s nuclear program to The Times of London, Israel has persecuted him relentlessly, turning his case into an international cause celèbre. But Carter did say one thing that is not widely known -- the number 150. He also said that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip is “one of the greatest human rights crimes now existing on Earth.”
Now watch the Democrats squirm and watch Barack Obama distance himself from the former President as surely as if he were Obama’s former pastor who also let some “outrageous” and “inflammatory” but perfectly obvious truths sneak into his preaching. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama might not do literally anything to win; but he’ll do a great deal.
Could it be that for a Democrat to say true things about subjects the party holds taboo, he has to have already been President? That would be a plausible conjecture but for the obvious counter-example. But then Bill Clinton still has a dog in the fight. [In order not to further enrage the good women of Clinton Supporters Count Too, I’ll refrain from using the correct, sex-specific term.] Also, not being beyond being on the make, not just in the obvious way but financially and politically as well, Clinton is far less able than the octogenarian Carter to free himself from the constraints that tie down would-be players. But whatever it is in his situation that frees Jimmy Carter from the need to pander to the Party’s paymasters is, at most, only a necessary condition for his possession of that rarest of body parts in a politician, a backbone. The decisive thing is his character; the fact that he is a man of decency and integrity -- much as it grieves me to say this about someone whose politics has always been, at best, just barely centrist. So Bravo, yet again, to Jimmy Carter – not only the best former President the Democrats have going, but also the best Democratic President in many a generation, not that Bill Clinton or LBJ or the overrated but “inspiring” JFK or the vastly overrated and thoroughly uninspiring Harry Truman give him a whole lot of competition. Just don’t expect to see much of him this summer in Denver.
Now watch the Democrats squirm and watch Barack Obama distance himself from the former President as surely as if he were Obama’s former pastor who also let some “outrageous” and “inflammatory” but perfectly obvious truths sneak into his preaching. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama might not do literally anything to win; but he’ll do a great deal.
Could it be that for a Democrat to say true things about subjects the party holds taboo, he has to have already been President? That would be a plausible conjecture but for the obvious counter-example. But then Bill Clinton still has a dog in the fight. [In order not to further enrage the good women of Clinton Supporters Count Too, I’ll refrain from using the correct, sex-specific term.] Also, not being beyond being on the make, not just in the obvious way but financially and politically as well, Clinton is far less able than the octogenarian Carter to free himself from the constraints that tie down would-be players. But whatever it is in his situation that frees Jimmy Carter from the need to pander to the Party’s paymasters is, at most, only a necessary condition for his possession of that rarest of body parts in a politician, a backbone. The decisive thing is his character; the fact that he is a man of decency and integrity -- much as it grieves me to say this about someone whose politics has always been, at best, just barely centrist. So Bravo, yet again, to Jimmy Carter – not only the best former President the Democrats have going, but also the best Democratic President in many a generation, not that Bill Clinton or LBJ or the overrated but “inspiring” JFK or the vastly overrated and thoroughly uninspiring Harry Truman give him a whole lot of competition. Just don’t expect to see much of him this summer in Denver.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Where There's Death, There's Hope
Is Hillary losing it – not just the nomination, but “it.” To be sure, when bad reactions started pouring in, she did “clarify” the comments she made yesterday in South Dakota about Robert Kennedy’s assassination. But, even then, she was mainly concerned to apologize to the Kennedy family, which of course is troubled enough these days without this. As to the great fear of many, especially many African-Americans, that Barack Obama, having risen so high and raised so many hopes, will go the way of others before him, she seems almost oblivious.
Given how careless of human life abroad the Clintons have always been, and how determined they are to win at any cost, one might almost suppose that they’ve set plans in motion. But their villainy is not that stupendous – even Nixon’s wasn’t -- and, anyway, they know they’d get caught. Is tiredness, then, the explanation, as many commentators think? Perhaps. But I think it’s more likely that, like some of her admirers, Hillary Clinton just can’t process that it’s over; she can’t stand to lose.
Given how careless of human life abroad the Clintons have always been, and how determined they are to win at any cost, one might almost suppose that they’ve set plans in motion. But their villainy is not that stupendous – even Nixon’s wasn’t -- and, anyway, they know they’d get caught. Is tiredness, then, the explanation, as many commentators think? Perhaps. But I think it’s more likely that, like some of her admirers, Hillary Clinton just can’t process that it’s over; she can’t stand to lose.
Friday, May 23, 2008
It's the Politics, Grannies
A day in the life of the Democratic Party: yesterday, Barack Obama spoke in a synagogue in Boca Raton, proclaiming his eternal fidelity to the Jewish state. It seems that some of my tribesmen fear that, given his background and ethnicity, Obama might be less supportive than Hillary (or John McCain) of Israel’s on-going ethnic cleansing. But the publicity his speech got, at least on NPR, paled before the news about “Clinton Supporters Count Too,” an organization of Hillary fans up in arms about what they regard as the “misogyny” of pundits, and the anti-Hillary bias of Democratic Party leaders. These good women, it seems, have vowed to stick with Hillary to the bitter end – even to the point of not voting for Barack Obama or holding their breaths till they faint or something similarly “mature.”
They have a point. After all, what does it matter that Hillary set back the cause of universal health care for a generation, permanently marginalized the very idea of single payer, not for profit, health insurance, voted to authorize Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, looking forward to the next few months, his longed for war against Iran; or that, to the extent she gained “experience” being Bill Clinton’s wife she helped him dismantle the New Deal, wage a war (in Yugoslavia) as illegal as any Bush War, kill about a million Iraqis through sanctions, drop bombs recklessly on helpless people whenever it seemed politically expedient, and on and on. All of that pales before the fact that a few pundits, most of them from Fox News, have made a few sexist remarks -- or that the voters have had the temerity to deny these women’s grand-daughters a role model to show them that they too can grow up to be Whores of AIPAC.
Much of what CSCT cites as evidence is indeed objectionable. But some of it is true. [There’s a certain parallel here with most of Reverend Wright’s “outrageous” comments.] For instance, CSCT is especially exercised over Chris Matthews’ remark, on “Hardball” on MSNBC, that Hillary is where she is because of how she withstood Bill’s philandering. Surely, that’s at least part of the story; the other part is how she got her vaunted “experience” being a First Lady, an official wife. I pointed out long ago that, by that standard, Mamie Eisenhower would have been an even better candidate. Be that as it may, isn’t it odd that second wave feminists – not just the ones who won’t vote for Obama if they don’t get their way, but sensible ones too, like Pat Schroeder (on NPR this morning) – can’t praise Hillary’s “qualifications” enough.
They have a point. After all, what does it matter that Hillary set back the cause of universal health care for a generation, permanently marginalized the very idea of single payer, not for profit, health insurance, voted to authorize Bush’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and, looking forward to the next few months, his longed for war against Iran; or that, to the extent she gained “experience” being Bill Clinton’s wife she helped him dismantle the New Deal, wage a war (in Yugoslavia) as illegal as any Bush War, kill about a million Iraqis through sanctions, drop bombs recklessly on helpless people whenever it seemed politically expedient, and on and on. All of that pales before the fact that a few pundits, most of them from Fox News, have made a few sexist remarks -- or that the voters have had the temerity to deny these women’s grand-daughters a role model to show them that they too can grow up to be Whores of AIPAC.
Much of what CSCT cites as evidence is indeed objectionable. But some of it is true. [There’s a certain parallel here with most of Reverend Wright’s “outrageous” comments.] For instance, CSCT is especially exercised over Chris Matthews’ remark, on “Hardball” on MSNBC, that Hillary is where she is because of how she withstood Bill’s philandering. Surely, that’s at least part of the story; the other part is how she got her vaunted “experience” being a First Lady, an official wife. I pointed out long ago that, by that standard, Mamie Eisenhower would have been an even better candidate. Be that as it may, isn’t it odd that second wave feminists – not just the ones who won’t vote for Obama if they don’t get their way, but sensible ones too, like Pat Schroeder (on NPR this morning) – can’t praise Hillary’s “qualifications” enough.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Words
Some time ago, I remarked on how odd it is that the media assigned the bad guys – the even worse guys, that is – the color red. No doubt the graphics departments at our crack news organizations are populated by citizens of what Gore Vidal has aptly called the United States of Amnesia. Lately, it has gotten even worse. Now entire news organizations have emigrated into the same territory, and not just with respect to color words. They have even forgotten what “the working class” is.
In the good old days of just a few months ago, the media consensus was that there is no working class anymore. Everybody was “middle class” -- as in Bill Clinton’s quickly forgotten promise of 1992, to make things better for “the great forgotten middle class.” That charming thought allowed Clinton to neglect working class issues, while keeping working class organizations more or less in tow. It allowed him, along with nearly all our political leaders for many decades, to deny the reality of an historical antagonist to the capitalist mode of production; to see everyone without regard to their place in the economic structure as a consumer only – one with more or less (usually more) disposable income to spend.
But at least Bill Clinton didn’t mess too much with the meaning of the word he avoided using. Where words still mean what they say, the working class is comprised of wage workers – typically, but not necessarily, in industrial enterprises. It does not include small farmers, shop owners, independent producers and the like; though all these groups may, and often do, ally with the working class in particular times and places. It was in reference to the working class, so conceived, that, for more than a century and a half, people have spoken of working class culture, working class organizations (industrial and trade unions) and working class political organizations (Communist, Social Democratic, and Laborite). In this last respect, the United States has always been an outlier. We have never had a significant political party representing, or purporting to represent, working class interests. That task has long been assumed by the feckless POP -- the Party of Pusillanimity, the Democratic Party – for which workers in general, and organized labor in particular, were just one constituency among many.
Lately, though, the wordsmiths in charge of dumbing down political discourse in these United States of Amnesia have surreptitiously redefined the term – to designate rural, poorly educated white people, living mainly, but not necessarily, in Appalachia. You’re working class, on this view, if you favor Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because you think he’s a Muslim. For the long legged beauties and cartoon character older men who pontificate on the cable networks, “working class” and “redneck” have almost become synonymous.
How did this happen? Since the myth of the great forgotten middle class is still serviceable, I think that blame must be ascribed to the media’s grip on what the Right still calls “political correctness.” Nobody dares say that the Clintons are trying -- probably in vain, though at great cost to Obama’s chances of victory in November -- to mobilize “white trash” by appealing to their latent racism. Because no one dares say such things or use such words, the Clintons can have it both ways. They can capitalize on racist attitudes; and they can present themselves as working class heroes – notwithstanding the fact that, in two terms in office, Bill Clinton did nothing, repeat nothing, for organized labor or, for that matter, for the ever growing numbers of workers who no longer benefit from union protection or who, even in better times, never did.
A government that would help the working class organize, that would foster the revitalization of working class culture, that would help workers rise, as Eugene Debs long ago said, “with their class not out of it,” is what this country needs. What it does not need are Clintonites and pundits who cut Clintonites too much slack who are hell-bent on redefining the working class to mean “uneducated,” “uninformed,” “unsophisticated” and bigoted. That’s false of most real workers and of most residents of Appalachia. It is insulting to both, and overly complementary towards people who live in “blue” states and who have college educations. But it is a useful thought for those who are, as Samantha Power, late of the Obama campaign, aptly put it, “monsters” who will “do anything to win.”
In the good old days of just a few months ago, the media consensus was that there is no working class anymore. Everybody was “middle class” -- as in Bill Clinton’s quickly forgotten promise of 1992, to make things better for “the great forgotten middle class.” That charming thought allowed Clinton to neglect working class issues, while keeping working class organizations more or less in tow. It allowed him, along with nearly all our political leaders for many decades, to deny the reality of an historical antagonist to the capitalist mode of production; to see everyone without regard to their place in the economic structure as a consumer only – one with more or less (usually more) disposable income to spend.
But at least Bill Clinton didn’t mess too much with the meaning of the word he avoided using. Where words still mean what they say, the working class is comprised of wage workers – typically, but not necessarily, in industrial enterprises. It does not include small farmers, shop owners, independent producers and the like; though all these groups may, and often do, ally with the working class in particular times and places. It was in reference to the working class, so conceived, that, for more than a century and a half, people have spoken of working class culture, working class organizations (industrial and trade unions) and working class political organizations (Communist, Social Democratic, and Laborite). In this last respect, the United States has always been an outlier. We have never had a significant political party representing, or purporting to represent, working class interests. That task has long been assumed by the feckless POP -- the Party of Pusillanimity, the Democratic Party – for which workers in general, and organized labor in particular, were just one constituency among many.
Lately, though, the wordsmiths in charge of dumbing down political discourse in these United States of Amnesia have surreptitiously redefined the term – to designate rural, poorly educated white people, living mainly, but not necessarily, in Appalachia. You’re working class, on this view, if you favor Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama because you think he’s a Muslim. For the long legged beauties and cartoon character older men who pontificate on the cable networks, “working class” and “redneck” have almost become synonymous.
How did this happen? Since the myth of the great forgotten middle class is still serviceable, I think that blame must be ascribed to the media’s grip on what the Right still calls “political correctness.” Nobody dares say that the Clintons are trying -- probably in vain, though at great cost to Obama’s chances of victory in November -- to mobilize “white trash” by appealing to their latent racism. Because no one dares say such things or use such words, the Clintons can have it both ways. They can capitalize on racist attitudes; and they can present themselves as working class heroes – notwithstanding the fact that, in two terms in office, Bill Clinton did nothing, repeat nothing, for organized labor or, for that matter, for the ever growing numbers of workers who no longer benefit from union protection or who, even in better times, never did.
A government that would help the working class organize, that would foster the revitalization of working class culture, that would help workers rise, as Eugene Debs long ago said, “with their class not out of it,” is what this country needs. What it does not need are Clintonites and pundits who cut Clintonites too much slack who are hell-bent on redefining the working class to mean “uneducated,” “uninformed,” “unsophisticated” and bigoted. That’s false of most real workers and of most residents of Appalachia. It is insulting to both, and overly complementary towards people who live in “blue” states and who have college educations. But it is a useful thought for those who are, as Samantha Power, late of the Obama campaign, aptly put it, “monsters” who will “do anything to win.”
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Craziness
The Cheney/Bush government announced that it has promised to provide Saudi Arabia with enriched uranium, thereby giving the prospect of nuclear proliferation a major boost. At the same time, it has stepped up its saber rattling towards Iran – targeting its (perfectly legal) uranium enrichment program. It bears mention that the semi-feudal, obscenely rich Saudi state rules over a land awash in terrorists of the kind the Cheney/Bush government ostensibly opposes – to the point of waging “war” against them (or their methods; that part has never been clear). Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of most of the 9/11 terrorists and, of course, Osama Bin Laden. Meanwhile, Iran has not initiated wars against its neighbors in centuries, and none of the 9/11 terrorists came from there. Moreover, there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear program under way; quite the contrary, there is good reason to think that it does not. The real question is why it doesn’t, since Iran’s need for a nuclear deterrent is genuine -- being surrounded by unfriendly and overtly hostile nuclear powers: India, Pakistan, Russia, Israel and, of course, the United States.
No awareness of this craziness registers in the public remarks of Barack Obama or, needless to say, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, especially, salivates at the thought of war with Iran, much like John McCain, her alter ego. But then what would one expect of a Democrat more than usually intent on winning the hearts --and wallets -- of the Israel lobby?
This is all the more reason why it is also crazy, at this point, for anyone not in the thrall of Obamaniac illusions, to applaud the nauseating niceness Obama and his supporters are lavishing upon the Clintons. The Obama campaign’s position is at least understandable. Recent primaries, especially those in West Virginia and Kentucky, show that racist attitudes are still virulent enough to spell trouble for their candidate in November, at least in some parts of the country. But why would anyone not militating for Obama also heap praise on that wretched family? No doubt, there are Hillary enthusiasts out there who can make trouble and must be appeased. But most of the pundits who shape what passes for public discourse in this country have never liked the Clintons very much. Why do they find Hillary’s unwillingness to throw in the towel so admirable? Here is a particularly ludicrous illustration from the May 20th Washington Post. To be sure, Richard Cohen is a silly man and a dreadfully inept “thinker.” But swooning over Hillary’s “toughness” is over the top, even for him. Hillary is not tough in any admirable sense of the term; she’s childishly obstinate. Perhaps she appeals most to the elderly, but her staying in the race at this point is infantile. A Freudian might well deem her behavior borderline narcissistic.
More serious pundits than Cohen – Tim Russert, for example, during the coverage of the election results from Kentucky and Oregon on MSNBC – claim that the Clintons are “positioning” Hillary for something, they know not what. It has even been suggested that she could be the next Ted Kennedy – a liberal “icon” in the Senate. That’s crazy too. Kennedys are glamorous and tragic figures; Clintons are sleazy. Kennedys, Ted anyway, genuinely are liberals; the Clintons, Hillary and Bill, are rank opportunists. The tragedy is that Bill Clinton will never be brought to justice for his actionable offenses – his crimes against the peace and against humanity in Iraq, Yugoslavia and elsewhere – and that the Clinton family will never be made to pay for the political harms it has done. How much “credit” Hillary can take for completing the “Reagan Revolution” and preparing the way for George W. Bush is debatable, but it is beyond doubt that she set the cause of universal health care coverage back a generation, while permanently marginalizing the eminently sound idea of single payer, not for profit, health insurance.
Therefore, lets do what we can to quash the niceness. Lets do what we must to get the Clintons out of our public life. That would not nearly suffice to do Clintonism in, but it would be a start. Were it somehow to happen, the Clintons would no doubt spend the rest of their lives enriching themselves, rather than wallowing in the infamy they deserve. It’s a galling thought. But it would be a small price to pay for seeing the backs of them.
No awareness of this craziness registers in the public remarks of Barack Obama or, needless to say, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, especially, salivates at the thought of war with Iran, much like John McCain, her alter ego. But then what would one expect of a Democrat more than usually intent on winning the hearts --and wallets -- of the Israel lobby?
This is all the more reason why it is also crazy, at this point, for anyone not in the thrall of Obamaniac illusions, to applaud the nauseating niceness Obama and his supporters are lavishing upon the Clintons. The Obama campaign’s position is at least understandable. Recent primaries, especially those in West Virginia and Kentucky, show that racist attitudes are still virulent enough to spell trouble for their candidate in November, at least in some parts of the country. But why would anyone not militating for Obama also heap praise on that wretched family? No doubt, there are Hillary enthusiasts out there who can make trouble and must be appeased. But most of the pundits who shape what passes for public discourse in this country have never liked the Clintons very much. Why do they find Hillary’s unwillingness to throw in the towel so admirable? Here is a particularly ludicrous illustration from the May 20th Washington Post. To be sure, Richard Cohen is a silly man and a dreadfully inept “thinker.” But swooning over Hillary’s “toughness” is over the top, even for him. Hillary is not tough in any admirable sense of the term; she’s childishly obstinate. Perhaps she appeals most to the elderly, but her staying in the race at this point is infantile. A Freudian might well deem her behavior borderline narcissistic.
More serious pundits than Cohen – Tim Russert, for example, during the coverage of the election results from Kentucky and Oregon on MSNBC – claim that the Clintons are “positioning” Hillary for something, they know not what. It has even been suggested that she could be the next Ted Kennedy – a liberal “icon” in the Senate. That’s crazy too. Kennedys are glamorous and tragic figures; Clintons are sleazy. Kennedys, Ted anyway, genuinely are liberals; the Clintons, Hillary and Bill, are rank opportunists. The tragedy is that Bill Clinton will never be brought to justice for his actionable offenses – his crimes against the peace and against humanity in Iraq, Yugoslavia and elsewhere – and that the Clinton family will never be made to pay for the political harms it has done. How much “credit” Hillary can take for completing the “Reagan Revolution” and preparing the way for George W. Bush is debatable, but it is beyond doubt that she set the cause of universal health care coverage back a generation, while permanently marginalizing the eminently sound idea of single payer, not for profit, health insurance.
Therefore, lets do what we can to quash the niceness. Lets do what we must to get the Clintons out of our public life. That would not nearly suffice to do Clintonism in, but it would be a start. Were it somehow to happen, the Clintons would no doubt spend the rest of their lives enriching themselves, rather than wallowing in the infamy they deserve. It’s a galling thought. But it would be a small price to pay for seeing the backs of them.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
The Wrecker
By all accounts, Hillary Clinton will win big tonight in Kentucky and Barack Obama will win well enough in Oregon to assure him a majority of pledged delegates. By all accounts, the Clintons will then just keep on going – through the three remaining primaries (Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico) and maybe beyond – not for any principled political reason (unless accommodating second wave feminists counts as a principle), but for their own psychological reasons, reasons of no interest to anyone except perhaps themselves.
Richard Nixon’s historical criminality, like his own inner torment, had a certain Shakespearean quality. He was a great villain. Bill Clinton’s villainy – in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia and elsewhere – was considerable but only a pale approximation of Nixon’s. He is a much less interesting figure too: not tragic, not sublimely evil – just base and petulant. His wife follows in the mold, maybe even ratcheting up her husband’s petulance and certainly his baseness. She’s more tiresome too. The world, the country, and especially the Democratic Party would be well done with both of them. Unfortunately, that won’t happen any time soon. Even as her campaign crashes, Hillary will still be the Senator from New York, and Bill will still be the money machine he’s turned into thanks to his political “friends.” Barack Obama, like other Clintonized Democrats, is hell bent on “appeasing” that dreadful family. No chance, therefore, that their party will turn on them, even to the extent that, to its everlasting shame, it has turned on Jimmy Carter for daring to state the obvious about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Liberal Democrats are a sorry lot. When Ralph Nader campaigned for progressive but not especially radical policies – for what was essentially an up-dated New Deal style program – they fell on him tooth and nail. They are still after him; trying now, as much as in 2000, to stifle his and other progressive voices. Their methods haven’t changed: they concoct legal obstacles to ballot access, then they see to it that the media ignores their candidacies. If that fails, as it did to some extent in 2000, they move into full-scale attack mode, hauling out their biggest liberal guns. With Obama, unlike Al Gore, fooling many of the people all of the time, they’ll probably not need to go that far this year. But even as they recognize how utterly hopeless and harmful the Clintons’ quest for personal power has become, they will continue to cut that family all the slack in the world. Hillary is a wrecker, something Nader never was. Nevertheless, should the Democrats somehow manage to lose this year, he, along with other genuine progressives, will be blamed for wrecking --and she wont. This column, by Eric Alterman, The Nation’s most Clintonian commentator illustrates the phenomenon perspicuously. It should be remembered that Alterman was among the most dedicated of the liberal Nader baiters.
Richard Nixon’s historical criminality, like his own inner torment, had a certain Shakespearean quality. He was a great villain. Bill Clinton’s villainy – in Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia and elsewhere – was considerable but only a pale approximation of Nixon’s. He is a much less interesting figure too: not tragic, not sublimely evil – just base and petulant. His wife follows in the mold, maybe even ratcheting up her husband’s petulance and certainly his baseness. She’s more tiresome too. The world, the country, and especially the Democratic Party would be well done with both of them. Unfortunately, that won’t happen any time soon. Even as her campaign crashes, Hillary will still be the Senator from New York, and Bill will still be the money machine he’s turned into thanks to his political “friends.” Barack Obama, like other Clintonized Democrats, is hell bent on “appeasing” that dreadful family. No chance, therefore, that their party will turn on them, even to the extent that, to its everlasting shame, it has turned on Jimmy Carter for daring to state the obvious about the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
Liberal Democrats are a sorry lot. When Ralph Nader campaigned for progressive but not especially radical policies – for what was essentially an up-dated New Deal style program – they fell on him tooth and nail. They are still after him; trying now, as much as in 2000, to stifle his and other progressive voices. Their methods haven’t changed: they concoct legal obstacles to ballot access, then they see to it that the media ignores their candidacies. If that fails, as it did to some extent in 2000, they move into full-scale attack mode, hauling out their biggest liberal guns. With Obama, unlike Al Gore, fooling many of the people all of the time, they’ll probably not need to go that far this year. But even as they recognize how utterly hopeless and harmful the Clintons’ quest for personal power has become, they will continue to cut that family all the slack in the world. Hillary is a wrecker, something Nader never was. Nevertheless, should the Democrats somehow manage to lose this year, he, along with other genuine progressives, will be blamed for wrecking --and she wont. This column, by Eric Alterman, The Nation’s most Clintonian commentator illustrates the phenomenon perspicuously. It should be remembered that Alterman was among the most dedicated of the liberal Nader baiters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)