The Taming Of The Shrew
So, why do you think Hillary lost? And here's a question for you: Do you think Bill wanted her to win or lose?
The Taming Of The Shrew
So, why do you think Hillary lost? And here's a question for you: Do you think Bill wanted her to win or lose?
She lost because she approached the campaign as if it were inevitable that she'd win. He whole attitude was something like, "Vote for me, because it's my turn now. This is what I want, and I always get what I want."
She also lost because she lies when the truth will suffice. Dollars to doughnuts, "I didn't inhale" came from her. Sniper fire? Give me a break.
The thing is, she's an accomplished woman, and need not pump that up past the reality of her accomplishments, yet she somehow feels that need. It's a fundamental paranoid insecurity leaking out all over the place that people reject.
I think Bill wanted her to win. Imagine the power of the White House without any of the actual responsibility. Hell, I'd go for that.
Steve Daniels at June 6, 2008 9:48 PM
VERY interesting question. I think it's both.
He wanted her to win. The power, the subsequent money, the power ...
But really not. 'Cuz his own ego would then be compromised.
Frankly, getting into Bill's mind scares me a bit, tho I'm usually pretty good at doing that sort of thing.
Here's some things that I will be taking into consideration while contemplating your question: His bright red face the nite that Barack won the "magic number"; his immediate scurrying off to his home office (very strange.
It reminds me of a disturbed relationship. On one hand this... but on the other hand, that.
Sometimes I think that maybe we (the public) want to read more into his misspeaking screw-ups than what really is - an ass making an ass out of himself.
Either way, it can't be good.
Final analysis: I think that he really didn't want her to win. I just can't imagine that his talented political mind didn't fully understand the negative repercussions of some of the bizarre statements he made.
I kinda feel bad for Hillary, except that she knowingly goes along with this nonsense.
In fact, I truly believe it was "the pact with the devil" she made. She 'forgave' him the Lewinsky deal, if he would support her in a presidential bid.
So it's no surprise to me that he backed out of even this intimate deal with her. What was she thinking? He couldn't ... not just keep himself faithful to her... but not disgrace her in the process. Why on earth would she think that he would REALLY submit himself to HER presidency?
She's been foilded again. I, for one, don't care.
The look on his face the other nite pretty much says it all.
Inquiring at June 6, 2008 10:03 PM
Will one of you please explain why some women see Hillary's failure to be elected as indisputable evidence of America's rat bastard sexism? And why others, like that shrinking violet Amy Alkon, aren't troubled by it at all?
Personally, I think it has something to do with the Lewinski drama, though I'm not sure exactly what. There is --ironically, in consideration of Hillary's 1992 campaign gaffe-- a real country-music sort of betrayal & heartbreak described by her most ardent supporters.
Crid at June 7, 2008 1:15 AM
I don't understand how Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president, anyway. The New York senator from Arkansas? Gimme a break. I live in New York state, and I never saw her being "my" senator as anything other than a quick fix to her resume. She used her position as a senator purely aspart of her long term presidential campaign. She never showed any interest in actually being a senator for New York, especially for any part of New York besides the City of.
What it comes down to is she use to have sex (occasionally) with the man who was president. So maybe her theory is that semen carries presidential abilities with it that a woman can absorb, I dunno.
Marshall at June 7, 2008 4:05 AM
Will one of you please explain why some women see Hillary's failure to be elected as indisputable evidence of America's rat bastard sexism? And why others, like that shrinking violet Amy Alkon, aren't troubled by it at all?
I see the real sexism as wanting a president with a vagina (and I'm just as disturbed by the idea that we should elect "a black president") instead of the best person for the job.
And great call, Crid on this: "I'm not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man."
Hillary was never Arkansas, she just married it, and I suspect a bit of what's behind the way she said that is anger at the whole backwoods deal (she was from Chicago and moved to Arkansas for Bill, not by accident).
Amy Alkon at June 7, 2008 4:53 AM
Hillary lost because her negative ratings were too high. Though Republicans flat out hated her, many Democrats were uncomfortable with her, and latched on to an alternative.
Bill wanted her to win. His campaign gaffes were part of his over reaching character, which he displayed while in office, such as having sex with a teenager in his office.
doombuggy at June 7, 2008 6:08 AM
Hillary was Bill's end-run around the 22nd amendment.
Hillary was never electable. I'm not the only one out there who says "I'm not afraid to vote for a woman, just not THAT woman".
Of course, her departure and unlikely presence on the Obama ticket robs me of a chance to win $20.
brian at June 7, 2008 6:26 AM
The reason Hillary lost is becuse the ONLY thing she was hanging her campaign on was her pussy.
Think about it, EVERY SINGLE TIME I heard some woman(and it always was a woman) being asked about Hillarys campaign, her policies, her history - they would always answer with "Well, its about time we had a woman president"
As if her gender gaurenteed sho could do no wrong.
Perhpas if her campaign and supporters had focused on her ideas and not her crotch she might have fared better
lujlp at June 7, 2008 6:55 AM
The reason Hillary lost is becuse the ONLY thing she was hanging her campaign on was her pussy.
Think about it, EVERY SINGLE TIME I heard some woman(and it always was a woman) being asked about Hillarys campaign, her policies, her history - they would always answer with "Well, its about time we had a woman president"
As if her gender gaurenteed she could do no wrong.
Perhpas if her campaign and supporters had focused on her ideas and not her crotch she might have fared better
lujlp at June 7, 2008 6:56 AM
Here's a ridiculous bit from Judith Warner on the "sexism" Hillary supposedly encountered:
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-charge/index.html?ref=opinion
The reality is, politics is a dirty business, and people go for whatever they can, true or not, to bring the opposition down...Hillary invoking the death of RFK, for example.
Amy Alkon at June 7, 2008 6:58 AM
Two of the above comments sum it up for me:
"She lost because she approached the campaign as if it were inevitable that she'd win."
and
"I don't understand how Hillary Clinton is qualified to be president"
What's her resumé? She never passed the bar exam. Then she was married to a president, who then very inappropriately assigned her things to do - most of which she made a mess of. Then she was shoehorned into a senate seat in a State she had never lived in - not because she was qualified, but because the Democratic party wanted to give her some pretense at electability in the future.
To use this background as the basis for claiming "experience" - and to act as though, of course, she should be elected? Arrogance.
I don't get why some women think not electing her is sexist. Maybe it's nice to have a woman as a candidate - maybe next time we'll have a competent one.
I'll be voting for Ron Paul, or maybe for my dog. Anyone but a candidate put forward by one of the two corrupt, I mean, "political" parties.
brad@kri.ch at June 7, 2008 7:22 AM
She lost because she couldn't make people forget she's Hillary Clinton.
Jim Treacher at June 7, 2008 8:51 AM
DING! DONG! The witch is dead! The wicked witch, the wicked witch! DING! DONG! The Wicked Witch is DEAAAAAAD!
Look for a divorce in a supermarket tabloid near you soon.
Steve Daniels at June 7, 2008 9:58 AM
Thank the GODS! As a card-carrying member of CUNT, and proud owner of the HRC nutcracker, I agree with you all. I'm having a little party tonight.
Flynne at June 7, 2008 11:04 AM
> she was from Chicago and
> moved to Arkansas for Bill
Thank you so much for saying this. She's from Park Ridge, which is 95% white. I don't understand why she's not more often accused of carpetbagging.
> if similarly hateful racial
> remarks had been made about Obama,
> our nation would have turned
> itself inside out in a paroxysm
> of soul-searching and shame.
Does everyone see the bait-and-switch? They assume that people say all those bad things because Hillary's a woman, not because she's the woman she's chosen to become. Carlson's line about closing his legs is funny because it well conveys the personal disquiet so many of us feel about her. And of course many women cross their legs when Bill comes into the room: They're right to do so, and it's not a personal problem of theirs.
So my question is unanswered: Why do Hillary supporters take this so personally? Again, I think there's in inexplicably dramatic loyalty built on themes from Nashville lyrics and Diana Spencer.
Crid at June 7, 2008 11:20 AM
And remember: She can do this again in four years.
Crid at June 7, 2008 12:00 PM
Holy shit: Did everyone notice that the clothes she's wearing on the nutcracker above are exactly what she wore during the speech today, right down to the pearls?
I wonder if that's an accident.
(I just do not trust this woman, one of the most mannered human beings who ever lived.)
Crid at June 7, 2008 12:06 PM
If we're going for the factual post-mortem, I'd say she lost because she got out-gamed. By discounting the early caucases, she allowed Obama to become a viable alternative before her primary run should have sealed the deal for her. She should have hired Rove.
If we're looking for more metaphysical reasons, I'd say she lost because God exists.
snakeman99 at June 7, 2008 3:16 PM
Okay, I'll bite, though this is the kind of statement that will get me sent to Re-education Camp if the Obamessiah's elected.
I think Hillary lost because she's not a demagogue and she was running against a master demagogue. Strong partisans, the kind of people who vote in primaries, love demagogues, though they'd deny vehemently that they do.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying that Obama's evil. But I have serious doubts about him, because I hate demagoguery, a demagogue being a "leader who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people." Obama fans would say he's not a demagogue because he's the "post-racial candidate," the Promised One who will "move us beyond racism," but there are more kinds of prejudice than racial prejudice, and Obama's doing his best to rouse the emotions of his followers against those of us who don't really buy into his fluffy empty rhetoric about "hope" and "change." Those of us who are looking for a president, not a messiah.
Frankly, I like my leaders to have their feet planted firmly on planet earth and who realize that they're there to build roads and fund schools and provide security and protect our rights, not ones who see themselves as a messiah and are ready to receive worship. Politics is a job like any other. I'm not looking for a messiah or a Great Leader; I just want leaders who will do the bloody damn job and do it well, and who otherwise leave me the hell alone. I certainly don't need someone to give me Hope and Inspiration. When I need those, I can provide them well enough on my own. I need no outside source.
I don't want politicians who want me to vote for them based on some gushy oozy vague feelings. Politics should generally be left to the head, not the heart. Obama's not even trying to appeal to people's heads, from what I can see. And when people write nauseating garbage like this about him, I get seriously worried.
But there are plenty of people out there who are apparently willing to vote on nothing but emotion, and Hillary will never be the kind of person who appeals to them. She's too dry and grounded and sober. She's very much the kind of person you would expect to be in politics. Had she not been running against Obama, she would have gotten the nomination. But she can't whip people into a frenzy -- and unfortunately, that's what works.
As for the second question, I think Bill wanted Hillary to win. That's another four-to-eight years when he'd get to be in the spotlight, after all. :)
Elizabeth at June 7, 2008 5:25 PM
Elizabeth, I strongly disagree with you.
> Hillary lost because she's
> not a demagogue
Google defines demagogue as "an orator who appeals to the passions and prejudices of his audience." Can you imagine a better example? The important phrase in this link is "I want to take those profits...."
As it happens, I'm not in the oil business, I'm a video tech. That means Hillary isn't going to come and take my profits. She's probably not going to come and take yours, either. Yet.
The oil business gets a lot of bad press, but just about anyone can get into it, and just about anyone does. You can certainly buy stock in it at competitive prices. Wanna know why the price of oil has gotten so high lately? Because it's worth more. That doesn't mean Hillary or anyone else should be allowed to come in and decide what to do with the money you earned. (Today it's oil... Will it be your business tomorrow? She'll always, always be able to name someone who deserves the money more than the people who earned it.)
> I'm not looking for a messiah
> or a Great Leader; I just want
> leaders who will do the bloody
> damn job
Some of us --Americans-- don't want "leadership" at all. We know what we're supposed to be doing with our lives, and we know the direction the nation ought to be taking in general respects. All we want from elected officials is public service.
> That's another four-to-
> eight years when he'd get
> to be in the spotlight,
> after all.
As the Purdum piece noted, Bill Clinton is still just about the most famous and beloved man in the world. What's even better, now that he's out of office he gets to make money! And sometimes he can do that through shadier enterprises than would likely be permissible if his wife was in the White House, even as veep.
> the kind of statement
> that will get me sent to
> Re-education Camp if the
> Obamessiah's elected.
Point taken. Many people take this guy far too seriously. A whole new generation of enthusiastic voters is about to get its heart broken by a prototypically mechanical political figure (from Chicago!). And he's a somewhat unformed personality, to boot.
But all too many of Hillary's supporters are enchanted by precisely the same identity politics that fuel Obama's machine. They too live by the sword, and they happened to die by it first... But that knife thrust will soon swing towards Obama's people. And I don't want to mop the tears from either camp... They all shoulda known better.
Crid at June 7, 2008 10:41 PM
Elizabeth - the main thing that I think you are miscontruing is the assumption that Obama thinks of himself as anywhere near the attribute that people, such as yourself, credit him - that being some sort of "messiah" or "demegogue."
It's this kind of argument that I have a very difficult time adjusting to.
Since when are ANY of our public figures anywhere close to these things? Why on earth would anyone think that they are? They are just PEOPLE like you and I. Quite frankly, it's the ones who aren't all that... but like to push themselves into the role, that concern me. ie: Hillary and her husband and the massive egos expressed by them.
If you'd like to examine that further, look up Hilary Rosen's expose on Huffington Post. She has been an ardent supporter of Hillary. But has come out and said she is not a bargaining chip, she is a democrat.
People who assume that other people have more power than they do - and then proceed to attribute that to some unexpainable misfortune -- "oh, he just thinks he's a demegogue" sadly don't have an ego. So sorry for you.
Obama is undoubtedly just as shocked as you are to be in this position. But he has the character (and ambition) to try and live up to the expectation of being greater than he is. This is not a unique phenomena to those who deliberately - or not - find themselves when put into the public lime-light. Such reactions from the public don't make them evil or not-evil or any other type of moral judgement. They are just people.
Gees. Get over it.
Inquiring at June 8, 2008 3:58 AM
Via Reynolds, this is kinda what I was getting at.
Crid at June 8, 2008 2:31 PM
She lost in the Democratic primaries because she had been too eager to craft herself an image as that of a centrist in her years in the Senate. She rightly acertained that voters in the general election will reject socialism, but what she didn't count on was that voters in the primary elections would have a palatable and sufficiently ideologically 'pure' and anti-military liberal with which they could swoon over.
Of course, if she had out Obama'd Obama from the beginning (say, back in October 2007), and stuck to unapologetic 'progressivism', she might have gotten her party's nomination, but her chances in November would have been close to nil.
Despite the GOPs massive problems at this moment in history, the DEMs managed to nominate their least mainstream major candidate, while the GOP managed to nominate their most mainstream major candidate.
Her problem wasn't gender bias, or media bias, or Bill Clinton unconsciously sabotaging her campaign, it was that she's out of step with the activist base of her own party, and the rules the Democrats conceived for themselves cater mercilessly to that activist base.
We'll see how well that serves them in November.
Every Democrat to have succeeded as a non-incumbent has run what would now be considered a conservative platform, from FDR in '32, to JFK in '60, to Carter in '76, to Clinton in '92. Every non-incumbent DEM who campaigned as a liberal has gone down in flames, '68 McCarthy, '72 McGovern, '84 Mondale, '88 Dukakis, '00 Gore, '04 Kerry.
Sen. Obama looks like a taller, darker, less experienced Dukakis to me (and will do about as well in November).
The DEMS just can't seem to fathom that outside of the coasts, socialism isn't popular in this country.
XWL at June 8, 2008 3:01 PM
XWL... your logic on non-incumbent liberal dems losing has some flaws in it. First of all McGovern, Mondale and and Kerry all faced an incumbent president in the general election. Politics aside, Mondale was not beating Reagan, no one was. Mccarthy got the nomination only after RFK was shot and the Dems were shattered by the assassination and the Chicago riots during their convention. McGovern had the Eagleton affair and then made one of the most profoundly stupid remarks of any politician i can remember when he said "I would get on my kinees to get the North Vietnamese to release our POWs." (or something like that - it's been a long time) That remark ensured a Nixon rout. Dukakis lost because of Karl Rove's tactics and the first Bush's connection to Reagan. Gore lost because of the scandals associated with the Clinton administration. Keep in mind that Gore lost Florida and the racer by less than 1000 votes. hardly a dismissal of his liberal politics.
Does that mean that Obama can win in November? Hell if I know.
steveda at June 8, 2008 5:51 PM
I think he wanted her to win. I think they are a power couple. They both understand that and are fine with it.
She is as much a Senator from New York as Bush is "from texas", as he likes to claim. I'm not sure when living in a place for a while made you "from there" buy hey, if it works for him it should work for her.
I wanted to vote for her. Yes, in large part because she is a woman. And would get us out of Iraq. I will not vote for Obama. I may vote for McCain, I'm not sure yet. I would, if it weren't for Irag. I may have to write in someone just for my moral comfort.
She lost because Obama is a great speaker. I have a feeling that's all he's got going for him. If we had one day for primaries nationwide, like we should, she would have got the nomination.
momof3 at June 8, 2008 6:09 PM
Steve, Humphrey was the Dem nominee in 1968.
Listen, everybody please promise that you won't get upset if there's another close election. The fact that people can't move decisively in one direction or another doesn't mean that anything's wrong.
Crid at June 8, 2008 6:22 PM
Crid... I stand corrected. I took the previous posters comments at face value, but even as I typed it I had the feeling someting was wrong.
Thanks for the heads up! At least one of us is awake!!!
As for Hillary's loss, well she underestimated her competition, planned her campaigns for the shrort run through February and mismanaged her finances. Kinda sounds like the Bush Administration doesn't it? Anyway, Obama's popularity and the protracted campaign undid her as much as the baggage that she carried.
steveda at June 8, 2008 7:05 PM
For the record, Bush is our first MBA president. He knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote all those checks. This wasn't "mismanagement", it was "criminality".
I think you're right that she never saw this guy in her side view mirror... She was licking Obama's rear fender before she knew what was flying past her. See also the Purdum piece, linked above... It may be that her political machine was too eager to apply lessons from the years of RFK and too cautious in the time of internet fundraising.
And we don't really know exactly how attractive a politician Obama is, either. For all we know, he's like a late-rounds contestant on American Idol... Fun to look at for a few weeks, but not worth buying a product from.
Crid at June 8, 2008 7:49 PM
I agree, Obama is kind of a wild card. But what are the options. McCain wants to continue the practices of Bush, which is sinking this country faster than the iceberg took down the Titanic. For my money, I am voting Obama. I'd rather have a young idealistic, inspirational president that is willing to try some new things than an old pro politician that hasn't had an original idea on the economy in decades.
steveda at June 8, 2008 8:12 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2008/06/07/the_hillary_nut.html#comment-1556045">comment from stevedaQuick: Obama stands for...(fill in the blank here)...
Amy Alkon at June 8, 2008 8:27 PM
I'm not sure "the economy" is something that needs "original ideas"/ There's nothing new under the sun
Crid at June 8, 2008 9:23 PM
Steve, the last time a president brought "original ideas" to economics, we got the dot bomb. You remember Clinton's whole bit about "the business cycle has ended" and all that?
It wasn't.
Obama doesn't have any original ideas. He's going to raise taxes on the productive class to buy the fealty of the unproductive class. Which is what the Democrats have been doing for 40 years.
He's not idealistic, he's a fucking racist. He's inspirational the way Hitler was. He's all personality, no substance.
Or, as some have said of the current president: "All hat, no cattle"
brian at June 8, 2008 9:52 PM
So Brian, you want John "100 Years in Iraq" McCain in office?
I'm not wild about Obama, (I thought Bill Richardson was a far stronger, experienced candidate), but I'm going to hold my nose and pull the lever for Obama next November.
As for Hillary, just because we both have innies wasn't sufficient reason for me to vote for her. I thought it was ironic for Geraldine Ferraro to say that Obama was successful solely because of his race when Hillary is where she is solely because she married well.
JoJo at June 9, 2008 8:20 AM
So you want Obama the Fabulist in office?
We've had troops in Korea for 50 years, in Germany and Japan for 60. That's what McCain was talking about in Iraq. The Sainted One immediately took that sentence, and twisted it into a fabrication to win over the anti-war crowd (you know, the ones with the "ENDLESS WAR" bumper stickers, with the "LESS" crossed out and "this" written over it in red).
I wouldn't vote for Obama if you held a gun to my Mother's head. I wouldn't vote for Obama if you crushed my balls in a vice.
I can think of nobody short of Hugo Chavez that will be more detrimental to the world than President Barack Obama.
McCain may not be a conservative at all. But he's not a nihilist, either. Obama spent 20 years in a racist church, he's married to a racist, and is no doubt raising his children to be racists. He and his wife have made no bones about the fact that they despise this country as it is presently constituted, and the things that Obama has said he wants to do will destroy me and everyone I care about.
I will not vote to destroy this Republic.
brian at June 9, 2008 9:25 AM
One more thing -
I know that I said I would not vote for John McCain. I still don't trust him to not betray the remaining conservatives in the Republican party.
But that's when I thought Hillary might be the opponent, and I know she would lose without my help, so staying home was an option.
I used to hold my nose and vote for the lesser evil. After putting Bush back in office in 2004, I stopped doing that. Apparently a lot of Republicans did, since the Rs lost the house and the senate. I was swayed by pragmatists who said "a vote for the lesser evil is still a vote for evil." And that's absolutely true.
But what Obama represents is so horrific that I cannot countenance allowing him to become president. I have seen what soft socialism has done to Europe. I have seen what all talk no war has done to Europe. I will not be a party to the further enervation of the United States.
brian at June 9, 2008 9:30 AM
> I wouldn't vote for Obama
> if you crushed my balls
> in a vice.
You sure?
Crid at June 9, 2008 9:50 AM
Crid, I've had mammograms that were less painful than the thought of voting for Obama. You know how much I hate Shrillary, well Obama is a post turtle. You know what a post turtle is, right?
Here:
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Texas rancher, whose hand was caught in a Gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the Topic got around to Obama and his bid to be our President. The old rancher said, 'Well, ya know, Obama is a 'post turtle'.' Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a 'post turtle' was. The old rancher said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'.' The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor's face, so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with."
Flynne at June 9, 2008 11:09 AM
Nonetheless, perhaps we should test brian's thesis.
Crid at June 9, 2008 11:51 AM
Could do. Brian?
Flynne at June 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Interesting. I do believe this is the first time a woman has asked a non-clinical question regarding my testicles.
I'll pass, thanks. As much as I can't stand the option, I will be voting for McCain. If I can convince enough people in this pathetic state to follow suit, we just might be able, as a state, to say "don't blame me, I voted for McCain".
And I get to keep my balls. Which is nice, because I've kinda become attached to them.
brian at June 9, 2008 12:10 PM
Brain - Your balls will be in a cage if you go for McCain. For god sakes, man - let them loose!!! You'll prolly be happier.A vote for McCain is a vote for: #1 - duh - the war in Iraq going on and on and on. Somewhat reminiscent of Vietnam.But, no matter.Let's not get all squishy over men dieing in the name of their country, and all that.The war on Iraq drains MILLIONS of dollars every month from our economy. If you don't want dead soldiers to be a part of your equation - than at least count the millions of dollars headed each and every month to the War On Iraq.Hey. I'll admit this. I voted for Bush this last term. Yeah, I did. At the time, I thought that getting rid of Saddam was worth any price. Genocide does not set well in my book.As an offering to my miscontrued vote, I will say this: I never expected the horrid route that has occured. I admit it. I never thought that Bush would fuck the whole thing up so badly or that the Iraq people would.My bad.As to the Hillary Nutcracker - ahaha!! I think it's funny as hell. Give the woman her due - she has busted a few balls in her campaign. She's horrid, corrupt and other bad adjective things. That she's leveled the playing field as to male v. female mentality is great. But I'd never vote for her.
Inquiring at June 9, 2008 6:17 PM
Shite - I bought a new printer that ... like so many gadgets these days, wants to "think" for me.. So paragraphs are somehow out.
Bah.
I'll have to figure out how to disable that. Sorry for the long, one paragraph commentary.
Inquiring at June 9, 2008 6:20 PM
Balls are only worth keeping if you use them.
otherwise they just get in the way and cause you pain.
(This is definitely off-topic, but the existence of balls actually made me an atheist. I have come to believe that if there was an all-knowing, super intelligent being that designed us, he would have come up with a better idea for genitalia than these ugly hanging things.)
Anyway ... the current economic policy doesn't work, hasn't worked in 8 years of Bush and didn't work in 8 years of Reagan. McCain wants to make them permanent and talks about the edconomic progress we have made under Bush. Anything he says after that is pointless. HE made economic progress because his wife makes millions every year selling beer to the working class. This guy is so out of touch economically he's scary.
Is Obama going to be better? Lets put it this way, he cannot be worse. We can soend hours talking about social issues, but the fact is that we need to deal with the deficits created by Bush. if we don't our children and grandchildren will be charged with the mess.
Obama talks about increasing the taxes to the upper echelons of income and holding the rest firm, I hope he can. If McCain gets his wish and makes the Bush tax cuts permanent, kiss your disposable income (if you still have any) goodbye.
Whether you like Obama or not, we simply cannot afford McCain's version of economics. And economics will drive our ability to deal with any of the social issues either candidate talks about. Like it or not, the USA is going bankrupt. The question is who would you prefer to pass the tax increases necessary to save us? My money is with Obama.
steveda at June 9, 2008 6:30 PM
steveda:
McCain is the only candidate offered by either party this election cycle that has ever been serious about reducing government spending.
If Obama raises taxes, government receipts will drop as tax rates increase. This has always happened. The Bush tax cuts had the same impact on government receipts that the Reagan ones did - they went up.
However, in both cases the Congress went on a spending spree that would make a drunken sailor go "slow down there, fella!"
Obama isn't going to do anything to reduce government spending, in fact he's going to accelerate the growth of government.
Tax increases will crash this economy faster than anything else as capital flees to more favorable environments.
brian at June 9, 2008 7:25 PM
Inq:
Ending the war in Iraq prematurely will have the same end result as Clinton's premature withdrawl from Somalia and Reagan's withdrawl from Beirut. Both will convince the Islamists that we can be beaten as long as they are willing to wait us out.
The only reason we supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war was to prevent either nation from establishing regional hegemony. We pull out of Iraq now, and Iran's gonna take the whole show over. You think oil's expensive now? Wait until they stop selling it to us. Oh, and you can kiss Israel goodbye too, because they will certainly use their control over Iraqi and Saudi oil (remember, the Saudi's are scared shitless of a nuclear-tipped Iran) to prevent any retaliatory strikes for their destruction of Israel.
Of course, that's not the main worry. The worry is that the Al Qaeda types will attack again if we withdraw from Iraq. There's going to be a bunch of committed leftists in this country who are convinced we deserved it. But there are going to be far more that demand we repay them in kind and wipe the middle east off of the Earth.
If you want to avoid genocide, your best bet is to finish the job and create something resembling a stable Iraq. If Iraq falls to Islamists, then the middle east is probably going to be bombed out of existence shortly after.
There's just no conceivable scenario where an Obama presidency works out well for mankind.
brian at June 9, 2008 7:29 PM
Brian you are falling for the biggest fallacy of both the Reagan and Bush administrations that by lowering rates they increase tax revenue. lower tax rates = lower revenues, period. Look at the data bud. Bush has created the largest federal deficit in the history of the country. Second only to Reagan's deficits. (Reagan had the sense to not go to war.)They had the same tax policies - what a coincidence.
Reagan and Bush both believe in the Laffer curve. The Laffer curve only works in one ideal situation. That is a situation of extremely high taxes, you can gain more revenue by cutting taxes and allowing private industry to increase capital investment - generating jobs and increased revenue.
First, the US is not and has not been in an extremely high tax situation since he 50's(even though it may sure feel like it). Second, the people that got the tax cuts did invest them and create new products, unfortunately the jobs that were created have been in China and other third world countries - resulting in the mess we are in... falling tax revenues, growing trade deficits, growing federal deficits, declining value of the Dollar, loss of jobs, and the growth of income and wealth limited to one class of people.
McCain wants to continue this policy. Sorry, this is just financial suicide and it needs to end .. NOW!
By the way, the highest bracket tax rate for income in the 50's was 90% .. yep 90%. Remind me, when we think of the golden age of American economic growth, what period was that?
steveda at June 9, 2008 7:57 PM
Brian - An Obama presidency is our ONLY hope for humanity at this point in time.
America is spending BILLIONS of dollars each month on this lost cause. Our deficits are in the TRILLIONS of dollars.
Obama wants to end this war. Last I heard of statistics, so did 80%+ of the population.
Oh - you're in the 20% that thinks it needs to continue? So sorry. You lose.
Inquiring at June 9, 2008 8:12 PM
the Iraq war was about oil, pure and simple. if Hussein was in charge of a country that did not have oil reserves Bush and his cronies would not had a rat's ass worth of concern.
The fact is that we have been the whore to the oil pimps for three decades. Since the 1970's we have known it was a strategic problem and have done nothing to correct it. It is that situation that places us in Iraq, and dictates our foreign policy in the Mideast.
Iraq will never have a stable government, no less a democracy. It is torn by historic religious and tribal factions that have never been dealt with. Hussein just used his dictatorial powers to beat them into submission. Since we will never install a dictator in Iraq, the country is bound to have factional fighting and war for decades until they sort it out. That leaves them susceptible to attacks from foreign entities like Iran.
What's the answer? Conventional forces cannot defeat the rebels. The rebels show up, blow up a target and blend back into the society at large. There is no one to march against, no hills to take, no clear battle lines drawn. You cannot negotiate with someone willing to blow themselves up unless you are willing to do the same, so forget that.
The government we installed has no power to calm the population and is not seen as a uniting factor by a large part of the citizenry. This is a battle the Iraqis need to resolve for themselves, as a country - or perhaps as 3 countries ... shiite, kurds and sunni. None of the three main groups has shown any desire to kiss and make up.
So unless someone can give me a definitive plan that will unite that country and provide us with a concrete exit strategy, I think we should give the Iraqi's a year's notice and leave.
I have no idea how we can "win" this war. We don't even know who we are fighting.
As for the threat of Iran attacking them - I think we can make Iran fully aware of the dire consequences of that action. Ahmedinejad is nuts, but he's not stupid.
steveda at June 9, 2008 8:44 PM
Steve, if it was about oil, we would simply have told the UN to drop the sanctions. Then the oil would end up on the market. Problem solved.
The war in Iraq is about one thing, and one thing only - cleaning out the cesspool that is the middle east. A problem the West has let fester for nearly a thousand years.
We can either bring them to heel, build a fence around them and hope they kill themselves off, or eliminate them. And two of those options make all that oil unavailable to the rest of the world.
So if you've got a solution whereby the entire world will stop buying oil from lunatics, I'm all ears. But I can tell you that burning food for fuel is the dumbest fucking thing that we've ever done.
Just because YOU don't know who we're fighting, don't make the mistake of assuming that the generals in theater don't know. You should read more Michael Yon and less New York Times.
And you're quite wrong about Ahmadinejad. He's as nutty as a fruitcake. He believes that when he destroys Israel, the hidden imam will come back and destroy the infidels, ushering in a new age of peace for the Ummah. If that's not batshit fucking loco, I don't know what is.
Inq: - Has it occurred to you that 80% of the population could be wrong? 200 years ago, 80% of the population believed that the Negro was biologically inferior to the white man. Were they right too? 400 years ago. Aw, fuck it. I'm not going to bother any more.
There is none so blind as he who will not see.
brian at June 9, 2008 9:19 PM
First, the only thing Bush and Reagan were guilty of in the creation of those deficits was in their not vetoing the massive spending Congressional Democrats pushed through as a condition of their accepting the tax cuts in the first place. In Reagan's case, every dollar of additional revenue was met with almost two dollars in additional spending.
Second, no nation has EVER taxed itself to prosperity. I'd be willing to be that I could, were I so inclined to expend the time, go through the federal budget and cut between 50 and 90 percent of the spending out of it. About half of those cuts would be put back on the states where they belong, and the other half would simply go in the can.
We need a president who is willing to tell the congress "no!". I don't believe that John McCain is that man. He might tell them "less", however. Obama is definitely not that man. He has already promised the moon, the sun, and the stars to the downtrodden, if only they vote for the Second Coming of the Black Jesus.
brian at June 9, 2008 9:24 PM
Brain - good grief - TRY to see beyond your prejudice and see the man for what he is.
His mother is white. His father was from Kenya. He spent MANY years living with his white grandparents. He spent a few years of his youth in Asia. His step-father was such a man.
He decided to affiliate himself with the "black" segment of society. That would make him evil cuz...??
Barack is 46 - 47 years old. That's a decade older than you, yet he is still a young man.
I taunted you regarding the whole Harvard thing. Can you honestly say that most people who get into the Ivy League instatutions don't deserve the credit for completion of their terms?
My god, man - most of our nation's intellectualls attended such institutions! Do you seriously think they are all frauds?
And if you do, then why don't YOU do something about it? What I'm hearing from you is that you are no less then they are. An excellent point. But the reality is if you are not part of the solution, chances are you are moreso part of the problem.
So what I'm saying is, if you truely think that people who attend Ivy League colleges are nothing more that a "bucket of piss" -- then do something to change that dismal fact.
You are 38 years old and own your own business. I assume it's some type of consulting given that your specialty is in engineering and you claim to "own" your business. Good for you.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - do you even get that IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU!
You, in spite of your admirable achievements, don't even begin to compare to the tax evaluations that Obama is discussing.
The people he is talking about earn MILLIONS of dollars a year!
Brian, Obama is not going to raise any taxes on you. Or me. Or even Amy. He IS going to raise taxes on the likes of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and the (former) head of Enron, Country Wide, Citibank, Fidelity... etc.. etc.
Inquiring at June 9, 2008 9:57 PM
Brian, Obama is not going to raise any taxes on you. Or me. Or even Amy. He IS going to raise taxes on the likes of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and the (former) head of Enron, Country Wide, Citibank, Fidelity... etc.. etc.
You just don't get it, do you. First of all, how in the hell is it equitable to create a system whereby the most productive and successful citizens of our nation have the lion's share of their earnings confiscated by government? Second, what's to stop the government, with its insatiable appetite, from coming after your money next? Third - shit rolls down hill. If Obama goes with his plan to implement an "excess profits tax" on oil companies, do you think you'll be getting gas for under $10.00 a gallon?
The problem with so many people in their evaluation of policy is they don't think beyond the first-order effects. The "law of unintended consequences" may well be the most ill-named principle there is. Because it's most often caused by simply failing to think all the way through the consequences of an action.
brian at June 10, 2008 5:12 AM
..."We need a president who is willing to tell the congress "no!". I don't believe that John McCain is that man. He might tell them "less", however."
Oh really??? When he is willing to continue an unwinnable war that's costing 2.5Billion a week?? Thats gonna cut spending?
Vote for McCain if you think so, I am not trying to convert you. BUT, if we are to continue the war, the government needs to cover the deficit, and that alone equals a federal tax hike of around $125Billion a year. Given that he has already committed to keeping Bush's tax cuts for the rich, just who do you think is going to pay for that?
Forget all the other issues and differences between Obama and McCain and think about the taxes ... Better get the KY out cause what McCain is gonna do to you would make Larry Craig blush.
..."go through the federal budget and cut between 50 and 90 percent of the spending out of it. About half of those cuts would be put back on the states where they belong..."
So then your state can raise your taxes to make up for the federal cuts.
And by the way, you avoided my question. In the '50's the top income bracket paid a tax of 90% ... that was reduced to 65% in the mid 60's. The rate seems onerous now, but only the top 1% paid it and America was in an absolute financial boon during the period. We lowered the rate to ... what is it now? 30%? and the economy is in free fall. The poor get poorer every year, the middle class shrinks every year, and the rich get richer by leaps and bounds every year. This is not a good economic model ... unless you are a member of the upper class.
steveda at June 10, 2008 7:24 PM
Been reading the NYT again? First off, it's NOT unwinnable. We've won the war. We're winning the reconstruction. And if Obama is kept away from the levers of power, we'll create the first pluralist state in the Middle East since 1948.
Well, yeah. But that's kinda what the Constitution intended. And the states would be constrained in how much they could do because they wouldn't have federal aid to states to fall back on. So the upper limit on spending would be hit very quickly. And since it's more local, there's going to be more involvement from the people, which will tend to keep taxation down. Federalism. We should try it some time.
So many outright falsehoods, I don't know where to begin.
financial boon? The financial boo[m] you're looking for didn't happen until '62 when Kennedy CUT TAX RATES. Carter put them back up into the upper 70s, and we all know what things looked like in 1979. Reagan cut taxes again, triggering the largest peace-time expansion in history. Obama's talking about raising the rates on everyone in the top 25% of income earners. That's an awful lot of capital to take out of the economy.
Free fall? Growth of 0.6-1.2% is FREE FALL? no, my friend, a free-fall economy is what we got with the policies of Carter - double digits for interest rates, inflation, and unemployment.
Poor get poorer? By what measure? Not only do we have the richest poor in the world, they are materially better off now than they have ever been. the only reason for an increase in the number of 'poor' is the shifting of definitions to increase the size of federal welfare programs.
I don't know what economic figures you're looking at, but everything I've seen indicates that everyone is getting richer, and the middle class are getting richer faster than anyone else (on a percentage basis). And what's so bad about the rich getting richer? It's not like the economy is a finite pie, you know.
brian at June 10, 2008 8:35 PM
Leave a comment