Wednesday, March 05, 2008

"I'll Be Back"


You've probably noticed that despite some strong opinions on the subject of politics, I've avoided any serious talk about the current presidential campaign. I suppose my attitude is that any point I might be able to make about the race, the candidates, what-have-you has already been brought up and beaten to death by one media outlet or another. Some of the best analysis, insofar as it hasn't reeked of pompous pandering, has come from Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi; at the other end of the spectrum is the 24/7 short bus circle jerk over at MSNBC. I realize I pick on the network quite a bit, but anyone who's endured even a few minutes of the Olbermann/Matthews/Scarborough trifecta-of-smug can probably understand the venom. The only reason to cut the MS political team any slack at this point might be because Chris Matthews appears to have recently suffered a stroke.

The networks, the newspapers and the magazines have all exhausted every horserace and boxing metaphor in their arsenals; the blogs have taken their respective stands and provided America's True Believers with a place to sound off like they've got a pair.

It's all been done.

But this race is still important, and like anyone else I worry about where the country's been and where it's going.

Which is why it pisses me off to no end that Hillary Clinton has anointed herself "The Comeback Kid" this morning -- as if a desperate and entirely predictable 11th hour reach into her bag of political dirty tricks has earned her a parade.

Yesterday, Clinton eked out a victory in Texas while also taking Ohio and Rhode Island, essentially deflating the momentum of Barack Obama. In doing so, she ostensibly brought her flatlining candidacy back from the brink, much to the bemusement of many in the press, who called time-of-death on Clinton 2008 weeks ago. The fact that Clinton won three states last night, though, isn't as noteworthy as how she won them. True, the public is fickle and likely grew sick of both the aforementioned media death knell and the canonization of Obama, but over the past week-and-a-half Hillary Clinton has played every ugly card up her sleeve, consequently managing to cement her reputation as a soulless political opportunist who will say or do anything to get elected. The Clinton Machine, now under the command of unscrupulous toad Mark Penn, either shouted to the press or demurely whispered in voters' ears every bullshit controversy and unequivocal non-issue it could come up with -- from a hearsay argument that kind of, could've, might've shown that Obama said something to someone in Canada at some point about NAFTA, to those nagging questions about Barack Hussein Obama's religion, to the threat of a tantrum-filled scorched earth campaign against her own party, to a seemingly GOP-copyrighted attack ad aimed at convincing America's impressionable soccer moms that Barack Obama is going to kill their children in the middle of the night. Factor in her warm and fuzzy appearance on SNL (Note to Lorne Michaels: When Hillary Clinton is the funniest thing on your show, it might be time to issue some pink slips) and you've got all the usual ingredients for a good old-fashioned Clinton Comeback.

And that's exactly why it shouldn't be allowed to work.

I don't consider myself a staunch supporter of Barack Obama. I admit that he's an inspiring political speaker and that his election, in and of itself, would do wonders for our wounded reputation around the world -- but I'm not naive enough to believe that he walks on water or exists on a plane far above the rest of America's political scoundrelry. What Obama does represent however, as trite as this may sound, is the future. His supposedly inexcusable lack of hands-on experience -- experience, it's worth noting, that Hillary Clinton is sorely lacking as well -- is actually his most appealing quality; I'm already well aware of what a Clinton presidency looks like (as well as 20 years of McCain senate votes for that matter) and I feel about it the way I feel about a movie from the first Clinton era -- Independence Day: Sure it was decent at the time, but do we really need a fucking sequel?

Hillary Clinton has already shown us what we can expect from a Clinton Redux White House, and it's all too familiar: opportunism, self-serving platitudes, dirty tricks and underhanded machinations, the reality that, to borrow her own phrase, "From Day 1" she'll work tirelessly toward getting re-elected.

We've had years and years of that way of thinking, and look where it's gotten us.

It's time for some new blood.

I can't say for sure what a Barack Obama presidency would be like.

But it's got to be better than the alternative -- either alternative.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

"What Obama does represent however, as trite as this may sound, is the future."
Agreed. His supposed lack of experience doesn't bother me. No presidential candidate has ever been well versed in every facet of the job, that's what the cabinet and the advisors are for, isn't it? This system was not set up for the same agendas rotating in and out- Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Enough already.
nancy

corey said...

I've heard it said by many (including a few of your fellow commentators on HuffPost) that the current Democratic hopefuls represent an embarassment of riches. I have never agreed with that, and you just perfectly encapsulated why. I am still hoping that this election will be more than a choice between the lesser of two evils, but if Hillary is nominated, I am honestly afraid it will be 2004 all over again.
Well said Chez.

Enrique O said...

Thank you for writing this. You expressed very eloquently the thoughts that have been going through my mind for weeks and reached a fever pitch last night. As much as I fear a McCain presidency, I don't know if I can bring myself to vote for Hillary Clinton and contribute to putting her and her two-faced husband back in the White House.
Here's hoping for the future.

Paul said...

Don't worry about it. The media loves to pretend that "winning" a state means something, but Clinton only gained four delegate votes in Texas (and they'll likely be erased by Obama winning the state's caucuses). In order for Clinton to be nominated, she'd need to win by at least 15-20% in the remaining states. Gaining on Obama by a mere four delegates in each state won't work when she's down by 100 delegates total.

Ron said...

I have eaten up every word you've served to this point but I am disappointed in your simultaneous deconstruction of Clinton and cannonization of Obama. When people write that they don't support Obama and then blather on about how he is the future is nauseating. Additionally, every thing Clinton has done in her life demonstrates why we should not trust her and yet Obama's chief economic advisor is caught bullshitting Canada (or the American people) and it is a result of Clinton's dirty tricks.

I am disappointed. I didn't expect you to pile on like this. You seemed better than all of that. I read Matt's RS articles and like him on Bill Maher but Matt is getting a little arrogant and acting like he's smarter than anyone who isn't in Obama's bed as he, and obviously you, are. At least have the grapes to say that you do like him and you do support him. Don't feign the same false objectivity that CNN and MSNBC are trying. You are better than that.

And, as I end every comment I have written about this campaign season, I support neither Clinton or Obama. I will give McCain the White House.

Miss C said...

Thank you! I'm a long-term fan of your blog and was hoping for something like this.

Chez said...

Ron --

Thanks for the comment, but there's no pile on. I don't like Hillary, and just because I find her to be a reprehensible political creature -- the kind who's already proven the direction she'll be taking the country -- doesn't mean that I'm "in bed" with Obama.

I consider Obama to be worth taking a chance on. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

Anonymous said...

Chez, I have to disagree with you. Although I am not a Clinton fan, I can't see taking a chance on someone who has, even in his short time in politics, already made some pretty bad judgments like aligning himself with Rezko, lobbyist money, avoiding responsibility by voting "present" 129 times during his stint in the Illinois legislature, his lie about the nuclear leak bill and now the Canadian incident among other things.

Obama is even complaining that he lost last night because Clinton was picking on him and he is attacking the media for turning their focus on him. If he can't take the scrutiny now he has no business running for president. He didn't get this far this quickly without owing somebody something. There are skeletons in that closet I think we have just begun to see.

autoeditor said...

I'm just going through Hitchens' No One Left To Lie To again and realizing what a pair of conniving cunts the Clintons are. Even in the face of math that explains clearly why she can't win, Hillary remains a race-baiting, slimy whore of a politician. When the end comes and Hillary, despite all the dirty, smelly tricks she pulled, has to concede defeat, I will laugh out loud and the country will breath a sigh of relief. I don't think Obama is the Second Coming, but at least we know what he's not: a Clinton. Good enough.

Tod said...

Hmm..maybe Obama won't rob the White House like the Clinton's did with their moving van at the end of slick Willie's presidency. Personally I am sick of both parties, but with the two party system entrenched in the US we are stuck deciding between two evils. While no one candidate is perfect, I hope that America will be smart enough not to fall for another Clinton snowjob.

BV said...

I consider Obama to be worth taking a chance on. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

You did.

For a presidential race that I should be excited about...I find it about as paramount as a limp dick.

geeves said...

It's funny how she started with blasting hope and now has moved onto fear mongering (it's 3am, do you know where your childr... your president is?) but it contradicts this, which Bill Clinton said in 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZW0m2nWB_M

geeves said...

Not to post twice: "True, the public is fickle and likely grew sick of both the aforementioned media death knell and the canonization of Obama..."

Actually it seemed the media got sick of the media and needed to stir things up for ratings. It really was the difference in turning on CNN on Tuesday night and then Wednesday morning it all went sideways.

Chez said...

Anonymous 4:37P --

If you're going strictly by the number of scandals and questionable practices, then you'd either be intellectually dishonest or unbelievably stupid to go with Clinton over Obama. By that yardstick, the two aren't even close. I have no doubt that skeletons will be uncovered when it comes to Obama, but he'd have a hell of a long way to go to reach Clinton's heights -- or depths.

VOTAR said...

Independence Day was hardly decent.

Chez said...

Elitist prick.

This is why no one likes you.

Anonymous said...

Very well said. Today, I read someone's opinion that Hillary, for all her self-interest, has become the dem party's very own Nixon. After watching her play fast with the facts, and her "I have experience, Sen. McCain has experience and Sen Obama gave a speech" comments, I unfortunately agree. She's handing McCain better ammunition than Carl Rove could have come up with. the only side she's on is her own.

Anonymous said...

Chez, I was just disagreeing with your opinion, I don't think there was any need for you to be rude. I don't care for any of the candidates, but I think that it is my obligation to vote for someone. I am in one of those states with one of the higest unemployment rates right now and have watched family and friends lose their jobs one after another. We don't have the luxury that rich people like you have to cross our fingers and hope for the best and up to this point Obama has not shown me anything that would cause me to believe he is any better than the rest.

Anon.4:37PM.

Enrique O said...

As a resident of Illinois, I really wish people would take the time to understand what a vote of "present" means in the Illinois legislature. In Illinois, passing a bill requires a constitutional majority (which is a different voting rule than the one used in Congress) -- 30 of the 59 state senators must vote yes for a measure to pass. Voting present is functionally equivalent to voting no and is not an unusual practice in Illinois. A vote of present can serve an important strategic purpose, such as allowing a senator to oppose the specifics of a piece of legislation while supporting its general intent.
Sorry about the long comment, but it's frustrating to hear or read the same ill-informed over and over.

Adam said...

Independence Day was (key word) magnificent! I enjoyed the hell out of it at the time, though repeated viewings have yielded no further celluloid nourishment.

As to the election, I think the blue is tearing itself apart. This constant squabbling between Clinton and Obama and the incredible polarization it's creating among the faithful is ultimately disastrous. John McCain's decisive win really draws it into sharp relief. The majority of red voters have their candidate in the running. Something akin to half of blue voters won't. Moreover, the vitriolic and destructive tug of war between the candidates ensures that supporters on either side will develop significant enough distaste for the opponent that they may well not vote for him/her or perhaps not vote at all in the big show. Factor in "The Nader Effect" and you've got a very poorly positioned political party.

Frankly, you wanna talk about rolling the dice on the possibility of magnificence, I wish Ron Paul was electable. That guy had enough zany ideas that the shakeup alone would've been interesting and I think ultimately beneficial. He had his problems, obviously, and Americans clearly weren't persuaded by his arguments, but I liked some of what he had on the table. I liked it enough that I'd take the stuff I didn't like just to see if any of it would work.

Nancy said...

Well said, Chez. I think Obama is worth a chance. If push, however, comes to shove, I'm afraid I'll have to vote Clinton -- not for her, but against McCain, who scares the heck out of me.

n, np

Chez said...

Anon 437 -- I'm not going to do this all day, but two things:

If I sounded rude, that wasn't my intention and I apologize.

That said, now I will be a little rude. "Rich people" like me? Way to prove how well-informed you are there pal. I'm not even working these days, but hey, if implying that I'm some kind of limousine liberal (which is REALLY laughable on each count) makes you feel like it gives your concerns more heft, go right ahead.

Stacy said...

FWIW, It looks like Obama will win the caucus in Texas, and therefore win more delegates in Texas than ol' Hil.

YEE-HAW!

Jammer said...

It's like you did a Vulcan mind-meld and stole my thoughts! You pretty much summed up what I was thinking. And I loved the "Independence Day" analogy.

One reason I'm willing to take a chance on Obama is because I think it would be a nice change to have a president that a large majority of Americans seem to like, rather than a president that is tolerated by half of the country and despised by the other half -- which is what you'd get with Hillary.

Aaron X said...

Chez, glad you're on board with the winning team. It really is a no-brainer for anybody under 50. Finally we've got someone who demonstrates genuine leadership, and has an authenticity that's impossible to ignore. No other presidential candidate in my lifetime has ever even come close.

As for Hillary Clinton and her campaign, Andrew Sullivan does an excellent job of encapsulating what's happening in this race at the moment, his evaluations of the Clintons in past years seem pretty prescient in retrospect.

With each passing day I like many others find Clinton and her campaign utterly reprehensible, and after seeing what some of bloggers I've been reading for years have done to try to manipulate voters, with the worst kind of propaganda smearing Barack Obama and constantly apologizing for Hillary and her unacceptable behavior, I don't think I could stomach her even as vice president. I don't want the Clintons or any of the slime they trail behind them anywhere near my White House.

Yes He Can

[....It's also vital for the Clintons psychologically to undermine Obama's appeal. He represents a systematic rebuke of their style of politics, their tactics and their worldview. If they can manage to damage him enough, even if he wins the nomination, their own sense of their own historical importance will be assuaged. Maybe they can damage him enough to ensure that McCain beats him in the fall. That would, at some level, satisfy them. To be beaten in a Democratic primary is bad enough; but if their opponent goes on to win the presidency, it would be unbearable for them, close to an indictment. That is what is fueling them: the terror of an Obama presidency and history re-written with Clinton as a minor footnote in the minor 1990s.

Obama supporters should not be dismayed.

Obama has a tougher, nastier opponent in the Clintons than he does in McCain. If he wins this by a long, grueling struggle, he will be more immune to the lazy, stupid criticism that he is some kind of flash in the pan, he has more opportunity to prove that there is a great deal of substance behind the oratory, he has more of a chance to meet and talk with the electorate he will need to win in the fall.

I think the argument for Obama is easily strong enough to withstand the egos of the Clintons. The more people see that her case is almost entirely a fear-based one and his is almost entirely a positive one, the more he will win the moral victory as well as the delegate count..... ]


Obama 08, Yes We Can!

Karanja said...

I don't get it, whats wrong with canonizing a saint thats already a saint?! And Indpendence day? I didn't think much of it then, and I cretainly wouldn't put up with it now... kind of like my feelings for the Clintons, although I have to say I used to think a bit more of Her Royal Hissy-fit-ness... Clearly they were torn of the same cloth...

Chez said...

Aaron --

Thanks for the comment man, but I'm not really on board with Obama's team so much as I think it's the best choice at the present time. I admit to having an appreciation for Obama's appeal to the next generation; this is mostly because I feel like the current crop of politicos have had their shot and have not only failed our kids by screwing up the world and selling out our government, but -- in the case of our current "leadership" -- have outright killed many of them to benefit themselves.

The last thing this country needs is to go backward by putting itself in the hands of those who are tarnished by recent history. No more political dynasties and no more same-old same-old. We owe it to our kids to let somebody new have a shot if for no other reason than it'll give them something to believe in and this country could really use that right now.

Sometimes you just need to turn the page.

My feeling right now is that if Obama doesn't win, it'll only be because of a lack of imagination.

That said...

Karanja --

I don't think Obama's a saint. He's a politician, and a very good one. Of course I'd like to believe that he's squeaky clean, but around a quarter century of watching poltics makes that very difficult. He's not perfect by any means, and I have no doubt that we'll find that out as time goes on. But as I said, he'd have to travel a very long distance very quickly to catch up to Clinton in the "questionable practices" race.

For the record, I actually do like McCain. I wouldn't vote for him for anything in the world though simply because he'll need the support of a certain segment of the population and government to win -- and I'm frankly tired of that group having an abundance of influence over the direction this country is heading in.

If McCain feels that he has to kiss the asses of dangerous, ignorant shitbags like John Hagee to get elected, I want him nowhere near the White House.

Aaron X said...

Hilarious, and frightening :-)

Hillary Queen of the Monsters

Robo said...

I know I'm super late to the party on this one but I just found this quote today (from DailyKos which I pulled from Digg) and thought you would like it:

Quote of the day:
"Saying that Hillary has Executive Branch experience is like saying Yoko Ono was a Beatle".


Fucking awesome. I couldn't have thought of a better comparison.

Carry on....