Special Blog Post:
An Open Letter to Senator Hillary Clinton
The graphic at left depicts you with Australian billionaire Mr. Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox Network, the media corporation which, among many other endeavors, offers Fox News, arguably the single most pervasive influence in biased mainstream journalism in America today. The graphic is unfair to the extent that you and Mr. Murdoch were never actually configured for a shot like that, although you have held stages together on more than a few occasions. To the extent that you have chosen to associate yourself with an individual who has degraded the American political and social dialogue, the graphic is an accurate depiction of someone with whom you now choose to make your professional company. The politics of dirty tricks can, of course, get far, far nastier than a simple composite photo.According to a report in The Tennessean, as brought to my attention in a post by The Green Knight, a group of your "supporters" staged a demonstration at a public appearance by Al Gore, who was in the Nashville area to promote his documentary movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Whether or not this protest was genuinely on your behalf, it represents an early and troubling opening onto a landscape of bad campaign politics. You should be swift, clear, and consistent in condemning such protests and those who organize and attend them. Unlike George W. Bush, who failed to damn the venal Swift Boat Veterans for Truth for their denigration of a genuine war hero, you should go on the record calling unequivocally for a higher level of dialogue in the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination.
Obviously, it's your call as to your course of action in this matter.
At the same time, those who oppose you have their call to make, too. For my part, should you decide to take the low road to the Democratic nomination, so will I in opposing you. You have a gaping hole a mile wide in your credibility. To the Right, you are the same liberal who, 13 years ago, produced a national healthcare plan that looked, smelled, and felt like a level of socialism anathema to the Right.
To the Left, you have turned into the "Great Triangulator," pandering to utterly mean and silly pseudo causes dear to neo-conservatives and armchair patriots. Your turn toward tepid, carefully crafted "support" for gay rights is a slap in the face to those who had hoped for far more from your strong voice. Your curious fence-straddling on ending the American occupation of Iraq belies your fear of offending a shrinking group of blustering conservatives who have no use whatsoever for you regardless of your stance on that matter. And, as noted at the beginning of this article, your rather sudden daliance with a venal man like Mr. Murdoch gives evidence not just of how much you will compromise core values, but also of how politically naïve you truly are: as you absorb massive amounts of money in campaign contributions, you are starving far more viable candidates of those funds, virtually ensuring a 1968-style steamroller at the Democratic National Convention in 2008, an event that will inevitably be followed by your crushing defeat in November. You will split the party, even as you unite the nation against you. Mr. Murdoch knows this, but apparently you don't.
At this juncture, however, all forecasts of what will happen in 2008 are nothing more than rank speculation. What is certain is the here and now, so I ask that you hear me now: call off your dogs, Senator. If they're not your dogs, call them off anyway. Condemn those who demonstrate against fellow Democrats. Repudiate the thug-lite gambit of phony, impromptu demonstrations against those whose values strongly reflect progressivism, as Al Gore's clearly do.
I make this request not as a strong supporter of Al Gore. Although I would stand with him were he the Democratic nominee for the Presidency in 2008, and although I consider him a brilliant man and a genuine American patriot, I am uncomfortable with the tone of his rhetoric regarding global warming. I have studied the lives of far too many other extraordinarily bright men who became obsessed of apocalyptic vision to one significant problem in exclusion of others. On the other hand—and perhaps as troubling to me, though—is the prospect that his hyperbole is the only means by which the American people, so used to problems evaporating in the next news cycle, can have their collective attention brought to bear on the looming crises arising from climate change. Nevertheless, I am not one of his political supporters at this stage; but I am certainly going to do my part to vex those of his own party who would seek to harm him with political gamesmanship of low order.
Mark my word, Senator Clinton, should you decide that dirty politics is the way you will run your campaign, that rusty, naughty, ugly sword will cut both ways. I will do my part, and I shall make it my habit to encourage others to do their part.
It begins with silly composite photos, and then it escalates: push polls, demonstrations against you, letters to the editor, rumors, people who supposedly knew you long ago and know things about you, anti-Hillary flyer floods at your campaign events, and a whole lot more. Karl Rove and, before him, Hamilton Jordon wrote the books on dirty tricks, but theirs were certainly not the definitive treatises. To the Right, you can be painted as a raving Leftist-liberal; to the Left, you can be painted as a Right-wing, turncoat shill; to the Center, you are the weather vane swinging with whatever political breeze brings you another campaign contribution and a moment's cheer from a bunch of check-writers.
We don't have to have that ugly, destructive, internecine war. We could, instead, try with all our hearts, legwork, minds, money, and dedication to bring to an end the degraded world the neo-conservatives have visited upon the opus to this melancholy age. However, if you would prefer to decline the invitation to repudiate right away the politics of denigrating your fellow party members, then let's get the war on. The sooner the better. That way, we can all dispense with the excitement borne of hope that we could defeat whatever miserable heir to George W. Bush the Republicans spew forth in 2008.
Rest assured, Senator Clinton, I'll be in the fight, whichever way you choose to run.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.
Published 6/25/2006 12:50:00 AM
<< 41 Comments Total
Good evening Dark Wraith:
Again, excellent writing. I have noticed an improvement in my own attempts since becoming a regular visitor and commenter. Merely trying to ascend to the levels established. I recall the last gubernatorial race in California. The primary to that race was marred by a strange tactic coming from the campaign of the Democratic encumbant and party consensus nominee, Gray Davis. During the Republican primary the Committee to Re-elect Davis mounted a vicious negative campaign targeting the Republican Mayor of Los Angeles, Richard Riordan. The attacks were well put together, all the documentation about who was putting them out was given. The strategic motive behind the tactic was to either weaken the Republican front runner enough that come November he would be an easier opponent or, the best case scenario and the one that played out, help nominate the less well known, less experienced, and eventual loser to Mr. Davis, Bill Simon. Nobody could remember anything like this ever being done before. It worked like a charm, Gray Davis was re-elected by a big margin. There were many things that contributed to the recall, but a big part of it was the Republican feeling that they had been brutally outgamed. They hate losing, but to get out played like that was more than they could stand. Almost before taking the second term oath there was a recall effort in the works. The funds were being raised. Another factor in the ensuing debacle which gave California another empty suit movie star playing governor was that the public was thouroghly disgusted with the way Mr. Davis conducted himself and his campaign. Then, as Enron (anyone else smell rats with red ties?) looted and scammed the state's economy, state employee unions called in their markers along with the gaming tribes that had helped finance the campaign. The blowback was intense. The whole thing came crashing down around their very clever heads. The wages of sin and all that....I only mention this to wonder, has anyone checked the legitimacy of the "HilaryNow.com" people? The short term effectiveness of the tactic in getting their candidate elected is something that a weasel like Rove would certainly employ. The initial damage is intense for both the target and any bystanders. Just wondering is all....
I have given up the tin foil hat fashion, it's not that becoming on me and the foil has the habit of intensifying the consipiracy radio waves rather than protecting anything.
yeeesh, bragging about how much better i'm doing and then finding all these spelling errors and shit on the first read through...ah well, i am improving in truth, and even beginning to develop and small shred of shame at my more basic errors incumbent, incumbent, incumbent, incumbent
i will now finish that on the chalkboard, as soon as i am done with my 100 times goldfish do not bounce
The tangled Orwelian web that is woven throughout the political world makes the head spin.
Who is smearing who? Are the rethugs trying to call out the left dogs against the center Dems (rethug-lite)by making it appear as if the Centrists are after the further left? Will we be like Iraq and be manipulated into tribal sectarian fighting of each other, bloodying, and weakening each other and alienating the bystanders leaving the Big Prize for the vultures to snatch up?
Are the centrist Dems more likely to hold camp with the Rethugs to isolate the left who want real social change?
Is Hillary doing a "compassionate conservative" routine a la Bush, only to morph upon election into a firebreathing socialist?
For those of us who like such mind-boggling intrigue and mystery this is the stuff of great historical writing. For the common Jane and Joe this kind of stuff makes them turn the television up and vote for their single issue candidates.
Good afternoon, Peonista. Welcome.
I hear you about the bizarre, tangled Web of this kind of politics. It's not new, of course, but that fact makes it no less vexing. So-called "psyops" aren't just for the military.
That's what makes it so important for Senator Clinton to publicly, consistently, and firmly condemn the tactics: if it really is a Republican ploy, she needs to call it out right away.
I should also point out that counter-intelligence is critical, as well. It's not enough to just stand flat-footed as dirty tricks swirl around. A candidate needs to send his or her own people into the field to find out who's pulling what stunts. In my experience, a good political spy can get people to talk pretty quickly. If Republicans are demonstrating against a Democrat by pretending to be Democrats, themselves, it's usually pretty easy to get the trouble-makers to start talking if they think you're one of theirs. They feel important doing the dirty work they're doing, so they'll open their chops and start bragging if they think someone important who approves of their work wants to chat.
That's not always true: some agents provocateur are pros. I specifically recall that, during the Kent State demonstrations the led to the murders of the students in 1970, the Ohio Highway Patrol had its undercover cops taking commanding leads to bring the protests to violence. Those cats were no amateurs, and they wouldn't have been easy to trick into tipping their hands as to who they really were and what they were up to. One of my professors from years ago who was there in the days leading up to the shootings says he went after two of the undercovers who were trying to peel off a group of real students and incite them to violence. He found out very quickly that they weren't going to let him try to talk down the real students who were getting really riled up in the bravado and rhetoric of the agents. The agents turned their violent exhortations on him, screaming at the kids to pummel him because it was obvious that he was the one who was some agent of the school administration who was trying to disabuse students of exercising their God-given right to be violently enraged.
Sheer madness: that's what it is, Peonista.
I have a really bad feeling that the Presidential campaign in 2008 is going to degenerate very quickly into a black chasm, and some of the players are going to be pros on a level that average political activists have no idea even exists.
Oh well. I guess I didn't want to live forever anyway.
The Dark Wraith has a feeling there's going to be some serious money to be made in the coming couple of years.
Afternoon DW,
Having been away for awhile, thought this Sunday afternoon would be a nice time to catch up on my reading.
Needed much more than my reading glasses and bp medication!
A post was eliminated??? !!!
WTF ok, I subscribe to venting at the Sex Gods!
Your graphic for our fallen was beautiful as was the post. You mentioned future memorials and it brought to mind all the acrimony surrounding Maya Lin's creation. I remember hoping hers would be chosen without ever realizing the true impact it would have.
I know of a couple whose names were never added but were just as surely a casualty after the war.
And on to Hilary. Oi vay! What to do about her. At one point I figured, well if she gets the nomination guess I'll vote for her. And telling how a few months back she decided how important it was to prove to the masses just how Christian she is. Now Park Ridge where she grew up has always had money, but I'm sure they went to church for the looks just like the moneyed folks in Hyde Park,Il.
Having grown up in Austin in the 60's, believe me we kids knew which neighborhoods had the cash. They never locked their doors. We probably did not have to but did anyway. It cost too much to replace.
So is she cavorting w/the devil now? Or is the devil cagily hedging his bets?
Good afternoon, elf.
To your two-part question, "[I]s she cavorting w/the devil now? Or is the devil cagily hedging his bets?" it seems to me that the answer is clearly, "Yes."
The Dark Wraith is always troubled by multiple-choice questions where all the answers are right.
Good afternoon, Minstrel Boy.
Yes, I too have noticed an improvement in your writing, but this is part of a broader phenomenon I am observing in the Blogosphere. Several years ago—and speaking here from the perspective of having been an English teacher who emphasizes grammar skills—I lamented the level of skill evident in many posts, even though I have always been keenly aware of the maddening challenge presented by being one's own copy editor. (I read my articles at least three times before publishing them, and I still find appalling errors in review after they've gone up.)
However, in the past several months especially, I have seen remarkably better writing, not just with long-time bloggers, but with some of the newer entrants. This is primarily a community effect: compositional skills are improving because people read each other's works and move toward the higher standards. I saw this same thing happen in composition classes where students had to read one another's essays. It was amazing to me then, and it remains for me a source of delight.
And not only am I seeing improvements in technical skills, but I am also seeing a striking rise in rhetorical skills. The overuse of obscenities and vulgarities is most decidedly on the wane, as are the unfocused, difficult-to-grasp essays that seem to have fury but no focused point. Far more importantly, though, I am seeing the rhetorical device of invention becoming more evident. That's very cool.
The Dark Wraith sometimes thinks there might yet be hope for this world.
Good Afternoon Dark Wraith:
Thank you for your kind words. I have also noticed the same trends. Not that I am any kind of language prude, I was a sailor and can truly curse like one and do on occaision. There are also times when the only word that will accurately reflect my mood and feeling is from the vulgate. At first as the Internet was taking hold, I was worried that style and grammar would disappear in a storm of email and chatroom abbreviations, but now, with blogging on the rise, it appears that people are trying to improve their style in order to make their meaning more clear and easily grasped. I thank you again for your kind encouragement.
Back to the topic: If I was casting a production of MacBeth tomorrow, using people from the political sphere Hilary would be the first choice for Lady MacBeth. Condi is a close second but Hilary has that ruthless but casual viciousness one can only find in the better ivy league women's colleges.
I wonder if Hillary would become a Margaret Thatcher-like creature, werre she elected.
Cripe, Anonymous, there's a grim scenario.
Hillary Clinton: Margaret Thatcher with less class and no taste in clothing.
The Dark Wraith does think iron is sometimes preferable to brass, at least in battle.
I do not count myself much of a writer, but I can read and write. I found awhile back when I was playing and enjoying golf that I would consistently have a better game when I was playing with better golfers. It seemed to make you try a little harder. When I played with hacks, my score went up. So I agree with Minstrel Boy, the company you keep tends to define who you are, and what you can become.
Good afternoon Dark Wraith:
I have been watching your site for some time now and thought it was time to leave some thoughts.
The ironic question, "Is the devil cagily hedging his bets?", leads me inevitably to a more twisted one: Do the Republicans want her to win? The craft of blaming the enemy for one's own mistakes is all too pervasive in Washington today. From the perspective of the RNC, throwing one election might seem a small price in order to forever bury a party and what passes for liberalism under the garbage left over from eight long years of misrule.
Think about it: would you want to inherit staggering deficits, an economy about to collapse, and an interminable quagmire?
Blackdog, The thought of inheriting the mess the "haters of government" have made of the government is frightening. Who would want such a job? And won't the Democrates be blamed for presiding over the demise of the empire? At least when the Republicans "govern" they do not have to worry about the Democrats trying to sabotage them. If a Democrat, or god forbid a liberal, gets bumped into the drivers seat the Rethugs will do anything they can to make them look bad.
The constant dirty tricks along with the mess inherited from this administrations incompetent rule will be quite the challange.
The only way anyone from the Left could successful govern is if these crooks are held accountable for their crimes and are cooling their heels in a cushy prison somewhere with Delay and Ken Lay.
Don't hold your breath for that.
I guess that was Thunderkind's comment, sorry. Working in the garden has addled my brain. Something about all the coherence, beauty, and logic of gardening clashes with thoughts of the current state of "government" and visions of the future.
Good morning Dark Wraith. A brilliant post, as always.
There are a whole lot of reasons why I'd rather see Porky Pig become president before Hillary Clinton, and you've managed to hit on several of those. I know in my guts that she's the person the Republicans want to run against. Even if she wins, they will too. I have never seen such a disgusting example of "politics as usual" in my life; certainly not from somebody who claims to be a Democrat. I don't count Joe Lieberman as a Dem, by the way.
Never understood why Hillary wants the White House when she could be Queen of the Senate in a few years. Do the Democrats a lot of good there, and allow a less-divisive figure (e.g., Edwards) to be the healing president we all need.
Hillary is a turncoat, or a very naive politician...As you point out, my friend. Murdoch is lapping her up with every straddle. Hillary, will not get my vote for the Democratic nomination. Best hope for a dark horse to sprint to the forefront or we are in for a world of hurt in the form of a Republican candidate that will soundly defeat the Lady MacBeth...
Good Morning Dark Wraith--Great post, again.
There are a couple of items that I'm concerned regarding Hillary Clinton. The first is obviously her centrist viewpoints on the issues and problems that the United States faces today. I'm not sure if these centrist views are based on her political beliefs and ideology, or if they have been carefully crafted by Democratic strategists and consultants for an eventual 2008 presidential run. I'll accept and applaud her centrist views if they are based on her own beliefs and ideology. But if she's crafting these views for her presidential political ambition, then she's heading towards a political disaster that the Democratic Party, and this country, can ill afford. Hillary Clinton is a controversial figure. Her name evokes images of Bill Clinton's administration--especially regarding the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hillary Clinton is still demonized by the extreme right-wing of the Republican Party. In fact, she is the Republican Party's equivelant of a political wet dream. If Clinton takes the 2008 Democratic nomination, then you can bet that the Republicans will pull every Swift-Boat tactic, every right wing-nut insult, and every scandal from Bill Clinton's administration and try to blame it on her. Hillary Clinton may try to play the centrist role here as a means of courting centrist and moderate Republican votes, but I don't believe that moderate Republicans or centrists would accept her as president. And the more she plays the centrist card, the more she alienates the liberal and progressive wings of the Democratic Party.
The second problem I have with Clinton is her powerful name-recognition and obvious front-runner status for the Democratic Party. I fear that this type of political name-recognition is not only going to her head, but also to her Democratic senatorial staff, who are dreaming of White House plums dancing within their heads. Don't you think that the Republicans already know that she is the front-runner, and are willing to goad her into running as the Democratic nominee so that they can Swift-Boat her as being an extremist liberal--the Clinton Criminal Crime Syndicate is back! Minstrel Boy is certainly right where the Republicans are taking a page from Gray Davis' strategy guide in pushing your opposition party's more extreme candidate to capture the nomination over that of a stronger candidate that could politically beat your guy. Do you really expect me to believe that Faux News owner Rupert Murdoch is supporting Hillary Clinton because he believes in Clinton's views? I'll bet that if Bill Frist, Jeb Bush, or even Mitch Romney were to take the Republican nomination, that Murdoch would happily dump Hillary for these guys. So I fear that hubris is going to her head, and that is dangerous.
If Hillary is the candidate, I suspect that one of the first things that will be resurrected to discredit her is
"Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" was a phrase used by Hillary Clinton in 1998 during an interview on NBC's The Today Show to characterize the perceived collaboration of her husband's political enemies in a conspiracy theory.
...to the Center, you are the weather vane swinging with whatever political breeze...
Good afternoon Mr. Wraith,
Blowing in the wind, eh? With all due respect, if she were, poor old Bill would have never been impeached.
Now, now, Mr. Goat.
Let us be charitable. Her husband could very well be one of those cads who gets a great meal at home but still occasions the all-nite diner for some cheap, greasy Blue (dress) Plate Special.
The Dark Wraith definitely sees this thread turning ugly if he doesn't turn it around right now.
Good evening, Peter of Lone Tree.
I think the "vast Right-wing conspiracy" line could cut both ways: if the Right-wingers bring it up, that could be the opening to a barrage of return fire about Melton Scaife and his ilk, a whole can of worms that was never openly and honestly discussed by the mainstream media at the time it was happening.
You are correct, though, in that they will probably bring it up, and they'll bring up other stuff, too, like the whole Whitewater mess and her stint in futures trading. This will have a cumulative effect upon her credibility and thus upon her viability.
That is not to say that most of the potential Republican candidates don't have their skeletons. Even Rudy Giuliani has blood on his hands. I could see the alleged "It's Giuliani time!" comment coming back to haunt him. Jeb Bush has powerful negatives on his head; and even John McCain, who has worked so hard to pose as the "maverick," is vulnerable on several fronts, most importantly on just that picture of him virtually mounting George W. Bush, thereby attaching himself to what could be an out-going President as popular as a skunk in a two-car garage with six poker players.
Returning to the matter of Hillary, she's going to have some problems to overcome, but I strongly suspect she's going to have people go on the attack with appalling ferocity in her defense. I'm already seeing a little bit of that, but it's not out in the open yet.
What I'll be curious about is the extent to which those in Blogosphere Left who support her now will continue to do so in the dignified way they presently are, and the extent to which some of them will become frustrated by what will be a pretty strong tide against her among fellow bloggers.
It seems to me that this could be another fracture point that will further divide the community of progressive bloggers. The political undertow in the current "blogwars" dust-up are just palpable to me, but that nastiness is a shattering of the Left more than it is the Center-Left or the Center. A dust-up over Hillary Clinton would break across ideological lines, and that's not such a good thing, at least in the short run, although it could be hugely beneficial in the longer run.
I'm not sure I want to get involved in the coming skirmishes, but I have a feeling there won't be too many places to hide.
Except, that is, in obscurity, a place in which I am quite suited to reside.
The Dark Wraith keeps the profile low.
Good evening, Eric Hopp.
Something that's been bothering me a lot lately is coming to the surface in the potential candidacy of Hillary Clinton: it's the idea she and others like her craft that they constitute a political Center. Let me explain.
A politician like Hillary Clinton takes obviously liberal stands on some issues, and she blends them with what she perceives are populist stands to the Right on other issues. Now, quite honestly, the number of issues on which she falls to the Right is not that large, but she aims at the hot-button issues that have high profile; but the deeper issue is the belief she and other Democratic Leadership Council members take that, if they stand to the Left on some issues and to the Right on other issues, that means they're in the Center politically.
I want to make a concerted effort over the coming months to disabuse thinking people of that notion.
Centrism—at least, as I define it—is not an opportunistic balancing act of Right and Left positions. Centrism is something entirely and altogether different: it arises from a core of convictions expressed in a code of conduct, with the core driven by a humane world view that holds politics in high regard as a potential force of enormous, perhaps pre-eminent, power to ensure that people live their lives with dignity and have every possible opportunity to realize their full potential. It sees the world as a magnificent and dangerous place requiring great, sustained, and masterful statecraft, much of it done not in front of cameras and fawning political supporters, but rather in quiet councils where the people have the right to look, but really don't need to look because they understand the importance of dignity in diplomacy and even stealth in vigilant prosecution of our enemies.
I shall soon write at length about my vision of the Centrist politician, clarifying and expanding upon what I wrote above; but for now, suffice it to say that when politicians, Republican or Democrat, fashion themselves as Centrists on the fulcrum balancing a cafeteria selection of positions on the Right and the Left in some wholly worthless mix of convictions and opportunism, I am entirely unconvinced that they have any clue as to what real stewardship is all about.
It seems to me, Eric, that many who have become defined as "Right-wingers" or "Leftists" have allowed for this because the Center does appear to be nothing but a cobble of views from both sides of the aisle. That leads to a radicalism unnecessary were people to hear that a wholly different approach does not pick and choose on fleeting polls, but rather on enduring beliefs.
That sounds rather idealized, doesn't it? As a matter of fact, in a tentative layout of this idea of Centrism I fielded several months ago in comments at another blog, I got a fire-breathing extremist from the Left who bawled almost menacingly about how proud he was of his label. He missed my point entirely; but curiously, he proved my point nicely.
The Dark Wraith will be a little more careful, however, from now on regarding where he holds up a banner that can get shot full of holes rather summarily.
Good evening, thepoetryman.
I've thought about your characterization of Hillary Clinton as a latter-day Lady Macbeth, and the more I think about it, the more I see a degree of analogy.
The difference is still obvious, though: Shakespearean characters definitely had better wardrobe designers.
The problem I'm having now is constellating various politicians with their Shakespearean counterparts. All I've come up with so far is Ross Perot reminding me of a stupid version of Puck.
The Dark Wraith will have to think about this matter further.
Good evening, Ralph Hitchens.
That's a very good point you've made: the power of the President of the Senate is extraordinary: in some ways, it exceeds that of the President, although the public glory isn't as great. That, of course, could be why she doesn't want the most powerful role the Senate could afford.
Still, it seems odd in a way, considering the President of the Senate is just two hearbeats away from the Presidency. Then again, we seem to have a fairly healthy, relatively young field of candidates going for the party nominations in 2008. I don't see any obvious candidates for untimely death.
On the other hand, I'll bet someone made a similar observation when the Vatican issued the white smoke signaling the choice of Pope John Paul I, too.
That young fellow's tenure on this good Earth didn't last long thereafter.
The Dark Wraith will let that matter now drop, given that he's a Freemason and doesn't want the conspiracy theory crowd going off on a tangent about that whole deal without a big jug of wine as a chaser while reading the comments.
Good evening, Karen M.
With regard to Senator Lieberman, his threats to go Independent seem to indicate that his interest in remaining a "Democrat" is not so strong anymore, either.
What simply stuns me is that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is saying that, even if he has to run as an Independent, it might support his candidacy. Good Lord, that's like having the Pentagon declare that it might still support Benedict Arnold just because he looks spiffy in a Federal uniform.
Gracious. It makes me wonder if the Democrats are really that hard up. It also makes me want to launch into a rant about how the Democratic Party seems to go out of its way not to cultivate strong politicians, especially women and minorities. It drives me bonkers knowing that there are some really bright, ambitious, deserving people out there who desperately need the hard-core, sustained, committed backing of their national party, and they're just not getting it. The result is that we get only a few nationally prominent, prospective leaders from the ranks of people who are non-male and non-White, and the ones we get rise on the wings that will eventually flame them out.
Perhaps I'm overstating the problem, but I don't think so. The old boys' club still looks to me to be in full gear lo these many years after we were supposed to have shaken off that unproductive way of bringing forth new leaders for future political campaigns.
This is a subject I've wanted to get into for some time, now, but I'm almost reticent to do so, and I think my gut sense is right: it's probably best not to open that can of worms just yet; but the time is coming when we'll have to face the fact that the Democratic Party has something of a problem with inclusiveness when the inclusiveness includes cultivating good, honest, strong, forthright, progressive national leaders who are women and/or minorities.
The Dark Wraith will, however, leave that rant for another day (or century, maybe).
Good evening, Thunderkind, and welcome to The Dark Wraith Forums.
The political gamesmanship has gotten to the point where there are even some voices within the ranks of the Democratic Party who say the Dems should throw the election in 2008 just to force the Republicans to have to wallow in the catastrophic nightmare they've created.
I wish I could say that I'm completely and adamantly opposed to that way of thinking, but God! would I dearly love to see the GOP have to stand in its own dog crap through the beginning of the second decade of this Century. I know for a pretty much certain fact that the federal government is going to have some unbelievably difficult budgetary problems to deal with starting in just a couple of years. I'm not sure even how I would recommend handling them. Were I an adviser to the next President, I might even suggest suicide. At least that would take everyone's mind off the looming economic catastrophes long enough for me to make my exit while everyone was busy going to see the President lie in state in the Capitol Rotunda.
Being a U.S. President's economic adviser is a somewhat thankless job, anyway. And if that's going to be one of those Jobs from Hell come 2009 or 2010, it would have to be a lot worse for whoever is President.
Maybe the Democrats really do plan to throw the 2008 Presidential election. I guess that could lead to some really interesting campaign commercials the Democrats could run:
Hi, I'm the Democratic nominee for President. If you vote for me, then you're stupid, 'cuz I totally suck... And if that doesn't make you vote for the Republican, consider this: if I'm elected, I'll kill myself, 'cuz I don't wanna have to deal with the mess George W. Bush is leaving behind. I'm not stupid, but you are: first, you put that lying, incompetent fool into the White House not once, but twice; and second, you're thinking of voting for me and, like I said, I totally suck.
I'm your Democratic nominee for President, and I approved this message.
The Dark Wraith definitely needs to start marketing his political consulting services.
"The problem I'm having now is constellating various politicians with their Shakespearean counterparts. All I've come up with so far is Ross Perot reminding me of a stupid version of Puck." -- DW
How 'bout Bush # 1 as "King Lear", when Lear utters the line:
"How sharper than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child".
Oh, come on now, don't be hating on Ross Perot.
I have to thank him for getting me interested in politics, in fact, probably in what was happening in the world.
I volunteered some time to work in the local elect Perot for president office, and that led me to volunteer to work at one of the polling places on voting day.
Those were some interesting and exciting times! I learned a lot!
Dark Wraith: You should package your views on centrism and send them out to every member of Congress--both Democrats and Republicans. That has got to be the best definition I've seen on centrism and centrist politics.
Unfortunately, centrism has evolved into an opposite approach, where politicians take the balancing of Left and Right positions to create a muddy middle that they can use for political gain. Centrism is used if it is the only politically viable opportunity left for that issue. And even this muddy middle ground is dwindling due to the extreme political polarization between the Left and the Right. For you can bet that when one polarized side finds an opportunity to ditch the centrist viewpoint for the imposition of their own radical ideal, out goes centrism.
I think you can trace the demise of centrism to political factors. The first is the Religious Right's takeover of the Republican Party platform. By hijacking the Republican Party, the Religious Right was able to impose their own brand of extremist, religious ideology upon the Party. After that, the Republican Party imposed "litmus tests" on such social issues as abortion, school prayer, creationism, gay marriage, and such. If you wanted to move up the ranks of the Republican leadership, you had to pass these litmus tests. This caused the second factor to occur--the purging of moderate conservatives from the Republican Party leadership positions, either through forced retirements or political defeats. One moderate Republican that I certainly remember was Senator Bob Dole of Kansas. He retired from the Senate, in 1996, to run for president against Bill Clinton, and lost. Who got Dole's Senate seat? Sheila Frahm was appointed to Dole's Senate seat by Governor Bill Graves, but then lost the seat in the 1996 Republican primary to ubber-conservative Sam Brownback.
The problem with centrism in the Republican Party is that there is no place in the Party for dissent or debate. If you want to currently move up the Party ranks, you have to toe the Religious Right's ideological line. There is no way for the moderates or centrists to move up the ranks, or even become senators or representatives, where they could use their centrist and moderate beliefs for the betterment of the whole country. The Democratic Party still allows for some dissention and debate between the extreme left and moderate wings of the party, thus allowing for moderates to move up the Democratic Party ranks. In the end, you have a skewered political system where the Republicans refuse to allow any such compromise or centrist views, thus forcing the Democrats to compromise on Republican terms and shifting the country further rightward.
I played Puck in college and let me tell ya, Perot ain't got the stamina for it! He also hasn't a whiff of fairy dust in his cheap bowl of business tricks that would get me to vote for him, unless of course he was sure to defeat Bush II!
Oh! A Midsummer Night's Dream indeed!
It is Hamlet and only Hamlet that is fitting of this regime.
The king (Hamlet's ghost) is, of course, Bush the first.
Hamlet is, without a doubt, Bill Clinton!
Hillary isn't even in the play.
Lewinski takes her own life and her talk show circuit is over!
Gore is the only character that survives. His character isn't fully developed yet and he'll rear his ECO-head in seventh act. (Tis a long drama.)
The MSM are the performance troupe and their pandering gets them flogged... and then beheaded.
George the second is Claudius and Condi is his queen, and this is where my particular version of Hamlet goes far astray of the original... :>)
At the opening of the play there are six bodies hanging from gallows behind the action from lights up to the bloody end! They are Coulter, Malkin, Rush, O'Reilly, Gibson, and some unlucky fella by the name of Rove. The hanging bodies are a center piece of the thematic elements that color the entire play; don't fuck with the constitution of Denmark! Still working out the name of the state from which all the blood and chaos spills, but rest assured it will be catchy! Maybe I could get some help by channeling Aaron Spelling? (Iraq90210Angeles?)
Anyway, Carville is the grave digger! My personal favorite loon! :>)
Howard Dean is Laertes. Odd choice, maybe, but hell I'm working off the cuff here!
George Stephanopolus is Rosencrantz AND Guildenstern! (I love multiple character plays!)
Obama is a spirit that never quite materializes. He hovers about the stage in a rather bizarre fashion and is never regarded as a threat. He will, from his development on my play here, be the main character in my next venture based on Shepard's play "Buried Child" set in Iran...
Anywho, the plot thickens with the introduction of Kenneth the Prosecutor and the story begins to pick up some real steam! Hoooooo Weeeeeee! Then everyone dies in a fastpaced breakneck speed of a bloodbath... The end.
I hope you enjoyed the play. Please come see my next play Bombed Child.
poetryman,
BRAVO (applause applause)!!!
just had to do it
I learned quite a bit about Hillary at a speech she gave in Chandler, Arizona, in 2004. It was a party fundraiser, and full of Democratic activists. She was giving a pretty good speech, and all of a sudden started praising John McCain. Right there in the front of the room were some tables where all of our candidates who were present were seated, including Stu Starkey, who was running against McCain. Now, it's true that everyone in the room, including Starkey, knew that McCain was going to win the Senate race by a huge margin (though to his credit, Starkey kept running until election day and denied McCain a prize that he desperately wanted, to carry the votes of registered Democrats). But to actually, in a room full of Democratic activists, endorse a Republican who is running against a Democrat who is sitting not much more than twenty feet away from you is unconscionable, and it left a bad taste in more mouths than just mine.
Unbelievable, Eli.
I cannot for the life of me figure out whether she would have done that out of sheer political hubris or utter cluelessness about the outrageousness of what she was saying.
It worries me greatly that she seems entirely unconcerned about how her current relationship with Murdoch is affecting how progressive bloggers view her.
Again, is she clueless or completely suffused of her own political immortality?
The Dark Wraith is more concerned about the possibility of the latter than the former.
Before you praise Al Gore on his recent backbone, I think it is important to remember who he was when he ran for president in 2000:
1. Opposed national health care
2. Supported the death penalty
3. Supported the Cuban embargo
4. Supported Iraq sanctions
5. Supported NAFTA
6. Opposed gay marriage
[link,link]
On the earlier topic of spelling and grammar, I must mention that language is commonly used as a means of subjugation. Those who have the most reason to be critical of society and politics are most often those who lack the proper language to be taken seriously. If someone grows up in a poor area, where the schools spend more money on security than textbooks, and as a result are completely unable to compete intellectually with rich prep-school kids from the suburbs, are their opinions more or less valid?
Good evening, Immoral Majority.
On the subject of Al Gore, my article praised Al Gore but made no mention of delight in his recent transfiguration. I specifically avoided that and even went to the extent of clearly criticizing his stance on global warming. My praise of Al Gore is the praise I give to those whose service to their country has been on the whole honorable, despite policy disputes I might have with them. Although shaken by what I saw in An Inconvenient Truth and by his recent behavior in Great Britain where he clearly crossed the line in very long-standing British custom that discourages foreign dignitaries from endorsing politicians, it remains my judgment that Al Gore is a man who would listen to reason, particularly on issues of social import. I am, however, bothered by the emergence of his strength now, although I honestly believe he has undergone a serious, personal transformation at some deep level. I hope only that it was not some "spiritual" transformation: those kinds of alterations lead inevitably to dangerous men, even where good men stood before. I don't think that is what has happened; instead, it is my judgment that Mr. Gore has, indeed, changed, and that he is in a process of becoming comfortable with himself in a new, far more mature phase of his life. That having been said, men who find fame and a strongly devoted following may easily fail to complete their personal, internal journey.
Al Gore has tremendous potential, but his future is fraught with peril. In contrast, a potential Democratic candidate like Wes Clark has far less potential, but the future of his political development is much less risky.
Honestly, I would not choose Al Gore as the standard bearer for the Democratic Party. Were he chosen against my advice and efforts on behalf of someone else, I would support his candidacy. I cannot say that I would do the same of Hillary Clinton: hers would be a candidacy tainted and a Presidency consumed by a transformation of her own more troubling than what is likely happening in Al Gore's political thinking.
That having been said, I have stated on numerous occasions that I make no apology for being conservative in my way of proceeding. Part of my conservatism is will to conserve progress, but I expect those who offer the means of progress to do so from the ground laid by personal strength of character, willingness to learn, and respect for prudence in both word and deed.
We ache as a nation for leadership like that. Hillary Clinton will not offer it. Al Gore has some chance of doing so. I sorely hope that a candidate emerges who can excite the hope of the Electorate, but can no less quell the beast of licentious radicalism, be it from the Right or the Left.
It is such a pity that we live in a time when obvious candidates of such calibre are so rare as to be be even non-existent in at least one of the major political parties in this nation.
The Dark Wraith considers that to be perhaps the greatest tragedy of our era.
Dark Wraith,
I would like to say that your comment (reply) to Immoral Majority was a post in and of itself! Very well written.
the time is coming when we'll have to face the fact that the Democratic Party has something of a problem with inclusiveness when the inclusiveness includes cultivating good, honest, strong, forthright, progressive national leaders who are women and/or minorities.
Good afternoon, Dark Wraith,
I don't know that it's just women and minorities,(Ned Lamont is a self made rich white man) it seeems more to me that any newcomer to the Democratic Party, no matter the caliber, is ignored or actively campaigned against. If the new, fired-up, populist Dems are elected, they will take the reins of the party from the old, used-up, take everything- just- leave- me- my- job dems. The old guard is Afraid, and rightly so. Didn't Newt become speaker - what, in one election cycle?
Hillary Clinton: hers would be a candidacy tainted and a Presidency consumed by a transformation of her own more troubling than what is likely happening in Al Gore's political thinking.
If she wins the candidacy, I think it might be time to flee the country. She can't win. I've been reading alot lately about the time period between 1900 and 1945, and the rise of facism, since that's what we're seeing take hold here at home. I see so many correlations in what's going on here on a daily basis. It's certainly frightening, and saddening.
It worries me greatly that she seems entirely unconcerned about how her current relationship with Murdoch is affecting how progressive bloggers view her.
Actually, it's worse than that.
She is worried about it, but her solution is so typically out of touch. The other day, she hired Peter Daou, who directed blog outreach and online rapid response for Senator John Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004 (yeah, that was a smashing success, wasn't it?), to do the same thing for her.
Institutional control from the top down. Isn't that the opposite of the basic philosophy of blogging? So she hires the same guy who couldn't figure that out two years ago to 'fix' her blog problems for her.
You're right, Wraith.
U-N-B-E-L-I-E-V-A-B-L-E.
On the topic of Al Gore, he won't run for a very specific reason. The reason is that 2008 doesn't have the ingredients for his strongest asset, which is vision. Consider that in the 1980's, he pushed for and got some of the legislation that laid the legal and technological groundwork for an 'information superhighway' (to use the term he used back then) that he and a few others envisioned that would allow computers anywhere in the world to communicate with each other through a central 'trunk.' The form was eventually different, but as Vice President in 1993 he used what limited political capital he had to get a small tax put onto phone bills, which was used to actually pay for the construction of the modern internet. Then, when he was running for President, he had a vision of the future that included universal health coverage, the development of cleaner and more efficient fuel technologies and using any of the surplus was not used to help with healthcare to pay down the debt. He also proposed preserving Social Security by putting it in what he termed a 'lockbox,' which if done at the time would have allowed the Social Security administration to oversee those funds while Congress would no longer be able to raid the fund and set the interest rate they paid it back at artificially low.
In 2000, the President came in with a clean plate and record surplus, and all the ingredients were there for a man of Gore's vision to achieve great things. Even in the context of 9/11, we can assume (based on what he said in 2002 when our focus shifted from Afghanistan from Iraq) that he would have pursued bin Laden with vigor (and made it a higher priority than Bush has, for that matter), but not started a war with Iraq which has largely prevented us from doing a lot of other things.
In 2008, the job description is much more like 'garbageman,' as the incoming occupant of the White House will have as the top item on their agenda how to extracate ourselves from Iraq, and will also have to deal with record deficits, a world where American prestige has grown much tarnished and our military is no longer feared and respected as it once was, changes in tax rates, medicare and government programs that by design last past the end of the Bush administration and essentially will tie the next President into either continuing what we have now, or making 'sweeping changes' just to return things to the way they were (with the damage still done in the meantime.) For Gore, it would be a double whammy, picking up the shattered pieces of what might have been and try to fit together something 'adequate' (because nothing more than that would be realistic) after the bull has left the china shop. Much better we have someone with a liberal disposition but a more myopic mind, who won't be distracted by that other highway, the turnoff to which we passed but didn't take awhile back, leading off in the distance towards the good land.
Good afternoon, Eli Blake.
Your assessments are on the mark.
Regarding Hillary Clinton hiring Peter Daou, I swear I just shook my head when I read that news. In fact, though, I wouldn't have expected anything other than some top dog of the Internets to be the one to whom she turned. She just doesn't get it; but fortunately, neither do most of the candidates. That's why, whichever way the progressive Blogosphere tends to swing in 2008, it's going to be a blindside to most of the major candidates, who still seem to think the Internet is pretty much just a place where they can send e-mails asking for donations.
Interestingly, this discussion intersects the thinking I've been doing about how I'm going to use my Truth2008.com/.org site. I would be surprised if any of the candidates would ever even bother to go there, which is why, if I configure its content and purpose properly, the site could be such a powerful tool.
As a sidelight to this whole Internet issue, one thing that amazes me is how it's not just the candidates who are completely clueless: several of the A-list bloggers who have deigned to address me directly have simply stunned me with their ignorance, even as they are out there selling themselves as "online" experts. What's even worse is that they honestly don't know how stupid they are: they really, really think they're experts. And it's those kinds of high-profile bloggers who are the people to whom the candidates will turn for help in the 2008 Presidential race.
Gawd.
You are right about Al Gore and the birth of the modern Internet, but he had the vision even before he was the Vice President. He was laying the enabling foundation in the U.S. Senate, and then he used the strength of his office as Vice President to move the funds into place. The point there is that his was an effort that spanned several years and included building both the legislative container and then the money to put into that container.
That, by the way, is one of the issues that just irritates me to no end with these telecoms now saying that it's their "pipes" when it most decidedly is not "their" pipes. Quite aside from the entire issues of public goods and common carriers, the telecom spokesgluttons are claiming as their own what is actually infrastructure and intellectual property of the people as a whole: that infrastructure and intellectual property long preceded the very existence of the modern telecoms as corporate entities. And if we want to get technical about it, I was around in the days of ARPANET, so I don't have any use at all for the telecom thieves claiming that anything about this era is somehow a thing cut out of the whole cloth of their ill-gotten investments.
And finally, it's funny you should mention visionary versus garbage man. Honestly, Eli, I would get down on my knees to thank the Lord God if we could have a decent garbage man. I've had enough of visionaries for a while. Clinton was not a visionary: his people were intellectual technocrats; and although some progressives are not thrilled with the Clinton Administration, by God, Eli, our fiscal house was in order, we were in and then out of military operations, and we had a decent shot at the 21st Century.
These visionaries like the neo-conservatives can kiss my backside.
That's why I have my eye on both Feingold and Clark: although Feingold is now selling himself as something of a visionary, I've seen too much evidence that he has a good, old-fashioned technocratic side to his thinking. That quality, of course, is on large display in a former military man like Wes Clark, although I'm still deeply bothered by his long-standing refusal to condemn the School of the Americas. My particular concerns and praises aside, I do know we need vision in our leadership; but when I see all of the small federal programs that were doing wonders in small ways to make us less dependent on foreign imports of fossil fuels, and when I then see those programs simply wiped out by the "visionary" neo-cons who frame everything in terms of "only our friends the giant mega-corps can be the solution givers," I get very unhappy with visionary stuff.
I truly believe, Eli, that before we get to vision, we need to make sure the rats aren't overrunning the city because of the garbage piling up on every street corner.
Anyway, thank you for your always insightful contributions.
The Dark Wraith will now step away from his rant-podium for a while.
I agree with most of what you say, although in pointing out to me that Gore had been involved with it while he was in the Senate you appear to have missed my sentence that reads:
Consider that in the 1980's, he pushed for and got some of the legislation that laid the legal and technological groundwork for an 'information superhighway'
Oh, well, people skipping lines in my posts is the punishment for verbosity. I'm sure that you sometimes feel the same way.
You are correct that most bloggers are no expert on anything, although it is also true that some of the 'experts' you see on television are even less so, at least based on some of the stupid things I've heard them say.
As far as a garbageman, we have no choice, and neither will the next President. Maybe they can set the table for a visionary.
True visionaries (IMO) that we've had over the past 100 years: Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, that leaves over forty years since we've had anyone like that, and things have languished since then.
The 'failed' visionaries (who had a vision which turned out to be a mirage, or a true vision which was squandered): Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan.
Everyone else was a garbageman.