A (Potentially Premature) Defense of Clinton

-

hillary-clinton.jpg
Tonight is the first night I’ve been able to see any of the Democratic convention. First things first: I really didn’t like the video tribute to Hillary Clinton that was aired tonight. It was all about Hillary Clinton, the woman candidate — which does Hillary Clinton, the brilliant policymaker and effective advocate, a great disservice. With due respect to the filmmakers and those who were legitimately moved by it (there are surely many), if the video had a tagline, it might read, “pretty good, for a girl.” It’s at odds with my feminist instincts and doesn’t appeal as strongly as it could to my admiration for Senator Clinton.
I had two immediate reactions to Clinton’s speech. First, purely from the perspective of speechcraft and delivery, I’ve never seen her deliver a better one. Second, she said very few positive things about Barack Obama or his candidacy. She talked at great lengths about the need to support Obama given the state of the country, the challenges we face, the alternative of John McCain, and the importance of Democratic Party unity. But aside from one line of praise for the grassroots oriented, bottom-up nature of Obama’s campaign, she had precious little to say about the appeal of the candidate himself.
But let’s remember — Clinton said precious little about the rationale behind her own candidacy until sometime early this year. Indeed, a chief weakness of her campaign may have been that her rhetoric focused so much on policy battles and not enough (and not early enough) on why she was the most qualified of 300 million people to lead.
So no one should fault Clinton for failing to give Obama the plaudits that she never gave herself. Clinton is a Democratic partisan, for better or for worse. Her rhetoric has always been focused on winning political battles, not on the unique gifts of any individual political candidate. In that light, hers was a gracious and unifying speech — at least within the Democratic Party. It’s unfair to think, as I instinctively did, that she might talk at length Barack Obama or Joe Biden and their virtues. She’s not about to change her stripes. If there are others that had the same instinct, I hope they come around.
If any of this seems nonsensical, you can chalk it up to the first wave of law school homework. And by the way, at this moment, I’m easily more afraid of seeing my writing style deteriorate into legalese and lifeless drivel than I am of not making sense.
–Scott Paul
Note: Clinton’s call for unity on access to healthcare for everyone was important. Given her disagreements with Obama on that issue, standing with him on it now will give some very important constituencies a kind of symbolic permission to vote for him. That was both big and selfless.

Comments

71 comments on “A (Potentially Premature) Defense of Clinton

  1. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The Americans obviously didn`t get it, and voted for him again”
    I don’t think so. But Kenneth Blackwell ain’t talkin’.

    Reply

  2. MarkL says:

    Sweetness,
    I think the convention came off much better for Obama than the Dems than I anticipated.
    Obama’s speech last night was good.
    I’ve never been opposed to Obama because of Hillary, although I certainly found his campaign quite vicious; my problem has been that I found him lacking in experience and without a message I approved of.
    I’m feeling better about the second now.

    Reply

  3. Kathleen says:

    In picking a woman as a running mate,. McPain changed the P.R. game…WigWag, the majority of Americans don’t even vote at all, and of those who do, a small percentage have the time or inclination to be well informed… they basically watch t.v….so if your commercials are done right, you win…..
    many of Hillary’s supporters are men, so the probably don’t have a problem with the choice…one such comes to mind… the airport shuttle driver in Omaha Nebraska…he supported Hillary, his two brothers in Texas were voting for her in the primary that night and he was headed home to watch the results… an older, farermy kind of guy…he said he’d rather vote for a three legged dog than vote for John McCain……

    Reply

  4. Sweetness says:

    MarkL writes: “There is a real danger that the misogyny directed
    at Hillary by Obama supporters (and Obama media) during the
    primaries, if directed at Palin, will cause a backlash. Cheetopia
    already has an epidemic of such comments.
    I read that Palin has been the favorite pick at Redstate for
    months, so I think McCain has satisfied the base as well.”
    Not sure how this relates to what I wrote, or if it’s intended to.
    Certainly what I’m saying is not misogynistic–in fact, the
    opposite. Hillary is ASKING her voters to vote for Obama
    BECAUSE she and he are basically on the same page. Sarah Palin
    is most certainly not. If you’re putting up a cautionary note, I
    agree: No “iron my shirt.” I was offended by that myself, as I
    was by Schuster’s pimped up remark. But this Palin is ENTIRELY a
    political calculation to appeal to the base and to some peel-off
    PUMAs or Hillary supporters. All I’m saying is that the latter
    should not be fooled or let themselves be used–unless they dig
    McCain.
    But when McCain starts bombing Iran, or sending troops to
    Georgia, or we’re in Iraq for the next 50 years, as he seems
    inclined to do, we’ll all look back on this discussion with deep,
    deep regret.
    I say, voting for president is a very blunt tool for change. You
    get two choices. You don’t get to customize your choice. And
    you can’t control or predict in any real way how the person will
    act in office. So picking the lesser of two evils–if that’s how
    you see it–is completely rational and the only way to go, IMO.
    Again, Gore=No Iraq. Holding my nose and voting for Gore (had
    that been my attitude toward that election, which it wasn’t)
    would have been OVERWHELMINGLY WORTH IT. THINK OF ALL
    THE LIVES IT WOULD HAVE SAVED. Do you care more about lives
    being saved…or do you want that warm feeling in the stomach
    that says, “By god, I thought for myself.” I’ll vote for lives saved.

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    McCain’s choice of Palin shows contempt for women. McCain may think that women are stupid enough to vote for his ticket because it has a woman on it; but he’s wrong. Women are not stupid and women don’t want to be patronized. Anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is Hillary Clinton is an idiot.
    So there you have it ladies. The two party system, isn’t it grand! The Democrats rejected an incredibly commpetent and experienced woman for President and Vice President in large part because she is a woman. And the Republicans selected an inexperienced woman with few accomplishments to her name in large part because she is a woman.
    Hillary Clinton voters are not stupid enough to fall for this. In fact, it’s an insult.
    This election gets bleaker and bleaker!

    Reply

  6. Kathleen says:

    McPain did pick a woman… Gov. Sarah Palin….hmmmm…..Carrollllll…. Hmmmmmmm, Georgians in Denver… Cindy in Georgia….Welcome to Tweedledeedum or should I say Tweedledeedumistan?
    A funny thing happened on the way to the polls…I seem to have gone through the looking glass because everything looks ass-backwards to me…..
    I’ve alway been a sucker for the underdog, so I’m still sending money to Nader and McKinney…Right now, I’d just as soon have Cynthia McKinney be the first Black/Green Woman President….. that’s the whole loaf strategy….stone ground wheat for the fauxgressives…
    Speaking of Women’s rights and voting off the reservation,, Linda’s mention of Ellis Island reminded me of a 90+ woman I met while working on Gene McCarthy’s 1976 Write-In campaign… she was one of the original Suffragettes…at 14, Frances Gledhill protested on the steps of the US Senate, all by herself….later as a young reporter for a NYC paper, she wanted to interview Susan B. Anthony who was being held on Ellis Island and not being allowed to enter the U.S….her editor said No, so she rented a row boat, paddled out there, interviewed Anthony, took pictures and went to a competitor newspaper…the story ran… Anthony came into the U.S. later, Frances conceived of and started the Meals on Wheels program….but Frnces would be considered fringe, loonie leftie, for not getting with the program and voting D.
    Change doesn’t come from the the two major parties…if anything, they are the party of the conformists/centrists…it’s the people on the fringe, the avante guarde of ideas who provide the new ideas and do the groundbreaking… the d’s and r’s wait till something comes into vogue to rush in , say rah, rah, and then take the credit..
    Speaking of where progressives have coffee, last night I dreamt I went out for coffee… local not Starbucks coffee/diner..old time luncheonette. Bill Clinton walked in… I shook his hand and said “I’m sorry Hillary lost… I think she did a fabulous job”..He thanked me and went to sit in a booth in the middle of the room…I shouted to him across the room, so everyone heard me and said “I’m reeeeely sorry she wasn’t picked for Veep”… he looked up and our eyes met…then he went into to the kitchen to talk with the help… when he came out I told him I was a close friend of two people he knows well. he raised his eyebrows… I won’t mention the names, but Steve knows who I mean…I don’t actually know what the last bit means, but the rest of that dream is clear. he’s hearing from people in average coffee shops…and they’re seeing eye to eye….
    questions….thanxxx…we had a good laugh…
    to be cont….

    Reply

  7. MarkL says:

    Sweetness,
    There is a real danger that the misogyny directed at Hillary by Obama supporters (and Obama media) during the primaries, if directed at Palin, will cause a backlash. Cheetopia already has an epidemic of such comments.
    I read that Palin has been the favorite pick at Redstate for months, so I think McCain has satisfied the base as well.
    I didn’t watch Obama’s speech last night, but I have seen partial transcripts. It sounds like he has ditched the “hope and change” nonsense for an actual message. Good for him.

    Reply

  8. Sweetness says:

    It will be a sad day, indeed, if Hillary’s supporters ignore her
    eloquent urging to vote for Obama…and vote instead for a woman
    who shares NONE of Hillary’s convictions. How ironic?
    On another note…
    Unfortunately, Justin’s “reportage” on Georgia is just as one-sided s
    the people he’s criticizing. To be sure, the US must be held
    accountable–but so should Russia.

    Reply

  9. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Obama’s Cheney
    Is there a curse on the office of the Vice President?
    by Justin Raimondo
    The office of the Vice President has surely undergone a transformation in recent years: from Dan Quayle to Dick Cheney is a long way to travel. The role of the VP, with Cheney acting as the eminence grise of the Bush regime – and, some would say, the real President – has been amplified to the nth degree, and it looks like the administration of Barack Obama is going to continue this ominous tradition.
    Joe Biden on the ticket with Obama, as we said on Monday, is a big victory for the War Party, which will not, as a result, be shut out of power if the Democrats take the White House. Today Biden denounces the Iraq war in passionate language, and yet it seems like only yesterday that he bloviated on the need to invade with equal if not more passion. Indeed, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden prevented any and all antiwar voices from being given a podium at the Senate hearings.
    Aside from that, however, he was one of the earliest proponents of the “revanchist Russia” meme that glides merrily along on the strength of pure alliteration, and now has gained a lot of momentum since Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia was magically turned into Russia’s “invasion” of Georgia. He just couldn’t help himself, in his speech to the Democratic convention, in bringing up the alleged Russian “threat”:
    “For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.
    “In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.”
    Russia must be held “accountable” for defending the militarily helpless statelet of South Ossetia under attack from the US-armed –and-trained Georgian military – accountable for avenging a merciless assault on the Ossetian capital city of Tskinvali. Naturally, the U.S. is never to be held accountable for any of its actions anywhere. The U.S. government, you see, is not accountable, not even to its own citizens.
    continues at…
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13378

    Reply

  10. WigWag says:

    Sarah Palin, the Alaska Governor as McCain’ VEEP. That’s the speculation all over the internet!

    Reply

  11. Snowy says:

    The problem with the Georgia/Russia situation is that it is
    complex. It is most definitely true that the Georgians aren’t
    innocents, especially with respect to South Ossetia and
    Abkhazia. But neither are the Russians. On the other hand,
    Russia DID invade Georgia, not just South Ossetia, did bomb, did
    kill people etc. And Russia’s beef with Georgia didn’t start the
    other month. They’ve been pissed off at Georgia for breaking
    away for a long time, and it’s one of the causes of the conflict.
    Moreover, the Russians do have an imperial attitude toward the
    countries on its borders, has done a lot of nefarious stuff in the
    Baltics and has been carrying on a war with the Chechens.
    Denying this is equally ridiculous. I do agree, though, that
    Biden’s call for $1 billion for Georgia is over the top, unless we
    put some sort of handcuffs on them to keep them from poking
    the bear. We can’t allow Georgia to drag us into a new Cold War.

    Reply

  12. questions says:

    WigWag,
    Thanks for bringing up a real policy issue. It’s more complicated, though.
    The “marriage is between a man and a woman” crap has got to go. But the real issue is how do we get rid of it.
    Well, we can push across the country for courts to support gay marriage. But how many states now have constitutional provisions defining marriage as between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN? (I think it’s at least 20.)
    The push, then, has led to a pushback from the right, and even worse, this pushback has gotten a whole lot of Republicans to the polls. (That’s why there have been so many ballot initiatives — it’s GOTV.)
    So, if you’re a smart dem, you think to yourself, if I go for gay marriage, I’m going to cause a lot of ballot initiatives. If I go for domestic partnerships, WAIT, if I just say “hospital visits, hospital visits, hospital visits”, then I get a whole lot more support and less opposition. And note last night’s acceptance speech — Obama said something like, “At least we can all agree on hospital visits” — casting gays and lesbians as suffering human beings. Who could vote against them in this situation? Only the hardest and coldest of right wing ideologues. Not bad for positioning.
    Now, of course this middle ground position leads to current injustice. It also leads to longer term justice. So what do you do? Push for immediate rights that lead inevitably to constitutional changes that are inimical to human rights? And that are really hard to get rid of in ten or twenty years. Or go more slowly and let the country catch up?
    I think Obama is tactically correct, but I think the country is really sick on this issue.
    And remember your buddy Bill Clinton gave us Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — yet another bad compromise that many years later might finally not be necessary anymore.
    And you have cited a grand total of one lgbtq editor on the issue. I’m pretty dure there’s a diversity of opinion on this.

    Reply

  13. Paul Norheim says:

    Carroll,
    and now EU is threatening Russia with sanctions… It`s indeed
    very depressing. I`m just saying: don`t vote for McCain to give
    your fellow Americans a “shock treatment”.
    Then again, I actually don`t think you`ll do that.

    Reply

  14. Carroll says:

    Biden turned Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia into Russia’s “invasion” of Georgia. He just couldn’t help himself, in his speech to the Democratic convention, in bringing up the alleged Russian “threat”:
    “For the last seven years, this administration has failed to face the biggest forces shaping this century: the emergence of Russia, China and India as great powers; the spread of lethal weapons; the shortage of secure supplies of energy, food and water; the challenge of climate change; and the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real central front against terrorism.
    “In recent days, we’ve once again seen the consequences of this neglect with Russia’s challenge to the free and democratic country of Georgia. Barack Obama and I will end this neglect. We will hold Russia accountable for its actions, and we’ll help the people of Georgia rebuild.”
    “The war that began in Georgia is no longer about that country alone. It has become a question of whether and how the West will stand up for the rights of free people throughout the region. The outcome there will determine whether we realize the grand ambition of a Europe that is whole, free, and at peace.”
    OH YEAH We ARE ALL F’ING GEORGIANS NOW!
    Biden is going to put our money where his mouth is, proposing a $1 billion “emergency” aid package for Saakashvili’s regime to do with as it pleases. That the greater part of this will go to revamping the Georgian military – which has already received billions from the U.S. – rather than the long-suffering people of, say, Abkhazia (the scene of repeated Georgian invasions), goes without saying.
    As ships from NATO countries make provocative incursions into the Black Sea – right at Russia’s doorstep – and Bloviator Biden waxes rhetorical over the prospect of confronting Vladimir Putin, it looks like we’re going to go head-to-head and nose-to-nose with Russia no matter who wins the White House this time around.
    Biden’s connections to the region are suspicious, to say the least. When lobbyist Stephen Payne was caught on tape saying he could arrange for the rehabilitation of a certain Central Asian ex-dictator for a hefty “donation” to the Bush library, he also mentioned that Biden could be brought along – presumably for a price. Bruce Ettinger, formerly Biden’s director of legislative affairs, is Payne’s business partner.
    Biden’s dubious involvement in the politics of the region is underscored by his most recent moral crusade: a bid, in tandem with the Heritage Foundation and other neoconservative groups in Washington, to publicize the plight of “democrats” in the oil-rich nation of Kazakhstan. His recent letter to the President of that country, chiding him for his country’s lack of democracy, may have something to do with Kazakhstan’s recent decision to consider pumping its oil through Russian pipelines, rather than through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan route that U.S. and British investors have such a major stake in.”
    And I am suppose to vote for one of these two pieces of sh***? The only thing I would swing to Obama for now is the chance of universal health care being passed…but what would they pay for it with?….more borrowed money?
    This election is a pathetic joke.

    Reply

  15. Carroll says:

    Posted by Paul Norheim Aug 28, 11:40PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Oh well.
    In July our national debt was 9.5 trillion and the interest alone on it for 2007 was almost 10% of the US total tax revenue.
    So now we have O-B who want to spend more money on ‘liberal’ interventions like Georgia and McCain who wants to spend it on blowing up countries.
    So, how long do you suppose we have till it’s all over no matter which one gets in?
    This is like watching gangrene creep up your leg and not being willing to cut it off to save your life.

    Reply

  16. Paul Norheim says:

    “I am not going to vote for McCain but in the back of my mind I
    wonder if he isn’t just the shock treatment the country needs.
    I can easily see him losing his temper and starting something so
    horrible that the country would have to get over their personal
    wish lists and realize the WHOLE government has to be
    changed, not just the WH resident. So in a way McCain might be
    good for what ails us.”
    With that argument, Carroll, you could as well have voted for
    Bush in 2004. Most of the damage, the really horrible stuff, was
    actually completed in his first term. His actions in the second
    term were basically consequences or modifications of the
    disastrous choices made from 2001-2004. The Americans
    obviously didn`t get it, and voted for him again. They have had
    plenty of time to take in the horrible stuff from his first term
    during the last 3-4 years. They really should have been
    outraged by now.
    I appreciate and sympathize with your thoughts here, but would
    not recommend “starting something (…) horrible” as a
    pedagogical or psychological lesson for your fellow Americans.
    Post invasion of Iraq, as a war of choice, you would probably
    have to elect Mr. Kurz from The Heart of Darkness to give your
    fellow Americans a lesson.
    Then you`re more into eschatology than pedagogics.

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    An interesting take on Obama and the GLBT community and Barack Obama from the “By The Fault” blog
    “Count the owner and publisher of the nation’s leading gay magazines, The Advocate and Out, Paul Colichman, as one more ardent Hillary Clinton supporter not voting for Senator Obama…
    For those who think that there is any difference between Senator McCain and Senator Obama on gay issues, you need to discount Senator Obama’s rhetoric and examine what he is actually saying.
    Marriage is between a man and a woman. No difference from Senator McCain. On every issue, Obama will say he stands for equality then in the next breath say but you have to listen to the other side or he will add that it is a state’s rights issue. About the sole advantage is that Obama will strike specific provisions to the Defense of Marriage Act, not insignificant but also not worth taking a risk when they are so many more important issues affecting the country and the world.”
    More on Paul Colichman from the New York Post. “I expect many but not a plurality in the LGBT community to either pull the lever for McCain or simply stay home.” This is what Obama’s candidacy has wrought. He who promised unity actually delivers disunity. Ironic?”

    Reply

  18. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Gee Carroll, you mean Russia didn’t “invade Georgia”, like Biden said they did? Well, what makes you so sure us dweebs out here in Realpeepsville can handle the truth? I mean, hey golly, aren’t we all so collectively fuckin’ dumb that we are absolutely incapable of understanding what really occured in Ossettia?
    Biden’s actually doing us a favor lyin’ to us, Carroll. It saves our brain cells for the really important stuff, like understanding how NORAD completely failed us, and all that steel in three skyscrapers melted so picture perfect that all three buildings collapsed in their own footprints.

    Reply

  19. Carroll says:

    Meanwhile……
    Did you know that representives from Georgia (the Georgia of Osesstia,not Georgia USA) were at the dem convention meeting with Obama, Biden and some others?
    This is according to a NYT’s article yesterday…sorry lost link cause I was tired and about to fall asleep….but anyone interested can probably find it.
    It is just this sort of thing, and the statements from Obama and Biden about ‘aiding” Georgia that have turned me off this election entirely. It’s the same old crap. Here we have Georgia, who attacked their own citizens FIRST, before Russia got involved. This would be exactly like the US attacking California’s civilians because the hispanic population there voted to be independently aligned with Mexico and then Mexico responded.
    I just can’t take damn lies that cost us blood and money for no reason and the way they outright lie to the public and call black white any longer. It’s the same thing do regarding Israel and Palestine.
    The lies and the whole ‘Washington game’ behind them have to end. I am not going to vote for McCain but in the back of my mind I wonder if he isn’t just the shock treatment the country needs.
    I can easily see him losing his temper and starting something so horrible that the country would have to get over their personal wish lists and realize the WHOLE government has to be changed, not just the WH resident. So in a way McCain might be good for what ails us.

    Reply

  20. Paul Norheim says:

    Obviously, you didn`t consult the facts before writing this, did
    you, questions?
    (link: obamaisasexistmonsterandabloodyelitist.com).
    From his birth and until he was thirteen, Barack actually survived
    solely by sipping latte, brought to his residence among the palms
    in Hawaii from Starbucks with an electrical helicopter – thus his
    arrogance, elitism, and lack of commitment to the retired in
    Florida. This nourishment also explains plainly why he did not act
    like a muscular and brave knight on a white horse while Maureen
    Dowd attacked Hillary.
    WigWag

    Reply

  21. questions says:

    Class anger when properly directed is fine. That’s the heart of Marxism — the owners of the means of production (that means factories and massive landholdings) do not indeed have the good of the workers in their hearts. So direct your anger at ArcherDanielsMidland and General Motors. The professional class (lawyers and doctors and lower level financial workers) are not the target of Marxism. They are still workers at some level. They can lose their jobs, lose their insurance, lose their homes in the current mortgage mess. Other creative workers (professors, writers, teachers) are paid reasonably well, but are not by any strectch of the imagination “rich”. It’s really hard to say anymore what a “worker” is. Teachers’ time is directed and supervised, but they are “creative”. Factory workers are supervised and they aren’t creative. Factory workers can be paid more than teachers in many parts of the country. So how do you work the class divides? Plumbers can be self-employed, pull in 6 figure incomes, and they are “workers”. Hmmm. It’s a messy category to play with. So you pick the silliness of Starbucks as the symbolic divider.
    Now here’s a Starbucks question — why are they closing 600 locations around the country? Because the “recession” is already hitting them. So who’s been hurt by the recession so far? People who are the most financially vulerable. And they are the ones who are stopping the Starbucks habit. Secretaries drink Starbucks. Low level office workers drink Starbucks. Janitors drink Starbucks. And now that they are hurting financially, they are cutting back.
    I dislike speaking in false shorthand on any and every issue! Class, race, gender, and AIPAC.
    Class anger is justified in this economy — but it’s the top 1% or so against everyone else, not the “fauxgressives” against the genuine workers.
    Oh, and “slum lords in Chicago” — to the best of my knowledge, there was one, Rezko, and the right wing Chicago Tribune seems to have cleared him of the worst of this. My understanding of the whole Rezko mess is that Rezko got in over his head on land deals, he was an incompetent operator, and he helped numerous politicians in the state. Obama seems to have been way more on the fringe of the Rezko universe than, say, Blagojevich (the gov.) I’m sure that the community organizing, his background growning up occasionally on welfare, his wife’s working class background won’t convince you of anything because you are working very hard to avoid being convinced and you always find something else to trumpet….

    Reply

  22. WigWag says:

    “And you seem to think that Clinton is somehow poor/lower class. The Clintons are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, and if they target lower class memes, then perhaps it’s because Mark Penn thought that there was a winning coalition in there somewhere.”
    “And one last point, I’m sure HRC and Bill Clinton never took any corporate money? If you’re going to nail O and B, then please nail the Cs on the same charges……”
    The Clintons are certainly rich beyond my wildest dreams, but when Bill Clinton was in the White House he fought for people like me against tremendous odds. Reagan era Republicans were still ascendant but he pushed and pushed for policies that would make my life better. And he did it despite the political risks, which were substantial. And my life got better. And so did the lives of my children, my friends, my colleagues and my neighbors. Scores of Clinton policies contributed to the improvement in the lives of working people. And when Hillary Clinton said she would fight for people like me in the same way that her husband did, I believed her. I still believe she would have.
    Did Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton take tens of millions of dollars in bundled contributions for their campaigns? Yes. Did Bill Clinton enrich himself after he left office by taking advantage of those corporate connections? Yes. Did Bill Clinton have some bad domestic policies when he was in office? Yes, several (e.g. banking and financial reform). Did Bill Clinton make some bad foreign policy decisions while in office? Yes (e.g. bombing Serbia and expanding NATO).
    Do I have any reason to think that Barack Obama cares about the economic plight of working people? No. All I have is his rhetoric and evidence of his cozy relationship with slum lords in Chicago.
    I also have ample evidence that Senator Obama and his supporters consider me to be a low-information, bitter, voter. Perhaps in my case they’re right, but they don’t know me. They consider all working people to be low information, bitter voters. So did Kerry. So did Dukakis. Drink the Kool-aid if you like, but it’s not Lee Atwater or Karl Rove who tricked working people into thinking those guys were elitists. It was their backgrounds and it was their failure to demonstrate any compassion at all for the plight of people who were struggling. Questions, working people are not so dumb that we are simply easy patsies for the likes of Atwater or Rove. We’re smart enough to know what we see with our own eyes.
    Bill Clinton never dismissed working people as bitter or low information voters. He focused on fixing the economy like a laser beam from the day he started to run for President until the day he left office. And he didn’t even let the impeachment imbroglio slow him down. I developed tremendous respect for him for that. That’s why I found it particularly infuriating when Obama supporters (and to a lesser extent Obama himself) criticized Clinton in a manner very reminiscent of the language used by right wing republicans during the 1990s. I haven’t forgotten what Bill Clinton’s presidency did for me and neither did the millions of Reagan Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries.
    I’m sorry, questions, that you don’t like my “class anger,” but the way I see it, African American voters and creative class voters teamed up to deliver to Democrats a candidate who loves to make grandiose speeches, and loves to be adored in large venues, but hardly ever even mentions things that might make my life better. And even if he did say the right things, he has no record to measure the rhetoric against.
    That’s not good enough for me.
    And yes, I know that John McCain is an economic illiterate.

    Reply

  23. questions says:

    Kathleen, your daughter is brilliant!!!!!

    Reply

  24. questions says:

    WigWag,
    You gotta get off the Starbucks thing. Everyone I know lives by the credo, “Friends don’t let friends drink Starbucks.” But then, we have independent cafes everywhere and so it is possible to live that way and still have plenty of “third spaces” so we don’t “bowl alone”. You have lots and lots of class anger pouring out of you lately. And you seem to think that Clinton is somehow poor/lower class. The Clintons are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, and if they target lower class memes, then perhaps it’s because Mark Penn thought that there was a winning coalition in there somewhere.
    Really, the meme thing has to go. Reagan touted the welfare queens who had numerous children, got extra big welfare checks and used the money to buy Cadillacs. Not a lick of truth and it misses so many issues as to be laughable. Now you have the Repubs in Caddies and the rich libs in Priuses. Yoish.
    The car you drive, the coffee you drink, the grocery store you frequent — that this list stands in for political analysis is rather sad in my opinion.
    A progressive wants: a progressive tax structure, generous social services including some kind of universal health care system, some kind of better energy policy, opportunities for all starting with the earliest workable pre-school and running through higher ed, public transportation and public recreation, corporate charters that DEMAND STAKEHOLDER service, not merely shareholder service. And I’m sure there are other issues as well.
    So how does a Prius fit into this? Or Whole Foods? Or Starbucks? I’m not sure I’m seeing a connection, not in my life, the lives of friends, or in broad trends I’ve seen. Lots of progressives live cheap on non-profit salaries. Really.
    Obama and Biden, like all nationally successful politicians, have tapped into the money market. It is unlikely that campaign finance reform will ever help with this problem because the goal isn’t just to have A LOT of money, it’s to have more than your opponent. You have to advertise MORE, you have to have MORE of a ground game, you have to travel MORE. Public financing through the government will always have boundary issues (does Kucinich qualify for money?…), and it will always run into free speech issues (money=speech for now at least), and it will always run into the need for competing on fund raising.
    And one last point, I’m sure HRC and Bill Clinton never took any corporate money? If you’re going to nail O and B, then please nail the Cs on the same charges……

    Reply

  25. Kathleen says:

    ed…you’re cracking me up…loved the polka dot line…I know the bit about polling…in order to really find out what a voter will do vis a vis race, you have to do a different kind of polling…in depth psychological motivational research…very expensive…most serious candidates hire someone to do a series of them throughout the campaign, actually, way before you announce…
    Fauxgressives….can I borrow that term,WigWag?
    TinTin,,,sooooo, you’ve heard of good old Herb….he made our one gay guy cry…
    POA…I’m doing my share of hissing and booing….slobber on. My daughter heard McPain might choose a woman for Veep, she called me up to razzz me a little…she thought maybe McPain should pick Rudi and dress him up in drag…how to get the closet vote….

    Reply

  26. WigWag says:

    Conservatives are just fine with this. There more socially liberal brethren, the fauxgressives are too:
    Obama the Senator from Exelon
    Biden the Senator from MBNA
    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    “You think the progressives are now in control of the party and the Clintons should exit stage right…well that’s a delusion…if progressives were in control, the ticket would be Feingold/Kucinich…just because a bunch of progressives voted for BO, doesn;’t mean he is a progressive…”
    Progressives are not in control of the party, fauxgressives are in control of the party. Shopping at Whole Foods and driving a Prius doesn’t make you a progressive. Neither does working for a think tank or buying your coffee at Starbucks.
    Fauxgressives are more socially liberal than conservatives are, but other than that they are more or less the same.
    Country Club republicans proudly drive up to the links in their new cadillacs. Faugressives proudly drive into the Whole Foods parking lot in their new hybrids.
    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss!

    Reply

  28. Tintin says:

    “,,,but dealing with Herb Johnson was unpleasant…”
    Ah yes, the name rings a bell. Remember him as a bit pugnacious.

    Reply

  29. R-E-S-P-E-C-T says:

    Ladies are nice and understanding and will grow to love Obama as they increasingly find his aspirations for our country are akin to theirs in every respect.
    God Bless the Ladies.
    We love you all so much.

    Reply

  30. Kathleen says:

    Tintin…I’ve noticed they’ve been doing some radical stuff…they always did serious works..no fiction…I liked my job because of the works they published, but dealing with Herb Johnson was unpleasant…
    Speaking of women’s rights, I met and became good friends with a woman who worked in sales at Greenwood and reverse commuted from Manhattan to Westport…..a 6 ft tall Swiss girl who was one of the original women’s libbers… before I met her, she and a group of young women took karate lessons and then went out to the Statue of Liberty …they made a human chain around it and held it until they made the news….I loved that. She walked out of Greenwood with me in solidarity and went to work for St. Martin’s Press..
    After I left Westport and moved to CA, we got out of touch but then when I took my son to a big protest at Diablo Canyon, there walking down the beach in the first wave of protestors who planned to climb the wall and get arrested, was my friend Gretta. Her husband was going to go over the wall to be the first arrested….We went along in solidarity.

    Reply

  31. Kathleen says:

    DonS…most Hillary supporters won’t bolt the party and vote McPain…some will for reasons I can’t fathom, but a certain percentage might stay home…when you’re disappointed, you just don’t have that ooompf about it…don’t forget we have very low voter participation…it was higher this time, not just because of BO…it was because we had a first black and first woman..this is why I think Hillary as Veep would have kept up the enthusiasm.. and perhaps inspire young single women who vote the least, to join the process….
    Linda… you say it’s not the norm for the winner to chose a runner up for the Veep…chosing Biden was exactly that…he was afterall a runner up,..so when you pick a runner up who only got 1,000 in Iowa over a woman who got 18 million votes, it begs the question…WTF?
    You think the progressives are now in control of the party and the Clintons should exit stage right…well that’s a delusion…if progressives were in control, the ticket would be Feingold/Kucinich…just because a bunch of progressives voted for BO, doesn;’t mean he is a progressive…his votes have been the same as Hillary’s except for skipping the Kyl-Lieberman vote. and if the Clintons do go away, a lot of the limelight will go with them…..and further, when everyone goes home and dutiful Hillary Dems try to work on the campaign, I can tell you from first hand experience that a candidate who got there with Teddy’s help won’t welcome them….they’ll be insulted and made to feel like dumb shits because with Teddy people, it’s all about who gets the credit and protecting turf, not.about unity….but if BO loses, Hillary will be blamed…My son lives in a town chock full of obscenely wealthy repugs..he tells me they have been SWEATING an Obama/Clnton ticket because they knew they would be dead meat against it…now they’re saying Phew!!!! because they have a chance…my issue is not feminism, equal pay or even Hillary… it is winning with a landlside instead of busting ass to have another election stolen…did you hear anyone so far tear the GOP a new butthole…surely with Progressives in charge of the party we would have heard the word torutre more than once, Quantanamo, and accountability even Impeachment…no, these are not Progressives…they are Pols…
    Average people are not watching this…it’s too damned boring for anyone besides a wonk, like me. Average people are maybe going to vote based on very minimal understanding of the issues and mostly their deeply entrenched stereotypical conditionings and when they get in the privacy of the voting booth, they won’t mind being poltically incorrect, despite what they told some polster…
    My daughteri, an attorney but not as poplitcally interested as I, keeps calling me from CA… Why is it so boring? Why can;t they do something lively inbetween all those droning speeches? Why don’t those Hillary people stop? Lots of ordinary people are just going to buy the meme about the conflict b.s..and blame Hillary if BO flops…
    I find it curious that while Hillary was out stumping for Obama and all the good old boys on the short list were hovering their phones waiting for The Call, she gets no credit for this…Linda wants her to just go away…my daughter wants to know why the press didn;’t report that Hillary has been stumping for BO this summer. I want to know, tooo…I didn’t know how old other people are commenting here, but all across the country, there are thousands of little old ladies who keep the party machinery grinding away, through thick and thin, rain or shine, hell or high water…ever boring campaign no matter who the candidate…they just wanted to see a woman on the ticket in their lifetime….there is no rational explaination for why it couldn’t be…..how happy do you think Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones would have been if she and known Hillary would be on the ticket? Discount that sentiment if you want, but the sadness will take its toll….the biden announcment brought a 2 point dip in the polls, according to CNN..

    Reply

  32. Linda says:

    I haven’t had time to read any comments since I posted yesterday–will find time later to read them. Sorry for the length of this!
    Preview of Tonight’s DNC Program with Comments
    I strongly suggest that everybody who can, get the right time for your time zone (5 p.m. Eastern, 4 p.m. Central, 3 p.m. Mountain (Hey, Paul in Norwary, we have a big country with 4 time zones in continental states) and 2 p.m. Pacific), go to C-Span and watch DNC, as people did in the 1960s when there were only three networks that carried the conventions from gavel-to-gavel.
    During the first two hours, 5-7 p.m. Eastern
    A Reform Jewish rabbi will give the invocation. Everyone has a right to his/her beliefs. I can’t reason away the belief of any more fundamentalist Jew who believes literally that God gave Israel to the Jews as “His Chosen people” and would only raise the question of what the Evangelicals think will happen to Jews when the Rapture comes. I can remind people that in 1964 Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner gave their lives fighting for then “Negro” rights in MS.
    I personally have trouble with being “chosen” as a Jew or “exceptional” as an American because I believe that people, each and every one of them everywhere in this world. have a human right to believe that his/her religion and country are the best. But no one IMO has a right to kill any child, take away anyone’s land just because they are anything including being Arabs or Palestinians. So I’m proud to be a Georgian and can assure everyone that Jimmy Carter chose not to speak the other night at the convention just as he chose not to speak in 2004.
    One thing that never appears among name-calling of each other on TWN is use of the “N” word because the www is color-blind. But I also will add reference to the unsaid Yiddish “S” word (for those unfamiliar with Yiddish, it becomes from German word for “black.” It only will be used among family and friends in discussions, but if that’s part of anyone’s last remaining reason to not vote for Obama, get over it. It’s the same as not voting for Lieberman because of the “K” word.
    Then then Olympic Gold Medalist Shawn Johnson from TX will lead the Pledge of Allegiance followed by Drean Girl Jennifer Hudson singing the National Anthem.
    7 p.m. Eastern Hour
    leads off with remarks by Howard Dean, followed by a Tribute to MLK with two of his children speaking as well as my Congressman John Lewis who is the only African-American who is the only African-American who sat in and was physically attacked and bloodied and marched with MLK ever elected to Congress..
    Music is pretty good in that hour too as we’ll get will.i.am and John Legend from the “Yes, We Can” YouTube followed by Sheryl Crow.
    8 p.m. Eastern Hour will have Al Gore as the main speaker.
    Stevie Wonder will be the main musical entertainment, and that, for me, leads to a glass ceiling women’s rights story. In summer 1965, my sister finished a one-year Ford Foundation fellowship in symphony orchestra administration. No major symphony orchestra in the U.S. would hire her in even a low administrative position, but Barry Gordy did—so she went to work in Detroit for Motown Records. I wish she’d saved a copy of the form Ford Foundation sent alumni of their symphony fellowship program when they followed up to see how people were doing. A lot of Jews worked for Motown, and most of them, male and female, didn’t stay too long because Barry Gordy only promoted and paid more to his relatives. I don’t think it was racial or religious discrimination—just putting family nepotism first. But my sister knew Little Stevie Wonder and all the earliest Motown artists.
    9 p.m. Eastern Hour
    Has Michael McDonald as the main musical entertainment, and my favorite speaker of all, Susan Eisenhower, will be speaking.
    10 p.m. Eastern
    Obama speaks, and no musical talent mentioned., but I think there will be some great big surprise—“The Boss,” Bono?
    And for those who didn’t watch C-Span last night, you missed a great ten-minute video on those who served and have served in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan directed by Steven Spielberg and narrated by Tom Hanks.
    This isn’t about celebrities or celebrities and surely not LA where I lived most of my adult life. But my earliest memory that something wasn’t quite right in the greatest country in the world was coming home from high school in 1954 and sitting with my Mom glued to the TV set watching the Army-McCarthy hearings right in the middle of the Cold War when we were afraid of Commies and “pinkos.”
    Paul, I don’t know how to explain our political conventions to anyone, but this country was founded on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” based a lot of the philosophies of Locke, etc. The search for a government to operationalize the hedonic calculus probably to “form a more perfect union” is endless. But I think that pursuit of happiness is embodied in why the world loves Americans even when they hate the things our government does. We have given the world the movies, television, jazz, musical comedy, rock ‘n roll, gospel, rap….
    If my grandparents had not come to the USA from Hungary (true American immigrant story verified by Ellis Island records) arriving on February 22, 1912, George Washington’s birthday on a ship named the George Washington—and if I had been born to my grandfather’s siblings who stayed, I would have died in Auschwitz when I was five years old. I try to remember that often because everyone who is born in who or gets to immigrate to the USA is truly blessed.

    Reply

  33. Twang says:

    You really do not know this country and recent political history if you think Obama can win this election after what McCain/Rove are going to do to him.
    Y’all gonna face the real meaning of singing “This Is Our Country”

    Reply

  34. Tintin says:

    “Tintin…I do mean Greenwood Press, but it was so long ago I can’t
    remember his name…1970….he didn’t last long there because his
    personality was too abrasive…he used to like to stomp down the
    corridors and startle all the secretaries….I just remember he was a
    Marine reject and took it out on everybody…I’ll try to remember it
    but he’s someone I rarely think about…Did you work there, too?”
    Oh yes, but not in management–a proofer of sorts. My
    experience was pretty good. They were reprinting a lot of radical
    journals of the 20s and the like. They had good ideas, but the
    company was growing very quickly, and there was a good bit of
    disorganization. Not sure the two guys at the top were all that
    organized, though they were fairly brilliant publishers.

    Reply

  35. ed says:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
    Latent racists won’t vote for Obama anyway. Shocker. But we can blame it on the Race Card, right MarkL? This is what Republicans do. (And it’s not just race, that’s just applicable this time. Recall a triple amputee Vietnam vet compared to Osama Bin Laden. Honestly.)

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Well, it appears that there ARE some people besides myself that aren’t slobbering over this freak show…..
    http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9956
    Democrats convene in Denver amid police state security and a sea of corporate cash
    by Bill Van Auken
    An excerpt….
    Behind these rings of steel and phalanxes of police, the real business of the convention is being conducted in a series of activities and events that amount to organized and officially sanctioned bribery and influence-peddling.
    Speaking last Saturday in Springfield, Illinois, in his announcement of Delaware Senator Joseph Biden as his running mate, Obama claimed that his campaign was based on “a simple belief: that the American people were better than their government in Washington—a government that has fallen prey to special interests and policies that have left working people behind.”
    Yet in Denver this week, he is presiding over a convention that is being paid for by these same special interests, with the clear understanding that their money will secure favors from Democratic politicians and, potentially, a Democratic administration headed by Obama himself.
    While posturing as the party of “the people,” the Democrats have auctioned off access to US corporations, selling aptly named “presidential sponsor” packages for a million dollars each. The money buys companies private access to Obama’s advisors, tickets to exclusive parties attended by Democratic elected officials and luxury skybox seats to hear Obama’s acceptance speech Thursday in Denver’s Mile High Stadium.
    The party had billed the stadium event as a sign of its openness and desire to include the people in its deliberations. But the auctioning off of skyboxes to the highest corporate bidders clearly expresses the Democrats’ real role as an essential prop of social inequality and the rule of big business.
    continues…

    Reply

  37. ed says:

    “So, Ed, is it your position that no rational person can not vote for Obama? Racism is the ONLY alternative?”
    No. When did I suggest that? Are you suggesting that The Lee Atwater Gambit is complete and utter bulljive? You should stop by Eastern Tennessee sometime.
    “I’m merely saying that preemptive accusations of racism against those who may not vote for Obama will help only McCain.”
    But what about preemptive preemptive accusations, eh? You obviously neglected to address that one.

    Reply

  38. MarkL says:

    So, Ed, is it your position that no rational person can not vote for Obama? Racism is the ONLY alternative?
    Scratch the question. I can tell that you are not capable of critical thought.
    I’m merely saying that preemptive accusations of racism against those who may not vote for Obama will help only McCain. You seem unable to understand this trivial point.
    Paul Nordheim,
    Why on earth did you think I was referring to Kyl-Lieberman? Did the K-L bill include Clinton’s “umbrella of deterrence” policy?
    It was in Hillary’s speech outlining her “umbrella of deterrence” proposal for the Middle East in which she took preemptive war off the table. It was in answering a question about this policy that she mentioned “obliterating” Iran. Deterrence is the alternative to a strategy of preemptive war.
    Obama is still on board for preemptive war with Iran.
    Hillary’s plan is an alternative. You may not like it, but it is less hawkish, except in the extreme, unlikely case of an Iranian nuclear attack on ANY country in the region.

    Reply

  39. ed says:

    Or visit gop.com and see if you can find a single mention of the Republican candidate for Prez. Honestly, what else does the party of Nixon-Atwater-Rove have to go one?

    Reply

  40. ed says:

    “Oh, and ed, we already know that Obama’s loss will be attributed to racism. In fact, the preemptive blaming of voters for the “racist” act of not voting for Obama is turning off potential supporters in droves.”
    Google ” ‘lee atwater’ 1954″ and tell me what you find. Thanks for playing!

    Reply

  41. WigWag says:

    “Would,could,disappointed Clinton supporters who eventually vote for McCain be doing it, not out of spite, but with the hope of electing McCain to foreclose the possiblilty of an 8 year Obama presidency, and bring another high probability Hillary run four years closer?”
    DonS, this is entirely possible. There are hundreds of PUMA sites, I visit 3-4 regularly. The sentiment that you suggested is mentioned frequently. Some PUMAs feel the country would be better off living under McCain for 4 years than a candidate they despise (Obama) for 8 years. Those who feel this way tend to be the PUMAs who are particularly convinced that Senator Obama is a sexist. They want his sexism punished.

    Reply

  42. MarkL says:

    The real deluded souls are the “anti-Pumas” who reside here at TWN, who think that Obama’s problems can all be explained by reference to Hillary.
    Newsflash: you’re completely off-base.
    Oh, and ed, we already know that Obama’s loss will be attributed to racism. In fact, the preemptive blaming of voters for the “racist” act of not voting for Obama is turning off potential supporters in droves.
    If Obama loses by a landslide, it will be because his supporters like Jim Clyburn cannot help calling Obama opponents racists.
    You all probably read about Emil Jones calling a black IL delegate and Uncle Tom, right?
    What goes around will come around.

    Reply

  43. DonS says:

    Would,could,disappointed Clinton supporters who eventually vote for McCain be doing it, not out of spite, but with the hope of electing McCain to foreclose the possiblilty of an 8 year Obama presidency, and bring another high probability Hillary run four years closer?
    That would be the ultimate in identity politics. Its hard to imagine Hillary would endorse such thinking. Isn’t it?

    Reply

  44. Kathleen says:

    Linda…thanks for the heads-up on Lily Ledbetter….I know it is not the normal practice for the winner to chose the runner up as a running mate…but this was a first for both women and blacks and it was such a close race that neither won a majroity in the primaries…so it seems to me to have been the strongest choice…I do not get the math that picks a guy who only got 1,000 votes over the candidate who got 18 million…
    everyone here assumes that all voters are paying close attention to all this…they are not…they vote on gut feelings, a lot of the time….we have one of the lowest rates of voter participation so I saw an Obama/Clinton ticket as a way to generate more interest.
    While I hoped she would be the pick given the votes she racked up, my expectastion that Hillary could be chosen was created by BO’s false statement that she was on his short list….when he never had any intention of chosing her… I don’t like that.
    Incidentally Biden’s choice brought a 2 point dip in his polls…Hillary’s speech brought a 13 point spike…now do you get the math? This won’t hold either because when all the hoopla dies down and people go home, the disappointment will sink in..
    But never mind all you Obamabots can just go out there and make it happen…you don’t need the Clintons… except to blame when it’s over….

    Reply

  45. Kathleen says:

    ed…great link…thanxx..actually the conventions with multiple nominess goes back further than the article says…
    1968 had three nominees. Humphrey, McCarthy and McGovern, after Bobby died….back then if you wore a McCarthy button you got searched every time you went in and out of the convnetion hall…they also told us we couldn’t have a floor demonstration when McCarthy spoke and set fire to the warehouse where our campaign material was stored to make sure….
    Then when Humphrey spoke there was an enormous floor demonstration,and Mayor Daley and Chairman John Bailey had packed the convention floor with non-delegates from Chicago… when the CT. delegation arrived, there people sitting in our seats, who claimed to be from CT. but most certainly weren’t…just a glimpse of how the party bosses screw with you and create a false picture for the t.v. cameras….

    Reply

  46. Kathleen says:

    Tintin…I do mean Greenwood Press, but it was so long ago I can’t remember his name…1970….he didn’t last long there because his personality was too abrasive…he used to like to stomp down the corridors and startle all the secretaries….I just remember he was a Marine reject and took it out on everybody…I’ll try to remember it but he’s someone I rarely think about…Did you work there, too?

    Reply

  47. ed says:

    The success of RNC fundraising versus the failure of DNC fundraising is almost impossible to explain.
    Perhaps you should ask Bobbi Fleckman.
    “Obama will be painted as the cultural elitist”
    Because the Republican Noise Machine wouldn’t do this to just any Dem nominee. Bonus points if by “cultural elitist” you mean “angry, scary negro.”

    Reply

  48. Kathleen says:

    Right noe, an old friend Alice Travis Germond is calling the roll..POA..her family helped me produce the Hopi Prophecy documentary for the UN…

    Reply

  49. WigWag says:

    “And I truly don’t understand this expectation that the nominee should pick the person who came in second, as that’s never been the way it works.”
    That’s true, but there has rarely been a nominating race this close. Out of almost 4,000 delegates, Obama came in to Denver with a lead of a few hundred at most. The difference in pledged delegates as opposed to super delegates was really small. Hillary Clinton received more votes during the nominating process than any candidate in history, 18 million (which is more than Obama got). So we have the candidate who got the most votes not leading the ticket and we have the candidate who was so unpopular that he got at most a few thousand votes, as VEEP. Many women recognize this for what it is; the glass ceiling rearing its ugly head yet again. But this time, the sexism was not brought to them courtesy of the Republicans or even the press. It was brought to them courtesy of the Democrats.
    Let’s not forget; Obama won fair and square; just like Bush beat Gore fair and square. The two situations are highly analogous.
    “I think the media enjoys keeping this battle going and managed to find an African-American woman delegate who was perfect for that purpose. Suzzanne Malvo must have been telling Wolf, “Have I got an interview for you!”
    Linda the name of the person that you are referring to is Ann Price Mills. The video of her interview has gone viral on the internet. That interview may have done as much for the PUMA movement as anything else since it became clear in June that Clinton would not get the nomination.
    I have no idea whether Clinton voters will take Clinton’s advice and support Obama. We will need a few weeks to find out. If the PUMA blogs (which are getting an avalanche of hits) are any indication, the answer is no. But when faced with voting for McCain? Who knows? The millions of Reagan Democrats (aka Hillary voters) who will really decide the election are a more interesting case. The economy is bad and they are hurting. They know that Obama will do better by them than McCain. But it is virtually certain that, by the time McCain and the Republicans finish with him, Obama will be painted as the cultural elitist that he plainly is. He is of, and for, the creative classes. Whether the Reagan Democrats can over come their disgust with yet another culturally elite candidate and instead vote in a way which will advance their economic self interest will be fun to watch.
    Obviously, I have no more insight than anyone else. But if I had to bet right now, I would bet that McCain will be elected president. I think it’s looking like Obama will lose the most winnable election for Democrats in years.
    The national polls are turning against him, slowly but surely. State polls are tightening. Obama has had a terrible run since his trip to Europe and the Middle East which was very poorly received. The Democratic Party is not as unified as it should be. The importance of Iraq is fading from the voter’s memories. Gasoline prices are now falling instead of rising. McCain’s ads have been much more compelling than Obama’s ads. After Labor Day we will be seeing a steady stream of ads featuring Father Pflieger, Reverend Wright and William Ayers. There may or may not be more damaging tapes to be released from Trinity United. And most importantly, the Obama fundraising advantage has virtually completely disappeared. The success of RNC fundraising versus the failure of DNC fundraising is almost impossible to explain. One more disadvantage that Obama faces that McCain doesn’t is the Bradley Effect.
    I don’t like Obama so I readily admit that I may be more negative about Obama’s chances that I should be. But if there is a plausible way for him to win (other than a complete economic collapse) I would like to know what it is.
    Regardless of what happens in this election, if Democrats want to start winning presidential elections again on a regular basis, they are going to start have to start nominating candidates who base their campaigns on economic issues not cultural issues, In short they need to start channeling Franklin Roosevelt not Michael Dukakis or John Kerry.
    As long as the cultural elitists and the creative classes control who gets nominated, Democrats will continue to lose. Sure, maybe they can win in times of true economic distress, (like now) but if the economy is anything other than horrible, Republicans will win the presidency most of the time. That’s what you should count on happening. These fauxgressives are so narcissistic that what else can we possibly expect from them.

    Reply

  50. Tintin says:

    Kathleen writes: “I was the direct mail promotion manager for a big publisher that moved from Manhattan to Westport…”
    You mean…Greenwood Press?
    Who was your superior?

    Reply

  51. ed says:

    “You are treating some totally normal process as though it is a strange pathology of the Democratic Party, or something that singles out the Clintons specifically.”
    There’s a lot of that going around:
    http://mediamatters.org/columns/200808260005

    Reply

  52. Dan Kervick says:

    MarkL,
    it is in fact very rare for a candidate to run with a running mate that was one of his chief rivals for the nomination. It’s no more a Democratic thing than a Republican thing. Nixon did not choose any of his 1968 rivals as a running mate; neither did Carter in 1976; neither did Ford in 1976; neither did Bush in 1992; neither did Goldwater in 1964; neither did Eisenhower in 1952; neither did Clinton in 1992. In five of those seven cases, the candidate won the general elections.
    This just seems to be part of the natural process of consolidating power. It has nothing to do with being a gracious or ungracious winner. The vice presidency is not some sort of plaque or prize the winner gives you for coming in second. It’s part of the government and the executive branch. The chief considerations are how well the choice helps you govern, and also how well it helps you in the election. It’s also pretty obvious that after a bruising camapign, one’s own supporters are not going to be well-disposed toward one’s bitterest rivals.
    You are treating some totally normal process as though it is a strange pathology of the Democratic Party, or something that singles out the Clintons specifically.

    Reply

  53. Linda says:

    Hillary did a great job last night. As an Obama supporter, I am very pleased and impressed. Bill always said she’s smarter than he is and probably also better at getting over disappointment and moving on.
    Suggest to serious convention watchers that you go to the convention website and print out the program and watch the people who interest you on C-Span that is gavel-to-gavel, no commercials, and time inbetween to enjoy the music.
    They had Dennis Kuchinich on too early, and he also had the crowd very excited. His degrees are in speech, and he really is one of the best at giving a speech.
    The 2008 emerging star isn’t Casey or Warner who were great but Brian Sweitzer of Montana!
    Kathleen, if you are interested in equal pay for equal work, I hope you heard Lily Ledbetter speak at DNC yesterday. If not, I strongly suggest you go to the convention website and read her remarks that also may be available on video there. And if you don’t know about her case and legislation that resulted from it, I’d suggest reading up on it. This legislation was passed in the House and can’t get a vote in the Senate until next year because Republicans are blocking it. And it only was necessary because of 5-4 vote by SCOTUS.
    I really remain puzzled in trying to understand particularly still angry and upset DNC Hillary delegates who presumably are very dedicated to Democratic Party. I assumed (wrongly) that they are very politically savvy–not just to know about Ledbetter–but at least to know that every vote counts and matters—and so one always votes and not for any third party candidate when the stakes are high.
    And I truly don’t understand this expectation that the nominee should pick the person who came in second, as that’s never been the way it works. If Clinton had won the primary race, I would not have been urging her to pick Obama as her VP–I can’t think of a good reason to do that–nor does it usually work out very well when it has been done…though I kind of hope McCain picks Romney.
    I just truly don’t understand not only the thinking but the feelings too. I think the media enjoys keeping this battle going and managed to find an African-American woman delegate who was perfect for that purpose. Suzzanne Malvo must have been telling Wolf, “Have I got an interview for you!” I didn’t know if I felt like hugging that delegate and comforting her–or just shaking her and asking her: “Aren’t you at all excited about having an African-American as the nominee?”
    The best I could do in understanding her is that she thinks Democrats will lose if Obama is the nominee and that upsets her. But then she’s creating a self-fulfilling prophecy to make that happen. Perhaps her gender identity is more important to her than racial identity. The worst I could come up with is that she somehow is in awe of Hillary as much or more than Obama supporters are of him.
    Sorry for the long post, I did ask above that we all give Steve a birthday present of a bit more civil discourse here.

    Reply

  54. Paul Norheim says:

    MarkL,
    if I said that Hillary Clinton`s support for the Kyl-Lieberman
    amendment made it easier for the Bush administration to bomb
    Iran preemptively if they wanted to do so, you would perhaps
    argue that “as a matter of fact” the majority of the American
    people regard the Iranians as very dangerous (ergo: I`m wrong).
    This is the kind of absurd arguments you`ve used previously,
    and not only against me.
    But whatever the majority says, according to you, I would say
    that Hillary Clinton, by supporting the Kyl-Lieberman
    amendment, obviously did not rule out “such attacks”.
    As a matter of fact, you`re wrong.

    Reply

  55. MarkL says:

    Dan Kervick,
    You have hit on the root of the dysfunction in the Democratic party when you write
    “My view is that the White House is simply not big enough for those three very large personalities: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.”
    .. well, except that Obama isn’t really a big personality. The problem with the Democratic party is that the top leaders are insanely jealous of the Clintons because they are so popular and charismatic —especially Bill, but now Hillary.
    But instead of trying to compete on even terms with her, they used backroom maneuvers and a campaign of lies and slanders to drive her out.
    When you write that the White House is not big enough for the three of them, you really are saying that Obama is not big enough for the job.
    That is what is obvious to everyone except a few Obamaphilic deadenders.
    By the way, I don’t particularly care that Hillary was not chosen for VP. I think it was a stupid decision by Obama, but it won’t influence my vote.
    What I do care about is how it showcases Obama’s weakness of character. He just is completely unable to be a gracious winner; he’s very much like W. in that regard.

    Reply

  56. MarkL says:

    Hillary is the ONLY candidate who took preemptive war off the table. Yes, she threatened massive retaliation if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel—but which candidate doesn’t have the same position?
    Obama has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran preemptively, while Hillary, with her “umbrella of deterrence” proposal, explicitly ruled out such attacks. Tell me again who is the hawk, in any realistic scenario?

    Reply

  57. Paul Norheim says:

    Kathleen,
    “BO’s FISA vote feels the same way for me, pivotal…”
    I agree: Blame him for that.
    But why are you still blaming Obama for not picking Clinton as
    VP?
    Before BO`s FISA vote, you had the pivotal Kyl-Lieberman
    amendment vote (Hillary), and before that you had the pivotal
    pro-invasion-of-Iraq vote (Hillary again). You also had the
    pivotal “obliterate Iran” statement. Doesn`t sound like good
    judgement to me.
    If the gods of the universe had been so hostile to me that they
    decided to make me a US presidential candidate in 2008 (God
    forbid!), and I had to pick a Vice President, I wouldn`t trust
    Hillary Clinton`s instincts; nor would I trust the instincts of Joe
    Biden (pro invasion).
    You may vote for Nader (to avoid “completing a circle”), or
    listen to the pragmatic arguments of your kids (avoid disaster,
    i.e. McCain). Both choices make perfect sense to me.
    But blaming Obama for not picking Clinton…I don`t know… it
    does not seem very convincing in the long run.
    As a Norwegian, I can`t vote. If I could, I guess I would lend an
    ear to your children. But if you mount a rebellion against your
    pragmatic kids, and vote for Nader – then go for it!
    I swear that I won`t blame you in public.

    Reply

  58. Dan Kervick says:

    Kathleen,
    You say, “people who voted for Hillary can accept that she lost, but they don’t understand why she isn’t the running mate… it simply doesn’t make sense to pick a guy who only got 1,000 votes in Iowa over a woman who got 18 million.”
    My view is that the White House is simply not big enough for those three very large personalities: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.
    Obama is going to face the challenge of laying hold of the leadership of the executive branch, and imposing his will on it. The Clintons are an ongoing national story. Sometimes its a positive story; sometimes its a negative story. But it is always a very big and distracting story. I just don’t think Obama can afford to encumber his administration with the political management of the Clintons and their traveling drama. Hillary Clinton doesn’t seem particularly suited to be anybody’s number two. And if she were VP, everything Bill Clinton does would also reflect on the Obama administration. But there’s no way to keep that guy on a leash. And frankly, Democrats probably don’t want him on a leash, but want him out there free to say what’s on his mind.
    I assume Washington and the executive branch are still filled with many Clinton appointees and associates. Choosing Clinton as VP would risk creating an alternative and competing source of power in the executive branch, and is a recipe for friction and conflict. If Hillary Clinton were Obama’s VP, we would face an ongoing stream of stories of the “Are Bill and Hill Still Calling the Shots?” variety. This would be the case no matter what the Clintons actually did. But in fact, they are both powerful and assertive people who have a natural tendency to throw elbows, pick up power and spread out. Obama can’t risk that kind of potential for conflict and dissension.
    Finally, I think we can safely predict that if Hillary Clinton were VP, then every little Obama flu, every minor Obama scandal and every Obama governmental misstep would lead to rampant, crazed speculations about Hillary Clinton undermining, sabotaging or poisoning Obama. Obama can’t afford these distractions.

    Reply

  59. Dan Kervick says:

    Kathleen,
    You say, “people who voted for Hillary can accept that she lost, but they don’t understand why she isn’t the running mate… it simply doesn’t make sense to pick a guy who only got 1,000 votes in Iowa over a woman who got 18 million.”
    My view is that the White House is simply not big enough for those three very large personalities: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton.
    Obama is going to face the challenge of laying hold of the leadership of the executive branch, and imposing his will on it. The Clintons are an ongoing national story. Sometimes its a positive story; sometimes its a negative story. But it is always a very big and distracting story. I just don’t think Obama can afford to encumber his administration with the political management of the Clintons and their traveling drama. Hillary Clinton doesn’t seem particularly suited to be anybody’s number two. And if she were VP, everything Bill Clinton does would also reflect on the Obama administration. But there’s no way to keep that guy on a leash. And frankly, Democrats probably don’t want him on a leash, but want him out there free to say what’s on his mind.
    I assume Washington and the executive branch are still filled with many Clinton appointees and associates. Choosing Clinton as VP would risk creating an alternative and competing source of power in the executive branch, and is a recipe for friction and conflict. If Hillary Clinton were Obama’s VP, we would face an ongoing stream of stories of the “Are Bill and Hill Still Calling the Shots?” variety. This would be the case no matter what the Clintons actually did. But in fact, they are both powerful and assertive people who have a natural tendency to throw elbows, pick up power and spread out. Obama can’t risk that kind of potential for conflict and dissension.
    Finally, I think we can safely predict that if Hillary Clinton were VP, then every little Obama flu, every minor Obama scandal and every Obama governmental misstep would lead to rampant, crazed speculations about Hillary Clinton undermining, sabotaging or poisoning Obama. Obama can’t afford these distractions.

    Reply

  60. tomj says:

    I think that is great analysis. After reading so much about what Hillary needed to do in her speech, I came to the conclusion that she needed, more than anything, to be a Democrat, with no apology. She did more, she reminded her supporters that they should remember the same thing.
    Maybe this is the beginning of a new theme for the campaign: to tie McCain to the Republican party as they battle their attempts to cut Obama from the Democratic herd. The Republicans have been successful in making this a man vs. man race, of maverick vs. loner.
    If the race can be reframed as Democrat vs. Republican, Obama wins big time.
    But one part of that reframing needs to be that Obama is the Democratic nominee, period.

    Reply

  61. ed says:

    “BO’s FISA vote feels the same way for me, pivotal…”
    Yeah, that was horrible. Especially after he promised to support any filibuster. Sure, it’s politics, but I’m not convinced it’s even smart politics (the very worthwhile Glennzilla had a bunch on that, and why the “radical centrist” David Broder Bipartisan bulljive (found at this site among many) is such crap. That’s the stuff that gave us the Iraq Invasion).
    “Dan Kervick… I think you hit it. people who voted for Hillary can accept that she lost, but they don’t understand why she isn’t the running mate… it simply doesn’t make sense to pick a guy who only got 1,000 votes in Iowa over a woman who got 18 million. ..”
    Except that President and Veep are two different animals, not to mention that the two parties really need to be compatible. Also, there’s the reality check. Fafnir nailed the Dem Veepstakes on 19 August:
    “Well we here at Fafblog Election Central have been workin on this with our super journalistic superpowers and are right now in the possession of Barack Obama’s final and ultimate list of Vice President Choices which we can now reveal to you, the discerning and desperate Fafblog Reader!
    They are:
    # an old rich white guy who likes to bomb brown people
    # a rich old white guy who likes to bomb brown people
    # an elderly gentleman of the Caucasian persuasion with a great deal of personal wealth who, in his spare time, likes to bomb brown people
    # the manticore, a fanciful beast with the body of a lion, the tail of a scorpion and a deep personal commitment to prison reform
    # a slightly younger rich white guy who likes to bomb brown people
    Who will it be? Oh, the suspense!”
    I would also add that while Hillary gobbled up a buncha votes, she and here poorly run campaign sank to despicable depths (“Zimbabwe,” Ferraro-gate, palling up with R.M. Scaife, cozying up to Fox News–where Lanny Davis still resides, etc.) which Team Obama never came close to approaching, making this NotRepublican happy she didn’t win the Veepstakes.

    Reply

  62. Kathleen says:

    ed…you’re exactly right about the Kyl-Lieberman ammendment vote…I’ve been bitching about that for ages…because she didn’t learn a damned thing…that vote was pivotal and put the brakes on her momentum…she had the lead until then.
    BO’s FISA vote feels the same way for me, pivotal…not that I could bring myself to vote McPain…
    Dan Kervick… I think you hit it. people who voted for Hillary can accept that she lost, but they don’t understand why she isn’t the running mate… it simply doesn’t make sense to pick a guy who only got 1,000 votes in Iowa over a woman who got 18 million. ..
    I am old enough to have been in the vanguard of equal pay for equal work…in 1970, I was the direct mail promotion manager for a big publisher that moved from Manhattan to Westport…my superior decided to fire the four heads of the four academic journals we published…each salaried positions.. he gave all of their responsbilities to me, on top of my own… when I asked for a raise, he refused… I quit on the spot….not picking the woman who got 18 million votes and picking the guy who got 1,000 feels like unequal pay…it’s like minimum wage as oppoosed to $500/hr…the strongest running mate was passed up…now we are all gonna have to work 10x harder and longer and give 10x as much money to end up with another stealable sqeeeeeker…and if he loses, it will all be Hillary’s fault. …right now I feel like I have to vote for the good old boy club, and get all worked up because the country club has a token black….
    All through the primary process I was surprised at my own emotional reactions, since I didn’t support either…when BO won Iowa, I felt sorry for Hillary…when she won NH., I felt sorry for BO….my heart wanted the first black or the first woman president… I couldn’t chose…so I thought if the winner chose the loser for a running mate, it would solve that inner conflict for me…when BO said she was on the short list, I was raring to go…..I felt so played by that Veep head fake, I don’t want to be involved….that’s why I say, I quit… you’ve got your work cut out for you…get out there and do it. .. you make it happen….don’t expect the losers to deliver it to you…iron your own shirt and take out the garbage.
    Meanwhile,…not to worry…my kids are working on my head…they nod and say, I know, I know, when I go through my schppppeeeel and when they can get a word in edgewise they say,”but Mommmmmmm, we can’t have McCainnnnnnnnn. so just get ovvvvverrrrr ittttt. just get with the programmmmmmm. just tell those Hillary people to stoppppp, like I could do that. next they’ll be sticking notes on the fridge and all over the house saying but Mommmmmm, we can;t have McCainnnnnnn. They always win because they gang up on me and say “Let;s take a vote”. I’m out numbered….when I say you don’t want McCainnnnn, go work for Obama… they say, I’m tooo busy… they’re used to me doing that part….well, as we say in Sicilian, T’arrangia…that’s means, you’ll manage, you’ll figure it out.
    Perhaps when Hillary is addressing her supporters who are thinking of voting for McCain, she should say,”No, you can’t!”

    Reply

  63. Zathras says:

    It’s interesting how differently people respond to the feminist angle of “Hillary Clinton night” in Denver.
    I can’t describe myself as a feminist with a straight face and am not a Clinton fan at all, so I found most of that stuff cloying. However, Sen. Clinton would probably have been better off hitting last night’s feminist themes much harder than she did early in the campaign, while she still had a lead among Democrats and needed only to close the deal by generating some enthusiasm.
    Bloggers and blog commenters, the great majority of whom are men, are prone to underrate the power of this particular “story” with women, or at least with women who vote in Democratic primaries. In addition, this was one part of Sen. Clinton’s appeal that was legitimately authentic. The “brilliance” of this policy advocate whose record of actual accomplishment in government is not that much more extensive that Sen. Obama’s was always, to be polite, a matter of opinion. I suppose Clinton and her team thought early on that they had the nomination process wired, and were thinking in terms of how to beat the Republicans in a national security election like the one John Kerry lost in 2004. At any rate it seems to me that Clinton made the strongest case for her candidacy to Democratic voters only at the very end of the campaign, when it was too late to do her any good — quite an irony for someone whose professional life has been dominated by the mechanics of campaign politics.

    Reply

  64. Dan Kervick says:

    I briefly tuned into Warner, but tuned out quickly. He’s never done anything to appeal to me. Recall that Bill Clinton gave the keynote in 1988, and that was a flop too.

    Reply

  65. Dan Kervick says:

    I briefly tuned into Warner, but tuned out quickly. He’s never done anything to appeal to me. Recall that Bill Clinton gave the keynote in 1988, and that was a flop too.

    Reply

  66. rich says:

    That really was Senator Clinton’s best speech, hands down. It may’ve redeemed her for future runs—and it was necessary for her to come through.
    Interesting to see many reporters, analysts and pundits try to claim that it fell short. It didn’t laud Obama enough, or persuade her supporters or actively bash McCain. None of those criticisms ring true—and that speaks to the commentariat’s agenda, rather than to Hillary Clinton’s performance.
    Great example of this was David Brooks’ reaction to Michelle Obama’s speech. Complained it didn’t humanize Barack Obama or tell his story—but Brooks was instantly and roundly contradicted by all 4 co-analysts. Nelson & Beschloss insisting the speech told the story and the family moment was worth 2 or 3 million votes (Nelson) and 4 or 5 million votes (Beschloss).
    But several straight journalists are looking for flaws and shortcomings where none are in evidence.
    Great speech. On target. And within a long tradition of conventioneering.

    Reply

  67. PissedOffAmerican says:

    The whole canival is absurd. Never before have we had an administration so defiant before the law, that has strayed so far from the basic tenets we have always held before the world as our foundational structure. Yet these shameless posturing co-conspirators jump up and down and point fingers, as if they’ve had no hand in our fall from grace.
    I found Hillary’s speech obscene, lacking any depth or substantive content.
    The whole fuckin’ carnival reminds me of the atmosphere at the Forum when Chuck Barry opened for the Stones. Now there was a stage production that was worth going to, that had a sincerity of purpose that this Convention can never claim.
    Why am I the only one here that is saddened and ashamed by this spectacle? God, are we really such a shallow and empty nation?
    Today, families will die, at our hand. Murdered by the criminal misdeeds of the very people being cheered by the glittered slobbering masses gathered at this obscene orgy.
    If this is what we’ve become, then we deserve these people masquerading as statesmen. And surely this nation is about to be handed that that we have dished out. It is inevitable. Say goodbye to “the last remaining super power”.

    Reply

  68. Matt says:

    I agree that in terms of delivery and style, this was the best speech I’ve ever seen her give, even better than that one in the National Building Museum. In my opinion, there is one thing that she needs to do a lot more of, and that is mentioning John McCain by name in these big speeches, not just the Republicans in general. She had that one great line (No way, no how…No McCain.), but I don’t think she spoke his name again, and she never came close to saying anything that forceful again. From Obama’s point of view, the most important thing Hillary Clinton can do is to straightforwardly denounce John McCain and his dirty-ass commercials that pinch her words for his own benefit. She did a little of this but she should do more of it. I think this is a fairly obvious point from the point of view of Democratic strategy.

    Reply

  69. John B. says:

    Good points Dan. I agree with your take.
    On another note, I am wondering and observing about the fact that no one is talking about the “keynote” speech last night by Mark Warner.
    He was completely overshadowed by Hillary in both style, tone and content.

    Reply

  70. Dan Kervick says:

    Clinton’s chief political task last night was not to speak to the world, or to the nation, or even to the entire Democratic Party. It was to speak directly to her own supporters, particularly those who are still uncommitted and holding out, and to win their votes over for Obama. That’s all Obama supporters could have reasonably expected of her, and I thought she delivered.
    A lot of her supporters still evidently have a visceral dislike for Obama, and are not prepared to suddenly start loving Obama, or to start believing he is a totally awesome guy. But most of them are prepared to be persuaded to vote for him. For a lot of them, it is their personal loyalty to Clinton, and their connection to her campaign as an expression of the advancement of women and their own dreams, and their personal struggles against the glass ceiling, that is the source of their continuing disappointment and resentment, and reticence about committing to supporting Obama. So it was appropriate and effective for Clinton to attempt to connect on that level, and then try to use that connection to get them to reflect on their common political values, and the ways in which those values would be best advanced in the election by rejecting McCain and voting for Obama.
    I wrote the following early last night, on another blog:
    “All I really want is for her to convey one message to her supporters with force, sincerity and conviction: “If you really support me, and support the causes I have devoted my life to advancing, then you won’t allow your pain to be exploited by those who want to use it to undermine everything I have worked for, but will vote for the man I am voting for, Barack Obama.” And I expect her to then lay out the comparative case for Obama, and against McCain, on issue after issue after issue. At the end, I want any of her Democratic supporters who have been wavering between Obama and McCain to think, “What could I have been thinking? It’s not even close.””
    So I’m satisfied.
    She also provided the Obama campaign with some effective lines. The “twin cities” line was very useful, because that image will really stick, and every time someone says “live from the Twin Cities” next week, the public will remember the idea of the Bush-McCain fusion.

    Reply

  71. ed says:

    “a chief weakness of her campaign may have been that her rhetoric focused so much on policy battles and not enough (and not early enough) on why she was the most qualified of 300 million people to lead.”
    Another chief weakness was her voting for and supporting and not learning the lessons from* The Iraq Invasion. That was pretty large.
    *i.e., Kyl-Lieberman amendment

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *