Hillary’s Voice

HAPPY BASTILLE DAY, AMERICA!
 ALLONS ENFANTS DE LA PATRIE—
TO THE BARRICADES!

Artist General

Hillary for VP? Bwahahahahahhhh! (by riverdaughter at The Confluence)
Here’s the story, PUMAs: “Barack Obama doesn’t rule out Clinton for VP”… [T]he money’s not coming in, the poll numbers are starting to look alarming, FISA didn’t go so well and there’s too much time left before the convention.  We can’t put Hillary on the ballot.  If we do that, she might just pull it out.  By late August, Obama could be in real trouble.  How do we get everyone on board and yet still keep firm control of the party and Obama? By George!  Let’s float the idea that we’re considering making her VP!  It’s brilliant!  Some of the low info holdouts might go for that.  It just might be enough to swing the sucker for BO.  We don’t have to actually follow through.  We’ll just leave the possibility hanging out there.  Once it gains enough traction, people will say it’s the best consolation prize she’s likely to get and they’ll accept it…

Wow!  I never thought I’d say this but it’s a good thing that low info voters watch Fox.  Otherwise, they might not even know there was a PUMA movement.  Hey, if Clinton is getting under their skin enough to make them offer her VP, she might as well go for the whole thing.  Maybe some seniors my Mom’s age would settle for second place, but none of the PUMAs *I* know would.  When they start screaming “VP!”, then it’s working.  No backing off now, guys. Full speed ahead to Denver.

About that platform writing thing: It’s all about the data (by lambert at Corrente)
I know I’m bitter and cynical, but I’ve always found and find the whole Obama site totally off-putting. Never mind the creepy soft-focus feel to the graphics, it’s the words:.. “You have the power to contribute directly to the Democratic platform, but in order for your thoughts to be incorporated, your event must be registered in our system… Please ensure that all members of your Platform Meeting have signed in and registered so that we know who was in attendance… If you’d prefer, you can mail sign-in sheets…” They want that data so bad, they’ll take it via snail mail and key it themselves… Say, anybody know where the Obama Movement’s privacy policy is? Like, what they can do with your data once you’ve “shared” it with them, and who they can sell it to?… The whole thing gave me the creeps. It makes me feel like signing up with Amway or something.

Making It: How Chicago shaped Obama. (by Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker)
Perhaps the greatest misconception about Barack Obama is that he is some sort of anti-establishment revolutionary. Rather, every stage of his political career has been marked by an eagerness to accommodate himself to existing institutions rather than tear them down or replace them. When he was a community organizer, he channelled his work through Chicago’s churches, because they were the main bases of power on the South Side. He was an agnostic when he started, and the work led him to become a practicing Christian. At Harvard, he won the presidency of the Law Review by appealing to the conservatives on the selection panel.

In Springfield, rather than challenge the Old Guard Democratic leaders, Obama built a mutually beneficial relationship with them. “You have the power to make a United States senator,” he told Emil Jones in 2003. In his downtime, he played poker with lobbyists and Republican lawmakers. In Washington, he has been a cautious senator and, when he arrived, made a point of not defining himself as an opponent of the Iraq war.
The article is very long, but reading it is very important to understanding who Obama is and how he accomplished his meteoric rise in politics.  It has always been due to machinations with the political process and kowtowing to those he could convince to help him politically, no matter how smarmy their actions and associations.  His career was created and nurtured by the Illinois Combine of political machines, and electing him president will mean electing them to power, as well.

The New Yorker (July 21, 2008 Issue)

Satire? (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
The latest New Yorker cover has sparked a lot of justifiable outrage. Obama spokesman Bill Burton said: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” The cover artist Bill Blitt responds: “[I] think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.” My view is that as satire it utterly fails… Satire involving racist, sexist and religious stereotypes just do not work and I wonder when folks might wake up to that fact. Or will they continue to yell “PC!”

Did The New Yorker Go Too Far (or not far enough)? (by Taylor Marsh)
[W]hat would we do if a similar feature of Hillary and Bill was depicted, with their mythological wingnut nightmares drawn for all to digest? Oh right, we had the ’90s. We also had the 2008 primaries:
Where was the outrage THEN?

via BagNewsNotes

Hypocrisy thy name is Huffington (by garychapelhill at The Confluence)
Arianna Huffington is a two-faced hypocrite.  This is the Headline on her rag regarding the New Yorker  cover featuring a gun-toting Michelle Obama “fist-bumping” a turban wearing Barack: “Obama Camp: ‘Tasteless And Offensive’”… The cover in my opinion is nothing compared to how the media treated Hillary. I mean, anyone remember this?
And where was the outrage THEN?

Not That Negative (Political Wire)
CQ Politics notes that Brown University political scientist Darrell West “set out to determine just how negative the primaries were — as compared with the nine previous White House races since 1972. As it turns out… they weren’t as negative as one might imagine.”
Apparently they didn’t bother to look at the blogs.  Nor did they seem to have encountered Hillary hate like that shown in the two graphics above.

U.S. Considers Increasing Pace of Iraq Pullout (New York Times)
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is considering the withdrawal of additional combat forces from Iraq beginning in September, according to administration and military officials, raising the prospect of a far more ambitious plan than expected only months ago. Such a withdrawal would be a striking reversal from the nadir of the war in 2006 and 2007… Any troop reductions announced in the heat of the presidential election could blur the sharp differences between the candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, over how long to stay in Iraq. But the political benefit might go more to Mr. McCain than Mr. Obama.
I’ve been trying to tell you.  Bush will do everything he can to make sure McCain is elected in November.

My Plan for Iraq (by Barack Obama, writing in the New York Times)
THE call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States. The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.
ANOTHER flip-flop.  A week or so ago, he wasn’t so sure about ending the war.  Is he just trying to keep everyone off balance?  Boy, does that remind me of George Bush!

And Obama wasn’t that adamant an opponent to the war in Iraq “from the beginning”.  In his touted 2002 speech, he never said, “Do not attack Iraq.”  He didn’t say, “I am against this war.”  He didn’t say, “If I were in the U.S. Senate I’d vote against any resolution authorizing military action.”  He gave himself deniability in case the war went well, and in fact did remove the speech from his website while the war was popular, in 2003. As a U.S. Senate candidate in 2004, he made conflicting statements about his stance on the war, even saying, at one point, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.”  Again, he wanted to have it both ways.  And his voting on funding the war is exactly the same as Hillary Clinton’s.  He has never tried to cut off funding for the war.

Obama, McCain agree on many once-divisive issues (Los Angeles Times)
Stem-cell research and nuclear weapons are just two examples of a surprising but little-noticed aspect of the 2008 campaign: Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush. On immigration, faith-based social services, expanded government wiretapping, global warming and more, Obama and McCain have arrived at similar stances — even as they have spent weeks trying to amplify the differences between them on other issues, such as healthcare and taxes. Even on Iraq, a signature issue for both candidates, McCain and Obama have edged toward each other.
So which do you want, McSame, or OBush?  (Thanks to iam0nly1 at Alegre’s Corner)

Obama’s New Approach: Contrast (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
A funny thing happened to Obama’s “Move To The Middle” tour. After two weeks, it has abruptly ended, as the AP’s Liz Sidoti writes: “Barack Obama has found something that eluded him during the primary season - contrast. And, he’s basking in it. . . . [V]ast disagreements with McCain - on everything from economic philosophies to security proposals - seem to have given Obama license to more aggressively and enthusiastically go after his foe…” Of course this placed story (it seems impossible to believe that Obama aides were not pushing for this story) comes on the heels of two weeks of Obama campaign blurring and triangulation that clearly hurt Obama. From FISA to choice, Obama was “moving to the middle.” The backlash must have stunned his campaign.
Got whiplash yet?

Flip-Flop Flap (by Hendrik Hertzberg, the New Yorker)
Obama, it turns out, is a politician. In this respect, he resembles the forty-three Presidents he hopes to succeed, from the Father of His Country to the wayward son, Alpha George to Omega George. Winning a Presidential election doesn’t require being all things to all of the people all of the time, but it does require being some things to most of the people some of the time. It doesn’t require saying one thing and also saying its opposite, but it does require saying more or less the same thing in ways that are understood in different ways. They’re all politicians, yes—very much including Obama.
Sure, just go ahead and minimize the seismic position shifts, Rick.  It’s not as if Obama was sold like a bar of soap as some kind of transformational figure—oh, wait!  This kind of accommodationist writing helps undermine trust in anything and everything to do with politics.  Everybody does it, so get used to it.  I will continue to expect more than you apparently do from people who want to represent me.  I guess I’m just a starry-eyed optimist.

Will the real Obama please stand? (by Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
The headline in The Washington Post was intriguing: “Obama’s Ideology Proving Difficult to Pinpoint.” The article turned out to be a charitable discussion of whether the Democratic nominee is moving away from leftist positions he took during the primaries and toward the political center for the general election. Of course he is. Enough to produce, as someone put it, whiplash. So let’s give the topic a headline that directly addresses the doubts: Just who is Barack Obama? Is he the inspirational juggernaut of the early primaries, the man who promised “change we can believe in” and a new era in American politics? Or is he one more politician whose actions often contradict his words? Put another way, what does he believe in? Damned if I know.
So how’s all that flip flopping working out for you, Senator Obama?  See below.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll Sunday, July 13, 2008
For the second straight day, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that the race for the White House is tied. Sunday’s numbers show Barack Obama and John McCain each attracting 43% of the vote… For most of the past month-and-a-half, Obama has led McCain by approximately five percentage points… McCain is now viewed favorably by 57% of voters and unfavorably by 40%. For Obama, the numbers are 54% favorable and 44% unfavorable… It is interesting to note that 57% of Democrats have a Very Favorable opinion of Obama while just 33% of Republicans are that enthusiastic about their nominee. However, 87% of Republicans have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of McCain while only 79% of Democrats have such an opinion of Obama.

Formerobamasupporters.com (by John: south of Melrose at Liberal Rapture)
I am hesitant to scream “told ya so” on this one - because parts of the site feel like Right Wingers are responsible for it. The Put America First button is a flag for me. Not because I do not think Americans should concern themselves with their own nation first - I certainly do - I just find it hard to fathom “former Obama supporters” would use this language… If this site is genuine- I am overjoyed. Liberal Rapture has been intoning against Obama since April 2007. Why? Mostly our sense he was a fraud. This “sense” has long since been verified by the facts. Especially in the last month. Check the site out. I can’t join because I never was an Obama supporter - but it sure is an intriguing development.
The main problem I have with the site is that they often say, “This is not the Obama we know.”  But Obama hasn’t changed.  He’s been a right winger since he became my senator in 2004.  That’s why I’ve been so disappointed in him.  The signs were there for those who cared to look.  Nevertheless, I applaud those waking from their Kool-Aid induced trance.  Truth is always better for you, even though it hurts at first.

Plouffe the Magic Dragon (by Pat Racimora at No Quarter)

You’ve got to hand it to David Plouffe (pronounced Pluff), even though he rarely makes headlines, hates to have his photo taken, and prefers to attend to the mechanics of the Obama campaign out of sight. As its manager, Plouffe planned a ground game like no other before him… BUT, will the same plan work for the general election in November? Many don’t think so. Republicans usually circle their wagons and vote for their man no matter what… Can David Plouffe still pull Obama out? [Karl] Rove isn’t so sure. “Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate’s credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.”

I Am A Centrist Because . . . (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
What Obama Needs To Learn: “Politics is not a battle for the middle. It is a battle for defining the terms of the political debate. It is a battle to be able to say what is the middle.” Via Digby, according to the LATimes, I am Centrist because I support stem cell research, immigration, addressing global warming and nuclear nonproliferation. As Digby writes: “It’s good for us when positions that have been considered left wing ideas are characterized as centrist. It signals that the public . . . have decided that on some issues, anyway, what was once considered left wing heresy is now mainstream.” That is called defining what the middle is. Obama and progressives need to keep pushing the middle in our direction. On Iraq, warrantless wiretapping and a whole range of issues. Obama still has not learned the lesson.
I’m a centrist because what I want for America is what 60 to 80% of Americans also want.  But I’m called a far left lunatic.

Obama says `little doubt’ country in recession (AP)
Barack Obama said there is “little doubt we’ve moved into recession,” underscoring the need for a 2nd economic stimulus package, swift steps to shore up the housing market and a energy policy to reduce reliance on foreign oil imports. 

McCain making play at NAACP for votes Obama should win (McClatchy)
WASHINGTON — Barack Obama and John McCain vie for African-American votes this week with appearances before the NAACP convention in Cincinnati, a stop with potential opportunities and pitfalls for both candidates.

Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) goes blank trying to find differences between McCain and Bush’s economic policies. (by John Amato at Crooks and Liars)
Obama ran an ad calling McCain—McSame in the economy. Republican Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina went blank trying to think up any differences between John McCain and George Bush’s economic policies when Blitzer asked him to name some. After stammering for a minute, he brought up NAFTA? Say, what? Blitzer then said they had no differences on NAFTA. Oh, and then Sanford mentioned McSame’s opposition to earmarks. That’s sure going to cut your gas prices.
Click through to watch the video.

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com