Arkansas Blog

Yuck to another of Brummett's one-sided Clinton opinions. ANY political commentator who says the following: "...Clinton's greatest accomplishment was managing to get elected at all amid a conservative mood..." is, well, silly...is in the same category as Rush/Sean/blah blah when it comes to assessing anything Clinton. It's simply beyond their biases. Lord knows Bill's got his flaws (and Hillary, too) and there is plenty of crap to criticize about his presidency (and governorship)...but to dismiss his economic accomplishments so off handedly and completely just makes Brummett seem petty and ready for Faux.

(So happy y'all are up/running!)

Sorry, Zelda, I'm the biggest Bill Clinton fan you'll find (well, was before this at least), but a monkey could have been president in the 90s and the economy would have boomed thanks to the boom of the internet. President's really have no right to take credit for stimulating (or hurting) the economy, as the forces that control the economy really are not under the influence of any stimulus package. The economy will ebb and flow naturally, and some presidents get fortunate (Clinton) and other's don't (Carter).

Bill was good at policy, no doubt, but politics are that family's strong points. The levels they're stooping to now are absolutely repulsive.

I'm certainly not an economist, razorbackdem; and I know that many factors, aside from a single president, contribute to the state of the economy. I still think, however, that Bill should be given some credit for the elimination of the deficit (and a few other things). But what prompted my response to Brummett is this persistent refusal to acknowledge ANYTHING good about the Clinton Presidency. I have no illusion that I could write a fair accounting of the Bush presidency...I dislike his politics too much. But I wouldn't pretend otherwise...like so many Clinton-hating talking heads do.

And, what 'levels' are you referencing? What have the Clintons done recently that is so offensive, so outside normal political bantering? Every time another Democrat, like Kerry, comes out lecturing the Clintons for not playing fair, I'm reminded that the evil Clintons were the only Dems who successfully whooped the Republicans; and I'm reminded what a fool Gore was to not utilize the political genius of Clinton. I'm reminded that this election is the Dems to lose and they're well on there way if they keep echoing Republican talking points about the Evil Clintons.

I see Brummett's mile wide conservative side woke up and wrote this not very accurate column, it happens about half the time the older he gets. I don't know why we're supposed to belief his assertion that Obama speaks the truth when John attributes Clinton saying, "You can't make this stuff up" to the Reagan comments, when Bill said that the day before the New Hampshire vote.....apparently Brummett "can make this stuff up."

I don't need John Brummett or Bill O'Reilly to tell me what Barack Obama said about Republican ideas...I read Obama's words with my 2 semi-good eyes. When did Barack Obama morph into Mark Pryor? What next.....loving words towards Joe Lieberman? Praising old dead Ronnie isn't the same as splitting a live baby in to, but Jesus....our country is settling on the bottom of the ocean and Barack needs to pander to wavering Republicans bad enough to switch our attention away from the 3rd and 4th terms of Herbert Hoover, to bask in the glories of Ronald Reagan?

Obama got caught pandering and now wants us to believe that when he said Republicans had all the ideas he didn't mean....didn't MEAN they were good ideas. Bill Gates has all the money....but you must understand I'm not saying all his money is good. "Clinton's greatest accomplishment was managing to get elected at all amid a conservative mood".......Jesus! Where did all the adults go?

I remember.....I remember back before the 7 horrible Cheney-Bush years when we had 8 great Clinton years. If you cut out the Republican witch hunt, it was as perfect as 2 terms could get. Boy....I'd hate to go back to the bad ole Clinton days of yore. Those days when America was respected and the only war we fought was over in no time without the loss of a single American soldier in combat. That rare moment of a balanced budget for the first time in decades. oh horrors!

I guess I'm strange because I respect Jimmy Carter for "demeaning his statesmanly self" in order to build Habitat Houses for poor people all over the country instead of sitting on the board of Carlyle like Poppa Bush. I'm messed up for respecting Al Gore for "demeaning his statesmanly self" by winning an Oscar and the Nobel Prize trying to save the planet instead of going into a potatoe induced hibernation like Dan Quayle. And me bad for admiring Bill Clinton for "demeaning his statesmanly self" taking up for his wife. I guess winning the last 2 primaries was just a fluke? Clinton/Obama '08!

I'd like to give Obama credit for his outstanding speech this past Sunday at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta. Commemorating Martin Luther King and his vision of a beloved community, Obama took on the homophobia of many African Americans, stating, "And yet, if we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that none of our hands are entirely clean. If we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that our own community has not always been true to King's vision of a beloved community. We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

It takes courage to speak those words, in a cultural and political climate in which expressing solidarity with gay people comes with a price. (Look at how some commentators on the right are reveling in the death of Heath Ledger and saying God punished him for even playing gay....)

It takes courage to stand up and confront one's own community about these issues. As Pam Spaulding has noted, it is "everybody's problem" that we cannot honestly and openly discuss the homophobia of the African-American community: http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4223.

I have been critical of Obama for his toying with "ex-gay" ministers--a move I have seen as politically expedient, designed to win votes in the black community. Since I have expressed criticism of this move, I believe in giving him credit when credit is due--and it is due for his willingness to speak out boldly last Sunday.

I am waiting to hear similarly bold, clear, unambiguous justice-oriented words from Hilary about the ugly homophobia of the white communities and of mainstream largely white churches, including those that profess an inclusivity and a commitment to justice that they do not practice.

"What levels..."

Well, the canned tear right before NH was cute. Not repulsive, but cute.
I've heard from several sources that the infamous e-mail portraying Obama as a radical Muslim started with Hillary campaign interns, which were then "fired," ...but how do you fire volunteer help?
The Reagan mess is just getting out of control. Portraying Obama as quasi-republican is ridiculous and not only a distortion of his record, it is a flat out lie...the DLC is as conservative as democrats come, and Obama is repeatedly ranked far to the left of Mrs. Clinton. If you hate Pryor and Lieberman or their conservatism, DBI, where is your hatred for Mrs. Clinton? Not to mention..the day Clinton asks Obama to run with her (or the day he accepts) is the same day that Max rides an elephant naked down I-40

Don't get me wrong. Clinton's presidency was exceptional. The main area that made it so great was the respect we had around the world, because the world respected Bill Clinton. 3 more months of this, and that won't be the case.

So basically, razorbackdem, you think spreading Muslim rumors about Osama was 'absolutely repulsive' (for discussion's sake, I'm agreeing that 'it's' true). I wouldn't do it...but I find it to be 'presidential politics' as usual. As unfair as it is, you can bet the Republicans will play the Muslim/terror card if Obama is the nominee (in fact, I think the so-called rumor originated with the Faux gang). Right or wrong, distorting opponents' records is par for the political course. And as long as they're not going after each others' mommas/children or hurting animals...it's politics as usual. (Heck, in Republican Land nothing is off limits...i.e. McCain's bastard children.) The Clintons and Obama need to practice 'rough' politics on each other 'cause one of em is going to face the Party of Cheney/Rove. And this Reagan/Muslim stuff is tame compared to what's coming.

Obama needs to come out swinging and quit complaining about Bill picking on him. (I'm sure if he tries hard he can come up with some dirt of the Clintons ha!)

You're right, muddlingthrough, that was admirable of Obama. Wouldn't it be nice if Hillary/Obama tried to out enlighten each other!

Brummett knows from long experience the politically transformative power of the Clinton's "two for/as one" dynamic. they are literally (pardon the pun) the 'Harlem Globetrotters' of american politics. in any political match, they, and only they, can do things that would get the whistle called on anyone else. it's a helluva show, especially in campaigning, though it does have a negative cost when applied to actually governing. (hence the necessity of 'triangulation')

but that consequence has it's positive aspects as well, as in 'small ball' and 'gridlock' (which in contrast to the last 7 years of 'big ideas', looks better all the time, especially if it results in a balanced budget/surplus)

the Clintons are also the first true baby-boomers/rocknroll'ers to occupy the top tier of american politics. thus they have no hesitation in abandoning decorum if it is perceived as being an obstacle to success.

Obama is the harbinger of the greatest schism to hit american politics since the Civil War. the battle between the younger and the older, the media/technology savvy versus those who grew up actually talking to one another, face to face, in person. (which for several years in the '60s and '70's including marching in the streets together) it is also a battle between those who rely on the government for financial assistance and those who will have to pay for it.

in 1980, Reagan's election marked the turning away from the FDR paradigm (even if it was only mostly rhetorical) 2008 will mark the beginning of the pendulum swinging back toward the FDR version of the social contract, but only temporarily, as it transforms into the 'great generational schism' to come.

Thanks, zelda: and you're right. Of course, the ideal would be to have a political dialogue (and coalition) in which gender AND race would both be discussed openly, honestly, and productively. A Hilary-Obama ticket could be promising.

And as muleboy points out, one of the pluses of such a combination is that, for various reasons, Obama has come to represent a movement beyond status-quo politics for many younger Americans. I read his courage in speaking out last Sunday in that light--at least, in part. And I read Hilary's silence in a status-quo light, sad to say. I continue to suspect that Hilary remains silent about this issue of glaring injustice in our society--a social wound that demands to be healed--out of plain calculation, a desire to capitalize on "mainstream" attitudes by speaking about justice in vaporous terms that never get spelled out concretely.

But that spelling out has to take place, if the younger generation is to have a viable future. To take the case of homophobia (among many other cases): recent studies show 14% of American adolescents either identifying as gay or entertaining that possibility. Studies also show alarmingly high rates of suicide among gay youth.

Has anyone been following the reaction to Heath Ledger's death? The Phelps antiChrist contingent are (predictably) planning to picket the funeral. But even in the "mainstream," the levels of hate rhetoric have been atrocious and shocking. A FOX news commentator made fun of "Brokeback Mountain" and Ledger yesterday. A blog at yahoo is generating a lot of activity. People are suggesting God killed Heath Ledger for playing gay.

Meanwhile, the "mainstream"--which has gay children, gay nieces, gay nephews--remains silent, as the hatred is spewed out. Meanwhile, the churches, which commit themselves to noble "social principles" that reject anti-gay prejudice and that call for healing social wounds, remain silent--at best. At worst, they tacitly or actively egg on the hate rhetoric.

It gives me heart when a presidential candidate has the courage to speak out about this, if only because the next generation deserves to have a chance to live a more humane life--whether gay or straight, black or white, red, yellow, male or female.

I'm disturbed by Hilary's silence. I'm heartened by Obama's willingness to speak out and, in particular, to speak directly to his own community.

You're a pure contradiction RazorbackDem....if the Clinton presidency was exceptional, why not have a heaping helping of more of it for the next 8 years? And your confusing what the Talking Heads are SAYING Bill and Hillary mean and say.

No one in the Clinton camp put out anything saying Obama was a Muslim....zero proof. No one in the Clinton camp said Obama was a quasi-Republican. The Clintons were just as aghast as I was that with as much truly horrible stuff going on around us at the hands of Reagan's offspring...why would anyone especially Obama pick now to praise Reagan and call the Republicans the party of ideas? It's not as bad as having a weepy moment over Hitler...but it's damn stupid to bring up right now.

You're Fox News-ing when you talk of Hillary's tears....watch on YouTube....there was no tears...it's more of that Gore said he invented the Internet stuff....don't support the Swiftboaters by believing them! I like Obama...but Jesus he's not. This is a fight for the most important position in the universe, our kids future is at stake. For the first time in history the US is on the verge of electing a black man or a woman to the Presidency.

And suddenly it's not only the Vietnam War all over again, but it's Black Thursday in October, 1929......we've got serious serious problems that might kill us. It's a damn shame we can't send Cheney-Bush to the gallows tomorrow and install Hillary, Barack and John Edwards as co-Presidents on Friday.......we're gonna need all the help we can get!

Before nominating Obama for sainthood on GLBT equality, Muddling, let's set his record, uh, straight.

Obama's the guy who, when caught featuring notorious "ex-gay" gospel icon Donnie McClurkin in his (Obama's) get-the-black-vote-away-from-Hillary tour of South Carolina, refused to drop McClurkin and his ignorant bigotry from the program -- despite having plenty of time to do so, and despite on-the-record graphic testimony from one of McClurkin's recent rent-boys.

Instead, Obama politely stated he didn't "agree" with McClurkin's point of view, but kept him on to pander to the historic homophobia of the "black community" and black churches (a literally deadly prejudice that has statistically kept blacks at the top of HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths for nearly three decades).

Then Obama turns around and confronts (again politely) that same historic black prejudice at his address on Martin Luther King Day to 2,500 people at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta.

"We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them."

Then Obama is immediately endorsed by the homophobic Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, senior pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church and a spiritual advisor to President George W. Bush.

Which is it, Obama? "Our gay brothers and sisters" are sort of equal but not really?

You welcome McClurkin and Caldwell as supporters while disavowing (politely) their discriminatory positions?

How 'bout welcoming a few Holocaust-denying anti-Semites onto your bandwagon (while politely disagreeing with their "positions") to appeal to the "black community's" equally notorious anti-Semitism? You know: like Jesse "Hymie Town" Jackson?

Sorry, Obama. You're still not "embracing" America's gay and lesbian citizens.

Just pandering to bigotry while "positioning" yourself to appear not to.

We'll all be watching to see how this works out for ya.

not a wise use of blogspace by Steve Harrelson, imo.

the Clintons don't need his help and the AA community (and the tech-savvy 35y/o and below) in Texarkana will remember it, to his future detriment.

i thought he was smarter than that.

this is what is called 'political ju-jitsu' ... from today's NYT

Senator John McCain launched into a pointed critique of his Senate colleague Hillary Rodham Clinton today, saying that "for the first time in political history" a presidential candidate has called for outright surrender in a war.
"Candidate Clinton has called for surrender and waving the white flag," he said during an appearance in West Palm Beach. "I think it's terrible. I think it's terrible."
His remarks come as he is campaigning hard in Florida, hoping to defeat Rudolph W. Giuliani and keep the momentum from his victory last Saturday in South Carolina. In his remarks, he seemed to suggest Mrs. Clinton would be the nominee, and was perhaps using her as a vehicle to rally Republican voters in the run-up to the primary.
"I look forward to the debate with Senator Clinton on that issue. Americans don't want to throw away the hard-earned gains we have made against Al Qaeda and Iraq. If Senator Clinton has her way, Al Qaeda will trumpet to the world that they have beaten the United States."

.... slamming HRC for something that can be proven negative, while promoting HRC as the eventual nominee... very slick.

if it's McCain and HRC, for only the second time since 1976, will the nominees of both parties be persons who did not, in one way or another, seek to avoid the draft/military/combat service. if by some miracle, McCain were elected, he would be the only President in US history to have served in combat in VietNam.

and speaking of VietNam, talk about fighting a losing battle (pardon the pun) for history has shown that the damn, dirty hippies, and cleaner-cut "anti's" (McGovern-iks) were proven correct and the Nixon-ites "bomb 'em back to the stone age" were proven wrong. to re-fight the last generation's battle over VietNam as it relates to US policy in Iraq (especially with over half of the electorate viewing VietNam as 'ancient' history) is nearly the ultimate in stupidity (unless of course it is his function to lose?)

Norma, thanks for your response. Did you note the following section of my initial posting in this thread?:

"I have been critical of Obama for his toying with 'ex-gay' ministers--a move I have seen as politically expedient, designed to win votes in the black community. Since I have expressed criticism of this move, I believe in giving him credit when credit is due--and it is due for his willingness to speak out boldly last Sunday."

I was referring there to the McClurkin incident, along with a subsequent linking of Obama to a website that contained references to an "ex-gay" ministry.

You may have missed my previous postings on other threads about this, in which I stated that I intend to keep holding Obama's feet to the fire about his toying with "ex-gay" ministers in order (my reading) to make political hay in the black community. In fact, in one of those previous postings, I posted the following letter I sent to Newsweek after news of the McClurkin incident broke. Newsweek did not publish it:

"As a white Christian who has fought hard for racial justice in the U.S. (and who also happens to be gay), I find the homophobia of black churches disconcerting. It is eerily reminiscent of the bible-fueled cruelty inflicted by my Southern ancestors on African Americans for generations. I would find Barack Obama's position on gay rights more compelling if he were forthright about challenging an ugly prejudice that has no place in the lives of any Americans, white or black."

Even so, I do want to give credit where credit is due, and I think Obama deserves credit for speaking out this Sunday. To me, his doing so indicates he is willing to risk paying the price for demonstrating solidarity with LGBT persons. It also suggests to me that he has been willing to listen to critics who called him to account for inviting McClurkin on tour with him.

I would be delighted to hear Hilary speak so unequivocally on this issue. And if she does so, I will be happy to give her credit, just as I have done in Obama's case--while holding the feet of both to the fire, when they talk about justice in the abstract, while ignoring what that means in LGBT lives.

Wasn't a significant part of balancing the budget in the 1990's put on the back of the Social Security Trust Fund?

With ill-conceived writings like these, Brummett's apparently working hard at making himself even more irrelevant that he already is.

Nobody in most of Arkansas would even read his musings if it weren't for Max's generosity, so I guess he's got to go for the shock factor to get any notice.

Since it's looking like the Republicans are sending old John McCain up the flagpole us Democrats can rest easy. When the Republican Party knows it won't be winning the next election they always run the oldest cracker they got in the barrel. Remember Bob Dole? My grandmother couldn't get it up for Bob Dole. But by running him they filled the top spot, it gave the old guy one last victory lap around America at the end of his long career and since his career was at the end, losing didn't hurt him none.

In fact it made him richer by snagging him all those Viagra commericals. You can talk about Bill Clinton ruining his legacy getting in Obama's face, but nothing is more legacy ruining than being the Soft Dick spokesman after 50 years in the US Senate. And didn't you really want to envision ole Bob, naked with his ink pen still in his right hand rooting around on old Liddy for hours until the pill wears off? Rest home porn....mmmmmmmmmm

Republican Party 1854-2008 Scat!

"But what prompted my response to Brummett is this persistent refusal to acknowledge ANYTHING good about the Clinton Presidency."

Well now, zelda, you've got to consider that if there was anything good about Clinton, Brummett (fair, objective, and comprehensive writer that he is) would surely know about it (wink, wink). After all, he did spend a whole year in Washington early in Clinton's first term, and then in 1994 came out with that spellbinding book of his, HIGH WIRE (which I believe sold about 50 copies).

"I'm reminded what a fool Gore was to not utilize the political genius of Clinton"--zelda

Pure myth. A recent Vanity Fair article, which you can read by clicking on my name below, details the ways in which both Clintons actively undermined Gore in the 2000 election. I won't summarize the article here, but it discusses in pretty good detail how Hillary's Senate campaign sapped Gore's fundraising, how Bill Clinton made public comments during the election playing into the "Gore's a stiff" theme, how Hillary attended Gore events and begged donations for herself, and how the White House staged public events to help Hillary's campaign instead of Gore's.

The question really isn't why did Gore fail to "utilize the political genius of Clinton"--rather, the question is, why did the Clintons mistreat Gore so badly when he had worked so hard for Bill's administration? The answer comes from a Gore staffer: "The Clintons come first. That was their basic framework." And so it remains to this day.

The article's a good read, and it really raises some questions about the myth that zelda spouted above.

You're right, gaddis, that was a fairly good read...though hardly evidence that the Clintons' Machiavellian plot to sabotage his run for the presidency was the ultimate reason he lost. This is my take: Gore and Hillary were not running against each other in 2000, a Gore presidency would have enhanced the Clinton legacy and ultimately it was Gore who, for whatever reason, decided to reject Bill Clinton's help. Even if the author was correct about Hillary's pushy ways and her usurpation of Gore's rightful role...Gore should have gotten over it and rode the Clinton political machine into the White House. Heck, Gore didn't even win his home state. If he had been as passionate about the 2000 race as he now is about the environment...

Uh, Gore was ultimately cheated out of the election, zelda. He won the election, so he didn't do too badly as a candidate.

Whatever his faults, Gore couldn't ride "the Clinton political machine" because it wasn't available to him. There was no conspiracy, just rampant self-interest and ambition, the existence of which in the Clintons is well-known. As a result, Gore didn't receive much assistance from the White House or from the Clintons themselves, not out of a desire to undermine Gore (though you wonder from some of Bill's typically undisciplined comments during the 2000 election) but out of their us-first mindset.

That's not to say that Gore is blameless--he didn't run a great campaign--but he doesn't deserve quite as much blame as some try to place on him, particularly with the "he should have rode Bill to victory" trope.

'tis worth noting whom Gore selected to be on the ticket with him in 2000, (the First Presidential-level decision any would-be POTUS makes) and what that person hath done since.

That's a good point, muleboy303. Lieberman is, to borrow words I once saw used to describe him (I think in a book review of Joan Didion's Political Fictions), "a constipated scold" who never should have been on the ticket.

By the way, today marks sixteen years since Bill Clinton rushed home from campaigning to kill, er, execute Ricky Ray Rector, a retarded man who suffered a botched execution that Clinton used as a political tool.

http://www.executedtoday.com/2008/01/24/1992-ricky-ray-rector/

Principled man, that Bill Clinton.