What would you have said or done

[bain_sidhe]

to prevent Bush from invading Iraq? How far would you have gone? How hard would you have fought?

I've been watching with dismay as the Clinton campaign descended into race-politics for that last few days, and have been struggling to come up with a rationale for it. This is the only one that makes sense to me. It requires a couple of assumptions, but I believe they're valid ones, given the arguments they've been making to the superdelagates.

Assumption one: Hillary (and Bill) really, truly, sincerely believe that Obama will lose the general--which makes McCain President, and gives us not only more of the Iraq fiasco, but may include attacks on other countries as well. The American economy will continue to slide into the abyss, with the poor and middle class continuing to lose ground until they are little more than serfs in one of the many economic fiefdoms of multi-national corporations.

This works for them as a rationale because if that's the result of an Obama nomination that you see, anything is "thinkable" in order to prevent it. It's an "end justifies the means" strategy that I don't agree with, but it makes their actions at least comprehensible.

Assumption two: They also seem to believe that this country remains so racist that even Democratic-leaning "white working class" people won't vote for Obama.

I find this incredibly sad, if they truly believe it. Even I don't believe it, and I have examples in my own (extended) family that tell me that there are more racists out there than I would like to think there are. But even some of them are considering voting for Obama anyway, just to get this country off the path it's currently on. Whether they'll actually do so in the voting booth is, of course, an open question. But they haven't completely ruled it out.

IF all this is true... Well, I've been "down" on the "hicks" of this country for a long time (I grew up in a small, rural farming community. I know these people, and far too many of them are willing--even eager--to be manipulated into voting with their lizard brains), but even I seem to think better of them than the Clintons do.

Sad. Very sad. But it makes recent events comprehensible, doesn't it?

[sandnsea]

1. What did they do to prevent the invasion?

What did they do to hold Bush accountable for his war lies?

Oh yeah, nothing. There go your assumptions that they give a shit about this country.

Next.

[galaxy21]

2. Strangely, I think there will be racists voting for Obama

Voting for a black guy might make them feel uncomfortable..but people are so desperate to see this war end, I think that will outweigh any prejudices they have.

[bain_sidhe]

3. I love you back.

Fair warning, this will be my response (copied from our brilliant soon-to-be nominee) to every Hillary or Obama bashing comment (at least until I have to leave). Not interested in bashing. Interested in making sense of it all.

[sandnsea]

4. Hey, it's reason #1 why I don't support her

She's the architect of the IWR vote strategy. The Clinton Administration told Edwards Iraq had WMD and is what he based his vote on, his words. She did not oppose the invasion, see Code Pink video. Bill gave Bush a pass on the yellowcake on the Larry King show. She went to Iraq and Afghanistan in Nov 2003 and said we need to "stay the course". She opposed timelines and benchmarks until she started running for President. You can't make sense of the Clintons until you understand the truth about them. They are as DLC as Lieberman is. It's not bashing, it's fact.

[patrice]

7. There's no way you can get away from that question.

Why did she support the CHANCE of war? Couldn't she figure out a better way to show she is/was "strong on defense"? OF COURSE SHE COULD HAVE, so WHY didn't she? Answer: She was bidding for a certain constituency to support her plan to run for pResident.

Yes, Obama made similar calculations, that IS what politics is, but he is/was bidding for a DIFFERENT constituency: Us.

[bain_sidhe]

9. Another long held belief of mine

although not very widespread, and probably wrong... but *I* think she voted for it because of the way the pubs opposed Bill's actions in Kosovo.

This is probably a dark view, but I really think that many of Hillary Clinton's present day actions are about the scars of Bill's presidency.

[patrice]

12. Oh, I strongly agree with that!

I've been thinking for a while about what kind of deeply buried impulses his pResidency created in her.

It's also kind of interesting that, as I hear anyway, some of her more powerful constituency is that rather upper and upper-middle branch of Feminism that had the economic luxury of developing misanthropy, while the lower economic branches of Feminism who support her could never afford to go there.

[patrice]

13. P.S. "certain constituency" = herself, FOBs, and PNAC. nt

[bain_sidhe]

8. *this* post isn't bashing

your first response was.

Anyway, I think even DLCers can love this country. We may vehemently disagree with what they think is "right" for the country, but I refuse to assume universally base motivations to their (wrongheaded) policies. (Yeah, some of them, though...)

The fact is, I don't think either of the Clintons "don't give a shit about this country." I think they do care, and most of Hillary's past work is evidence of that. But, like every other politician in the world, some times she's wrong. Her IWR vote was wrong, but I think it was sincere. And I suspect her reluctance to "go after" Bush was born of scars from the way the pubs went after her and Bill. (Again, an assumption. I can't climb inside her head, it's just my best guess.)

Anyway. I think efforts to understand what she's doing--even if we think her reasoning is wrong--will do more help promote unity than just calling her crazy, demonic, or republican (the worst of the lot).

**edited for editing artifacts...**

[sandnsea]

11. Well if you're just going to rationalize the facts

then it doesn't look like you're attempting any honest understanding at all, which was the basis of your OP. I suppose if you believe this country is supposed to be a corporate empire that dominates the globe, then the Clintons and DLC care about the country. I just don't think that's what we're about.

[bain_sidhe]

16. No, wait...

I wasn't trying to rationalize... I agree that this country isn't, and shouldn't be about "a corporate empire that dominates the globe."

But what makes generally decent people think that it *should*? And, I do admit, I don't hate DLCers. I think they're wrong, but I DO think most of them are decent people who have have what they consider to be rational, "common good" reasons for their policy positions.

I can think of a couple that aren't persuasive to me, but might be to some people. 1) Non-nationalistic corporations may avoid or reduce the coming "resource wars" between nations. 2) Corporations can (but have not, and I've seen no evidence of such a commitment, but I'm editorializing again) help lift third world workers out of subsistence level poverty. I mean, both India and China have a growing middle class principally on the investments of multinational corps.

I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THESE REASONS. But I can see that some people might consider them persuasive. That helps me understand where they're coming from, which, IMHO, can lead to more effectively opposing them.

**sigh. tyops.**

[sandnsea]

18. Those arguments depend on a strong labor movement

as we know from experience in this country. Yet corporations always seek out the most impoverished and oppressed nations to "raise out of poverty", so please excuse me if I don't buy it anymore. Further, please excuse me if I don't believe somebody with a 165 IQ didn't know exactly who would benefit when jobs when to China and India. He didn't put the environmental and human rights language IN the treaties, he didn't even fight to get them in there. And so now these countries are some of the biggest contributors to global warming, and we want to blame them instead of our corporations, and Bill Clinton, who made it happen. No. I'm not playing anymore. The planet and average people can't wait.

[bain_sidhe]

19. This is a perfect example of my point

though I may not have made it as well as I thought.

But, when we understand their reasoning, we can point out the faults in it, as you do with your point about the "strong labor movement" and the lack of environmental/worker standards in NAFTA. That was originally supposed to be part of the agreement, but it got dropped to get pub votes, and, as you say, never got pushed for afterward. Chances are it wouldn't have passed if they DID push for it, but they should have made the effort.

Anyway, my point was that understanding their reasons and arguing on that basis will get us further than just saying "you're wrong, you're bad, you're ugly, and your momma dresses you funny." The precursor to pointing out the faults in their reasoning, though, is understanding their reasoning.

[sandnsea]

21. The reasons have been posted ad nauseum

Her supporters don't care. When you start with the Clintons in the 80's, the way I have, and go through this horrendous campaign - the conclusion is obvious, they only care about themselves. You based your post on their supposed concern about Iraq, I rebutted, as I did with globalization. Their arguments for what they did just do not hold up. I stupidly bought some of it in the past, not anymore. As with so many things, like mandating insurance, it looks good on paper but fails miserably when real people have to deal with the economic consequences. You'd think the Clintons would have learned that by now, but no, because they've neverr had to live it.

[bain_sidhe]

24. I don't think they've been posted as widely as you imply

But anyway, this subthread is a little off track. My OP wasn't really about Iraq or globalization, just to use our feelings about Iraq to point out that people who believe they see disaster ahead are willing to go to greater lengths than those who don't, and to relate that to what Clinton is doing.

I still refuse to attribute base motivations to Clinton. You obviously do. That's your right. But, even if you're right, from a cynical stand point, what good does it do? It won't help bring her supporters over to Obama in the general. Even Obama doesn't question her motives-- although he's "attacked" her character, he did it on the basis of her actions, i.e., pandering or "saying anything", not on the basis of her motivations.

Gotta go, I've got a hot date with the hubby.

But, nice typin' atcha...

:hi:

[sandnsea]

25. You "refuse to attribute base motivations"

even though the first sentence of your OP is what would you do to prevent Bush from invading Iraq - and stick by your theory even though I proved she didn't do anything to oppose it so your theory doesn't hold water. And yes, the Clintons behavior throughout the war has been posted almost daily. As you said, you just "refuse to" attribute anything negative to her. It's a choice you've made and it is not off the subject to point it out.

[patrice]

5. It does appear to be based on an intransigent inability to Forgive in Others what we excuse in

Ourselves, which is, actually a basic truism of Social Psychology.

IMO: It comes back to religion time and time again. We ARE a blaspheming nation and churches encourage it. We assume the abilities of a "God" in our judgements about the sins of others. Churches promote this type of thinking all of the time: Abortion is the worst sin of all, while murdering innocent people in their own country is patriotic; Homosexuality is the worst sin of all, while sexual exploitation (in its many, many forms, including goldigging marriages) is just a mistake; Socialism in damned, while the rape and plunder of Earth for Capitalism is our god-given right. I'm sure you can think of other examples.

The truth is that no one knows. It IS possible that small acts, which might be easily accomplished, by ommission, ARE greater crimes than larger behavioral issues. Thus it IS possible that denying a can of beans to the Poor, because it's Socialistic, puts YOUR own soul at higher risk than someone else, who after a lifetime of abuse or disadvantage, harms their own children, or who seeks solace in sexual relationships with members of their own gender.

Churches don't say these things to their members, because their members would stop giving them money and they would go away.

I don't know how it's all going to parse out in the GE, but I would very much like it if ALL of us start talking about, and accepting the responsibilities for, how seriously flawed ALL of "us" are, rather than attacking the evil that we propagate in the world by attributing it to others.

[bain_sidhe]

6. I am so dense.

I do not get your post at all. Or, rather, I understand what you're saying, I just don't get the connection to my post...

care to enlighten me?

[patrice]

10. I was thinking about their calculation that he will lose, what is this assumption based on?

What is it about people that the DLC assumes makes it impossible for Obama to win?

My answer: They are assuming that people will scapegoat him: "Obama and what he represents is what is wrong with the U.S. They are why we have lost our way" instead of looking at themselves and asking what have I done that helped us to lose our way. Why are my mistakes less important than the ways that "Blacks are bad"?

[bain_sidhe]

14. OH! Enlightenment dawns!

So you're saying, instead of my "assumption two" it's not just about racism, but about a whole range of issues where Republicans have shown an ability to make people feel good about their baser instincts--and voting according to them. Sort of like my comment about people being willing, or even eager, to be manipulated into voting with their lizard brains.

Did I get what you were saying right?


**edited by my inner grammar nazi**

[patrice]

15. Yes, it was that quote about "lizard brains" that triggered what I was thinking anyway.

I used to teach AP Psychology AND I was raised very conservative Catholic, hence the context of my reply.

[Coexist]

17. this is a really great post.

from the perspective that the campaign agrees with your hypothesis that they truly do think that, then I guess they excuse their actions by 'the ends justify the means'.

Sometimes, when we get passionate, we can only fixate on reaching the end. I don't know - they are pretty smart people. But it was a great OP nonetheless.

[bain_sidhe]

20. Thank you!

But I'm coming up short for an effective counter to that. How do we convince them that he WON'T lose to McCain? My best argument, so far, is Obama's support in red states. Not that he'll get many of them in the general, but that the people who live there are already well steeped in (from my above post) "lizard brain voting" and THEY overcame it. Why shouldn't people in closer "purple" states be able to overcome it as well?

Weak, I know. I know in my gut that Obama can win, but I can't come up with the logical counter to the Clintons' belief that he can't. (Assuming, of course, I'm right. I could be all wrong, and she really is just all about the power. But that aforementioned "gut" also tells me that isn't what's going on. Again, I could be (and often have been) wrong.)

[grantcart]

22. I'm confused on how the title of the OP fits the bulk of your comments

But as to the title I have to agree that you have convinced me that I wouldn't have made a very good President and Obama will.

[bain_sidhe]

23. Well, the discussion got a little off track

The OP title was simply meant to connect what I *think* is going on in the Clinton's heads with an example that I thought most of the readers here could relate to.

Anyway, I have to leave for the evening in a few minutes, so I guess this post will sink now.

:hi: nice typin' atcha!