"Klotz" As In "Blood"

A Testament to the Insidious Impact of Florida Sunshine on Brain Matter

Monday, December 3, 2007

The Bill for Hillary

Filed under: Across the Fruited Plain — Steve @ 12:34 am

This exchange from a community forum in Des Moines, IA over the weekend:

Richardson asked Clinton, given her husband’s tenure in the White House after being governor of Arkansas, whether it wasn’t logical to say governors make good presidents.

”Well, Bill, I also think they make good vice presidents,” said Clinton. — NY Times

Damning with faint praise, perhaps? Or has Her Thighness signaled a deal: drop out early, Governor, endorse me, and the VP slot on the ticket is yours?

Don’t blame me. I voted for Nader.

16 Responses to “The Bill for Hillary”

  1. Stan Garde Says:

    And the Clintons sure know something about vice.

  2. Dave Says:

    Steve: If you watched the last Democratic debate, it was clear that Richardson was positioning himself for a cabinet position with Hillary. I never saw so much ass kissing in a presidential debate in my life. Ifg I was a cynical person, I’d assume Richardson was asked to run by the Clintons so he could draw votes away from Obama and Edwards. Wait a second, I am cynical!

  3. glennk Says:

    I am blaming u for BV$H had Nader stayed out we’d be talking about Pres. Gore etc.

  4. Steve Says:

    Dave: Richardson already held down a cabinet post for Clinton (while Clinton was holding down an intern). Sec of Energy — I envision the Energizer Bunny for that job. Sounds like he’s aiming a little higher this time, if you’ll excuse the expression.

    Glenn — Yeah, blame me and Nader, not Gore for failing to carry his own home state. The idea of a President Gore hardly thrills me, especially when you remember he came packaged with VP Joe Lieberman.

    Of course, for a real laugh repeat the following expression out loud: “President Huckabee.”

  5. Beardsley Says:

    There’s also the point that Gore ran as stupid a campaign as was ever launched. If he’d allowed Clinton to campaign for him, that would have made up any difference from the votes Nader might have cost him.

    I wonder how many Nader voters would not have voted at all had Nader not run, rather than vote for Gore. Stuff for the historians to ponder and PhD about.

  6. Verticus Says:

    I voted for Nader too. I knew there was something I liked about you.

  7. Steve Says:

    Vertie, GlennK, etc: I have taken more shit for casting my vote for Nader in 2000 than I can believe. Maybe that’s why it was the single most rewarding vote I ever cast in my entire miserable voting life.

    Gore truly failed to impress me as anything more than the continued disintegration of Democratics into Republicans Lite. His selection of Lieberman — the Senate’s most conservative Demo — confirmed it. He ran as a plastic construct of spinners, party insiders, and poll-takers. He demonstrated zero leadership capacity whatsoever.

    And no way do I vote for a fraud and a hack like Monkey Boy, even BEFORE he revealed himself as contender for worst president in history.

    My cousin GlennK (above) has given me grief about this for years, as have my 90 year old mother and Guido. My Republican friends have forgiven me, though, and my third-party comrades, left and right, applaud my pigheadedness. As one might expect.

  8. Alex Says:

    Lieberman sealed the deal? Is there any more ceremonial an ineffective position in politics than vicepresident? Ok, Cheney doesn’t count because Shrub is so dumb. But still. The VP nomination is there to get votes, period. After that they just fade into obscurity.

    I’d have a lot more respect for Nader voters if they asked their media-whore andd egomanic of a candidate to do something other than step up to the limelight every four years and spoil an election. Where does Nader retreats to in between? Reformist my ass.

  9. Steve Says:

    Alex: There has been no more active and single-mindedly dedicated consumer advocate than Ralph Nader, dating back to 1965 and “Unsafe At Any Speed,” since the muckrakers at the turn of the 20th century.

    Democrats should keep in mind that until he started bucking the system by making noises about running for office, Nader was their hero. An anti-corporate crusader whose advocacy of causes near and dear to lunch-bucket Democrats was the very soul of liberalism.

    But then the Dems left their own party, leaving the keys to the car to reactionaries like Lieberman.

    Limelight my ass. The guy’s been working 20 hour days behind the scenes for years. Look at the work he does with Public Citizen, and before that, for consumer protectionism both with and without government.

    No, he wouldn’t make a good president. Nobody who voted for him thought he would. That wasn’t the point, which was to express disgust with what the Dems have become, and perhaps pave the way for a genuine 3rd party candidate next time or the time after.

    It didn’t work, of course. The system is broken.

    And No, I didn’t vote for him in 2004. I would have voted against Monkey Boy if the Dems had put up a lump of molded cat shit. Oh wait. They did.

  10. Alex Says:

    Oh please. Nader hasn’t done anything of substance since the early 80s. I’m not going to deny the work he did before but be honest, has he been active recently in national politics or activism other than running for president? No.

    So basically you used your vote as a protest vote. Good for you. Did you ask Nader to use his name and influence to build support for the Green party, create a platform, maybe get a few representatives elected… in short, actually build the third party you want? No. You know that a third option is not going to win by just showing up at election time, but the point is not winning (and hence being able to actually implement a policy) but to protest.

    Nader is a reactionary. He doesn’t want to say if he’ll run again in 2008, unless Hillary is the nominee. So he doesn’t really run for something, he rungs against somebody. The good news is that this time around he’s going to get even less votes than in 2004 (and he should have gotten less in 200 if it wasn’t for that “vote trading” crap). And whatever he gets it’ll be more than balanced out by what Ron Paul gets running as independent.

  11. Steve Says:

    Oh please yourself. If you mean by “done nothing” that he’s avoided the limelight and merely presided over half a dozen advocacy efforts after founding and leaving Public Citizen, you’re right. You can do the research on his activism as easily as I can: he’s been a busy little boy behind the scenes. Especially for an egomaniac, which he began only when he started criticizing Dems.

    Did you ask Nader to use his name and influence to build support for the Green party, create a platform, maybe get a few representatives elected… in short, actually build the third party you want? No.

    Not sure what you’re asking here. No, I personally did not ask Ralph Nader to help the Green Party)of which I’m a registered member). The Greens have a few local elected officials scattered around, but like the Farm Labor Party years ago, its strength isn’t necessarily in its elected reps, but the party members’ influence on specific issues. I sincerely doubt that there will ever be a viable third party in America, one that runs candidates and wins elections at the rate the Dems and ‘Pubs do now. But there’s an outside chance that more Dems and ‘Pubs will take leads from Greens and countenance their concerns.

    Why would I have a problem with him running against somebody? I always vote against somebody. Guess that makes me a reactionary, too. Hell, I’ve been called worse.

    PS If I were registered ‘Pub, I would certainly vote for Ron Paul this time.

  12. Alex Says:

    Oh please please yourself: “done anything of substance” which is not the same as “done nothing”. Quote me right.

    Look, it’s fine and dandy if you don’t think there can be a third party in the US ever. But it’s pretty inefficient to try to affect change by spoiling elections. After all, the “party members’ influence on specific issues” had a better chance with Gore than with Bush, right? Gale Norton? Drilling in Alaska? CAFE standards? Kyoto? While you and the contrarians out there happily shoot yourselves on the Birkenstocks, the rest of us pay for it. (And yes, Gore bungled it. But it wasn’t by picking Lieberman.)

  13. Steve Says:

    Alex: I’ll agree that Gore bungled it not ONLY by picking Lieberman. I also agree that the Greens’ minor influence will at this time impact more on the Dem than the ‘Pub side. Only issue (for me) in 2000 was, how bad does the Dem side need to get before I can’t abide the compromise it would take to vote for them. And Gore failed the smell test. Lieberman was just the final straw. That man made noises with his mouth that reminded me of Pat Robertson with a Jewish accent.

    All the examples you cite are valid. But they’re all in hindsight. In 2000, nobody I read or heard had any idea that Monkey Boy would be as godawful as he revealed himself to be, not even the Texas press. Maybe you’re too young to remember, but us old farts do.

    I don’t argue that Birkenstocks deserve to be shot at, but the folks who wear ’em need to live with the same administration you and I do. My thinking on that election was that losing a pint of blood now to save a gallon in 4 years was worth it. Didn’t work out that way, of course, but then — my original point — don’t blame Nader. Or me for voting for him.

    You’re not Alex from SOTP, are you? Either way, it’s a pleasure corresponding with you.

  14. Alex Says:

    Yes Alex from SOTP (too lazy to add the link). I was young, if 30 is young, but probably had a crystal ball because I was saying from day one that Shrub was horrible. One needed only to look at his record in Texas. But yeah, hindsight is 20/20. As for Nader, I was ok with him running in 2000 (it was the 2004 that pushed me over the edge) so I’m not really blaming you. Gore should have won. Actually, he did. Blame Rehnquist.

  15. Alex Says:

    On second thought, maybe it’s not the crystal ball but that I was reading Molly Ivins.

  16. Steve Says:

    (Lazy) Alex: Nader had no business running in 04 and contributed nothing to the dialog whatsoever. The difference between 00 and 04 was the record of failure Monkey Boy had just started. It was actually imperative for Dems to defeat him, but naturally, they failed. (See “molded cat shit” comment, above.)

    (Did Edwards actually bother to take a breath between running for VP in 04 and running for president in 08? Looking back, sometimes I think he was actually running for president in 08 while on the trail for VP in 04.)

    I miss Molly Ivins very much.

Leave a Reply