What Bill Clinton should say

Total fantasy, but maybe you’ll enjoy:

First, let me promise you that I won’t talk for two hours. I think I can make three and a half with no problem. If you think that’s funny, remember it three hours from now.

I’m pleased to be here speaking to you as we watch George W. Bush’s time in the White House wind to a close. Not as pleased as I’d be if it were Al Gore’s second term ending, but I appreciate the moment in history. I had hoped to be speaking in Michelle Obama’s time-slot, but the voters in the Democratic Party thought she looked better in a dress. As a final word on that process, let me just say that the media is always unkind to us “full-figured” people.

I have to tell you, though - Michelle Obama is one incredible woman. If this election is about judgment, then maybe we should toss her name into nomination. After all, she’s the one with the judgment to pick Barack Obama as her husband. The old saying is that “behind every great man is a woman,” but women like Michelle Obama - and the esteemed Senator from New York - are proving that is outdated. So tonight, let’s create a new old saying, “Beside every great man is a great woman.”

I’ll be honest with you: I had planned to be telling this convention how great it is going to be to have Hillary Clinton back in the White House. I guess I’ll hold onto that speech for eight years and then we’ll all get back together and you can hear it then. But tonight is not about Hillary’s future. It’s not even about my past or my legacy. I’ve always believed that elections are about the future, not the past. That remains true.

So I won’t talk much about my time in Washington - although it was a lot better than the last eight years have been. I think history will say that George W. Bush’s policies boil down to “do the opposite of Bill Clinton.” I pursued terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, he ignored a memo entitled “Bin Laden Intent on Attacking America”. I brought Israel and Palestine to the negotiating table, he gave them a roadmap to no where. My economic plan brought widespread prosperity, his stagnated wages and raised inflation so that most Americans are further behind than they were in 2001. During my terms in office, more Americans than ever before bought their own homes. During his two terms, more Americans than ever before lost their own homes. With the historical exception of the Great Depression, of course. Oh, and we’ll also have to exempt John McCain from that statement - but then again he doesn’t know how many houses he has, so maybe he’s lost a few along the way, too.

But you don’t need me to tell you about the last sixteen years. You were there with me. You saw it. You saw how the dreams and aspirations of the entire Democratic Party were derailed by a concerted right-wing effort to destroy a President with whom they had political differences. You saw them attack me, my wife, and everything you and I believe in. It wasn’t enough to defeat policy initiatives or to win elections. They sought personal destruction and political devastation. They didn’t care if the American people were hurt in the process. All they cared about was Bill Clinton’s face in the crosshairs - thank God I never went quail-hunting with Dick Cheney.

What you need to see is that they are going to do it again - if you let them. Barack Obama scares the daylights out of them because he appeals to a broad cross-section of America. He’s putting states in play that they haven’t had to worry about in decades. He’s showing how morally bankrupt and dangerous their policies and failed ideology really is. He’s building a coalition that Democrats will build on in the future. They look at Barack Obama and they see a future with nothing but Democratic victories and tangible gains for Americans.

So they aren’t going to just throw the book at him, they’re going to chuck a whole library at him. As they begin to read the handwriting on the wall, they are going to get desperate. When they get desperate, they’ll get nasty. If you think they’ve been nasty so far, let me tell you - you haven’t seen anything yet. I know. I’ve been on the receiving end of that blind hatred.

They’re going to tell you that he’s not a real Christian, that he’s a secret Muslim, that he isn’t really American, that he doesn’t love his wife, his kids, or his country. They’re going to say he’s an angry black man. They’re going to say that he hates apple pie. Well, the last time I checked, the United Church of Christ is a Christian denomination, Hawaii was the fiftieth state, and anyone who doesn’t think he loves his family isn’t just blind, they’re stupid. And let me tell you something about loving your country - no one who stands up here and takes all these outrageous slings and arrows of undeserved mockery and character assassination would do it if they didn’t love the country they hope to serve. Personal ambition may be a part of it - anyone who says differently is lying through their teeth - but personal ambition is also part of going to college to improve your job prospects. My God, if we’re going to disparage hope and ambition, then what’s left for us to reach for? Desperation and defeat? That’s not the America I know.

And angry? Look, if you aren’t angry right now, then you aren’t paying attention. Of course Barack Obama is angry. But he isn’t stomping around like a spoiled child. He’s angry like a warrior going into battle - he’s harnassing his anger to turn it on the real enemies - avarice and greed, unrestrained self-interest above love of country, ignorance and want, despair and hopelessness. That’s what we’re really fighting here. And I don’t care if you’re black or white, man or woman, native born or immigrant - if you love this country and you’re ready to fight to make it a better place for all Americans, then you have no choice but to support Barack Obama. You can lead, follow, or get out of the way. This train is bound for glory and there’s a ticket with your name on it. If you don’t want it, we won’t force it on you - but you can’t say we didn’t offer and you really shouldn’t stand on the tracks in front of us.

You’re going to hear that Barack Obama doesn’t fight enough. He doesn’t support women enough. He isn’t pro-labor enough. He isn’t experienced enough. His rhetoric is too inspiring and his worldview too naive. You’re even going to hear some people say he isn’t black enough and others will say he’s too black. They’re going to lie to you about him just like they lied about me. You can decide to start believing the people that have lied to you for nigh onto twenty years or you can trust the people that have marched with you through the hell of the civil rights battles and the high water of Katrina.

Even if you want to believe these lies that Barack Obama isn’t enough of a Democrat - and that’s what they’re really saying, by the way - even if you want to believe those lies, the choice isn’t between Barack Obama and someone who beats him on any of these issues. It’s between Barack Obama and John McCain. And while the other side is busy whitewashing history and trying to say that the Senator from Arizona is some kind of maverick, the record says otherwise. Where was he when George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq because of false intelligence? Where was he when the Department of Justice was firing US Attorneys for not investigating Democrats during elections? Where was he when George W. Bush outed a CIA agent and then pardoned the only person they offered up as a sacrifice? Where was John McCain when activist conservative judges were nominated time and time again by the Bush Administration?

I’ll tell you where he was. He was voting with his Republican colleagues and keeping his mouth shut. He was being a good Republican soldier just like he was a good American soldier in Vietnam - except this time he was fighting against Americans instead of for them. He was sitting in the same place then as he was on February 12, 1999 when he voted with the rest of the Republicans to impeach President William Jefferson Clinton, just like John Ashcroft and Conrad Burns and Larry Craig and Pete Dominici and Bill Frist and Phil Gramm and Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. He voted with George W. Bush one hundred percent of the time during the past year - including a vote against his fellow veterans on a bill sponsored by former US Marine Jim Webb to increase the GI Bill benefits. It looks to me like there is nothing that matters more to John McCain than being a good Republican - not his fellow veterans, not the safety and security of the United States, nothing. And if that’s how he is when he’s trying to convince you to vote for him, how much more extreme will he be when he’s safely in the White House?

We can’t let that happen. I can’t let that happen. I’d really love to see Hillary Clinton’s name on that ballot, but I’d much rather see Barack Obama leading America back to prosperity than to see John McCain continue the legacy of Republican failure in the Presidency. I love my wife, but I also love my country. A vote for Barack Obama is not a vote against Hillary Clinton, it’s a vote for America. I can’t put it any more simply than that. If you love this country; then you must do everything in your power to make sure the very best person for the job is elected President - and this year that person is Barack Obama.

It’s going to get bad. Real bad. And each of you has the choice to either help them or stop them. Every time a Democrat says they aren’t going to vote for Barack Obama, they win. Every time a Democrat says that Barack Obama hasn’t closed the deal, they win. Every time that a Democrat says that we’ve put forth a second-rate candidate, they win. Well, I’m tired of them winning. It’s time to grow up. The battle is on the horizon and we can either put on the breastplate of faith or we can be run through with the sword of hatred. It’s your choice.

As for me and my family - we choose Barack Obama.

No Comments

Thank you, Hillary Clinton

for saying this:

I want you to ask yourselves: Were you in this campaign just for me? Or were you in it for that young Marine and others like him? Were you in it for that mom struggling with cancer while raising her kids? Were you in it for that boy and his mom surviving on the minimum wage? Were you in it for all the people in this country who feel invisible?

We need leaders once again who can tap into that special blend of American confidence and optimism that has enabled generations before us to meet our toughest challenges. Leaders who can help us show ourselves and the world that with our ingenuity, creativity, and innovative spirit, there are no limits to what is possible in America.

Not as strong as I’d like, but hopefully it will make a few people stop crying about losing the primary and start worrying about winning the general election.

No Comments

All your Big Brother are belong to us

Colorado Republican admits his party is full of it:

Wadhams described the GOP’s outfit thusly to the Denver Post: “Just consider this the Ministry of Truth.”

and:

as anybody who has ever read George Orwell knows, the Ministry of Truth exists to disseminate false propaganda about how great the ruling regime is, continuously rewriting both history and the present-day facts in order to maintain total control over the population.

Ah, irony. Best served with dimwits in service.

No Comments

Because stupid people bother me

and I’ve been known to enjoy tasteless humor:

There’s enough irony here to start a metal shop. I mean… seriously. What were the odds of the vocabulary-challenged Ms. Gragg coming across somebody named McKain in a subdivision called Plantation Bend?

Hahahahahaha

Just like not everyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a misogynist, not everyone who dislikes Obama is a racist. Racism and misogyny are special kinds of stupidity. Not vice versa.

No Comments

Just because

I love me some Jon Stewart. The only way to make the Daily Show better would be to have Bill Murray guest host. Or Jane Curtin (of course, with Dan Akroyd).

Technorati Tags:

No Comments

Dear Hillary

I want to like you again. Do this:

Most pundits say that Hillary Clinton must emphatically show her support for Barack Obama. I certainly agree with that. But I think her task is much greater. She needs to become the biggest and most memorable attack dog of the convention. She must do to John McCain what Zell Miller did to John Kerry in 2004.

Hillary needs to call John McCain out as the most sexist politician to run for President in recent history.

She needs to blast McCain for selling out whatever maverick cred he might have had so he could win the favor of Karl Rove and George W. Bush.

She needs to attack John McCain’s honor, for lying about the kind of campaign he’d run.

She needs to call out John McCain for supporting the disastrous economic policies of George W. Bush, and she needs to do it in the most mocking tone possible.

She needs to show righteous indignation at the suggestion that her supporters would go to McCain (she gave a great hint of that with her “I do NOT approve of that message.”)

She needs to proclaim, LOUDLY, that John McCain is anti-abortion and that McCain is as reactionary on social issues as George W. Bush.

And she needs to blast McCain for his irresponsible warmongering.

Remind everyone that you started out as a Goldwater Girl - and John McCain is no Barry Goldwater.

Technorati Tags:

No Comments

Don’t call it a protest

I got onto this kick because of Bruce Weinstein’s column on the ethics of protest. Of course, from a professional standpoint, I’m much more interested in the politics of the matter. As I’ve read more about the “protests” in Denver, the more convinced I am that the whole thing is probably illegal - and it is intended to be.

What right does any group have to get the New York state delegation locked-down? What is the point of such a protest? All it does is show that a few people can cause enough mayhem as to require professional help. So it isn’t protest. A protest without a point is just hooliganism and rapant idiocy.

Rooftop footage of the action shows that the participants were far from innocently exercising their Constitutional rights. Take a look (Courtesy Rocky Mountain News):

Amanda Hubbard of Denver says there was no warning. Hey, Amanda, what exactly do you think reinforced lines of police means? Thank you for not littering?

It’s also more than a little dishonest for her to talk about that. The group sponsoring the event is called “Recreate ‘68″ - a reference to the Chicago convention when street protesters poured into the convention itself and disrupted the proceedings. Supposedly, the march is to “stop the war in Iraq”. Well, exactly how does that work? Are they going to be such enormous assholes that they have to bring back the National Guard to deal with them?

The entire point of the action is to disrupt the DNC convention. That is not a Constitutionally protected action. Most of the people at the convention are not politicians, but rather people who got involved in their local political organization. If anyone wanted to hear from Recreate 68, they knew where to find them. This is not Ghandi’s march to sea where the government created a monopoly on salt as a means of collecting taxes through other means. It is not Martin Luther King, Jr. leading blacks into the police lines to protest being disenfranchised of their right to vote.

Each of these people has the right to vote, though there is no way to know if they used it. If they did, their extreme position lost. They are simply trying to impose their ideas on the rest of society. They are ten times as fanatical and tyrannical as the people they are trying to protest.

The fact is that the police were faced with an active and agitated crowd that was illegally blocking traffic and disrupting the lives of the people in Denver. They were not going away. If the police had simply moved forward and begun arresting people, it is likely that some people in the crowd would have reacted violently and it would have turned into a true mob scene. So the police used tear gas and then immobilized people. Other than burning eyes and lungs, no one was hurt. That’s remarkable, and the Denver police should be hailed for that feat.

Hooliganism is not legitimate political expression. The courts have long since ruled on that, and common sense dictates that they are right. Liberty walks hand in hand with responsibility. That doesn’t mean that anarchists must remain silent. But it means that they cannot impose their desire for anarchy upon an unwilling public. Like the rest of us, they must convince people that their path of action is the proper one. Anything else is simply not democracy at all.

And don’t call it a protest.

Technorati Tags: , ,

No Comments

“Misleading” is, by definition, the opposite of “leading”

In response to Pastor Dan’s post about Jim Wallis‘ response to the response to his crowing over fuzzing up the pro-choice plank in the Democratic platform, I ran across this misleading statement:

Whatever your or Jim Wallis‘ personal positions are on abortion, the fact remains, and will always remain, that abortion policy is a highly controversial moral gray area on which Americans, including women and progressives, will always disagree. As Pew research polls have always shown, only a very small minority of people, including women, believe that abortion is a morally correct choice for any woman– just 12% in this 2006 Pew survey.

Link to Pew research.

If you read this comment, it would lead you to believe that only twelve percent of people can think of any reason why any woman could come up with a defensible reason to have an abortion. You’d be wrong. Pew actually found that twelve percent think abortion is morally acceptable no matter what. That’s a much different position, don’t you think?

Another eleven percent said that it “depends on circumstances” as to whether abortion was moral or not. If you’re keeping track, that means a total of twenty-three percent disagree with the extreme view that no abortions are acceptable. A whopping twenty-three percent said that abortion is simply not a moral issue whatsoever. It isn’t moral, it isn’t immoral - it is ammoral, living outside the boundaries of moral decisions. So that’s 46% who disagree with the extreme illegal position.

To be fair, the 52% who said that abortion is morally wrong are a majority - but it is a small majority and well within the margin of error. That doesn’t make it less statistically significant, but it gives it political doubt.

Especially when the Pew poll found that 43% of Democrats and 43% of Independents think abortion is morally wrong. I find that hard to believe. The poll is also two years old.

Technorati Tags: , ,

No Comments

Response to Jim Wallis’ response

I have to take exception to Jim Wallis’ response to his readers:

Support for women caught up in difficult situations and tragic choices is a better path than coercion for really reducing the abortion rate. Yes, I agree there is never a “need” for abortion except in the case where the health of the mother is threatened. But until we can reach out to women who “feel” the need for abortion and support them in alternative choices, we will never change the shameful abortion rate that both sides seem content to live with while they just attack each other. It is time to move from symbols to solutions.

The emphasis is mine. Given my personal experience, it’s difficult for me not to shoot of something snarky like, “There are more things, Jim, than are thought of in your philosophy.” But the bolded part of the statement is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in my life.

Twice while she was pregnant with our twins, my wife came close to losing them. Each time the cause was a sibling (they began as quadruplets) that was in distress. One was early enough in the pregnancy that it was little more than a sac of fluid - but it was far enough along for us to grieve after a hurried visit to a hospital where we spent eight hours in the emergency room. The second time was further along, and was a planned reduction based on statistical analysis, cellular activity, and the stress measurments of the uterine wall.

Our choice was simple, we could abort one of the three remaining fetuses and have a good chance at having two healthy babies or we could ignore our responsibility as parents and face the birth of three babies prior to viability.

No Comments

What more can you want?

From a friend:

I simply can’t get on board the bus when I’ve already been thrown under it, and the more Democrats I talk to, the more I find that I’m not close to being alone. Most of us agree that we simply can’t bring ourselves to vote for John McCain (at least, not yet), but I’ve never witnessed so much dissatisfaction with a Democratic Party (presumptuous) nominee. My take on it is, those who were with him before the end of the primaries are still with him; those who weren’t, are not. Despite what the polls and the media try to tell us, my Democratic acquaintance are split right down the middle. And that bodes big, big trouble for the GE and the DNC.

Thrown under the bus? By losing the primary contest? What is it, other than overturning the results of every primary contest that Hillary Clinton didn’t win, that you want?

From the same source, there’s the applause for this comment:

It would have been so much quicker for them simply to write “Either you’re with us or you’re against us.” Because certainly, the Democrats’ best chance to win the White House is to act just as patronizing, high-handed, dismissive, and sneeringly autocratic as the Republican administration our nation has grown to love so dearly.

You know, as I recall, the Bush Administration began by appealing the rules of the democratic process and throwing the decision into the courts. This is simply putting the shoe on the other foot. The primary contests picked a winner, and it wasn’t Hillary Clinton. Nothing says “you’re with us or against us” like saying “that election didn’t count because I don’t like the outcome”.

But really - what else could Obama do? He has called for the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated and given full voting rights. He’s helping to pay off her campaign debt - much of it incurred long after she had no mathematical chance to win. He’s giving her an honored spot at the convention. He’s giving her husband the chance to upstage and undermine his VP pick. The only thing he hasn’t done is give her the VP slot itself.

And no one - particularly someone who has worked behind the scenes to derail a nominee - is owed a position on the ticket.

Obama was not my favorite in this race, but he won according to the rules. I’m not saying anyone has to be happy about it, and I’m not saying people should shut up. But this decrying Obama as the nominee is simply a self-fulfilling prophecy. If enough people buy into it, it could happen.

So, honestly, what do you want?

No Comments