Sunday, June 01, 2008

Caveat Blecchtor

It occurred to me while I was unwinding on Geritol Ferraro's steamy load of bag-lady rhetoric that it helps to iterate periodically just what my angle is, what my interest happens to be. From consistently picking on McCain's and Clinton's respective shortcomings as candidates, while leaving Obama relatively unscathed, one might reasonably infer that I heart me some Barry Hussein, 4evah an evah.

To the extent that I can still philosophically maneuver in the fractured carapace of a sham corporatocratic political system, there may be a sliver of truth to that. It does not, per the usual snide parlance, peg me as an unthinking Obamaton. It simply means that I have far fewer misgivings about Obama than the other two. I believe that a McCain presidency would have at least a 50-50 chance of being even more catastrophic for this country's interests than the current junta.

I believe that a Clinton presidency, while not catastrophic, would simply veer between venal and ineffectual, doing nothing significant to change course that hadn't been thoroughly vetted either with corporate benefactors, virulent opposition thugs, or a team of safely "bipartisan" hacks in an advisory capacity. If I thought she was the better candidate, I'd say so. She isn't.

I don't get the Beatlemania surrounding Obama's appearances; as I've said time and again, I think there are too many people who really just want to be seen clamoring for change, endorsing a change avatar, rather than actually making comprehensive changes that mean anything. But I do think he will make better, fresher choices for advisors, and bring a level of intellectual rigor and honesty that escapes her decision-making process.

The thing about HRC's campaign is how tiresomely her vast experience has been touted (excluding, of course, her early years as a Goldwater/Rockefeller Republican). But it's that very experience that informs the perception that neither Clinton ever met an issue they couldn't triangulate, tediously unraveling lightly-clutched principles, knowing that the base has nowhere else to go.

Still, even craven political stasis would be notably better than what Straight Talk would have in store for us. The man has been brought to heel by the Bush machine in a way even Charlie couldn't, bereft of any discernible belief beyond unsustainable exceptionalist fantasies, the violent daydreams of a bankrupt, overextended hegemon. It's almost inconceivable that in picking advisors and associates, he wouldn't dip into the same rotten talent pool as Bush and Cheney did, giving unrepentant felons, thugs and killers such as John Negroponte and Elliot Abrams continued employment.

So that's where I'm at. I voted for Edwards in the primary, and would still welcome his appointment in an Obama administration, whether as VP or AG or whatever. He has been a reasonable advocate for socioeconomic justice, in an environment increasingly characterized by pyramidal economic disparities, the sort of thing we used to see routinely in Latin American oligarchies. But if Clinton had been the clear nominee, I would have voted for her in November. I wouldn't have liked it, but I feel strongly enough about McCain and the sort of creeps who would infest his administration that the differences are sufficiently distinct. And if she and Obama make peace by him offering her the VP slot on the ticket, that's fine too.

Which makes the increasingly petulant wiggery of the Clintonistas that much more irritating.

"I won't cast my vote in the general election for the first time in my life, primary or general," said Mike Grady, 53, a factory worker from Scranton, Pa. "I don't understand why the DNC hasn't received that message yet."

Calling Obama a "rookie" who lacks the experience to be president, and complaining that Clinton has been treated unfairly by the news media and party officials, Grady said that if she is not at the top of the ticket or in the vice-presidential slot, "John McCain will win the presidency."

Is the media trying to stir up a fight, or is this a fair representation of the sentiments of Clinton supporters? It's up to them to endorse or repudiate this nonsense. The thing is, nearly all of the fools threatening to defect or take their ball home if they don't get their way cite the media as a major source of Clinton's woes. Following that logic, not only are they holding Obama accountable for the media's perfidy (conveniently forgetting that if their candidate were Hillary Smith instead of Hillary Clinton, she'd never have run) rather than "the media", but they are objectively implying that Obama's supporters have been addled by media tubthumping away from the "better" candidate.

So what are they going to do about it? Do everything they can to tank the election for Obama, even if it means voting for John McCain. On the one hand, they have several months to cool off and pull their heads out of their asses; on the other, they clearly aren't the sharpest tools in the shed, and any infighting between the final primary and the convention officially constitutes a complete waste of momentum from the eventual nominee.

Every candidate has their share of weirdo hangers-on, but Clinton seems to have an unusually loud and tendentious swarm of cretins threatening to botch the process.

Why? Because they're good Democrats, and they're sick of what Bush has done to this country. Fuck, who knows? These people are either stupid or crazy, swimming in a sea of cognitive dissonance. Look, you dipshits -- either you are for a continuation of the current administration's policies, or you are against such a thing. John McCain, to his credit, has made no attempt to hide his agenda, save trying to sneak Bush in and out of his fundraisers. He'll take the money Fredo can drum up, but he's embarrassed to be seen with him.

Too late for that, chump.

Some of this obnoxious skullfuckery can be attributed to the heat of the moment, that they have allowed their candidate to convince them that she's been jobbed by the media, and that they best serve their civic purpose by functioning as obstacles at this point. And from Clinton's point of view, it makes sense. This cornered-animal strategy is her last best hope.

But supporters, after this farce is over, get to live with the consequences of the decisions they've made. Hillary Clinton will not have to live with anything, in any serious capacity; her campaign has put a mild dent in the $120 million she and her husband have accumulated this decade, and if she ends up being an obstructionist super-Nader this time around, worst-case scenario is that she loses her Senate seat in '12 and retires to Westchester County.

We should all have the opportunity to fail so gloriously. But her health care is taken care of; her job is secure for now, and sinecures await should she be voted out; her child and future grandchildren will not be sent to Iraq or Iran to make old men and armchair generals feel tough. Her future is secure, win or lose. It is these vituperative fanatics, these goofy iconodules who have tethered themselves to a person come what may, who put their own futures on the line with their antics.

At this point, they want to either decide this on some bullshit tuck rule or suck up any momentum Obama might have in the summer, in the eight weeks between the last primary and the convention. It is not unreasonable, given their quotes and their actions, their responses and the narrative they have set, to presume that if their candidate cannot win, they would rather have the Republican candidate win and continue policies they profess to hate. That, to belabor the obvious, is an incoherent and delusional state of mind.

Perhaps it's time to grow the fuck up, acknowledge defeat with what grace they can still scrape up, and get with the program. There might even be a conceivable scenario in which they can constructively continue their tilt at the electoral windmill. Clinton has generated an enormous measure of support in very strategic states, obviously, and as such, Obama owes her and her supporters some tangible consideration. And if they'd cut the shit, he'd probably come correct and make her a reasonable offer.

But the ones who claim to be Democrats, who claim to be Sick Of This Shit, yet proclaim to any who'll listen how they'll monkey-wrench the whole thing because their wittle feewings are hurt.... will retain full ownership of the consequences. Feel free to take up your health-care, job security and safety, and foreign policy concerns with whatever Liberty University termites Saint Straight Talk decides to park in those posts.


Ron said...

Yo, Heywood, send your peeps and yourself if you have time to do some battle with Mark Steyn worshippers. I can handle them myself, but, extra commentary would be useful.

cavjam said...

The thing about emotional babies and temper tantrums is that in no time the snot dries and the babies are cooing again. The thing about packaging and selling candidates like so much laundry soap is that poisoned brands don't soon recover. Bush has shat in the gene pool of the GOP and it'll take a while to chlorinate the waters. Barring some Qutbist attack from magical stealth carpets, McCain should have a tough time pulling 40%, even with media glossing over another couple hundred "misspeakings."

What I'd love to see is, in response to Obama's choosing McCain's fellow VietVet Hagel as VP, McCain choosing Hill as his. She'd be back full circle working for an Arizona republican, Bill wouldn't have to give up his true love, the microphone, right wing Wurlitzers'd be whirling like dervishes in apoplexy, and Holy Joe'd be left sucking on a dry matzoh ball. The rightie-tightie crowd would recover its equilibrium eventually, welcoming Hillary back to the One True Way, noticing Obama's black, breaking the purple heart Band-Aids out of storage, and portraying Hagel as the father of Marxian dialectics and absolute idealism. Lieberman, however, would never recover, "Ach, der Dolchstoss."

woodguy said...

A Limerick

Hil's "hard-working crowd will all grit
Their teeth, and their brows they will knit.
Barack came along
And would not sing their song.
They'll now vote for some senile shit.

El Cid said...

I completely understand how a lot of people can get really, really excited over an Obama campaign even if he isn't promising a complete and utter transformation of the USA into what it ought to be and could be.

Sure, you can dismiss it as naive and cultish and all.

But just remember -- some people allow themselves to get really happy about things which maybe even they know are only minor improvements.

Several times in my life I've lived in places where the toilets would on more than one occasion back up and overflow sewage into a room.

There came a time in which I really was happy, overjoyed, that I could have a meager dwelling which did not frequently dump sh*t all over the floor.

I can see where some people might think it was simply overdoing it to feel joy at my new sh*t-free floors, that I should have instead been paying attention to the other problems with the dwellings.

But, no, I was pretty happy to have a lot less sh*t on the floor.

Maybe it's okay to let people get excited about something which is really good -- Obama and his campaign -- and what it departs from: Bush Jr. continually backing up sewage all over our floors.