  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 The Fight of Her LifePosted on Dec 18, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—The Democratic contest in Iowa—and possibly the battle for the party’s presidential nomination—hangs on whether Hillary Clinton can use the next two weeks to encourage second thoughts about Barack Obama, and get voters to take a second look at her. A month and a half ago, Clinton was widely seen as the inevitable victor. Now, she faces a moment of great peril. For most of 2007, Clinton benefited from a virtuous cycle. Her continuing lead in the polls slowly eased Democratic doubts about her ability to beat the Republicans next fall. Her crisp debate performances reinforced her message that she would be ready “on Day One” to be president. This fed back into more good poll results. But her spiral downward began with a single mistake in an Oct. 30 debate over a New York state plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, even as she was coming under more aggressive attack from Obama and John Edwards. The decline affected her standing not only in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, which was supposed to be Fortress Clinton. Yet Clinton’s difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy. These include an early ambivalence about competing in Iowa; the failure to link her arguments about experience to more inspirational themes; and an underestimation of Obama, bred by his sluggish performance during the summer. She thus emphasized positions—in favor of a tough Iran policy, for example—potentially more helpful in a general election campaign than with a Democratic electorate. That Clinton is only now rushing to complete visits to all of Iowa’s 99 counties reflects the fact that some in her campaign, according to a memo leaked in May, once considered having her skip the state’s caucuses altogether. David Bonior, Edwards’ campaign manager, said last weekend that Clinton was running behind both his candidate and Obama in many of the state’s rural counties. And if Obama, with his soaring and idealistic rhetoric, has been more theme than pudding, Clinton’s campaign has been more pudding than theme. It frustrates the Clinton camp that Obama’s policy proposals, particularly on health care and taxes, have received limited critical scrutiny. But at an Iowa Democratic dinner on Nov. 10, Obama, after a lackluster summer, managed to hit a well-timed emotional peak. He found an effective line of criticism against Clinton with a passionate call for change and a broadside against “the same old Washington textbook campaigns.” The Clinton camp believes that Obama and Edwards have gotten a free ride in the last month or so. Clinton’s lieutenants and supporters note that while her campaign’s attacks on Obama have been roundly criticized, it was Obama who joined Edwards in attacking Clinton first, at little cost. This has forced the Clinton campaign to move aggressively on its own to raise a slew of questions about Obama’s past. But some of these efforts backfired and suggested a campaign in panic. That was especially true of a statement by a Clinton operative about Obama’s openly confessed drug use in his youth, and the campaign’s invocation of Obama’s kindergarten jottings to show he had always harbored presidential ambitions. Nonetheless, the Clinton campaign has had to continue to sow doubts about Obama. Former President Bill Clinton used “The Charlie Rose Show” on Friday to ask if Democrats were willing to “roll the dice” on a candidate with Obama’s brief Washington experience. Earlier in the day, Hillary Clinton had said that with her candidacy, “there are no surprises.” Clinton’s endorsement last weekend by The Des Moines Register was an important break because the paper echoed her closing argument. Clinton, the Register concluded, was the candidate “best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces.” Obama, it said, was “more inspirational,” but “with his relative inexperience, it’s hard to feel as confident he could accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead.” Clinton hopes the endorsement will mark the campaign’s next, and last, turning point. The danger to Clinton, despite her lead in the national polls, is that a loss in Iowa on Jan. 3 could easily cascade into losses in New Hampshire on Jan. 8 and in South Carolina on Jan. 26. And while the Clinton camp would welcome an Edwards victory in Iowa as the alternative to an Obama win, it’s now possible that Edwards could drive Clinton into third place. Hillary Clinton’s demanding task is to keep doubts about Obama high in the minds of Iowa voters while finding the dash of inspiration that has so far eluded her campaign. Achieving both objectives at the same time will be the greatest challenge of her political life. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: 'Tis the Season for Disappointment Next item: Gore Vidal on the Democratic Debate Debacle Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Dominick J., December 20, 2007 at 10:24 am #
I don’t know where you guys live but here in California Motor Vehicle does not ask for a SS#. It’s not listed on the card nor is it ON file anywhere, except with the IRS.
In fact on the very back of our DL it says, in the lower left hand side corner,
“This license is issued as a license to drive a motor vehicle. It does not establish eligibility for employment, voter registration,or public benefits.”
So those states requiring you to register your SS# with your DL should complain bitterly to your State Legislators and Governor!
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 20, 2007 at 5:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
121404 by driving bear on 12/19 at 8:16
“I chose for mine not to be on it and therefore the spot on the lic for the SS# it says ‘ On File’.’
Although I have agreed with you on other threads, and agree with you on the illegal issue, I must part company on the issue of driver’s licenses.
The “on file” on your driver’s license means that the SS# is available to anyone with your license and the ability to read that little magnetic strip on the back (some states use UPC type codes)
When I got my social security card in 1964, it came with the admonition: “NOT FOR USE AS IDENTIFICATION” it was a taxpayer number, nothing else.
Franklin Roosevelt PROMISED that the SS# would NEVER be used as a identity marker.
A driver’s license should mean that some bureaucrat at the DMV has decided you are fit and able to drive a motor vehicle.
The States have overridden the US constitution and issued a “privilege” to drive. The word “privilege” appears nowhere in the constitution, and for good reason, the people who wrote that document had long experience with the king’s “privilege” to his friends which translated to lack of same for the masses.
As a debt collector in the Seventies, I found out what information is available on a person with nothing but a ss# and a date of birth.
Should a cop stopping you for speeding be in possession of information including how much you earn, where you work, and what you own for property?
This driver’s license thing is a back-door to stamping us all with bar codes. If the government wants national identity cards let them so legislate, out in the open up or down. Then we will see if the US citizens will stand for this intrusion into their lives.
The right of gun ownership (back in 1789) was a given due to the lack of supermarkets. Folks without a weapon were likely to starve, or at least eat less well than their peers. The automobile is today what the gun was then, and “permission” to operate should not be based on a citizen giving out all his personal information in return for this governmentally issued “privilege!”
“One of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to be left alone”
Report thisBy ratfink, December 19, 2007 at 8:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
DB, get over this DL and voter registration issue already. YOU DO NOT know of what you speak. The fact that you filled out a voter registration form at the DMV, while obtaining your new DL, did not in fact give you any voting rights. What it did was give you an opportunity to show up at your assigned polling place on election day and _expect_ your name to be on the voting rosters. However, had you supplied an invalid SSN, or one that did not in fact match the rest of the information on the registration form, your name _would not_ have appeared on the roster and you would have been up the proverbial creek (which, in our little hypothetical here, would have been your due for having lied on your registration form). The clerk at the DMV did not validate the authenticity of your SS card, rather she simply looked to see if the name on the card was the same as the name on the license you were showing for ID. Authentication of SS registration data isn’t left in the hands of clerks manning the counters at the DMV. The only “rights” your $50 bought you was the right to have the DMV process your request for a new DL, nothing more. Your $50 was a “handling fee” on top of the taxes you’re already paying to fund the DMV.
The job of the police is to “protect and serve” by first serving their community’s needs and by enforcing local laws, county laws, and state laws. The police must abide by federal laws however they are not charged with enforcement of federal laws, save in specific statutes and cases of clear constitutional violation, as enforcement of federal law is primarily done by federal agencies. Hence why immigration enforcement is the domain of ICE and interstate weapons trafficking is the domain of the ATF, not your local sheriff. Let your local police keep focused on what they are good at: local issues that affect your local community. If it’s the law in TN to arrest those driving without a DL then so be it, but that’s nothing whatsoever to do with immigration, legal or otherwise. The motor vehicle laws in Tennessee, as in every other state, were not enacted in an attempt to influence immigration policy, but rather to set a standard for the operation of vehicles on roads within the state. It is the ignorance of narrow minded individuals trying to shoe horn residency status into such incidents (i.e. an arrest for driving without a DL) that fuels hatred and division in our society.
Cyrena: The SSN being on a DL in some states is quickly going the way of the dinosaur. For example, sometime around Feb 21st of this year the Texas attorney general, Greg Abbott, issued a legal opinion that affected the posting by county clerks of documents containing SSN numbers on government web sites. If Texas hasn’t already stopped putting the SSN on DLs....it’s only a matter of time.
Report thisBy driving bear, December 19, 2007 at 8:16 pm #
to 121391 by cyrena on 12/19 at 7:13 pm
First off I did not have to show my birth certificate to get my TN DL I showed them a Photo copy of it. By the way my 5 year old could make a fake one with the computer. Second the illegals in new york where they required to show a birth certificate? So an illegal in new york could get a drivers lic and then go across the river to New Jersey and trade the NY drivers lic for a NJ one and be registered to vote in essence become legal.
As for SS# on lic I don’t know about other states but here in Tennessee you have the choice if your SS# appears on the drivers lic. I chose for mine not to be on it and therefore the spot on the lic for the SS# it says “ On File”.
Report thisBy driving bear, December 19, 2007 at 7:19 pm #
to #121384 by ratfink on 12/19 at 6:42 pm
First off I want the local and state police to enforce the laws of the United States of America.
Report thisSecond Driving without a lic is grounds for arrest at least here in TN. Therefore the cops must do their duty and make a arrest. If you read my post about UT drivers lic you will see I was registered to vote in Utah just by showing a TN dl and paying less than $50. I had the same rights an a native born in Utah.
By cyrena, December 19, 2007 at 7:13 pm #
121166 driving bear
DB,
You just keep proving that you’re a civic moron. Your experience in switching you TN DL for one in UT is very standard. You already HAD a DL and at some point, and when you got the first one, you had to show a birth certificate.
The VERY same thing occurred with me, when I moved from CA to TX. I had to relinquish my CA DL, in order to obtain a TX DL, (which I did VERY reluctantly, and only after I was more or less ‘forced’, since I would have MUCH preferred to just keep my CA status). And, as long as one ALREADY HAS a DL, then it’s assumed that you provided proof of your birth or other citizenship at the time that you initially applied.
As for the SS# actually ON the DL, that pissed me off as well. We don’t print SS#’s on Driver’s Licenses here, but they do in TX. (apparently other states as well). What’s the point in having the SS# on a Driver’s License? So that anytime you show the thing, to WHOMEVER you have to show it to, they can lift the number?
When I returned to CA, my TX license was stolen along with my wallet. Since I did NOT have that old TX DL to exchange for a new CA DL, I had to provide my BIRTH CERTIFICATE again. The same thing happened when I needed a new passport. The old one is locked up in storage and inaccessible. So, since I did NOT HAVE that old passport to turn in, I had to go through the birth certificate routine again.
As for the deal with my aunt and the guy without a license, I PREDICTED that would be your response: they should have just ‘locked him up’ right then. Well, if we locked up everybody that was stopped for driving without a license, there would be a problem. BECAUSE, I made it very clear in my post, (which you also missed, because of your built-in prejudice) that my aunt THOUGHT he might be an undocumented citizen, because he was Hispanic, and because this is California, where there are MANY Hispanics, that have been here for many years. SHE didn’t know if he was documented or not. All they knew for sure, was that he didn’t have a DL, (the cop was LAPD traffic, not INS) and because he was driving, he SHOULD have had one. THAT was his only ‘crime’.
So, we’re back to the same old shit…YOUR ‘assumptions’. And, I’ve always hated the ‘illegal’ language as applied to human beings. I’ve hated it since I questioned the term ‘illegitimate’ for children born out of wedlock. Isn’t ‘illegitimate’ the same as ‘illegal’? So, how does a brand new baby become an OUTLAW from day one? I’ve heard of young criminals, but give me a break!
Would it not be better to just write UNKNOWN under the fathers name on the BC, and leave it at that? Or maybe we should put ‘child of rape’ or ‘child of incest’ since YOU’RE the one who wants to make sure that every single fertilized egg completes the scientific process to a human. (unless its mother is an ‘illegal’ of course).
So,your DL issue is BS, and so is the -so called- ‘illegal alien’ issue as it applies (in your mind) ONLY to people from the south of our boarders. Having spent a considerable amount of time in airport Customs and Immigrations, I can assure you that there are FAR more ‘illegal aliens’ of various nationalities than those that come from our southern board states. The VAST majority of them have been entering without a single question, as a result of the fact US military personnel are stationed all over the damn world, and they bring their ‘new’ wives, step-kids, in-laws and entire families back to the states with them. The only ‘papers’ they have is MAYBE a marriage certificate, issued ‘wherever.’ Then there are the literally HUNDREDS of white ones that enter daily on temp visas (from EVERYWHERE) and never leave. How are they all more ‘legal’ than the ones who walk or drive north a few hundred miles or less? (except for being white and/or accompanied by a US service member)
You’re a bigot DB. Just admit it, and stop making noise about DL’s having anything to do with anything.
Report thisBy ratfink, December 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
driving bear: you simply don’t understand the laws of this country. (a) police officers can’t simply go around and willy-nilly arrest folks without cause and (b) you’re still harping on a DL giving you some citizenship rights.
(A) Nothing in Dominick J.’s story says the police “discover[ed] he was in the country illegaly”. What they discovered was that he didn’t have a DL on him, which though an infraction of the law is not proof of anything other than that. Dominick’s grandmother “believed” the driver to be an illegal, but simply being hispanic without a green card isn’t “proof” of being here legally, illegally or a citizen. This was an incident in Los Angeles for god’s sake, where roughly 50% of the population is of hispanic/latino heritage. As such, the driver _could have been_ a citizen without a DL, and since there is no law in the land that requires a citizen to carry citizenship-identifying information with them it would no different than if I (a white-skinned, blond, blue-eyed slightly beer-bellied resident of Los Angeles) had been driving with a DL. The police were called out to record a fender-bender and would have no cause to arrest the driver on citizenship/immigration status, and it would be unethical (if not illegal) for them to inquire about such status. At most the law would allow them to cite the driver and send him on his way (ensuring he didn’t drive away since he didn’t have a DL). The police’s job has nothing to do with immigration, and should not else we will quickly see an abuse of power rise in the ranks as PROFILING tactics are re-introduced. Leave immigration issues to ICE and the politicians, I don’t want my police to have to make those sorts of on-the-spot decisions; police are to serve and protect all residents of their communities, regardless of status.
(B) You so clearly don’t understand what a DL is, or what citizenship is. For your $50 you were not made “a citizen of Utah”, but you did pay for the processing of your form, the production of the piece of plastic with your picture on it, and the classification of your person as a “resident” of the State of Utah. However, as only a State and not a sovereign Nation State, Utah ascribed no such validation to your legal status beyond licensing you to operate a motor vehicle and listing you in their database as residing within their boundaries.
Report thisBy Dominick J., December 19, 2007 at 2:38 pm #
driving bear democrats and Ms. Clinton?
Report thisThey are one in the same and besides
Democrats don’t need illegals to win an election!
By driving bear, December 19, 2007 at 10:44 am #
reply to #121195 by cyrena on 12/19 at 3:21 am
The true problem from the story of your aunt is the fact that the cop Did not arrest the illegal on the spot after discovering he was in the country illegally. Instead the democrats and Ms. Clinton wish to reward illegal activity by giving the law breakers a reward in the form of a drivers lic. in the hope that illegals will vote democratic when they use that new lic to register to vote. And in the mean time tax paying US citizens pay the bill for the illegals. The democrats do this because they know their policies are so unpopular with the American citizens that they must recruit new citizens to have any hope of staying in power.
Report thisBy Dominick J., December 19, 2007 at 9:19 am #
Well then Robert according to you then No One would like to have beer with any of the GOP candidates so a Democrat will get in office as to which one, I would hope it’s Hillary, she may not be a beer drinker but a nice glass of Chardonnay would be jst fine.
Report thisBy Dominick J., December 19, 2007 at 8:59 am #
Thanks for your great input, cyrena, (121195).
Report thisBy cyrena, December 19, 2007 at 3:21 am #
#121166 driving bear
• Cyrena
You are underestimating the drivers lic thing. By her answer.. Clinton gave the impression that she supports illegal immigration..
DB, the first part of your post was more ‘correct’, in that Hillary has been in the ‘public eye’ for a number of years, and so people who decided they didn’t like her even THEN, (mostly men for stupid reasons that had nothing to do with politics or governing) formed ideological biases. And, this sentence in the ABOVE part of your post proves it…
”…Clinton GAVE THE IMPRESSION that she ‘supports’ illegal immigration…”
Well, she DIDN’T. I didn’t get that IMPRESSION at all! I got the impression that she said what she meant, which was something to the effect of, “If they’re going to drive anyway, why not license them”? And, THAT makes all the sense in the world, to those who don’t have these inherent emotional biases, and who think based on reason and logic.
And, for anyone who knows what’s involved, it DOES make sense, because they ARE going to drive, REGARDLESS, just like ‘legal’ citizens (kids with permits only, people who have had their licenses suspended) are going to drive, and just hope that they don’t get caught.
In REALITY, how many undocumented people do you really think are gonna go down and apply for licenses any damn way? So, if you think I’m underestimating the DL issue, it’s just because of the SAME thing that made you suggest that Hillary’s comment GAVE THE IMPRESSION that she supports illegal immigration, and your own ignorance about what a Driver’s License actually does. What it DOES, is to allow one to operate a motor vehicle, and it IDENTIFIES the operator in a massive data base.
Here’s a story. Many years ago, my now deceased aunt had an accident near her home in LA. The police were called out, (which is the rule when accidents occur – or at least it was then) and they showed up. The driver of the other vehicle was PROBABLY an undocumented citizen, (he was Hispanic) but more importantly, he didn’t have a drivers’ license. (and, apparently he didn’t have the standard card that would have identified him as a legal immigrant; ergo, my aunt figured that he must have been ‘illegal’) The police officer did his report, and the other driver was issued a citation to appear in court.
So, my aunt was ‘comforted’ by the fact that the guy would have to appear in court, and maybe she would get some restitution that way.
I asked her “Didn’t you say he didn’t have a driver’s license?”
Yes.
“Didn’t you think he was probably here ‘illegally’?”
Yep. (That was her ‘guess’.)
So then I said, “And, you REALLY think he’s gonna SHOW UP for the court appearance?”
Well, he DID NOT! What did HE have to lose, by not showing up? What? Were they gonna ‘suspend’ the license that he DIDN’T have?
Now, let’s say that even if he WAS an ‘illegal’ immigrant, meaning that he’d been here in So. Cal for a year or 50, since CA used to belong to Mexico, and so yeah, there’s always been a pretty open boarder here. And let’s say that regardless of how long he’d been here, he’d never gotten around to going through the immigration process, to get a ‘green card’, but he HAD been allowed a DL. Well in THAT case, there may have been something at stake for him, and he might also have had the required insurance. In THAT case, my aunt could have exchanged the appropriate info with him, and that would have been that. Instead, she was out of luck, in paying for the damage to her car.
So no. Hillary wasn’t advocating illegal immigration, and that has only come about in the ‘impressions’ of those who are exploited by race hatred as a result of the corporate outsourcing and all the economic decline. Illegal immigration has become a comfortable scapegoat for the masses, and they’re blaming the wrong entity.
Blame it on those ‘illegals’ who just happen to be people of color. If they were white, they would have as many ‘green cards’ as the INS could spit out.
Report thisBy driving bear, December 18, 2007 at 10:49 pm #
The true problem of Hillary Clinton is the fact that she has been in the public eye since late 91/early 92 and therefore the public has formed their opinion of her for good ,bad or indifferent.
Cyrena
You are underestimating the drivers lic thing. By her answer in the debate Clinton gave the impression that she supports illegal immigration and that is political no no.
by the way read my previous comment on the dl issue
#118726 by driving bear on 12/07 at 1:21 pm
(173 comments total)
to #118631 by Conservative Yankee on 12/07 at 6:11 am
I think you overlook one important thing about drivers lic. The full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. Let me share a personal story. In early 2003 I was transferred from Tennessee to Utah for 7 months. So I go to the Utah DMV to get a new drivers lic. I give them my TN drivers lic and they gave me a brand new Utah lic and registered me to vote in less that an hour ( about 15 minutes once I got to the first desk of the DMV ). All I had to show was my old TN lic and my very old SS card which after 20 years in my wallet was just legible. The DMV girl just looked at SS card for about 1/2 second .
Report thisSo with a DL and less than $50 I was full citizen of the state of Utah and therefore the USA .
Illegal could use do the same if the had a NY state DL.
By jackpine savage, December 18, 2007 at 8:40 pm #
“The Economist” took a look at the Obama campaign this week, particularly in relation to the Clinton campaign. Mostly it was the same tired drivel of political junkies that one can find anywhere...except for one salient point.
A great deal of Ms. Clinton’s electoral strength is based on her gender. That is, there is an expectation that A. women will vote for her because she is a woman (though apparently no one in the campaign thought that ‘Dick Cheney in a pantsuit’ would stick) and B. that many men would vote for Ms. Clinton because she is a woman. They were right, to a point. Many of us would like to see a female president...i would. It is not a novelty gesture, but a gesture of change.
Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, voting for a black president may well pack more of a punch than voting for a female president.
It is obvious that the nation is hungry for change; this is why Dr. Paul is enjoying the success that he is. What is not obvious to the Clinton campaign is that being a woman may not be change enough, particularly if the woman stresses her ‘experience’ and her connections. She is basically saying, “Look, i’m different! But where it counts i’m the same.” Then again, her campaign is staffed by people who have shown themselves very good at losing elections...should we be surprised?
Report thisBy Eso, December 18, 2007 at 8:36 pm #
As an American living abroad, I have never been able to understand the Barrack phenomenon. Yes, I see the grassroots and all that, but there is no doubt that the guy is a lightweight. Were he ever to be elected president of the United States, much as I think Bush an idiot, I believe the world would begin to think of all of the U.S. as such. Clinton has her problems, but there is always the hope that behind the campaign rhetoric (which is rather insane) might lurk a mind that is able to grasp the current world crisis (accelerated by Bush and the neocons) in its totality and act intelligently to mitigate if not avoid its consequence.
Report thisBy troublesum, December 18, 2007 at 7:02 pm #
Second look??!! We’ve been looking for 16 years and we don’t like the view.
Report thisBy WR Curley, December 18, 2007 at 4:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Iowa caucuses will draw something shy of 250,000 citizens total to the events sponsored by both major parties. This is roughly .008% of the US population. Recognizing the intense - not to say hysterical - interest attached to these erstwhile local non-events by the national press, the parties and the several campaigns ruthlessly engineer any notion of grass roots spontaneity completely out of the picture.
The media dictate the importance of these once sleepy little straw polls for reasons of their own. But for the candidates, that media hype becomes a vital imperative to which they must respond. Because the headlines and the “analysis” the next morning will shape a new political landscape for them all.
So why does Dionne, salaried hack for the Grande Doyenne of the MSM, froth about how “the next two weeks...” makes or breaks dear old Hill? That’s nuts, isn’t it? I mean she’s got tens of millions of avid supporters and tens of millions of bucks in the coffers. Does all of it simply resolve itself into a dew because the good people in corn country reject the cut of her pants suit? Nuts, isn’t it?
Well. Understand that Mr Dionne is not exercising a prescient gift for political forecasting with his breathless little ultimatum. He is signaling the campaigns that the Post has a post-Iowa scenario limned out and ready to roll. He’s presenting the candidates - and through the candidates, the electorate - due notice of the next direction in which the MSM intends to steer this thing.
So why does the Post give a great damn who gets elected? There will always be news, after all, no matter who is in the White House.
It gives a damn because it is the propaganda arm of a deep and powerful corporate collective whose interests ride to some degree on electoral outcomes. When Pres Bill told Charlie Rose that Obama represented a “roll of the dice”, he wasn’t soliciting your vote or mine. He was pushing the Clinton brand, a known brand, to the corporate masterclass.
Mind you, they’ll get their way no matter what...they’d just rather do it easy if they can (that Monica thing was such a bitch).
Dionne may as well be covering a contest for Homecoming Queen for all the pixie-dust he stirs up.
Both arms around the ball, people. The line is closing fast.
WR Curley
Report thisElizabeth, Colorado
By PRGP, December 18, 2007 at 3:16 pm #
Paracelsus - this was pretty good if a bit convoluted at times. Ease up on the mind altering drugs (even if it’s just caffine). I’m afraid, though, that the Clinton machine may have too much steam, and the rest of the pack, including Barack, will flounder and sink like a full gunny sack. (sorry to prove anyone can write bad rhymes)
Report thisBy Paracelsus, December 18, 2007 at 2:54 pm #
Correction of grammar: I have no intention of killing Hillary Clinton. Gawd, I’m going to hear it now!
Report thisBy Paracelsus, December 18, 2007 at 2:51 pm #
Yep, Dennis Kucinich has a disarming way about him.
As for Hillary Klinton,
“Ding Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch!
Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.
Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She’s gone where the goblins go,
Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let’s open up and sing and ring the bells out.
Ding Dong’ the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Wicked Witch is dead!
Mayor
As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally.
Barrister
But we’ve got to verify it legally, to see
Mayor
To see?
Barrister
If she
Mayor
If she?
Barrister
Is morally, ethic’lly
Father No.1
Spiritually, physically
Father No. 2
Positively, absolutely
Munchkins
Undeniably and reliably Dead
Coroner
As Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her.
And she’s not only merely dead, she’s really most sincerely dead.
Mayor
Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendants
Barrister
If any.
Mayor
Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last id dead!”
(Ninny Alert: This is satire. I have intention of killing Hillary Clinton. So please do not send Secret Service agents to my door.)
I give credit to the originators of the movie, Wizard of Oz. This is a lawyer alert: I assume this public domain or covered under fair use. Please don’t send me a lawyer letter because I am as poor as a church mouse and it would be a waste your time.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, December 18, 2007 at 2:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
#120942 by Douglas Chalmers on 12/18 at 3:52 am
“Driver’s licenses is an insignificant issue and the real problem is the fickleness of the media and the voters.”
Agreed, BUT if the media were doing their job they would hit the business shill with real, sustainable, issues, like her support for our intervention in two sovereign Nations who have never threatened us or tha US.
She is a smarmy short-sighted, self serving, vile, nasty human, and the more folks see of “the real business shill” the more repelled they will be.
A second look? I didn’t care for the first one.... If the electorate has ANY sense left, we’ll see the last of her after New Hampshire!
Report thisBy mary, December 18, 2007 at 1:31 pm #
This will be one election the news media may not be able to control. Now wouldn’t that be great for our Democracy.....
Report thisBy Jacks, December 18, 2007 at 12:58 pm #
Listen, I’m an Edwards supporter and I can’t stand Hillary, however: Obama offered the same pathetic “answer” to the driver’s license question and he didn’t suffer the same consequences as Hillary; and if you check her “Facts Hub” website you’ll see that that stupid kindergarten comment was from a long list of examples showing Obama has been harboring presidential ambitions for *all of his adult life,* to undercut his argument that he’s unlike Clinton in that way. Also, Obama didn’t get a fraction of outrage directed at him for the Novak mess, during which he knowingly smeared the Clinton campaign with a lie, and for attacking Krugman as a liar. Obama *is* getting a free ride.
Whatever. She’s done for. I only hope Edwards pulls out a miraculous victory in Iowa and then uses that to springboard his campaign to the nomination.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, December 18, 2007 at 11:52 am #
EJ you are an idiot,Nothing matters in this asinine process until after Thanksgiving.DSid you think that Hillary’s high negatives would not be a factor when the battle is joined.That her vote to go to war would not matter with anti war democrats.That to make the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization was overlooked.The same thing is happening to Rudy Giuliani on the Republican side.As people get engaged these numbers of who you in the media dub as the front runners change.What is amazing to me is that it happens exactly this way every four years.You all remember the last Democratic frontrunner guaranteed the nomination Howard Dean.For someone as savvy politically as you EJ not to understand this amazes me.
Report thisBy Jonas South, December 18, 2007 at 11:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
E. J. Dionne opines, ‘Clinton’s difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy..’
I would like to think that her difficulties owe more to the voters’ astute evaluation of her values.
This lady gave one thousand dollars to someone who had business pending before her husband Bill, the then governor of Arkansas, and saw it turn into one hundred thousand dollars in short order. If you believe in such quick return on ‘investment’, there is a bridge you should look into buying.
Report thisBy Jonas South, December 18, 2007 at 11:40 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
E. J. Dionne opined, ‘Clinton’s difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy..’
I would like to think that her difficulties owe more to the voters’ astute evaluation of her values.
This lady gave one thousand dollars to someone who had business pending before her husband Bill, the then governor of Arkansas, and saw it turn into one hundred thousand dollars in short order. If you believe in such quick return on ‘investment’, there is a bridge you should look into buying.
Report thisBy Jonas South, December 18, 2007 at 11:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dionne wrote, ‘Clinton’s difficulties owe to deeper flaws in her strategy..’
I would like to think that her difficulties owe more to the voters’ astute evaluation of her values.
This lady gave one thousand dollars to someone who had business pending before her husband Bill, the then governor of Arkansas, and saw it turn into one hundred thousand dollars in short order. If you believe in such quick return on ‘investment’, there is a bridge you should look into buying.
Report thisBy PRGP, December 18, 2007 at 11:22 am #
Edwards/Kucinich offer the best choice. Hillary is in far too deep a debt to the corporatists. She’s total coward on Iraq and show far too much Bush-like arrogance and entitlement. Obama’s too green and too hesitant - season him and see what happens - maybe 2016? It’s for sure the Republican clown posse should be doomed, but the Dems better not self-destruct or turn chicken as they have in the past. Otherwise, it’s to be pitchforks and torches and to hell with all of them inside the beltway.
Report thisBy Sue, December 18, 2007 at 10:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary and the drivers license issue? What issue?
She simply stated that she agreed with Elliot Spitzer’s reason behind his proprosal, because at least he was doing something about illegal immigrants. She also said that she didn’t think it was a way she would go about it, but she agreed that at least he was doing something on the problem.
Barack Obama tripped over the same question in the next debate, but it wasn’t carried out in the media like it was for Hillary. I wonder why that is?
It’s because she can and will be a great president and all the sexist Hillary haters including a lot of the main stream press will stop at nothing to try and put her down. Don’t believe me? Watch and read and see for yourselves. It’s all about Hillary and her campaign doing this wrong and doing that wrong. You don’t hear too much about Obama, or any other of the candidates getting anything but good press for a limited time.
If you want to keep your head clear of all media muddle, stay away and form your own opinions. I dare you.
Report thisBy P. T., December 18, 2007 at 9:06 am #
I think Hillary Clinton creates dissonance in the minds of Democrats when she emphasizes her experience. Such voters recall her as being wrong, especially in her support for George W. Bush’s imperialist adventurism. That undermines the effectiveness of Clinton’s appeal to vote for her based on her experience.
Report thisBy dick, December 18, 2007 at 8:51 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Who, among all candidates, would feel compelled to do the best possible for us? I believe the answer is Obama.
Report thisBy lodipete, December 18, 2007 at 6:19 am #
Nice to know that the Washington Establishment,of which Dionne is a member in good standing, has decided that it’s going to be Hilary or Obama. Sorry E.J., but not for me! I will definitely write in Edwards’ s name in my primary whether he’s still on the ballot or not. I would urge everyone who sees the cantidacies of the 2 “frontrunners” as a joke to do the same. Maybe with Edwards as leader of the party, those 2 sniveling jellyfish, Reid & Pelosi, can be replaced with vertebrates.
Report thisBy weather, December 18, 2007 at 6:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Take the teeth out of the ‘power of suggestion’(a media driven tool) in this case that Hillary actually matters and she will evaporate.
This World is suffering from attention-deficit disorder and when it comes to substance, she doesn’t have the right stuff - in this case the courage to have confronted the crime 9/11, the Israeli lobby and that horrible little fiqure that has occupied the now Dark House w/the oval office.
Report thisThat’s what America wants to confront, not what the media tells us.
By Phil Rolleston, December 18, 2007 at 5:34 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary Clinton’s inability to inspire people to become involved in their democracy is her greatest flaw. In a time when the world needs a transformative leader as President of the United States to address global climate change, economics, terrorism and nuclear proliferation, we don’t need the same “experience” that continues to flounder on these issues. True leadership involves someone who will listen to all voices and find something in each that has merit. Leadership requires a mind that is open, yet focused on a truly moral commitment to all people’s quality of life. Lastly, transcendent leadership is about the ability to speak the truth while inspiring people to work together for a purpose greater than themselves. Barack Obama has all these qualities and more.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 18, 2007 at 3:52 am #
The real problem today is NOT Hillary Clinton. It IS the Democrats together in the congress and the senate. Its ludicrous to whine about Hillary and to do nothing about the weak-kneed conduct of the Democrats in office.
If she loses, you can blame them - but it will be too late. Then again, perhaps they want it that way? Perhaps the Democrats in Washington are willing to sacrifice her - a mere woman - to continue their own very temporary survival?
If there is one thing for sure, pandering to an independent Liebermann will ultimately destroy all of them. Permitting animosity and attacks between Democrats’ candidates could ultimately prove fatal.
Driver’s licenses is an insignificant issue and the real problem is the fickleness of the media and the voters. They all seem to have forgotten that this is not about entertainment. Becoming bored, they/we have become superficial - thus they/we are open to exploitation.
Report thisBy 13 Martyrs, December 18, 2007 at 3:35 am #
Yes, Hillary carries a lot of baggage and there are still trust issues with her among Democrat voters. But even if she loses Iowa it doesn’t mean her campaign is in great peril. She is a hard fighter and a machine behind her hat can pick up the pieces of her failures in Iowa and resume a strong campaign. Some people tend to think she will curl up in a fetal position, then go home. While Barack Obama is qualified to lead this country and the Democrat voters see this, he still has a long road ahead of him and Clinton will be there every step of the way.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
Report thisBy cyrena, December 18, 2007 at 3:26 am #
• “…..But her spiral downward began with a single mistake in an Oct. 30 debate over a New York state plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, even as she was coming under more aggressive attack from Obama and John Edwards. The decline affected her standing not only in Iowa, but also in New Hampshire, which was supposed to be Fortress Clinton.”
Here’s yet another reason to wonder about the US campaign process, and the relative intelligence of the US electorate. The Drivers’ License thing, with the illegal immigrants. There are at least ½ dozen reasons why Clinton has screwed up, and shouldn’t win the nomination, but that isn’t one of them. I agree with her, about the DL thing for anybody that wants to drive on US roads, though there would need to be some minor adjustment to the wording on them, (just for dummies) and then we could also, (for dummies) make sure that when people register to vote, the process does what it’s supposed to do, to make sure they are legal citizens, before issuing a voter ID card.
Bottom line is, the fact that ANY person, (legal/illegal/born here) has a license to operate a motor vehicle, is NOT accepted proof of citizenship, or the right to vote, or to receive federal or state benefits. A DL serves as PERMISSION TO OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE, and it also serves as a legal government issued ID. That’s ALL. It doesn’t mean a damn thing else!! What troubles me, is that US residents don’t know this, and it seems like they never have.
I say this because PROOF of CITIZENSHIP is required when US citizens travel, and a DL alone, doesn’t cut it. One needs a PASSPORT, because THAT proves US citizenship. Over the decades, the requirement for a passport has been relaxed for US citizens traveling between the US and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, primarily because of US imperialistic arrogance, (because those citizens need proof of their citizenship to come HERE) and because of the fact that these are nearby places where so many US people travel to RESORT destinations. So, US citizens are allowed to travel to those places without a passport, IF they have a birth certificate, (which DOES prove US citizenship if one is born here) IN ADDITION TO another form of government issued photo ID that verifies that the traveler is the person named on the BC. A VOTER ID card can also be used as yet an additional form, but not without the birth certificate.
So, giving a driver’s license to an illegal immigrant (or a legal one) does nothing but allow them to drive a motor vehicle, and to IDENTIFY that person in the gigantic data base with the rest of us. (as a stand alone document, it does nothing more).
So, we’ve got all of these people moaning and groaning about how they can’t track down illegal immigrants, but when some of them want to study the rules of the road, take the exams, and pay for the damn thing, (which also requires that they maintain insurance) everybody gets all hot and bothered.
WHY? Are they worried about them voting? Well, NOBODY can vote until they’re registered to vote, and issued a voter ID card. THEN, when it’s time to do that, one needs to go to the voting precinct, and present that card, along with a photo ID, to prove that they are who they are. If one is not registered, one cannot vote. If one is not a citizen, one cannot register. Does everybody get that?
Meantime, there’s a problem with Hillary wanting to maintain endless war in the ME, and continue stealing their oil. That’s what she means by ‘protecting US interests’. So, in addition to what fsuthi has already said at #120934, THAT’S why she shouldn’t be president. She’s a neoconner, just like what we’ve already got. We’ve had enough of that. Her foreign policy is a disaster, and she hasn’t said a damn thing about what she’s gonna do for us here at home. It’s NOT about Drivers’ Licenses!!
Now vote for either Kucinich, Edwards, or Obama…take your pick. But stop already on the DL’s.
Report thisBy fsuthai, December 18, 2007 at 2:02 am #
I think this article (author) fails to realize that a lot of democrats just don’t like or trust Hillary. She is a neo-conservative that has gone along with Bush and the Republicans on practically every issue. In fact, a lot of Democrats don’t like the ‘status quo’ Democrats either! The voters want a marked change in the way our government is run and we don’t trust any candidate that has ‘sucked up’ to the corporations, PACs, special interest groups, rotten health care orgs., big oil, big banks, & big everything else. The DNC no longer represents many (I hope ‘most’) of us. Obama & Edwards would be a bit better than any of the dysfunctional ‘wackos’ leading the Repubnicant race, but I think Dennis Kucinich is what we all need and still have a chance to get. The mainstream media has been effectively muzzled but once the voters start believing he can be elected, he will be.
Report thisSo let’s start hearing more about our next President, Dennis Kucinich! He is the only one promising to do great things for our country and our people!!! And he will present us with a charming, intelligent, beauty for our First Lady...who will captivate the world, much like Jacqueline K. did.