Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Pink Elephants and Insurgents

From the Washington Post, yesterday:
Former President Joins Rally for Lieberman

By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 25, 2006; Page A03

WATERBURY, Conn., July 24 -- Former president Bill Clinton joined a stage full of Connecticut officials Monday night in testifying to the Democratic credentials of Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, whose 18-year tenure is threatened by the primary challenge of antiwar
insurgent Ned Lamont. (Emphasis added.)
"Insurgent?" An ordinary incumbent politician -- a mere mortal, you understand -- might have an opponent in a primary election. But to oppose Mighty Joe Lieberman, bipartisan hero of the War Party, is to be an insurgent. Hmmmmmmm.

Skipping down a little in the story:
Lieberman did not mention Iraq or his support for the war, and Clinton touched only lightly on what he referred to as "the pink elephant in the room."

Clinton made no effort to support Lieberman's view; instead he said that Democrats should bear no blame for "the mistakes that were made after the fall of Saddam Hussein" and added: "We can disagree on what we do next . . . but we can fight together and we can go forward together."
Bubba Clinton has certainly uttered some howlers during his lengthy career as a public nuisance, but the above is destined for absolute-classic status in the Quotable Chronicles of Bill. Democrats should bear no blame for our savory national shit sandwich* in Mesopotamia? Au contraire, Mr. Former Maximum Supervisor; Democrats as a party are fully, completely complicit. Own it, donkeys: either you've been in substantial agreement -- or you've been afraid to oppose Bush's imperial project. The exact details vary from one jackass to the next, and one or two individuals may have consistently opposed the war ... but as a party -- as a money-eating, vote-buying machine -- you are exactly as guilty as the GOP. In fact, as I do not tire of saying, you and the pachyderms are simply two very-slightly-different caucuses in the overarching U.S. Party of War and Global Management.

Finally: who else is in the insurgency?
The battle is attracting more and more attention from outside campaigners. While most of Connecticut's Democratic elected officials are in Lieberman's corner, two liberal House Democrats, Reps. Maxine Waters (Calif.) and Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), came here over the weekend to campaign for Lamont.

Liberal bloggers are also heavily involved in mobilizing antiwar Democrats to support Lamont.
Ah, now we know. Accursed bloggers, heavily involved ... up to their Amurka-hating elbows in dirty insurgency. The fully-respectable, certified non-insurgent David Broders of this world have certainly done their duty in carrying the War Party's water.

- - - - - - - - - - -

* A note of apology to readers of gentle sensibility: I generally try to keep the obscenity / profanity / scatology level in my posts to a low minimum; I think the use of language of that sort betrays a sad poverty of expression. Here, though, I made myself an exception. I don't know of any other way to say "shit sandwich," apart from just saying it ... as my late father said once or twice, "some people wouldn't say 'shit' if they had a mouthful." Be assured that I'll keep these exceptions to a very few.

8 comments:

John Good said...

Okay, as a Clinton fan, you have just fouled MY mood. WHAT was he thinking??

lemming said...

I'm still trying to work my way past teh phrase "no blame" -- ??

Bartleby said...

John, I think it's a matter of that "parties and factions" business about which George Washington warned us, so long ago. I would guess that former President Clinton was thinking that whatever he might say to advance the fortunes of the Democratic Party is therefore the good thing to say -- whether it makes the least little bit of sense, or not.

I'd certainly like to see an end to political parties. And I'd for sure love to see the end of the current duopoly.

lemming, that is a bizarre thing, isn't it?

Andrew Kaduk said...

Bartleby,

I know you have no particular love for me or my blog, so I'm sure my opionion means about as much to you as last week's fingernail clippings, but man, you are spot-on! This post is by far the best I've read all day (yeah, I know I'm a day behind the rest of the class). So anyway, I'll be paying you some kudos with a brief post and a link later on this evening.

John:

As a Clinton fan, the question is really more like "What are YOU thinking?" Clinton's Presidency and many of his actions thereafter have really proven that he is indeed a camouflaged and divisive fellow. As close as I can tell, he's the closest thing we've had to a Republican President since Jan. 20, 1989. Most of his policies and actions are a far cry from the party line you now tow. I guess that's one of the primary problems with being a hard-line tribalist Democrat OR Republican...a guy would constantly be surrounded by paradox. Wouldn't you say John? You pretty much fit the bill...Democrat to a fault.

Andrew Kaduk said...

Bartleby,

I know you have no particular love for me or my blog, so I'm sure my opionion means about as much to you as last week's fingernail clippings, but man, you are spot-on! This post is by far the best I've read all day (yeah, I know I'm a day behind the rest of the class). So anyway, I'll be paying you some kudos with a brief post and a link later on this evening.

John:

As a Clinton fan, the question is really more like "What are YOU thinking?" Clinton's Presidency and many of his actions thereafter have really proven that he is indeed a camouflaged and divisive fellow. As close as I can tell, he's the closest thing we've had to a Republican President since Jan. 20, 1989. Most of his policies and actions are a far cry from the party line you now tow. I guess that's one of the primary problems with being a hard-line tribalist Democrat OR Republican...a guy would constantly be surrounded by paradox. Wouldn't you say John? You pretty much fit the bill...Democrat to a fault.

John Good said...

John:

As a Clinton fan, the question is really more like "What are YOU thinking?" Clinton's Presidency and many of his actions thereafter have really proven that he is indeed a camouflaged and divisive fellow. As close as I can tell, he's the closest thing we've had to a Republican President since Jan. 20, 1989. Most of his policies and actions are a far cry from the party line you now tow. I guess that's one of the primary problems with being a hard-line tribalist Democrat OR Republican...a guy would constantly be surrounded by paradox. Wouldn't you say John? You pretty much fit the bill...Democrat to a fault.


Wow. Your opinion of me has evolved from "closet Republican" to "Democrat to a fault" in a matter of 90 days! Hmmm . .

Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat. I, for the most part, am one as well. Lieberman is a DINO, pure and simple. He does not represent my views, and I think Bartleby called this one correctly. Ned Lamont's views and positions are far closer to my own than Lieberman's. Bear in mind that I voted for Gore/Lieberman in 2000, although hesitantly (on the Lieberman part only). Gore would have been a fine pres, and our country would be FAR better off today if the votes had been correctly tabulated and the election not decided by the Supreme Court who overstepped their bounds by calling it.

Okay, I could type all night on this one. . but I need my beauty sleep. Have you SEEN me?? It's not easy to look hot when you're wearing gladiator gear! lol

Andrew Kaduk said...

So let me get this straight, you love Clinton, even though he's a very Lieberman-esque guy (to the point of backing his re-election effort), and you hate Lieberman, even though he's a very Clinton-esque guy (so much that Clinton's Veep chose him as a running mate)?

You can see why your political tendencies and affiliations are a little confusing to me, I hope.

John Good said...

You words, not mine. Out of respect for our host I won't humor this debate further here. Read into it what you wish. . .