Looking Back In Anger

http://politicalpyro.blogsome.com/2008/0 5/20/looking-back-with-anger/

The Democrat Party -- crippled for decades by stale ideas that never quite resonated after the turbulent 60's, humiliated by the perception of weakness against the backdrop of the Cold War and the Reagan Revolution -- the party of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis FINALLY broke through the bland barrier when Bill Clinton was discovered in 1992.  

The Republicans were so insensed with the DNC's one shining star that they embarked on an eight year character assassination attempt, culminating with an impeachment trial that produced..... NOTHING.

The Clintons survived every political stick, stone, and scud launched at them. Yet amidst the constant haze of the incessant political battlefield they still managed to make the 90's one of the most peaceful and prosperous times in American history.
The post-Bill Clinton years were like a time warp. We returned to candidates who were uncomfortable and stiff in debate. Al Gore, much like Jimmy Carter, has proven to be much more interesting far away from the political arena. John Kerry was a dud from the beginning, much like Dukakis. The Massachusetts liberals never had a ghost of a chance in connecting with the vastly diverse American culture.

After eight years of yet another DNC draught, not one but TWO shining stars have emerged. This time, however, each candidate inspires completely different segments of the DNC canvas. Each candidate is flawed in his and her own way. There are doubts that either candidate alone will be able to defeat John McCain in the general election.

But with the Democrat party split almost exactly down the middle, and both candidates drawing a record number of voters to the polls, any sane person in the DNC should have recognized months ago that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama together would be the "unstoppable force" that Bill Clinton spoke of months ago. Call them Yen and Yang.

Hillary Clinton "unleashed" with the backing power of the formidable Clinton machine, along with arguably the most inspirational political figure in 50 years, would have won in November in a landslide. With Hillary at the top of the ticket and the unvetted freshman senator in the V.P. slot, the perfect resolution to the perfect storm would have been complete.

Why Hillary on top? Because not only has all her political dirty laundry been hanging in the wind for 15 years, it has rotted on the clothes line from endless Republican prodding. Barack Obama desperately needs a good, long meet-and-greet with the American public who deserves to know who he really is. Who is Wright, Rezko, Auschi, Odinga, and Ayers? What do they have to do with you? Why does your foreign policy team resemble a bunch of anti-Semetic skinheads that would make the Third Reich proud? America will NEVER elect Barack Obama without having satisfactory answers to those questions. Regardless of what Uncle Teddy thinks (Godspeed, Teddy). And six months isn't enough time to do it.

The DNC has the opportunity to squeeze 16 years out of their two shining stars. Unfortunately, they don't possess the vision to make that happen. After eight years as Vice President, under the protective wings and guidance of the Clintons, Barack Obama would emerge fully-vetted. At age 54, he could boast that his career never backtracked once in his stellar rise to the White House. He would still be fresh and inspiring.

As things stand now, Barack Obama is lining himself up to be yet another failed DNC attempt at reclaiming the White House. There is simply too much anger within the party for him to even secure a solid blue state victory. After November, he will tip-toe back into the Senate, his collegues glaring at him in dismay. The stellar rise of Barack Obama will suffer a setback that won't allow him to run again for possibly 8 years. By then, the magic will be gone.

By attempting to play kingmaker for their man Barack Obama, the mainstream media and half of Washington have attempted to destroy the Clintons. In final analysis, they will succeed only in destroying both candidates. Sadly, many in Washington and the mainstream media, whether through greed or vanity, don't have the intellectual fortitude to see the destruction of their party in the making. I pray my party changes course immediately and stops the bleeding of these self-inflicted wounds. Stop the political assassination of the Clintons now! Make the Clinton/Obama ticket a reality so we can all stand unified in November!

Stand down Michelle Obama! Stand down Keith Olbermann! Stand down Nancy Pelosi!

If only someone would listen...

Tags: ayers, Barack Obama, Democrat, Hillary Clinton, MSM, Odinga, Olbermann, Pelosi, race, Wright (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

Gosh, you sure aren't a rightwing troll!

Ahhh, the "Democrat" party. You think you guys'd learn by now. Ready? Here it comes!

by ragekage 2008-05-25 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

by ragekage 2008-05-25 09:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

by obscurant 2008-05-25 09:28PM | 0 recs
1. Stand Down 2. Pull Head Out

Samantha Power:  Anti-Semitic Skinhead

Was that a short-lived 70s TV show?

Were there action figures?

I'm headed over to E-Bay to check.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-25 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: 1. Stand Down 2. Pull Head Out

Weak troll.

Very weak.

I think the freepers are running scared.

by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 10:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Photobucket

by obamaovermccain 2008-05-25 09:32PM | 0 recs
I did a nine pic fail montage to stevennt's PoS
This diarist has the qualities of this guy:
 title=
by Student Guy 2008-05-25 09:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I give it a 1/10.

by Deano963 2008-05-25 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I dunno. It had a good beat but was hard to dance to. 3 for effort.

Using "Hussein" would have brought it up to a 4.

by Cochrane 2008-05-25 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I agree with the central premise.  There's not much we can do now but on a gut level, part of what bothers me is that we could have had Clinton/Obama for 8 years followed by a more experienced Obama/??? for another 8 years.  Both would have been noncontroversial almost sure bets and successive historical firsts.

Given that I've always wanted to see a brilliant AA president and a brilliant female president (maybe that's why I donated to Carol Mosely Braun in 2004), it bothers me immensely to see these incredible breakthroughs in opposition to one another rather than in succession.  

by BPK80 2008-05-25 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Noooo! You fed the troll!

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Prepare for a barrage of juvenile pictures and one line comments that are apparently all that most of the people here are capable of anymore.  

Good diary and written well.  Thanks for the effort.

by Scotch 2008-05-25 09:43PM | 0 recs
Juvenile pictures and one line comments...

As I mentioned two days ago, I'm sick of the photos/illustrations/cartoons.
They add nothing to the discourse.

I'll be accused of not having a sense of humor.
I'm half-Irish and have quite a sense of humor, but it's rather more developed than that which I've seen here lately.

Prefer- "A minister, a priest, and a rabbi ..."
Or others that can't or shouldn't be printed here.

by susie 2008-05-25 09:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Juvenile pictures and one line comments...

Again, you're feeding the troll- or are you a proud member of the Democrat party, too?

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Juvenile pictures and one line comments...

I'm not playing your game.

by susie 2008-05-25 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Juvenile pictures and one line comments...

What game? The expose-the-right-wing-troll game? He called us the "Democrat" party- read it, really! Is Senator Clinton a proud member of the Democrat party? Is she vying to win the nomination to become the Democrat nominee for President? Or are we playing right into the hands of a right-wing, Limbaugh ditto-head trying to troll his way into the conversation?

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Juvenile pictures and one line comments...

Perhaps many/most of these responses are a game.

Today is Memorial Day, and I am busy preparing a Father's Day gift for my husband who is ill.  It will be a book of his ancestry, including  research that I have worked on for many years.

I have lost interest in much of what goes on at MyDD and the presidential primaries, and only peruse it now and again recently, instead of the too much time I was giving it a few weeks ago.

by susie 2008-05-26 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

So, tell me Scotch- what party is Senator Clinton a part of?

Now go read the diary over- you got suckered by a right-wing troll!

He's loving it- now STOP FEEDING THEM! It just makes you look dumb!

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

And a crack at Ted Kennedy. Really, guys, can we make it any more obvious?

Hey, don't worry- we'll send you a postcard when we're whomping your party's ass up one side and down the other this November. Have fun!

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Heh. Keep tellin' yourself that, and don't forget to tune into Rush every day- you wouldn't want to upset Republican Jesus.

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Wow, you really suck as a troll- what can I say, though, you're the best the other side has to offer.

Ahhh, this'll be easy.

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

It's going to be a fun year :)

by map 2008-05-25 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I'm troll rating this instead of zero rating so that everyone can see it.  You sure didn't take long to out yourself, as if posting "Democrat Party" wasn't enough.

by map 2008-05-25 10:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Dude.  You should have paced yourself.  Now you're going to have to create a whole new account to troll with.

by map 2008-05-25 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Gee, I wonder if we'll be able to pick him out from the crowd.

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

pokes troll with stick

Damn you are amusing.

by map 2008-05-25 10:31PM | 0 recs
Well lookie here

a Paulite/Paul-Tard.

After all Democrats tend to call our party the democratic party

by Student Guy 2008-05-25 11:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Geeze Scotch,
In your fervor to pile on what you think is an attack Obama diary, you lavish your praise and support on a Repug troll diary.

Give that itchy trigger finger of yours a rest.

by toyomama 2008-05-25 10:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Good diary?

Comparing Obama's foreign policy team to a bunch of anti-semitic skinheads that would make the Third Reich proud?

You've lost your mind.

by emptythreatsfarm 2008-05-26 05:29AM | 0 recs
But nobody will listen. That's the point.

Making these same arguments over and over just reaffirms the futility of them.

by lombard 2008-05-25 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: But nobody will listen. That's the point.

Sorry, but when the diarist refers to our party as the "Democrat Party" they have sort of let the cat out of the bag.  They might as well just announce that they are a Republican troll.

by map 2008-05-25 10:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

And the deadenders come out to cheer this hit job.

by venician 2008-05-25 09:48PM | 0 recs
It IS a shame

That they ran at the same time. Really, what are the chances that the FIRST viable female and AA would happen in the same year?

Basically, lighting struck twice. Then a third and fourth time with the ridiculous FL & MI debacles.

At this point, it's really too late to do anything but mourn. With the party this divided, I don't see how either would win in the fall.

by Neef 2008-05-25 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

But with the Democrat party split almost exactly down the middle

Pssst.... your troll is showing.

No McCain points for you.

by mistersite 2008-05-25 09:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Gee, you'd have to take a look and see if the McCain website would approve of that.

by ragekage 2008-05-25 10:03PM | 0 recs
As opposed to YOUR brilliant mind,

which felt the need to treat us to a diary full of doomsday predictions for the "Democrat Party"?

by sricki 2008-05-25 10:38PM | 0 recs
Hm, you're a really subpar troll. Pity. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-25 10:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

So, then, the question becomes: Why should we listen to someone who (a) doesn't know the proper name of the party of which he/she is supposedly a member, and (b) won't commit to voting for the nominee of the party of which he/she is supposedly a member?

by mistersite 2008-05-25 10:06PM | 0 recs
HR'd for your sleazy McCain endorsement. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-25 10:55PM | 0 recs
I'm printng...

...two copies of this diary...one to shit on, and one to cover it up with.

by hootie4170 2008-05-25 10:09PM | 0 recs
"Democrat party" = GOP translation fail:

by sricki 2008-05-25 10:26PM | 0 recs
"Democrat party" = GOP translation fail:

hahahah.  crude and funny.  Awesome.

by map 2008-05-25 10:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

"By attempting to play kingmaker for their man Barack Obama"

Kingmaker? As in Juan Peron engineering 100 Argentinian SDs for his wonderful wife Eva?

by catilinus 2008-05-25 10:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I admire your honesty then, but doubt that America is ready for Peronism.

by catilinus 2008-05-25 11:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Lol. Good one. I didn't realize the diary was snark.

by catilinus 2008-05-26 12:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Geezzz. I wish I could predict the future like this post does. And Hillary Clinton is not a star candidate. She couldn't beat a first term senator who was unknown a few years ago.

Don't claim to know who will win the election. Obama could beat the Clintons so he probably will beat McCain. That's if Hillary bows out gracefully after the primaries end instead of sabatoging any chance Obama has. She will be seen as a bitter, sore loser who couldn't stand another democrat being the president.

by stevema14420 2008-05-25 10:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

I just want to personally thank you for the entertainment, and for outing the four people that recommended your diary.

Scotch
nikkid
tornsneaker
Jeter

by map 2008-05-25 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Looking Back In Anger

Yeah, most Republicans are unaware that it's an insult since they've been using the slur for so long.

Make sure to tell all your troll friends.  We like a challenge, and when we see "Democrat Party" it makes it too easy.

Also might want to tell them not to implode on their second diary.

by map 2008-05-25 11:05PM | 0 recs
Paultards are funny


by spacemanspiff 2008-05-25 11:22PM | 0 recs
LOL, yeah, I bet ya do. n/t

by sricki 2008-05-25 11:49PM | 0 recs
A Marxist, am I?

That's not much of an insult.

Regardless, I've been called far worse by far better trolls.

by sricki 2008-05-25 11:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A Marxist, am I?

Actually marxism advocated the dissolution of the state as a goal, hardly "living for it", but sure, whatever.

Perhaps you're confusing it with Leninism or Stalinism or something.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 03:40AM | 0 recs
Re: A Marxist, am I?

"regardless....all of them FAILED"

They certainly e.g. failed to overthrow capitalism worldwide, but then again the nations they took hold in weren't what we'd call "capitalist" in the first place -- they were feudal Russia and feudal China (plus a few colonial-style dictatorships like Vietnam and Cuba), and they overthrew those feudalisms very successfully. Not sure they replaced them with anything remotely better, but nonetheless.

Anyway I'm not quite sure what you're arguing or that you yourself understand what you're arguing. "Failed" means nothing by itself. Do you mean:
a) that they failed in their political analysis and misperceived or misconstrued the realities of the world.
b) that they failed to be realized and remained abstract philosophies without actual power
c) that they were realized but failed to improve the living standards of the nations following them.
d) that they were realized but subsequently got replaced by other economical philosophies.
e) A mixture of all of the above.

Anyway, you aren't being particularly communicative here.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-05-26 09:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Hmmm... How do we know he's a Repug?

I think you nailed this neo-con troll.    Bush uses that "democrat party", sorry W but were the democratic party.

by realistdem 2008-05-26 08:42AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads