Just in case you were wondering

| |

I think Lawrence Lessing does a great job with his explanation of why he is for Senator Obama... so much so, I'm sharing it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Summing up

The heart of Lessing's stance is boiled down to an argument/debate I've been involved in and having with some members of the Democratic Party and across the blogosphere since 2003. I've boiled it down to a basic title: Strategy vs Substance.

From the summer of 2003 and all through Howard Dean's presidential nomination campaign, I (and most of Dean's supporters) were constantly berated by hardcore Democrats for our support of the upstart from Vermont. Those brow beatings constantly centered on "electability".

"Electability": that elusive, untouchable "something" that shows the world that only the someone possessing it can be elected one he/she has won the nomination of his/her party.

It is no more real than unicorns or fairy dust, yet it was constantly brought up by naysayers and hand-wringing ninnies from Iowa to Washington to DailyKos; but even more nefarious was that it was the Strategy of interested parties who wanted to ensure Howard Dean's collapse.

Personally, I have pinned that Strategy on the Clintons, specifically Hillary for it was no secret that Hillary's senate tenure was to merely be a stepping stone on her was to a run for the presidency and I submit that she worked hard (behind the scenes) to ensure that Dean "imploded" and Kerry was crowned because she and others knew for a fact that Kerry would inspire no one and that Bush would win a second disastrous term.

Moving forward to 2006, when Tennessee had to sit through the disgusting Harold Ford senate race. Here again, Democrats were asked, no, TOLD to just be quiet while Ford went around bad-,mouthing the left and Democrats in general because it was "what he had to do to get elected."


And now, here's his fellow DLC member, Hillary Clinton, telling voters that she is the only one who can win all the while she is being told (by voters), "No, you can't" Or better yet, "Maybe, but this guy over here is inspiring me with his credibility and candor."

The worst about her, as Lessing states, is that she is using Rovian tactics. The worst zenith of Strategy in politics. She hopes to strongarm the convention and break the rules and have the FL and MI delegates sat and wrest the nomination away from Obama.

The horror of this situation is that she has hung in there. She has shown her worth. Were she not the ambitious, take-no-prisoners type, she would have already conceded and bowed out with dignity; but the time for that is past, now it can only behoove her (and sadly Obama) for her to stay in till there is absolutely ZERO way for her to make it happen. I fear even then she will go nuclear.

Having said that, I'm thinking Substance will win over Strategy this time.

My god how short are peoples memories.

I'm in my fifties and I can remember back fairly far in my personal experience. It amazes me that few remember the largest riots this country has ever seen was at the Democratic convention in 1968 because it was the Democrats that supported the war in Vietnam. We are now in a similar situation, but for very different reasons, and people want to vote for the same people that had us in Vietnam. I find this absolutely amazing.

Few people remember it was the Democrat Jimmy Carter that got us in a world of Islamic Fundamentalists. I think Mr. Carter has done much better after being president then he did as president. But it was his inaction in the face of Islamic aggression that gave them the foot hold for terror around the globe. I remember the fiasco in Iran well. When we had a Republican in office terror attacks stopped. Kadafi was behind the attack on the jet liner that went down in Scotland. It was Ronald Reagan retaliating against him personally that stopped terror during his presidency. It wasn't until Clinton came into office that terror attacks resumed in full force. There was attack after attack after attack. All over the world embassies, military vessels and the first attack on the World Trade Center happened and Clinton did NOTHING!!! If you haven't noticed folks there are people that want to kill you. Yes you personally and all your good intentions mean nothing to them because your beard isn't long enough or, if you are a woman, you face isn't covered. This sounds just incredible but it is the way it is. Three thousand innocent people were killed in the World Trade Center, a thousand more then at Pearl Harbor, and you are thinking that it is a good thing to put a Democrat in office?? What is wrong with you?? Do you have so much self hatred that you want to die and bring everybody along for the ride?? The Democrats do very poorly at war. Vietnam is the classic example but you can also look at Clinton's attempt at it. He crippled the forces so badly in Somallia that they made a movie about it called "Blackhawk Down." We actually have a good chance to bring a better life to the people that live in Iraq. Just look at what we did for Japan after WW2. If we pull out before we finish the job they will be brought under another dictator that will most likely be even worse the Saddam.

As for the Clinton presidency the video just ignored the fact that the head of the FBI, Louis Freed, was screaming like a mashed cat that there needed to be a Independent Counsel because of the action of the Clinton White House. In the memo he wrote to the Attorney General he said "It is difficult to imagine a more compelling situation for appointing an Independent Counsel" but Janet Reno was in the Clinton pocket and refused to uphold the law. Also I am thoroughly convinced that the events around Monica Lewinsky were a smoke screen for China Gate. Bill Clinton gave away military secrets to China for campaign contributions. To put it another way he sold us out!! Here is a link for a fairly good web site that I googled that has some of the information but not all: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/26/214938.shtml
Mrs. Clinton ran for Senator in New York on how much she was going to do for the Puerto Ricans. What has she done for them?? Absolutely nothing!!! In other words she lies just like her husband. Yea right she had to run under sniper fire. What a bunch of crap.

As for Obama do you really think he went to that church for over twenty years and never heard the "Hate America" speech that was broadcast on the news??? He has a lot of similarities to the Clintons, he will say anything to get a vote then sell you out for his own personal agenda. This is born out by his cutting remarks about the poor working class whites and then back peddling to try and cover it up. I would have had respect for him if he stuck to his remarks and clarified them. But that isn't what he did. He just lied through his teeth to try and make himself look better for the sound bite. Just another two faced scum bag.

Personally I would rather vote for someone that says they are going to do something that I don't completely agree with and then does just that then vote for someone that will say what they think I want to hear then does whatever they want after they are voted in. This is exactly the point that Lawrence Lessing made about the first Clinton democrat not standing by his "principles." Personally I think anybody that says one thing and does another has no principles.

Become well informed

Take a look at:


See the latest Nieman Reports, edited by Melissa Ludtke

Scott Dowdle's picture


Thanks for your comment. I've heard all of that nonsense time and time again... so I'll not say more than I recommend you listen/watch a few hours of Noam Chomsky or read one of his books. :)

Regarding Rev. Wright... if you listen to his entire speech... or more than just the refuted barbs... to get the complete context... well... I don't find anything he said inaccurate or offensive at all.

We will agree to disagree.

Feel free to email me (you can find my email in the footer of every page on this site) if you'd like to discuss this further because I don't want to clog up the Linux site with this stuff... but I guess I did ask for it by posting the original.

Oh, I'm not much of a Clinton fan myself (neither him nor her) but I do acknowledge that he did way more to protect us than our current president did before 911. Just read (or listen to the audiobook as I did) Richard Clark's book for some clarity.

Noam Chomsky is an Idiot.

Well I guess I have learned all I need to know about the Bozeman Linux user group if this is what you think is good information.

Clinton protected us?? You must have grown up in a high lead environment. See ya

While you are at it why don't you delete my account.

Scott Dowdle's picture

Chill out

My political views are mine and do not represent the views of anyone other than myself. I have no problem with you having your own views... or anyone else for that matter... and I don't take things personally.

I read the bio you posted in your profile and was very impressed with your computer history and Linux experience. I have no desire to see you deleted... but it is up to you.

Again, I'd be happy to discuss politics (and religion too!) via email if you are so inclined. You'll notice that I don't call people names. That is a sign of the maturity you prize so much. :)

Scott Dowdle's picture

If, then, else?

I may sometimes post things that are off topic. In such cases I will:

1) Put in a tag of "offtopic"

2) Not publish it to the front page

Now having said that... I'm not turning anything into a political blog... but I may blog on political things from time to time. I'm certainly only speaking for myself and not the Montana Linux community.

If you don't like that, whoever you might be, sorry.

The video in question does happen to come from a prominent member of the FOSS community... so in one way it is related. Speaking out on software freedom and then trying not to talk about any other politics is kind of silly.

If you turn this into a

If you turn this into a political blog, I am leaving.

Thomas's picture

re: If you turn this into a

Hello Anonymous,

I don't recall there being a topic rule, or posting regulations. You don't have to read every post. I'm pointing this out because I don't want you trying to censor me, or other members of this forum/blog site. Yes, LINUX is the main topic here! Can linux users talk about things other than linux? Why not? If you can't handle people posting what ever they see fit, maybe you should go!


Just in case you were wondering

If deciding who is going to be the occupant of the White House and arguably the most powerful single person on earth is not appropriate for a general blog, then what is. By the way anonymous, you really don't exist anyhow. If you have an opinion, you should be morally strong enough to put your name on it.

Beagán a rá agus é a rá go maith.
Say little but say it well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.