Heroic spy fucker Joe Wilson, fresh off his latest triumph in front of the House Judiciary Committee, is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President in 2008.
Which creates a bit of a problem, given that the netroots have spent a lot of energy building up Wilson’s credibility, while working to remind us — daily — that Hillary Clinton’s (pre-election cycle) support for the war in Iraq (which was nothing more, really, than a continuation of the regime change policy once widely supported by Democrats) disqualifies her as a viable “netroot” candidate.
In fact, were she not a woman — or had she an “interest” in Israel — she’d likely be persona non grata in progressive circles by now.
Think Joe Lieberman, only with bleached hair, large ankles, and a rumpled pantsuit.
But, to her great advantage, Hillary is indeed running as a woman — and this, too, creates a discomfort within certain progressive circles, where identity politics is quite important — particularly when it is coupled with power.
Which is why Cindy Sheehan, for instance — who stands for everything the anti-war netroots stand for and who has been their ventriloquist’s dummy for years now (and in return, had for years now been embraced as a kind of anti-war mascot, a prop whose “absolute moral authority” was not to be questioned) — has recently been asked to remove herself from the netroots community: by deciding she might run against Nancy Pelosi, on a platform that promises to bring impeachment proceedings against President Bush (something the netroots have long been calling for), she risks splintering the vote a bit, or at least mitigating Pelosi’s power. And in the end, it really is all about pragmatism where acquiring/maintaining power is involved.
Guess absolute moral authority isn’t so absolute after all. Or maybe the netroots would prefer to remind us that “absolute” is always “contingent.”
But back to the new netroot dilemma: Joe Wilson, whose lies to the American people have made a mockery of the media and our intelligence agencies — even as it made him a hero in progressive circles (“we got Libby! Hiphip hurrah!”) — is now endorsing a candidate that many on the progressive left have vowed to see punished for her erstwhile “pro-war” heresies.
So what’s a good progressive to do?
Well, thankfully, progressives, as we know, are under no compulsion to act consistently. Because when your entire ideology is all about acquiring and maintaining power, the only thing that matters is that you acquire and maintain that power. Principles, being part of a bourgeois social paradigm that builds on Enlightenment rationality and objectivity to establish a set of arbitrary “universal” moral values, are for nuns, suckers, and neocons — and consistency is the hobgoblin of un-nuanced minds.
Which is how the slow move toward supporting Hillary in ’08, if her powerful political machinery begins to beat back populists like Obama and Edwards, is likely to take shape among the herd. From Steve Clemons at The Washington Note (via Jules Crittenden):
Wilson and Plame are favorites among the leftish “net-roots†…
But now Joe Wilson has endorsed someone that many in the blogosphere have been slow to love: Hillary Rodham Clinton. This will have impact and will shock some. Some lefty bloggers will not abandon Obama and not forgive Clinton for being complicit in the decisions that empowered the Bush White House to wage the Iraq War. But others will now rethink their positions.
[my emphasis]
Well, let’s see how it plays out. But if what Clemons says is right — and there is certainly reason to believe he is — we’ll be witness, over the next year, to a mind-bogglingly disingenuous attempt, on the part of the netroots, to rehabilitate Clinton and walk back earlier criticisms.
Not that we should be at all surprised, of course. After all, any group of “activists” that lets an endorsement from a serial liar like Joe Wilson affect where they place their allegiances is not too concerned about principle, anyway.
Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing. Which, you have to admit, seems more at home in football than it does for politics.
Unless you’re a member of the netroots, of course. In which case, the ends justify the means — and the ends are the power to control and dictate behavior and ideology to a populace wooed by emotional appeals and populist bromides.
Maybe I missed the point, but . . . does Lieberman have cankles?
…a rumbled pantsuit.
When you’re a Jet, you’re a Jet all the way!
I, for one, like Edwards or Richardson, and Wilson’s endorsement does nothing for me one way or the other. If/when Senator Clinton is nominated, I will vote for her. She’s not at all as terrible as the alternative (although, I would like to hear from Romney about healthcare and ending the war. If he espoused something I could live with, I could vote for him.
Then again, Arianna Huffington’s gonna have a lot of ‘splaining to do (from listening to her, I think she would vote for Bloomberg).
especially since Mitt spent $300 on make-up and we know that’s important (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/4982.html)
What does Romney have to do with anything being discussed in this post?
Carpet, meet turd.
Well, since Joe Wilson is publicly announcing his candidate (to media fanfare), I expect to be similarly announcing endorsement for a presidential candidate soon as well. I’ll be holding a conference call with my husband and my sil, and then will announce it on my blog.
Of course, since I’m not a spy fucker, it may not receive as much notice.
I said I liked him more than any Republican, and I think one reason is because he’s smart, and another is that I don’t think he’s that far right.
Then I remembered the make-up thing from yesterday and thought I’d add that as comedy. After all, Edwards hair-cut is high comedy, so the make-up thing means I am a consistent voter.
Guess it didn’t work. I’ll let you do the comedy. Sorry.
But, I was expressing the views of me and my friends, none of whom are wild about Hillary (including one who is just convinced she couldn’t win, because the Republican fundamentalist base would turn out in droves). They have all said they would vote for her in the general, because she is the superior alternative.
I figured rather than refer to some amorphous “netroots”, you might be interested in what a person of that persuasion (although they are a bit shrill for my tastes).
Or not. Shutting up now
Political life is so depressing these days; the only parts of it I can really enjoy are watching the inconsistencies that must be internalized by folks with whom I disagree so that they maintain their warped world view.
Sometimes I even fantasize about how they would freak out were I somehow able to supply them with a sense of perspective.
timb, Mitt’s makeup is funny. There’s a thread on HotAir for that. We also have an open thread halfway down the page. Posting an unrelated tidbit in a thread like this comes across as an attempt to derail the discussion topic. Consider this information carefully.
I’d also make a crack about an amorphous “fundamentalist base” but that would be off the topic.
–Posting an unrelated tidbit in a thread like this comes across as an attempt to derail the discussion topic.–
Well a Joe Wilson endorsement party is pretty embarrassing
Tim, you actually know someone who says they would vote for Hillary? I hope you won’t be offended, but are you, like, institutionalized or something?
I knew your description of the reactionary left reminded me of something.
Found it:
“Ho! Ha-ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!â€Â
-Daffy Duck wielding the buck-and-a-quarter staff
“Shutting up now”
We should only be so lucky!
Maybe some reporter could ask the spyfucker how his views of the war and Hillary’s views of the war compare and contrast, and where Hillary went wrong, in his most humble estimation.
And the Romney thing is funny. Seeing as how he does not strike me as a potentially viable candidate, I can see how that would really get timmah’s batteries all charged up.
I can’t seem to make the spittle with this stupid alphabet.
Is fundamentalist base some lefty codeword for godbotherers ?
I wish them the same luck they had in Conn.
Jim, you know I will.
Mr. Boo, critique accepted on the “fundamentalist base.” I try to be careful with terms like that here, because although my family is evangelical and many posters here are too, they think that when a liberal mention the “evangelical portion of the Republican party” then that the lib is taking a shot. I didn’t want to be criticized for that! Guess that tip-toeing through the tulips causes phrases like “amorphous base”!
“Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing. Which, you have to admit, seems more at home in football than it does for politics.”
Speaking of football, any takers on which MNF brodcast this season will be intro’d by Hillary and Bill?
Where Jeff sees the potential for cognitive dissonance (and pops some corn waiting for the show), I see only the Same Old Same Old.
Not because the potential isn’t there, but because the nutroots, in their uncanny ability to sympathize with misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic thugs in their fight against the real misogynistic, homophobic, theocratic thugs at home, I’ve long since despaired that they will ever recognize the inconsistencies in their alleged thinking, much less try to resolve them.
My prediction: Joe Wilson’s endorsement of Hillary will be totally ignored. Confront a ‘bat about the contradiction and you’ll get either a blank stare, a change of subject, or an ad hominem attack.
It won’t even faze them.
TW: cheapness subject. Hey! I resent that!
“I, for one, like Edwards or Richardson, and Wilson’s endorsement does nothing for me one way or the other. If/when Senator Clinton is nominated, I will vote for her.”
I know it is hard for you to believe, but this post isn’t about you, timmy. It did give me an idea, though: how about an Official John Edwards Little Campaigner matching hair brush and hand mirror set? I think timmy and his little friends would buy them like hot cakes! Imagine the fun of doing your hair while watching John Edwards on TV at the same time! Oh, the joy! Oh, the ecstacy!
cw: assume turkeys- why yes, I suppose I do.
“Conservative base” is more apt. The Godbotherer’s make up a portion of it.
Ditto. I figured out years ago that, since a necessary ingedient for cognitive dissonance is cognition, there’s no point expecting CD from those on the left.
kelly – I sure hope they do not have Billary at one of my Colts games.
Didn’t Jeff tell you not to post here any more, Tim? Did we miss some sort of lifting of the Interdict?
I think you’re probably safe, JD, unless the Colts are playing the Jets or, less conceivably, the Giants.
But back to Blowin’ Joe, the Heroic Spy Fucker (I’m still laughing over that one, Jeff), I think it’s starting to dawn on him that’s he’s getting more passe with each passing day and this was a rather feeble–maybe desperate–attempt to make himself feel relevant again. He got his encore performance with Waxman’s nostrils (which apparently didn’t go all that well) and now he’s facing a raging egotist self aggrandizer’s worst nightmare: insignificance. So being the little pussy who can’t milk his wife’s fame any longer, he’s got nothing to lose to attach his lips to Hill’s posterior. Pathetic yet entirely predictable.
I have a feeling insignificance will pale next to his rage over the civil suit getting tossed. Apparently, there is a motion to dismiss hanging over it at this present time, and, although the judge’s ruling won’t be the last word (either side will appeal), I find it hard to conceive of a world where it doesn’t get dismissed.
After that, he will just boil away into the either. Another Bush 41 appointment lamented by Bush 43.
Am I the only one who sees a scenario where many nutroots hold their noses and vote for Clinton (because one can’t vote for a cancer, can one?) and, in the process, allow Joe and Val to slip into, as timb so eloquently put it, the ether?
There might be some short term fun to be had at Joe’s expense with the loonier koskiddies or many of Hampsher’s hamsters but ultimately Joe really doesn’t matter much in the natioanal political spectrum.
For those of us who don’t like him; can’t think of a better way for him to go, whimpering.
I’d prefer he go whimpering, too — but because he’s had a subpoena shoved into his ass.
Well, yea, but that would allow him to milk the limelight for victimization points and bask in the outraged squeals of the KosKidz.
i’m thinking that a fade away to irrelevance would be especially painful to that media whore.
BTW: The Rocks and Pirates finish that game yet? What is it, like, 127 – 126 in the 47th inning? (heh)
“I’d prefer he go whimpering, too  but because he’s had a subpoena shoved into his ass.”
Yeah, his wife’s subpoena for lying to a Congressional comittee.
Sigh…..
so, the Kerry campaign dropped him, but he’s good enough for Clinton?
The Rockies are breaking my heart. They should be trying to get John Garland and Brad Lidge — then bring up Jimenez or Reynolds toward the end of August. Instead, they are going to stick with Josh Fogg and LaTroy Hawkins, and — as good as their offense is — they’ll fade by mid August to 10 games back.
Do you think O’Dowd actually has a plan this time around and is just sticking to it or do you think this team is built haphazardly like so many of the past teams?
Personally, for one decent pitcher, the Rocks could probably get David Weathers and Adam Dunn. Have I mentioned the Reds really suck?
Jeff, didn’t you read Timb out on a rail?
Too bad, timb. I’m just surprised that anyone would admit that they would vote for Hillary for President. Even the people I know who would likely vote for someone holding her policy positions wouldn’t vote for her. Too fake, too much about the power and not enough conscience to be trusted in wielding it.
Acc. to USA Today, Nader told a conference of Greens he was seriously considering another run for POTUS. If he announces, will send his campaign some scratch. Another 2000-style spectacle of mass outrage, self-immolation and hysteria among our nutroot friends–should Nader, as is likely, suck votes from the main Dem candidate in 2008–is too rich a prospect to pass up.
“so, the Kerry campaign dropped him, but he’s good enough for Clinton?”
If it helps, think of him as a crack whore but without the dignity.
In a perfect world, both Nader and Gore would run. The Democratic party would be just like Jonestown. Keep your fingers crossed.
Um…I hate to…you know…disagree..or be contrarian…but…..Are you SURE Hillary’s a woman..I mean really sure…cause, you know…I think she’s packin’ heat…or meat…if you catch my drift. Just sayin’
TW : Communists Taft… I shit you not…How’s a guy supposed to beat that?
Watching Nader get himself on the ticket would be a sight to behold, again. Ironically, I have never understood that meme that Nader takes votes from the Dems. The Dems do not own those votes. The candidate has to earn the vote, and if their people are so easily drawn to a hippie era left-over, it was never the Dems vote to begin with. Just like with Perot when Clinton was elected. Many argue that those votes came from Bush the Elder. I have always maintained that until the candidate earns those votes, they cannot lose them.
For this to be some kind of dilemna for the Left, they would actually have to first recognize the disparities, and then actually care about the disparities. Clearly, that is not at issue with them.
If it helps, think of him as a crack whore but without the dignity.
AKA the campaign kiss of death – this is why I suspect it was done early— enough time to exploit Wilson/Plame’s limited popularity to bribe the nutroots and wash her hands before it matters.
And why does the spy that was so intrinsically important to our very way of life – so much so the story was sold to a big movie production house – not able to speak for herself – is her man a misogynist who won’t let speak?
But what’s interesting for me – not the nutroots they are just dumb authoritarian seeking lemmings that just do what they are told (HEH – it will be fun to poke more wholes in Glenn Greewald’s grand theory when the lefties just wholesale whore themselves here – Authoritarian Cult anyone?) is that Hillary is confident the nutroots are so cheap – if Hillary thinks they are so easily bought – it means that they a blimp and she will forsake them when it matters too.
Who knew Jane Hamsher was such a cheap date? (well we all knew but…)
HOLES in Greenwald.
This just in……
Vince McMahon is endorsing Hillary’s cankles as his candidate, provided that Hillary’s cankles meets The Undertaker in a “no holds barred Texas cage match” and provided Hillary’s cankles pass the growth hormone screening. Developing…
The cankles will clear the HGH screening, since Barry Bonds will tell you, they cannot yet screen positively for HGH. At the same time, if we are going to put the cankles in the ring, wouldn’t it be better to do so in the UFC, maybe against Rampage Jackson?
I don’t know. I see the UFC as a venue for the quick and flexible. The Cankles are more of a behemoth better suited for the WWF or your bigger state fairs. Just my opinion.
“HOLES in Greenwald.”
Please never use those two words in a sentence again.
Good day to you, ma’am!
I agree. Discussing Gleen’s holes is simply over the line. Given what it takes to cross the line around here, that is saying something.
“Um…I hate to…you know…disagree..or be contrarian…but…..Are you SURE Hillary’s a woman…”
Are you volunteering to find out? How great a sacrifice would you be willing to make for your country?
[…] it isn’t anything but the active expression of a will to power. Not just for its own sake, pace Jeff Goldstein but also because they really, really know what’s best for us. And that damn war is in the […]