Polarization Express

January 9th, 2008 4:59 pm · 7 comments

nhjc114_clinton_2008_new_ha.jpg 

Sullivan’s doing all primary all the time today, and his reaction to last night’s Hillary win is close to my own - a whiff of despair. 

On the surface, a partisan like me is supposed to be in favor of a Hillary candidacy. Yes, she’s a polarizing figure - but what would be better than jamming Hillary, of all people, down the conservative movement’s collective throat?

But I don’t like Hillary specifically because she’s so polarizing. I’ve certainly engaged in a tremendous amount of partisan sniping at the Bush administration and the conservative movement in general - while retaining a soft spot for paleoconservatives and others on the right side of the fence who have themselves been made nervous by the arrogant unilateralism of the past seven years. I thought Bill Clinton was far better at governance than our current president, that is for sure. But my own partisn rancor was in large part a response to the partisan rancor generated by the conservative movement then; I simply decided at some point that liberalism needed to give as good as it got, and not take all the smears and invective lying down. Bullies need to be smacked in the mouth, so I balled up my fist and swung away.

But now there comes a time for a clean break with all of that. Eight years of Clinton and partisn rancor; eight years of Bush and partisan rancor. I would ask even those who would like nothing better than to wallow in the schadenfreude, who would like to tell the Limbaughs and the Hannitys of the world to suck on it by electing Hillary - are we going to do this for another four years, or eight? Can we do it? Obama has the ability to transcend all that if only because he’s not as much a known quantity as Hillary, or even John Edwards; the country, as Sullivan notes, “is being given a chance to move beyond its vicious partisan, polarizing past, and last night, core Democrats picked the most polarizing figure in the country.”

I’m sure most didn’t vote for Hillary because they wanted to keep the Polarization Express rolling. But that may be the ultimate effect of what they have done.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  7 comments  Tags: Election 2008 · Hillary · Democratic candidates

There are currently 7 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
hahaha
1/9/08
4:08 PM
So what have the Talk Show's been saying today Gil?

C'mon, we know you listen.....
easy
1/9/08
9:22 PM
Liberals were loath to engage in the "take no prisoners" partisanship of the last twelve years. Rejecting Hillary because some people love to hate her is allowing the haters to define our options.

usedmeat
1/9/08
11:30 PM
Battered Democrat syndrome there, Gil?
Who is to say that the repukes won't go after Obama hammer and tongs should he win the primaries?

hahaha
1/10/08
5:33 AM
"Liberals were loath to engage in the "take no prisoners" partisanship of the last twelve years."

Yeah, ok. They were just innocent bystanders. Check out meat boys posts and make that statement again.
ArtVandolay
1/10/08
8:12 AM
QUOTE(usedmeat @ Jan 10 2008, 12:30 AM) [snapback]347852[/snapback]
Battered Democrat syndrome there, Gil?
Who is to say that the repukes won't go after Obama hammer and tongs should he win the primaries?





Meat - like it doesn't work both ways, huh?

I agree with Gil on the polarization issues. However, how long can it last after a new president is elected? The new pres will have to be open to working with both parties and vice versa.



Obama COULD be the man, but he is going to have to show how his lack of experience does not hurt him on terrorism. The terrorists are not going to go away.

That will become the bigger issue come the fall.









mnepats52
1/10/08
9:25 AM
QUOTE(ArtVandolay @ Jan 10 2008, 09:12 AM) [snapback]347894[/snapback]
However, how long can it last after a new president is elected?


well....

bu..bu..bu..bu..bu..bu..bu..bu..bu.bu..clinton has been going on since 1993



littledutchboy
1/10/08
9:59 AM
It’s not the messengers that are polarizing, it’s the message, there are 2 some times clear and other times murky ideas about how our country should be run and what the ultimate goal of government should be, there are liberal ideas and conservative ideas with the country split 40 - 45% to 40- 45% polarization is not going away no mater who is elected!

If any one takes the time to hear what O boomer is saying ( when he actually says something) you will realize he is way way out there on the far left fringe. His ideology will guaranty polarization.

View Topic | Comment on this blog