The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    barefooted's picture

    Sign 'Em Up

    By barefooted on Sat, 03/21/2015 - 9:26pm |

    Let's just agree for the sake of reality that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee for President in 2016. Other names have been teased, of course, and a sparse few have expressed a vague interest in running against her - Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb and self-proclaimed Socialist Bernie Sanders come to mind. But they know better than anyone else that their chances are nonexistent. Sherrod Brown isn't interested, neither is the only person who would conceivably stand a chance: base favorite Elizabeth Warren.

    So now what? Democrats won't have a primary (at least not a long one), and Hillary is many things but exciting ain't one of them. The only thing left for bored liberals and resigned progressives to chew on while the GOP dukes it out is the choice of a vice-presidential running mate. Now that's worth a debate.

    Waging a losing campaign is a standard (though expensive) way to get yourself noticed. So is being an up-and-coming member of the current administration's cabinet like Julian Castro. And sometimes, just being really, really popular with the party base - to the point they beg you to go for the big chair - is enough.

    It is worth considering how much Hillary's own preference will come in to play during the selection process. Was Palin John McCain's choice or was she chosen for him by Republican strategists? If Clinton has the likely last word, the final decision could prove very interesting. Process aside, the road to the eventual VP nominee might provide restless democrats the excitement we crave.

     

    Comments

    Thanks, barefooted.

    I'm going to vote for Hillary even though I have some reservations. What is so unique about having reservations? And---compared to who?

    I agree that the V.P. is more interesting---let's get someone who can be the attack dog, so to speak.  


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 03/21/2015 - 10:00pm

    I'm not sure she needs an attack dog. I've always thought a good VP should "round out" the ticket, adding strength in areas where the candidate might have weak spots. In Hillary's case someone with a more populist resume, especially in the realm of economics. Her perceived attachment to Wall Street and big banks needs tempering for a large number of progressives. Unlike Obama, I don't see the VP needing much foreign policy expertise. Overall, Clinton is an extremely strong candidate who needs an equally strong counter-balance.


    by barefooted on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 12:44am

    I kind a like boring. Some one will jump in to run to just keep it interesting. 

    Walker had a bad week this past week.  He has been out campaigning and his budget is being debated and some Republicans are not happy with some of the stuff he has in it.  A report came out that now shows Wisconsin in 49th place in job creation.  That is pretty bad. He fired one of his campaign people.  He will implode before it is all over with.  

    We need to work on the congress and get more Democratic people in there.  


    by trkingmomoe on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 12:27am

    Thanks momoe, but consider that a bored electorate is a lazy, disengaged one. And we can't rely on Republicans blowing themselves up - as a party we have to continue to build our own fortress until it can't be toppled. In the end, that's the only way to ensure that we have more Democrats in power on every level.


    by barefooted on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 1:05am

    With the Roberts Court already deciding "corporations are people, too," it would seem appropriate for Hillary to select Wal-Mart as her VP candidate, or perhaps Goldman Sachs. McDonnell-Douglas and or Raytheon might seem plausible as well, but it's doubtful they'd give up their lucrative position as owners of our Defense Department to take a less important (and certainly less lucrative!) position in government such as VP or even President.

    Perhaps the more interesting conjecture is guessing to whom the next Prez - be it Hillary or some other whore - will swear primary allegiance to in the first election post-TPP. Monsanto, Nestle, British Petroleum, & Friends? Or the United States? Will the TPP allow the Prez to swear an oath of allegiance to our Constitution? What caveats will be required as written within the language of the fast-tracked agreement?

    Just wunnerin', is all.


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 5:20am

    I realize that you have given up on the system. What would yu suggest that we do as we await others to reach your level of enlightenment? Should we stay home as a sign of rejecting the process? Should we select the best of the alternatives presented on election day?


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 11:36am

    These are not rhetorical questions. Seriously, will the TPP actually ALLOW the Prez to swear allegiance to anything less than the Supreme Power? Will the Prez be allowed to violate the terms of the TPP if he and the American people he supposedly serves (meaning, like, flesh & blood people) determine that something in the global trade market is against our national interests or perhaps against humanity altogether?

    Take just a few moments to step back from your oh-so-pragmatic, lesser of evils approach to what you call "the system" to ponder just a couple simple questions: 

    1. Just how far down the rathole have we gone in just the last 20 or 30 years whilst everyone dithers about "who is the better candidate among the two being offered by the corporations this year?"
    2. How do I suppose a vote for Hillary - or even my (yours!) ongoing belief that this system is actually legitimate despite all evidence to the contrary - will produce a result contrary to the fundamental desires of our corporate owners? (i.e. Imagine wresting control of the water resource from the hands of Nestle and The Carlyle Group and the others, declaring clean water to be a public right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold on Wall Street. Ain't gonna happen. No way. No how. Or imagine standing tall against Monsanto, declaring GMO products and others to be outliers to the food chain that properly require scientific proof of their safety before being accepted for public consumption. Ain't gonna happen. No way. No how. Or imagine a widespread acceptance of Peace as a legitimate and comprehensive pursuit for American policy, thus adopting policies that present an existential threat to McDonnell-Douglas and Raytheon and the others in the MIC. Ain't gonna happen. No way. No how. Or...)
    3. Look at how dismissive you (and the media and everyone else in the mainstream nattering class) is about any candidate for our side NOT named Hillary. REALLY look at the reasoning behind that assessment (which is, alas, profoundly accurate IMHO) and then explain to yourself again just how "the system" works in favor of anyone other than those who pre-select the two candidates we will be offered at the polls.

    Yeah, you leave me in the uncomfortable position of not knowing quite what the answer is here short of full-scale revolt against our corporate owners.

    But I do know that the first step to overcoming and surviving a dysfunctional relationship is to quit being the enabler. And we are at the point where a vote cast in this "system" has become nothing more than a vote of confidence in our owners, legitimizing their dominion over us which supplanted any real notions of democratic rule a long, long time ago.

    But go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong just because you don't like the message that we are truly and completely fucked. Step right up! It's the free market, baby!

     


    by SleepinJeezus on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 3:57pm

    Martin O'Malley gave a talk in Iowa that I have set to record on CSPAN and will listen to. Webb has made rumblings that he might run. The Boston Globe is enecouraging Elizabeth Warren to run. If you want to find media dismissal of candidates, you can find it, buy there are media sources looking at people other than Hillary. There is no candidate that will satisfy some people.

    People remained home and ushered in the TeaParty wing nuts who are out to destroy government. Both parties are not participating in an effort to take my vote. Ferguson is an example of what happens when people don't vote and put people into office who serve their interests. At least this time around their will be at least two people on the city council representing their interests. I don't see the benefit of giving up.

     


    by rmrd0000 on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 4:33pm

    If you go back through the campaigns of the last 30 years or so, it's depressing to see how few actually interesting candidates there have been and how tough to bring any sane interesting debate to the primaries or general campaigns. 2000 - is Al Gore a robot, and how-oh-how will we spend all our social secruity wealth/surpolus? 2004 - John Edwards poverty pimp vs. John Kerry-threw-his-medals-over-the-fence-but-still-likes-war vs how-much-should-we-torture-without-saying-the-t-word national hero Bush. 2008 - at least there was some tension & suspense, vs. 2012 - I-love-America-more-and-screw-those-poor-people-and-BTW-forget-I'm-Mormon vs. Obama-better-than-the-other-guy-so-pull. What real issues were in there? 2016 it would be great to see a serious candidate we hadn't seen a quarter-of-a-century ago, but life is full of disappointments, and American politics is a major source of them. Lemme guess, it will all come down to who loves America more - whether in a biblical sense, I'm not sure, but grab your ankles anyway.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 4:38pm

    Hear,hear, well stated SJ

    I appreciated the Enabler  descriptor;  so I included a resource tool for those not familiar with the term and its application to some people.


    by Resistance on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 8:32pm

    '

    How does linking to a thesaurus.com page showing "No results found for enabler" help?


    by barefooted on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 8:49pm

    It works just fine for me.

    Very recently, there has been trouble for me, linking onto some posts.

    I have been denied access to some posts, all the while seeing others responding and a conversation ongoing, all the while I am locked out

    On Wattree's discussion about the 47 senators and Wattree's citing the Curtis- Wright case,  as prove of treason;  I find whole sections of the use of scholarly work, rebutting the use of Wattree's cited case law and  now I find a whole section of the discussion removed.

    The Curtis Wright case can hurt all Americans, with it's laws of unintended consequences 

    Is this an ominous sign of censorship, for disagreeing with those who would employ MIND CONTROL;  an Orwellian tactic, to silence dissent?

    It makes me suspicious that information or access to information is being manipulated,  to support strongly held, biased opinions and objectives and  dissent will not be afforded an opportunity to express differing views. 


    by Resistance on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 11:24pm

    Resistance, you're the only person I've seen write about having the same problems I've been experiencing with a few posts. In the last few days, when trying to follow a "new comment", it doesn't work - neither does just going straight to the post. I get there either way, but half of the thread is gone. It just stops at an arbitrary spot - sometimes mid comment. Very weird. Started with Lulu's Snark post, then Bruce's on Bibi and now on Hal G's recent one.

    It's not personal, Resistance. The author of a post can't do that - it isn't censorship of any sort done by anyone. It's bound to be a glitch ... Hey Michael! Help!


    by barefooted on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 12:41am

    Thanks barefooted, I started noticing more problems after being accused by some as being a troll and so it became highly suspicious to me when I got the "AW SNAP" screen after the accusations. 

    Especially after Putin's critic was silenced and someone breached DAG Hq

    and now this  Hacking group threatens US troops.

    I've also received other gibberish,    I'll report to Hq but am very alarmed to correspond 


    by Resistance on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 2:48am

    Bingo for Jeezus.


    by Q (not verified) on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 12:06pm

    I was speaking with St. Michael (The ArchAngel) recently and he tells me that Jesus was against gambling.

    The Son of God never bet on the Nicks (thank the Good Lord) and He never played BlackJack and He never worked on Wall Street, for that matter.

    He certainly could have sold a lot of bread and fishes if he so decided; and made a bunch of bread, so to speak.

    But not a lot of folks with long beards and robes (and blue eyes for that matter) used some ink pad thingy or blotters in rest homes or 'community centers' like the one I live in ever showed up for Monday's bingo.

    Although, my understanding is that the Roman Catholic Churches, at least those in the good ole US of A really understand the revenue aspects involved in sponsoring bingo.

    So I guess, I must reverse myself with regard to the comment:

    BINGO FOR JESUS.

    That's all I got right now.

    I have to leave in order to get back to my video poker.

    See ya later!


    by Richard Day on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 1:02pm

    As I've written before, Sleepin', Corporations are definitely People. Therefore, I don't see an impediment to having one of Them represented as VP - although choosing the person to be the Person could get a bit tricky. As you correctly point out, the position doesn't wield much power, so the Person would have to select someone expendable yet capable of being a believable figurehead. (The less-than-lucrative part would only affect the employee, so is of no importance to Them.)

    It could become problematic when the People have to pick just one Person's person to become VP ... I suppose they could vote on it.


    by barefooted on Sun, 03/22/2015 - 4:13pm

    I don't need to be excited in order to get off my butt and vote. In 2010 and 2014 we got schooled on why staying home is a really, really bad idea.

    Although I am far from a Hilary fan, I suspect she will be the nominee, and I will walk 5 miles barefooted (ooops!) in the snow to vote for her, whether I'm excited or not. It would be nice if she chooses someone I really like, but I don't need for her to do that, in order for her to get my vote.

    There are those who lament how screwed we are, and they may well be right. But I'd rather be screwed by a Dem than a Repub any day of the week. We have a 2 party system, whether we like it or not, and a vote for anyone other than the Dem, OR staying home, is a vote for the Repubs - not something I will EVER do again.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 2:39am

    But I'd rather be s.....d by a Dem than a Repub any day of the week

    American's did screw themselves, when they thought Nader couldn't win, so the voters thought they were smart and would instead play the counting game, rather than vote for the Non- Corporate candidate.

    Sealing this Nations fate   CORPORATIONS WON

    American voters turned out to be idiots, easily manipulated.


    by Resistance on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 3:01am

    Didn't you mention to Synch that you vote absentee from home? ;-)

    Seriously, Still, I don't mean exciting for excitement's sake. I think one of the reasons that some democrats are calling for her to be challenged is restlessness. Primaries are the appetizer, the attention- getter.for the election to come. It also gives potential voters a clearer picture of the issues and where the candidates stand. They create conversation - especially among those who have been largely "unplugged" from politics. But there will be no substantial Democratic primary this time. So the party runs the risk of apathy, or worse.


    by barefooted on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 4:19pm

    Yep, I do...I'm just saying I would vote no matter what - excitement or no excitement!

     W/o a primary, it actually makes it more difficult for her. Kinda like in 2012 with Obama. For the debates, he was out of practice. If she doesn't have someone to challenge her, it will be more difficult for her to be in top form for the general.

    Apathy is one of our biggest problems - witness 2010/2014. It's actually kind of pathetic. We'd rather sit on our asses and let idiots take over than motivate ourselves and keep them from winning seats. I really don't get it.


    by stillidealistic on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 8:26pm

    Maybe the voters have a reason? 

    Debate Night

    Softball questions predetermined by the campaign staff, given time to prepare 

    Moderator "Well there you have it folks, stay tuned for the 2nd and final debate. Have a good night". 

    Screw that;  if the candidates want too treat the voters as sucker, the people are not going to play that game.

    NONE OF THE ABOVE is not a choice on the ballot; so the voters would just as well stay home.

    The voters are tired of being snookered and treated as children, to be fooled by the name debate, when all it is about, is to give a performance, a charade.

    How many more times, must the voters hear after the election;  "that is not what the candidate really meant".

    "I'll repeal NAFTA"  wink wink or maybe they had their fingers crossed, so it doesn't count as an outright lie? 

    Politics for Dummies...... All politicians lie.

    Not much better than used car salesmen,  Sign here   


    by Resistance on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 11:41pm

    We'd rather sit on our asses and let idiots take over than motivate ourselves and keep them from winning seats. I really don't get it.

    No the voters are tired of the asses, treating us as idiots 


    by Resistance on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 11:56pm

    It's absolutely true that a primary would be good for Hillary, and in many ways even better for the party. But how persuasive is that argument supposed to be for potential candidates? Come on, folks, step right up - we're looking at you, Liz! Anybody? All ya have to do is put your life on hold, kiss your family goodbye ... better yet, drag 'em along! ... make speeches, eat chicken, lose sleep, try to explain what the press digs up and spend all the money you sell your soul to raise! Nobody thinks you'll win, but who cares? It's all about Hillary - so take a dive for the party.

    Even the Boston Globe with its orgasmic adulation of Warren doesn't write about her winning the nomination. They're very clear about her needing to run - to help Clinton. And they're right, for the most part. Their error is in thinking that anyone can pull Clinton to the left.

    PS - Nice to chat with ya again, Still!


    by barefooted on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 12:25am

    Exactly! I think it's horribly unfair to ask ANYONE to do that. And I would hate to have Elizabeth Warren tarnished by the "probable" loss. I think she has a great future ahead of her, but it needs to the one she wants, and she doesn't want to run right now.

    It's good to be back, Barefooted!


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 10:57pm

    "W/o a primary, it actually makes it more difficult for her." - right, the best way to prepare for a debate is 18 months of your own party picking you apart and driving you to positions the other side will tear you apart on after your team's finished.

    Look at what great good Bill Bradley did for Al Gore. how Ted Kennedy helped Jimmy Carter take on Reagan, how Jesse Jackson helped Michael Dukakis surge to overwhelming victory, and both Gary Hart and Jackson helped Mondale triumph in '84.

    While the Obama-Clinton contest in 2008 certainly drew voter interests, Obama also looked quite a bit worse by Fall 2008, beating the ludicrous team of McCain-Palin by only 7 points. If Clinton had played a pouter like Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown, Obama would have been doomed.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 7:42am

    I think that for someone who hasn't already been subjected to intense scrutiny from the media, you've got a point that it's difficult to balance the positives with the negatives (well, that's not exactly your explicit point as you gloss over the positives, but I'm taking that as just your style), but it's difficult to imagine the media digging up anything on Clinton that's not already known. So, that's one negative that's hard to say applies here.

    Meanwhile, with only one target during the Republican primaries, all attacks will be on her. One thing that helped Obama in 2008 is that the Republicans were so intent on taking down Clinton early on that they wasted a lot of their mud-slinging on her (meaning that while they made themselves look petty with their attacks on her, any damage they did to her was essentially wasted due to her not being the actual candidate). Now that also won't happen here, assuming she's the candidate, so that's one positive that's hard to say applies here.

    Do we really expect a Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown pouter, especially since Clinton is the presumptive nominee? Very unlikely, so that's another negative that's hard to say applies here.

    Exposure is another positive that can be gained from a solid primary. Although it's hard to increase her current exposure right now, when the Republican primary heats up, that might be less true. (Maybe, maybe not.)

    Practice is a positive that's already been stated here, and it's hard to see how that wouldn't apply.

    So, in general, yes, I'd say it'd likely be a positive for her to get some good primary experience.

    That said, as has already been pointed out, who's going to volunteer?


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 10:49am

    It all depends on how vicious the campaign would be. it would be good if there was a contested primary if it doesn't turn so vicious that who ever wins is battered, bruised, and tarnished at the end. If O'Malley gets traction it could turn pretty ugly since a lot of women want to see the glass ceiling broken and quite understandably so. Even as a male I want to see the glass ceiling broken.  I wish the democrats would hold back a bit on the fire at other democrats but I understand why that doesn't happen.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 11:50pm

    It feels like there's already a whisper primary being waged, but it doesn't do damage to democrats in the usual way. All the grumbling and overt cynicism about Clinton's "coronation" is working against the party. Republicans are already using it to prove her vulnerability.

    I'd love a real, substantial, topic-driven primary, one that starts with good candidates on a level playing field and ends with someone democrats come together to support. But this time we just aren't going to have that - so we're wasting time we should be spending using the head start we have. Warren, O'Malley, Sanders and lots of other progressives to Hillary's left can get their agendas out there while actively supporting our nominee. That will help all of us.


    by barefooted on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:45am

    I think focusing on electing liberal Senators and Congressman will do much more good than worrying about influencing Hillary's political positions at 67 years old.

    Do people really think that a candidate swinging left for the primary is really going to affect how they rule in the White House? I'm sure Obama's been leafing through those campaign promises in bed just to make sure he han't missed one. Bush was a notorious stickler for keeping to his compassionate conservatism & Social Security lockbox, eh?


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 2:53am

    "it's difficult to imagine the media digging up anything on Clinton that's not already known" - let me guess, you predicted the mini-email scandal? no, there are always new possibilities, and the press has been amazingly proficient at inventing scandals if there is none. Remember Al Gore not working on the farm in Tennessee?  Living in the Ritz Hotel? saying he invented the internet and discovered Love Canal? All invented scandals, with people like Mo Dowd twisting words to make it seem like he said stuff he didn't.

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome assures this will happen over and over.

    "Do we really expect a Ted Kennedy or Jerry Brown pouter, especially since Clinton is the presumptive nominee? Very unlikely" - uh right, like politicians are such great team players, especially Democrats? John Anderson took his defeat into a 3rd party run. Jesse Jackson took his defeat to Dukakis as a chance to talk more about himself (not that I blame hime). Hillary was rather unique in this regard, despite all the nasty crap said about her.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 1:54am

    "it's difficult to imagine the media digging up anything on Clinton that's not already known" - let me guess, you predicted the mini-email scandal?

    Fair enough, but that just proves my point that there doesn't need to be a primary challenger for the media to dig stuff up on her.

    And sure, John Andersons and Jesse Jacksons are not unlikely, but a Ted Kennedy is.


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 7:43am

    Really? How was Gene McCarthy with Humphrey's nomination? Reagan with Ford's victory in 1976? Ford asking for a co-presidency in 1980?  Didn't John Connally form "Democrats for Nixon" to kill McGovern's chances even more?

    Just making stuff up, grumble grumble grumble.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:05am

    OK, you've got some good arguments there. I don't expect it, but I can't rule it out, and I'm often surprised, so… (I really, really thought there was absolutely no way Bush could get re-elected in '04.)


    by Verified Atheist on Wed, 03/25/2015 - 8:17am

    You certainly have a good point.

    So, what's the answer? 

    No one wants to challenge her, but somehow, some interest needs to be drummed up...


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 11:02pm

    I spent some time googling Martin O'Malley.  He has been stumping in Iowa and New Hampshire.  He is not a bad candidate.  We just are not familiar with him.  I like this introduction speech that he did at IOP in Chicago the first week in January.  He was relaxed and in a good mood.  He wasn't being handled yet by campaign people. It is a hour long but there is an Q and A with David Axilrod that is interesting at the beginning while they wait for Martin to make his way through the bad weather.  The question at the end are good also.

     

    We will have to see how he develops as a candidate as a counter balance against HRC.  

     


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 7:52am

    Frankly, momoe, I think O'Malley is positioning himself for VP consideration. I don't doubt he'll be (if not already since Clinton thinks ahead) on the list. That's not a knock against him - it's actually a reasonable goal.


    by barefooted on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 4:08pm

    O'Malley is a true liberal and a party team player.  He will do what needs to be done to help with this election.  No one wants to work hard knowing their chances are slim but he seems to like the campaign trail.  

    I took time to dig up all his you tube clips since the first of the year.  He has been out there defining himself before the actual campaign starts.  I just listened to them all while I am doing housework. He has been very gracious to HRC over the email questions the media has been thrown at him.  More recently he has told the reporters he was tired of that question and cuts them off.  He is saying all the things the left wants to hear about increasing wages, increasing taxes on investment income and using that to rebuild infrastructure.  Investing in education on all levels and the need to return the Glass Steagall Act. He is very supportive of the things that our President has done.  He wants to approach global warming as a jobs opportunity.  

    We will have to see if he can stay in the game and build some interest. I can see him as a cabinet member for labor.  

    http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-23/martin-o-malley-wants-to-be-the-glass-steagall-candidate

     

     


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 03/24/2015 - 8:23pm

    Gore! Gore! Gore!

     


    by Michael Maiello on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 2:40pm

    I hear Al's had his fill of political gore.


    by barefooted on Mon, 03/23/2015 - 4:44pm