The point of the game is to win. The Clintons understand that , and I thought that's why we loved them.
The point of the game is to win. The Clintons understand that , and I thought that's why we loved them.
Intra party competitions are like getting in a fight with your brother. Sure you're going to take a swing at him, but there's some things that are off limits.
The Clintons apparently don't get that, and if their careers go down in flames, it'll be the least they deserve.
Obama himself tells us that we must be willing to speak to our enemies.
Also: from the front page of today's WaPo: Oh snap! Not "The L-Word"!!!
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama, warning that his appeal among moderate voters will diminish as they become more aware of liberal positions he took in the past, such as calling for single-payer health care and an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba. "The evidence is that the more [voters] have been learning about him, the more his coalition has been shrinking," Clinton strategist Mark Penn said.
Dear gawd.
I am shocked that a politician would prioritize being elected over adhering to her principles. No one ever does that!
The Clintons apparently don't get that, and if their careers go down in flames, it'll be the least they deserve.
I don't disagree. I just don't find this all that surprising.
Well, shit. If winning is just the point of the game, I shoulda been a Republican these last 8 years.
Part of what's really pissing me off about the Clintons right now is the feeling that whatever they do between now and the convention, voting for her in the fall--if she somehow gets the nomination--will still be the lesser of all evils.
It's like that .... monster is toying with me!
The Clintons apparently don't get that, and if their careers go down in flames, it'll be the least they deserve.
Or, more likely, squeak away with the nomination, and lose the general to McCain.
OK, I posted this in the other thread, but it is making me insane, so here I go again.
The Arkansas Project was Scaife funded, but its footsoldiers were at the American Spectator. HRC's campaign is now pushing an article of theirs about how Obama adviser McPeak is an anti-semite because he thinks Israel should respect their pre-67 borders.
The American Spectator, HRC? Really? The folks that regularly printed stories about all the people you murdered?
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama
She's calling him a lesbian?
Cross-posted at KFM.
There were a large number of conservatives who didn't think the Clinton's killed Vince Foster, but still hated their guts for being amoral opportunists. I'm starting to see where they are coming from.
True, but you know, you reminded me -- there were a lot of conservatives who thought the Clintons killed Vince Foster. Let's keep this in perspective here. The Democratic Party primary race is unusually heated and negative for a number of reasons, but the biggest is simply because it is closer and is going on longer than any in my lifetime. There are good arguments to make that this will ultimately hurt the candidate in the general, but it's not certain. (Attacks coming from within the party might carry more weight, but on the other hand, they will be old news. And they're keeping McCain from getting much press coverage. It's just too early to tell how this will balance out.)
Meanwhile, the Republicans managed to find a weaker candidate than Bush who might even manage to be a worse president than him, in an electoral environment less favorable to them than 2000 was. This is a new and unfamiliar experience for me, but try as I might, I just can't feel negative overall about the Democratic Party in the coming election.
The Clintons apparently don't get that, and if their careers go down in flames, it'll be the least they deserve.
Except they're probably going to take us down with them. (On preview, Cala-pwned.)
Not to belabor the point, but:
Well, 'tis no matter; honour pricks me on. Yea, but how if honour prick me off when I come on? how then? Can honour set to a leg? no: or an arm? no: or take away the grief of a wound? no. Honour hath no skill in surgery, then? no. What is honour? a word. What is in that word honour? what is that honour? air. A trim reckoning! Who hath it? He that died o' Wednesday. Doth he feel it? no. Doth he hear it? no. 'Tis insensible, then. Yea, to the dead. But will it not live with the living? No. Why? Detraction will not suffer it. Therefore I'll none of it. Honour is a mere scutcheon: and so ends my catechism.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has also started slapping the L-word on Obama
Obama is a lesbian.
Let's try: Obama is in LOOOOOOOVE!
Or, more likely, squeak away with the nomination, and lose the general to McCain.
Yeah, that would be what's causing that cold feeling creeping up my spine.
I always knew that Obama was a libertine.
If Clinton somehow manages to win the nomination, I really really don't see her losing to McCain.
I've said all along that the Clintons are really just pro-choice Republicans, where pro-choice stands in for the usual range of hot-button social issues. But christ on a crutch, between the "John McCain is qualified to be CinC and Obama isn't" and "LIBERALLIBERALLIBERAL" crap, I'd like to wing a bottle at her head.
She really is a monster.
12: I dunno, Cyrus. McCain looks potentially stronger than Bush looked in 2004. For one thing, he has the key advantage of not being Bush. Have Americans wised up? I sure hope so, but I lack your confidence.
On the other hand, the idea that Hillary is somehow a dirtier campaigner than we're accustomed to in this country seems more than a little overwrought to me. She talked to a bad man who owns a newspaper ! I'm shocked ! She disavowed Wright in somewhat stronger terms than Obama disavowed him ! Unbelievable !
Damnit, Smasher took my next one.
I can't believe they caught Obama lipsynching. That's going to be bad for him.
The point of the game is to win.
What, exactly, does "winning" mean in this context? "Awesome - we've got the nomination! Who cares if we've shot the Democratic Party in the head?" It's exactly the same kind of view of "winning" that brought us "We've got a Democrat in the White House! Who cares if he acts just like a Republican?"
23 wasn't intended to disagree with anything in 21.
between the "John McCain is qualified to be CinC and Obama isn't" and "LIBERALLIBERALLIBERAL" crap,
And let's not forget jewels from Bill like "wouldn't it be nice if the election was between two people who really love their country, like my wife and McCain?"
Pass me a bottle.
Does anyone remember how McCain rolled to the Republican nomination this year, easily crushing powerhouses like Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani? In retrospect Bush was a terrific candidate, someone who could simultaneously appeal to the various deranged segments of the Republican base. Apparently not that easy a feat.
oudemia, that's crazy that she's circulating An American Spectator article. She has no shame, no shame at all.
Oh, I see now. The L-word is 'lecturer.'
Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school.
What, exactly, does "winning" mean in this context?
I think it would be an important victory if a couple of years go by and we haven't bombed/invaded Iran. I think the odds of avoiding such a war are much greater in a Clinton presidency than a McCain presidency. A Clinton victory over McCain would thus be an unambiguous and very important victory. All of those who would minimize the difference between right-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans really seem to lack a grasp of how astonishingly awful right-wing Republicans are.
23: Pretending to be campaigning as a Democrat while turning the word "liberal" into an insult, endorsing McCain and making common cause with the conservative noise machine is more than just a little over the border from "bare-knuckles" into "incredibly stupid and venal." It's Lieberman politics, the acceptance of standing as a poodle for the Republicans as long as you can (at least pretend to) lord it over your own party.
Look, Hillary is just rising above partisanship and party lines. Obama talks the talk but Hillary walks the walk.
As for Scaife and the Clintons, it's long been my view that these people desperately need each other. Scaife, Murdock, Limbaugh and the rest started out as parasites leeching off the Clintons' personae; by now the relationship has matured into full-fledged symbiosis, with the wingnuts needing Bill and Hillary to justify their existence and the Clintons needing the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy to prop up their partisan bona fides. Seeing them collaborating openly together towards a second Clinton presidency, here and elsewhere (Limbaugh telling his listeners to vote for Clinton in Texas; Murdock donating to Clinton), is only the logical endpoint of a long and pitiable relationship between human parasites.
Obama: Lepidopterist. Ludologist. Lollygagger. Lover of the lash.
Louisianan. Lungfish. Loose in the caboose.
Lieberman, you will recall, actually endorsed McCain. Are there any Democrats who might be able to beat him in a General election. The man has got to go.
41: I see how they need each other, but doesn't it ruin everything when they are seen openly working together?
All of those who would minimize the difference between right-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans really seem to lack a grasp of how astonishingly awful right-wing Republicans are.
Obviously, a right-wing Democrat is preferable to a right-wing Republican, but only in the way that herpes is preferable to AIDS.
Scaife, Murdock, Limbaugh and the rest started out as parasites leeching off the Clintons' personae; by now the relationship has matured into full-fledged symbiosis
Exactly. Without them, James Carville might have to go out and get a job.
Are there any Democrats who might be able to beat him in a General election
We'll find out...in 2012.
33: There's no way Clinton gets the nomination at this point without giving the general to McCain.
I see how they need each other, but doesn't it ruin everything when they are seen openly working together?
Not for the millions of low-information voters who don't realize this is going on, and think that Hillary Clinton is the awesome super-defender of the Democratic Party who's going to fight the Republicans and end the war and so forth.
48: There's no way Clinton gets the nomination at this point without giving the general to McCain.
Why do you say that, stras?
"You know, I spoke out against Don Imus (who was fired from his radio and television shows after making racially insensitive remarks), saying that hate speech was unacceptable in any setting, and I believe that," Clinton said. "I just think you have to speak out against that. You certainly have to do that, if not explicitly, then implicitly by getting up and moving."
-Hillary comparing Rev. Wright to Don Imus
2:
The point of the game is to win. The Clintons understand that, and I thought that's why we loved them.
Hillary is trolling bottom. She is channeling Rove. I don't love her, I am angry about her tactics. Her behavior illustrates exactly what is wrong with politics as usual, and exactly why she is unfit to lead.
Obviously, a right-wing Democrat is preferable to a right-wing Republican, but only in the way that herpes is preferable to AIDS.
Observe the analogy ban. Consider that herpes is way preferable to Aids.
29: Does anyone remember how McCain rolled to the Republican nomination this year, easily crushing powerhouses like Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani?
Is this supposed to be ironic? Because, despite a lot of hot air spewed over Huckabee and Romney, it was all over but the crying after Florida. A 30-day primary season doesn't seem so protracted to me.
All of those who would minimize the difference between right-wing Democrats and right-wing Republicans really seem to lack a grasp of how astonishingly awful right-wing Republicans are.
politicalfootball, this set includes Hillary Clinton.
But given a choice between herpes, AIDS and a left-wing Democrat, the choice is easy.
Obviously, a right-wing Democrat is preferable to a right-wing Republican, but only in the way that herpes is preferable to AIDS.
'smasher covered this in 52, but yeah, this is exactly my point, minus the word "only."
10. You know, that article got linked from Drum and Atrios, too. But as far as I can see, Marc Ambinder simply asserts that the Clinton campaign is distributing the article. To whom, and who is doing the distributing? Ambinder doesn't say, and no one else does, either. I clicked through and read the whole article, and there's nothing there about being pushed by the Clinton campaign.
I don't want to accuse Ambinder of sliming Hillary, but I do want some more facts about this. And it's annoying that this got picked up by both Atrios and Drum without more solid evidence.
50: Because anything Clinton does to win the nomination will be perceived as disenfranchising Obama supporters. And given that a large chunk of Obama supporters are African-American - and really don't take well to being disenfranchised - I'm betting that many, if not most, will stay home rather than vote for Clinton in the fall.
More than that: I'll go so far as to say that this would tank any chance Clinton ever has at becoming president. There won't be any 2012 comeback for her. This won't just be Ralph Nader territory; this will be Nader times a thousand, tanking a potential Democratic victory in a year when trends were more favorable for the Dems than they've been in decades.
57: Marc Ambinder simply asserts that the Clinton campaign is distributing the article. To whom, and who is doing the distributing? Ambinder doesn't say, and no one else does, either.
One might safely assume they distributed the article to Marc Ambinder.
jewels from Bill like "wouldn't it be nice if the election was between two people who really love their country, like my wife and McCain?"
When did he say this?! I missed it.
Clinton is making the little Loser symbol and pointing to Obama, crying "neener neener neener."
A Clinton victory over McCain would thus be an unambiguous and very important victory.
That's nutty: you're confusing a draw with a win.
There's nothing shocking, unusual, or unexpected about what Hillary has done, and I'm not asking her to change her ways. I'm just suggesting that someone should, ever so politely and in a completely non-judgmental way, take Bill, Hillary, Penn, and Carville out back behind the barn and shoot them. Their careers should be ended. No one but Republicans should play their game.
Some of what Hillary's doing would make sense if she didn't come into the race with something like 40-45% negatives. Obama does have certain weaknesses which she's been semi-successfully capitalizing on, but hers are probably still worse.
60: When did he say this?! I missed it.
It's a paraphrase: see here
When did he say this?! I missed it.
His phrasing was more ambiguous than gswift's paraphrase.
Chlamydia and crabs have gone unmentioned. Though maybe crabs matter less in today's clean-shaven future world. Is it foregone that PA west of Philly will vote for HRC? Looking at the other primaries coming up, PA seems like her best hope. Also, are there vox populi or fundraising campaigns aimed at influencing superdelegates?
65: Yeah, I figured it was a paraphrase. Thanks for the link. He's a jackass.
66: His phrasing was more ambiguous than gswift's paraphrase.
Is there a word for saying something that can be construed as offensive, which the speaker probably didn't mean in quite the sense that causes the greatest offense, but which the speaker nevertheless ought to have known better than to have said? (See, for example, every mini-controversy of this or any other election season.)
64: This is very true. In a way I'm almost as pissed at Reid, Pelosi, and Dean, as well as the heavy-hitter supers and outstanding endorsements like Gore and Edwards, for not having come up with a way to shut this thing down. This thing really can't afford to bleed on till June. Someone needs to politely tell the Clintons that they've had their fun, but the game's fucking over.
His phrasing was more ambiguous than gswift's paraphrase.
Barely.
Is there a word for saying something that can be construed as offensive, which the speaker probably didn't mean in quite the sense that causes the greatest offense,
Come on, Bill knew what he was doing.
On the other hand, this was a stupid response:
McPeak, a former chief of staff of the Air Force and currently a co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, said that sounded like McCarthy.
"I grew up, I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors, so I've had enough of it," McPeak said.
70: I think people are waiting to see how badly he gets hammered in PA. If a sufficient number of white Democrats just aren't comfortable voting for Obama....
69: passive-aggressive plausibly deniable bullshit works, but fails the one word test.
politicalfootball, this set includes Hillary Clinton.
I may be harping on tiny points, since I agree with the vast majority of what is being said here. For instance, stras's 48 seems on-target and extremely relevant. DS disagrees with my 23, but I don't disagree with DS's 34.
The only point I'm making is the point that Emerson makes in the linked text:
if Hillary wins the primary, I'll support her in the general
But I'm probably unintentionally making this point more obnoxiously than Emerson is, because Emerson doesn't catch much static when he says this.
I don't think the differences between Hillary and McCain are small. That's all. Hillary is certainly behaving despicably.
70: I can only conclude that they don't want to shut it down, on "holy crap, we're not supposed to be running a black man" grounds.
73: Gosh, I dunno. I thought that was dead-on, both politically and substantively. The form of it, anyway, was correct: Whenever possible, you need to respond to an attack with an attack.
76: Actually, I don't disagree with your 23 insofar as making hay over genuinely minor things is silly. It's just that I think there too many major things are happening to focus on that.
79: Raising the specter of McCarthyism seems a little over the top, but I could be wrong. Maybe it sets the right frame* for the press and the superdelegates, since they're the target audience.
*I don't like the "frame" trope, but I don't have a better word for it.
There are a lot of reasons why the party hasn't shut it down yet. Chiefly, I think, they certainly don't want to get hit by the argument that a lot of people haven't voted yet, even if other primaries have been decided long before most people got to vote. That, along with the fact that Clinton's support is as strong as it ever was, leads to a good case for not pulling the brakes yet. If Clinton's support were dwindling to Ron Paul levels as everybody jumped on the winner's bandwagon, maybe they would do it, but in that case they probably wouldn't need to -- an eventuality I'm sure everybody is eager for.
Is there a word for saying something that can be construed as offensive, which the speaker probably didn't mean in quite the sense that causes the greatest offense,
Wikipedia gives Noema. Is a list of superdelegates grouped by commitment maintained anywhere?
I've been talking with friends and I've decided as have they that here in the District, we can afford not to vote for Clinton in the general in hopes of sending the message to the polls that her support among Democrats has suffered.
Certainly, if she wins by convincing superdelegates to overturn the votes of pledged delegates and to overrules the popular vote (this I call "shenanigans"), I won't give one dime to her general campaign. It is she who is cutting off the nose to spite the face and I think it's important to do something to make the Party recognize that tolerating this nonsense is a mistake.
I checked in with my undeclared Rep.'s office, and the vibe I got was that supers don't want to piss off Clinton supporters and late state voters generally by jumping in during the lead up to a string of primaries and making those primaries seem irrelevant just as voters were getting excited. The supers should have acted earlier, but Clinton hadn't gone insane earlier, so they didn't realize how necessary it would be until just before March 4.
Chiefly, I think, they certainly don't want to get hit by the argument that a lot of people haven't voted yet, even if other primaries have been decided long before most people got to vote.
Really? The obvious chief reason they haven't shut it down yet is that the Clintons wield an awful lot of power and don't want things shut down yet. If they're so worried about the argument that lots of people haven't voted yet, why wouldn't they be troubled by the argument that Clinton is harming the party by staying in? This second argument seems a lot more compelling than the first.
From TPM:
The new Gallup poll says that 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain over Hillary and a whopping 28% of Hillary supporters would abandon Obama for McCain.
I doubt those numbers will hold up. People are pissed off right now.
Things like 88 make it so hard not to hate America.
I doubt those numbers will hold up. People are pissed off right now.
He's not going to be any whiter in six months.
83: The Superdelegate Transparency Project
at Congresspedia is also useful. If you click on a particular state you get details about each superdelegate:
I agree; I think the choice is more likely "stay home" or "hold your nose and remember the SC" (though I have to say, I'm getting really, really tired of having that held out as a reason. Vote for us, no matter how sucky we are, because the other guy wants your ovaries.)
I don't like the "frame" trope, but I don't have a better word for it.
Personally, I don't like the meme trope, even though I use it myself. From now on, I believe I will use the trope meme.
re 88 -- It's not just that people are pissed off that's skewing polls right now. Clinton's only remaining argument is her claim of superior electability, so her most plugged-in and dedicated supporters have an incentive to tell pollsters that they would never vote for Obama. So long as the Democratic nomination is open, general election polls are going to be absolute crap.
Ogged's right in 89 of course. I think those numbers reflect on the fact that people have been doing so much in supporting on candidate against another, and supporting that position. We all tend to angelicize and demonize. Once attentions gets back to McCain, people will discover that they don't like him so much.
As much as I think Hillary should give up for the good of everybody, herself included, I do think it's too early to start pushing her out. The contest wasn't expected to go this long, but it was designed to go all the way to the convention, so it's hard to argue that something is drastically wrong if the competition persists between two candidates neither of whom have enough delegates to actually win the nomination.
I do think that fear of retribution is why the remaining superdelegates have not stuck their necks out yet, though. Carville made that clear enough by saying, and reinforcing, that endorsing Obama makes you a Judas.
There's nothing at all that could make me vote for McCain—I don't see any Democrats but these mystery Reagan Democrats actually switching over because the primary got nasty. The winner will be declared, and shortly after we'll all be singing about reuniting the Blue and the Grey again.
I do worry about netroots dollars disappearing if Clinton magically nabs the nomination.
I'm hoping that Mr. Matalin-Cheney will piss off enough people that the join Richardson. Hasn't happened so far, though.
We all tend to angelicize and demonize.
Not me, buddy -- demonization all the way! I couldn't angelize my way out of a wet paper bag.
I'm an Obama supporter and even a delegate, and I can easily demonize him, and in fact have done so. I support the lesser demon.
I don't worry much about Obama supporters voting McCain -- although there would be some of that. It's having them stay home. And I'd expect to see plenty of that. Could Hillary still win 50% +1? Maybe so. It'd be an ugly single term, and she won't accomplish any of the things her supporters want done -- except block McCain from doing worse, which isn't nothing.
I do worry about netroots dollars disappearing if Clinton magically nabs the nomination.
You really think that's all that'll dry up if Clinton gets the nomination? The tens of thousands of overflow crowds who keep showing up at those Obama stadium rallies - are they all going to turn out for the candidate who spent months saying that Barack Obama was too black to be president? I'll say it again: if Clinton steals the nomination - and it will be viewed as stealing the nomination - she'll lose the general to McCain. And then the next four years all come down to what "rogue nation" Grampa John is angriest at, and who he picks as his VP.
To steer this conversation onto something that makes me slightly less angry: how many years will it take, do you think, for the US to realize that the occupation in Afghanistan has failed?
I'll say it again: if Clinton steals the nomination - and it will be viewed as stealing the nomination - she'll lose the general to McCain.
Well, then, if she does steal the nomination, a maximally compelling narrative about why Dems should support her in the general nonetheless would be in order.
Ten years longer than it will take to realize that the Iraq occupation has failed.
how many years will it take, do you think, for the US to realize that the occupation in Afghanistan has failed?
As long as it takes for them to figure out how to blame it on the Democrats.
- and it will be viewed as stealing the nomination -
Depends how she gets it. On the plus side, you have a set of Democrats of some standing that have declared against her. She may end up with a honeymoon that is measured in hours.
I'm afraid stras has it right. If HRC wins the nomination, she's toast in the general. I'd put money on that.
As for the L-word, if she's going around calling Obama lackadaisical, well, that's just racist.
The obvious chief reason they haven't shut it down yet is that the Clintons wield an awful lot of power and don't want things shut down yet.
The best reason I've seen for why the party faithful can't/haven't tried to kill the Clinton campaign is that, like Obama, she also has a large number of dedicated supported that might be pissed off if was handled wrong.
I think there is pressure building to try to convince Clinton to drop out, but I can also see why Clinton isn't ready to drop out (you can always convince yourself that the race is still winnable) and why the party can't be ham handed about forcing her out.
As Kevin Drum wrote:
There's no need to make this more complicated than it is. The Democratic Party has two candidates with almost eerily similar levels of support, and that support is deep and strong for both of them.
Just to be clear: she's toast in the general because she'll have alienated too many Dems, who will either stay home or vote for McCain? (Not, say, because she can't win enough swing voters in certain states against McCain, while Obama arguably would?)
That need not be an either/or question, I realize.
83: Wikipedia gives Noema.
I don't see how that's applicable at all.
110: Both. And all the stuff she's been using against Obama—about experience, about unsavory associations, about being a liberal—McCain is going to use against her, and he'll make it stick with a significant number of voters.
103 makes me a thousand times angrier than Clinton does (and I'm pretty damn mad at her). Could we have fucked up any worse in Afghanistan? As soon as we start packing to leave, it'll be "Welcome Back to Kabul, Taliban," and an ever-worsening civil war.
112: She also narrows the lines of attack for Democrats. Think the Dems should be in power because Iraq was a tragic mistake? HRC's not your best messenger. Instead, it will be dueling end-game strategies, and she's already conceded that McCain's a fit C-in-C.
The housemate turned against Clinton with the sniping story. "Filthy Liar" she says. Since I have managed to sour her on Obama, she says she will not vote in November.
She didn't vote in the primary tho I did. She is much more cynical, negative, and pessimistic than I am.
Blah blah blah evil Clintons. Yeah sure. Obama may be better, but nowhere near good.
mcmanus is launching a write-in campaign for Jesus, apparently.
Since I have managed to sour her on Obama, she says she will not vote in November.
Good job, bob. One vote at a time.
116:Zombie Lenin.
Was trying to think of a politician I cared about. Wellstone, mebbe. Russ Feingold votes to confirm monsters, because, like, even monster Presidents have their progatives. Fuck him.
Is there a word for saying something that can be construed as offensive, which the speaker probably didn't mean in quite the sense that causes the greatest offense,
Wikipedia gives Noema
God, this makes Husserl so much clearer!
Bob, have you read Downing's "The Military Revolution and Political Change"? If not, you should.
120: gaffe
Wrong. A gaffe is a gaffe ("A clumsy social error; a faux pas"). Then there's the Kinsley gaffe ("when a politician tells the truth"). We are talking hear about a political utterance which, depending on one's pre-disposition towards the speaker, can be chosen to be construed as giving offense or as giving none.
I remember that book. Whatever happened to that guy, anyway?
The correct category would subsume Kinsley gaffes.
"Dog-whistle" is close. "Joking on the square" is close. "Insinuating" is close. "Getting the idea out there" is close: "There's no reason to believe that the Clinton's marital relationship is anything other than normal".
As Atrios just said, Clinton learned the wrong reasons from being bullied.
Could we have fucked up any worse in Afghanistan?
If we tried really hard. Then again, there was never and plan or commitment to actually do useful things in Afghanistan, as far as I can see --- so the result is pretty much what you'd expect.
||
Just an aside, but it's surprising how little time there is for reading this place in an actually productive day.
Some implications of that are troublesome.
|>
politicalfootball and others: what is your evidence that Hillary, if presented with the need or opportunity, would not invade or bomb Iran, as opposed to McCain, who would? Is it her husband's bombing of the Sudan? His intervention in Kosovo? His authorization of Plan Colombia?
Or is it her vote to authorize war in Iraq? Or he vote to call Iran's military forces "terrorist"? Which of these?
The assumption that Clinton would avoid unnecessary wars is dangerous and unproven, particularly since any future intervention will be -- like Iraq -- as much for domestic political consumption as it will be for an actual strategic purpose.
128: Shh. You're harshing my denial.
I've been talking with friends and I've decided as have they that here in the District, we can afford not to vote for Clinton in the general in hopes of sending the message to the polls that her support among Democrats has suffered.
Well, that's a tactical question: How do we best advance The Cause?
For my part, every time I hear evangelicals say that the Republican Party takes them for granted and they maybe should sit this one out, I smile. Not only because I oppose Republicans and want to see them weaker, but specifically because I oppose evangelicals and want to see them weaker. The smartest thing the evangelical fringe ever did, politically speaking, was to crazy-glue themselves to the Republican Party.
That isn't to say that the evangelicals have gotten everything they want - they've got plenty of valid reasons for disappointment with the Republicans. But given their minority status, they've done a pretty impressive job of advancing their goals.
Evangelicals who want to put pressure on the Republican Party by de-linking with it, or by undermining its electoral strength and political credibility, are a-okay with me.
And I am entirely supportive of Emerson in his goal of becoming the Jerry Falwell of the Left.
their minority status
You mean "plurality, but still a minority"? I might buy that, but I believe they are the single biggest block in the coalition, and they've only recently been allowed out of the shadows. I'm not sure "impressive" is the word that I'd use.
131: I have accepted that my only alternative is to expatriate, which I can actually do. But as long as I'm an American, I'm a Democrat!
The smartest thing the evangelical fringe ever did, politically speaking, was to crazy-glue themselves to the Republican Party.
The smartest thing the Republicans ever did was to con the evangelical fringe into thinking they would advance their interests.
131: In 1998, evangelicals lead by Dobson sat out the midterms, seriously hurting the GOP. This did not hurt the power or status of evangelicals within the Republican Party. Rather, it sent the message that they weren't to be taken for granted, ultimately leading to the evangelical panderfest that was the early Bush administration and its court appointments.
129: Eh, I dunno. I think this comes down to one of those things that's either obvious or impossible to convey. You assert that Bill/Hillary's actions have been roughly similar to those of Bush/McCain's. You cite examples, all of which I accept as relevant. I draw a different conclusion from your examples, though. I think my conclusion is pretty obvious, as do you of yours. I'm not sure there's any room to discuss it further.
Tell you what - pick one of your examples and I'll try to explain what I see as being different. For instance, I think Hillary's position on the Iran terrorist vote was strikingly different than that of McCain; bombing the Sudanese factory or dropping bombs on Kosovo were strikingly different than bombing Iran. Supporting the AUMF and then saying you wouldn't do it again are strikingly different than what McCain and Bush did.
But again, I'm not sure I see a point in going further - obviously you disagree on each of the above, or you wouldn't have used them as examples. And it's not like I'm going to tell you something about these things you don't already know.
You mean "plurality, but still a minority"?
I was speaking of their minority status within the United States, not their status in the Republican Party. Overturning Roe v Wade, for instance, hasn't been close to a majority position in this country for quite some time, but give 'em one more president, and I think they'll get it.
For instance, I think Hillary's position on the Iran terrorist vote was strikingly different than that of McCain; bombing the Sudanese factory or dropping bombs on Kosovo were strikingly different than bombing Iran.
And Clinton's stated reason for voting for war was "strikingly different" from McCain's. In the end it doesn't matter: war is war, bombs are bombs and dead is dead.
And a stolen election is a stolen election, which is what the Clinton's are trying to accomplish by smearing Obama and poaching delegates. As odious as McCain is, there is no way I can vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination. I'll just sit out the election.
Overturning Roe v Wade, for instance, hasn't been close to a majority position in this country for quite some time, but give 'em one more president, and I think they'll get it.
This is the belief that Souter was (and, if necessary, Roberts will be) a surprise. Color me skeptical. If Roe's overturned, it will be because, from '88 to '08, evangelicals have pushed to make their voices more dominant in the Republican party, in part through threats.
no way I can vote for Clinton if she steals the nomination
If she managed to get herself nominated, she'd be lucky to get within 20 points of McCain in NC anyhow, so it probably won't matter whether I vote for her or not.
If she managed to get herself nominated, she'd be lucky to get within 20 points of McCain in NC anyhow, so it probably won't matter whether I vote for her or not.
You know, I was just trying to do that calculation for VA, which has been increasingly blue and could flip for the Dems this time around. I think I'd have to hold my nose and vote for her. Gah.
Be careful, y'all in red states. As we found out in 2000, the popular vote can matter. I voted for Nader that year because I lived in D.C. If everyone who thought they had a safe vote had voted for Gore, the popular vote total would have been harder to ignore.
I don't know what I'll do if she gets the nomination, but that will definitely be a consideration for me.
In the event that she does get the nomination, I've been trying to think of a slogan like "Vote for the crook. It's important." I haven't come up with anything suitable.
"Vote for the conniving centrist hawk. It's important."
"Vote for the b--. It's important" is obviously out, but it just this moment occurred to me that we have a new option:
"Vote for the monster. It's important."
All of us are going to vote for HRC if she gets the nomination. everything McCain would do is exactly the same as what Bush has been doing, except with more of a bias toward jingoism, as opposed to the current bias toward the world's richest oligarchs of every nationality.
Seriously, people.
"Vote for the b--. It's important" is obviously out
"bitch is the new black"
Maybe if Obama could say it with a smile at an HRC rally.
So she's trying to run to the right of Obama to win Pennsylvania? This is how she presumably wins that state in the general while Obama doesn't: running to the center in a primary. I'm starting to really like Obama's map better.
I don't have any problem with whatever the superdelegates decide. Them's the rules, and if ya don't like it then talk to your precinct captain and get involved in the party and maybe be a darn delegate yourself to change the party from within (not to be preachy: I don't even have an opinion when those party official spots come up on the ballot). This wasn't always the "popular election" it's come to be, and the party's not the republic so it doesn't really have to be.
I tried punishing the Dems with my vote once. Back in 2000. California so it didn't mean anything anyway, but I still feel sheepish about it.
She knows she's toast if she's trying to play "liberal liberal liberal!" in the Dem primary. You run to the center in the general.
Hillary/Lieberman '08? A new center-y goodness for America! I would think she'd have to fight McCain for Holy Joe, but maybe he can no longer afford to piss off Republicans?
Yeah, I had that Kung Fu Monkey moment when she said that McCain was prepared to be president and Obama wasn't.
But I'm still clinging to the last bits of my self-righteousness by saying that at least *we're* starting to admit that Clinton really is pretty awful, they're getting ready to back up McCain.
Just noting my own personal reaction: mostly I want Hillary to go away and not bother us anymore, but I hate the hell out of Bill. It's weird.
I guess Bill's playing the attack dog role well then.
No one but Republicans should play their game.
I dunno, maybe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for." For a long time a lot of us have been frustrated that we're so shitty at hitting back, hard, when the right pulls this kind of bullshit. Now it turns out we've got someone who can do it even better than Bill could--only (cue sexist analogy) it's kind of like Pandora's box. Oops.
That said, I can't believe you people are making pissy high horse statements about not voting for her in the general.
150: You're just saying that to bait me, aren't you?
153: would the opposite have been better?
I don't have any problem with whatever the superdelegates decide. Them's the rules, and if ya don't like it then talk to your precinct captain and get involved in the party and maybe be a darn delegate yourself to change the party from within
I mostly agree with this but I'm very curious as to what kind of conversations the superdelegates are having amongst themselves right about now.
My mouth is beginning to taste of ashes.
154: Yeah, isn't that an interesting question? You've got me. Obviously the only True Feminist Response is to hate them both in equal measure.
In all honesty, I do continue to think that the fact that (to me) she seems to be the more ruthless of the two of them has something to do with sex and sexism. This is mostly personal, though, because I swear to god most of the highly ambitious women I know (including myself) can be incredibly unpleasant and ruthless in ways that our male peers, to me, seem not to be (they can be cluelessly entitled and arrogant, which is infuriating, but different). I want to say, based on my own psychology and/or self-serving rationalizations, that this has something to do with externalizing the internal struggle between the "good girl" (which if you're ambitious, there's probably a pretty big good girl streak in there) and the ambitious bitch. It's hard to balance the two, and a lot of my ambitious friends, like me, have some mental health issues that I think are part of the strain of the thing.
There's something true about Tracey Flick, is what I'm saying.
You're ambitious? Is that why you try to leave more comments than everyone else?
I dunno, maybe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for." For a long time a lot of us have been frustrated that we're so shitty at hitting back, hard, when the right pulls this kind of bullshit. Now it turns out we've got someone who can do it even better than Bill could--only (cue sexist analogy) it's kind of like Pandora's box. Oops.
Oh, fuck that noise.
You don't hit your wife when your boss belittles you.
You don't bomb Iraq when Al Qaeda blows up your building.
You don't backstab your Democratic opponent when the Right has been beating the shit out of you for fifteen years.
155: the superdelegate I've talked to has said "just wait it out and it'll be fine. They aren't going to go against the popular vote."
For whatever that's worth.
159: I can live with that, no matter who it favors.
157: No, that's usually because I type and think really really fast. It's often part of the ramping up anxiety just before I have to go do something else energy. In this case, I need to do something about cleaning out the study and getting ready to start writing some shit for a couple of actual real jobs I've somehow lined up.
I hope 159 is true.
158: Hence the Pandora's box analogy. Maybe it's one of those things that has to be pretty much ingrained in your system of conflict-handling, regardless of where the conflict's coming from.
They aren't going to go against the popular vote
The popular vote, or the delegate totals. The popular vote including Michigan and Florida, or not? The delegate totals including the caucuses (measured how?), or not? Fuck your fucking superdelegate.
Bill in 1992 may have been tacking right out of necessity; now it comes across as dickishness. And he's an ex-President, and supposed to be above the petty stuff.
It's not a great narrative for her either way. I mean, the press doesn't like her enough to write her a favorable one.
Either she loses the nomination, but lends credence to all the junk thrown at Obama ('gee, even the Democrats think he's too liberal/black/whatever to be President') or she wins it but is saddled with a sense that it's not really legitimate ('desperate, pulled out all the stops and eeked out back room deal by insisting Obama was too liberal/black/whatever to win, isn't McCain so much more honorable.')
163: the former, not unless they revote, yes.
159. By the time you get to my advanced age, Sifu, you'll have lost count of the times you've been reassured by your inside contact, only for your inside contact to be fucked over by the inside-inside clique.
Hillary is who she is. If she fixes the convention, what do you gain by throwing half a vote to McCain abstaining in the general? Universal health care?
167: hey, it's one person, and the Democratic Party is anything but a monolith. This same person was absolutely sure Hillary had it in the bag a year ago.
Like I said, for whatever it's worth.
The other day, a friend and I were discussing how many orgasms an intense feeling of self-righteousness is worth. I thought of Emerson and his mouse orgasms. (We didn't come to any firm conclusions.)
I vote just one really good orgasm.
My ballpark figure was 10,000 orgasms. This might be one of the differences between us, B.
one orgasm is about five sneezes.
One really good pee is worth at least a third of an orgasm.
Unless you're getting more orgasms than you want/need, no feeling of self righteousness is worth one of them. If you are, indulge the self righteous, because it won't last long.
Wow! Off to seek one of those intense feelings of self-righteousness!
OFE, you just crapped all over my emerging theory that men apparently have really pathetic orgasms.
What about self-righteously orgasming?
And he's an ex-President, and supposed to be above the petty stuff.
Normally I'd agree, but he's in an altogether new role here. Should Hillary win it all he may be a pretty useful lightning rod.
Oh, I've no doubt women have better. What was Tiresias? Copped liver? But I don't rate feeling self righteous all that high, I'm too old.
Chopped. I'm drunk. I shall go to Portugal.
Admittedly, 10,000 was something of a high bid, because I knew my friend, the fucking hedonist, would try to devalue feelings of self-righteousness. 10,000 is an orgasm a day for 27 years. I guess there are people here who might have had that many. You disgust me.
You know, twice as much port is drunk in England each year as is produced in Portugal.
171: The other day, a friend and I were discussing how many orgasms an intense feeling of self-righteousness is worth.
So is "I didn't buy an 8-burner grill" worth more orgasms than "I didn't go to French Laundry"?
181: How would one go about doing that? "This is the best thing for everyone, really. I deserve it, and if she really thought about it, she'd see that my coming right now is more important than the outside chance that she'd come if I kept going. Oh, yeaaaahhhhh."
181: How would one go about doing that?
Maybe to show that you were above the petty concerns of the ascetics you hang with?
188: Or perhaps, "American sputnik is THE BEST. Our spooge makes the world a better place. Let's invade Iraq!"
188: well so, for instance, years ago a friend of mine broke into a Southern Bell building and jerked off on the keyboard of the 5ESS console. I'm not saying that he did it in a spirit of self-righteousness, but he very well could have.
"I'm doing this for the purposes of procreation only, seeking merely to fulfill the wishes of my Lord, the one true God. Those who indulge in orgasms for hedonistic purposes shall get their just reward in the afterlife where they will experience everlasting suffering and pain."
So basically this is the entire appeal of fundamentalism in a nutshell, then.
158: I think you misread that. See it as a Get Out of Jail Free card for you and it's much more appealing.
"Was it unctuous for you, too?"
Being self-righteous is a constant, so the equivalent must be a constant orgasm.
196: Sadly, I mused upon this for the entire some portion of the drive home, and found myself sorely dissatisfied with that lingering question: 10,000 continuous (or consecutive) orgasms, or a single orgasm multiplied 10,000 times in its intensity?
Since being self-righteous is not, pace Mo, a constant, I provisionally suppose the latter, in which case I reject the equivalence. For a self-righteous stance, while it may be adopted repeatedly, is rarely so intense in a single instance. YMMV.
Have any of you poor bastards ever felt self-righteous? You can come back to the feeling again and again, like it's a pet rock.
I never feel self-righteous. I have no idea what you're talking about.
171 makes me realize that one of the things I intensely dislike about philosophy is its economics-like tendency to try to measure and equate things in a way that cannot meaningfully be done.
tendency to try to measure and equate things in a way that cannot meaningfully be done
Hey, we were kidding. Talk to the analytics.
we were kidding
Uh-huh. I'll give you credit for halfway entertaining units of measurement, at least. Clearly a good wash of self-righteousness bathes the actor in a lasting afterglow. But 27 years' worth?
10,000 continuous (or consecutive) orgasms
I vaguely recall some conversation in a Kundera novel relating to this, something about how after a time an orgasm would become annoying and even painful.
"10,000 continuous orgasms" makes no sense. One continuous orgasm, the length of 10,000 conventional orgasm, makes sense, as does 10,000 consecutive orgasms.
like it's a pet rock
You nurse it, is what you're saying. Like a grudge. They say those are Bad, humorless even, but I suspect they misattribute the motivation for the feeling, supposing that it's due to its alleged orgasmic or merely satisfying nature, when there has to be some attention paid to the target of the self-righteous protest.
Meanwhile 200: Dude. I seriously doubt many people in philosophy are trying to measure or equate things in any such way. How grim.
203: Indeed. There was some ABC news piece recently where they interviewed women with this problem, and you really felt bad for them.
I still say self-righteousness = one good orgasm. The satisfaction is about the same intensity and lasts about as long. Nursing self-righteousness is more like a porn-induced orgasm; yeah, there's the brief high, but then you feel kind of gross once it wears off.
There was an article last year, in the Times, I think, about Wellbutrin giving a woman spontaneous and random orgasms. Not 10, 000 of them, or anything, but she'd be, say, walking down the street when SHAZAM!
"10,000 continuous orgasms" makes no sense. One continuous orgasm, the length of 10,000 conventional orgasm, makes sense, as does 10,000 consecutive orgasms.
Mariah Carey has a song that I hate for the same reason:
"Heartbreaker, got the best of me
But I just keep on coming back incessantly"
I nominate Ben to sit her down and explain why you can't keep returning to someone incessantly.
Bunch of fucking hedonists.
No; we're just better people than you are.
Hey wait, you're right. That did feel pretty good.
210: I think Zeno's paradox would make it possible.
208: Are you confusing the Times and Penthouse Letters again?
In Witt's honor: One intense feeling of self-righteousness is worth zero orgasms, because the two cannot be compared in terms of some third measure of value, and because the orgasm cannot be designated a measure of value in its own right.
There. Either that, or one.
(cross-posted to SB's blog)
210: I think Zeno's paradox would make it possible.
No way, jose. You could return to someone infinitely often in a finite length of time. But not incessantly. Then it's just one big return trip.
What of the fact that my self-righteousness increases relative to my drunkeness, but my orgasmosity decreases (I think, certainly at that rip off each other's clothes and pass out stage)?
217: precisely.
Mariah attempts to return to me, but finds herself doing so incessantly, as she can never complete her journey.
Ordinary orgasms can be compared to the standard iridium orgasm in Paris, which serves as the standard unit for all good things. Only of the iridium orgasm in Paris can it be said that it neither is, nor is not, equal to a single unit of goodness.
For practical purposes, ordinary orgasms can be used to quantify other good things. The iridium orgasm only sets a standard, for example when there are inter-regional disputes about hedonics.
208: Clearly, Wellbutrin needs to put THAT in the ads.
Actually, to take it a step further, why aren't the major drug companies working on pharmaceuticals that address the most pressing problems of the day?
Utilitarianism suggests that the widespread lack of frequent, random, intense orgasms outweighs most diseases in the manual.
I see. So the lyrics should be understood to mean "HeartPeter, got the best of me. But while my heart resembles a damped sine curve of return trips, my feet carry me relentlessly forward to him."
221: What, like old men not being able to get erections?
224: Like why all women can't take for granted the expectation of spontaneously having, while shopping or otherwise going about their life, an orgasm that lasts on and off for nearly two hours.
Demand better drugs from the industry!
Parsimon's 216, B.
Mouse orgasms are not a unit of measure. They're just used to produce utils as quickly as possible for utilitarian setoff purposes.
220: Fuck! It's almost like John's familiar with certain strains in analytic philosophy.
220.1, though, so glib that I despair. I want more, and yet, and yet.
What of the fact that my self-righteousness increases relative to my drunkeness, but my orgasmosity decreases
Does self-righteousness correlate to orgasmosity? I think not. I may generally feel self-righteous, but do I wake up in the morning with a raging feeling of self-righteousness? I do not.
Off topic, but here's some good stuff about the French First Lady and the Pariasian intelligentsia.
Bruni's ex boy friends include Eric Clapton, Kevin Costner, former Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius, property tycoon Donald Trump, and a few more. Bruni's family arrived in France in the 1970s during the emergence of left wing Red Brigades in Italy.
French Novelist Justine Levy's 2004 bestseller Rien de Grave (Nothing Serious) tells the thinly disguised story of how Paula (Bruni) stole her boyfriend, Adrien. In the book, Paula is a 'Terminator' who still 'sees all her ex-lovers because she has slept with the entire planet, so she has to'.
Lévy is the daughter of philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and the former girlfriend of Raphael Enthoven, 29, son of philosopher Jean-Paul Enthoven.
Further off topic: Out skiing today I saw two women with t-shirts saying Just because I slept with you last night doesn't mean I have to ski with you today. Both seemed quite self-satisfied. Emersonianism in action.
230: I think Bruni has also dated Bernard-Henri Levy and his son.
229: Precisely. I think in fact that they may be in inverse proportion to one another.
but do I wake up in the morning with a raging feeling of self-righteousness?
Age catches up with everyone. At fifteen, I was self-righteous all day long.
Always remember to direct your self-righteousness at someone else, otherwise it is a sin.
One intense feeling of self-righteousness is worth zero orgasms, because the two cannot be compared in terms of some third measure of value, and because the orgasm cannot be designated a measure of value in its own right.
...for whether orgasm or self-righteousness shall be enacted is already a task requiring calcultation; and there must be a single standard to measure by, for that is pursued which is greater.
216: Aww, thanks, parsimon. Clearly you were too sensible for the field. Their loss.
And 234 is pretty funny.
236: there must be a single standard to measure by
Nonsense, prescriptive spelling is deprecated.
You people are nihilists with no standard of value. "Anything goes, you say". For one person, the orgasm is the standard of value; for another, a certain kind of candy; for another, $250 dinners; for another, tapeworm eradication; for another, the hospital tuck -- to infinity, give or take. That way lies madness and ultimately, civil war.
237.1: You misunderstand the field, really. What I said is common knowledge. (Just saying.)
One really good pee is worth at least a third of an orgasm.
Samuel Clemens said it best (scroll down to #17).
I believe that Henry Miller stole that one.
One really good pee is worth at least a third of an orgasm
Golden showers fill your thighs
Smiles await you when you rise
Oh, another thing about 216: if orgasms and feelings of self-righteousness really are incommensurable, then you can't really say that the latter are worth zero of the former, because saying that is already to measure them on the same scale; rather, one must say what Davidson said about words and pictures:
How many facts or propositions are conveyed by a photograph? None, an infinity, or one great unstatable fact? Bad question. A picture is not worth a thousand words, or any other number. Words are the wrong currency to exchange for a picture.
Don't pay any attention to w-lfs-n, who is a nihilist. Anything good can be quantified in orgasm units. If this were not so, it would not be possible for anyone to make any choices at all, and everyone would just stop in their tracks.
There are those who claim that candy units, etc., for example spice drops, can be as the goodness unit ("goodie"), but they're full of it. That's just childish.
You misunderstand the field, really.
Er-oh. If I continue in this conversation I'm going to be echoing Emerson's economics rants. Short version: No, the purists may want to insist that Their Honorable Field does not do that, and it may even be true by some narrowly gerrymandered standard of "the field," but it is emphatically not true in popular experience of that field, which is in fact how most people experience it.
Good heavens, I really am repeating Emerson's rant on Econ 101. Shutting up now.
245: I know. I thought "zero" might suffice for the purpose at hand. It's funny, actually, when ogged posed the question in 171, my first response was "one", second was "zero", third was "what?" All in rapid succession.
I forget sometimes how much Davidson absorbed me, over quite a period of time, and it's weird, I tried to have him and Wittgenstein talk to one another, but their audiences were (still are?) so different, nobody was buying it.
Remember that Davidson also had interesting things to say about metaphor and so-called metaphorical meaning. "A picture is worth a thousand words": literally false, metaphorically true? Well. Good work. I don't know where the remarks you quote come from.
Davidson has no truck with the idea that things can be metaphorically true, or that there are such things as metaphorical meanings, but there is an (IMO) extremely suggestive bit at the end of "What Metaphors Mean" where he talks about duck-rabbits and aspect perception and whatnot which unfortunately never, afaik, got further developed.
(The remarks were from "What Metaphors Mean".)
Ordinary orgasms can be compared to the standard iridium orgasm in Paris, which serves as the standard unit for all good things.
Nonsense, old man. That hasn't been true for decades. Scientists ascertained in the 1920s that the standard iridium orgasm was losing utils at a barely measurable rate. So they established a more permanent standard, based on oscillations of an atom of a particular cesium isotope.
Of course, general relativity throws even this standard into question, but that's another matter entirely.
251: Of course, general relativity throws even this standard into question, but that's another matter entirely.
Yes, a very grave one.
based on oscillations of an atom of a particular cesium isotope.
Based on vibrations, I think you mean.
250: I'm not surprised that's where they were from. I intentionally messed with the literal-metaphorical true-false alignment. No, as far as I knew, Davidson never went further with that. I wrote a brilliant paper about the end of that paper! There's other supportive stuff in Truth and Interpretation (Inquiries into).
247: No, the purists may want to insist that Their Honorable Field does not do that, and it may even be true by some narrowly gerrymandered standard of "the field," but it is emphatically not true in popular experience of that field, which is in fact how most people experience it.
While I'm sure that's how the popular experience of the field goes, it is, I'm afraid, insulting to suggest that it's only by some narrowly gerrymandered standard of the field that it's untrue.
I think that "having truck with", like condoning, is one of those things that you only don't do, and never do. Condoning and having truck are some kind of horrible verbal Other, like mother-son incest or something.
"Nothing, mom. I'm just going down to the mall to have truck with whomever's there." You never hear that.
Google: "Have no truck with" 51,700; "have truck with" 14,500. However, most of the "have truck with" uses are negative, e.g. "not have truck with" (3010) and "not to have truck with" (4850). (There are also some "have truck with hoist" type phrases). The positive uses I saw were archaic (Torquato Tasso translation) or Muslim:
The announcement came as a setback to Musharraf who was hoping to wean away PPP, from the PML-N to have truck with the defeated PML-Q
Suffice it to say that on the whole, the MMA, the alliance of Islamic parties, would now have a problem to have truck with Sharif,
How like the Muslims to have truck with one another! That's really it right in a nutshell, when you think about it. Nobody else in the world has truck with anything anymore.
Having truck is like clitorectomy, honor killing, the chador, and stoning lewd women (instead of hanging them like my aunt).
'Truck' is barter, narrowly speaking. By extension it means dealings.
OED 3a: 'Traffic', intercourse, communication, dealings. Now usu. in negative contexts: to have no truck with (a person or thing), etc.
And who has truck these days? No one. In the old days they had lots of truck, but no more. Except Muslims, who also are trying to kill us.
You have to give a little to get a little is all I'm saying.
Emerson may be interested in reading about positive and negative polarity items.
An example of a PPI is the English word somewhat. If it occurs in a sentence with another negative expression, the sentence is ill-formed:
John liked it somewhat.
*John didn't like it somewhat.
That article is somewhat annoying.
Mm, presumably they mean 'not' and the like.
"It wasn't somewhat annoying, it was very annoying"?
I think having no truck is similar to holding no brief.
BUT IF YOU hold somebody's briefs, while also having their truck...you just might be a redneck.