Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

The most recent televised debate that preceded this weekend's South Carolina primary was more like a candidate slap fight.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Democratic Slap Fight

By Will Durst, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2008.


The most recent televised debate that preceded this weekend's South Carolina primary was more like a candidate slap fight.

It's like seeing an old friend. More exciting than skydiving strippers with dissolving chutes. Having the Democrats revert to the famous fractious form they sported in the bad old days of the loonie left, I mean. Scratching at each other's eyes like drowning meth addicts scrabbling for the last piece of driftwood visible on a heaving horizon. Kind of comforting to see them finally back to eating their young. A 60s dream. All the joys of an acid flashback with none of the messy chromosome damage.

For a while, they managed to throttle their self- destructive tendencies and maintain the flimsy facade of semi- civilization, what with the whole winning of Congress dealie thing a couple years ago. But right when you thought they might permanently shed their propensity to commit ritual seppuku in public, their two top presidential candidates dug deep into the communal Party storage shed, pulled the Circular Firing Squad Machine out from under the purple paisley poncho and began shooting each other's knees off at the very first sight of a blinking red camera light.

And yes, I'm talking about the most recent televised debate, or more accurately, candidate slap fight, that preceded this weekend's South Carolina Primary. What some are calling "the Gurgle in Myrtle." Admittedly, that "some" consists mostly of me. But everyone does heartily agree it was a slam- bang Smack Down with gloves removed and swinging roundhouses weighted with brass knuckles.

First Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of saying nice things about Ronald Reagan, which is the most heinous sin a Democrat could commit outside of peeing on George Bush if he were on fire. Uncle Ron will neither be forgotten, nor forgiven for busting a cap into the electoral backside of Saint Jimmy thereby plunging the Democratic Party into 12 years of wandering in the wilderness of irrelevance. Flashing an unknown mettle by responding in kind, the Junior Senator from Illinois indicted Her Hillaryness for serving on the corporate board of Wal-Mart, which for any liberal worth their ACLU card, is like getting sprayed with a fine patina of evil anti-union juice.

The two studiously ignored John Edwards like he was a chip in the paint on the side of the limo that drove them from the airport where their private jets idled ready to take them to another city in a more important state as soon as their face time was through here. But the Not- So- Bashful- Breck- Boy shouldered his way into the prime time act by kicking whichever of the two front- runners he deemed to be down at the time. This guy is such an opportunist, I wouldn't be surprised to find he has finagled the rights to a series of snowball kiosks in hell. It's one thing to be a lawyer. It's another thing to always act like one.

All this went down on the same day our country celebrated the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr. You know, the guy known for his big non-violence agenda? This is how we honor the man who sacrificed his life to preach peace and civility? Thank god there's no holiday to celebrate the birth of Gandhi, or they might go on national television and beat each other into submission with baseball bats fashioned out of raw beef. Stay tuned, because it's only a matter of time before something just as wacky goes down.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: election08, democrats

Will Durst is a political comic, syndicated columnist, AM radio talk show host and defense liability.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
a Democratic slap Fgiht
Posted by: fvjoanne on Jan 25, 2008 4:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I look at it this way. They are getting in practice for the kind of stuff that Republicans are so very good at, smearing reputations with truths,half-truths, and out and out lies. They know it doesn't matter once it is out there that's all that matters, because people hear what they want to hear and are too lazy to seek out what is really the truth. The press is equally the blame for not going after the real facts. Mass media in the control of a few corporate players have allowed their reporters to editorialize for one side or another instead going for the facts. I would hear what changes they want to make and how they plan to get it done. How it it is going to make it better for all Amercians not just the wealthy.

I myself am a disabled senior struggling to make ends meet. When are the corporate loop holes and subsides for big oil companies going to stop so that people like me have to go through all their savings. When are really going help the poor with programs that work. When are ging to bring manufacturing jobs back to this country where we have safety stardards higher then China. When are they going to stop giving lip service to alternative energy, global warming, etc. This government has been dragging its feet on these and other social issues. Some administrations have money for wars, but not social issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...And not a word about Dennis Kucinich in the whole article.
Posted by: AlaskaSteven on Jan 25, 2008 4:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is relevant to the South Carolina debate that the one Democratic candidate who could have seriously tasked the three present was deliberately excluded from the debate. Dennis Kucinich is the one and only candidate who has both spoken out and voted against the war, the "Patriot" Act, and funding for the war from the very start right up through today. He was correct from the start where all three of them were dead wrong.

Dennis Kucinich has called for impeachment of Cheney and introduced (then reintroduced, after the Dems let it die in committee the first time) a bill for impeachment. All three of them have capitulated and colluded with Cheney.

And so on and so forth. Dennis Kucinich is the one who would shred those three in debate if he was not being excluded, coverage of him avoided, and his name not mentioned -even in articles such as this one running in the supposedly progressive press.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dennis who? Posted by: xbj
Unfortunately, one guy running as a Democrat is really GOP, and people ARE picking up on it
Posted by: xbj on Jan 25, 2008 5:14 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't call any slap fight with Obama to be a fight with a Democrat, seeing how he obviously loves Reagan (I SAW the video) and feels that Bush is to be commended for "always being on time" and obviously and pathalogically hates the Clintons, ESPECIALLY HILLARY, as bad as or perhaps even worse than the GOP. Wouldn't be pinned down to whether or not he would have the troops out by 2009, is not opposed to wars, just "dumb" wars...

Walks like GOP, talks like GOP, has his own gay sex and drug scandals like GOP, clandestinely funded by the GOP, worshipped in the MSM by GOP pundits... he's GOP.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Dum Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Dum Posted by: Knot_Rich
a needed new deal
Posted by: Kuressaare on Jan 25, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remembering the opening days of Bush and then the prayed for (by the neocons) "disaster" of the Trade Towers, it was all handed them on a silver platter. Like everything in HIS life. Hah, well, dont' chortle too soon: as we find out later there are other funs that can't be bought out, like cancer and parkinson's an so on, hope you think enough (hush hush) investment in Baku oil, which IS the largest pool of the stuff known will be enough to buy all you need to buy eternal life (why are the Yankees in Georgia of the Caucasus except to guard that trove? Their cultue progamme, teaching embasssy staff Georgian is proof enough: however it started, the last I heard there was ONE enrollment. They are not there to learn the national epic in Georgian.

Back to opening days, the only thought about the new congress was at least Hillary was there to stand up for decency and the law. Well, ladies don't stand up for men (don't dream I should write Gentleman there), so she stayed seated and gave all her suport to the latter day Bolsheviks. Now you talk about a slap match in South Carolina. That one (Hillary) you could not slap hard enough. She by rights would be the Sen. from Illinois, and do you know where she comes from there? One of the wealthiest enclaves in Illinois. Wouln't do to bring all that up again right now, so instead she holds premature court from her Gothic pile on the Hudson.

Obama wants to know just what Clinton he is runnnig against? I think it's a wonderfully apt question. And with the gold spoon mentality, I don't think Hillary in the White House should be allowed more than to scrub the front steps on hands and knees, for all she is adept and in the groove about current affairs. Standing for election does not need to be one big cat roar against another, some facts, issues, and analysis would be a refreshing change. But if she is to overcome her rivals and betters with feline posturing, I hope to hell they will slap back.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a needed new deal Posted by: Knot_Rich
» RE: a needed new deal Posted by: jmooney
Saint Jimmy?
Posted by: Knot_Rich on Jan 25, 2008 6:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You've got to be kidding, doesn't this guy remember the Carter era? Obviously he didn't want to buy a house back then with the staggering interest rates and didn't mind being internationally embarassed by an administration of worthless treaties and a never ending hostage situation. Whether we like it or not, it was the backlash to "Saint Jimmy" that brought Reagan into power and threw the democratic party into chaos. Reagan ran a campaign offering the people change and hope, nothing different that we hear today, and the people voted him into office because they were tired of a wimp running the country. He presented a vision of the future, exactly what we keep saying we want to hear from the candidates instead of the bickering and bashing. Bush bashing is rediculous, a waste of oxygen, like beating a dead horse, the future will not be his to lead. He's not running, let history judge him, tell me what your vision is, what is your plan for the country, how will you implement your plan, how will you pay for it?
This Obama beating because he said something positive about Reagan is such bullshit, like just because he was a republican he can't be respected for anything and a democrat can have no faults. We know this can't be true, and failure to recognize your adversary's strengths and learn from history is just plain stupid. I saw Obama in a more positive light for the remarks, it points out the man can look back at history and learn from it, no matter what the source. Carter was weak, the economy was in shambles, the military was gutted, our foes mocked our weakness, Reagan promised hope and change, and it was what the majority of the people decided they needed at that time. Reagan didn't kick Jimmy out of office, the people did. The democrats are offering the same message now, hope and change, and the people need that at this time. Hopefully they can deliver on their promises, or we can expect another dawning of the dark ages for the democrats come 2012. Bill offered a potentially new renaissance for the democrats but blew it with continuous scandals, serious moral defects, and selling the people out with NAFTA and the free trade agreement with China. There can be no doubt the republicans regained control as a backlash from the Clintons. We need to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of all so mistakes are not repeated. Repeating the same mistakes, never learning any lessons, isn't progress at all, it's failure to progress, stagnation, what we have now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Saint Jimmy? Posted by: jmooney
» RE: Saint Jimmy? Posted by: Knot_Rich
» Clinton backlash??? Posted by: Michiganman
I thought AlterNet was a liberal blog. My bad.
Posted by: seeall on Jan 25, 2008 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't have to worry about the Republicans. Those who run "respected" blogs such as AlterNet are doing a fine job of attacking the Democratic candidates. We don't need the conservatives to destroy us.

And what is the attack on John Edwards?

God, I hate what my side is doing to the candidates on my side. So they have some things we dislike. ANY OF THESE DEMOCRATS is better than a Republican. Hasn't the current non-elected administration taught us anything?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

pot and kettle painting
Posted by: neroZ on Jan 25, 2008 8:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yikes, Will. You're disturbed that the Democratic candidates engaged in petty attacks during the South Carolina debate, but you reprimand them with bitchier barbs than they ever exhibited: "Her Hillaryness, Breck-Boy." But your diatribe went beyond elementary school name-calling, and the destructive uselessness of this piece is far worse than the "Circular Firing Squad Machine" you call the South Carolina debate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: pot and kettle painting Posted by: particle
» RE: pot and kettle painting Posted by: Axiom69
IT ONLY PROVED OBAMA...
Posted by: niliadis on Jan 25, 2008 9:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
IT ONLY PROVED OBAMA CAN GET DOWN AND DIRTY JUST AS ANY OF THE POLITICIANS AROUND. HE CAN EVEN LIE TOOOO-HIS FLIMSY EXCUSE FOR HIS RELATION WITH REZCO WAS A JOKE! 5 hous of work in a church project for the law firm he worked?? Same as all the politician I guess he lost his Halo and poof-he's a politician that also says anything to win..Did he fall off his pedastal? but its ok he is just like any other politician and what can we really expect. The only difference is he is an experienced politician.
A little splurt from the LA times:
Antoin "Tony" Rezko, an entrepreneur who made a fortune in pizza parlors, Chinese restaurants and real estate, goes on trial next month on federal charges of extortion, influence peddling and conspiracy. There is no suggestion that Obama is involved in any of the alleged criminal activity. But the upcoming trial -- and details of Obama's relationship with its central figure -- could cast a shadow over his carefully cultivated image at a critical time.


Antoin "Tony" Rezko in 2006
click to enlarge

Related
- POLITICS A-Z
- 2008 Primary Tracker: Follow the presidential nominating season
- Complete election results from The Associated Press

In recent weeks, including during the debate, Obama sought to minimize the nature of that relationship. Among other things, he has returned $85,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions in what a staffer calls "an abundance of caution."

A review by the Los Angeles Times shows that Rezko, a businessman long active in Chicago politics, played a deeper role in Obama's political and financial biography than the candidate has acknowledged.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]