Just a couple of bad leaders

Conventional wisdom said Hillary Rodham Clinton was the smartest candidate among the crowded fields for both the Democratic and Republican Presidential nomination.

The same conventional wisdom promised great things from Nancy Pelosi – the first woman to lead the House of Representative as Speaker.

So much for conventional wisdom.

As we head into the primary season next week, Hillary is scrambling to hold on to that once perceived insurmountable lead as the Democratic contender, felled by a seemingly unending series of campaign gaffes, logistical screw ups and dumb mistakes.

With her campaign now a nightmare of political misadventure, Hillary moves from one SNAFU to another.

Nancy went home after a year of failure, leading a Democratic Congress down the path of capitulation to George W. Bush, the most unpopular President in American history.

Couldn’t happen to two more deserving failures as political leaders.

The two most prominent Democrats in Washington have set the cause of equality for women back at least 50 years then I’m guilty as charged.

I never expected much out of Pelosi, despite the pipe dreams of others who thought she could handle the job. She was, is, and always will be a political lightweight.

Not so with Clinton. She was another story. She may be cold, and calculating but few considered her dumb.

She was the Dick Cheney of Bill Clinton’s administration, the power behind the man, the manipulator of policy and, many thought, the architect of her husband’s political success.

But looking back on the Clinton years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we should have seen the warning signs.

I remember all too well that infamous television interview during the beginnings of the Monica Lewinsky scandal when she defended her husband, said she believed he was faithful to her, and blamed the whole thing on a “vast right wing conspiracy.”

Yeah, right. If Hillary didn’t know Bill was screwing around on her she was the only one in the country and, as H.L. Mencken once noted, nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

When DNA tests finally forced Bill to ‘fess up, Hillary turned into the woman scorned, angry at her husband’s betrayal. The act was so good that some actually felt sorry for her.

Now she wants us to believe that the woman who didn’t realize she was married to the biggest Presidential whore hound since JFK is the most qualified candidate for the highest office in the land?

And, to make matters worse, she – along with too many other Democrats – voted to let George W. Bush launch his illegal and immoral war in Iraq.

That gives her something in common with the other over hyped woman in Washington – Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who failed to deliver on a contract with voters who demanded change on Capitol Hill.

This column was edited on January 10, 2008, to remove language that, after reconsideration, I considered in poor taste. My apologies to those who were offended.)

81 Responses to "Just a couple of bad leaders"

  1. JoyfulC  December 30, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Well, obviously, I’m a paid political operative for Hillary Clinton. Isn’t that the conclusion drawn by Carl Nemo and now implied by you? Maybe I should check my P.O. box for a cheque.

    So are you suggesting that we dismiss any politician who someone somewhere might describe as a “bitch” or an “asshole”? How ridiculous. You can call anyone a bitch. For all I know, maybe you think I’m a bitch because I cringe to see Doug using foul language and focusing on people’s private sex lives, and because, unlike the rest of you who claim you don’t prefer it, I stand up and take issue with it.

    Look, here’s the facts:

    Even the people who defend Doug admit that his language in this rant and others recently has been over-the-top and not what they’d prefer to see.

    You, yourself, admit that Doug presents himself very differently in print than he’d ever have the nerve to do face-to-face.

    Doug, himself, has within the past few months acknowledged that he was part of the problem, that civility and cool-headedness was important, and that he needed to turn over a new leaf. He wasn’t successful at it, sadly, but even he has acknowledged it.

    Perhaps you’re better off talking some sense into your friend at this point. Everything you’ve said to this point seems more to support what I’ve been saying all along than to serve as rationalization for Doug’s outrageous behaviour.

  2. Klaus Hergeschimmer  December 30, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    Doug! NO-NO-NO! Hillary & Nancy are NOT TWO DUMB BROADS -They are TWO DUMB DAMES!!!
    (that’s a very down-right up-right way to state it)

    PROBLEM SOLVED!!!

  3. Carl Nemo  December 30, 2007 at 11:27 pm

    Carol Anderson…nicely stated and spot-on…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  4. Carl Nemo  December 31, 2007 at 12:07 am

    Yo JoyfulC…

    “Look, here’s the facts:” …?!

    It seems to me dear lady that the only facts are: that you’ve got either a hair up your butt, or have been having an extended “bad hair” day concerning Doug Thompson and his “rough and ready” no holds barred editorial writing style…no?!

    You don’t seem to realize the impending danger to “we the people” when we find ourselves with aspiring miscreants to the throne such as “Billary” and one that’s already in place; ie., Pelousy a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic!

    When you have to deal with traitors or potential traitors to the Republic and the Constitution for which it stands, you don’t use “Marquis of Queensbury” rules. This is UCF cage-fighting and it seems “we the people” are the underdogs at this point history. So if you care about your territorial safety up north, then you best gird yourself for tough times in the literary trenches, or worse, if we foolishly let the likes of “Billary” ascend to the presidency of the United States. She’s nothing but a “running dog” for the NWO/AIPAC cabal and most assuredly the MIC.

    You’ve got enough of your own problems up north dealing with the necessary extrication of your PM Stephen Harper, a Bush clone and NWO plug-in module…!

    He’s in tune with selling out Canadian sovereignty and more than willing to combine Canada with the U.S. and Mexico. Nice guy huh…! Evidently he doesn’t value the relative peace, prosperity and tranquility of Canada enjoying seven years of budget surplus in the Canadian treasury and the appreciating Canadian “loonie” against the USD. You’ve got a “nation-wrecker” of your own to deal with!

    Carl Nemo **==

  5. Carol Anderson  December 30, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    Joyful, I don’t know if you are a bitch or not because unlike you I don’t make value judgments based on a cursory reading of what I have read here. But I do know Doug Thompson and I find no fault with the way he writes or expresses himself, either here are in person. It would seem to be that you are obsessed with Doug and such obsession is in itself unhealthy. If what he writes upsets you so much why do you read it? Why work yourself into such a lather when all you have to do is avoid his writings? I like and respect him as an individual and a writer and your ranting and raving about him do nothing to change that opinion.

    And, by the way, I once saw him stand up to a county official who was out of line at a public meeting and he had the guts to tell him, to his face, that he was a “goddamned liar and a stupid son-of-a-bitch.” The county official backed down and apologized. So once again you are wrong: He does, to use your words, have “the nerve” to express himself face-to-face with those he feels are abusing the public trust. I also note that he does so with his name while you choose to hide behind a screen name. That tells me a lot about who has “the nerve” and who doesn’t. It’s easy to lob accusations while hiding your identity. It’s also the act of a coward.

  6. AvidFan  December 31, 2007 at 12:11 am

    Joyful C or whatever the hell your name is: You say “here’s the facts.” The only facts I see are the pathetic, pitiful whines of someone with an obvious personal grudge against the publisher of this web site. Your obsession with Mr. Thompson is blatant and sad and your agenda is obvious. You have no interest in facts. Your only purpose here appears to be a rude attempt to advance your obvious hatred: So sad, so transparent and so beneath contempt. Mr. Thompson has responded to each of your diabtribes in a courteous respectful manner and you have chosen to continue your worthless, anonymous diatribes. The fact that he has not banned you from the site shows that he is a gentleman but you are no lady. My name is John Reilly. Do you have guts enough to tell us yours or will you continue to be a coward who hides behind a screen name?

  7. Evan Johnston  December 31, 2007 at 1:15 am

    On December 18th, JoyfulC, the self-appointed guardian of civility on Capitol Hill Blue, posted the following in response to a column by Doug Thompson:

    “Doug, you need to go out and get yourself ‘laid real good.’ “

    This from the woman who castigates Doug for his use of language. This from the woman who dares question the use of language by others. This from the woman who is, at best, a bald-faced hypocrite.

    Joyful, you need follow your own advice. Getting laid might loosen up your tight-assed attitude.

  8. Carl Hatcher  December 31, 2007 at 1:23 am

    Heh, heh, well put Evan. I’ve met Mrs. Thompson and I’ll bet Doug gets laid real good real often. Probably a lot more and a lot better than JoyfulC. Maybe that is what bugs Joyful.

  9. SEAL  December 31, 2007 at 2:09 am

    I think this discussion should end.

  10. bryan mcclellan  December 31, 2007 at 2:43 am

    You’ve got to admit it was one hell of a merry go round SEAL.I for one have learned many useful lessons from all the banter.Long live CHB…..

  11. pcnot  December 28, 2007 at 10:27 am

    “Maybe right-wing blowhard Phyllis Schlafly was right: Maybe women should stay home, cook dinner, clean house and take care of the kids.”

    The country was a helluva lot better off when they did.

  12. Janice  December 28, 2007 at 10:42 am

    So, what do you all think of John Edwards?

  13. JerZGirl  December 28, 2007 at 11:37 am

    I’m confused. I thought Iraq was illegal and immoral while Afghanistan was where our attackers were trained and their leaders based.

    ————————————————–
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.

    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.

  14. Doug Thompson  December 28, 2007 at 11:46 am

    My bad. It should have read “illegal and immoral war in Iraq.” Didn’t have enough coffee in me this morning. Fixed it. Thanks for the heads up.

  15. JerZGirl  December 28, 2007 at 11:39 am

    Otherwise, I agree with your assessment.

    ————————————————–
    Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.

    Wisdom is knowing not to put it in fruit salad.

  16. JoyfulC  December 28, 2007 at 12:42 pm

    Oh, here we go again. Have you considered therapy, Doug?

    There’ve been a hell of a lot more stupid men who contributed to the downfall of this country, but all you can think about is how it’s all the “dumb broads’ fault.”

    You seem to have issues with what consenting adults do with one another. And I shudder to think what your mom or your wife might have been like to result in your having such a misogynistic mentality. I pray you don’t have daughters because men who think like you do would be a difficult father for a girl growing up in this world, even though I’m sure you feel very righteous. We recently had a father in Toronto murder his daughter because she didn’t want to wear a headscarf. While most of us are horrified by that, I’m sure that father feels very righteous.

    Men like you may not actually kill your daughters, but I worry for the toll that constantly being exposed to sexist critcisms of any woman who dares to step out of the role that you feel is appropriate for women would take on her developing mind and spirit.

    And such crude language — maybe the truth is that you’re not a decent guy. Lots of us here have serious issues with the Bush administration and critisms of previous administrations, as well. But who else here finds it necessary to be so vulgar. No wonder you have your own site – you’d get booted off most sites.

    (And for the record, I come here to read what some of the commenters have to say. I’ve learned from some of them, especially the ones with views different from my own. But you, Doug? Frankly if you told me it was raining, I’d go look for myself. You’re not very credible because you can’t keep your meanness and ugly spirit in check.)

  17. old_curmudgeon  December 28, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    Personally, I thought the subjects of Doug’s discourse were Pelosi and Clinton… I must have missed the reference to all women everywhere, hmmm? And, for the record, I only read Playboy for the articles…

  18. Doug Thompson  December 28, 2007 at 3:34 pm

    When my wife read this column this morning she bet me that “there will be those who will take this seriously and not recognize tongue and cheek when they see it. Be prepared for that.”

    Guess she was right. Sigh.

  19. John Parker  December 28, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    “But looking back on the Clinton years at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, we should have seen the warning sign that Bubba’s long, suffering “stand by your man” wife was at least a beer or two short of a six pack.”

    C’mon Doug, do you really believe she’s a beer or two short of a six pack? I thought she had the six pack; she simply needs the ‘plastic thing’ that holds it all together. She’ll probabaly get that once hell freezes over.

    And Pelosi? What a waste of time. I wonder if she’s related to Joe Lieberman somehow, given her penchant for appeasing the administration and the Republican lapdogs.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we continue to deceive…………….

  20. pegleg peggy  December 28, 2007 at 1:29 pm

    As an attention-grabber, good. As logic, dumber than a box of rocks.

    If they had been black would you have called them a couple of dumb niggers? Have you ever referred to the neocon leaders, most of whom are Jewish, as a bunch of dumb kikes? If they were from southern states would you have called them typical trailer trash?

    I am tempted to say: typical dumb American male.

  21. Carl Nemo  December 28, 2007 at 1:57 pm

    Thanks pegleg peggy for your enhanced imagery… :)

    Damn, if Pelousy and “Billary” were two black females, both converts to Judaism, living in a 20 year old beater single wide in the southland, they’d really be in a heap o’ trouble relative to Doug’s description…no?! The only add-on I could imagine is that they were a lesbian couple too. :))

    Yes, Doug can get a bit rough around the edges at times, but I think he like most of us are so burned out in this continual criminal based dog and pony show in DC that our collective imaginations have been fried and sometimes we can only express ourselves in the “sputter mode”…! I know so, because I’m a word choice sinner on occasion too.

    Men don’t hesitate to thump males in a public forum, but generally hesitate to call out women for their failures at least women holding public office and surely not in perjorative terms. We live in hyper-politically correct times.

    I wish more tough-minded chicks would come on this forum and excoriate their failed and/or failing “sisters” more often. To me, if one is a traitor to the Republic and the Constitution for which it stands they are fair game regardless of the language used to a point. Actually Doug was quite “genteel” in his discription of these two loser “womb-men” both posing as women…!

    Carl Nemo **==

  22. ekaton  December 28, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Hey us dumb boxes of rocks need love, too, ya know? I’ve never seen Doug use the kind of hateful language that you just did. Was it fun? Did you just love typing those racial slurs? Are you 14 years old?

    – Kent Shaw

  23. JoyfulC  December 28, 2007 at 2:04 pm

    So if someone used the “N” word to describe one black person he was disgruntled with, you wouldn’t assume that he was a racist?

    Or is it okay to use the “N” word, as long as it’s only in reference to “N”s you don’t like?

    This Doug Thompson guy obviously has serious problems and he’s not a very nice person either. I wouldn’t invite him to sit down at my dinner table. What scares me is that base, mean-spirited people like him who are willing to sling such ugly mud have been the driving force behind politics in the US in recent years — and that’s exactly how we ended up with the Bush administration and the Iraq war. If it weren’t for “political operatives” like him, we might actually be able to have a rational, adult and effective discourse in this country.

    Shame on him. I’ve become so disgusted with him that, if it were up to me, I’d revoke his status as an American citizen. He’s emblematic of all tht’s wrong with this country.

  24. old_curmudgeon  December 28, 2007 at 2:26 pm

    Well then it’s a good thing it’s not up to you. I find it scurrilous that ANYONE might possibly think that they have the right to revoke anyone’s citizenship. I believe that citizenship is bestowed on us by the Constitution. Sounds like those who state that if you don’t believe as they do then you must be a traitor or at least unpatriotic. Of course there are those that believe that the Constitution is just a damn piece of paper and antiquated at that. And besides, I thought you stated elsewhere at another time that you were Canadian? If not (because I don’t always hear clearly) then I apologize for what I’m going to say. If so, then you have NO right to even aspire to the authority to deprive a US citizen of something you do not qualify for to begin with. Such arrogance.

  25. JoyfulC  December 28, 2007 at 4:56 pm

    I don’t know about your hearing, but your reading skills could stand some brushing up.

    I never said I had the “right” to revoke his citizenship. I said, “if it were up to me.”

    Also, I’m not Canadian. I’m married to one and live in Canada, but I’m just as American as anyone here.

    The Constitution may have bestowed citizenship upon us, but that doesn’t give us the right to behave treasonously. We have an obligation to reflect well on that gift of citizenship. You may not view casual name calling, attacking people on the basis of their private choices rather than their public policy, or meanspirited ridicule treason, but you might want to take a look at the role it’s play in recent elections and American politics. We’re going to hell in a handbag, and one of the reasons is because we’re abandoning our commitment to civility.

    And guys like Doug are the cheerleaders for the process.

    This type of disgusting behaviour would be viewed as counterproductive, disruptive and anti-social in absolutely any other setting — home-&-family, business, the schoolyard — and so I don’t understand why you think it’s helpful or even acceptable with respect to politics.

  26. mary cali  December 28, 2007 at 2:13 pm

    To quote Capitol Hill policy “We believe in civility”, there is nothing civil about calling two very accomplished women “two dumb broads”. I think Doug spent too much time in right wing world, where he honed his personal attack style. One more article like that and I am unsubscribed. I only need to turn on the radio to hear that kind of stuff. I don’t need it cluttering up my e-mail.

  27. JoyfulC  December 28, 2007 at 2:17 pm

    Carl, why do you feel it necessary to explain Doug. I presume he’s an adult. Why not let him make his own impressions on us and accept the impressions some of us have of him.

    I don’t view him as someone who’s just so burned out. I view him as THE PROBLEM! How can we ever solve anything when we’re constantly distracted by people who behave like he does and who encourage others to do the same? Without mutual respect, we’re screwed.

    Sometimes it takes a lot more tough-mindedness to disagree with someone and yet still behave respectfully toward them than it does to throw a temper tantrum and get verbally abusive. Go to any grocery store and stand around long enough, and eventually you’ll see some little kid pulling the same antics.

    We all have to be on our best behaviour right now — it’s more important than ever. If we’re going to save this country from going over the edge, checking our behaviour towards one another is going to be more important than who has nuclear weapons, than defeating terrorism, than reversing global warming, than just about any issue that any of us here might care about. What will we have to save if we all hate/distrust/fear one another? Doug encourages that very type of thinking. Doug says ugly things and encorages ugly, disrespectful, uncooperative thinking. Would you be able to work with anyone who behaved that way? Would you want a member of your family to take his approach to family issues and problems? So what in the world would ever make you think that this type of ugly, nasty hate-mongering will solve anything for this nation??

    Sheesh!

  28. JudyB  December 28, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Doug…I have not been set back even a day by the likes of Hillary & Nancy nor, have Hillary & Nancy hurt the causes of women anywhere in any arena…they are individuals living what many would consider as interesting and full lives.

    These “BROADS” you speak of are neither DUMB or STUPID. They may not be performing up to your standards but they are both more far more capable and intelligent than GWB. My opinion is that Nancy has been impeded by a Bush backing Congress but only time will tell the whole story. As for Hillary “standing by her man” millions of women have done the same thing through the centuries, but its always been THEIR MARRIAGES & THEIR BUSINESSES, not ours.

    On the other hand, Men have always had the problem of having two heads they use to think with, which is absolutely impossible because the human body only supplies enough blood for one head at a time to function…but you don’t see this in the headlines, its just accepted.

    FYI…. I favor Edwards, Biden and Richardson but as yet am still undecided with the exception of this election, I will NOT VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN!

  29. JoyfulC  December 28, 2007 at 5:19 pm

    I’ll give you some way better advice than your wife did: from now on, ASSUME that people will take what you say seriously and will form their opinion of you on the basis of it. The only way we here have to know you is by what you say. And you say some very ugly things.

  30. ekaton  December 28, 2007 at 7:29 pm

    You’ve done some eloquent columns in the last couple months. This one was, what… weak…??? (as always in my humble opinion). So what? (Shrug) Only God bats 1.000 ya know?

    – Kent Shaw

  31. LurkingFromTheLeft  December 28, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    Of course she was CORRECT -

    …she’s the woman Doug -

    LFTL

Comments are closed.