On The Importance Of Being Unprincipled, Or A Whore

[JDXXX]

Absofuckinglutely!!!

 

One last time. I'm not on a campaign to promote the use of the word whore, but I am on a campaign to stick up for me and other escorts and us as a diverse community of what I think of as "whores" who are decent and principled and - let's hear it Harold - "high and good and moral people."

 

This was partly a "rear view mirror" post, and partly meant to be "tongue in cheek". I recently learned that JD Daniels enjoyed looking at what's behind me, so I assumed, perhaps egotistically, that you guys might as well. Like JD, who is also thoughtful and witty and warm, I try to be - well, penetrating. I mean, him and I can go on talking for hours, and we never run out of things to say, so I wouldn't mind having someone like him stick it to me, and some of what I wrote is about present and future, and taking words that can be derogatory and flipping them over and, well - you know, sticking it to them.

 

Case in point. My post kind of went to the line of violating my own privacy, so this anecdote will go to the line of violating a client's confidentiality, without hopefully going over.

 

I got an email yesterday from a client who has been one of my "partners in crime" for over a decade, and is one of the people in my network I most respect in terms of the amazing things he has accomplished, and in the context of updating me he shared that he'd spent some quality time with Jeb Bush recently. I know he knows Jeb well and will vote for him, so I wrote back and said, geez, what a coincidence. I just posted something about him on Daddy's forum, and you might want to take a look at it.

 

http://www.companyofmen.org/threads/jeb-bush-on-gay-marriage-the-silver-foot-award.104831/#post-966047

 

Seeing as how Jeb is a decent guy, and he is openly confessing that he finds it "hard to fathom" why the LGBT community has been organizing hard to change "thousands of years of culture and history.....at warp speed" I suggested that it might be swell of my client to take the time to explain to Jeb how he has a very close personal relationship with a "whore" like me and use the opportunity to enlighten Jeb a little about how maybe LGBT families can thrive in and actually strengthen a community of shared values built around what Jeb aptly calls "committed family life." I mean, even someone I truly despise, Dick Cheney, because of the lying he engineered to get us to invade Iraq, got the memo about LGBT equality and dignity when it turned out his daughter was a lesbian.

 

Needless to say, that is a conversation that won't occur, although my client was kind enough to tell me he thought my post was "thoughtful." And I am not necessarily a fan of the Harvey Milk, "in your face" school of pushy self-disclosure. It took a long time for me to feel as comfortable in my skin as I do now, which is in large part my whole point. So as much as I'm all for having people stick it to me, the words and rhythm and styles we each use has to emerge naturally - just like with sex.

 

Sex and whoring has taught me to be open and accepting, just like Paul did, but in a different and actually deeper way. So if anybody else out there wants to stick it to me - I say, "Absofuckinglutely."

 

Hi Steven,

 

I wanna give kudos to you, and give my insight to this whole outlook in voicing your opinion viewing yourself as a(what most people would consider degrading by all means) "whore" which to some is NOT the most pleasant/flattering word in the world to compliment yourself as - especially if you are a prostitute/sex worker in our community as a high-class escort.

 

First off, sweetie - When I first heard of you referencing yourself as such a thing I thought to myself (AT FIRST) Oh my, that's a demonizing name to call yourself. I mean it's something that is commonly unheard of any escort referring themselves to the lowest forms of life possible which was why I had to question it by sitting down with you, and analyze what this phasing by calling yourself a "whore" truly meant to you as an individual or others for that matter.

 

BUT, after getting your feedback, and understanding where you were coming with this conception that you have a "special" meaning for the word in your own terms - it all made perfect sense to certain degree as I may understand it much better from a psychological point of view, but other individuals outside of you and me may not accept the "concept" of what maybe considered as "belittling" yourself or to other individuals as may come across the wrong way.

 

Mainly, what I gathered from this whole experience in Stevens eyes is: Him taking a word(that has been used in a derogatory manner) and somewhat - Glamorized it to such self-pride as a sex worker who has no regrets in what he does for a living. I get that, and do respect it as I think it takes ALOT of ambition and (quite frankly under the most odd circumstances to most people, removing myself from the equation to most people in this case) BALLS as I give him a lot of credit to use it in a positive way which is very unique. I give him a great deal of credit as he doesn't mean any harm by it, but is using it to make a statement a variation of scenarios that most people in today's society wouldn't understand but a few select people.

 

Personally, I support Stevens insight(and hope the rest of you too) of what he believes this word means to him as a person and fellow sex worker in the business who understands what the word originally mean in a negative manner of what people who are hateful would use to despise us with, but not Steven. He's too nice of a guy to say this about himself or others in a derogatory and hateful disposition. Trust me, Steven is too self-confident to put himself in a disgraceful, but negative statue of himself as a person who wants no other like the rest of us respect, equality as a gay man, and kindness in return as a human hardworking sex worker himself.

 

Look at, Steven using this "whore" insight of his as author promoting a phrase from a book as a metaphor, and utilizing it to the best of your advantage and vision to what you may want the meaning to be in Stevens eyes.

 

Only making a bad word that's used in a bad light into a positive meaning. .

 

I know most of you here on the forum must think "How could he say such a thing" which is a normal/reasonable reaction, but after getting the jist of what the meaning of the word is to him "specifically" does it make better sense as he thoroughly explained in great detail? Does for me as I respect his outlook, and don't find it offensive coming from him.

[+ stevenkesslar]

First off, sweetie - When I first heard of you referencing yourself as such a thing I thought to myself (AT FIRST) Oh my, that's a demonizing name to call yourself.

 

Wow, JD. This is amazing. Somebody has finally figured me out.

 

 

I think I'm going to need some time on the couch with you. You're obviously capable of penetrating somebody like me very deeply.

[Bart]

First any thread with the Church Lady (truly one of the top 5 characters ever created on SNL) goes to the top of the line! Now I just need the one where she is dancing.

Second, thanks Steven for your Epistle according Steven, maybe the right sequel to the Book of Mormon.

Third if you cant laugh at your own job or profession you need to move on. I am a CPA and CFO of my company. My voice mail, says hello this is the Chief Bean Counter. Our auditor called and left a message one day and was offended and I said if you cant have humor, you take your self too seriously. Second, some of the floor supervisors and Plant mgr love calling CFW, Chief Fucking Weasel or CFB, Cheap Fucking Bastard. But again you cant take yourself so seriously.

Fourth I have always used the term gentleman when referring to the men I hire and in discussion on the forum and in my reviews why I guess so often I don't think we as posters and clients give enough respect to the job and profession some of these men have given us or years of service. Most provide so much more than just sex and do it with such polish and warmth it is amazing how they do it.

Finally a well known gentleman here usually begins his calls with me by saying "Hey hooker how you today? or what are you doing? Again names are just words until they are put into context and meaning, that is what can take something subtle and tender and form of greeting and make mean and threatening, example the N word. So don't get caught up on the word but read the text and content and we would all be a lot better than taking ourselves so seriously.

[+ sync]

Again names are just words until they are put into context and meaning, that is what can take something subtle and tender and form of greeting and make mean and threatening

 

+1

[JDXXX]

Wow, JD. This is amazing. Somebody has finally figured me out.

 

 

I think I'm going to need some time on the couch with you. You're obviously capable of penetrating somebody like me very deeply.

 

LOL. You got it, sexy!!

 

As many long hour conversations we had in the past, I don't mind "penatrating" some ideas into you. We all can learn new and exciting things in life right? .

 

Love the church lady skit from SNL. She's such a mess!!! Lol. Thanks for posting this. Hilariously funny! Love it!!!

[+ WilliamM]

I would single out two men for setting the gold standard for effective political whoring during my lifetime: MLK and LBJ

 

Pre-Memoral Day Memories: "Lady Bird Johnson: An Oral History" by Michael L. Gillette (2012)

 

According to Mrs. Johnson (1912-2007): U.S. Senators whom Lyndon Johnson admired and/or was a little scared of:

 

Richard Russell D-Georgia

Robert Kerr D-Oklahoma

Harry Byrd D-Virginia

Robert Taft R-Ohio

Hubert Humphrey D-Minnesota

George Aiken R-Vermont

Margaret Chase Smith R-Maine

Wayne Morse D-Oregon

Walter George D-Georgia

Styles Bridges R-New Hampshire

Carl Hayden D-Arizona

William Fulbright D-Arkansas

[sincitymix]

Wow, JD. This is amazing. Somebody has finally figured me out.

 

 

I think I'm going to need some time on the couch with you. You're obviously capable of penetrating somebody like me very deeply.

ah ha!! I loved watching church lady.. and toonses the driving cat. good times sneaking to watch snl when I should have been in bed like a good little boy:P

[+ quoththeraven]

Steven, you are a man after my own heart. I love smart, well-informed and reasoned rants like this. I've been known to spew my own brand of verbal diarrhea around these parts.

 

The one place where I part company with you is about the historical accuracy of the movie Selma. I haven't seen it yet, so the following is based on the analysis of people I trust and my own experiences with narrative. I don't feel competent to comment on DuVernay's snubbing at the Oscars, although I'm surprised no Best Actor nomination was forthcoming.

 

Not centering the narrative on white men -- again -- is part of the reason why the movie gave Johnson the job of expressing objections that were actually raised, as is the fact that it's not a documentary and every movie based on real events takes liberties with the facts for dramatic purpose. What actually happened would have made for a less compelling narrative.

 

I think the response has to do with outrage that a well-known political figure has been used fictionally in a way that might lead viewers to think he was more an obstruction than an advocate and facilitator, which some think is disrespectful to him and history. But that in itself proves the need for a narrative that is centered on the lives and interests of the people whose rights were at stake and not on their white allies when making sure Johnson is depicted accurately in a medium that is never completely accurate is deemed more important than celebrating a civil rights victory.

 

Also, there's been enough ink spilled on the subject that most people are aware of the departure from the historical record, which is not true for most other dramatizations of real events. So it's been an opportunity for a mass history lesson.

 

Steven:

Finally, back to a conversation we had between the sheets in 2008 and continued briefly in Palm Springs, I look upon this posting a proof positive that you now agree with me that Hillary was a better choice in 2008 and Obama would have done better to wait until 2016, because in 2008 there was no bigger whore than Hillary. She knew then and knows now, how to compromise principle for the bigger prize and BO unfortunately did not have those skills and that, as much as Republican intransigence, has led to 8 year of less than optimal progress and more recent rule by fiat rather than compromise.

As far as voting for or against the war, voting for the war was the whorish thing to do. In general, one could be against it, but in 2002, a large and increasingly vocal majority of people wanted some blood for the events of 9/11. Those Democrats, looking forward to presidential runs in the near future were smart to vote for the war, given the information and the climate. Just turns out that Bush 2 was a very ineffective liar and the house of cards he built support for the war on, fell so flat, so fast that, by 2008, most of us who were kinda against the war in 2002 but were concerned that Bush 2 might know something we did not, forgot all about the fact that we were kind of okay with the war as well. I can almost hear Hillary saying to Bill in post coital sweet talk, "where are those fucking WMD, that asshole in the White House better find those fucking things or this vote is going to bite me in the ass in a few years. "

 

While the use of the term "whore" in connection with a female politician is uncomfortable for me as a ciswoman used to seeing and hearing women called names and shamed for their gender and sexuality, I agree with you. I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 for that very reason. Obama not only had little national political experience, he had no experience governing and wasn't a dealmaker in the Senate the way Clinton was. I wouldn't say he's been terrible -- he's had some notable legislative victories, and the Obama White House operates in a more grownup fashion than the Bill Clinton White House -- but he's certainly limited by his inexperience and his personal style, which is more hands off

[+ purplekow]

 

 

While the use of the term "whore" in connection with a female politician is uncomfortable for me as a ciswoman used to seeing and hearing women called names and shamed for their gender and sexuality, I agree with you. I was a Hillary supporter in 2008 for that very reason. Obama not only had little national political experience, he had no experience governing and wasn't a dealmaker in the Senate the way Clinton was. I wouldn't say he's been terrible -- he's had some notable legislative victories, and the Obama White House operates in a more grownup fashion than the Bill Clinton White House -- but he's certainly limited by his inexperience and his personal style, which is more hands off

Please be aware, I was using the term "whore" as Steven had defined it. As a Hillary supporter, I agree with the other characteristics you extol. I am worried about this election in that Rubio, despite the flop sweats is a hot hunk of young beef with a killer smile and a Hispanic background. That might be just enough to swing a few toss up states.

[+ WilliamM]

I think the response has to do with outrage that a well-known political figure has been used fictionally in a way that might lead viewers to think he was more an obstruction than an advocate and facilitator, which some think is disrespectful to him and history. But that in itself proves the need for a narrative that is centered on the lives and interests of the people whose rights were at stake and not on their white allies when making sure Johnson is depicted accurately in a medium that is never completely accurate is deemed more important than celebrating a civil rights victory.

 

Also, there's been enough ink spilled on the subject that most people are aware of the departure from the historical record, which is not true for most other dramatizations of real events. So it's been an opportunity for a mass history lesson.

 

I agree. Especially given that one of the major critical comments about Pres. Obama is that he should be more like Lyndon Johnson. Joseph Califano was a guest on C-Span last night. Califano was LBJ's chief domestic legislative advisor. I know quite a bit about LBJ. But, I was shocked at Califano's stories about the depth of Johnson's knowledge about members of Congress, and how LBJ could turn in a second to plan C or plan D if the first two legislative gambits did not work. Califano's main objection to "Selma" is that the film implies that Johnson worked with J. Edgar Hoover to ruin Martin Luther King's public image in 1964 and 1965. It makes no sense because Johnson and King were strong political allies during those years.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Califano's main objection to "Selma" is that the film implies that Johnson worked with J. Edgar Hoover to ruin Martin Luther King's public image in 1964 and 1965. It makes no sense because Johnson and King were strong political allies during those years.

 

Exactly, William. That was my main objection, too. I thought it went too far. It is a known historical fact that LBJ used the "N" word a lot in private, and was a bully that used intimidation and just about everything else he could to get the job done. And he was very good at it. It is NOT a known historical fact that LBJ tried to crush King by using the FBI to tear his personal life apart. This is a subtle and speculative point, but if the goal of the movie was racial understanding and harmony and progress, which I think it was, that scene fed into the "we can't trust whites, they are all out to get us even if they act like our friends" mentality that some people have. If we knew LBJ actually did that, I'd say let's all face the truth, but I think it fed into a false and unhelpful perception. Califano knew LBJ very well, and maybe he's a big liar, but I'd prefer to take his word for it on this one. Maybe that was also what DuVernay wanted to say, in the interview way earlier in this post she says she did want to portray an "arc" on how LBJ changed during the narrative. Bottom line is I think on this one, I'll go with Califano if it's a question of history and what LBJ actually did and intended to do.

[+ stevenkesslar]

[From quoththeraven, post: 968287, member: 10561"]The one place where I part company with you is about the historical accuracy of the movie Selma. I haven't seen it yet, so the following is based on the analysis of people I trust and my own experiences with narrative. I don't feel competent to comment on DuVernay's snubbing at the Oscars, although I'm surprised no nomination was forthcoming.

 

I think the response has to do with outrage that a well-known political figure has been used fictionally in a way that might lead viewers to think he was more an obstruction than an advocate and facilitator, which some think is disrespectful to him and history. But that in itself proves the need for a narrative that is centered on the lives and interests of the people whose rights were at stake and not on their white allies when making sure Johnson is depicted accurately in a medium that is never completely accurate is deemed more important than celebrating a civil rights victory.

 

Also, there's been enough ink spilled on the subject that most people are aware of the departure from the historical record, which is not true for most other dramatizations of real events. So it's been an opportunity for a mass history lesson.

 

Hey Raven:

 

Actually, we don't part company at all. I agree 1000 % with every word you said. That TIME article titled "Why You Should Care If Selma Got LBJ Wrong" I hyperlinked to is excellent and worth reading. To underscore your point, it said this:

 

Selma suffers as a piece of history, I would guess, because director Ava DuVernay and writer Paul Webb overcompensated for the flaws of movies like Mississippi Burning and Ghosts of Mississippi. Such movies have been justifiably criticized for exaggerating the role of whites compared to blacks in the Civil Rights movement, and for introducing black characters only to have them killed or terrorized. Selma stands this paradigm on its head. With only one exception—federal judge Frank Johnson—the white characters in Selma are either villains (including LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, George Wallace and Sheriff Clark of Selma), timid wimps, or victims (Unitarian minister James Reeb, who is misidentified at one point as a priest and talks like an Evangelical, and Detroit mother Viola Liuzzo, both of whom were killed by Alabama whites). Crucially, until its last few minutes, the film presents LBJ as the main obstacle to what King is trying to do. There was no shortage of real white villains in the Selma controversy, but LBJ was not one of them.

 

http://time.com/3658593/selma-lbj-history/

 

Even if it overcompensated, I agree with you that there was a need for a Hollywood movie about the civil rights movement and King from the perspective of the people that led it - blacks - that portrayed them clearly as the leaders of their own movement. Selma did that with incredible passion and beauty. I hope it leads to more movies about black heroes like King, and my bet is it will.

 

It was a great opportunity for a mass history lesson. To repeat the comparison I already made, Selma and American Sniper were both great movies about heroes and I wish both of them had been in last year's Top 10, above some of the typical Hollywood crap. American Sniper was actually #1, deservedly. I bring it up again because it's Director, Clint Eastwood, was also the Director of Invictus, about Mandela, another movie that had me in tears. That movie was "easier on the eyes" for whites, I think, because it focused on the political alliance and real friendship between Mandela and the white rugby Captain Francois Pienaar, and it really played up the tone of racial healing. Selma was a little bit more "in your face" and challenging, and I applaud Ava DuVernay for that.

 

The one other thing Ava DuVernay did which I'd argue was more "eyes on the prize" than winning the Best Director award was this. Not only did she manage to change the past, in the sense that she gave us an incredible and I think accurate feel for the power and moral truth and fire of that period of our history. She also changed the present, by focusing a spotlight on the hypocrisy of white liberal Hollywood. Ouch! Whether that was her intention or not, we'll never know, but I'd argue if it helps integrate the Academy and bring in more women and more film makers of every race, kudos to her, and we will all benefit. We've now had two Mexican American Best Directors in a row, both of whom made great movies and deserved to win, too. Bring it on. Whether she won the award or not, Ava DuVernay is a total winner in my book, and I hope I made that clear.

[+ quoththeraven]

Please be aware, I was using the term "whore" as Steven had defined it. As a Hillary supporter, I agree with the other characteristics you extol. I am worried about this election in that Rubio, despite the flop sweats is a hot hunk of young beef with a killer smile and a Hispanic background. That might be just enough to swing a few toss up states.

 

I was expressing my discomfort with applying the term to her, not criticizing your use of it. You were commendably clear that you were using the term the way Steven defined it.

 

I am not all that concerned about the Republican candidates. I'm more concerned about Clinton herself. In many ways, she is her own worst enemy when it comes to campaigning.

 

I forgot to mention this in my response to Steven, whom I couldn't quote in a single post because it would be too long, but there is something refreshingly honest in the use of the term whore in connection with sex work, as there is something refreshingly honest (or maybe straightforward is a better term) about the profession as well. At its best, you get your desires fulfilled without a lot of gameplaying.

[+ quoththeraven]

I agree. Especially given that one of the major critical comments about Pres. Obama is that he should be more like Lyndon Johnson. Joseph Califano was a guest on C-Span last night. Califano was LBJ's chief domestic legislative advisor. I know quite a bit about LBJ. But, I was shocked at Califano's stories about the depth of Johnson's knowledge about members of Congress, and how LBJ could turn in a second to plan C or plan D if the first two legislative gambits did not work. Califano's main objection to "Selma" is that the film implies that Johnson worked with J. Edgar Hoover to ruin Martin Luther King's public image in 1964 and 1965. It makes no sense because Johnson and King were strong political allies during those years.

 

Did Hoover continue to spy on King when Johnson was president? If so, I find it hard to believe Johnson didn't know about it. In that regard, Johnson did in fact work with Hoover to ruin King's public reputation because he, as President, let Hoover continue unchecked despite also working with King on civil rights. I believe that is the ambiguity to which DeVernay refers.

 

Steven, I did not read the Time article. Thank you for quoting from it. There's a limit to how many internet rabbit holes I can go down even on threads on which I want to comment, especially when I've already read other discussions about it.

 

I agree that the failure of the Academy to recognize DeVernay may help more in the long run, but I cannot but think that she had too many strikes against her to be considered in an unbiased manner. As the first Black female nominee, the fifth female nominee, and the fourth Black nominee who would have been the second woman to win and the first Black director of any gender to win despite the work of many fine Black directors who are male, I think she faced resistance that had nothing to do with her ability and everything to do with the fact she's Black and female.

 

The fact that the last two winners are Mexican doesn't much impress me; Ang Lee has two Oscars, one of which (for Brokeback Mountain) he imo doesn't deserve. I don't exactly hate that movie, but I have a lot of problems with it. What is overwhelmingly evident is that directorial awards are not bounded by ethnicity (other than blackness), but they are very much bounded by gender. Women are beginning to get regular work as TV directors if they want, but they are still considered secondbest in cinema. Just read Bret Easton Ellis' screeds about how only men can be successful or good directors (it's hard to tell which he means) because movies require the use of the (straight) male gaze and every article ever written about sexism in Hollywood and the comments thereon. (Slight exaggeration, but not much.) Hollywood -- and a lot of male fans of cinema -- don't trust that female directors can deliver artistically or commercially.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I am not all that concerned about the Republican candidates. I'm more concerned about Clinton herself. In many ways, she is her own worst enemy when it comes to campaigning.

 

 

Sadly, cupcake, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

I'm a man of many words, so I'll say this in few:

 

1. Obama won in 2008. Hillary lost.

 

2. Obamacare is the law. Hillarycare failed.

 

3. I am a total Bill Clinton whore. I am total Hillary Clinton skeptic.

 

At the risk of sounding sexist, or at least unfair, the phrase I've used for years that sums it up is this: "Every time we put Hillary behind the wheel of the car, she drives it into the ditch."

 

I'm afraid she's starting to do it again.

 

I'll give her money, and work for her, and I hope she wins. But like Glenn Beck and Eric Cartman, I am just asking questions.

 

[+ FreshFluff]

Third if you cant laugh at your own job or profession you need to move on. I am a CPA and CFO of my company. My voice mail, says hello this is the Chief Bean Counter. Our auditor called and left a message one day and was offended

 

Haha, love it.

[+ quoththeraven]

 

Sadly, cupcake, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

I'm a man of many words, so I'll say this in few:

 

1. Obama won in 2008. Hillary lost.

 

2. Obamacare is the law. Hillarycare failed.

 

3. I am a total Bill Clinton whore. I am total Hillary Clinton skeptic.

 

At the risk of sounding sexist, or at least unfair, the phrase I've used for years that sums it up is this: "Every time we put Hillary behind the wheel of the car, she drives it into the ditch."

 

I'm afraid she's starting to do it again.

 

I'll give her money, and work for her, and I hope she wins. But like Glenn Beck and Eric Cartman, I am just asking questions.

 

 

Agree with #1 and 2 but not #3. But I can't discount bias in favor of Hillary on my part, just as maybe you can't discount bias against her, because Hillary Clinton is me, only ten years older and all white instead of half white, half Asian. She went to Wellesley and Yale; I attended the most selective college in my home state's university system and a law school as well-known as Yale's. In fact, I'm a Yale Law School reject, but was accepted to the law school I attended early on; I heard from them and University of Chicago the very same day. BU was the last law school to accept me. Go figure.

 

Bill Clinton is really bright and more politically astute than Hillary but totally undisciplined. His White House was more disorganized than Obama's. Hillary is more organized and in some ways more of a long-term thinker than Bill, and she understands legislative compromise (as he does as well). Obama is more disciplined and a better strategist than either of them, and probably more intelligent, but he's lacking in some critical leadership skills.

[+ purplekow]

 

Sadly, cupcake, I couldn't agree with you more.

 

I'm a man of many words, so I'll say this in few:

 

1. Obama won in 2008. Hillary lost.

 

2. Obamacare is the law. Hillarycare failed.

 

3. I am a total Bill Clinton whore. I am total Hillary Clinton skeptic.

 

At the risk of sounding sexist, or at least unfair, the phrase I've used for years that sums it up is this: "Every time we put Hillary behind the wheel of the car, she drives it into the ditch."

 

I'm afraid she's starting to do it again.

 

I'll give her money, and work for her, and I hope she wins. But like Glenn Beck and Eric Cartman, I am just asking questions.

 

I would say this in response: Hillary Care would have been stronger and had a more broadbased appeal so that Congress was not arguing in trying to repeal it for 3 years. In 2008 despite Hillary winning a large number of the primaries and taking all the heat. She did not lose, Obama won, just barely and really it was a Kennedy victory more than an Obama victory. I would be careful about that driving analogy. If manslaughtering Ted has supported Hillary, Obama would be running now. As far as being a Bill fan, is that mainly cause you want to get in his pants or in his head?

[+ WilliamM]

Did Hoover continue to spy on King when Johnson was president? If so, I find it hard to believe Johnson didn't know about it. In that regard, Johnson did in fact work with Hoover to ruin King's public reputation because he, as President, let Hoover continue unchecked despite also working with King on civil rights. I believe that is the ambiguity to which DeVernay refers.

 

Johnson, like Kennedy and Eisenhower (and probably Truman) before him, wanted to fire J. Edgar Hoover. LBJ concluded, as did every other president after FDR including Nixon, that it was "better to have Hoover pissing inside the tent, rather than outside the tent." The Time article makes it clear that Johnson and the Kennedy brothers were appalled at Hoover's smear tactics concerning King. I trust Califarno who was actually there. My own specualation: To Johnson that may have meant containing Hoover, rather than approving a higher level of spying.

 

Lyndon Johnson had many faults, including using Hoover for useful gossip -- including about gays which made Hoover very uncomfortable. But, I need to stick to the subject and not LBJ's massive ego and strong personality.

 

Hoover died at work at the FBI while Nixon was president.

[+ stevenkesslar]

As far as being a Bill fan, is that mainly cause you want to get in his pants?

 

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/28000000/eeek-random-28022959-204-247.jpg

[+ quoththeraven]

Johnson, like Kennedy and Eisenhower (and probably Truman) before him, wanted to fire J. Edgar Hoover. LBJ concluded, as did every other president after FDR including Nixon, that it was "better to have Hoover pissing inside the tent, rather than outside the tent." The Time article makes it clear that Johnson and the Kennedy brothers were appalled at Hoover's smear tactics concerning King. I trust Califarno who was actually there. My own specualation: To Johnson that may have meant containing Hoover, rather than approving a higher level of spying.

 

Hoover died at work at the FBI while Nixon was president.

 

I remember the quote about Hoover pissing inside the tent. Johnson was president. He ostensibly had the power to order Hoover to stop spying. He could have gone over Hoover's head and told his underlings they'd be fired if they continued to carry out Hoover's agenda. It's true that this could have had repercussions and that by deciding not to get rid of Hoover, he'd tied his hands, but did he even try?

 

None of this requires me to disbelieve Califano, whom I remember and who can speak authoritatively on this subject.

 

I stick by what I said before: from that perspective, DeVernay's interpretation is truthful. Hoover continued to spy on King on Johnson's watch. That, to my mind, makes Johnson partially complicit -- or at least responsible -- irrespective of how good his reasons for not confronting Hoover over the issue. "The buck stops here" and all that jazz.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Hillary is more organized and in some ways more of a long-term thinker than Bill, and she understands legislative compromise (as he does as well). Obama is more disciplined and a better strategist than either of them, and probably more intelligent, but he's lacking in some critical leadership skills.

 

First of all, this boils down to the same principle as sex: you won't know until you try. We tried Obama, and I'm mostly happy with the results. Will Hillary win? I'd say it's 50/50 right now, so we're all going to learn soon enough. Or not.

 

Second, truth is always a relative things to me. I'd rather get in bed with Hillary Clinton than kiss the ass of Dick Cheney, who dragged us into the wrong war based on lies. I think he lied to W. I was with a client yesterday who told me something I'd never heard before: W. even considered dumping Cheney from the 2004 ticket. After the whole liar/Libby thing played out it's pretty clear from various accounts I've read that W. cut Cheney out. As W.'s autobiography makes clear, Cheney "nudged" him toward war. That's probably an understatement. On Memorial Day, I think we should remember and honor both the veterans who died, and honor future veterans by learning from our mistakes and help keep them alive. Sorry, just sayin.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/03/george-w-bush-dick-cheney-vice-president

 

Hillary was regarded a very effective U.S. Senator. So if you compare apples to apples, Senator to Senator, she was arguably better than Obama.

 

The real issue with her is exactly what you said: compromise. Hillary, as First Lady, faced a Senate full of moderate Republicans who by most accounts I've read really did wanted to compromise on Hillarycare. To go back to the title of this thread, she fell on the sword of principle, and failed. Obama has faced a Senate Republican caucus led by Mitch McConnell, who we now know was hellbent on turning the Senate into a "food fight" to make Obama look inept. Despite that, Obamacare passed, largely because he let Pelosi and Reid be his whores. Like 'em or not, they were effective enough whores to pass the bill.

 

Hopefully, without sounding arrogant, Hillary and I have something very important in common. We've both learned from past mistakes, and we both are older and wiser.

 

http://rlv.zcache.com/homer_in_youth_and_beauty_wisdom_is_but_rare_mousepad-re7dcb3a0287c012f23b800ffb0cb9003_x74vi_8byvr_512.jpg

[+ WilliamM]

I stick by what I said before: from that perspective, DeVernay's interpretation is truthful. Hoover continued to spy on King on Johnson's watch. That, to my mind, makes Johnson partially complicit -- or at least responsible -- irrespective of how good his reasons for not confronting Hoover over the issue. "The buck stops here" and all that jazz.

 

You make some very good points. Johnson may have concluded that it was more important to African-Americans, Latinos and the country to pass the Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, War on Poverty, Head Start, Medicare and many other Great Society Programs than get into a public fight with Hoover, who was popular with the public, if not four or five successive presidents. Frankly, I wish LBJ had fired Hoover right after the 1964 election.

But, I am just one person.

[+ quoththeraven]

First of all, this boils down to the same principle as sex: you won't know until you try. We tried Obama, and I'm mostly happy with the results. Will Hillary win? I'd say it's 50/50 right now, so we're all going to learn soon enough. Or not.

 

Second, truth is always a relative things to me. I'd rather get in bed with Hillary Clinton than kiss the ass of Dick Cheney, who dragged us into the wrong war based on lies. I think he lied to W. I was with a client yesterday who told me something I'd never heard before: W. even considered dumping Cheney from the 2004 ticket. After the whole liar/Libby thing played out it's pretty clear from various accounts I've read that W. cut Cheney out. As W.'s autobiography makes clear, Cheney "nudged" him toward war. That's probably an understatement. On Memorial Day, I think we should remember and honor both the veterans who died, and honor future veterans by learning from our mistakes and help keep them alive. Sorry, just sayin.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/03/george-w-bush-dick-cheney-vice-president

 

Hillary was regarded a very effective U.S. Senator. So if you compare apples to apples, Senator to Senator, she was arguably better than Obama.

 

The real issue with her is exactly what you said: compromise. Hillary, as First Lady, faced a Senate full of moderate Republicans who by most accounts I've read really did wanted to compromise on Hillarycare. To go back to the title of this thread, she fell on the sword of principle, and failed. Obama has faced a Senate Republican caucus led by Mitch McConnell, who we now know was hellbent on turning the Senate into a "food fight" to make Obama look inept. Despite that, Obamacare passed, largely because he let Pelosi and Reid be his whores. Like 'em or not, they were effective enough whores to pass the bill.

 

Hopefully, without sounding arrogant, Hillary and I have something very important in common. We've both learned from past mistakes, and we both are older and wiser.

 

http://rlv.zcache.com/homer_in_youth_and_beauty_wisdom_is_but_rare_mousepad-re7dcb3a0287c012f23b800ffb0cb9003_x74vi_8byvr_512.jpg

 

And I'd argue that Hillary applied those lessons to her terms as Senator. Her problem is that as a campaigner, she is flat and uninspiring. She is more like George W. Bush -- an able administrator -- than like Obama or her husband. She is not as touchy-feely as either because to get ahead in her profession, she had to tamp down emotion.

 

I cannot tell you how many times partners thought I'd get emotional over a client giving me a hard time. Please. The work comes first. Just don't be surprised if I find it counterproductive if a client continually yells at me over a situation I'm trying to fix. By doing so, he's wasting my time and making me feel shitty over something I didn't get him into in the first place. The only satisfaction I got out of it was making sure I rounded up what I was charging him to the next time unit as a form of nuisance penalty. Since it was a small employer with not a lot of money -- part of what he was yelling about -- for all I know some of my time got written off anyway. And I got the employer a fabulous fucking settlement without having to go through any back and forth with the other side. Later on, I wound up working as co-counsel with lawyer who represented the entity with which I negotiated, and he respected my fairness and professionalism for it, as I did his. (I represented management and he represented labor on a couple of multiemployer pension funds.)

 

One of her main failings in terms of running the commission was operating in secret -- remember the successful lawsuits over closed-door meetings? At that point, she didn't understand enough to understand the process needed to be more transparent. Obama's victory here is what I mean by being a good strategist.

 

If Hillarycare had gone any further, there would have been lawsuits. Probably just as many, because IIRC it was closer to single-payer (which frankly is what makes more economic and policy sense, but which gores too many sacred cows) than Obamacare and it had a form of an employer mandate as well as an individual mandate. The only reasons there might not have been as much intransigence is that politics weren't quite as polarized then and the Clintons are white.

[+ quoththeraven]

You make some very good points. Johnson may have concluded that it was more important to African-Americans, Latinos and the country to pass the Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act of 1964, War on Poverty, Head Start, Medicare and many other Great Society Programs than get into a public fight with Hoover, who was popular with the public, if not four or five successive presidents. Frankly, I wish LBJ had fired Hoover right after the 1964 election.

But, I am just one person.

 

Exactly. I think you hit the nail on the head as far as Johnson's motivation. And I too wish he'd fired the bastard back then by finding someone with a reputation as tough on crime but without Hoover's corruption and misuse of the process. Maybe we'd have escaped some of the horror stories (and lawsuits) about the unconstitutional persecution of Vietnam War protestors. "If wishes were horses..."