Does Hillary's support of a Woodstock museum strike anyone else as a deeply cynical

[XemaSab]

way to court leftist boomers who would not otherwise give her support? :shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. That's The Ticket

Not

[Rhythm and Blue]

2. Would it strike you as cynical if it were any other New York politician? nt

[rodeodance]

4. would help create jobs in upstate New York's Sullivan County, :

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-18-senate-woodstock_N.htm?csp=1


......Clinton was at a campaign event while Schumer defended the spending. He said it would help create jobs in upstate New York's Sullivan County, which he portrayed as economically depressed. "I am proud of the earmarks I've put in this bill," he said.
..........

Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said the senator will continue "to promote economic development and tourism in New York state."

Gerry, who according to Forbes magazine is worth $1.3 billion, bought the Woodstock concert site a decade ago with plans to turn it into a tourist center. He said he contributed $85 million to the project through a family foundation that owns the land and facilities. A performing arts center opened last year, and the two-story museum is under construction. ...........

[Totally Committed]

10. Actually, it would, come to think of it...

You're right! Hillary, Rudy, Bloomberg, Spitzer, Schumer.... They are all pretty "non-Woodstock"-ish. I think a Woodstock Museum would be a mistake, though. A museum to peace and love would be great, but I think the money used to build this museum could better be spent feeding and housing the poor. That would be the greatest legacy for Woodstock of all.

But, cynical? No. I don't think so. Just misdirected.

Just my opinion.

TC

[patrice]

3. I appreciate that she is trying to show something about her heart, but

it MUST be something more ***significant***, such as who her running mate would be ***IF*** she's nominated.

[XemaSab]

21. I'm not following you...

:shrug:

[patrice]

26. She's trying to signal "Trust me, I'm one of you" by means of a

relatively superficial sign, i.e. a Woodstock museum, rather than by means of a truly significant sign, say something like the acceptability of Al Gore as a running mate (rather than Wesley Clark, which is what the Clarkies are trying to telegraph and which to my mind, though I like and respect Clark, is more of the SAME, i.e. Militarism as the primary value of "our" culture).

[XemaSab]

27. Ah yes...

I don't think Gore would go with her if she asked. :P

[patrice]

30. I'm very sorry to say that I think you may be right about that AND

we are in a situation that will REQUIRE such compromises between the factions in order for anyone to succeed: said situation is if we get a Blue president, we'll get a Red congress; if we get a Red president, we'll get a Blue congress.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

32. How did she convey that 'signal' to you?

The only reason you have heard of this is because John Kyl and John McCain publicized it to smear her. She didn't publicize it... so how is it a signal?

[patrice]

36. Are you saying behavior, especially that of a nationally recognizable figure,

has no significance?

I don't think it matters how we heard about it. She knows EVERYTHING she does will become known one way or another; allowing it to be communicated by less than direct channels is a message in itself, or should I say, allowing it to be communicated by less than direct channels is a bunch of messages in themselves.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

42. I' saying what I am saying. If you chose to not understand it, I can't be of further assistance

[patrice]

44. .

:rofl:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

60. Find a dictionary. Look up "signal." Contemplate the definition for a few weeks until it sinks in.

Rinse and repeat.

[acmavm]

5. No. Just as a memorial to her youth and a time when grassroots

politics meant something. And the music was a big part of it.

And believe me, I am NOT a Hillary supporter.

Why does EVERYTHING have to have a dark, nasty, cynical, hidden agenda?

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. Everything Hillary has done seems to be for the support base, not necessarily our nation

It's clear I don't support Clinton. Am looking to Edwards and/or Kucinich with the hope that one of these two will become the representative leader of our nation.

Meanwhile, my son has offered me tickets to go see (and possibly meet) Clinton. Am debating with myself about going.

[XemaSab]

22. I'd totally go

You might be really surprised. :shrug:

[Whoa_Nelly]

29. Right after I posted, called my son

He's giving me his ticket because he can't go due to work. It's at 7:30 AM in Fresno. Am already signed out for the day for substituting. Am going to go :hi:

And there's a better than even chance I will meet HRC since the ticket is from Nicole Parra's second in command, who is also my son's best friend.

on edit: And, who knows? Maybe Bill will be there!

[AtomicKitten]

7. She's a NY'er now doing the work of her constituents.

[rodeodance]

8. No---but timing is wrong. Woodstock was a significant cultural even in US history

[incapsulated]

9. No because I actually bothered to read the background on the story

*sigh*

This project has been in the works for a decade, the State has given 15 million dollars to it, and both democrats and republicans have earmarked it. The guy building it is using almost all his own money.

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Honestly? Not in the slightest

IBM used to employ huge numbers of skilled workers in that general region of upstate New York but then they shuttered up their plants and threw those folks out of work. When Hillary first ran for Senate in New York the conventional wisdom was that she would be in the pocket of NYC voters if she won, but she made a specific point of saying that she would represent the voters in traditionally more Republican Upstate also. She campaigned heavily in upstate NY and she did surprisingly well there the first time and better the second. One reason why Clinton has been embraced to an unusual degree by upstate New York voters is because she has shown an interest in revitalizing the economy that had been hard hit in many regions north of NYC.

She is first and foremost doing her job as a New York State Senator with that legislation. Woodstock spawned the slogan "Woodstock Nation". That festival is legitimately internationally famous and a museum dedicated to it can certainly be justified on that basis AND a museum dedicated to it would be a strong draw for tourists to that area, which nowadays depends on tourism as a major component of the local economy.

[incapsulated]

14. Exactly

People forget she is, you know, a Senator? From New York?

The upstate region, as I said in the first thread about this, has hard times, economically. Hillary is popular up there for a reason, she listens to them. This will help the economy.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. My Cousin Went To Woodstock

I was ten at the time...I was in awe of her...

[cuke]

13. My mother used to live there

She lived about 3 miles from the site. You could sit on her porch and see Gerry's house from there.

The area was dying. There were no jobs, and anyone who could work, left the area. It was so bad, my mom had problems finding someone to cut her grass and do other minor jobs. People were moving out, and real estate taxes were going up to make up for all the lost revenue.

Gerry has had a big hand in helping to improve the economy in the area, and this earmark has helped also. All of sudden, so called liberals think that helping economically depressed areas is A Bad Thing.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Try actually addressing the points raised in the discussion some time

I made some for example. I happen to live in upstate New York, not that far from where this is being proposed. You wouldn't happen to also would you, since you seem so certain of yourself and the motives of those who responded to the OP.

Let's see, I count one word of discussion by you on this thread about the topic and about three dozen attacking Clinton supporters, although you haven't indicated how a single reply to this OP expressed anything remotely like: "Hillary is inevitable -- you better get on the bandwagon now, or you're betraying your Party" B.S

Who is it that is flooding DU with B.S again?

[Lucinda]

16. Uhm. No..

Of course not. She's a Senator FROM NEW YORK. Not to mention how long it's been in the works, etc...I think she's just doing her job for the people of the state who elected her.

[Bitwit1234]

17. Lordy Lordy can these hate peddlers that support the other candidate

thing of anything. Anything else to bash Hillary with. They are like a bunch of children.

[Cameron27]

19. No

[sampsonblk]

20. No

[CRH]

23. Not if she were to inhale some of their values. n/t

[Myrina]

24. Yes, considering she was a "Goldwater Girl" at that time ...

.. farthest thing FROM a Woodstock Hippy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. Goldwater himself wasn't exactly "Goldwater" by the time he died

Republicans in New York State have supported this musuem with large grants for years now already. Most of them weren't exactly Woodstock Hippies either.

[splat]

34. She was a Goldwater Girl in '64, a hippie by '69, like the rest of us

Please don't alter the facts. They're all we have.

[incapsulated]

38. Here is Hillary in 1969, at Wellesley

:D

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. This OP is the most clueless thing I've seen yet

It is understandable to reply to a thread despite not knowing anything about the topic, but why START threads about things of which one knows nothing?

Hillary Clinton did not do anything to make this a big deal, to cynically appeal to leftist boomers or anyone else. The only reason the OP has heard of this is that the RW media and RW candidates are using it as a smear. I doubt Hillary ever expected any publicity or support from this outside NY. She certainly hasn't been running on it that I'm aware of.

If she wasn't publicizing it, how can it be a cynical campaign ploy?

And why would it be remarkable for a NY senator to support a project (it's originally Schumer's earmark, BTW, not hers) that benefits her state, and is 85% paid for by private donations? (The foundation backing it put up 85 mil, NY State 15 mil, and the federal govt was going to kick in 1 mil.) 85 mil is a big gift to her state, and she (actually Schumer, really) included a tiny earmark as a gesture of support for the project that was making a 85mil gift to the state, and by extension the American people, since it's a worthwhile cultural landmark. A gift that will generate more income from Japanese tourists alone than the total of govt money involved.

She would have supported an equivalent project for a little museum of Woodstock area artists, or a system of Woodstock area nature trails. (The woodstock area is a major NY state tourist area for reasons having nothing to do with the Woodstock music festival.)

This whole fake controversy is lame RW bullshit recycled for your DU reading pleasure.

[Rock_Garden]

28. This one's a nonissue.

[Froward69]

33. wouls this include

Woodstock 2?? with the fires, rapes, and looting???

[incapsulated]

35. No, lol

The original.

[Froward69]

37. pretty obvious She is

selective with what she takes on. Hillary, The condom candiate. Playing it safe...

[incapsulated]

39. So, she *should* have been for the raping and looting version?

To be, you know, edgy?

Have you even bothered to read about any of this?

Edit to add, no one is making a museum of a failed concert filled with criminal acts, ffs, don't you even know what Woodstock was?

Also, you win dumb post of the day.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. Do you think you actually win votes and influence people with this nonsense?

Are you suggesting that someone with integrity would feel a need to include commemorating the minor footnote in history decades later "reunion" concert within a museum dedicated to the world famous "By the time we got to Woodstock we were half a million strong..." 1969 Woodstock Festival?

Yeah sure, Hilary is "playing it safe" keeping the focus on 1969. Have it your way.

[Froward69]

43. Truth is

the 1969 concert was a magical and uplifting event. one generation later the same premise went down in flames... I simply would like to point out that you should not take one without the other. Granted they were put on by vastly different entities. with vastly different results. amplifying the positive one While Ignoring the negative (or vice versa) is akin to faux news. so Hillary being cynical? YES! my grandma called it "selective memory".

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. The symbolic bookends are Woodstock and Altamont

Both those events occurred on a similar scale and they marked two faces of the same social upheaval. A retrospective of the 60's that put a spotlight on Woodstock but avoided any mention of Altamont would in my opinion be guilty of the sin of "selective memory" that you speak of. What happened a generation later at the Woodstock reunion you speak of was on a truly tiny scale in comparison to the original Woodstock Festival. A bad party can get thrown anywhere at any time. Great ones have been thrown at the original Woodstock Festival grounds in the decades following Woodstock 69 also. So what? Neither the good nor bad events that have been held there in the last 15 years were true generational moments.

[incapsulated]

47. You don't even know what you are *talking about*

But obviously, you won't let that stop you.

This isn't Hillary's project. She didn't invent the idea of a Woodstock museum.

The state of New York has already kicked in 15 million for this BECAUSE IT WILL HELP THE LOCAL ECONOMY.

And if you think anyone gives a flying fuck about some lame concert decades later that they slapped the name Woodstock on, or that it has any significance to the real one, you are very much alone.

OMG, it's like FOX News!

You win second stupidest post of the day as well.

[Froward69]

49. ohhh touched a nerve there?

to agree with you "So what?" woodstock 1 was just a concert that came off really well. Woodstock 2 went down really bad. Both you and incapsulated, are trying to fight and defend where no fight really exists anyway. my whole point was making a joke of how selective persons of that generation tend to be blind to what actually went on. as the saying goes "if you actually remember the sixtes, you really werent there."

I concede, Woodstock is a non issue anyway. please just realize the sixties are almost four decades ago. like vietnam the war in iraq needs to end.

[incapsulated]

51. Look...

You were blaming Clinton for "playing it safe" because she earmarked a project for a Woodstock museum that isn't a retrospective on how horrible the 1989 anniversary concert was. Which is absurd. There have been 3 other anniversary concerts for Woodstock, FYI. They probably will be mentioned in the museum.

This is less about baby boomers getting nostalgic than it is helping to revitalize a bad economy upstate.

Edit to add I was in kindergarten in 69.

[cuke]

52. You have a star

do a search on this poster and you'll see the futulity of engaging it

[LoZoccolo]

41. No, but I see your post as a statement that your candidate is losing.

lol

[Catherine Vincent]

45. Hell no!

[Forrest Greene]

48. I Can't Wait For The Paisley Bellbottom Pajamas

...we'll be wearing at the camps. So much nicer than those broad-striped things they had at Auschwitz.

[Blue_In_AK]

50. Yes.

I have no problem with a Woodstock Museum, but I personally don't think it should be funded with federal money. This is something some old rich hippies should put together -- I'm sure there are some out there.

[cuke]

53. Pay attention

The project is costing almost $100 million. Of that, the Feds are kicking in $1 million. At least $80 million is from private sources

[hedgehog]

54. $100 million? For a tourist trap? To bad someone couldn't have figured

out how to spend that money to develop some real jobs!

[cuke]

57. Have you been there?

or just blowing hot air?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

59. This is beyond stupid...

Jobs generated by a tourist trap are real. The people who are hired are real people who prefer working those jobs to not working at all.

The area is depressed at the moment. Do you suppose the people in that economically depressed area support or oppose the center?

Do you suppose the center will employ anybody? Do you suppose it will attract surrounding businesses, like motels or restaurants or galleries? Do you suppose people work at such places?

I am sorry they didn't use to money to open a strip mine or whatever sort of activity meets your petulant standard of "real" jobs.

[Blue_In_AK]

56. No, I get that...

...and I realize that since my senators and representative are legendary pork snatchers, this is a trivial amount in comparison. I'm just saying that maybe too much federal money is being spent on these kinds of projects, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to cut back on some of it.

[hedgehog]

55. I don't think her support is deeply cynical. I think it's ineffective and counter productive.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-18-senate-woodstock_N.htm?csp=1

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

61. So now she shouldn't have supported it because republicans don't like it... great!

[Adelante]

58. This thread strikes me as deeply cynical, actually nt