Login HereI'm not arguing against holding the remaining primaries per se; every state should have its say. I also agree Democrats are using the extended primaries to improve voter lists, fund raising, and party organization, improving Democratic prospects in general. And there's no doubt that under normal conditions, this should be a terrific year for Democrats. But these positives seem to miss a critical point.
The argument being made is that this is such an ideal year for Democrats -- the voters hate Bush, all the issues are supposedly aligned, and there are lots of new Democratic voters -- that Clinton and Obama can have a bruising elimination process and still beat McCain in November. Perhaps so. But even if one discounts the risks of losing (which I don't), just winning is not enough.
The country needs a convincing repudiation of the Bush/Cheney regime, its distorted conservative philosophy, and its corrupt theories for destroying public confidence in governance. The Republicans have earned a thrashing, yet on ABC's This Week, George Will argued that with Mitch McConnell and 45 Republican Senators, they could obstruct any Democratic agenda. If Democrats hope to accomplish anything different, they need to win BIG. Really BIG.
To reverse the disasters of the last eight years, let alone push through a strong progressive agenda, Democrats need working control of the Senate. And to get that, they'll need a blowout at the Presidential level with strong coattails: they'll need a unified, determined party led by a President with a convincing mandate.
So someone needs to think through how supporters of Hillary Clinton can get over their disappointment and become reconciled to an Obama candidacy, should he become the nominee. What do you say to those supporters, and who needs to say it? How hard does that essential task become if the bitterness of this fight intensifies for several more months, and she loses?
Conversely, I have not heard a plausible scenario explaining how supporters of Barack Obama can get over their disappointment and become reconciled to a Clinton candidacy, should she become the nominee. The message many of them are hearing is that despite all they'd done, they can't have the prize, that 21st century America is not willing to elect an "Afro-American" to be President, even if he's "only half black."
How will those supporters react after watching a black man apparently win but then have the nomination taken away because he was smeared by John McCain's Republican party and a cooperative media running overtly racist ads that equate being black with being unpatriotic, anti-white and violent? And what if they conclude this was implicitly encouraged by almost daily stories and/or op-eds in (e.g.) the nation's leading papers and television media, while subtle dog whistles came from their own party's leaders?
Folks on all sides need to stop focusing on denials and excuses and start thinking about how all this is being perceived by the supporting groups. And the picture is getting ugly.
Today's polls show McCain holding his own against either Democrat, but the argument is that this will change once the Democratic nominee can refocus attention on McCain in November. Even if that risky gamble pays off, I don't see any way for this contest to continue on its present path without seriously jeopardizing any chance for a blowout-mandate. And I see a real risk that in cobbling together a coalition of the non-frustrated to win a narrow victory, we will lose one or more groups that have traditionally been the heart and soul of the Democratic Party.
Video: Buffalo Springfield, "For What It's Worth", from the Viet Nam era.
Share This 
Spotlight
yo
zed?
dabnit raven
You recall Watts, Newark, Detroit?
Zappa “Trouble Everyday” written after Watts:
If Hillary is the candidate, the Dems will lose.
Period.
The question is, are they ready to elect an African American who is smarter than they are.
I don’t buy any of this bull about the drawn out election being bad for the Democratic party. It’s just Republicans desperate to make the Democrats look bad by trying to say that they can’t even run an election right.
(Although I have to say that the decision to not seat Florida and Michigan was a big, dumb mistake that is not only the cause of this long election, but remains the problem for solving it.)
fwiw, good morning Scarecrow
I still like Obama and Hillary. I would happily support either in an election.
The Republicans don’t even like McCain, they hate Hillary and would never go black, so they’ll just stay home. That’s my bet.
Yea, that’s what yo means. Sorta like aloha or “You say goodbye and I say hello, hello, hello.
Hang on to your hat for this one
President Bush to make a statement on stimulating the economy at 9:25 a.m.
Good Morning Scarecrow and Firedogs -
Scarecrow - which of these groups are we gonna lose if Obama is the nominee ?
Frankly, I think this has been great for the Democratic party in terms of attracting new registered voters. I think it has given a whole lot of people a very good chance to see Obama and Hillary in action and has given Obama and his team a really good opportunity to test their messages and see what can get thrown at them. Because you know what is going to happen to him if he gets the nomination - the GOP will throw every dirty trick in the book at him. Women like me will be very disappointed(heck, we are already disappointed)if Hillary doesn’t get the nomination - especially after John Mc-nobrain’s comment yesterday about the Ledbetter legislation — “women need more education and training” — are we always never going to be “good enough”? But I do believe Hillary when she says that if Obama gets the nod, she will campaign for him and get her supporters to do so also. I do think she is sincere in that.
I am not even remotely suggesting anyone would riot. The question is what happens to the party and what does continued anger within the party do for us in November. How do we avoid the McConnell and 45 Republican’s scenario? I don’t pretend to have an answer.
He’s going to tell us to go shopping and make permanent his tax cuts for the rich.
I didn’t think you were, I’m the one that is suggesting it. Long hot summer.
Seems to me that Clinton is so pissed at the grassroots and their organizations that she’s willing to throw the whole thing in the shitter by her petulant attacks. Both Clinton and Obama need to realize it’s not about them. They could cool this thing out by focusing on what’s wrong with the Rethug agenda and how to fix it. That’s what voters want. In the end, imho, it’s going to be up to the likes of MoveOn to keep their supporters focused on the larger picture.
Hillary’s campaign tactic of claiming Obama is unelectable is hurting. The chances are extremely high that Obama will be our nominee. Because of that, I feel Senator Clinton has a responsibility, as a member of the party, to limit attacks based on issues and to keep attacking McCain.
She’s not going to do that, of course. Instead, after constantly whining and complaining about ”disenfranchising” FL and MI voters, she’s going to keep pushing bogus popular vote totals that, guess what, don’t count *any* voters in the states of MI and others. Remarkable.
This is not 1965-68.
African Americans, if the nomination is, ineffect, taken from Obama by superdelegates there will not be riots, there will be the lowest turnout of A-A voter in decades which would doom HRC’s chances against McCain.
I lived in LA in 65, Inglewood actually. Up until then the idea that there were race problems in LA seemed remote. I am not FOR fighting in the streets but I sure as hell won’t be surprised the way this deal with Hillary is shaping up.
oh boy, WW III.
Re-up
Yea, Rodney King Day was in 66 wasn’t it?
Even if she is elected.
Well, considering what I read this morning in the NYT about people owning thousands of dollars to their local gas and electric utilities, that is going to be a real stretch.
One thing we can do is emphasize the importance of the Supreme Court
He’d better be announcing a big sale on yachts, because, far as I can tell, that class is the only one with any money left.
Nah, no jungles in this clusterfuck and knees wouldn’t hold up. Gotta watch what I say or Christy will take a T-square to my knuckles.
The thing I don’t like about that argument is that congress plays a co-equal role.
If you believe this article, then according to the exit polls Obama does not appear to be in great danger of losing any group, though he’d have to work to gain their trust; my assumption is that with Clinton’s help, that would be possible (and I assume it would be forthcoming). Still, lots of folks, especially women, have intense hopes tied up in this, so I don’t think it’s as simple as that article depicts. It’s perhaps an argument for a combined ticket . . .?
I think the more difficult scenario is the reverse, because the article about Representative Clyburn is signaling a more serious potential alienation.
my sphincter is stimulated
damn it
This strikes me as strange, that it’d be supporters of Barack Obama who would riot.
Well maybe not rioting but people in the streets by the millions IS what is needed right now. Millions of people with impeach the bastard in BIG letters.
It’s not ugly. It’s more like a work in progress by Salvador Dali.
Why do you hate surreaslism?
I think that’s good advice. Earlier in the primaries, when we had all the candidates, the focus was on issues and contrasts with Bush/Republicans, and the effect was good for Democrats as a whole. It may be too much to expect the remaining two candidates to return to that, but if that happened, I wouldn’t be as worried.
lol!
And the Dali museum in St Petersburg FL is well worth a visit.
FWIW, I think the song is called “For what it’s Worth”
A judge in New York is going to give his verdict in the case of the shooting of three men by police outside a bar a little after 9. Shrub to speak at 9:25. One white and two black cops will get off and Shrub will announce that the Fed is giving all our money to the investment bankers.
We’re in hell, aren’t we?
Americans tend to vote conservatively (not ideologically, but in terms of risk taking).
Americans now clearly do not want another Republican president, but they are also very jittery about all that is going on. By the time the GOP is through with him, Obama will seem too much of a risk for most Americans to comfortably vote for (pardon that bad grammar). Hillary will feel like the safer alternative to another Republican, which is why I think she’s got a better chance of winning in November than does Obama.
Americans vote based on the “better the devil you know than the devil you don’t” philosophy, and this race will be no different, I don’t think.
tw3k, I don’t understand what you mean.
I’d rather have a Democratic President submitting names than a Republican one — to a Democratic Congress with more and better Democrats
Just one of the few things worth seeing here in God’s Waiting Room.
Thanks. I’ll fix that.
Familiararity breeds contempt
Yesterday on Randi Rhodes, A man named Joseph spoke so eloquently about how he felt about Obama. He was black and had supported the Clintons during their troubles. He wont support Hillary because of what she is doing now. His passion was amazing and I cried. He spoke of how his friends felt about Barack especially the old. For them this is a miracle.
I think Obama has a power to unite. I really think that their will be amazing changes around this country.
Good post, Scarecrow. I agree with everything you said. At one point (the “what an honor it is” debate), I thought both candidates understood these issues and would, when necessary, step back and help the party. Shortly after, it became apparent that dragging one out of the primary would leave fingernail marks in the dirt across several states. Now I think it may be dire than you express. It could be not only a Republican victory, but the collapse of the coalition which has made up the Democratic Party for several decades.
I’d rather have either submitting names to a Democratic Congress with
more andbetter Democrats.absolutely no comparison. No President McCain, not now, not ever! not even close.
Yup, Buffalo Springfield
I think it is all quite obvious and a logical decision must be made. Clinton has lost, period. She cannot even begin to catch up in pledged delegates. That will anger her supposed Reagan Democrat and hard core support. Not good, but nothing compared to the backlash that will occur if she is given a nomination that will obviously appear illegitimate. McCain will be able to make an huge issue out of that alone.
The slogan “Change We Can Believe In” is not just some tag line. It is the core tenet of the Obama campaign, and it has won out. Clinton’s campaign is its antithesis, and she will be left more than just high and dry if she is able to overturn the pledged delegate lead.
Frankly, 80% of the new registrants will be completely alienated from the democratic process and much more than half of them will refuse to participate at the presidential level until Obama is again the nominee.
I see no other logic or prediction that even begins to trump this.
Buffalo Springfield lip-synching “For What It’s Worth”, Neil Young seems to be purposefully fucking up the charade, pulling his hands away from his guitar when he is supposed to be soloing.
“God’s Waiting Room.”
lol!
I disagree. I believe that the people’s power is in congress, not the presidency. I want to see a congress that exerts its’ power in a progressive direction.
If Obama has the power to unite, why is his own party so divided (and please don’t blame Hillary. To unite means to be opposing factions together)? Bill Clinton had a 90% approval rating among African Americans when he was president too. It’s Hillary Clinton who’s clearly reached across the aisle during her time in Congress, even to people who were brutal to her and her family.
While the song has come to symbolize worldwide turbulence and confrontational feelings arising from events during the 1960s (particularly the Vietnam War), Stills reportedly wrote the song in reaction to escalating unrest between law enforcement and young club-goers relating to the closing of Pandora’s Box, a club on West Hollywood, California’s Sunset Strip. The song’s title appears nowhere in its lyrics, and many casual listeners likely know it better by the first line of chorus: “Stop, children, what’s that sound? Everybody look what’s going down.”
In 2006, Stephen Stills was interviewed by Tom Kent on his radio show “Into the ’70s” and pointed out that though many people think “For What It’s Worth” is about the Kent State Shootings, it was actually recorded before that event.
[edit]
[Mod Note; Please cite quoted material. Thank you.]
I think if we can’t stop this nonsense we need a new political movement. We need a realist movement that doesn’t have the war mongering, free spending anti- civil rights aspects but also doesn’t have the completely deviod of any backbone attitutes of Pelosi and the dem leadership. This election is the dems to loose. If they loose we are going to have to start from scratch with a new everything while at the same time fending off the criminality of Bushco.
On the topic of Bushco: We must prosecute all the criminal activity so the next time these jokers get the presidency the Dick Cheney’s of the administration won’t be able to walk back into power. Criminal behavior like obstruction of justice must be prosecuted.
As far at the process of the primaries goes. I am as die hard as anyone and I stopped reading about the election after Texas. I don’t have the stomach to read this drivel day after day. We are losing our democracy and all I read in the paper is about how this person or that person is racist. OMG enough already.
The only way McCain or any Republican can win anything in November is if the economy improves by then - meaning gas prices come down a lot - and Iraq improves. I don’t see either of those things happening.
excellent, excellent points scarecrow. you really have me thinking now….
here’s something else. when you say:
i’d add that i think for the country to really change direction in a good way, we need to repudiate major elements of the bill clinton years too.
i so regret that senator clinton has tied her candidacy to her time in bill’s administration - because now she has become a stand in, a front person, for those elements that need repudiation. and this has nothing to do with comparing the policies she advocates or her time as a senator to obama’s policies or time as a senator. it’s what they’ve come to represent in the imagination of a segment of the democratic grass roots activist.
the dems may be able to get a supermajority - but what good will it do if it means a return to the neoliberal economic policies of the clinton years? is that really a blowout mandate for progressive change? as far superior as it is to what we have now, i don’t think so.
perfect, perfect analogy.
and good snark too.
Bill Clinton had a 90% approval rating among African Americans when he was president too.
This morning, NBC/NJ asked the former president about the exchange and what he meant when he “said that the Obama campaign was playing the race card on you?”
Clinton bristled, “When did I say that, and to whom did I say that?”
When the reporter pointed to the WHYY radio interview, Clinton denied that that’s what he said. “No, no, no. That’s not what I said,” the former president replied. “You always follow me around and play these little games, and I’m not going to play your games today. This is a day about election day. Go back and see what the question was, and what my answer was. You have mischaracterized it to get another cheap story to divert the American people from the real urgent issues before us, and I choose not to play your game today. Have a nice day.”
[Mod Note; Please cite quoted material. Thank you.]
And votes, unfortunately.
I agree. There’s thousands of Bushies all through every department and the one way to keep them out of Government in the future is by prosecuting the people who put them there. I wish this was a bigger part of the campaign, or at least, part of the debates.
thank you
Clyburn - that would be my argument to Supers - the party has never won without the African American vote and the Clinton campaign has alienated that bloc (and there’s some irony there)
btw - this feeds into the argument wingers have made to African Americans for years - the Party takes them for granted and Clinton as nominee would underscore the stuffing out of that.
as to the lower income HRC block - BO would still beat McFoodRiot
Scarecrow -
excellent post - incredibly thoughtful questions - how dare you burst my little this is good for the Party bubble *g*
Just like McCain sold out to the people that were brutal to him. Maybe they should run together?
You missed my point.
I was responding to someone saying Obama can unite people and used the AFrican American vote as an illustration, so I was simply pointing out that Clinton had as high an approval rating among AA when he was president.
I think it is very unfortunate that the Obama campaign played the race card by accusing the Clintons of playing the race card. That is dirty politics, which they’re supposedly against, but it is what it is.
I’ve never quite understood why people now can blog about how Obama will get the African American vote, that Dem cant win without it, note that many of his wins have been due to that vote, even that Clinton gets the “old, emotional woman” vote, but Clinton saying Jesse Jackson won via the African American vote was racist.
Go figure.
The thing is: Dems really didn’t like Kerry, but they eventually rallied behind him for the sake of party unity. The same will occur for McCain (Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding). McCain will attract enough Republicans to be solid as their nominee because they are more cohesive as a party to begin with; and he is apparently impressing “independents” sufficiently to dilute either Hillary or Obama’s appeal–at least for now. I believe the Dems will rally behind whomever they choose too, but the battle they have to win is the fight for the “independents”, not the party-loyalists.
Short of being caught smoking weed with a 10 year old, Sen. Obama is going to be the nominee.
Period. End of story.
Therefore, the leadership of the progressive blogosphere needs to get off the fence and support him.
This would help nudge the popular vote and the remaining supers into his camp and end this death march of a campaign.
Besides, it shouldn’t be so hard to do. Which candidate is more ‘Blue America?’
The one with over a million donors @ $120 per donor, 50 state organization strategy and an uplifting campaign message, or the other one.
So when Clinton reaches across the aisle, she’s selling out and is like John McCain, but when Obama does (has he?), it’s unity and a good thing.
Okay. Not sure how that works.
Historically gasoline price do fall somewhat after the summer high demand months. So by October, McCain will be saying, “ain’t it great that gas prices have fallen to $3.50?” As the man says, people’s concerns are just mostly psychological.
I agree with part one — we need control of the Senate — but not part two.
The effect of coattails is always something that presidential campaigns tout, as a way of improving their fundraising. “If you’re only going to give X to campaigns this year, don’t split it among four or five campaigns. Give it to the one place that it can do the most good — my campaign — and it will help pull in everybody down the ticket.”
There is a coattail effect, but for control of Congress, nothing beats local, district, and statewide organizing. That’s why I think Jane, Christy, and Howie Klein are on target in focusing their organizing efforts on Blue America.
I’d love to see a blowout at the presidential level, but even better would be a blowout up and down the ticket — and for that, we need to dig in at the local level.
dipping toe into lake for swim later, sipping on cup of tea–hi scarecrow, just took the trash out, not lettin’ any back in the door…..new trash guys, will take anything, even furniture and appliances, unlimited, is gonna change my world, am applying that to every part of my life…”it’s outta here”…last trash guys would only take pristine bagged trash…..there’s a wind tunnel now from my house to the end of the drive. : )
i am voting for the supreme court and federal judges…..like always.
i know obama supporters who will not vote for hillary.
i don’t know one hillary suppporter who will not vote for obama.
need to know this, need help—–does anyone know if this is the same bill?
gop wants to attach fisa to war supplemental bill
http://thehill.com/leading-the.....04-24.html
dems want to attach unemployment aid to war bill–doesn’t mention gop fisa tactic
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....eheadlines
bbl-taking more stuff to the curb, until the truck comes and i stop…..is gonna be a mountain…….like in close encounters……..ha.
Dorian Grey?
Uh, that shd be ‘off’ of said fence.
Excuse me, His Party?
He is a Democrat just like Hillary. Hillary lost, fair and square. She is a good person, perhaps even great but she ran a bad campaign and she is asking for a return to the past. Obama inspires the young and wants to move forward. Doesnt make Hillary bad.
Don’t misunderstand me, they both suck as far as I can tell. I just see Hillary as slightly ahead on my handy-dandy suck-o-meter.
And I’m not sure how it works either.
trying to clarify my above…
for a long time i’ve struggled to understand the passion that supporters of either clinton or obama have… and my current thinking is that some of it is not about about the candidates, their policies or their record - it’s what their candidacies symbolize to us.
and my using myself as an example, i wasn’t arguing for the “rightness” of my own view - it was just an example what what i think (today anyway) is going on.
I don’t see why both Clinton and Obama agree to quit addressing each other and make it a contest to see which one of them tears down McCain-Bush the best. I think Dems and Independents would much rather vote on who challenges McCain the best than who challenges the other best.
Good points, Peterr. I’d argue that the Blue America is critical to electing better Democrats; the coattail effect helps elect more Democrats. We need both.
Wouldnt it be better if Hillary supported Obama and brought her strengths to him
Maybe the coattails could work in the other direction?
Obama’s power to unite will be tested once Clinton concedes the race, is demonstrably defeated by superdelegate movement in June, or, God help us, demonstrably nominated at the convention. It is impossible to unite this situation while Clinton is still actively campaigning against him.
St Petersburg has been called that for years. The city’s trademark were green benches all over town where the seniors could sit. Retirees flocked to the city. Still do. They’ve tried very hard in the 25 years I’ve been here to overcome that perception, with limited success. Rising prices of everything in the late 90’s slowed the flow somewhat but for some reason New Yorkers come here in the winter and think the weather’s like that all year round. Their first August is a rude awakening, most having bought their homes in the winter. And I think they all got their driver’s license by mail from Dizzy World in Orlando.
My tinfoil hat tells me that is what Cheney’s recent trip to the ME was all about - lining up a pre-election reduction in gas prices.
Yes, his party, meaning he’s a Democrat, not meaning ownership. The party to which he belongs is very divided right now, more than I’ve ever seen. How is that evidence of his being able to unite people?
Clinton has not lost.
Obama inspires the young and wants to move forward. What? The middle aged and elderly don’t matter? Yes, Obama inspires the young because he is running the idealistic campaign, and idealism appeals to young people. It has always been that way. Clinton started out talking about policy, which bores young people and doesn’t appeal to them.
They both want to move forward.
Why vote for a lesser evil?
the snark in that sentence is almost too tempting, but I digress
are you saying it is racist for someone to point out Dems don’t win without the AA bloc ?
Just as better if Obama would support her and bring his strengths to her.
The hubris on the Obama side is something to behold. I’ve had enough hubris, thank you.
No,
I’m saying it was the Obama camp that said it was racist to say so.
Heck yeah!
Elect enough real progressives to keep either Clinton or Obama from doing too much damage.
Although, I do like their collaboration on a new US flag design!
I see, so the power to unite only works when everyone gets along and there is no opposition.
Think about that for a moment.
My spouse asked last night who I thought would be a better candidate to appear with the progressive candidates running for House and Senate in the upcoming general. Damn good question I thought and I come down on the side of not clinton2. She is way too divisive and way too far to the right (DLC anyone?) on most issues. I want progressives in Congress, the country needs progressives in Congress and I believe that obama1 will be better on the stump with progressive candidates across the nation.
reading the comments, Scarecrow, it’s obvious we have a ways to go here. Thanks for helping to keep our Eyes on the Prize
selise — recall Pachacutec’s post months ago about the three parties? We’re always fighting the other two, and that ignores the ambiguity about which one each candidate fits into.
that’s too logical, dude.
After Edwards’s exit, I commented that the Democrat’s inclusionist zeal was going to make the general election a roll of the dice. I had doubts that a brain damaged electorate (RE: Bush’s percentages in 00 and 04) would elect either an African-American male or a woman.
Now that it’s time to roll . . .
I’ll go with Obama and his sea of youngsters. The great unpollables.
I see no evidence to suggest that Clinton can bridge the chasm after taking the nomination through superdelegate coup. Nothing will assuage the intense acrimony that will cause. Obama supporters are not attracted to her candidacy for many reasons. Her nomination would be Change We Can’t Believe In to the 10th power.