It's All Over Now, Baby Blue
Tuesday night Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic nomination -- again. He did it the first time when weeks ago he racked up a dozen primary victories and built his insurmountable delegate lead.
We've spent the last half-dozen weeks or so indulging in a Second Life fantasy that granted Hillary Clinton some sort of real viability.
That game ended tonight in North Carolina and Indiana. Obama has won a smashing victory in North Carolina and, as we write, will finish close behind in Indiana. When all the votes are tallied, Obama will finish the evening with a net gain in pledged delegates i.e. he will increase his lead as front-runner. Whatever remote, if not impossible, shot Clinton had of snatching away the nomination went up in smoke tonight when she failed to win NC and failed to stage a blow-out in Indiana.
Now, more than ever, there remains no democratic way for Clinton to win the nomination (I believe this is the fourth primary night I have written the same words).
Within the next few days, there will be a public outing of Superdelegates endorsing Obama. I suspect that by next weekend he will have closed the gap among un-elected delegates.
The only question is how and when, not if, Hillary Clinton will throw in the towel. I don't think she can limp beyond Oregon -- two weeks from now.
It's all over now, except for the paperwork.
So long, Hillary.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Think so? Am I going to see a collective media howl for Hillary to Leave Now?
But didn’t Obama call Indiana a “tiebreaker”?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Michael says:
michael-balter.blogspot.com/2008/05/pander-too-far.html
May 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
[…] grand dragon of douche, douche pie, la doucherina, robert douchey jr., d etc). This analysis from this really smart dude who pays my AmEx bills: We’ve spent the last half-dozen weeks or so indulging in a Second Life* fantasy that granted […]
May 6th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Har!
You’re probably right, Balter.
A Pander Too Far.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I recall Paul Tsongas’ lispy deriding of Slick Willie as “Pander Bear” in 1992.
It did not work, alas.
But the panders have come home to roost!
Balter, did you pay Cornelius Ryan’s estate royalties?
The Clintons gone : Panderrific!
May 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think the key will be what happens with her contributions. She got a burst after PA, but I doubt if she’ll get one now.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Titles can’t be copyrighted.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Our Esteemed Host says:
“Now, more than ever, there remains no democratic way for Clinton to win the nomination.”
The only problem with this formulation is that the Democratic party has rules in place that say differently. Super-delegates have votes too.
Thems are the rules, so this is like listening to theories about why why the popular vote, and not the electoral college, should elect presidents.
Hillary is following the rules. She is fighting the nomination out according to the rules of the Democratic party. Who says differently?
May 6th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Right. Let’s see how those oh-so super delegates react with an Obama victory of 14 points in North Carolina and Indiana still too close to call after 11 pm Eastern time. The Indiana counties not yet reporting are heavy, heavy with Obama supporters. It’s over.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I just got done with work stuff at 11:30 pm (est). Have only heard little snippets on NPR of the election results. Marc, cuz I luv ya man, your little cyberspace kitchen is the first joint I’m checkin in on. Gotta agree, the race is over (again).
I don’t know about the rest of you, but elections are always cause for a militant defense of the 21st Amendment. So I’m here at the Magic Stick in Motown with a pack of pizza-chewin’ mullet heads enjoying our first round of Bushmills & Sam Adams. Cheers folks!
Obama’s catching up to Hil in Indiana!!! (Who let Indiana into the Union, anyway?)
Hmmm, “It’s all over now, baby blue” Me thinks Marc’s channelling Bob Zimmer-something…..Okay. That works…
But if you wonderful geezers want something a bit more modern to sum up the epic epic-ness of Obama v Clinton, pump this through your woofers and tweeters. (It’s probably more woofing than tweeting!)
http://tinyurl.com/49uv5y
May 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
What? Over? Did you say over? Nothing is over until the Clinton’s decide it is.
Hillary rallies the troops.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Opps, too smart by not half:
try this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TagemN7kkw&feature=related
May 6th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
At this point it is an undisputed fact that Obama has won North Carolina, and it is certain that Hillary will win Indiana.
If the Democratic party were not the party of factional, schismatic nut-jobs, Democrats would be celebrating the fact that two strong and worthy contenders are fighting it out for the Democratic banner.
But, alas, the Democratic party IS the party of carping, schismatic nut-jobs. There is nothing the Left-Intellegentsia of the party hates more than a fair democratic fight. The American Left-fascist “progressive” will to power is near-infinite. Differences of opinion enrage them.
Watch this thread.
How dare anyone oppose Obama? Obama has already won and lookee here, he keeps winning!
How dare Hillary keep running? How dare she?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
I love it when people as clearly loony as samuel stott call others “nut-jobs.”
If his post wasn’t so entertaining (because of its idiocy), I’d consider writing an indignant response.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
I would suggest Samuel donate some $$$ to Hillary’s campaign.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Marc, tienes razon.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:58 am
“It’s All Over Now”
We can only pray your right ‘this’ time Marc.
But if there really is a god, it will go to the Convention. And after a knock-down-drag-out, Al Gore emerges victorious on the forth ballot.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:19 am
All I know is I ate a full container of ice-cream topped with cocktail nuts to celebrate (OK I was also celebrating the Celtics win). I woke up groggy and semi-bloated, so this time It better be for real.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:25 am
You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last
But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast
Yonder stands your orphan with his gun
Crying like a fire in the sun
Look out the saints are comin’ through
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue
The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense
Take what you have gathered from coincidence
The empty-handed painter from your streets
Is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets
The sky, too, is folding under you
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue
All your seasick sailors, they are rowing home
All your reindeer armies are all going home
The lover who just walked out your door
Has taken all his blankets from the floor
The carpet, too, is moving under you
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue
Leave your stepping stones behind, something calls for you
Forget the dead you’ve left, they will not follow you
The vagabond who’s rapping at your door
Is standing in the clothes that you once wore
Strike another match, go start anew
And it’s all over now, Baby Blue
May 7th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Michael says (with apologies that there is not a real link and you have to copy and paste the URL, Marc’s site doesn’t seem to allow blogspot links):
michael-balter.blogspot.com/2008/05/morning-after-let-beginning-begin.html
May 7th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I see on Balter’s site that the Hillary Deathwatch is down to 4.2%. Oddly, I still don’t count her out. She’s just waiting for some dirt that will complete derail Obama, and she may already have it. Ron Paul is still running, also.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:27 am
When Samual Stott isn’t proffering Limbaugh propaganda and suggesting that the best thing for the Democratic Party (which he hates) would be a knock-down fight that goes all the way to the convention, he’s accusing various commenters of not engaging him in intellectually serious and honest debate. Well, Mr. Stott, if you ever had any credibility, and I think the answer on that score is pretty clearly that you do not, you have tossed it away with your silly and transparent posture. Honest debate means that you argue things that you honestly believe. Mark that down in your files.
As to your idiotic “advice.” There are plenty of Democratic officials whose intelligence and insight does not inspire, but neither the most dimwitted of those in office nor the Democratic voter is quite so stupid as you hope. I suppose when your party is hemorraging support and your nominee has questionable credentials as either a conservative and an independent (craven flip-flopping will do that) the only approach left is to don the Bugs Bunny outfit and try a little reverse psychology. Well, we can all see what you’re doing and, just so you know, you look like an idiot.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Not only is the nomination over, but as I said the other day…the whole thing is over. McCain is a severly compromised candidate as the recent Huffington vote revelation demonstrates.
When he gets painted over and over again as “Bush’s third term” he will have no response. The McCain of a few years ago would have had a reasonable response, but not anymore. He got all the way in bed (undressed and everything), with the right in order to have his shot.
The saddest part of all of this, is that even with his right-ward lurch he still isn’t pure enough for the Republican ideologues.
As for Woody’s often declared “big secret,” I would say that he’s proven to be as bullet proof as the Clintons and he’s managed to achieve that without being a slimy gutter player. No salvation for you on this one, Woody.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Let me also add, that as a person interested in seeing a Democrat elected I don’t begrudge Clinton’s desire to stay in the race, only her Republican-style smear tactics. As a believer in the small “d” democratic process, I’m pretty revolted by her ongoing attempt to petition the credentialing committee to change the rules midway through the election now that it suits her. Florida is bad enough, but as Timothy Noah of Slate pointed out, the Michigan election looks like something out of the USSR.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Hillary, in defiance of the declarations of Tim Russert and Sir Isaac Newton, is slogging on. This is great news for Samuel Stott. There is still time to make that sizeable donation to her campaign.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
I have to second Mavis, right on point. I don’t begrudge her staying in either, unfortunately I’m wary as to whether she’ll become more desparate.
Obama is going need to take the lead, diplomatically on seating the FL and MI delegates, I don’t see how he can afford going into the generals and not have the voters of those states feeling shortchanged.
As for Sam, I’ve busted him a couple of times on this post for his innacuarcies. He likes to stir the pot and is completely uninterested in engaging anyone any kind of sincere debate.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Like Marc’s, many of my predictions don’t come true, but I would wager that the superdelegates and other influential Democrats are going to take the last remaining puffs of wind out of Hillary’s sails pretty soon–for the, uh, good of the party.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Tragic revelation in today’s exhalation from Maureen Dowd on Hillary’s last stand: “it’s as though she’s crushing the remnants of her own girlish innocence.”
May 7th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
“in defiance of the declarations of Tim Russert and Sir Isaac Newton”
Remember, Hillary doesn’t put her lot in with economists and other eggheads. Like Isaac Newton.
What the hell has he ever rolled over ten frames? Does he even have a league average?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
The USSR, within the Communist party at least, had far more democratic campaigns than the idea of Hillary’s Baathist style Michigan ploy.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Everything I know about Isaac Newton I learned on NPR’s Science Friday. The latte-sipping, tote-bag hawking bastards, smugly parading their college degrees, didn’t mention a damned thing about his bowling scores.
I want to sincerely thank Hillary Clinton for toughing this thing out for the last couple of months. Really. It would have been fun for folks like Marc and Michael to see her dispatched swiftly, but my view - once I get my emotions and biases in check - is that Obama owes her a debt of gratitude for toughening him up and forcing some stuff on the table early on that he would have had to face eventually, and probably with less time on his side to revive and strengthen his core campaign message. I’m convinced that, having beaten Hillary and Bill Clinton on their own turf, he can beat McCain in the general. His biggest ally, of course, in the success of his campaign has been George Bush and the old-liine Democrats like Clinton who’ve too often enabled him - creating a playing field that gives Obama credibility that he probably wouldn’t have in a more conventional election year. I don’t put Obama on a pedestal, but his candidacy does represent a shift in the center of gravity for the Democratic party.
If Clinton had won this nomination, among other things Howard Dean’s tenure as head of the DNC would be over. Dean also deserves tremendous credit for what’s transpired. He’s been a good party chair, most notably in pushing his “50 state strategy” that doesn’t write anybody off wholesale as beyond the party’s message. He pioneered the concept of a “militant moderate” who isn’t pushing every item on a “left-liberal” agenda and has appeal to independents and centrists, but who also is willing to draw a line in the sand on some core issues and runs against “Beltway bizness as usual. ” And Dean pioneered the netroots/grassroots organizing and fundraising strategy that Obama used to actually secure the nomination. We saw Jerry Brown try something like this with his “800 number/$100 dollars” gimmick in ‘92. Now it’s real and it’s worked.
I know Obama will “disappoint” me - because he’s as much as told me so - once the atmosphere of the Oval Office become the air he breathes every day. But there’s a tremendous opportunity in his candidacy for anyone who’s inclined toward activisim and on core foreign policy perspective, we’ve got the prospect of someone whose knee doesn’t jerk every time his opponents haul out a hoary “national security” cliche. I look forward to the prospect of Obama taking McCain dead-on in debating pragmatic national security against fantasies of un-ending war. I hesitate to make any predictions, but my gut tells me that Obama is going to see this area as an even bigger vulnerability of McCain’s than his domestic non-agenda, he’ll will go after him hard and bloody the old man precisely where he’s projecting “strength.”
May 7th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
New Clinton Slogan going forward:
“I’m working hard for you…to help me cover my campaign loans.”
May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Mavis Beacon, I too don’t oppose her staying in the race since it is of course within the rules, but sometimes it’s important to step back and look at the reality of the situation.
Without starting a civil war within the Democratic party, Hillary has no chance of winning the nomination (especially after last night). She needs to decide whether her ego is more important than the interests of the party. Her actions may be within the context of the election rules, but they’re not within the context of common sense.
Every day she stays in this race is a loss to the Democratic party. Polls showed not long ago that either of these two would easily beat McCain, but he’s gaining ground because they’re currently too busy taking each other down. I easily prefer Obama but what I really want is to see either of these two thrash McCain and the Republicans in November. Just stop hurting the Democratic party.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
>his candidacy does represent a shift in
>the center of gravity for the Democratic >party.
Only a change in complexion, and that only in the literal sense. It’s not a change in the politics of the party-he’s a centrist not notably left of HRC. I don’t understand why social democrats (if I can take the liberty of calling you that) keep convincing themselves the DP represents their politics. It doesn’t and never will.
>[Dean’s] “50 state strategy” that
>doesn’t write anybody off wholesale
but that’s obviously wrong as far as electoral votes are concerned, and I suspect it is just a way to counter the (accurate) image that the DP is just a narrow-based rump (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?) of its former self. The DP is not going to get a majority of votes in Wyoming or Utah, and it doesn’t matter what the vote is in Florida, no matter what the DP does. I recall Dean ran for President as a fiscal conservative. If so, why would he waste money in those places?
You’re probably right about getting the dirt out in the open early. People have a short memory for this kind of shit, best to let them get over it now. Who remembers McCain’s black love child?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Surely the campaigns are already discussing a vice presidential nomination for Hillary.
It would be a shame to see the party adopt Al Gore’s 2000 logic that the Clintons are more burden than benefit.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
“but that’s obviously wrong as far as electoral votes are concerned”
Why is it obviously wrong? It wasn’t wrong in 2006. Why assume that the political conformations that held for 2 or 3 dcecades are permanent? It’s true that the DP is no long FDR’s party, that it’s old coalition withered on the vine, but a new coalition seems to be emerging that will make the party stronger than it’s been in quite a while.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
BB, but the reality that many live in is that the Clintons REALLY are more of aburden than a benefit.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“It’s true that the DP is no long FDR’s party, that it’s old coalition withered on the vine, but a new coalition seems to be emerging that will make the party stronger than it’s been in quite a while.”
Indeed. Eggheads and African-Americans.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Classy retort Bob. But that still doesn’t explain the large Dem wins a couple of years ago.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Bob,
Your race is showing.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hey. Gimme a break. I’m just quoting what Paul Begala said last night.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
The next stage, one we entered last night, is the negotiation over the terms of Hillary’s surrender. She has a lot of leverage. She has enough delegates to take this to the floor of the convention. She has a minority report/challenge that would seat a lot of HRC delegates out of Michigan, Florida, and a scattering from places like Missouri and Texas.
She has enough to threaten havoc.
What does she want? What does her 2nd largest creditor (behind Mark Penn) Bill Clinton want? I think they both would demand that Obama offer her the vice-presidency, but that they would be unlikely to say so directly. I would guess they will just sit mute waiting for him to do so. They would do this knowing that this is the very last thing he would want to do, campaign-wise. They will demand that respect be paid (and they have earned it). I cannot think of any other gesture that would do. Then Hillary would wait…maybe moments, maybe excruciating days, and decline.
This would be their revenge on the Black Prince. Moments or days seeming like eons, envisioning Bill Clinton dropping by, hoping that he would restrict his visits to the west wing….
What else they would want in tangible terms? To name, or at least veto, VP? Pay off or pay down debt/loans? Control of DNC and the fund-raising arms of Senate and House? I don’t know, but the kabuki dance begins now.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
After Hillary is appeased and silenced, the single most powerful figure in the Democratic politics will be Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Is there some gimmick to Clinton staying in longer, like qualifying for federal campaign funds to repay her loans?
May 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Stu - the 50 state strategy is about building state parties that can dig into “safe GOP seats” and elect Democrats to Congress in “purple” areas and the longer political haul than the next presidential election. That’s why it’s called a “strategy” and not simply electoral college tactics that focus on a couple of precincts in Ohio or some such constricted political visoin. And it’s starting to yield results at the congressional level.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Stu - there are a whole bunch of Democrats who represent my politics quite well, thank you very much. As for presidential candidates, I believe it would be crazy for a Democrat to run as a full-throated, confrontational “populist” or left-liberal in the current American political climate. Nor do I believe that a bunch of runs by Democratic losers pushing some agenda sharply to the left of Obama’s would change that landscape. I don’t have a formula for radical transformation and the only “formula” I can suggest for liberal “transition” is to elect more and better Democrats to Congress.
Send some money to Al Franken. Yeah, he supported the war for about fifteen minutes, but he’s got an explicitly social democratic vision (admittedly “lite” by historical terms of that tag.) Or pat yourself on the back as a “truthteller” who nobody is willing to listen to and leave it at that, so far as electoral politics is concerned. Or move to Vermont so you can vote for a guy who functions effectively as a (social) Democrat but doesn’t have to embarrass his more leftish supporters with the Dreaded Parenthetical D. (Doesn’t Sanders at least deserve his own Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor ?) There’s no instant gratification for lefties in American politics, but over the long haul I’ll take Michael Harrington’s general perspective as offering some pragmatic strategy over those allegedly to his “left.” Actually, scratch that. I don’t need any “marxian” ideological cover for my common sense at this late date.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
If Begala were really inciisive he would have dug deep beneath the question of “NPR tote bags” and Volvos he raised last night and spoken directly to the fissures within the party over limousines and lattes. As for “eggheads and African-Americans”, I think he’s holding back as well. The correct formulationi is “pointy-headed intellectuals” and “cadillac-driving welfare queens.” Begala has a long way to go if he’s going to be taken seriously on the Lou Dobbs All-American Hour.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Hillary for VP? Why? No strategic advantage comes with it. The Clintons shot their wad on this one. They alienated blacks, they’ve tapped out the money, they’ve turned off a huge number of people who once supported them in the party, and Hillary is not liked by a lot of people who don’t identify as Democrats. The negatives far outweigh the positives.
Plus they have been sniping at each other for so long now, I don’t really think the ill-will can be papered over so easily on the same ticket.
Now she is making noises that she will be out by June 15th. Again, why? If you know you’re done, why stay in for 6 more weeks. Obama will have run against her longer than he will be able to run against McCain. What self-serving calculation is keeping her in now. All the comments before that she was still fighting with some kind of chance to win, evaporate and now she’s actively hurting the party.
On the VP, Obama needs a nice, safe white guy with military and foreign policy experience. Maybe someone a bit older than him. Wesley Clark comes to mind. Max Cleland perhaps. Jim Webb.
But I also think there is room for something more dramatic: Maybe Lincoln Chafee. Maybe Bill Richardson.
Richardson is interesting. Obama will mobilize black voting like never before. And the newly important Latino vote will be much more likely to go for this ticket with Richardson. This has the possibility of forging a new sustained base of the Democratic party for years to come–one that can counter the long erosion of the importance of labor in the party.
Given the squeakers that the recent pres races have been, even a few extra points from the Latino base could be decisive.
Can’t decide what the right thing to do is. Nice and safe (Harkin, Biden), or go for something else, like Cleland or Richardson, or even some other Republican. I kind of want to see him go for it, but I may be nuts.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
**The correct formulation is “pointy-headed intellectuals” and “cadillac-driving welfare queens.” **
Forgive me for not keeping up with how Democrats go around describing themselves.
I stand corrected.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
I was using the Lou Dobbs All American Hour, Nixon’s Southern Strategy and Reagan’s Bright, White Morning in America (now turned to dusk for his stalwarts) as the linquistic standard, not the Democratic playbook (Begala seems to have lost his copy.)
May 7th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
“On the VP, Obama needs a nice, safe white guy with military and foreign policy experience. Maybe someone a bit older than him. Wesley Clark comes to mind. Max Cleland perhaps. Jim Webb.”
This was always my assumption. But now I’m not so sure. The question is — will Hillary’s devoted female supporters refuse to get behind Obama. If that’s actually possible, she may have as much strategic value on the ticket as Webb et al. Also, it may help to have the Clintons both fully on board and not undermining things from the sidelines.
Not saying I’d want her as VP. Just that the calculus isn’t so simple.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
reg seems to be aiming square at me with the stuff on Franken. I’d sure as hell like to see him the senate, and I’d agree on his old-school Minnesta soc-dem views. I don’t see much difference between him and Bernie, except Bernie uses Vermont language, which can incorporate explicit anti-capitalism, while Franken uses Minessota speak.
Neither of them pose fundamental challenges, but I support both of them trying to chip away, as I do Obama, who, with larger limitations than Franken and Sanders - or Edwards for that matter, he’s by far the most progressive presidential candidate, at least culturally, probably in American history. He is the first politician I myself feel identified with ,so if he seems limited and cynical, I judge him as I would a peer who is imperfect as opposed to a scummy politician establishmentarian. His new “I’m imperfect” line is compellign, I must say.
So your suggestion that my radical world view doesn’t jibe with the US context is incredibly wrong. In fact, if not for people with my poitn of view, the cultural language spoken by both candidates would not even exist. Obama was a student and friend of many people I admire.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I was responding specifically to Stu N…
May 7th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
“Obama was a student and friend of many people I admire.”
Reg’s have a good day JC. Don’t ruin it by scaring the hell of of him.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Is Hillary’s offer to make Obama her V.P. running mate still on the table?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
That would be ‘having’ and ‘out’ not ‘of’.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Let’s recall the argument in MC’s post:
“Tuesday night Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic nomination — again.
“Now, more than ever, there remains no democratic way for Clinton to win the nomination….”
“It’s all over now, except for the paperwork.”
My point was that Barack Obama has not clinched the nomination, “it” is NOT all over, and there IS a way for Clinton to get the nomination: by winning it according to the rules set out by the Democratic party.
Whether those Democratic rules are democratic is a legitimate topic of debate, but the Democratic party, I have to explain, is not a democracy. It is
an elective organization goverened by rules of its own invention.
Those rules are undeniable. Super-delegates are empowered to vote as they please. Obama has not won until that pesky Democratic Party “paperwork” says so. To argue otherwise is to be
wrong.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Poor Sam Stott. Come November, he’s about to start living in Occupied America!
How delusional does one have to be to actually believe the Democratic Party is run be left wing nutballs?
Sam, sorry. But the DP is run by the same sort of people who run the GOP: corrupt, all-American pols intertwined with the wealthiest interests in the country.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Still time to donate…
May 7th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Ms Beacon,
You are so confused and wrong in so many ways I will have to quote you.
“When Samual Stott isn’t proffering Limbaugh propaganda and suggesting that the best thing for the Democratic Party (which he hates) would be a knock-down fight that goes all the way to the convention, he’s accusing various commenters of not engaging him in intellectually serious and honest debate.”
1. Whether I agree or disagree with Rush Limbaugh on any given point is irrelevant. If Rush says X he might be right, he might wrong. I am not an irrational Leftist, so I don’t have to know what Rush thinks to know I think the opposite. I don’t adduce Rush as an authority and touchstone. You do.
2. I don’t hate the Democratic Party, I hate the DSA, George McGovern, Black Panther, Michael Moore, Tom Harkin, Jeremiah Wright, Nation magazine, Council on American-Islamic Relations wing of the Party. I support the Scoop Jackson, Joe Lieberman, FDR, JFK, New Republic Wing.
The argument I made was that as a matter of fact, the Democratic race is not closed. You nowhere, yourself, address my argument.
My other argument was that the Left is full of anti-democratic loons who can’t argue, and become enraged when they face opposition —with their ideas, with their candidates.
Clearly you are having a bit of trouble in this regard yourself. You accuse me of arguing that “the best thing for the Democratic Party would be a knock-down fight that goes all the way to the convention.”
I said no such thing. I said that Party loyalists should be celebrating the fact that a woman and a black are the Party’s contenders.
You are putting words in my mouth, just like you are ascribing partisan sympathies to me that I don’t have.
I am not a Republican. I am an enemy of the Loony Left. I might not vote this time, but if Barack gets the nomination I might vote for him. It depends upon how hard he runs to the Right, how quickly he jettisons his Loony Left supporters. Reverand Wright knows exactly what I am talking about.
And in closing, Ms. Beacon, I will quote you a final time:
“Honest debate means that you argue things that you honestly believe.”
That sums up your confusion nicely. Honest debate means nothing of the kind. Honest debaters can easily argue pro one day, con the next.
Honest debate means that you observe rules of rationality, eschew logical fallicies, (such as ad hominem and ascription of personal motives) and attend arguments, not the people making them.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:51 am
Dano says: “On the VP, Obama needs a nice, safe white guy with military and foreign policy experience. Maybe someone a bit older than him. Wesley Clark comes to mind. Max Cleland perhaps. Jim Webb.”
Mark Penn himself couldn’t have said it any worse than that.
This is exactly why Democrats keep losing elections. They don’t understand branding nearly as well as Republicans do.
Specifically, Democrats think that because Republicans paint them as too intelligent, too urban and not militaristic enough, they need to respond by taking actions that make them seem less intelligent, less urban and more militaristic.
So off goes Michael Dukakis to ride in a tank; John Kerry to open the DN Convention with a military salute and then to pose in duck hunting gear and Al Gore to wear earth tones and turn up his Southern accent. And then on to lose, of course.
Enough already with pandering to Bubba. It simply doesn’t work in any sustainable, politically viable way. More often than not, Bubba simply sees liberal pandering as yet another slight to his ultra-fragile, uber-important self-image as a “real” American.
It seems, mostly, that Obama understands this and has a vision to take the party into real politics where the idea isn’t to trick a few voters away from your opponents by mimicing them, but to actually persuade them away by making clear, timely arguments that demonstrate the opponents’ weaknesses, rather than try to siphon away their strength.
Hillary will make an excellent VP.
By nominating her, Obama will bury the idea that the viscious primaries left the party divided–a meme the mainstream media is currently pounding away on–or that the Clinton legacy is somehow something to be embarrassed about, rather than to celebrate as a high-water mark for economic growth, human rights, ecological protection, diplomacy, jurisprudence and, really, progressivism in general.
May 8th, 2008 at 5:13 am
bunkerbuster -
First, if you ever read my posts here, and I’m not saying you should, you’ll know that I loathe the DLC, and its whole strategy. I disagree with reg on the progressive tone (he mentioned that earlier I think), mainly because I think there is profound discomfort over the economy, and I think Paul Kennedy is right about his overstretch thesis. I also think that people’s political views tend to the center-left much more than you would ever know by looking at the media. The right has managed to make the word liberal demonic, but the people are, actually, liberal, in the main.
Second, Obama does not pander to Bubba, but if you need to do that at all, the VP slot is the place to do it. Some people worry about his being black. Some worry about his age. Some worry about his experience. The VP slot is the place to square the frame.
Third, can someone please tell me what in the hell is wrong with wanting someone with foreign policy and military experience? Would you prefer we have a ticket with neither? I don’t want jingoistic uber-patriots, but I do want someone who knows and respects military culture. We’re overrun in this country with obsequious deference to the military, it is annoying, and dangerous. But there is still a noble tradition that takes the form of military service. The left makes a great mistake when it ignores this, worse, when it ridicules this. That is not pandering to bubba, that is doing on the left, with the military, the same thing Obama is doing with race and political polarization.
And, can you not see the full-throated howler you just left on the screen? Stop pandering to bubba, but bring on Hillary? Have you been paying attention at all, Van Winkle?
May 8th, 2008 at 6:17 am
“I don’t want jingoistic uber-patriots,”
Especially those who wear those irritating flag pins, cover their hearts when pledging allegiance…….don’t get me going on that ‘allegiance’ thing. Another story all together.
All shallow drone like ‘nationalist’ symbols.
‘True’ patriotism is intelligent patriotism. Patriotism that probes and challenges, criticizes, exposes and amplifies for the ‘international’ community of humanity, faults, mistakes, imperfections and imperialist policies of the big chauvinistic bully.
The big bully that lies and people die. People dying trying to crash their gates, that should be open anyway, to join the big pigs pile. Disgusting unintelligent fools all.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Especially those who wear those irritating flag pins
Which, of course. leaves out John McCain.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Dano opines:
“Some people worry about his being black. Some worry about his age. Some worry about his experience. The VP slot is the place to square the frame.”
Hmmm. You say you don’t like the DLC, but your comments represent their worldview verbatim.
This is exactly why almost every Democratic VP or VP nominee in our lifetime has been a white southern male viewed as more militaristic than the presidential nominee himself. Don’t you think you should ask yourself why the combination has LOST election after election after election?
The idea that a voter who’s “worried” about Obama’s ethnicity is going to have his mind changed by the selection of a Bubba-lite style VP is beyond moronic. In fact, a Bubba-lite VP would only draw Obama into contrast, further accentuating his attributes as a highly educated, urban, mixed-race, northeastern liberal.
Dano asks:
“Can someone please tell me what in the hell is wrong with wanting someone with foreign policy and military experience?”
The people who drove us into Iraq had foreign policy and military experience going back to the Nixon administration. That’s not to say that experience is necessarily a negative, just that it can by no means be assumed to be a positive. If experience is important to you, you’ll be voting for McCain.
As regards Obama, if you think his inexperience in foreign policy is a problem, perhaps you should review the performance of past presidents. The only two with previous foreign policy experience were Richard Nixon and GHW Bush. True, the two were far more capable of understanding subtlety and strategy than is the moron currently occupying the office, but the record shows those abilities didn’t prevent them from stepping squarely into the deep doo doo.
Contrast that with William Jefferson Clinton, who on Day One had ZERO foreign policy experience. His record has a few blemishes: the mishandling of Iraq sanctions, Sudan bombing and Bosnia crisis, but, on the whole, he kept the country out of major conflicts, which was a major, often underappreciated, factor in keeping the economy and domestic policy on track.
More important, the idea that the VP should fill in holes in Obama’s profile is a little silly and, the record shows, not something voters buy. Usually, the opposite is the case. An older VP nominee with vast foreign policy experience and disdain for academia/latte/Volvos and NPR would only draw an even bolder contrast with Obama, rather than ameliorating his critics’ concerns.
and…
“And, can you not see the full-throated howler you just left on the screen? Stop pandering to bubba, but bring on Hillary?”
You may recall that Hillary was not always a Bubba panderer. She resorted to that specifically as a tactic to respond to Obama’s appeal. As even Marc has pointed out, she is now working verbatim from the McCain/GOP playbook.
As a vice presidential nominee she would have no political, moral, financial or logical reason to maintain that strategy. She would be there to support Obama 100 percent and wait to accept the hand off in 2016.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:16 am
>I’ll take Michael Harrington’s
>general perspective
Um, Harrington came to the point you are referring to as a Troskyist following a deeply dishonest plan to dupe liberals into taking orders from one of the slimiest Leninist cults ever to aggregate in the sewer of politics. At some point he may have started believing his own propaganda and become a sincere welfare-state DP liberal. Since neither you nor I are inside his head there is no way to know.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Stott -
You seem to consider Limbaugh a reasonable, though fallible sort, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. You’re quite exercised over the ‘loonies of the left’ and delight in naming them. You don’t seem to find any analogous loonies lurking on the right, at least none worth ever talking about (this is somewhat reminiscent of Lieberman over the past few years).
Are you such a committed centrist Democrat that the Republicans simply don’t matter to you? Is that why they come in for no opprobrium? Are you really a TNR type of guy; in its most recent incarnation it’s often left of center (by today’s standards anyway)? Or are you really more comfortable with the Weekly Sandard but still somehow manage to stomach TNR. And why, if the Nation is so reprehensibly radical, is there no similar denouncemet of the National Review or the Weekly Standard?
And why, considering all this, would you even consider voting for Obama, who is, at a minimum, a left-leaning moderate with a fair amount of integrity? (Which means that he may seek to work with Republicans but he’s not likely to make a sudden lurch to the right for some political gain.)
Why wouldn’t McCain automatically be your guy?
I’m mystified.
May 8th, 2008 at 7:45 am
So Stott, do you support the FDR who hired Marxists like Paul Sweezy and believed, unlike the thug Truman, in a Post-war order dedicated to peace and stability? The FDR who encouraged co-operative, non-capitalist wealth accumulation?
Further, if Hilary gets picked by Obama as his running mate, it will offend a lot of people.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:03 am
bunkerbuster -
Your reading of politics leaves a lot to be desired, but you’re fond of putting that fact on display, so, no matter. It is not the choice of the VP that has scuttled the people running for president, it’s that the people running for president have been playing from the DLC playbook. That is, run to the right; run on free trade, hide labor in the closet, out-tough them on crime, spike the military budget, and in the case of the Clinton’s is included gutting welfare, and so on. THIS is the strategy that fails, and that Clinton uniquely managed to pull off (where Gore and Kerry failed), because he’s so damn charismatic.
Obama decidedly does not represent that strategy, but that fact hardly erases the notion that we ought to be concerned with the sectoral and political implications of the whole ticket. Kennedy hated Johnson, but Johnson brought voters into play that would be unavailable to Kennedy.
On the race issue, I’m suggesting something a little more subtle than your sledge hammer responses leave room for. Of course, no hard core racist will be swayed by a white on the ticket. But let’s admit that there are plenty of people who do not think of themselves as racist, but who still have a some small never-acknowledged-in-the-sun core of our great American afflicition. *Those* people may be swayed. Stop pretending this condition is a binary rather than a spectrum.
Asking for foreign policy experience is not the same as asking for a Kissingerian war monger. You take reductionism to new lows. Congrats. What I am saying is that someone on the ticket with some experience will help. I don’t find it likely that Obama will be led into some disastrous and misguided war. Do you? If so, then he is not fit to receive your vote.
I actually think experience is neutral and depends much on the context. A total lack of experience can sometimes be a very good thing. However, there are two other considerations. This president has to win battles in a political realm with actors who are savvy political players. Lack of experience here can hurt. And the addition of someone like Jim Webb (who doesn’t really fit your derisive caricature), is a move over perceptions, and a move to blunt the attacks that wil be made in the general. It’s castling your king before the other guy can start in on you. The campaign is *all* about perception.
Lastly, you would improve your sense of things greatly if you started to think of Bill and Hillary as a unit. The bubba pander did not begin in early ‘08, it began in about 1991. It began with her husband. It began with the DLC, and it is the position that’s been pushed by them ever since. It’s “beyond moronic” to think she staretd this in reaction to Obama.
May 8th, 2008 at 8:23 am
They started “this” after, as McGovernite progs, they lost the first gubarnatorial election in Arkansas in which Billy ran, so Billy vowed to compromise with power.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
“a Troskyist following a deeply dishonest plan to dupe liberals into taking orders from one of the slimiest Leninist cults ever to aggregate in the sewer of politics. At some point he may have started believing his own propaganda and become a sincere welfare-state DP liberal. Since neither you nor I are inside his head there is no way to know.”
That’s crazy. Really an incredibly tendentious and twisted version of Harrington. As for getting “inside his head,” he wrote numerous books that were completely honest about his ideological predilictions as well has his poltiical goals. Also some memoirs that dealt openly with the Shactmanites and his history with them. It would be hard to find a man of the left who was less “dishonest” than Michael Harrington. He’s by no means above reproach - his sectarian paranoia in dealing with early SDS and his apprehension about breaking with LBJ are two cases in point where he was wrong IMHO - but your characterization is bizarre and indefensible.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I have a different view on the reasons Bill Clinton succeeded where a series of Dems before and after him failed.
Clinton I won because the Cold War paradigm collapsed around its own contradictions.
Lacking a permanent war and a permanent enemy more evil than evil itself, the Republican narrative tent has no centerpole.
Bush I ran after having won an immensely popular war for lfar less money and less lives than expected. To be sure, the economy still groaned under the leftover Reagan deficits, but growth had remained steady, if anemic, but why couldn’t he win?
Without fear–very large, very dramatic fear–the consistency and integrity of the GOP narrative that sweeps across crime to religion to race and the economy falls apart.
Reagan’s legendary “let them eat cake” attitude toward poor people came across as “toughness” at a time when “tough” was the most important of all adjectives a candidate could have in front of his name. The Cold War could have just has easily been called the GOP re-election plan, because whenever and wherever there is a permanent war, the GOP will win the presidency. The “tough” image stretches to fit across the entire GOP brand, from immigration, to crime to education, religion and economic growth.
The Democrats have no such center pole concept that can tie together all their positions. Unfortunately, in a world where entertainment and news media are the real religions, narrative coherence is essential.
The present circumstance is an exception only because W and his team have screwed up this war so badly, they’ve given away the game. People are fed up enough to actually rebel against the basic order of permanent militarism.
To illustrate: try imagining if the war in Iraq had not gone so badly. We’d be two months away from invading Iran, or Syria, or Yemen or somewhere and the GOP nominee would be 20 points ahead in the polls, even with the economy down the sewer. And the candidate would be talking about how tough he is on immigrants, crime, poor people, cripples and so on and on.
But because the war is such a massive failure, there is a very good chance the “tough” brand won’t find buyers this time.
This is a golden opportunity for the Democrats to form a new progressive majority. They won’t get it by tricking a percentage of the GOP’s base into voting Democrat. They’ll do it by peeling away libertarian and non-ideological Republicans on the party’s fringe. That’s all we need, along with a solid, united showing from the Democratic base.
May 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ha. I just read Samuel Stott’s response which amounts to a little less than nothing. So now your argument is not that it’s good for Democrats if Clinton stays in the race. I think. It’s hard to tell with all the bobbing and weaving. If so, I’m pretty sure the only point you’re left with is that Clinton isn’t legally obligated to drop out. Very nicely done. You’ve really stuck it to us all.
As to your “debating tactics,” I will, in deference to your objections, merely refer to you as intellectually dishonest and not a dishonest debator.
As a parting gift, let me point to this excellent Nation article: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080519/betsyreed
May 8th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
>Really an incredibly tendentious and twisted version of Harrington.
Maybe a version that unfairly ended too early, but not one that is inaccurate. My characterization is a pretty exact description of his stance as a Schachtmanite when joining the SP. I am sure you’ll agree that his comrades helped destroy the SP with their conspiratorial politics and bizarre political line. I’d add, that the strategy of working within the DP is and always has been self-defeating (this was before the Sh-ites started working within the *Republican* party, which I bet even you will agree is unliikely to lead to socialism.) There was a lot to atone for here.
The SP would still be marginal today even if they had kicked out the Schachtmanites. Still, we would be a lot better off if we had even a weak democratic left party to rally around or at least to frigging vote for. Instead we try to convince ourselves that the least-bad of our opponents are secret social democrats, despite all evidence, and work to support a party that represents the interests of the capitalists who fund it. It might not be fair to say that Harrington still thought like a Schachtmanite conspirator after he quit the cult. Still, DSA advocates the same failed strategy down to today.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Evets,
Herewith in reply to your questions, since they so noticeably procede from good faith and not partisan ideological dementia:
“You seem to consider Limbaugh a reasonable, though fallible sort, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. You’re quite exercised over the ‘loonies of the left’ and delight in naming them. You don’t seem to find any analogous loonies lurking on the right, at least none worth ever talking about (this is somewhat reminiscent of Lieberman over the past few years).”
Right-wing Loonies analogous to the Left-wing Loonies I attack on this blog would be (In no special order, with no special weights attached to their deleterious influences: abortion-clinic bombers, Pat Robertson, the Christian Identity movement, the pathetic remnants of the John Birch Club, some of the elements that congregate around Chronicles Magazine, and the scary people who send their kids to Bob Jones University.
“Are you such a committed centrist Democrat that the Republicans simply don’t matter to you? Is that why they come in for no opprobrium? Are you really a TNR type of guy; in its most recent incarnation it’s often left of center (by today’s standards anyway)? Or are you really more comfortable with the Weekly Sandard but still somehow manage to stomach TNR. And why, if the Nation is so reprehensibly radical, is there no similar denouncemet of the National Review or the Weekly Standard?”
You really hit the nail on the head, here. I am not a Democrat; I am not a Republican; and I believe that the metaphor engendered by the legislative seating arrangments in Revolutionary France obscures more than it explains. I do not believe that history unfolds as a series of conflicts between a “Left” and a “Right” and I think anyone who does is delusional, and is practicing a kind of historicist religious faith that is notable for being incoherent on its own terms. On the very rare occasions you come across someone who even attempts to explain Inca or Roman history according to a “Left-Right” schema, if you know anything about history, you know you are in the presence of a raving lunatic.
Such considerations certainly do result in me thinking that the self-identified “Left” has fallen on hard intellectual times, and I will give you a concrete example of why I say so, and why, yes,
I think the National Review, today, is far more sane and Liberal than the Nation.
When Jeremiah Wright got up before the NAACP, before an appreciative audience, and explained that “Blacks” (science says that there is no such thing as race) learn from a different part of their brain than “whites” (science says that there is no such thing as race) he was recycling the very same arguments that the people who owned his ancestors used to keep them in chains.
To say that “whites” are better able than “blacks” to sit in a chair and learn mathematics by rote is pure, stark, insane racism.
Go to the National Review and see how aggresively this blatant, disgusting racism was scorned and ridiculed. Now find me the Nation article (I could well have missed it) that does the same.
In any case, I have noticed anyone on this blog condemning this disgusting racism.
If “progressivism” means ignoring this kind of vile insanity, and it does, then, of course, I am an enemy of “progressivism” and the loony left.
Finally, I can consider voting for Obama because
I am not a blinkered ideologue. I understand the realities of American politics and fully understand that anyone gets as far as Obama has gotten is willing to make many deals with the devil.
I respected the dispatch with which Obama threw his “father” under the bus, once the association became unviable. If this guy gets the Democratic nomination, and he almost certainly will, he will run so hard and fast to the Right it will make your head spin.
Like at least a third of the electorate, I am not a partisan and don’t believe in heaven on earth, and am willing to vote for the most promising (i.e.,
least repellent candidate) when I care to vote, at all.
But I would have to be a “progressive” to believe that “Obama” is pure and Hillary filthy, damaged goods.
As I would also have to be a silly partisan ideologue to believe that either Republicans or Democrats are ruining everything, (they both are; they both aren’t) and that I must pull out all the stops, right now, to save the Republic from one or the other.
If Hillary had the nomination clinched, all of these ridiculous partisan ideologues, here, would turn their fury upon the Republican nominee, in exactly they way they are attacking Hillary.