MyDD :: It is time to move past the genteel inner party squabbles

It is time to move past the genteel inner party squabbles

by PeteRock, Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:05:42 AM EST

Comments made about prior long campaigns and the RFK tragedy have been flung around to the point of a mania.

Now as to the orgy of HRC bashing that has gone on at various blogs since Friday at the enraged level, the hyberbole over the top level, and diaries and frontpage stories have repeated the worst accusations and vitriol, well, I have a reservation:

That all this anger and constant venting towards Clinton will transfer in sufficient amount to her supporters or people who voted her before getting to know the alternatives. And now her most frenzied supporters are playing the martydom role, as if all this indignation with Clinton and her campaign some how has a simple, single cause of "We don't like her". Not true.
(more)

First of all she has a troubled record for the past several years that would give any democrat pause, let alone progressives and those who see thru Bush and his criminal friends and cronies.

There are many democrats who are basically loyal Democrats by tradition and accept HRC as she is and don't look too deeply. Just dumping wrath and frustration on her won't do much except dismay and bewilder those people. They have to see HRC is done, is losing the nomination gradually over a period of time and there are excellent and compelling reasons for her losing the primary race.

Not that she is insane, or stupid or Lady MacBeth or Queen of Appalachia(my favorite, sorry) or other petty and useless
ad hominems and feel good playground insults. Those are bloggers
characterizations in the psychology of joining in and indicating indignant and outraged on various threads.

This is a runup to an election in progress. Nominee being declared hasn't happened yet. We need to rally all our staunch people and our likely- to- vote-democratic people. We need smart, not potty mouth. Anger is of very limited use in politics. Cold quiet calculating actions almost always work better than any others you can name.

For people who are aware and astute, how can we be playing the rage card to the extreme and allowing the other side to launch a pity party in defense? No way should they have that opportunity.

Thank goodness this is mainly on the blogs and not creating havoc among the broad masses of voters.

Tags: Presidential nomination 2008, bloghysteria, Democratic party (all tags)

Permalink :: 23 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: It is time to move past the genteel inner part (1.00 / 1)

What he said.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:11:45 AM EST

Re: It is time to move past the genteel inner part (2.00 / 1)

Sigh. it isn't exactly snark, except a non affiliated Democratic voter, if there are such left out on the range at this pont would be wondering about the amount of stuff being flung back and forth.

There are diaries that have links and evidence for how this primary process was orchestrated over 4 years ago with the arrangement of contests stackedor "front end loaded" yet again like 2004 to get a nominee or candidate selected fairly quickly. It also favored the well known candidates going in, the heavyweights at least those well funded ones. the surprise is the pundits were nearly all wrong. yet again.

Why do we have pundits? Oh,sothey can make lots of money channeling back and corraling citizens who might go off the reservation to vote...

Stay tuned. Binding up wounds after Cl-Custer's last stand will be interesting.

Disclosure: I was a Gore, than Edwards supporter this time. Down to my third choice already.

by PeteRock on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is time to move past the genteel inner part (1.50 / 2)

Snark? I was agreeing with you.

Hooray for John McCain!

by ragekage on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:25:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I wonder if most Hillary Haters realize that (2.00 / 2)

they hurt their own candidate's chances every time they speak badly of the Clintons. Like it or not, the Clinton's were the last Democratic administration, and for everything bad they say about him (and her) the GOP can point fingers and say "See even Democrats themselves agree that (such and such) about their own party!"

You wont catch a GOP bashing Reagan or the Bushes. That sort of party unity is one reason they have been winning so many presidential elections. We should try party unity for a change (and win for a change)!!!!!!

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 02:57:46 AM EST

Re: I wonder if most Hillary Haters realize that (2.00 / 1)

PS. Before any Obama supporters jump on my case with 1001 reasons why you believe Hillary is more divisive than Obama.........don't worry about it. The point is unity, not which candidate is better or worse at this point, imo

Hillary/Obama 2008

by Sandy1938 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:00:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bye, Friends! (2.00 / 4)

Posts have become moot at this point. Discussion has all but been replaced by spewing of multiple pictures, laced with trojan horse comments that just continue the hate filled assault on Hillary Clinton and her supporters. What the Obama machine's relentless attacks have accomplished: The devaluation and denigration of people who were all but waiting for a dignified completion of the primary process before unifying. Two weeks. This whole process has been like the town cheering on the young boy as he beats a red fox to death in the town square. I'm on the red fox's side. My people have always been so out of respect. Thanks to all those who were able to act civilly and supportively of me and other Democrats during this process. Now back to the real world where I'll just be a random target. Don't party like it's 1869. Self-focused identity politics has always meant Republicans beat Democrats. Learn from 150 years of history. Don't be its victim, again and again. Be well, all.

Barack Obama is my President

by Jeter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:14:27 AM EST

I would certainly like to move along with unity (none / 0)

And all that jazz, but some people around here need to want to do the same.

Until then, I will defend my canidiate as vehemently as they attack him.

Users who are excessively bashing the Democratic Party, or being Republican trolls, will be banned.

by Massadonious on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:14:40 AM EST

No (2.00 / 1)

Most people who support Hillary who want to vote Democratic in the fall will do so (assuming Obama is the nominee). In the meantime, these increasingly urgent calls for unity seem like thinly guised pretexts to silence half of the party into submission.

Personally, I know I'd prefer the (as you call her) "Queen of Appalachia" electoral map, given that she starts with a 46 EV Appalachian advantage, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia being her back pocket. Lifelong Democrats who support Hillary are decidedly not cool with throwing that out the window, along with Florida's 27 EV's. We don't care what sort of sweeping promises Obama claims he can bring to Nebraska's 2 Congressional districts (at the expense of the GOP leaning Maine district?) and North Dakota. We don't buy that winning Colorado (9 EV's if they don't split by referendum) and increasing our chances in Iowa (7 EV's) is worth trading distinct advantages in Florida (27), Ohio (20), Pennsylvania (21), Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5), New Hampshire (4), and a decent shot at Missouri (11). It's the math.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:26:12 AM EST

Re: No (none / 0)

Stop being silly... polls this far out are meaningless... for one the pollsters are using the same turnout model for Hillary and Barack... which throws everything completely off... both have strengths, both have weaknesses...

Hillary does appear to run well in ohio and florida.. but what about wisconsin, minnesota, oregon, washington and michigan? Both canidates have weaknesses and could lose.. but I think either would win

by CaptainMorgan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No (none / 0)

Polls are relevant at this point to the extent that they show patterns and trends. I don't know why you would assume I base my analysis solely on a few random state polls; I certainly never said that in my comment.

One must consider the demographics of the states, the candidates' respective appeal to those segments, and the state as a whole, as shown by county-by-county returns from Election 2000, Election 2004, and the Dem Primary 2008. Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington are blue regardless of the nominee. It's not important to "win more" in those states from an EV standpoint. Winning them by 5-6% gets the job done equally well.

And that's part of the problem. Obama's national support is spread throughout states where it doesn't matter. Really, we don't need to win Illinois by 40%. It doesn't help.

2004 swing state margins: PA-2%, OH-2%, IA-1%, WI-0.5%, MI-3%, FL-5%, NM-1%; Alienating 50% of the party is a luxury we can't afford.

by BPK80 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

genteel inner party squabbles (none / 0)

The Democrats would do well to abolish superdelegates (and any rules which allow pledged delegates to ignore the will of the voters who sent them there), because so long as the supporters of one candidate can view them as a "court of last resort" close races will always be divisive, and, in the eyes of those who supported the also-ran, tainted with illegitimacy.

The same thing happened during the Carter/Kennedy race in 1980 (when Kennedy hoped to win over Carter-pledged delegates on the floor). And the same thing happened in 1984 (when Hart pursued this insane strategy of thinking he could get all of the superdelegates to back him at the convention).

The argument put forth by Clinton supporters that she's the more electable candidate is subjective and rests on a troubling foundation I have yet to hear one acknowledge: the disparties between the two candidates, in all of these head-to-head polls, essentially comes down to the fact that more Clinton supporters (1/2 to 2/3rds) are telling pollsters they'll vote for McCain or stay home this November.

Not only isn't this a good state of affairs, if one takes a step back from the emotions of this race it should be deeply troubling to anyone who cares about the future of the party. What's essentially a personality contest might lead to a long-term rift.

What many don't get know, I think, is that the situation is still relatively fluid (or at least people can cling to this belief). One of these candidates is going to win. The other will lose. It's possible this will occur admidst perceptions that the nomination was effectively stolen. It's quite possible the Dems will lose this November for one reason: other Dems did not turn out.

And if any, or all, of this happens, these facts will be set in stone. That's the big difference between, I think, between the situation today and what it will be next January which few are appreciating, the extent to which there will be facts which can't be undone, grievances will harden, and what started as an inter-party spat will have a long life (one consequence of which, I predict, is that the viability of both of these candidates will have been destroyed, which doesn't mean the Dems won't expend a lot of time and money figuring this out).

The culprit? Superdelegates. This idea that there should be a court of last resort. When has it ever happened that an election ended with the supporters of one candidate concluding that those on the other side had made the better case? Never! That's not what politics is about.

What a simple process yields, though, is finality and legitimacy. We were right but we got out-voted. The election is over and it's time to prepare for the next one. No running to Mommy and Daddy to make it all better.

What we're also going to find out soon, I predict, is that the superdelegates don't really want to play the role of Mommy and Daddy (and aren't really equipped to do this). That won't stop people, though, from believing that they've defaulted on their duties in some fundamental way (whatever the outcome).

Abolish them. It's not just that they can't solve the problem. They are the problem.

by IncognitoErgoSum on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:43:41 AM EST

Re: genteel inner party squabbles (none / 0)

Also, who can't appreciate this irony: six months ago it looked as though the Republicans would be the party which fell apart during its primary season. They had too many candidates, some serious inter-party disputes, were saddled with the job of defending an unpopular president, one of their candidates was virtually ruled ineligable by a wing of their party on account of religion, another was deemed too religious, and so on.

And not only did the conservative apostate win, but he did so pretty quickly, and in a manner which caused, who knows, maybe half of the GOP to throw a tantrum, and if there were any Mommy and Daddy for them to have gone to you know that would have been thier next stop.

But there wasn't. The Republican rules told those who had backed the also-rans, "Suck it up". And because of this, the GOP is very unified today (they'll have some huge problems this fall, but inter-party spats and defections probably won't be among them).

by IncognitoErgoSum on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: genteel inner party squabbles (none / 0)

This is a complicated subject, really it is.

There is a decided lack of awareness of what a political party is in the minds and hearts of many supporters of both candidates standing for the nomination right now. The truth is a big gap in how the long time Democrats who have been struggling to achieve their goals over a number of cycles and not lost their ideals;
the ones who view it as a vehicle for their careers;
the average citizen who is not a professional political worker;
the citizens who only know "Democrats " and "Republicans" from school books or FOX news broadcasts;
and others like our blog participants view our situation today.

The intensity of the current fight to land the presidential nomination brings out the best and worst of many people. They are saying things or imputing things that a couple of weeks from now they may regret-but,the danmage is done.

For all the hurt that is tossed around remember this is about the ambition to succeed of two persons and how that ambition is expressed and condoned, applauded or resented by the OTHER side.

Our system of selecting a chief executive has gotten way too elaborate and pompous and prone to mob hysteria. An expanded view (inside the demoocratic Party)of an ultra democratic trend where more and more votes are taken,and on and on for years just to have a "democratically elected candidate" has turned into a caricature in many ways of democracy.

England, other western democracies have six week "primaries" or vetting so candidates can be selected ahead of a general election. No one gets harmed by that brief intense period of attention.
They don't spend hundreds of millions of dollars and exhaust everyones patience, good will, credulity and incur the wrath and emnity of a big portion of their regular Party supporters.

The very idea we have a party,a team of players that can unite and consistently over time push an agenda and get things done is lacking in that the TV/cable punditry focuses on the looks and styling and 10 second "sound bites" of candidate C or candidate O.And this is supposed to be acceptable as a way to do it. No context, no history, no agreed on set of facts or fair rules of engaging the discourse.

Commercial messages, lying and hiding the critical story. The monopoly corporate media setting the parameters and even the arena in which we engage and fight to get an "acceptable"
candidate. And many of our people not even being aware of how thoroughly and cunningly they are being manipulated.

The superdelegates are a recognition that more and more democratic votes taken aren't helping. There has to be a finality and a balanced judicious view where the public relations campaign and passions don't run away with good sense and sober evaluations. That is a tall order.

by PeteRock on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:55:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is time to move past the Hillary hatred (none / 0)

I have a problem with these gratuitous insults from the Obama side- not only against Hillary, but also her supporters.
How many of you have seen the oft repeated "dead enders" used on this blog? How many Obama supporters have flooded this site with their hate and vitriol since DKos became an "echo chamber"- because it's just so much fun to hate Hillary, you need to spread all that hope around.
Even the diarist uses language like "frenzied" supporters to describe hillary supporters, uses ad hominems to describe Hillary, as if it's somehow amusing to insult those "low information" and "uneducated" voters who dared not to fall in line behind Obama.
And those of us who support Hillary are supposed to turn around after the convention and join with these Obama supporters, who are so full of hate, they can't even stop when their chosen candidate has all but won the nomination?
Your diary perfectly illustrates the arrogance of many of the Obama supporters here, using the pretense of joining together to get more gratuitous insults in at Hillary and her supporters.
I keep telling myself that (fortunately) Obama is not the sum of his supporters, and we so badly need a Democrat in the WH, that I will vote for him regardless of the ignorance displayed here and regardless of how he will govern as a president (compromising with Republicans won't end the war or get health care passed), but it gets harder every day.

by skohayes on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:52:54 AM EST

I agree..except three of us in my family (1.00 / 0)

WON'T vote for Obama.

Obama supporters only have to look in a mirror to determine the reason why.

The only question left is will they continue their games and force us not to vote for Obama but to actually vote for McCain. Sadly, I believe they will.

But, we survived 8 years of Bush...we can survive 4 years of McCain and then see if the Dems can snatch defest from the jaws of victory once again.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:50:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree..except three of us in my family (none / 0)

Nice.... throw a temper tantrum when you don't get your way.

Pathetic.... and immature

by CaptainMorgan on Mon May 26, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Sigh. You really don't understand, (none / 0)

do you?

It is not anger. It is concern for our country.

I have expressed it in detail so many times here only get told that I am throwing a temper tantrum.

Not so.

Strangely, when I do bother to re-post all of the reasons I will not vote for Obama, all I hear back is crickets. I guess no BO supporter has anything to counter my reasons except to claim I'm throwing a tantrum.

Wrong. But I am not voting for Obama.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is time to move past the Hillary hatred (none / 0)

skohayes: "Your diary perfectly illustrates the arrogance of many of the Obama supporters here, using the pretense of joining together to get more gratuitous insults in at Hillary and her supporters".

I am sorry you took this diary that way. I felt the incessant cheerleading of some supporters is hard to swallow or respond to,so i don't but I note it exists.

BHO isn't my first or even second choice. When Ewards dropped,Iwas leaning to HRC, but over several weeks that was an increasingly uncertain and troubling option. the personalattacks on BHO,the FOX whores flipping thanks to Murdoch,the RW using her campaign as a ool to attack BHO and democrats across the board, The HRC welcoming the FOX whores as supporters....there was a bunch of stuff that just cooled, depressed and finally simply turned any support I had into a wait for another to take the leadershipo role. HRC was the presumptive nominee,she had 40% or so of the democratic Party backing her last August. It has gone down since.

It is moot now, the race is over. All the really difficut things and lots of things needing doing by the democrats and that Obama may be reluctant to do are in front of us.

We have huge problems in front of us. Perhaps as bad overall as 1932 and the challenges then.

I don't want to add to the angst,I
really don't. But "frenzied"? what do you call those howlers at the RBC meeting chanting "Denver"
and claiming the meeting was stealing the nomination? History and over with now.

by PeteRock on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:35:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is time to move past the genteel inner part (2.00 / 1)

Have you considered that those of us who support her do so because of her record, not in spite of it? Profuse apologies if she's not 'progressive enough' for you.

I do agree that it's been overblown; there's a story in Politico saying how they basically knew it was a non-issue, but they blew it up and drew attention to it anyway.

"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."

by VAAlex on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM EST

Amen, VAAlex. (none / 0)

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 09:51:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It is time to move past the genteel inner par (none / 0)

Coyote creek,VAAlex,skohayes: I hear you.

Really. I know that a subset of supporters"go too far". When I read that some partisans of one candidate (because that is what we are describing,
the supporters and their passions and their activities ) comments here or on other blogs)

take a statement like comparing intelligence and use it to make a case for one or the other I Hide rate or troll rate. Guess what? My ,and 2 others troll rate of that got out-uprated 28-3. The passion/manic brigade won that round.

I am pointing out the obvious, that some supporters would rather spend their time and energy and comments on bashing Hillary than building up their own candidate. That gets me no love from them, and skepticism because of where this race for the nom is right now from HRC supporters.

OK. My worry is that this get turned around somehow, someway that does not hurt us in the fall regardless. Because the damage to the side that feels it was dismissed or manipulated or cheated will be reflected in the lessening of effort in what should be a landmark election by the Dems to reclaim our country and set many wrongs to rights.

I placed this here and cross posted at DKos.

I get exactly 4 comments so far, 3 of which are criticism it isn't time or I have not been sufficiently critical of the non Obama candidate.

"genteel party squabbles" happends to be a phrase out of Alegre's diary of yesterday. I used it for irony in my title. It is not genteel. It is not inner ,and it will be damaging,not a "squabble" unless we figure ways to save ourselves.
Kid Oakland, a prominent Obama blogger is looking for ways to give constructive outlets to those excited by the current goings on and I laud him for that.

by PeteRock on Mon May 26, 2008 at 10:29:27 AM EST

Thank you for trying, but I truly (none / 0)

think that for about 15 - 20% of HRC supporters (like me) you are wasting your time.

How can Barack Obama gain the experience we believe he lacks in the next 2 1/2 months to turn our opinions around? This concern is not something we arrived at lightly. I loved him in 2004 and thought he would make a great POTUS but never never never believed he would be so stupid as to try and run after one day in the senate.

He lacks in so many area, it difficult to even begin to articulate the problems he brings. And his advisers are not much better. You know, not one Obama Supporter has ever bothered to defend Jim Cooper to me? Why? He is a very big problem with UHC. And when I have asked seriously if BO would sign a truly UHC plan - which he does not support now - ...crickets. Not one serious discussion.

And, yes, I am disgusted at his smary platitudes. When he said "Sweetie" to the reporter I about fell off my chair. It came out too easy, to slick and his follow-up VM was ridiculous.

He's empty. Hollow. And he can't change that between now and November.

I am so sorry that he did not work on obtaining the credentials before he played his ego-driven game on the Democratic Party. Shame on him.

by CoyoteCreek on Mon May 26, 2008 at 12:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you for trying, but I truly (none / 0)

TThank you, coyote for your several comments in the diary. I believe we give the candidates too much power when all our hopes rise and fall with that one individual. It makes them larger than life not first citizen anong many but someone on a pedestal with special insights and special powers. That is a longing for a clutch of simple solutions, a "daddy" or a "mommy" to have all of the answers. Our politics must be more engaged, informed and nuanced than that.

Before the first primary the field of candidates included several that were quite comfortable moving smoothly without leaving a ripple in the corporate suites on occasion when needed. I refer to Joe Biden who is friendly and on excellent terms with the banks, and Hillary and Obama who have good rapport with the insurance industry and the Wall Street crowd. They are not as well represented among global industries and especially energy as Bush and Co.have had that for years, but it is changing a bit.

For us as Democrats to have any significant changes we must be realistic about these connections and put the pressure on either candidate to deliver and get tough with these people or face a hostility from us that will make it impossible to govern successfully. We don't want excuses for inaction or blocking crucial reforms to leave the power structures intact. What's clear on health, energy, foreign policy is an earthquake is coming. Either they move with alacrity ahead of the tremors or get swallowed up in the opening chasm and aftershocks.

America cannot keep blundering along picking fights with countries and exporting its wastefulness,its rapaciousness, its sorry record on resources and shifting financial burdens to others to defend itself. That leads to an awful showdown eventually, even a world war.

In summing up: both Clinton and Obama have serious limitations and flaws. They act upon the bidding of their most powerful constituents, either as individuals or as groups, and that must be made clear and the blinders removed from peoples' eyes. Neither is a paragon, yet neither is a simple slug that will be useless for 4 or 8 years.

But only if we have a sober appreciation and analysis of their shortcomings and limitations and where to apply effective persuasion to get results.

I believe we are most closely parallel to the situation when FDR came in, and the country has huge challenges on the economic front in manufacturing and energy that will look like that in a short time. FDR was a right of center conservative initially. He took actions because there was no other alternative that would work.

Hoovers' go light policies had failed for a couple of years, were completely inadequate by 1932. So it us with us in 2009.hank you, coyote for your several comments in the diary. I believe we give the candidates too much power when all our hopes rise and fall with that one individual. It makes them larger than life not first citizen anong many but someone on a pedestal with special insights and special powers. That is a longing for a clutch of simple solutions, a "daddy" or a "mommy" to have all of the answers. Our politics must be more engaged, informed and nuanced than that.

But only if we have a sober appreciation and analysis of their shortcomings and limitations and where to apply effective persuasion to get results.

Hoovers' go light policies had failed for a couple of years, were completely inadequate by 1932. So it us with us in 2009.

by PeteRock on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:04:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.