Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

ChiDy is Right, we do need to unite

murphy's picture

Edited and revised from a comment I left at the Confluence this morning.

Chicago Dyke is right to point out that sometimes when everyone in the room is in loud agreement, even if the points being made are valid and the emotions displayed are sincere and civil, the room can still start to sound like an echo chamber. It's not that dissent is unwelcome here at Corrente -- Leah, ChiDy, Xan, Xenophon and other top-shelf posters have written several vigorously discussed pieces recently. The danger to a site like this is that we become boring. We repeat ourselves. We get used to the sound of our own voices, and as virtual alliances and sympathies bond us together we begin to self-edit and become timid about being bold thinkers and commenters.

But I'm sure the motto here at the mighty corrente building is not "boldly shrill" for no reason. That's bold AND shrill, not just bold. So we do have a license to be partisan, to be passionate, and to be loud.

We really do need unity in the democratic party. A divided party with Clinton as the nominee will mean she will work like crazy and win new voters and become president. She will be required to win back the Obama base with her leadership, policies, and graciousness. Her supporters will have to follow suit so that we can make the party as strong as possible for the midterms in 2010. A divided party with Obama as the nominee will mean he will lose the White House by a landslide in November, and at that point the split will become permanent. Then all the good intentions and sincere calls for unity from the Obama base will be utterly worthless and impotent.

If the Obama faction forces him on the party as the nominee, the fauxgressives and the majority of democrats will not be getting back together this election cycle. If the fauxgressives hold their breaths and turn blue collectively enough for the DNC to hand them their cookie (Obama) they will lose in November, like spoiled bullies. If the DNC wakes up and allows Hillary to win fair and square, she will win in November.

Like it or not, Hillary supporters are the base of the democratic party and a huge part of the tri-partisan majority that puts presidents in office. The OFB are the fringe. Like a puffed up dragon, their shadow looms much larger than it really is because of the glare of the lights from the cameras pointed by a media that loves to film unfolding disasters. As many have pointed out, once the cameras start focusing in cruel detail on Obama’s every little pimple, then the show goes into full clinton-gore-kerry theater of the absurd mode.

To all the Obama supporters here, ask yourselves this, is Hillary Clinton such a horrible monster, would she be such a terrible democratic president that you will risk everything, every political principle you hold dear, to make sure she not be the nominee? Will you lose in a landslide even though you could have won easily? You claim to be high-information, educated voters. Read the polls and study them as if you had to take an exam on them. Look at the exit polls and electoral maps. Read the serious and substantive posts by Paul_L, Vastleft, Bringiton and many others here with an open mind and with the objective desire to see a democrat again in the White House clearly in mind as you read. Read the primary sources from the election cycles of 2000 and 2004. Ask yourselves how your deeply flawed and weakening candidate will be different from Al Gore and John Kerry, both of whom were 1000x stronger and more popular with democrats at this point in their campaigns.

It doesnt have to be this way. We can still win in November, but only if you let the process proceed fairly. Only if you have the political maturity to be pragmatic and keep your eyes on the real prize.

There are millions of people in this country, even if you and I are not among them, who will suffer real pain under another republican presidency. There are hundreds of millions in countries around the world who will face more disease, starvation, violent death, and oppression if another republican gains the White House. Only you have the power to stop this tantrum, to bring your ball back to the game, and let a democrat win in November.

We can win the White House for a democrat without your votes since you are such a small minority of the general electorate, but we can’t win it for you and the rest of the decent world if you wont let us play. If you force our team out with tricks and cheating and bullying.

Rally around Clinton and we'll be together in Washington in January. Circle the drain with Obama and we'll be together up shit's creek in November.

0
No votes yet

Comments

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Fuck a UNITY. Sideways.

No dissertation offered. :!

Arthur has more time on his hands than I do.

In the final scene, we learn the truth: the victims' defender had been working for the villain all the time. The defender had never been on the side of the victims: instead, at every critical juncture, he made sure to misdirect the victims' efforts just enough to make certain that the villain was never seriously threatened. The defender had to do this subtly; he had to lie on every matter of moment, and he had to do so repeatedly. He did all this expertly, and the victims never suspected his actual goal. The defender is handsomely rewarded for his work, for he delivered the victims into the villain's power, making certain that the victims would never again be a genuine threat. And the illusion is complete: even after they had lost and their lives had been destroyed forever, the victims never doubted their hero or the fact that he had fought for them so bravely.

Also

You may think that this system is not going to change in the foreseeable future or in your lifetime, so it is better to have at least semi-decent human beings in charge of it. In some circumstances and with regard to certain issues, I might even agree with you. But be clear about the nature of the system you are thereby supporting: one of immense power, that can cut down any one of us if even a single individual in a critical position decides to do so. And given the issues on which the two parties agree at present, I see nothing to recommend the Democrats over the Republicans. They both stand for endless war and global interventionism; they both stand for authoritarianism on the domestic front.... For me, all other issues recede into insignificance. If you make a different decision, at least be honest about the nature of your choice. That's all I ask.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I took the liberty to edit one sentence above.

If the DNC wakes up and allows Hillary to win OR LOSE fair and square, WE will win in November.

Sure I would be dissapointed if Hillary doesn't win in a fair contest, but that is part of the game. If you can't handle losing, don't play. The problem the referee (the DNC) has had one greasy, sweaty, doughy mitt on the Obama's side of the scale. That is where the objection and the anger and the indignation lies and if they had the guts to pull their hand away and let this play out fairly, that would go a long way to re-uniting the party.

Let the best candidate prevail, fairly (wow, what a concept). Otherwise the worst candidate will preFAIL!
-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

of course, is that we all define "fairness" differently.

Clinton supporters take the principled stand of "one person, one vote" -- and that under a system that requires a supermajority of delegates that can be won through primaries and caucuses, merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.

Obama supporters have a much more flexible "principled" position -- votes don't count, unless Obama gets more of them, in which case he gets to be the nominee. And DNC rules have to be followed to the letter -- except when its contrary to Obama's interests, in which case they can be ignored. And because Obama will have more delegates from primaries and caucuses than Clinton, the only "principle" that Obama supporters hold firm on is "Majority Rules" when it comes to pledged delegates.

In other words, its going to be really difficult for Clinton supporters to convince Obama supporters that she won "fair and square", because to them "fair" is an essentially meaningless conceit whose parameters change as circumstances do.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

Margaret Kimberly

It will be a sad day when black people stop telling the truth, all in an effort to elevate one ambitious man to his dream job. If Obama's support in the black community is any indication, most black people will end their historic progressive politics and applaud this country's criminal activity just because the head criminal looks like them.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Totally right, and an excellent point. If she loses Fairly then we're all grownups. We can take it.

And letting her lose fairly really would help unity.

Thanks.

And willjsimmons, now that's bold AND shrill. wow!

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

"Unity" means "Obama gets the spoils."

It always has, always will.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

too --we have to join them entirely benefiting them-- or we get shut out.

"my way or the highway"--and Obama loses against GOP obstructionism before he even starts-- even if he ends up winning the WH.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

You're right Paul. For two-way arguments to be productive and relationship-strengthening; for them to be successful in the sense that the opposing parties agree that a productive outcome has been achieved by the very process of arguing, a shared set of assumptions is absolutely crucial at the outset. And a shared sense of the meaning of terms like "fairness," and "facts," and "evidence" are every bit as important and necessary as a shared goal for the argument, such as "unity," or "winning the goddamned election."

But perhaps the whole "it depends on what the meaning of is is" is really just another rat-hole. This so-called dialogue between the democratic base and the OFB is really just a meta-dialectic. It is NOT a spirited and caring back-and-forth between two parties on the same team arguing with each other in good faith. We get caught up in theoretical discussions and distract ourselves with a wild goose chase for the meaning of words like "fair."

This isnt philosophy class; nor is it a social science symposium. This is party politics in action, not in theory.

The meaning of the word fair as defined by a few keyboard kommandos at kos is utterly irrelevant.

In the end, I put no faith in our ability as Clinton supporters to convince the OFB that she won fair and square because you are right -- they change the meaning of fair as it suits them. Hillary supporters will NOT be able to convince the OFB that they were wrong. Only President Clinton will be able to do that.

That's why I dont argue with them, and why I keep fighting for her chance to compete and her chance to win -- to win the election and to win them over.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

There is no "fair."

Never has been. Never will be.

Rule #1: Life is not fair.

Accept that, and learn to deal with it.

Politics is about power. About getting it and keeping it. Some people in political power figure out that if they use the power to provide some comfort to the masses, then the masses will help keep them in power. FDR, for instance.

Most people with power, however, are no better at using it than your average two-year-old with a hammer. Great fun to pound on things, and no regard for the damage. No regard for the masses, who suffer until they can't take any more and then they rise up and take away the hammer - only to give it to another infant. Go figure.

Through it all, there is no "fair." Appealing to "fair" will get you exactly nowhere, and makes you sound like a little child who's been told they can't have dessert before eating their veggies. "THAT'S NOT FAIR!!!!" Oh, well.

How effective was "fair" in 2000? In 2004? That's how effective it is today. Waste breath, waste of energy, waste of time.

Find another refrain. If you want to appeal to voters, find an appeal based on pain or pleasure or food or shelter or something that everyday people, the masses, can relate to; something they truly value. Same with the superdelegates; personalize it. If you want them to nominate Clinton, explain to them why doing so helps them more than dumping Obama will hurt them. That's all they care about.

It isn't that they're bad people, most of them, but they sure as hell aren't going to tube their careers for your sense of what is "fair." Show them the political balance sheet; show them how to get out of this bind by doing what you want them to do, in a way that keeps their careers intact. If it helps the masses at the same time, bonus points, but first and foremost is what it does for them.

Fair doesn't enter into it.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Fair is a meaningless concept in a fight. It may have some purpose in a good-faith argument, but in a fight it is worthless as either a tool or a weapon or a technique. And this split between the democratic base and the OFB stopped being a good faith argument a loong time ago. It has been a real live political fight for a good while now, started by the misogyny, the class warfare, and the race-baiting of the other side. Fair doesn't enter into it anymore, as you say.

Individual participants can and will use or not use their own personal definitions of fair and decency as guides to their own personal actions and opinions. I know how I feel about the concepts of fairness, of decency, of good intentions. You are right that my principles can and will be irrelevant to most everyone else, and rightly so. My principles will win me some allies, lose me others. Your principles will do the same for you.

I think however you underestimate however the power of "no fair." Staying with you on the idea that politics is basically about power-building and even power-grabbing, there is POWER in the concept of No Fair. Political power can be gained when you rally behind people who feel they have been mistreated, have been treated UNfairly. If you do it right and smartly, those who have been treated unfairly will make you their champion.

And real power derives from that dynamic.

Self-indulgent cries for fairness are impotent, true. Using the unfair practices of your opponent to gain support and rally the troops behind you is a powerful ploy. Very cynical leaders have used the method. Less cynical leaders have also used it. Gauging the depths of cynicism of political leaders is an exercise for someone else. My goal is to get a democrat in the White House this year.

It's difficult to get people to fight for fairness, especially when they have nothing personal at stake -- almost impossible I think (Save Darfur anyone?). But people will most definitely fight against No Fair when they get screwed by it. If you stand for them, they will fight FOR you.

No Fair is the spark that has ignited every protest movement and every rebellion in history.

The DNC, the MSM, and the OFB were very, very unwise to try to stop Hillary by being No Fair.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

and force one competitor out when it's never happened before in primary seasons in the past, and it's so close = beyond unfair, and into "fixed" territory -- which also further weakens the one that this is being done to purportedly benefit.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

what's happening now is violating even those standards.

It's also very relevant because of 2000 and because of all the GOP's voting crimes. And that makes Obama seem even more weak and puppet-ish and Dubya-like, who needed his family, his cronies, the entire GOP, a stupid and pliant media, and previously emplaced GOP Supreme Ct. Justices to get into the WH--instead of actually winning--fair or dirty.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.

wow, just wow. for decades Democrats have determined the winner by who has the most delegates, selected under the systems of the state party rules. And now, it is determined that it should be one man one vote.

The truth is that our crazy nominating process gave Clinton all the advantages. She was the top money raiser in the beginning, a critical advantage in a front loaded system, and her base consisted of the older women Democratic precinct captains who are experienced an wise in the ways of a caucus system. Obama's supporters were disproportionately black, young, and newly activists, the sort of people you can usually run circles around in a caucus system and can't even be relied upon in a primary. Obama out organized Clinton under the rules as they were determined at the beginning of this process.

And now that he has won, now that, to be blunt, a black man has played by the whitey's rules, and out organized, and out delivered whitey, now we are informed that merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing.

Do you not see how that does not work? Do you not understand why no one would accept a nomination that was a result of a last minute rules change?

Obama won. He out organized Clinton and he won.

And as for Silber, what he is saying is that there was no difference between Bush and Gore. Surely enough blood has been spilled to end that myth.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"Obama’s supporters were disproportionately black, young, and newly activists, the sort of people you can usually run circles around in a caucus system and can’t even be relied upon in a primary."

Obama's supporters were overwhelmingly white, old, and Establishment politicians, moneymen, and players--both in DC and in IL and on Wall St.

That he focused on Red States and Caucuses was also entirely Axelrod's doing--they devoted and built up their ground resources in those places and not in Blue States, but he had no support in those places until the campaign decided to pour money and resources in.

Every single element of Obama's campaign has been top-down entirely and exclusively.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

wow, just wow. for decades Democrats have determined the winner by who has the most delegates, selected under the systems of the state party rules. And now, it is determined that it should be one man one vote.

for decades, the system has included superdelegates, and required a super-majority of available pledged delegates to lock in the nomination.

And the democratic party system is a variation on "one man, one vote". The allocation of delegates to the convention is based on one direct, and one indirect, "one man, one vote" criteria. The first/direct criteria is the number of votes for the Democratic Party candidate in the last three Presidential elections. The second/indirect criteria is the number of electoral college votes -- which of course are based on a state's population (with a minimum of 3 ECs per state).

And under the DNC rules, states are required to come up with a system that reflects the will of the Democratic party electorate in that state -- in the past, caucuses have proven adequate to that purpose because everyone played by the same set of assumptions, and concentrated on the states that Democrats needed to win in November when contesting the nomination.

I like the fact that Obama supporters show up here -- but when they start talking out their asses like Obots, they really need to find an Obot audience as ingorant as they are.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Along with Grover from Sesame Street, he's my hero. His philosophy is friendship, teamwork, and love.

In the end, the outcome of this fight will be okay with me. My guiding principle of fairness may not help me win, but it sure as hell helps when I lose.

Incitatus's picture
Submitted by Incitatus on

1) The OFB are but a wee recalcitrant minority? Mere spoilers in a race that is otherwise clearly Hillary's to win?

2) Hell will continue to rein on earth if Barry is the nominee?

I'm getting overtones of Baghdad Bob here...

Look, I want Hillary to stay in this thing and allow it to be resolved "fairly". i.e. I'd like to see MI and FL resolved (the Edwards nomination makes that even more straight forward), and the DNC primary system reformed to prevent this craziness from happening in the future. I don't know why Barry is obfuscating the issue. Of course, that irks me because I expect better from him, but the fact that Hillary is wailing about MI and FL only when it suits her means I have little sympathy for her personally on the issue, only the voters of those two states.

That said, as far as the "one person one vote" argument goes, it is not the deciding metric of this primary system. And before I get flamed for being undemocratic, I broke ranks with my fellow wanking skinheads back when Hillary was arguing that the SDs and PDs can do what the hell they want (but then I'm British-born, and I've never had a major problem with parties choosing their own leaders; certainly cuts out a lot of this senseless sniping). The reason this is a delegate-based system is precisely to prevent this sort of deadlock, and to ensure that personality politics doesn't take precedence over substance. The relevance of the popular vote lies only in its use as a metric for swaying the delegates towards one candidate or another.

Electibility is the one and only criteria, and I've said before that Clinton has, and always has had, a solid case in that respect (swing states and at least 50% of the pop vote). However, the idea that Clinton is going to sail into the White House smacks of wishful thinking. It completely underestimates her spectacular ability to motivate Republicans, who would turn up to punch the hole for the ghost of Karl Marx rather than elect another Clinton, to be sure. The idea that she can sail into the WH without wooing Barry's voters is shear, bloodyminded ignorance.

Either way, we now have the current fabulous situation in which both sides are threatening to torpedo the other if they don't get their way. Right now, the only hope either candidate has of winning the GE without the other's support is if McCain's campaign continues on its present course towards utter self-destruction. Although, as they have shown repeatedly, Republicans have no problem at all rallying behind a buffoon, just so long as he's their buffoon.

Like it or not, unification is an absolute requirement for the Democrats' chances in the fall. And that's going to require sacrifices from both sides. The above post seems to be implying that only one side should be forced to make the sacrifice.

Good luck with that.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

That said, as far as the “one person one vote” argument goes, it is not the deciding metric of this primary system.

in fact, as I have explained to an Obot above, it is designed to be the "deciding metric" -- it is the principle under which delegates are allocated to the states, and DNC rules require that the pledged delegates represent the will of the voters in the state. And, as i've noted above, in the past the caucus system has been adequate to achieve those ends.

you seem to be confusing "one person one vote" with "majority rules", which is an entirely different consideration.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

He didnt say that winning doesnt mean winning, as you are implying. He said that merely winning more delegates than your opponent doesnt mean that you have won.

No one can win until they have the magic number of delegates. Having more delegates than the other guy means nothing until the magic number has been reached.

Obama did not win. He hasnt lost yet, but he sure as hell has not won.

and cut the shit with the race-baiting.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Everything is fair and nothing is unfair.

A win is legitimate simply by virtue of being a win. No matter what happens, it is a fair outcome.

Florida and Michigan will count or not count depending on who is more "powerful". Delegates will count or not count depending on the relative power of one group or another. There isn't anything unfair in any of that, it just is. 50% plus one is a win, and a W is a W is a W. Show me a good loser and I will show you a loser as the man said. Winning isn't everything, it is the ONLY thing.

This is all a very interesting concept, and I get it. Not terribly enlightened, original, or necessarily "Democratic" but certainly realpolitick. Crude, but effective you might say.

I should point out the "Good luck with that!" doesn't come in August, it comes in November.

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

obviously. The race is tied. His supporters in the primary elections are not a vast minority, they are millions of voters. Even with the twisted caucus system, Obama has won large blocs of support with many voters. Unfortunately, most of those democratic voters are stranded in dark red states. They are an insignificant minority in the general election, but they will lose the white house for the democrats if they insist on forcing their weak candidate on the majority of us democrats and the slim margin of independents and republicans who can and will put Hillary in the white house over McCain. That tri-partisan majority will take one big pass on Obama.

Buyer's Remorse, as decribed by Paul_L, compounded by the very real weaknesses of McCain in the eyes of millions of Republicans are two strong arguments for why Clinton would win and Obama would lose.

I have yet to hear from an Obama supporter with evidence of his electoral strength over Hillary. Until then, I am justified in calling the OFB a recalcitrant minority.

Donna Brazile can dream all she wants. Clinton can win without the OFB, but no way can Obama win without Hillary's base.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Quote DCBlogger:

"And now that he has won, now that, to be blunt, a black man has played by the whitey’s rules, and out organized, and out delivered whitey, now we are informed that merely winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing."

1.) No one has won until the convention in August.
2.) Obama doesn't yet have enough delegates to win even if you pull two swing states out of the picture.
3.) "Whitey's rules", that is pretty cute. Have you heard about proportional representation? Do you know who Donna Brazille is?
4.) "Out blah, blah whitey", that is also pretty cute. I got a link for you, you can take this up with this poster.
5.) "winning more delegates than anyone else entitles you to nothing". Depending on how you define delegates that is a true statement as it stands, you need to win the majority of ALL delegates both pledged and super-delegates. Apparently that is just one more of "whitey's" the DNC's rules.

*Originally posted before DCblogger's moonwalk*

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

I have always said that ML and FL need to be seated in a way that reflects the primary vote, even if that means assigning all of MI's uncommitted delegates to Obama.

Even with that, Obama has more pledged delegates than Hillary, although Obama has not yet attained an outright majority of the delegates. Obama will win decisively win all the remaining primaries save PR. He will have more delegates than Hillary. Only by the SD's overturning all that can Hillary win, and they won't do that.

And I don't buy that Clinton can win without the OFB. The party is divided, and each needs at least some of the others support.

I hated the WWTSBQ rhetoric when it began, but now Hillary is just prolonging the inevitable.

Whoever wins, part of the party will walk, that much is clear. McSame is in such collapse that I don't think it will matter. I know McSame polls well, but he is now saying the crazy things that kill you politically. Blaming the military for Iraq, and all the other crazy things he is saying, it is signs of implosion. He is going to look like Alan Keyes before this is done.

Obama won. I don't like the way it played out, but the truth is he won.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

moonwalks back.

DCBlogger, I like your style!

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

ok, that was more than a little race baity, but just how do you think black voters are going to see this? Whoever wins, some of the other's supporters are going to walk, but there is no way a Democrat can win a Presidential without at least 80% of the black vote with at least a 40% turnout. That is why we can't nominate Clinton. Had she won Indiana and PA by larger margins, if she had any chance of winning one of the remaining western primaries I would say different, but the fact is she didn't and doesn't.

Submitted by lambert on

Herb for walking it back, DBD for "race-baity."

Well done! Bring the shrill!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

ok, that was more than a little race baity, but just how do you think black voters are going to see this?

black voters by and large won't have a problem if Clinton gets the nomination. They have always liked and admired both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their support for Obama is more about "identity politics" than actual support for anything that Obama claims to stand for. No white guy who showed up with Obama's (lack of a) record and line of BS would be getting close to the support of the AA community that Obama is getting (ask John Edwards in 2004), and AA's know this, and know that the sole reason he is even competitive at this point is the support from the AA community that is based simply on his race.

Its the idiot white "elites" who will make a fuss over how horribly black voters have been treated... the "limosine liberals" who profess to care about economic and social justice while pigging out on jumbo cajun shrimp and sucking down $45/bottle pinot noir at Democratic party fundraisers.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...that Clinton can represent Obama supporters but not vice versa, and hence all Obama supporters have to do is realize that Clinton is a fair substitute. If Obama's not a fair substitute for Clinton supporters (and he probably isn't), then I'm not sure why it should work the other way around.

The other assumption is that Clinton can win without some portion of the OFB. Not sure that that's the case. They aren't all living in Nowhere, Red State. They've got a lot of money, clearly, and they've got a lot of feet on the ground, and they've got a lot of infrastructure. Sure, it's primary infrastructure, but do you think that the party can easily afford to ignore its existence?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

for Dems--even Obama voters know where Hillary stands on issues, and what she will do as Pres--the opposite is not at all true.

That's the big difference.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

....for some of Obama's support -- the nisogynistic "fauxgressives". Nor is she a fair substitute for "creative class" types, whose idea of belt-tightening in tough economic times is booking smaller rooms on their carribean cruises.

But for the rest of the people who supported Obama -- including most of those who voted for him on super Tuesday not having the faintest clue about his past -- Clinton is a more than acceptable substitute.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

I will forever lament the liberal blogosphere's treatment of my dude.

Fuckers.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

him? Not so much.

As for fairness, if Obama wins the majority of the primary vote (all of it, including Michigan (a percentage of uncommitteds), Florida, and Puerto Rico) I would say he can legitimately claim to be the pick of the Dem party.

That is the starting point from where he can work for my vote.

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...the OFB is the OFB because not only because they hate Clinton, but also because they're getting something from Obama that they aren't getting from Clinton. What they're getting from Obama may ultimately stem from Clinton-hatred for all I know, but it isn't Clinton-hatred itself.

The Unity Pony is a cipher for some other desire.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

She can't win without some of his supporters, of course you are right. His electoral college vulnerability compared to hers, however, means that he will need many, many more of her supporters than she will need of his.

Given that, she has two other advantages:

1. Her campaign, her supporters, and she herself, have alienated fewer blocs of democratic voters than Obama and his people have. I know there are loads and loads of people who hate Hillary Clinton. Most of them are republicans. Not all, of course, but most. She still has statistically significantly fewer numbers of likely democratic defectors than Obama does. If the OFB will stop race-baiting and call off the dogwhistlers for the sake of unity, Clinton can win back the majority of African American voters. This makes her a safer democratic nominee.

2. Dissatisfied republicans and moderate independents are MUCH more likely to support her over McCain than they are to support Obama over McCain. The polls all evidence this. Her wins in the big swing states evidence this. It is not wishful thinking or a temper tantrum to point this out. Crossover republicans and independents are like fragile, skittish butterflies. They will flit away from a weak and uninspiring candidate. They have already proved in primaries and exit polls that they are ready and willing to support Clinton.

She'll need some support from Obama's voters. He'll need an unrealistically huge number of her swing-state voters to win.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

DCblogger's red meat has disappeared. I feel like a kid who's balloon flew away!

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

to vote with their heads. Until Obama shamelessly baited them into voting with their hearts.

Clinton enjoyed comfortable and justified support in the black community until Axelrod revved up his hate machine. Obama probably would have won a majority of black primary voters because he is a native son, and fair enough. But it was hate-mongering that flipped his advantage into overdrive.

That alone is enough to turn my back on him permanently.

And, amberglow is exactly right. Don't try to pin Obama's colossal failure on black voters. They rallied to him when unscrupulous leaders manipulated their good natures.

Limousine liberals, having their buttons pushed frantically and repeatedly by axelrod's moneymen until they were haywire with incoherence, are the ones who got us into this mess.

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Obama already had the support of 72% of African Americans in South Carolina before the whole race-boating stuff started. In fact, he probably would have wound up with more AA support had it not been for the race-boating (he wound up with only 78%.)

The reason for the race boating had nothing to do with AA support -- at the time it was launched, Obama had just lost in New Hampshire, was not looking good in Nevada -- but South Carolina was a lock because it would be a three way race and he had 3/4 of the AA vote. Obama needed to make it impossible for anyone to say that the only reason he won in SC was because of the black vote, because he wasn't "the black candidate", and supposedly transcended race.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I'm not African-American, but I'm not white myself either. I can see how it may be rational for the overwhelming majority of AAs to vote for a black (D) candidate regardless of the cost. You only get so many opportunities to have a black man in office, or even making a credible run for office, that it becomes necessary to vote for what you got.

Just like older women voting Clinton.

Again, it's the whole "someone tricked them into voting for Obama" that bothers me, both for AAs and for the "limousine liberals", which I'm not sure is the correct term either. It's the reverse of the Reagan Dems thing. It's quite possible that Obama voters and Clinton voters are both being somewhat rational relative to their interests, in the aggregate, and that the division actually represents another set of real issues that are not being discussed, whatever they may be.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

for Dems—even Obama voters know where Hillary stands on issues, and what she will do as Pres—the opposite is not at all true.

That’s the big difference.

See, Obama voters know where she stands on "issues" as Clinton voters define "issues", but the sense I get is that they don't trust Clinton on, well, "issues" as they define issues. Anglachel covered this territory a number of times, as I recall. Obama voters/pushers are less interested in the specifics of policy proposals as they are in party and cultural dynamics. Clinton does not satisfy them AT ALL in this regard, for some reason, so they have no incentive to support her.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the opposite not being true is why there's not an equal likelihood of voters getting over this.

Whether Obama voters value issues and policy and specifics and practical stuff or not, Hillary voters absolutely demand that stuff--and historically all Democratic voters demand that stuff--it's what we as Democrats start with as a foundation in every election -- and it's what makes us not Republicans.

There's no reason for any Obama supporter to vote Dem is what i hear from you--or for him to even be a Dem--especially because the party and all the base knows what our priorities are--and they're not "dynamics" but issues and putting the power of govt to work for most of the people.

dotcommodity's picture
Submitted by dotcommodity on

and that she can never be forgiven for giving Bush the keys to the tank.

Other domestic policy, no. They do not care what he does, even select a Republican VP and they will be fine with that.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

My mother hardly counts because she's a Canadian living in Canada (as opposed to me, a Canuck living in Amurricah), but she favours Obama. She favours him for the sole reason that people mistakenly think he's a Muslim (as we are). She wants to hear "Barack Hussein Obama" sworn into office so she can rub Canadian right-wing radio hosts noses in it...

I have no doubt that there are You Ess Muslims who think the same way, especially since both candidates pander to AIPAC and MidEast issues are central to Muslim voters.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

regardless of issues for the same sort of reason? (say a native guy running, or a woman, or whatever--for the statement it would make?) And would she jump parties to do so even if that party would hurt people?

like--would that be more important that saving, strengthening or privatizing national health?

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

I'm not trying to say that all, or even most, black voters were tricked into voting for Obama. Same thing for women supporting Hillary. All I'm saying is go look at the exit polls from January and early February. Obama had a real advantage over Hillary among african americans. But it was nothing like the 90% advantage he started hitting after jj junior and the other surrogates started dog-whistling. What could have been a fair and rigorously contested battle for african american votes by both candidates turned into rampage by unscrupulous and desperate surrogates. They realized they needed to crank the black vote up to eleven in order to stay competitive with Clinton and so they threw scruples to the wind and played the race card.

Same result, but with different causes, for women voters. In the early contests Clinton had a real, but smallish, advantage over Obama among women voters. That turned into a tidal wave of support when the MSM got crazy-assed misogynistic and the OFB amplified the sexist drumbeat for her to drop out for absolutely no reason except that it would benefit him. Women who had been lukewarm about Hillary or who had supported other candidates like Edwards (moi) stampeded to her side by the millions.

you're right, no one was tricked into voting for either Obama or Clinton. Many black voters were manipulated, in my opinion, into believing lies about the Clintons. Many women were incensed into supporting Hillary against the sexist onslaught.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

There’s no reason for any Obama supporter to vote Dem is what i hear from you—or for him to even be a Dem—especially because the party and all the base knows what our priorities are—and they’re not “dynamics” but issues and putting the power of govt to work for most of the people.

Not so. If you wander around the internet look at the (D) blogosphere even before the point in time that the Obama campaign was a sparkle in Axelrod's eye, you find that there were a very large proportion of the blogs (Pandagon, Pharyngula, etc, etc) that were extremely focused on what I'll call "cultural dynamics" issues, and believed that the Democratic Party was the vehicle by which the culture of, well, rubes and hicks could be well-reformed, to put it crudely.

There are good reasons to some people to feel that cultural reformation is their major issue, and that the very act of electing a liberal Wholefoodsitarian black man is itself a positive step. This kind of belief necessarily feeds back into an emphasis on campaign style, symbology, party procedure...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

the majority of Dems or any voters, and over and over again, they lose nominations and elections.

When people say he'll lose, and she can win, it's because most Americans-- and most voters-- are not the people you're describing and do not at all think that's what the president's job is or should be.

Obama's primary tactics have only exacerbated this fundamental disconnect--and it also explains why they've wanted to eliminate the competition instead of actually proving the value of what they're selling, instead of merely talking about it or distracting questions and examination.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

But Obama has the nomination sewed up. If you want to talk about unifying, you need to talk about unifying behind Obama. And while it is POSSIBLE for Obama to lose, I don't think that's the most LIKELY outcome. You seem to think an Obama loss is INEVITABLE. If that's the case, please list for me the States adding up to 270 electoral votes that Obama cannot win!

Cap'n John Brown

Cap'n John Brown

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...people around here already have that list. It's everything-but-a-handful-of-blue-states. I don't myself entirely believe it but there's a legitmate case to be made that Obama is a mostly losing strategy.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

you’re right, no one was tricked into voting for either Obama or Clinton. Many black voters were manipulated, in my opinion, into believing lies about the Clintons. Many women were incensed into supporting Hillary against the sexist onslaught.

Perhaps. But I'm willing to bet that the phenomenon was rather voluntary, ie, a lot of people were looking for an excuse to reject prior Clinton loyalty in the presence of a successful, credible black candidate.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

kinda troubling--it wasn't them who made him "successful" and "credible" at all, and it wasn't from them that he came--unlike all previous AA candidates.

captainjohnbrown's picture
Submitted by captainjohnbrown on

I pulled this from the first article you linked to:

"All things being equal, Obama is a decent bet to break 300, just because it's a very good year for Democrats," said Daron Shaw, a University of Texas professor who worked for Bush in 2000 and consulted for the Republican National Committee in 2004. Holding the blue states and winning Ohio could give him the presidency with one electoral vote to spare."

According to the RCP poll average you linked to Obama is currently leading McCain by 2.4 percent in national polls. Clinton is leading by 1.4 percent.

Finally that Quinnipiac poll you linked to is just one poll. It shows Obama leading in PA, behing in OH by 4 points and behind by a larger amount in FL. It shows Clinton leading in all 3. But according to the RCP average Obama's actually leading McCain in OH and I think pretty much anyone would agree that if McCain loses OH it's pretty much lights out for him.

Cap'n John Brown

Cap'n John Brown

Submitted by lambert on

Whose key post here made this argument very early on.

Might as well throw that at Axelrod's current time- and resource-sucking troll as well.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

a lot of people were looking for an excuse to reject prior Clinton loyalty in the presence of a successful, credible black candidate.

Xen himself, Bill Clinton wasn't that good (actually harmful to) for the black community.

They believe the "dog-whistling" to be "proof" that the Clinton's were simply using blacks to get into office the first time around.

Read the comment sections at Black America Web. Black Agenda Report (critical of Obama too). Elsewhere.

The subject of the Clinton's comes up often. And it's generally negative.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

kinda troubling—it wasn’t them who made him “successful” and “credible” at all, and it wasn’t from them that he came—unlike all previous AA candidates.

No, that's the point. Minority communities know that the successes of their members, particularly public successes, come at the sufferance and cooperation of the majority community and the powers that be. Hence the apparently tight alliance between Whole Foods Nation and AAs this election. Of COURSE Obama is a creation of the powers that be and Whole Foods Nation. If he were an "authentic" (whatever that means) black candidate, he wouldn't have a prayer.

You can bet that most AAs know this, and hence his acceptability to the powers that be is a plus, not a minus. Remember that discrimination is felt at ground level, and Archie Bunker is a more credible and immediate threat than the fact that liberal white yuppies on funny diets might not eat fried chicken.

nezua limón xolagrafik-jonez's picture
Submitted by nezua limón xol... on

dunno who this mandos cat is, but it's like a drop of sanity in this murkwell.

i find it gross that people can dismiss the african american community's sentiments so easily. who the fuck are you anyway? "tricked"? TRICKED into being repulsed by tactics you are too koolaidy to even question? MANIPULATED? Into having experiences like this??? how demeaning of you. but this is the dynamic that people of color understand. it is always the White™ mind that decides what is Right what is Wrong and how everyone thinks. Ain't nothin changed.

fine, you don't see what Senator Clinton and Bill Clinton said and did that offended so many people of color. but guess what? i'm guessing there's a whole lot more about the experience of those not assigned to the dominant culture's preference you wouldn't suss out without being told about it.

have some dignity. your candidate is getting their ass kicked. it sucks, but stop reaching to such depths to maintain your illusion. or at least, leave other people's agency and volition out of it. i talk to many people in the communities of color and you simply don't get it. fine. but you dont have the right to rewrite their perceptions.

and pay attention to this mandos person, at least in the context of this discussion because they DO get it.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

___________________________
.delusions of un mundo mejor.

willyjsimmons's picture
Submitted by willyjsimmons on

the same guy who wrote that screed over at Jesus' General about Angelina Jolie?

LOL.

Whatevs.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

When people say he’ll lose, and she can win, it’s because most Americans— and most voters— are not the people you’re describing and do not at all think that’s what the president’s job is or should be.

Obama’s primary tactics have only exacerbated this fundamental disconnect—and it also explains why they’ve wanted to eliminate the competition instead of actually proving the value of what they’re selling, instead of merely talking about it or distracting questions and examination.

Quite possibly so. So then you understand how much more imperative it is for people with those agenda items to push as hard as they can for their kinds of candidates, tactics, and strategies, and attempt to eliminate competition as quickly as possible.

That's why the GE is a "nice-to-have". Unless they can capture the party, they can't get the GE anyway. Gotta pay to play, right? It's all game theory.

What's different now is that someone has told them that there is way in which the very *capture* of the party can be used to change American politics so that in some future election, they can win the GE on their issues.

So it becomes even more imperative to capture the party NOW.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

And fuck the rest of us. These are the people, as Bill Clinton said, who don't need a president. A lot of people really need a president, right now. It's too important to lose the GE, which is why we are demanding Clinton.

These people for years talked a good game, about the concerns of the lower class, but right now the whole she-bang is about to come crashing down, and the people who will feel the most pain know it.

I've always believed that the ultimate "culture" driven goal of a lot of progressive blogs, is going to be an incremental process, and by going after it too fast, will suffer a backlash. As its about to.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

do that--it would be far more effective and achievable to simply do as the religious right does--seed yourselves on local school boards and into all local and state party mechanisms, etc, and coordinate your actions to either get rid of the oldtimers or to push your agenda alone, etc.

Presidents don't change party structures--the permanent DC party establishment (supporting Obama, btw) isn't changing--the current system works fine for them, and the fact that they too feel the WH's a "nice to have" but not essential, shows how party change can only happen with the removal of that permanent DC Establishment--something Obama won't do at all, and in fact is wholly entwined with and part of--way way way more than Hillary is.

And Obama's complete lack of coattails and lack of a slate/group of lower-level candidates/challengers he wants to bring in under his "change" umbrella (and lack of issues that would unite them and attract voters) tells you that this "structural" thing is not actually operative at all.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Nezua is fairly well known on the internet for engaging in controversies about race. I can easily see how someone like him might get frustrated with people seeming to scold AAs for what look to a lot of us brown folks to be entirely rational choices.

I also recognize that white working class people find Clinton to be a rational choice. I myself happen to think that Clinton might be the better candidate in a GE. Based on my experiences, I also feel that Obama's support base suffers from a lot of magical thinking.

Just because I think that doesn't mean that Obama's dominance is 100% media fabrication, although I can see why the media might have an incentive to do so.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

black voters by and large won’t have a problem if Clinton gets the nomination. They have always liked and admired both Bill and Hillary Clinton, and their support for Obama is more about “identity politics” than actual support for anything that Obama claims to stand for. No white guy who showed up with Obama’s (lack of a) record and line of BS would be getting close to the support of the AA community that Obama is getting (ask John Edwards in 2004), and AA’s know this, and know that the sole reason he is even competitive at this point is the support from the AA community that is based simply on his race.

See, here's the problem that I think angers Nezua so. You say that as though this were a small thing. "Simply on his race." Whoa, nelly! Simply?

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

because AAs know it wasn't the kind of thought out decision they would have made between two candidates of the same race. The choice was "simple" -- vote for the black guy.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

But the point remains. Any other candidate with Obama's resume, wouldn't get their support. Also, more AA's want Clinton on the ticket with Obama(something else I don't agree with), which seems to me that they really don't have a problem with either Clinton(and Obama knows it, that's why he wants to send the Big Dawg out into the AA community).

I am white, so I see the voting of the AA community from a place of privilege, I know this. I won't judge their voting patterns. I've had the opportunity to support female candidates, even if it wasn't for president, and I know that for the AA community's, opportunities to support "one of their own" are slim, once you move out of the local arena. Whatever reasons someone may choose to give their vote to someone is valid, as long as it based on truth.

But it is stupidity to try and deny the fact that Obama has an enormous amount of AA support solely because he looks more black than white. It's not a small thing, it's a HUGE thing. But he doesn't their history(he did not grow up disadvantaged, for one), he grew up in diverse areas(where he wasn't segregated or forcefully integrated).

IMO, because of Obama, the AA community has been largely neglected this election season. Obama has their support locked up, so he doesn't need to spend any effort on their support, and he is trying his damndest to avoid being painted as the "black" candidate. And he has poisoned the well for Clinton(I agree that some thoughtless and tactless things were said by the campaign, but the Obama camp, working with the media, made it a firestorm), so it isn't worth her dwindling resources to go there.

I have more faith in Clinton's ability to bring us all back into the fold for November, more than Obama. Clinton has never once that I've seen ever blamed the voters for not choosing her.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

If it helps jog your memory, I'm the dude that had my own banning thread at Twisty Faster's. Actually technically two threads, and maybe even three.

I'm still honoured.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

"So then you understand how much more imperative it is for people with those agenda items to push as hard as they can for their kinds of candidates, tactics, and strategies, and attempt to eliminate competition as quickly as possible."

What you're saying there makes perfect sense to me Mandos. Amberglow's question still holds, however. Why have they not been able or perhaps not willing to "actually prove the value of what they’re selling"?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

And fuck the rest of us. These are the people, as Bill Clinton said, who don’t need a president. A lot of people really need a president, right now. It’s too important to lose the GE, which is why we are demanding Clinton.

Who says they don't need a president? I'm not sure I agree with Bill Clinton. I mean, an argument that has been bouncing around the blogosphere since 04 and earlier was the very idea that these cultural and process issues effectively prevent any movement on those bread'n'butter. issues.

These people for years talked a good game, about the concerns of the lower class, but right now the whole she-bang is about to come crashing down, and the people who will feel the most pain know it.

I’ve always believed that the ultimate “culture” driven goal of a lot of progressive blogs, is going to be an incremental process, and by going after it too fast, will suffer a backlash. As its about to.

I fear you may be right about this. The whole "magical thinking" part.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

You've somewhat agreed with lambert's point that losing the GE is acceptable, because they'll control the party.

Can't they pick a better year, than when we desperately need to recover from eight years of Bush redux?

The economy is about to tank, it might not hurt them as much, but it will people like me.

The war will continue, and spread, but it won't really affect a lot of them, they don't join the military, while a lot of people like me do.

They need to get their priorities straight. I want full and equal rights for women and GLBT. I want to move past the crazy theocracy many are intent to create here. I want to end the war on intelligence. I want to end the war on our civil liberties. These things are important.

But, we might not have a country left to fix, while their busy consolidating their power.

They don't need a president, right now? They can wait a few years, most of us can't.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

you need a reality check, if you are an Obama supporter.

Submitted by lambert on

But you're not going to get one with Obama.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

What you’re saying there makes perfect sense to me Mandos. Amberglow’s question still holds, however. Why have they not been able or perhaps not willing to “actually prove the value of what they’re selling”?

Quite simple. Like all political movements, they're faced with the problem of "putting it out there" in the first place. Now you may think that they have the media on their side in some things, and I agree with you, but there's a plausible interpretation that it's only because they've successfully picked a candidate with star power that they're getting any airtime at all.

Hence, from their point of view, they really HAVE backed the right horse this time.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I don't buy that. I think the media was willing to go with whoever was the strongest to "beat the bitch".

That's all the Village has ever wanted to do was beat the Clintons, though I think Hillary offends them more. And after they failed in the 90's, here was their chance. Setting her up against the black guy was the master stroke, honestly.

That's another reason why I think Clinton is stronger in the GE, because she has honestly proven herself immune to the media. Any other candidate who as relentlessly attacked as she has been, would be toast, but she keeps growing support.

You'd think the blogs would support the candidate who was able to stand against the media narrative, instead of the candidate who was dependent upon it.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

The reason for the race boating had nothing to do with AA support — at the time it was launched, Obama had just lost in New Hampshire, was not looking good in Nevada — but South Carolina was a lock because it would be a three way race and he had 3/4 of the AA vote. Obama needed to make it impossible for anyone to say that the only reason he won in SC was because of the black vote, because he wasn’t “the black candidate”, and supposedly transcended race.

So, really, minority voters, I'll betcha, are pretty wise to the "transcended race" business and that's only going to be a plus. You do realize that if what you say is actually true, then Obama was perfectly justified in using that tactic.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I'm sorry, while I get that politics ain't beanbag, I thought being a Dem made me a little better than Repubs, because we wouldn't do "anything" to win.

I think smearing proud equality driven democrats as racist is about the most vile thing you can do, politically.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

But it is stupidity to try and deny the fact that Obama has an enormous amount of AA support solely because he looks more black than white. It’s not a small thing, it’s a HUGE thing. But he doesn’t their history(he did not grow up disadvantaged, for one), he grew up in diverse areas(where he wasn’t segregated or forcefully integrated).

Well, *I* certainly am not denying it.

IMO, because of Obama, the AA community has been largely neglected this election season. Obama has their support locked up, so he doesn’t need to spend any effort on their support, and he is trying his damndest to avoid being painted as the “black” candidate. And he has poisoned the well for Clinton(I agree that some thoughtless and tactless things were said by the campaign, but the Obama camp, working with the media, made it a firestorm), so it isn’t worth her dwindling resources to go there.

Being slightly more neglected than usual (as a very reliable (D) constituency) is a small price to pay, I might argue, for having a president with a funny name who looks sort of like them, but has made the American Dream actually work for him for once.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

You’ve somewhat agreed with lambert’s point that losing the GE is acceptable, because they’ll control the party.

Can’t they pick a better year, than when we desperately need to recover from eight years of Bush redux?

I agreed a long time ago with Lambert that that's how they see it.

And no, if you take my exegesis to its logical conclusion, there is NO better time for them to make this attempt. It is precisely in this time when the electorate and media is LEAST likely to dismiss a Wholefoodsitarian candidate out of hand. Consequently, the time for them to act really is now, or perhaps never.

They don’t need a president, right now? They can wait a few years, most of us can’t.

The other side of it is that they don't believe that any of it *can* actually be fixed without dealing with the cultural dynamics issues. Hence Amanda's recent post about Reagen Dems at Pandagon that I linked to in another thread. So electing a (D) president is futile in the medium to long run if it were on the same terms as Bill Clinton.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it's the reason why--

the dynamics need to change so that what can happen? so that govt will do what instead of what? so that life will get how for who? so the power and resources of govt can be used for what? ...

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I think smearing proud equality driven democrats as racist is about the most vile thing you can do, politically.

How familiar are you with the sort of racial analysis that a lot of folks engage in, like Nezua for example? The idea that very well-intentioned white people with lots of equality work under their belts are "racists" is not an outré idea, exactly. Racist is just another descriptor, it's only partly an insult if you take racial analysis seriously.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

I've stated on this blog many times, we're all racist, we're indoctrinated to be racist. There is a difference between someone understanding that, and striving to make life better for all of us, than an ignorant bigot who doesn't think black or brown people are as good as white.

The implication of calling the Clinton's out as racist, was to have people believe, that they really didn't believe black people were as good as white, or that they only used the black community to achieve ends. The latter is of course true, they're politicians, but the former is not. But the media, the blogs, and the Obama campaign working in conjunction created a reality where, "The Clinton's don't believe black people can chieve anything without white people helping them" is now true, when it's not.

That's what's vile.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

That’s all the Village has ever wanted to do was beat the Clintons, though I think Hillary offends them more. And after they failed in the 90’s, here was their chance. Setting her up against the black guy was the master stroke, honestly.

That’s another reason why I think Clinton is stronger in the GE, because she has honestly proven herself immune to the media. Any other candidate who as relentlessly attacked as she has been, would be toast, but she keeps growing support.

No doubt this is so. I agree with you on this. What I don't agree is that this is mutually exclusive with an interpretation of Obama support, even fervent support, as rational and well-intentioned and based in real issues and real-life, on-the-ground politics.

You’d think the blogs would support the candidate who was able to stand against the media narrative, instead of the candidate who was dependent upon it.

Matter of opinion. Like I said, they think they've managed to use star power to overcome a media narrative that they actually think is against them (Scary Negroes and the Latte Sucking Hippies who love them).

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

--do you actually think either Obama or those who want structural change have done this, or even begun to focus on marrying it to real issues and what the results would be?

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I think smearing proud equality driven democrats as racist is about the most vile thing you can do, politically.

A WHOLE 'NUTHER can 'o' worms about what it actually means to be called "racist." We are not talking that same language on this front.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

They smeared the Clinton's as bigots, which is vile.

Agree?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

Incitatus's picture
Submitted by Incitatus on

See:
http://www.slate.com/id/2183751/

Excerpt:
"The reason for the different treatment is the hybrid nature of our electoral system. Party primaries and caucuses have elements that are public (the state often pays to run them, and they lead to choices on the public general election ballot) and elements that are private (political parties are not government entities, they are private associations). Private associations have a First Amendment right to exclude those who disagree with them, and to structure their internal affairs as they see fit. Presidential primaries straddle this public-private divide because presidential nominations are ultimately made at party-run conventions."

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

it would actually be funny if you had the first clue what you were talking about.

I mean, its the equivalence in stupidity of saying "one person one vote" doesn't apply to Presidential elections because the decision is made in the electoral college.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

"there’s a plausible interpretation that it’s only because they’ve successfully picked a candidate with star power that they’re getting any airtime at all."

So what are you saying? They believe their candidate has the star power of ten thousand suns and will thereby incinerate all opposition in a single ray of killer star power?

That they can let the star power work its magic and just leave it at that?

Is that what you are saying is their strategy?

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

is supposed to result in what exactly?

and in what that would advance their agenda?

in what that would change the structure to something they want?

lifetime Dems in Congress won't disappear, and many of the new ones are very rightwing, and neither will the obstructionist GOP. Lobbyists and the influence of big corp money won't be going anywhere ever. ...

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

"presidential nominations are ultimately made at party-run conventions.”

so will the oborg please stop saying that Obama has won?

cenobite's picture
Submitted by cenobite on

have some dignity. [Sen Clinton] is getting [her] ass kicked. it sucks, but stop reaching to such depths to maintain your illusion.

No, actually it would be better if that were true, but it's not.

If Sen Obama were really "kicking ass":

1. There would be no superdelegate controversy at all. It would already be over by now. The real situation is that his actual performance of late is pretty sad. He's had multiple opportunities to close the deal and has been unable to do so, even with massive advantages from party leadership and the press.

2. His general election electability would not be in question, and it seriously is now.

3. The intimidation psy-ops would have stopped. They're still going full blast, because it's clear the only way he wins the nomination prior to the convention is to get his opponent to quit (much like his Chicago elections).

4. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

Isn't the white/workingclass/etc voting bloc now more important than ever, and haven't they in fact been elevated by the very tactics Obama and his supporters have used to diminish and dismiss them?

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

what a backfire, eh?
the rise of Scranton against Wholefoodistan!
I love that image!

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

(nevermind--wrong thread)

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

the dynamics need to change so that what can happen? so that govt will do what instead of what? so that life will get how for who? so the power and resources of govt can be used for what? …

The belief, right or wrong, is that white voters will tend to vote against anything that looks like it assists black people equally or is designed to reduce black disadvantages, and so on and so forth. Affirmative action policies and all that. And that white people will vote against their own economic interests to do so (cf. Amanda Marcotte's post).

If you believe that to be the case, then proving that a candidate can win not only despite but because of his blackness is a step towards the kind of cultural change that will make it more possible to discuss economic issues in the absence of the subtext of race.

The problem with You Americans is that you also invest a lot of emotional power in your government symbols. Us Canadians (and Brits and Aussies) for all our faults have a soap opera as the symbol of our government, followed (in Canada) by a telegenic TV star.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

"proving that a candidate can win not only despite but because of his blackness is a step towards the kind of cultural change that will make it more possible to discuss economic issues in the absence of the subtext of race."

while never discussing economic issues or focusing on them or making them a priority, etc, has any hope of succeeding?

And by making one guy a symbol of success and a representative of their whole race aren't you in fact reinforcing the mistaken and widespread white belief that racism is gone? And aren't you giving those who actually do vote against their economic best interests a concrete reason to oppose govt action to help those left behind?

And cultural change doesn't always lead to tangible progress--the increased acceptance and visibility of us gays has actually led to almost the whole country forbidding us rights, and has in fact sparked enormous backlash and a loss of progress.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

And by making one guy a symbol of success and a representative of their whole race aren’t you in fact reinforcing the mistaken and widespread white belief that racism is gone? And aren’t you giving those who actually do vote against their economic best interests a concrete reason to oppose govt action to help those left behind?

You are absolutely right to point out this danger. But, you know, this is a risk either way. In one direction, specifically black issues are forgotten because they are a third rail, and policies that help everyone are made suboptimal so as to appeal to whites who fear blacks.

In the other direction, white liberals get the Warm Fuzzies about themselves and say, "Look! We voted for a black man!" And then some black issues, disappointingly, are still ignored. But for good or ill, there's a black man on the news every day because he is the leader of the nation, at a time immediately after when a white establishment leader has spectacularly failed. Not because he's on COPS or because white liberals are wringing their hands over his sad fate.

So blackness is a little more "normal". That's something.

And cultural change doesn’t always lead to tangible progress—the increased acceptance and visibility of us gays has actually led to almost the whole country forbidding us rights, and has in fact sparked enormous backlash and a loss of progress.

I'd suggest that "black president" and "desegregation" are examples of each kind of situation. In the latter, backlash was inevitable. In the former, it's a sign that blackness is in the process of normalization.

Look: I'm not arguing that this political calculation is CORRECT. I'm merely suggesting that it is well-thought-out and rationally justifiable.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

no one's life gets better when a symbol is elevated. people's lives get better when policies are put into place that help them.

and if that symbol has never advocated or promised or run on a platform promising policies that make life better, why would anyone think installing him would actually do anything about those real issues and the real actions govts can take to help?

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

would be "a a step towards the kind of cultural change that will make it more possible to discuss economic issues in the absence of the subtext of race."

We already discuss economic issues in the absence of the subtext of race! Not because white establishment power is enlightened, but because it IS NOT.

The absence of the subtext of race is the reason a thousand Americans disappeared under the flood waters in New Orleans and NOBODY CARED!

The absence of the subtext is race is the reason so many millions of Americans have no health insurance and are left to die in community health centers and poorly staffed and underfunded hospices and NOBODY CARES.

It is why black American men can be thrown in jail and forgotten about and NOBODY CARES.

It is why poor black mothers cannot get a decent education for their children or a decent safe neighborhood to live in and NOBODY CARES.

The absence of the subtext of race is the reason millions die in Africa every year and nobody cares.

We desperately need the enormous PRESENCE of the subtext of race in our national economic discussions. In all of our national discussions.

Black Americans, other than in prettily packaged entertainment units have been utterly disappeared from our national conversations.

I can think of few more frightening outcomes of an Obama nomination than the purposeful further disappearance of race as a basis for conversation and analysis.

Someone here very wisely pointed out the other day that post-partisanship and post-political are really just synonyms for fascism.

Post racial is really just a euphemism for further entrenchment of white patriarchal corporatist power.

God save us all from obama's post-partisan, post-racial nightmare.

Not even kidding.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

it seems to be reinforcing--and also dismissing--racism while also ensuring no help for those who need it--Obama would stand as living proof of the essential Rand/selfish GOP messaging for decades--"don't ever look to govt. for help or even basic services", "if he made it, you're at fault for not making it", etc, ...--all of it.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

Presidents don’t change party structures—the permanent DC party establishment (supporting Obama, btw) isn’t changing—the current system works fine for them, and the fact that they too feel the WH’s a “nice to have” but not essential, shows how party change can only happen with the removal of that permanent DC Establishment—something Obama won’t do at all, and in fact is wholly entwined with and part of—way way way more than Hillary is

Hillary??????? The candidate who wanted loser Lanny Davis as a surrogate? Hillary? the princess of conventional wisdom? Who suggested that Greenspan and Rubin be brought in to fix the subprime crisis????????

and lets not accuse everyone who defends Obama as an Obot.

there is no going back, the Clintons do not have the same relationship with the black community that they had before the SC primary. Black people are not children, they made their decisions, right or wrong, based on the same information the rest of us have.

In an unscientific sample of my acquaintances, those who support Obama do so because they think he is the strongest candidate in the general election. Maybe they are wrong, but that is what they think. The people I am speaking of are experienced Democratic volunteers, some of them old enough to have a personal memory of the 1972 debacle.

Please don't anyone say that Obama did not have a under privileged background. No matter how materially comfortable you are, you still have dark skin. Let me see Obama try to hail a cab on South Michigan Avenue and I will tell you how dark his skin is. It is a very very very big deal for someone with a funny name and dark skin to be a credible candidate for Pres. The consequences of an Obama victory will be felt all around the world.

It is a mistake to look at polls too much. Obama's ground game combined with the implosion of the Republican party could very well give us not just victory, but a landslide victory. McSame looks like Goldwater more every day.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

she's just gonna use the existing structure towards better ends than the GOP would.

she doesn't need to "change the broken DC system" bla bla bla to get stuff done.

it's not necessary, and it's not the best way to help people.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

...there's a lot of magical thinking involved here. My point though, once again, is that certain crucial parts that people spend time here picking apart might actually be the parts that are independently motivated and rationally justifiable.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

especially where the symbolic meets the real--and the real needs of Americans. It's like those wooden knot puzzle things or an Escher print or something--once you concentrate and actually follow one of the lines or curves you realize the impossibility of it.

rain's post right below here is right--and i can't support someone who will only be symbolic.

Rain's picture
Submitted by Rain on

Or the strong demographic drift between the two candidates, at least partly, reflects a split between the Head-of-State role, and the Head-of-Government role.

In other countries, they are often two different roles, and two different people, with different expectations from each, and with different powers of office. In our US system, we conflated the two roles into one person.

H-o-S is ceremonial, highly symbolic, cultural (sometimes religious/spiritual), moral authority.

Even in countries where the people vote for H-o-S, they elect them on these sorts of grounds.

H-o-G is practical, pragmatic, doing a managerial, administrative job.

Just my perception or observation, but the focus on "process and cultural issues" by Obama supporters, and their lack of interest or detail in boring things like administration, policy and governance, indicates their preference for H-o-S over H-o-G.

As a British friend of mine once said during the 2000 Campaign, along the lines of: 'You guys want to elect a King, to live in a palace, with a photogenic Royal Family doing charity works, with all the symbolic grandeur of pomp & pageantry and spectacular ceremony, inspirational speeches on moral and cultural issues, then spend the next four years complaining because he can't run the country like a Prime Minister".

Obama supporters to me, are often bound up in the symbolism of the Presidential office, and have no interest in the day-to-day running of the place.

Thats what congress does, *shrug* or someone, or state governments, are more important than the federal one for doing all that boring stuff and things like that. *shrug* trivial, unimportant, and especially -BORING - why the Youth vote gets caught up in it so often. It all happens like magic to some people; economies, health, education, social security, transport/infrastructure, industry, foreign diplomacy negotiations with complex multiple interests etc.

When Obama said he would 'delegate' all that boring, yucky detail of policy, governance and daily administration stuff, my first question was, well - *who* is going to be running the country, while you're being all ceremonial, and healing the nation's collective psyche?

With demographics polarising between the two groups, I think its partly coincidental that its become such a strongly polarised class split, with the workingclass wanting a H-o-G to *do* government stuff - and leave the pomp, feel-good platitudes and ceremonial symbolism for 4th July speeches or similar, and the wealthier classes wanting a H-o-S to make them feel good with all that pomp.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

we have that now--unanswerable, unaccountable, and more concerned with appearances and pr and propaganda than with governing.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Obama would rather be king.
Hillary would rather be president.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

Mandos you sure have a lot to say about "they".

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

waspman's picture
Submitted by waspman on

You can parse the numbers and the fairness of it however you want, but the fact is Obama is going to win the nomination.

It is also a fact that regardless of how you feel about Obama, McSame is fucking Satan.

So if you can't bite your lip and vote (D) in November, you, personally, are a mother fucking asshole, and you will deserve the senile fucker as your president.

Now suck it up, and get behind the candidate. My first choice was Edwards, but you don't see me trying to tear down Hillary or Barack, just because my guy lost.

Quit crying in your beers and let's win this thing.

Any Dem in the general. And I actually mean it.

Any Dem in the general. And I mean it.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

If it’s so difficult how the hell did he do it so fucking easily?

there were many twists of fate that put Obama where he is, but he seized those opportunities to make something of it

I am not asking people to unite behind the unity pony, I am resigned that that is just not going to happen for some people. What I would ask is that people consider turning their attention to something, anything, more productive.

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

I thought it was Mrs. Satan who was fucking Satan.

Thanks for the clue Waspman!

murphy's picture
Submitted by murphy on

Since so many of Obama's voters are stranded in red states? and since Obama has so masterfully succeeded at permanently pissing off so many other democrats who probably will defect or stay home?

High and rising unfavs for him must have an impact on SD's, right?

Incitatus's picture
Submitted by Incitatus on

a candidate to secure the most pledged delegates and yet lose the popular vote ina given state (TX), and allow the will of the electorate to be overridden by a a group of people whose votes are disproportionately weighted (as Hillary pointed out, before she changed her mind on the legitimacy of such a coronation). BTW Clinton's argument is precisely that the current process should be "one man, one vote" (i.e. enter MI and FL as is), which one would imagine implies that it is not.

As I understand it, the GE is subject to the rulings of "one person, one vote"-related cases such as Baker and Carr '62, but party conventions are not currently held to these same standards.

So, stupid, backward, provincial simpleton that I am, I just don't quite understand your argument that the current rules, replete as they are with caucuses and super delegates, respect the concept of equal representation.

But I'm ready to be enlightened, if you don't think it so thoroughly beneath a person of your unquestionable intellectual caliber to slum it with ignorant proles like me once in a while ;)

There's really no need to be quite so excitable.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

about it each time you write "they", then my dreams live. There is no such thing as a "good" habit.

But that is too cryptic so try this: To improve your writing (and your comments), try using different pronouns as objects in your sentences. For example, you might want to try "we", or "I" once in a while, since you can speak on those with more authority than "they".

It is also less troll-like.

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

a lot too--Obama and his campaign.

most recently, it's that "they" don't know him, and that's why "they" haven't voted for him--and all along he and Axelrod are not saying "they're" bitter, "they're" racists, "we" don't need "them", "they're" really Republicans", etc.

And his "we" hasn't ever really meant all Democrats or the Party, but simply Obama supporters.

And his "they" is most often actually talking about Democrats, and not Republicans.

jeffazi's picture
Submitted by jeffazi on

Here's my prediction for the GE if either Obama or Clinton is the nominee. I base these on the current polling data I've reviewed, the realistic assumption that the democratic candidate will gain in the polls after this primary season ends, the country's utter disgust with the republican party and the war in iraq, and the horrific state of the economy. I believe either would win handily.

Obama Electoral Map (307 EV):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...

Hillary Electoral Map (310 EV):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...

dotcommodity's picture
Submitted by dotcommodity on

Interesting that the media keeps slanting Obama's chances - while electoral-vote.com (which has been slogging away since 2000 or before on statistical polling chances) based on Rasmusen etc state by state polls - for getting enough electoral college votes in the GE, shows ONLY Clinton has been beating McCain solidly since about Ohio.

Today: Clinton getting 327 electoral votes and into the WhiteHouse (against McCain's 194!)
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Cl...
Obama getting 266 today, which is as close as I have seen him losing to McCain's...more typically he has hovered 40 - 50 points behind McCain...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Ob...

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

there's no way he gets that close (and of course that's not enough anyway)

if what they're saying about FL/MI is true (it won't be a fair solution based on actual votes), and the fact that McCain is already targeting the swing states like OH/PA/FL/etc, it won't be that high--McCain is not the devil, and he's not seen as Dubya no matter how much they try to tie him to him.

dotcommodity's picture
Submitted by dotcommodity on

It is just which Dem won the primary: against another Dem.

Most of the little red states Obama won are not going to go Obama if they have an actual Republican option.

Same as even our weakest progressive candidate can't lose CA or NY.

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

i think--no way he gets FL or OH.

and we still haven't heard a word on whether he'll fight GOP voting crimes/obstruction at all.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

But that is too cryptic so try this: To improve your writing (and your comments), try using different pronouns as objects in your sentences. For example, you might want to try “we”, or “I” once in a while, since you can speak on those with more authority than “they”.

Unfortunately, "we" and "I" are not very exegetical. I am presenting an interpretation of a phenomenon. It's gotta be "they", style or no.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

Far fuckin' out, Mandos!

Damn, I love word nerds.

Submitted by lambert on

[rimshot. laughter]

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

You see, I'm starting to really love this about you Mandos, you really know how to polish a turd.

That sucker just gleams!

Where most people would respond with "I'm just describing what "some people are saying". Like "I'm just saying some people say Hillary dances at night in a cloak made from the flayed skins of the babies she eats." You instead are in a league of your own and come back with "I must use "they" since it is a construct of my exegesis of the phenomenon of worshipful Hillary-hatred and if I better explain this phenomenon you may better come to understand and embrace it."

Well played, sir, well played!

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

jeffazi's picture
Submitted by jeffazi on

is one that I put together. I made the predictions and then saved the results and linked to them. Maybe that's how you understood it, but I got the impression you think that the prediction links I posted were predicted by someone at the WaPo.

Anyway, it's just my semi-educated guess. : )

I think either dem wins handily.

jeffazi's picture
Submitted by jeffazi on

You instead are in a league of your own and come back with “I must use “they” since it is a construct of my exegesis of the phenomenon of worshipful Hillary-hatred and if I better explain this phenomenon you may better come to understand and embrace it.”

If it's a construct, then it's better described as eisegesis.

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

Where most people would respond with “I’m just describing what “some people are saying”. Like “I’m just saying some people say Hillary dances at night in a cloak made from the flayed skins of the babies she eats.” You instead are in a league of your own and come back with “I must use “they” since it is a construct of my exegesis of the phenomenon of worshipful Hillary-hatred and if I better explain this phenomenon you may better come to understand and embrace it.”

You seem to think you have me nice and pegged as OFB, don't you. I can hardly try to dissuade you. If I'm not always with you, I must be against you? Is that it?

Fair enough. I suffer from "worshipful Hillary-hatred" because I actually take the ideas of the opposition sub-party seriously. In that frame work, it must all be true. I am a concern troll. Since I am not with you, I am against you. What can I say?

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Is what you are doing, not that that's a bad thing, but you come down on different sides of arguments, depending on who you're talking to, so I can see how someone could believe you are an Obot.

I know you're not if it makes you feel any better :D

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

amberglow's picture
Submitted by amberglow on

trying to explain the reasoning behind some Obama supporters. (it still doesn't make sense, and isn't the best or most practical way to achieve any of the endgoals tho)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The call that cops hate more than anything else is for a domestic disturbance. No matter what the cop says, one or the other party will be pissed at the cop.

Like clockwork, within five minutes of trying to bring a rational, detached and objective viewpoint to the people involved, they will both turn on and start attacking the cop. Happens every time.

When an argument is dominantly emotional, neither side is thinking rationally. Trying to inject a balanced, rational construct only serves to frustrate the original participants. Who the hell are you to be all logical and detached when we're being angry and illogical and raging and petty and projecting distortions? How dare you?

Mandos, the objective, rational, polite, good cop, (so Canadian!) gets his predictable reward.

vastleft's picture
Submitted by vastleft on

... gratuitously treating both parties in a disagreement as equally at fault.

They're always equally human, and perhaps equally locked in, but not necessarily equally culpable.

Submitted by lambert on

Hillary Supporter: You're actually saying Hillary's wishing for Obama's death!

Obama Supporter: Yeah, but what about the 3AM ad? And how about this one comment in some blog somewhere?

I like Bringiton's domestic disturbance metaphor, but I'm also rather surprised that nobody's called his attention to the fact that the husband might actually be an abuser, so the "plague on both your houses because you're emotional" could actually be dangerous to an innocent.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Mandos's picture
Submitted by Mandos on

I don't consider each side equally at fault. I think that Obama supporters' biggest fault (and the source of what I am calling "magical thinking") is to believe that what they can get away with during the campaign is what they would be able to get away with during the general. More than 50% of primary nominees do not get elected in the general...

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

It's your'n, as we hickabillies say.

She doesn't dance just any old dance either, she dances the "Death to Hope" jiggy around a bubbling cauldron of lizards feet and baby seal brains to Pink's "Let's get this party started".

Mando, the only thing in the middle of the road is yellow lines and dead armadillos as the man said, but mainly my point was, it wasn't the content of your exegesis (which could have merit), it was the pondering boringness of it.

-----------------------------

Good night and good riddance!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.