Raising money (ick), volunteering (snore), and worst of all, pissing off some of our “friends.”

This is the bare minimum of what we have to do. Everything else is just wanking. There’s gotta be a worthy candidate near you CD and this is going to be landslide shift our way this year.

An example: here in the Chicago burbs where we haven’t elected congressional Dems in decades and in some instances ever we have real shot at taking IL-13, IL-06, IL-10 and even Denny Hastert’s seat in IL-14.

This isn’t pie in the sky, for the first time in history more voters took Dem than Repub ballots in DuPage County in the primary 132,000 to 108,000. Unchallenged Dem IL-13 candidate Scott Harper won more votes than 5 term non-entity Judy Biggert and her wingnut challenger combined in the district.

In IL-10 Dan Seals almost beat Mark Kirk in 2006 and that’s before it came to light that Kirk is another Rezko beneficiary.

In IL-14 Bill Foster has millions to match Oberweis
who is bugshit crazy and has a 42% negative rating in the district from his previous failed runs for about every office in Illinois.

In IL-06 Pete Roskam may already have a million dollar warchest but is running against Jill Morganthaler who is channeling both Tammy Duckworth’s and Christine Cegelis’s supporters.

All these folks want to get us out of Iraq and universal healthcare.

This isn’t just limited to Illinois. Look at our turnout all across the nation. I’ve been canvassing
all over DuPage the last year. Republicans deny being Republicans even though my walk lists tell me they’re lying or give me an earful about how disgruntled they are. Dems almost invariably express surprise when I show up at their door. “I didn’t know there were other Democrats in DuPage” is the refrain which I happily disabuse them of.

All you have to do is walk out that door and get involved with a local campaign or your local party.
Hell you can make calls for a candidate on the other side of your state or the country. This is the year and now is the time.

and a whole lot more. titter, i move with the Serious people. but i will of course put in my time in the fall and over the summer. there’s always someone worth working with, and rarely an excuse not to.

fuckin A, IL-14! seriously: good luck with that. that would be schweet.

As we work thru this primary season, it seems to me that one of the biggest strikes against Clinton is what has happened to the Democratic party in the past 16 years. They have NOT lead the party, they have destroyed it. And that, if for no other reason, is enough to choose Obama over Clinton. The party will be here long after the next presidency, and we need leaders and stewards who will strengthen the party, not continue down the same path of feckless and piss poor opposition to a Republican party run amok.

Jake

and simple. good point. almost as easy to remember as “the war/occupation is wrong, always was.”

HRC has shown awful electoral strategy. So has the Democratic Party over the last 10-20 years. I blame the entrenched loser consultants they keep re-hiring.

The Obama camp has a strategy and strategists that are using new, effective, marketing-based techniques and that is why they are doing so well.

However, electoral victory should be a means to an end (progressive policies that are good for all citizens), not an end in itself.

Losing sucks. But if Obama wins and turns out to be a Harry & Nancy type who will do whatever the right-wing and MegaCorps dictate (with a bunch of process dodge excuses), what have we won?

It will be marginally better than a GOP Presidency, for sure, but it sucks that is all the Change we can Hope for.

positions on many, many issues are very close. It won’t be a GOP lite no matter who wins. But one of them will leave behind a much stronger party, and based purely on history - and Clinton has not been a leader in the Senate - Clinton is not that person. In fact her campaign continues to use the very same consultants who brought the party to its knees.

I personally like Hillary. I believe that I’d like to know her in person. I am sure that in another time, she’d be a great president. But I am not sure that her time is now.

I don’t like Obama’s post partisanship rhetoric, but there is no denying that he has energized the party as no one has in a long, long time. I believe this nation needs an effective opposition party even more than it needs an effective Democratic president. If Obama can bring youth, courage and enthusiasm to the Democratic party, then his legacy will already be assured.

Jake

I could not agree more with you on the need to scare the hell out of moderate dems and remind all dems of who they work for. The real problem is that the level of accountability just keeps decreasing. Now, that’s been obvious for the Bushies and for the pundits, but it’s also true for the democratic party.

I’ve said it before, politicians - even the good ones - aren’t worth a whole helluva lot if the people don’t hold their feet to the fire. There is no magic awesome one who is going to change everything and save us the dirty work of fighting for it. On this John Edwards was right, the people with money and power aren’t just going to hand it over because someone asks nicely.

One of the problems with the last several years is that I think a lot of people feel powerless. They see all the terrible things happening, but don’t know how to change it. Well, local congressional (and city and state) races are a great place to start because they are smaller and more accessible than trying to influence all of D.C. You can influence D.C. by throwing out a few bums. It’s amazing what a powerful motivator fear is to a politician. We’ve seen how Republicans use it to run over weak Dems. But we can - and should - use it, too.

promised that there will be no permanent American bases in Iraq.
Clinton has not.
For me, at least, that’s a bottom-line policy difference.
Obama has explicitly promised to work for public financing of campaigns.
Clinton has not.

I don’t disagree with your criticisms of the Clintons.

As for Obama, if I thought he’d be better at building the Democratic party, that would be a pretty powerful argument for backing him. But with his post-partisan framing and his call for Unity, this time round he reminds me a lot of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and his third way, only the political climate now is much friendlier than it was in 1992. And his love of mainstream narratives about the Reagan myth and conservative movement is destructive, IMO. I do agree that he has brought in youth and that’s a very good thing, I have yet to decide how interested those folks are in being part of a party or in fighting. An awful lot of them seem to me to be moved by promises that they won’t have to fight or are interested only in fighting on behalf of Obama, not democratic ideals. The lack of criticism about some of Obama’s more troubling rightward drifts concerns me greatly. Because, as I said, I think accountability is key for any political movement. Obama’s movement right now lacks that.

But I think this only gets us back to CD’s point. Putting pressure on all of the party is critical. Because while it’s true Bill Clinton didn’t build the party in the 1990s, it’s also true that he didn’t get a lot of support from Congressional Democrats. And I can see that just as easily happening to President Obama. There’s a sickness in the Democratic establishment, an almost pathological desire to be liked by Republicans and the media, to always be seen as playing fair and to worry about any criticism. Until that’s fixed (and I worry that Obama’s rhetoric reinforces this tendency instead of rebuts it), it doesn’t matter who leads the Democratic party.

So we need to turn the fear around and make them scared of us. Only then will we have the party we want. Hey, that’s how the conservatives took over the Republican party - they drove everyone else out.

Clinton has renounced permanent bases in Iraq repeatedly, and has introduced legislation that would prevent Bush from entering any agreements with Iraq without Congressional approval. See http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statement…

Even TPM on Clinton:

To be clear, attempts to establish permanent bases in Iraq would damage U.S. interests in Iraq and the broader region, and I will continue to strongly oppose such efforts.

I do understand, believe me, that repeating statements that are untrue, really, really works, and that, at this point, calling bullshit is useless, but I just can’t help it…

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

Clinton also supports the public financing of elections - http://library.publicampaign.org/node/54…

She did decline public financing for this campaign, but so did Obama. Which I agree with because unilateral disarmament by democrats is not how you get public financing, IMO. The only way we’re going to get serious financing reform is to kick the Republicans’ butts repeatedly in fundraising, which both Clinton and Obama have done this year (Obama has been better at it). Because that will give Republicans a political motive to reform campaign financing. When they clean Dems clock regularly raising money, there’s no reason for them to agree to change the system.

Now, I admit I don’t think this is at the top of Clinton’s list of priorities. But I don’t think it’s at the top of Obama’s either.

Not Permanent equals Infinity minus X.

My prediction is that with either Hillary or Obama in the White House there will still be major US troop numbers in Iraq. Current levels minus X, probably, but X can be any number.

It’s just rhetoric. Permanent Bases are already built/under construction. Will either candidate pledge to dismantle them within their first year?

That is a different question. I suspect the answer is no for both candidates. They have both been disappointing on Iraq, IMO. Although most of my frustration comes from their unwillingness to lead in the Senate to get this war over sooner than later. I will never understand why either of them - or the Dems generally - want to inherit this mess. The Dems missed their opportunity when they caved on funding last summer, IMO.

I have a bit more sympathy with their inability to make promises about the future, but I admit their past performance does not give me a great deal of confidence. I believe they both have some understanding of the poor readiness state of the military and the simple impossibility from a practical standpoint of continuing the war on any large scale for much longer. And I think they both do see the war as a disaster and that continuing it will hurt American interests more than help. So think we will see significant troop drawdowns and withdrawal no matter which one is elected. I’m unwilling to bet on anything better than that happening.

Although the contracting work thus far in Iraq has been of abysmal quality, so perhaps the bases will collapse on their own and won’t need to be dismantled. For once incompetence in Iraq might work in our favor.

And the Obama fans can save me the awesomeness that was his 2002 speech. Leaders lead and in the Senate he hasn’t been any more of a leader on Iraq than Clinton.

On the basis of Clinton’s November 27, 2007 letter to Bush, I retract regarding permanent basing. But the link BD gives reads to me a lot more like Reidesque “We must preserve Senatorial prerogatives” than “We must not have permanent bases.” Don’t take my word for it; look for yourself.

Lambert: you seem to be impugning my motives. Is that necessary?

One relatively long, sorry, quote from Sara Robinson at Orcinus:

He’s tapped into a deeply pressurized seam of repressed fury within the American electorate, and he’s giving it voice, a focus, and an outlet. Are the results scary? You bet: these people want change on a scale that much of the status quo should find terrifying. Are they unreasoning? The followers may be — but as long as their leader keeps a cool head, that’s not as much of a problem right now as we might think; and the heat will dissipate naturally in time. Is this kind of devotion even appropriate? You bet. You don’t get the kind of deep-level change we need without first exposing and channeling people’s deep discontent. Obama’s change talk may be too vague for most people’s tastes (including mine); but the fact is that if we’re serious about enacting a progressive agenda, rousing people’s deepest dreams and desires and mobilizing that energy is exactly how it’s going to happen. And Obama’s the first candidate we’ve had in a generation who really, truly gets this. […] This misguided “cult” talk not only misunderstands how social change occurs; it’s also giving the GOP a weapon it will use to the hilt if Obama is the candidate in the general election. They’re going to demonize those energetic kids as the re-animated zombie ghosts of the dirty fucking hippies of the 60s.

In other words: there’s a legitimate argument to be made that we desperately need a strong realigning election, to discredit Bushism/Nixonism for a generation, and that Obama stands an extraordinarily better chance of accomplishing that than Clinton does. Recent polls on how Obama and Clinton run against McCain support this argument — as does the momentum in Obama’s campaign. Please engage this argument, rather than describe those who make it as “psychotic” or “The Borg.”

I retract the snark.

Dunno if it’s necessary. Tit for tat is often a viable strategy.

UPDATE And speaking of impugning, “engage this argument” doesn’t really help. Definitely in “pot, meet kettle” mode here. I’ve “engaged” on these issues ’til I’m blue in the face. Check the Barack Obama tag. In any case, the commenter below me makes points I agree with, different from the ones I’ve made

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

No realignment for a political party can occur unless those being re-aligned support the goals of the party. Simply bringing out new voters is not enough if those new voters are not willing to stand up and fight for (and it will always be a fight) liberal causes and beliefs.

In my mind, Obama is not trying to realign voters to get them to become Democrats. Witness his “democrats for a day” efforts in some primary and caucus states. He is trying to win over independents and Republicans, not to the Democratic party ideals, but to him. Now, that might get him elected, but I don’t think that leads to a party re-alignment.

Moreover, I’d argue that it could actually work against a re-alignment by weakening the need for folks to vote a straight ticket. Obama’s rhetoric undermines a call for voting for Democrats across the board. He doesn’t need you, Mr. Republican in Red State, to vote for the Democratic challenger to that Congressman you like so much because Obama can work with Republicans. He’s post-partisan, so split that ticket.

The youth vote is more energized by Obama, but it is not more liberal because of him. If you look at the emerging demographics, young voters are overwhelmingly democrats (mostly because of demographic changes, young white men are just as likely to be conservative as their fathers, there are just fewer of them as a percentage of the population). But, with one exception, instead of getting them to vote based on these shared liberal values, he is motivating them by a promise of unity. The one exception I think is Iraq because while I’m not impressed by just a speech, there’s no question that a lot of younger voters are.

I’ve long believed that the re-alignment the Democratic party needs is not one that panders to independents and Republicans, it’s one that finally breaks the white male dominated political parties and media. A strong democratic base of women, liberal white men, hispanics and African American voters is the key. It turns the Southern Strategy of Republicans against them because of the shifting demographics, which as I said we’re seeing in younger voters.

I think both Obama and Clinton have the ability to build such a new majority, but I think Clinton’s may be slightly greater because of her appeal to hispanics and women. And I like that, at least in her rhetoric, Clinton is trying to do it through an appeal for universal healthcare and some economic populism (albeit her rhetoric is not nearly as appealing to me as Edwards’). His willingness to so quickly go after UHC from the right is very worrisome to me because I believe that, as domestic policies go, UHC is a critical building block for achieving realignment. Like Social Security or Medicare, it has the ability to help an enormous number of Americans and restore at least some confidence in both the government and the democratic party.

The one area where I do think Obama has it over Clinton is his focus on grassroots organizing and combining that with traditional Wall Street fundraising efforts. His ability to bring out the youth vote is very impressive as is his massive fundraising machine. That’s potentially a very powerful combo and Obama is way ahead of Clinton. And Clinton’s biggest weakness in being a realignment agent isn’t her, it’s some of the people around her like Mark Penn.

In addition to building the democratic party, we also have to destroy the conservative movement. As I’ve hinted at, this is the area where Obama gives me most pause. I think his ability to reframe liberal arguments to make them sound incredibly reasonable could be a great tool in this fight, but it’s one I don’t see him use nearly enough. Just when he gets going, he pulls back and resorts to his post-partisan unity message. So I think he has potential, but I’m not sure he’s there yet. I think Clinton’s history as GOP smear target gives her a better understanding of the 30 years of political history that needs to be undone (it’s not a coincidence to me that she’s the one who coined the VRWC term).

So I think there’s an argument to be made for Clinton or Obama, but I’m unconvinced that either is entirely up to the task. But I do wonder if they don’t balance out each other’s weaknesses. That perhaps instead of arguing over who would be more transformational, we should consider whether the most transformational ticket would bring the two of them together.

As the campaign wears on, I’m finding myself more and more drawn to a Clinton/Obama* ticket (even when I’m pissed at Obama, I can still see his potential and appeal). Together they have brought out enormous numbers of new voters (the increase in hispanics and women for Clinton is as impressive as the youth vote for Obama, IMO). They go straight at that white male power base, with a combination of battle-earned toughness and amazing rhetorical gifts. Such a combined ticket might be stronger than either of its parts.

* An Obama/Clinton ticket has virtually no appeal to me. I think instead of bolstering each of their strengths, it reinforces each of their weaknesses. And I think the optics flat out suck, particularly for attracting women voters (cool younger guy gets top job, older more experienced woman gets to boost him up for it, ick). Your mileage may vary, however.