Cannibal Democrats and Other Very Bad Things

If I was going to dress as a Neo-Conservative for Halloween, I would wear an expensive pantsuit (complete with flag-pinned lapel,) carry the Bible under one arm, the Economist under the other, and arrange my hair in a humorless coif at the top of my skull. I would drape a crucifix around my neck and march around the neighborhood. I would glare at everyone with a mixture of suspicion and condemnation.

Instead of accepting candy, or as I would call them "heathen bribes," (because really, that's all a Snickers bar is,) I would ask people about their mostly deeply held beliefs. And when the answers inevitably came back to me in the form of unsatisfactory, stuttering, liberal lisps, I would scream at them until I was hoarse and the costumed children around me were all sobbing.

But that's only if I was going to dress as a Neo-Conservative for Halloween. I would only dress and behave these ways if I was imitating a small-minded, fearful, prejudiced individual so afraid of conflict that they resort to tantrums any time anyone disagrees with them. In previous years, I wouldn't have categorized Democrats in this school of "Yer With Us Or Yer With The Terrerists." In this election year, things are different.

Every peace-loving liberal knows the sting of being branded "weak," "soft on defense," or if you're being interviewed by Bill O'Reilly, a "Communist," or "Nazi" (because we all know how much the Nazis loved peace). In 2003, it wasn't popular to be against the war, and a lot of Democrats took a lot of heat for having the courage to stand up and say: This is wrong. We're compromising too much here.

Now, Democrats are making the very same assaults against their own party members. When fellow Democrats express concern over Obama's shifting stances on a host of issues, or heaven forbid, an interest in hearing from a third-party candidate, all hell breaks lose. Criticizing Obama's policies and early moves toward triangulation earns one the label "traitor" from the Democratic community itself.

I have received a plethora of frantic e-mails from people across the country about how they've been ostracized from their parochial Democratic communities for daring to criticize Obama, or having the gall to suggest Ralph Nader has a place in a three-way debate. These letters read like the sender is being held hostage: "...Felt so alone...Please send help....So tired....so....tired." I can almost hear the hysterical weeping when I read them.

The assault isn't just coming from their friends and family. It's spouting everywhere from the so-called liberal media (the people who claim they're all for free speech). Take for example this bit of ridiculous: Eleanor Randolph's mind-numbingly stupid anti-Nader op-ed in the New York Times. It's short, probably because she realized her opinions were leading her toward a vast pit of despair and wandering premises, so she quickly wrapped things up before critical thinking entered the mix.

In Ralph Nader: Going, Going, Not Gone (GET IT?!) Randolph bemoans the fact that Nader is running for president again because she's just like SO totally bored with him! Then she she actually expresses confusion over Nader's anti-corporate greed stances and then goes on to claim none of the Presidential candidates are in the pockets of big business because, well, none of them have publicly claimed to be in the pocket of big businesses! After all, they would admit that kind of thing, people! An air-tight case from an ace reporter. I feel safer knowing this woman is sitting on the board of one of the largest newspapers in the country.

And this is a so-called journalist writing. At least, to her credit, Randolph doesn't dissolve into hysterical accusations. She admits that the evidence for Nader having lost Gore the 2000 election is weak, and she never accused Nader supporters of being traitors to their own party. If only this was the case everywhere.

It saddens me that the discourse has dissolved into baseless accusations within the Democratic party. The branding goes far beyond "traitor." To accuse Obama of betraying his base sometimes has far uglier results. The label "racist" is haphazardly catapulted far too frequently, which is all the more unfortunate because some people ARE making racist statements about Obama and his wife, Michelle. But every criticism of Obama isn't inherently an attack on his race. We're not all Geraldine Ferraro, thank you very much.

I believe the Democratic party is still the party of reason and compassion. I believe Democrats take pride in their party's tradition of engaging in open dialogs and discussing conflicting ideas in the hopes of elevating the party's collective ideologies to new, exciting places. This tradition invites not only their rival parties into the room, but also members of their own party, who for whatever reason, have veered away from the Main Candidate, and are looking elsewhere for answers.

Instead of shunning those who criticize Obama's handling of FISA and offshore drilling, or those individuals who are considering voting for Ralph Nader come November, Democrats should address the causes of these symptoms of anger and mistrust within their own party, all of which stem from an ideologically sick candidate, who has begun to play fast and loose with his principles.

These disillusioned Democrats aren't traitors, and don't deserve the burden of the unfair and immature dismissal: "Well, ENJOY President McCain, asshole!" Such digressions are why Democrats are forever on the defensive and the Republicans, year-after-year, are permitted to set the agenda. Democrats have an identity crisis and continue to publicly shun their brand as the progressive, peace-loving party. Worse than trying to mimic Republicans, now the party has turned cannibalistic and Democrats are attacking Democrats. Obamaniacs hate the Nader Raiders, and the Nader Raiders resent the fact that they feel ostracized for being too liberal and too progressive...whatever those labels mean nowadays.

A party is only as good as its ideas, and if the Democrats turn into the two-dimensional cartoon characters on FOX news, the screaming idiots that shout sound bites at each other from across the table, then they might as well sculpt their hair into humorless coifs, throw crucifixes around their necks, and call themselves Neo-Conservatives.

Cognitive dissonance (the uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously) is a good thing as long as there is resolution. Resolution comes when one ideology is cast aside because the other is deemed possessing a higher value.

Those Democrats disillusioned with Obama aren't lost causes. In fact, they're right to feel scathed, confused, and betrayed (a little bit) by their man, Obama. He redacted on his promises, and now he should be held accountable by his own party. Ya' know, the the same party claiming that politicians should be held accountable for their actions. That's a universal rule. Yes, even when it's YOUR guy who is lying, or "triangulating."

But the Democrats must keep talking and debating if they are to remain the party that likes diplomacy. They can't be so quick to label their own members as traitors the second things get really tough, Obama's shining star dims a bit, and he's revealed as a complex, flawed human being like all the rest.

Comments

[londongal]

Allison:

I empathize, I really do. But Repubs are allowed to be Cannibals and still pull out election wins. They've done it since '68. Dems can't. Period. When Dems attackl each other, the whole clan suffers. Thems the rules! It sucks, I know.

[dstanley]

C'mon, every political group has its own strident self-righteousness. To say that it's a new thing in the Democratic party is naive; it's the mother's milk of every party in existence. Of course, nobody every realizes when they do it to someone else, only when it's done to them. A perfect example would be your stereotype of conservatives, which proves that you've never met one and don't know anything about them.

I like Obama, not for his policies, but because he seems to want to move beyond this closed minded distrust of political rivals.

[Micah616]

Is the irony in this post intentional?

Here you are, complaining that Obama fans are ostracizing Naderites, yet you seem to leave out that Nader has directly attacked Obama, but not McCain. How are we supposed to feel about Nader, based on that fact? Couldn't Nader try to find a more constructive way to move the Democratic Party into more progressive stances, other than attacking the more progressive candidates?

Let's be honest here: Nader cannot win. For the sake of argument, let's pretend that he can. If Nader, as he is now, were to win, he'd be the nothing more than a lame duck for his entire term. Democrats and Republicans would work together to get things done for the first time ever. The things they got done, however, would not be for the benefit of America, but to limit whatever power Nader would have. I'm not saying that I agree with it, but that's the reality of the situation.

Because Nader really can't win, a vote for him really is a vote for McCain. Instead of being a cannibal, maybe you and all the other Naderites should vote for the more progressive candidate that actually can win now, and work with the rest of us to ensure that we create an environment where future candidates can be unashamedly progressive.

Barack Obama can be the first few minutes of a new day. How well the rest of the day goes is up to us as citizens and Americans.

[LWkcma]

I've told my friends that I will hold my nose and vote for Obama. He's not my first choice but he's better than McCain. These are the choices we have to make. Politics is a stinking game.

[aofh]

"Instead of shunning those who criticize Obama's handling of FISA and offshore drilling...all of which stem from an ideologically sick candidate, who has begun to play fast and loose with his principles...Resolution comes when one ideology is cast aside because the other is deemed possessing a higher value. "

It seems to me that to your way of thinking resolution is zero-sum where one party has to win and the other has to lose. Unfortunately, that way of thinking invites a fight to the death because neither side will quit until their cherished ideology is pried from their cold, dead hands. Some resolution. It fails to recognize the validity in the losers position and is purblind to the weakness in its own. The problem with ideologist--true believers--is that they equate compromise with unequivocal capitulation. What's at stake for them is their ego masquerading as argument. They fail to realize that wisdom is often a process of synthesization. Only when we hear another's concerns and are willing to accept and address the validity of those concerns is true resolutions possible. What we give up is our self-centeredness.

Early in the primary cycle, at tv commentator remarked that Barack Obama was asking us to be more than what we are. I think that it is only fair for us to ask him to be more than what he appears to be. But we also need to listen to his reply and consider his reasoning.

[BCubedReg]

I don't understand why Kilkenny is so anti-O yet hints at disdain for the republicans as well? Ralph Nader is not the solution, he is a politcal roadblock. He will never garner enough votes to be considered a viable candidate so he needs to stop impeding those that may affect real politacl change.

Yes, Obama has shifted in some of his positions (some that I don't agreee with), but he has shown a quality that the republicans are totally unfamiliar with and that's compromise. For the republicans it's "my way or the highway".

If changing on a position is criminal then we are all guilty.

"The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn."...as quoted by Alvin Toeffler, Future Shock

[PoliJunkie]

In this election it with either be Obama or McCain....Period. There are no other choices that would ever be considered a WIN! I would like people to think rationally before making a hasty decision. Nader, Barr, and all the other "spoilers" will never WIN. This country has suffered far too long at the hands of the rich elitists and it is time for CHANGE. We all need a level-playing field, Obama speaks more on this issue than the other candidate.

[PublicAdvocate]

One of the biggest myths sold to voters is that only Democratic/Republican Party candidates can win in US presidential elections and therefore there is no point in listening to or voting for any other candidate or party. Congressmen Bernie Sanders (Independent/Socialist) and Joe Lieberman (Independent) have both shown the way that the congress can break free from the stranglehold of the Democrats/Republicans. Ross Perot had essentially no political experience in 1992 and competed well against Bush I /Clinton despite his soft credentials and lack of debating skills.

Ralph Nader who has more experience, intelligence and skill than Perot could easily emerge the winner in a debate and very likely win the Presidency. That's why the Commission on Presidential Debates (a private corporation owned by the both corporate parties) do not allow him in. They knew that he would have easily mopped up Bush/Kerry/Gore and sailed into the White House to end their power duopoly.They know now that the criminal corruption and gross mismanagement of our nation and plunder of public treasury for corporate welfare and war would be exposed and criticized and ultimately fixed by Nader.

Its not that a third Party or Independent candidate is incapable of winning a presidential election, its that the political machinery set in place by the corporate parties prohibits competition, blocks access, and protects party incumbancy with its inherrant corruption, laziness, and entitlement.

[tinarm]

Listen if you don't want to support Obama don't I dont' give a crud, but I do care when many in this supposed democratic party participate in the lies and distortion that has been put out by some in our own party. Obama has never been a left wing progressive and if you thought that then that is your problem. He has always been realistic and rational, somewhere in the middle. That's why I like him. Being stuck in one idealogical mind frame is what republicans do we should be able to take the middle. Find the best of both sides and come up with a rational decision. Washington has been broken by people picking sides. Everything needs to be based on what is best for the majority as a whole not indiividual little groups. If you don't want to vote for Obama vote for Nader, I think Nader is a kook but you go right ahead. I can't stand the thought of McCain being president though I can't believe that America can handle another republican.

[Pingolo]

I guess all you are sayinis is you want 4 more years of McDubya in the white house

[phae100]

Obama, who has already conquered the Clinton machine, is now under attack by the GOP, big biz, and the media. They are all formidable opponents in control of a machine that has been successful enough to bring our country to the threshold of absolute disaster.

Ms. Kilkenny - we are not yet at the point where we have the luxury to attack or threaten to abandon Obama for the policies we don't agree with. Even if he makes a decision that we don't agree with, it is well thought out on his part, he writes and talks about it and explains it (unlike what the Bushites do, which is to ignore us completely).

IMO you should be celebrating the fact that finally, someone with a brilliant mind and a heart in the right place, and who wants the best for America is poised to become president. All who would prefer this type of president to the type we've had for eight years needs to get on board and do whatever we can to help him get elected. No, he's not perfect, but he's a good man, a smart man, and he can help us get back on track as a country. He's not out to profit off of us like the Repubs are, or to play war games with our sons and daughters.

It is not the moment for insisting on utopia. Its the moment to dig ourselves out of the quicksand.

Let's debate the details when he's in the

[nippersdad]

I don't know that we are going to be digging ourselves out of the quicksand by hiring mercenaries to staff permanent military bases in Iraq so that we can move our troops from one stupid war to another one. Reinforcement of the idea that a war on terror (TM) is even possible is not going to help us to reduce our Imperialist footprint to the point where any of his domestic initiatives will be affordable.

I don't think that we will achieve truly universal health care by enabling insurance companies to continue their strangle hold on the healthcare options of the electorate.

I don't think that touting technologies like "clean coal" (which does not even exist) and nuclear (without a plan for dealing with the waste) and yet more drilling over a decentralized renewable plan will get us off the fossil fuel bandwagon any time in the forseeable future.

I don't think that immunizing criminals and gutting the Constitution is the way to encourage the rule of law over that of men.

If you have no difficulty seeing the logical disconnects and accept Obama's "if this is a dealbreaker" attitude towards them who brung him to the dance, then I can easily see why you consider such questions to be luxuries rather than critical ingredients inherent to any movement for change.

You might start by questioning how "big business and the media" got the power that they wield so effectively in the first place.

.

[DasBoot]

Exactly my thoughts, thank you for the elegant statement!

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

when people support a mainstream candidate then they should expect that candidate to do as all the others do - flip flop here and there. that's the way it goes in america - even someone calling for change is going to do the same thing. key word here: MAINSTREAM. expecting something different from MAINSTREAM is naive.

a little tip for those who are disillusioned with the mainstream candidate: this is going to happen over and over again, for the rest of your lives. get used to it - or stop supporting mainstream politicians.

[Cathexis]

I think people have been so traumatized by 8 years of Bush-Cheney and an all-but-unopposed Rightwing GOP that they get panic-stricken at the merest hint that ANYTHING might get in the way of finally bringing an end to the long, dark night, this year.

[nippersdad]

Wow! It is like a Reagan Democratic convention in here. I love how people can so easily cross Party lines and bring all of their tribalist baggage with them.

When the only persons running for the Presidency that have a reliably "Democratic" message don't happen to be Democrats, it says a lot about where the Democratic Party is. Perhaps that is why those so easily swayed by the tribal logic of us vs. them never seem to vote for truly Democratic options during the Primaries.

[loper2008]

Obama's money is just as clean as Nader's. He only takes individual contributions from actual people. Nader has taken money in the past from people who clearly want to support him only to hurt Democrats. I don't think Nader offers anything anymore. I voted and campaigned for him in 2000, but now I really like Obama, and after having worked for the state legislature in Texas, realize that politics is messy. Nader is pure because he has never had power. Obama has had power so he has to compromise. I respect him for it.

[vew]

Get in the real world. You want Democrats running the government than you need to support Obama and and everyone running on the ticket. This is not the time to be arguing over small, though important, points of view. That comes once the Democrats are in charge. I want change and giving any support to anyone other than Obama at this point in time is just going to allow the Republicans to retain power. And if you want that than you are not a true Democrat regardless of what party affiliation you put by your name. Also, as an older southern white woman I felt that both Bill Clinton and Ferraro used "code" language which was a mistake. And it was sad to hear since I had totally supported each of them when they were running for office. Their comments are the kind I hear my southern friends use when they are trying to put down a Black individual.

[emjay1954]

You obviously regard having "Democrats running the government" as an end in itself. It is not--at least not for me and for millions of others. Putting Democrats in power may--MAY--be a means for ending wars in the Middle East, repairing the damage done to the Constitution, and reversing the wealth transfer to the very richest that has been going on for at least 30 years.

If the Dems want to escalate the war in Afghanistan, if they want to keep laws like FISA, if they want to drill off the coast of Florida--screw 'em. Run, Ralph, run.

[vew]

I want the national and local governments to change. And for now all we have is a two party system. I'm from Texas and I like Ron Paul. However, in the current political climate we live in voting for a 3rd party candidate is just not helpful. I don't like everything any candidate does but I've had learned through 30 years of voting that you find the the candidate that is most inline with your views. I've voted Republican and Democrat because I vote for the person not the party. But in this coming campaign I'm voting a straight party ticket-Democrat. I want government to change- Nadar's OK but he has absolutely no chance of winning. If you want to vote for him, please do. That's the American way of life. But for me it would be wasting my vote and there are too many important issues at stake to waste a vote. So think about what's at stake- do you want McCain to win?