It's Time For Progressive Bloggers To Choose A Candidate

Last night's non-victory victory rally in Florida underscored everything that's awful and ridiculous about the Clinton-Clinton '08 style. They pledged not to campaign in Florida, yet they campaigned there anyway. The primary was unofficial and no delegates were counted, yet they celebrated with a televised victory rally anyway -- ostensibly to trick some casual viewers and supporters into thinking it was a meaningful win.

Imagine, if you will, the Patriots showing up at U of P Stadium tonight and declaring victory even though they've agreed -- "pledged" if you will -- to play against the Giants on Sunday. It's an easy way to declare victory, albeit equally as cheap, dishonest and artificial.

And to observe Senator Clinton's pledge to seat the Florida delegates while, at that very moment, violating a previous pledge, was to observe a Clintonian paradox in its pristine, natural habitat.

Until today, John Edwards absolutely succeeded in moving the debate a little closer to a progressive posture. And by dropping out, John Edwards has further succeeded in condensing and clarifying the dynamic of the race. Today, this primary campaign has been distilled down to what amounts to Joe Lieberman versus Ned Lamont.

It's now about a competition between a new and inspirational paradigm -- a watershed movement inside the Democratic Party, not to mention a total redrawing the electoral map and an advancing of Howard Dean's 50-state strategy -- versus the shifty, triangulating DLC crap-on-a-stick approach to politics that has, more often than not, made us embarrassed to be Democrats.

And we should be equally as embarrassed by the Clinton approach so far. From the relatively insignificant over-use of poll-speak like "we are sending a clear message" simply because polls indicate that voters like candidates who are "sending a clear message"; to the besmirching of a presidential legacy by shamelessly race-baiting in South Carolina; to that bizarre scene in Florida last night, the Clinton-Clinton de facto ticket has become, dare I say, Lieberman-ish in that it represents a style of doing business that, in any other race, we'd be shredding without mercy or regard to party affiliation.

We know that both of the Democratic candidates have an equally strong chance of winning in November. We know that there's plenty of overlap on the issues. We know that Senator Clinton can recite policy positions just as brilliantly as Senator Obama can induce chills in even the most cynical political junkies. And we know that both candidates will make history. So if it's more or less a tie in those columns, why should we willingly choose to support the Democrat who's cribbing political strategy from Karl Rove's whiteboard?

As such, it's absolutely astonishing that the Democratic race is as close as it is. If a Republican said something like "Jesse Jackson won here twice" or pledged to grab delegates that don't exist we'd be choking on our own tongues as we convulsed and gasped in shock-horror. There's no excuse for forgiving the Rovian games or the DLC calculation. Just because they're The Clintons doesn't make it forgivable. Up until the last two months, I've been an unwavering supporter of President Clinton. He's arguably the second or third greatest president of the 20th Century next to FDR and JFK and he's presently the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World, but these past couple of months have been seriously painful.

So how has Senator Clinton lasted as long as she has given her campaign's fun & games? Well, for starters, it doesn't hurt that the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World is serving as her de facto running mate -- using his position as the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World to publicly rip Senator Obama every day during New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. (Speaking of which, it's worth noting that in New Hampshire Senator Obama came within three percentage points of both Senator Clinton and the Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World. Any other year, that would've been considered a huge win for Obama.)

It also hasn't hurt Senator Clinton's chances that, somewhere along the line, it became de rigueur among some of the top-shelf progressive bloggers to remain neutral.

I understand exactly why they did, but now that it's a two person race, there's no reason why the progressive blogosphere shouldn't get down to endorsing a candidate. And while the endorsements could easily be for either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton, they ought to be, by-in-large, endorsements that are consistent with the blogosphere's past activism against Democrats like Joe Lieberman, party machines like the DLC, and political stunts that reek of the current Bush Republican regime.

Now that John Edwards is out, and there's (unfortunately) not a truly "progressive" candidate in the field, there's no reason why the progressive bloggers shouldn't step up and actively support Senator Obama's effort. If the arguments for Senator Obama are framed correctly, supporting his campaign shouldn't be any different or more divisive than actively campaigning for Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman or, presently, campaigning for Donna Edwards over Congressman Al Wynn. And while, unlike Lieberman/Lamont and Edwards/Wynn, the 2008 presidential primary campaign isn't specifically about pro-war versus anti-war candidates, an argument can be made that it really is, since, after all, Senator Clinton vocally supported the invasion...

Even if we were to strike the war from the syllabus, we'd still be left with a choice between a once-in-a-generation, transformational candidate who's running parallel to our collective desire to remake the party, and, on the other side, a candidate who represents a species of Democrat that we've traditionally rejected. If the blogs choose to step out of the way on this one, they're forfeiting an historic role in the most historic presidential election of our time while the antiquated, embarrassing politics of DLC triangulation sneaks on by without a fight.

So yeah okay, there should be a parenthetical in my headline that reads, "(Preferrably Senator Obama.)" But you know, when the dust settles, we'll all come together behind the presumptive nominee and collectively barrel our way past the Bush Republicans to make history in November.

UPDATE - 8:06AM - Thursday: Markos, who has already voted absentee for Senator Obama, addresses the Obama national television spot here. Please read this, Clinton supporters.

UPDATE 2 - 11:18PM - Thursday: Just a reminder... Senator Clinton partnered with Joe Lieberman to ban and censor video games. Censorship! Hillary '08!

Bob Cesca's Goddamn Awesome Blog! GO!

Comments

[Illinoisdan]

Those are my sentiments exactly, I am not interested in voting for the Clinton do anything to win style of politics. I am tired of the Clintons, and the media's hands off or they will not participate in our debate attitude. David Shuster was suspended for saying that it was like Chelsie was being pimped by the campaign because she is calling celebrities, and super delegates begging for votes for her mommy. After being dragged through the muck due to Bill's affair with someone's "little girl" in the Oval Office, I would think the Clinton's would keep Chelsie out of their new mess. David Shuster was right!

[AMichael]

I've chosen quite some time ago, on 15th January '08 already - even though for non-political reasons since I'm not voting or running for President: http://preeedict.blogspot.com/

Good luck to all!

[ObamaEdwards]

I chose Obama and Edwards a long time ago. I have never even considered voting for Clinton, as much as I like and respect her. I can't take four more Bill Years in the White House.

Obama is the candidate I have been supporting on my blog for months.

[lamarguerite]

I have stopped being neutral a long time ago, even making room in my environmental blog for a post and many references to my wholehearted support or Obama.

There is a very big difference between Obama and Hillary, and it has to do with judgment, the capacity to inspire and mobilize, and extraordinary leadership, and the advantage clearly goes to Obama.

http://lamarguerite.wordpress.com

[user168]

ONLY THE DEAD HAVE SEEN THE END OF WAR

"Hell is this Thing Called War"

"To be in war is to be in hell on Earth, captured by lunacy and bewilderment, panic, fear and unmatched levels of stress invading your body. Bullets whizzing by, helicopters flying low, machine gunning anything that moves, fighter jets roaring overhead, explosions everywhere, 500 pound bombs flattening entire city blocks, cluster bombs maiming and killing, the tremors of the ground rattling your conscious, concrete flying everywhere, screams of pain and agony surrounding you, hidden snipers killing indiscriminately, platoons of men caught in hours-long fire-fights, bullets, artillery and rockets flying everywhere, the smell of blood in the air, the odor of sweat and urine festering about, your heart palpitating thunderously, body parts strewn everywhere, pools of fly-infested blood lining the streets, the nauseatingly putrid stench of rotting death omnipresent, hundreds of mutilated bodies thrown about, the ravaged remains of a once vibrant city laying at your feet, your house destroyed, your family huddled in the corner of your most secure room, YOUR CHILDREN shaking, lying in a fetal position, hunger overcoming you, your belly hurting for food, your tongue and mouth desperate for water, your spirit eager for escape, your instincts telling you to survive, to hug your children and never let go.

Welcome to Hell on Earth, where the devil’s excrement bleeds black and the neocon delusion dwindles into twilight. Welcome to state-sponsored terrorism breeding unending crimes against humanity, where torture has replaced torture, where human evil has replaced human evil and where tyranny has replaced tyranny. Welcome to the American Crusade and Iraq Invasion..­."

BY VOTING ON WAR AND IRAQ INVASION, HILLARY HAS SHOWN THAT SHE BELIEVES ONLY THE THOUSANDS DEAD SHOULD SEE THE END OF WAR, NOT HER!!

BY VOTING HILLARY TO WHITE HOUSE, VOTERS BELIEVE IN WHAT HILLARY BELIEVES - LET THEM DIE... OTHERS' LIVES AREN'T MINE TO WORRY ABOUT!!

BY LACKING THE VISION TO WORRY ABOUT OTHERS' LIVES, ALL ONE COULD SEE IS "ME" AND "MY POCKET"!!

[2Truthy]

Time for progessives to finally stop supporting corporate welfare candidates like HilBama.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


RALPH NADER IN 2008

[MissFortunate]

Progressive bloggers should have chosen a few weeks ago if they wanted to have an impact. Just as Kos said, "who will get bragging" rights for being "right" it shows that the blogosphere is becoming as bad as the MSM in wanting to be right at the end than being right at the beginning. That's right. Right from the start.

The blogosphere really failed Edwards who was the most progressive candidate and who also worked the most to include bloggers in their outreach.

Please need to start speaking with their true voices rather than worrying about it being pitch perfect with the outcome. Same with the unions who felt betrayed when they endorsed Dean.

[alltwisty]

See? And I think comparing the contest for the presidential nomination (between two people who are on your freaking side after all is said and done, fer pete's sake) to a goddam football game is cheap ... dishonest ... and artificial.

[nerakami]

It is important not to take the human aspect out of what is happening here. The Clintons have been ingrained (mentally and psychologically) in the divisive, "dog eat dog" dirty style of winning in politics for the past 35 years (as she claims). Any psychologist will tell you that learnt behavior is one of the greatest challenges for a human being going through personal growth and development. We clearly saw how close to the surface this pattern of behavior is by the Clintons' political strategy in the last month. (Bill had to be muzzled). It will undoubtedly be "same ole same ole" partisan politics in Washington if Hillary becomes President as the cronies in Washington will trigger Hillary to re-act with learnt behavior ... We need a fresh approach if we are ever going to break free from the way Washington conducts the country's business. Obama proposes TRANSPARENCY ... let each Senator explain to the American people why they will vote for or against a Bill. This is a phenomenal approach as it will give the power of policy making back to the people. Let us once and for all, see who is for the people and who is for these special interest groups. This will make it easy for the American people to vote out who is there for their own personal gains. I won't say never, but It is very difficult for a leopard to change it's spots. America doesn't have the luxury to take Hillary through the process of re-conditioning her mind and behavior. We need that critical change NOW to move forward...

[IMaybeCrazyBut]

I was an avid Kucinich supporter. Then changed to Edwards. Can't vote for Ron Paul, although he could probably clean up DC, because I'm too fond of my husband's Social Security checks. I heard Ralph Nader may run again. I can't help but think of the Clinton's as enablers for the right wing to come back in in the following administration although its hard to think of things getting too much worse. He did sign that God awful bill getting the poor off of welfare to an economy that he must of known after that God awful NAFTA would bring the end to millions of industrial jobs. Obama seems to me at times to take on the air of a classmate competing for the top of the class that when he hears an opponent make a remark that garners immediate approval he shouts ME TOO, ME TOO! I admire his devotion to the underclass of Chicago, but it pales to Nader, and we have all known him longer .

[kizzie]

I was for Edwards, the best choice and hope for change. Setting laws and limits for lobbyists, stopping jobs from leaving the country so people could afford to live decently, giving the opprotunity for a better education for anyone willing to do community service in return, ect. But the Corporates and lobbyists were not going to let this happen, and little airtime was given to him. He did it right by not taking corporate money! It was shoved down our throats from the beginning who are choices were!
He is still on the ballot in the primaries, and that's who will get my vote, but if it comes down to Obama or Clinton, I'll vote Ron Paul if he manages to stay on the ballot. Everyone else is more of the same bull s--t!@#
When are we going to get the guts to vote with intelligence and not by popularity contests???

[ChrisO]

Boy, what a misleading post by Kos you cited in the update. The Clinton campaign never claimed that it was alright for them to campaign in Florida because of the ads. The Clinton campaign didn't campaign in Florida. Obama's people put out a press release saying "we THINK she's going to campaign in Florida because her people are looking to rent a hall." Talk about thin gruel. Can anyone please give me an example of Hillary campaigning in Florida?

And by the way, it's interesting how people gloss over Obama's rationale for running his ads. The agreement was with all four of the early states. But to Obama, all he needed was permission from the South Carolina Democratic Party, where he had just won a huge victory. That wouldn't have anything to do with his relationship with the SC Democrats, would it?

As for her victory party, of course it was a stunt to change the conversation from South Carolina. But the fact remains that a lot of flesh and blood voters went to the polls, and preferred Hillary by a wide margin. All names were on the ballot, and no one campaigned there, so it was a level playing field. It's the height of hypocrisy for Obama supporters to trumpet every opinion poll in their favor, like they are an actual fact, but dismiss the real voters who really voted, just because there were no delegates at stake. Those voters do exist, you know.

[MrCoffeeCup]

Bob, on second thought let the bloggers choose the candidates.

Barrak Obama is archtypical "Sheriff Bart"(Clevon Little) from Blazing Saddles. Bill Clinton is Slim Pickens(Taggart)and Hedley Lemar

Bill is Slim(Well Golddangit he's a N....r) loudly and nobodys is hearing him! I can't believe it Taggarts says" Well you boys can't be sheriff cause we ain't never had no N.....r as a peace officer!) Amerika don't ja hear me...weell­l sheaat! I'll be galdannged.

The little old lady hisses(Hillary) Don't get near me N.....r! You don't have the right to be here!Up yours N......r!" The second part is that Hillary also play "Lilly Von Schtupp" who will fool this man and take his power. The GOOD SHERIFF KEEPS FOOLING EVERYONE!

Yup, Bob Watching the Clintons is just like watching the movie "Blazing Saddles" again!
The American blogger chooses "Sheriff Bart Obama" as the hero and winner.

[StephieL]

Here's my problem -- Hillary is attempting to resurrect the ghost of FDR by making feeble babblings about the state of the U.S. economy, while Obama and Ted Kennedy are attempting to resurrect the ghost of JFK by claiming that Obama is the "heir apparent" to the Camelot Legacy.
Hillary will never be able to measure up to the character of FDR and Obama is no JFK, despite his enotionally charged "motivational" speeches, and truthfully, I wouldn't vote for either of them, because so far, neither of them has a plan to restore the Constitution, get us out of the "Neocon quagmire", and to pursue justice by trying all of the members of the Cheney/Bush cabal, including the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) who occupy the Supreme Court, for crimes against humanity.
Too bad Dennis Kucinich is out of the running. He was a candidate who actually came closest to embodying the progressive characteristics of FDR and JFK.

[MrCoffeeCup]

Well Bob you nailed it this time! Good article and I must admit your description of Hillary's normal behavior as a "lady of the Streets" picking us some good time money in Florida is perfect. This is classic Clinton. She(Hillary) will promise you a good time, condemn you when you err and forgive you with the proper penance payments! Geez I didn't know she was Catholic!!!! Guess who else is sending money????? Anyone who wants a date with Hillary! Lookin for a good time at the White House honey....w­ell what's in it for me?? Money, delegates, ok but I gotta call you somethin for the press...Sh­ame on you for voting early....n­ow where's my check?