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

[SKayum]

Forgive me for being a bit ideological and displaying a level of naiveté that even Obama might scoff at (when he’s not too busy sending chills down my back, that is), but I somehow thought a "progressive" blogger might respect his audience enough to expect them to own even a semblance of the ability to think critically.

[lhaz]

I fear Obama will unite the Country Club Republicans with the Country Club Democrats.
The people that have been referred to the last few days by the MSM as low class, working class, and downscale will continue to be screwed.

[janmB]

OH BOBBY OH BOBBY how you do WHINE !!!
Can't STAND the thoughts of a WOMAN PRESIDENT ??? What did your mother do to you to hate women so much and have such a low opinion of the gender that gave you life?
ALL the male bloggers on this site are ALL the SAME
WHINE WHINE WHINE.
TOO BAD---If women have the COURAGE of their convictions they'll put HILLARY in the WHITE HOUSE. TIME FOR A WOMAN PREZ.
OBAMA is a greenhorn anyway--he should wait another decade for experience and there should be no training on this position.

[fluffyhead]

Obama supporters: Do you believe if Obama had won
Florida, he would have ignored it and given up a chance to capitalize on the momentum? When has he ever made a sacrifice like that?

I don't begrudge the Obama campaign's strategy of positioning him "above the fray" while constantly pointing fingers at Clinton, but I do begrudge his supporters' being so gullible.

[jazzman]

Today I'm wondering if, after all the millions that have been spent, all the campaigning that has taken place, all the energy that has been expended, we aren't just going to end up with two old establishment status quo candidates with their established political machines facing off against each other.

Think about it, the two leading candidates both supported the war and both are unapologetic about it. Yet with polls showing over 60% of the American people being against the war, the American electorate won't even have a choice on the matter come November. I've come to believe that this whole election is nothing but bread and circuses. The lobbyists and big money have two candidates that will give them everything they want. The people have no real advocates on their side and the war will go on.

There's been alot of movement and frenetic energy but from where I sit it will still be the same old story with the same old one party system with two names. In the end it will be baby boomer time with Hillary running against the old geezer, John McCain. Meanwhile the autocratic plutocracy marches on.

[JDWPS]

Bob I agree with you 100%! Every word. Thank you for being a voice of reason. Everything in life is relative. There seem to be people posting on here that haven't noticed that.To quote"Over the decades we've seen countless hardworking, intelligent, accomplished, dedicated, tough politicians aspire to the presidency (including Hillary), unfortunately all these have failed to "move" people as the most powerful world leaders have, through oratory. The Obama critics, so quick to minimize the value of heart rending oratory, are most pitiful...­as though you cannot hear the music. The fact is, Obama's gifts are not "limited" as you would assert to "fine speeches", he is blessed with tremendous intelligence and wit and charm and wisdom...t­hus his threat to those lesser pols. You assert "the Clintons know how to fight and win". Maybe so, but seems a pitiful qualifier for the presidency of the U.S.A. Perhaps, but have they any real courage? Have they fought the inside, internal battles, the real stuff that life is made of? They appear to still believe the end justifies the means, hardly evolved by any human standards.­" I agree with these ideas wholeheartedly and would be curious to hear an cogent argument to the contrary.

[apresdeluge]

Exactly which part of Bill Clinton's January 2008 statement that Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina is racist? While you are at it, is Michelle Obama's Novemner 2007 statement that "black America will wake up and get it" racist? Is Obama's resume which states that he was the "first black president in 104-year history of the Harvard Law Review" racist? It seems to me that race was an issue long before Bill Clinton's statement.

[Jazzylady26]

I'm sorry, but nothing anyone has written anywhere has changed my mind about Hillary. Hope? I don't want no danged hope! Change? From what? 100% ignorance to 75% in Obama? Why do I see in him the same things I see in the rethugs? Same old, same old? I don't want hope. Hope was killed in April of 1968. What I want is some kick ass, some punch em in the face, some run the rats out, some make Rove babble about some damned mirrors in an office and an icy cold stare. I want the fear the rethugs feel because the woman they love to hate might enter the House and slaughter them all for all that they did to her. I want revenge, and in revenge comes the knowledge that all that bad nasty air in the peoples House now will be let out and fumigated. I don't want baby boi Obama with his wishy washy ways, and probably his lies about what ever it is he says he's going to do, which I haven't quite understood yet, coming in to do NOTHING. I still have yet to see anything concrete on why we should hate Hillary, and I don't. I may be black but my damned vote is my own to do with as I please and see fit, and the only way Obama will get it is if he is crowned king. And then I will let the world know that it was a hostage vote. If he is elected I wish you well of him.

[synykyl]

"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."

I prefer Obama slightly, but that "once-in-a­-generatio­n", "transformational" stuff is a bunch of crap. Some people (especially reporters) seem to find him more "likeable", but he is no more competent or honest than Senator Clinton, and his positions on the issues are nearly identical to hers.

[jeffhas]

Bob, what a biased pile of dung.

"Most Popular Living Ex-President In The World"

What about the Most Popular, Beloved Rich, Black woman in the World as Obama's supporter.

[BeyondKen]

I wonder what you'd say, Bob, if Hillary Clinton had won her first race for office by hiring two lawyers to use legal maneuvering to get all her opponents thrown off the ballot?

Awful and ridiculous? Cheap, dishonest and artificial? Old-style Clintonian politics?

But Sen. Clinton didn’t do that. Sen. Obama did:

According to David Jackson in the Chicago Tribune:

“A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Alice Palmer.”

[Nyland8]

Calling Clinton's tactics "Rovian" overstates the case by an order of magnitude. First of all, had Clinton done something "Rovian", it would have been done through surrogates and never been traceable to the Clinton's themselves. Secondly, it would not have been anything subtle like allusions to Jesse Jackson. They would have accused Obama of fucking an Irish setter and siring a chimera ... and they'd have had Photo-Shopped masterpieces to "prove" it.

Over-the-top hyperbole should be saved until we're actually running against the opposition party. It might be more effective then.

8

[repearwo]

Well I was leaning toward maybe voting for Obama, but if Markos is for him, that is not good. Ah the ego of the Main Stream Bloggers.

[bestyf]

There are so many people who seem to think that, if she gets the nomination, we should vote for Hillary even if it is against our principals. That,"for the good of the party" stuff is something I thought Democrats were better about. I see very little difference between Clinton and McCain. These Rove like qualities do not set any better for me when someone is a Democrat. I will vote my principals as always.

[vote4peace]

The only remaining candidate that would stop the war and bring back the troops is Ron Paul.
I think the progressive voters no matter what their party affiliation is should consider supporting Ron Paul.