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!
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
You may not like what Hillary seems to have done in Florida, and that is your right, but as Atrios has just said: stop telling people with their own blogs that they must come out now and take a position. We will when we feel like it. Not till then.
"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."
So yea ok, I agree.
BOB do you not have a spell checker? You try to impress with a large vocab but that do not work when you cant spellle Preferably . :)
But seriously, I really like Obama, just not some of his self absorbed public ego masturbating supporters.
It ain't going to be Hillary nor will it be Obama. Maybe
I'll write my own name in but until I get a BETTER candidate I'll not be a mindless sheep like so many of you are. Don't you people understand that until you take a stand and DEMAND BETTER you'll get the SAME CRAP you've been getting. Where to hell are YOUR Cojones?
I must be missing something, because I see absolutely nothing that would justify your comment that Sen. Obama is a once-in-a-
He does have a gift for speaking, but
what are his credentials as a progressive or even as a political leader? I really don't see anything there.
It's ironic that in this year when so many Americans want unity, not only are the two parties anything but unified, but there are serious divisions cracking open within the parties.
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and millions of conservatives are watching in dismay as the hated (by them) John McCain sweeps toward a nomination. Mike Huckabee had already succeeded in turning evangelicals against Mormons, and because Huckabee shows some concern for the working man, Fred Thompson succeeded in painting Huckabee as a fake conservative.
After 2006 Democrats were unified and in great shape to win back the White House in 2008. Hillary was the obvious choice, but this new guy Obama is spoiling her party. And Edwards was another candidate who thinks just a change of party in the White House isn't enough. So do his supporters dislike the insider Hillary more, or the "empty suit" Obama?
Now the Democratic base has broken up into blacks, young people, white males, the affluent and the college educated over here, and women, older voters, Latinos over there. Even the Kennedy family is divided, with Robert's children going for Hillary, and Ted, Caroline and Patrick endorsing Obama.
I think tonight is the night Obama has to take the high road-- he has to use some sort of inspiring language to show that he can bring these pieces back together again. No matter how angry his supporters are about Hillary's vote for the Iraq War, and her campaign's tactics since Iowa, Obama himself has to make sure he isn't merely preaching to the choir. I hope he has a chance to be specific about some of his plans, and the moderators don't dwell on the petty stuff (audacious hope, I know). Because his plans may unify Democrats better than his inspiration.
The link to the piece about a Clinton-Obama ticket is cutting off and not displaying correctly. Here it is again. Sorry, you will have to copy/paste to read.
http://www
larry-spoh
There has not been enough investigative journalism about Obama, we do not know him, his past, his family and his previous actions half as well as we know Hillary's. Journalist and honest bloggers shoulg go after the troubling facts of all candidates mainly of the ones that has not been investigated before, maybe he has been a god guy all his life, maybe he is a saint... but I doubt.I say lets investigate him before the republicans. Giving him a free ride for the nomination is doing a disservice to the democratic party, to the users of this blog, to the blogesfere, and to the American people. Even is a disservice to him
Truce. Tearing each other and the candidates apart is just wrong and really needs to stop. I know we are all passionate about this election. Let's have a cooling off period. Take a moment to read Larry Spohn of the Albuquerque Tribune regarding a Clinton-Obama ticket.
http://www
It would give us the White House for two decades. In one brave moment, the Democratic party would not only break gender and racial barriers, ushering in a new age, it sends a clear message here and abroad that America is rejecting regressive politics and moving forward with a clear and bold progressive vision of leadership, cooperation, engagement, responsibility, and justice.
From Factcheck.
Peas in a Pod
January 24, 2008
Dueling radio ads from Clinton and Obama falsely paint the other as a secret Republican.
Summary
A radio ad sponsored by Hillary Clinton reprises her misleading claim that Barack Obama likes Republican ideas. Obama has responded with an ad that makes a half-true accusation that Clinton "championed" NAFTA. We find that both claims are misleading and that the candidates are, in fact, making mountains of molehills.
Specifically, we found that:
Clinton's ad falsely implies that Obama supported "special tax breaks for Wall Street" and running up the deficit, and that he opposed minimum wage increases while refusing to deal with the housing crisis. In fact, Obama voted to increase the minimum wage and actually supported some cost-cutting measures that Clinton opposed.
Obama’s claim that Clinton flip-flopped on NAFTA is half-true. She did change her position, but she did so long before she began running for president.
In fact, the two candidates vote with Democrats more than 90 percent of the time and voted with each other 94 percent of the time. Interest groups give them nearly identical ratings for being liberal.
Update, Jan. 24: The Associated Press reported, about the time we were posting this article, that both campaigns had pulled these two ads off the air.
Now, Bob, could you please elaborate on how only the Clinton side is parsing, prevaricating and triangulating?
You are absolutely right, Bob! Especially your thoughts on Bill Clinton. I was so thrilled and invigorated to see Bill scold Chris Wallace months ago and speak out about the facts leading to 9/11.
Now I am offended to see him talk about himself endlessly while Hillary tries to establish herself on her own. He reminds me of how great his time WAS...and how it is time to "move on".
Speaking of "move on"...when will they endorse someone?
Although I cringe to think Republicans will mock any "MoveOn" endorsement.
You know, it would serve every Obamamaniac right if HRC endorsed John McCain if she didn't get the nom.
Fortunately she has loyalty and understands party unity and has already said we will all come together..
Even Obama has not said we will come together if he does not win the nomination.
You Obama zealots are not uniters... you're dividers.
I would love to see the looks on all you Obamamaniancs faces if the Clintons said John McCain wold be a better President that Obama... priceless.
How about OPTION D, "NONE OF THE ABOVE" for both the Democratic, republican and also Independent candidates? I really do not see ANY viable candidate from any of the three parties. How about a DUAL ticket of Alfred E. Neuman and Torticola Frankenstein? OH, THAT'S RIGHT, WE ALREADY HAD EIGHT STINKING YEARS OF THEM, namely Bush Neuman and Torticola Cheney!
You should do your homework on Mr. Obama. He's not a bad guy, and he's an inspiring speaker, but this Daley-mach
Your progressive Mr. Obama also enlisted his cronies to knock off the ballot all of his Democratic opponents in his race for Illinois office. They employed the kinds of technicalities worthy of the most skilled Chicago ward-heelers.
Finally, does Mr. Obama really want to assume the mantle of President Kennedy? Let's recall the non-existent missile gap this cold-warrior used to help defeat Nixon, his expansion of our involvement in Viet Nam, his numerous bizarre plots to kill Fidel Castro, his encouragement and then abandonment of the right-wing thugs who invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs under the delusion that the Cubans would rise up and join them in the struggle (sound familiar?), his reluctance to move forward on civil rights or to even provide protection for those being beaten, bombed, shot, and killed in the South. Does the suddenly very Christian Mr. Obama really want to invoke the memory of the satyr president who reportedly needed to bed a different woman almost every night, who frolicked with nude lovers in the White House pool, who dated mobster girlfriends?
But on reflection, perhaps this is appropriate, because both JFK and Mr. Obama are long on rhetoric and short on record.
SOME SCARY THOUGHTS ABOUT OBAMA. Michelle Obama, quoted in the New York Times today, warned supporters in Stamford, CT. not to assume her husband would run again if he loses this year when he still has advantages of youth. "This is the only time we will have a chance to have someone who is three years from paying off his student debt and still going to Target for toilet paper."THA
Today is a good example and it will be very telling. There is a very troubling article in the NYT about Bill Clinton that must be vetted before democratic voters can make a good decision about our future. I have been reading Daily Kos since the primary to get insight about some of the important issues. So far they have been silent on this issue. I know it is very early and I hope they bring this into some form of the conversation. It is very important. They have a good reputation and I would hate to see them fall into putting blinders on because it is a democrat.
http://www
Please read.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
