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
Do I like Hillary? Nope
Do I trust Hillary? Nope
Do I like Bill? Nope
Do I trust Bill? Nope
Will I vote for Hillary in my primary? Nope
Will I vote for her as the illustrious nominee of the Democratic Party for President of the United States? HELL YES!
How vapid.
To sum up, there's not much difference between them in electability or policy, so it's like...duh
Say WHAT?
And having a rally AFTER the Florida primary has nothing to do with a pledge not to campaign there (by, for example, running televsion adds )
If the Democrats cannot produce a candidate I can vote for, I will vote Green. We won't win, because of the myth of the two [arty system, but we lose if Hillery wins also.
The Clintons aren't perfect, but they sure look good next to George Bush. I'm for Hilliary now that Edwards is out. Having said that, if Obama gets the nomination I'll vote for him.
I just don't think he has enough experience yet. Just my opinion. Anyway, I say we stop the Clinton bashing and let this process work itself out. The Republicans are going after whoever we nominate. We don't have do it for them.
Of course you can always give them free ammunition. Demorcrats are usually pretty good at destroying their own.
Listen Bob, politics aren't pretty, they're not nice, you have to be tough to make it in that business. If Obama can't take what the Clintons dish out, how the heck is he going to stand up the Republican nastiness when it starts. Remember Harold Ford. Now thats bringing race into the campaign.
"we'd still be left with a choice between a once-in-a-
Judgement decisions involving life and death issues:
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President.
- Hillary Clinton 2002, floor speech right before the war authorization.
"I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.
"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.”
– Obama 2002
Judgement for the supreme court? You decide.
Hillary CACKLES again WHEN CAUGHT CHEATING
Interview on MSNBC after Hillary’s self proclaimed Victory in FL. She vowed to use every backroom arm twisting tactic she has in her arsenal to make sure Florida delegates counted. This exchange is particularly telling, it happens at about 6:10 into the clip:
http://www
Keith asked her about a statement from the Obama campaign -
Olbermann: (reading from the statement)
When Sen Clinton was campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire she said that states like MI and FL that wont award delegates quoting you “don’t count for anything”
Now that Sen Clinton has lost badly in SC she is trying to assign meaning to a contest that awards zero delegates and where no campaigning has occurred.
Hillary: Cackle, Cackle, Cackle
Olberman: beyond the laughter, what is your reaction to that?
Hillary: Well you know, that’s typical campaign jargon.
(then blah blah blah – never answers the question)
If Hillary thinks breaking the rules is typical in campaigning, will breaking/bending the laws of our nation as president be typical leadership? We have one of those, don’t we?
Good blog, but two small disagreements.
Obama's 2nd by 3% would have been the story in any not just in any other year, but in any other week. The feeling going into to Iowa was "do or die" based on the assumption that Hillary would win NH. New Hampshire was written into her column for months, and it was only during the heady 5 days between Iowa and NH that pollsters reversed themselves, making Hillary's narrow victory look like a comeback rather than a near disaster.
And, it's not that the business-as-usual politics makes Democrats embarrassed, it's that it has made us jealous, of the win-at-all-costs Republicans and their ability to win with those tactics. That the Clintons have appropriated them for "our side" don't make the tactics any less abhorable.
Obama, alone among politicians of my lifetime, has publically discussed the obsession of "how to win" over the more important question of "whether we should." It is safe to say the latter question has never worried the head of either Clinton.
Obama has the audacity of hope. The Clintons just have enough audacity to give themselves hope.
It's such a shame that things turned out this way. John Edwards was the ONLY chance the we had to get a Dem in office and because of this website and the mainstream media we are left with these two goofballs.
Clinton or Obama. Obama or Clinton. For progressives, the point is moot. Kucinich, Gravel, Richardson and now Edwards are done. All that's left are the Wolves in Sheep's Clothing.
Great blog, thank you for capturing my thoughts. The Clintons had 8 years in office, and to be honest, I could not stand all the bickering. Personally, I have Clinton/Bush fatigue. I always get a great feeling when I hear Obama speak, like reading a great poem. With the Clintons I feel like I am reading a bad novel that I can't wait to get to the end. Althought I supported Bill during his Monica fiasco, I can't forget how he pointed his finger and lied to us. I don't trust Bill, I don't trust Hillary and I don't find her inspiring in the least.
Thanks, Bob! I'm in complete agreement.
Cesca-
I'll buy everything in your column with one exception. If Obama is not the true progressive in this race and Edwards was, then I must conclude that I am no longer a progressive.
Obama '08
Hillary's base of support is not whites, women and Latinos. It's 1) the DLC, DC insider establishment, 2) partisan-only Democrats in love with the Clinton name, and-- most important-- 3) voters who aren't paying attention.
Hillary's support is similar to McCain's in that many people think he's the same straight talking maverick who wowed the media eight years ago. Hillary is hoping nobody has paid attention to the past eight years, when she voted to authorize the war in Iraq, remaining silent for most of the time in which the worst president in our history was destroying our reputation, economy and Constitution (not necessarily in that order of importance).
Hillary hopes the casual Democratic voter in California doesn't realize this isn't the same feminist icon who wrote "It Takes a Village" and was always viewed as too liberal to run for president. Because while Senator Feingold, Howard Dean and Barack Obama were speaking out against the Iraq War (Dean wasn't in the Senate either by the way), Hillary was attending morning prayer breakfasts with Senate Republicans trying to forge power-broker relationships.
Hillary would actually be more qualified for the presidency if she were merely running on her record as First Lady. She *was* a powerful First Lady who transformed that role. As a Senator she hid in the back rooms, always afraid to be seen as too liberal. She didn't even read the NIE before voting for the war in Iraq, though the hardly liberal Sen. Graham of Florida did read it, voting against it because of his reservations about the intelligence.
I like John Kerry, but in 2004 Democrats chose a northeast Senator hated by the right-wing who voted for the war before being against it and was a (forgive me) boring speaker who couldn't connect with the "average American voter." Why? Because he was "more electable.
I admit, I stpped reading this post after the first couple of paragraphs. When I saw statements that Hillary campaigned in Florida (she didn't) or that she pledged to seat the delegates (she didn't) I knew it was another fact free anti-Hillary rant from Cesca. No thanks, I have better things to do with my time.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
