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

[apresdeluge]

Who cares what the bloggers or the MSM think? Do they really think that American voters are so stupid that they are waiting for some talking head to tell them how they should vote? In 2000, the media was obviously anti-Gore yet he won the popular election by over half a million votes. Today, the media (especially the the far right and "progressive" blogs) are anti-Hillary. They think (hope) that we are lost sheep who will fall for their "wisdom". I say, let them sell toasters and toilet bowl cleaners but don't try to influence my vote with one-sided coverage.

[FirstShirt]

Unless I am mistaken, the voters in Florida will be voters in the general election. The democratic party, in it's ongoing effort to advance to the rear, disenfranchised Florida and Michigan primary voters. Think that won't affect the election?

[pinkyboo]

Normally I agree with you, but comparing Clinton to Lieberman? - That's a low blow Bob.

[Mike5000]

Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney - they're all corporate drones. Obama is running on the same platform as Dubya and is already promising to cave-in to the Repugs and the corporations. Eight more years of war profiteering and increasing poverty. Eight more years of middle-class death spiral. Millions more Americans will lose everything when their health insurance is cancelled. Millions more Americans will become virtual slaves of the credit card companies. AL GORE WE NEED YOU NOW.

[brianb99c]

Obama is the candidate of the establishment. Clinton is the rebel, came to be President when the establishment would not run against Bush after Iraq War I. Since the establishment (i.e. Kennedy, Cuomo, Gore, Jackson, Gephardt, or any other big shot Dem in '92) would not run a candidate, Bill Clinton arrived on the seen. The establishment still hates Bill today. They hate him as much as any Republican hates him. So the Clintons are still running against the establishment and against the Republicans. Bob has emotionally embraced this hatred the the rose colored glasses of his Progressivness. Kennedy would not have endorsed Obama if he were not the establishment candidate. Who was the last Democratic Establishment president? LBJ? Kennedy? This is the same establishment that brought us Warren Commission and Vietnam. Bob's emoting is going to help insure we have a weak candidate who may not even make it to the White House.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Dear Senator Obama,
Why did you vote against credit interest cap of 30%? I know you said that the cap was too high, but since you voted it down, the rates are higher than 30% for the poorest. I'm trying to understand.
Thanks.

Dear Friend,

Thank you for contacting me about reforming our nation's tax policies and restoring fiscal responsibility. I agree strongly that we need to reduce the tax burden on middle class families while taking the tough steps needed to make sure that the federal government lives within its means.

The advancement of individual opportunity – the chance for everyone to join the middle class, regardless of birth – is basic to both the history of our country, and to our economy. We believe that there’s a place for every American's dream, and our tax structure must help people reach their goals by rewarding work, rewarding companies that play by the rules and keep jobs here in America, and supporting economic growth.

I’ve introduced detailed proposals to make our tax code favor work instead of just wealth, to help homeowners and seniors, and to simplify tax filings so that millions of Americans can do their taxes in less than five minutes. Under my plans, working families will get a tax credit of up to $1,000; low- and middle-income homeowners will get tax relief, and seniors who make less than $50,000 per year will pay no income tax at all.

And I’ll pay for these proposals by eliminating special interest loopholes, corporate tax breaks that serve no national interest, and tax havens, because we can’t leave a legacy of debt to our children and grandchildren.

Instead of honoring that core American value – opportunity for all – we've had a system in Washington where our laws and regulations have carved out opportunities for the few. I will restore fairness to this system so that the government collects the revenue it needs to operate without penalizing people who are working hard to realize their own American dream.
Thank you again for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

[terekita]

You are wrong to say that Florida doesn't matter, delegates or no delegates. 857,000+ people voted for Clinton, nearly 300K more than voted for Obama. The total number of votes Obama got in South Carolina is close to the number of votes that he lost by in Florida. Call that insignificant at your own peril.

Both candidates have disappointed me by distorting what the other has said. However, at least the Clintons are up front about playing hardball. It's a little hard to watch saint Obama being shocked, SHOCKED!, by the Clinton tactics, when his people are doing more or less the same thing (taking quotes out of context and drawing dubious conclusions).

Unlike you, I'm not so sure the candidates have an equal chance of winning in November. Sometimes I think the Republican strategy of saying the words sleeper cell, Barack HUSSEIN Osama, oops Obama, etc, could be effective in this still racist land of ours. Other times I think the overwhelming hatred Republicans and many Democrats feel for Clinton could doom her as well.

In any case, given how disappointing both candidates have been, I'm going to vote based on whom I think has the best chance of winning in November, and on that alone. And with less than a week to go, I sure wish that I had a clearer answer to that question....

[BetterDeadthanRedState]

But when Jessie Jackson won the South Carolina primaries, Hillary Clinton wasn't on the ticket. Is Bill giving Obama a back-handed compliment while putting down his wife who got less than half the votes Obama did?

[Bocababs]

I chose Obama and voted for him in FLORIDA. However, after watching John McCain in the debates last night...I now have Republican family members who will VOTE for Hillary if she is the Nominee and I found that "striking" this morning. If it is Hillary, I will vote for her....because as my GOP sister told me; "Look at the alternative".

[YouThinkAndTalk]

The Clintons today are not the Clintons of the past. But wait a moment, were the Clintons of the past the real Clintons. I think not. Clintons' strategy all along was to replace the Republican facade with a Democratic facade, using the same methods and obeying the same rules, which are the rules of money dominance over the USA. Who signed the telecommunications act? Bill. Who signed NAFTA? Bill. The Clintons have sold out since day one, they just appear Democratic. Sometimes I think that Bill deliberately lied to us, "I didn't have sex with that woman," to create buzz. My experience tells me that only if your intentions are questionable and selfish you use dirty tricks like triangulation, lies, artificially generated buzz. Well, I thought only the Republicans were stupid enough to follow Bushe's lies and manipulation. But now I see that stupidity spreads across all the political spectrum, from left to right. To me the bottom line is: how much are you willing to be manipulated and how much your are volunteering to be brainwashed.

[tellie]

It's impossible to read any of the political sites I usually read because every one of them is pushing their choice. It angers me and strengthens my resolve. We ended up with Bush because he was a press favorite. Why can't we support all our candidates on the left and not pile on those who aren't our pick.

[Sundialsvc4]

Show me an actual candidate and I will duly consider voting for him or her. I see none.

[eazyguy]

Did you hear B.O. Superstar's latest speech. Here is the text in context:

Hope, hope, hope, change, change, change, change, lift you up, poor homeless woman sent me a quarter, hope, hope, hope.

I'm sure that if Obama is the nominee we can find the Republicans and the media calling for an investigation of his ties to Rezco. You say he gave the money to charity after getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and that he says there is nothing there? Since when did that ever matter with the media and Republicans. Gee, I can hardly wait.

Yes, I was once a big Superstar fan until the day that while B.O. was spouting words about bigotry of gays, he was using McClurkin to drum up support among the strong anti-gay black constituency of South Carolina. That told me all I wanted to know.

Since then I've found that LIEbermann is his best bud, even openly campaigning for him against Ned Lamont. I've found out that when push comes to shove, B.O. Superstar can be counted on to cast his vote after the issue is already decided and he's on safe ground. Either that or he doesn't show up so he can talk about how he was either for it or against it whichever suits him.

Then there was Cheney's energy plan or should I say no plan or crap plan that B.O. Superstar supported to throw some chump change back to the coal industry in Illinois. But that's okay. As Mary Magdalene sang in J.C. Superstar, Everything's all right, yes everything's all right because the media, The Obamington Post, and Oprah Winfrey (who after years of having all this wealth and power gets struck by lightning and suddenly decides to campaign for someone. Can't imagine why) have
B.O. Superstar's back.

No thanks. This one blogger who'll take a pass on this phony baloney Oscar Mayer wienie in a suit.

[tselfe]

You can't count on all Democrats to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee - I know many Dems who feel they can't vote for her under any circumstances, and I'm one of them...it's going to be a sad state of affairs, if the GOP gets another term because of the Clintons' sleazyness....

[kellygrrrl]

"Making History" is usually a messy scene -- no different this time.