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

[skeptique]

Refresh my memory: who won the Lieberman vs. Lamont race?

I think I may understand the loathing people feel for Clinton, if it's anything like the execration I experience every time I see Lieberman speak. But his tactics, however unpalatable, seemed to have worked – in spite of the unanimous pillory he received from progressive bloggers.

One thing I admire about WJC is his sly way of playing politics – he knows what he is up against, and knows that playing by rules that are altogether acceptable to leftist idealists (myself included), will not win over the majority of the general vote.

I think HRC is having a tougher time now than she'll have in the general election, when she'll be free to bring out the real political weaponry...

[KansasKowboy]

Yeah, it was Florida that made me decide to go with Obama. I was hoping that the Florida delegates would throw their vote for Obama in protest of Hillary's actions, but they didn't. It just goes to show ya that being there does help. (Unless you are 9ui11iani) ANyway, I think Hillary would make a good president but we need something more than a good president, we need passion, we need change, we need a President that is for the people and the Constitution. A president that is going to dig deep and try to fix as much as he can that Bush has made wrong. I think Obama is the better candidate for that. Plus everyone has been beating up on the Clintons for so long, I don't think the "sheep" would ever vote for Hillary. The "herd" and the "sheep" would vote for Huckleberry if he was the candidate just because the GOP has been spreading propaganda about Hillary for the last 16 years. That is hard to get over.

[cblcar]

Obama ran tv ads that reached into Florida, so lighten up. The fact is, Hillary handed him his butt by popular vote. Most people are not political blog junkies like we are. They could give a damn about whether the delegates are counted. Most have no idea about it anyway. I don't care what the Kennedys say. Obama is not ready to be Commander In Chief of this nation. Most world leaders have no idea who he even is, but they know like and respect the Clintons.

[DaleB]

"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."

Actually no - not necessarily. If the Democratic party won't nominate a progressive candidate, they don't deserve the progressive vote. I haven't voted for the Dem nominee since '92 and they haven't had a nominee that I didn't need to hold my nose to vote for since '72. If the nominee is Clinton I'll withold my vote again. If it's Obama, that's still TBD. He's needs to show me more than he has so far. Voting for someone based on their race or gender - in order to "make history" - is an insufficient rationale IMHO for supporting someone. Ditto voting for "the lesser of two evils". Continue to do that and don't be surprised if the result is more "evil".

[apresdeluge]

OK. I'll try again since my previous post was apparently rejected. I'll call it a misstatement when you asserted that Hillary Clinton campaigned in Florida. Better? The fact is that she did not campaign in Florida and just because you say she did does not make it so. Once I read that statement, everything else you said became suspect.

[PKSSK]

Great Article!!! Just a side note for those who are unaware. The Clintons are strongly in favor of filtering internet websites (should not surprise anyone)so enjoy the internet while you can. For right now, it is the only link we have to seek the truth that enables us to participate in the democratic process.

Remember the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which deregulated mainstream media so they could merge into fewer ownership hands. Our current lack of honest, educational media is a direct result of Clinton. Now we have entertainment news propaganda that is filtered to prevent us sheep from the truth and keeps encouraging us to go shopping!!!

Use your vote wisely, it is all we have left of our democratic process!!!

Bush/Clinton/Clinton/Bush/2008????

[rmwarnick]

You're saying that we ought to forgive Obama's constant dissing of the netroots. I will if he becomes the nominee, not before.

[OhgReaTone]

I don't know if I am progressive or not - but I do know that the Regan Revolution has been misrepresented by Rush Limbaugh.
Ohg
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/31/ohg-rea-tone-on-demise-of-rush-limbaugh/

[Nutcase]

You say, "Today, this primary campaign has been distilled down to what amounts to Joe Lieberman versus Ned Lamont."

You seem to think that Joe = Clinton and Ned = Obama. That does not compute. Lieberman has been Obama's closest confidant and mentor since he's been in the Senate.

Joe has been traveling around with McCain. Wouldn't it be just peachy if Joe ended up being the first person to run for VP on both tickets?

cognito ergo populistae

[SEQUOIABISON]

Bob you stated your case Brilliantly.

We are all tired of Bill and Hill using Dick Morris tactics of triangulating, obfuscating, double-talking, warmongering and pandering.

You are a 100 percent right the progressive fence sitters must make a decision before February 5, it is imperative to support the candidate who got it right about the consequences of going to war with Iraq.

I truly hope the Edwards supporters will switch their allegiance to Obama, he understands what the Edwards campaign was all about and is best suited to fulfill his promise to make this country one America.

[GLaB]

Hey Bob, since you're hear, what did Obama have to say about Florida's delegates? Oh yeah, I remember.


By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking


"According to Sanchez and Tom Scarritt, Obama was asked during the event about making sure Floridians have a role in the nomination, despite the DNC sanctions and the pledge. Scarritt said Obama responded that he'll "do what's right by Florida voters."" posted 01/30/2008 at 11:14:06

[austinobserver]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and it seems the Republicans had their broken clock moments when they were telling us that Hill and Bill were consummate liars. Now I am convinced. Someday the Republicans might be right again, but I would not hold my breath.

[foreignobserver]

So correct me if I'm wrong but did Jessie Jackson not win SC? What has Obama actually said of substance. Change is not a platform. I have seen much "change" in this world that has been negative. HRC has been a progressive throughout her career and in a system designed to prevent action a successful achiever. I am getting a little tired of the cheerleading for Obama and the sarcastic put downs of HRC on Huffingtonpost. When this nomination process is over american progressives are going to have to support one of these two and democratic fratracide is only going to result in more years of Republican misrule. It might be HRC or McCain's war. You get to choose and we in the outside are nervous.

[rubicon101]

Forget the naysayers, Hillary Clinton would be the absoulute best candidate for President of the United States of America.
Many factions are against Hillary but I have not seen one credible reason to discount her. She does have a great amount of experience in Washington and with foreign leaders abroad. She would definately bring back the respect that we've been sorely needing ever since GWB and his group have taken office.
I do wish that somehow the media would start providing a positive perspective of Hillary Clinton as she has been wrongly critized on many real and percieved

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2008/story?id=4215364&page=1&page=1

I don't know if this link will work, but I urge you to go to "Nightline" on the ABC websight and check out the "Nightline Classic" video on Hillary Clinton..the video is embedded in the story by Cynthia McFadden

[detriangulation]

Great post, except I'd take issue with the assertion that there's no longer a "true progressive" in the race. I don't mean to attack Edwards after his classy withdrawl, but if you look at his record it is far more moderate and DLC than his 2008 positions--just ask Russ Feingold. That's not to say that he may have undergone a sincere ideological shift to the left since his Senate days (I'm not saying he's a Romney or a Clinton), but I don't see how, if one considers platform plus record, that he's somehow more progressive than Obama.

Sure, Edwards's rhetoric is far more populist and confrontational, but I think Obama's more conciliatory rhetoric (bringing corporations "to the table", etc.) is far more reflective of political reality and is, admittidly, more expedient in terms of building a viable general election majority (and governing majority, for that matter)--without being DLC Republicrat-light.

Obama's record reflects clear progressive committments. He stood against "tough on crime" BS in the Illinios legislature, refusing to support bills that would charge children as adults for gun crimes. He's the only Democrat to support--at considerable political risk--driver's licenses for hardworking undocumented migrant Americans. And don't forget his anti-war stance. Edwards voted for war authorization, but was big enough to admit he was wrong. I'm still waiting for Clinton's apology for her complicity with "George Bush's War".