It's funny how the punditry works, sometimes.
Over a month ago, I wrote an op-ed for the Philadelphia Daily News, warning Democrats that a prolonged primary would destroy the party's chances to win in November. I followed it up ten days later a with a post here that compared the prolonged primary to a "murder-suicide in progress" with Hillary Clinton landing heavy shots against Barack Obama, but shooting herself in the process. Again, I made the case that defeat in November was being snatched from the jaws of victory. A few days after that, I looked at polling trends and again warned that the longer the primary goes on, the worse the chances are for November, for Democrats.
As I tried to make my case to political watchers, I was told to take a chill pill - that everything would work out, that the "energized" Democratic party was wonderful and the primary was only helping it, and I was just a hysterical Chicken Little. And yet, what was evident to me more than a month ago is now just evident to pundits today:
"It is no longer just the Chicken Littles within the party who openly worry about an outcome that leaves large blocks of women or African-Americans frustrated and alienated.," says Amy Sullivan of TIME.
"The Worst of All Worlds," says Andrew Sullivan.
Marc Ambinder says "damage might be accruing to the Democratic Party."
John McCain is now the only candidate in the race viewed more favorably than unfavorably, according to Rasmussen Report's Daily Tracking Poll. And he is intermittently hitting the 50 percent mark in the head to head matchups - something that neither Obama nor Clinton has even sniffed since, well, at least since February, which is as far back as the head-to-heads go.
The longer this goes on, the worse it gets, as voter attitudes towards McCain solidify, making it much harder to re-define him in an abbreviated general election campaign. If it goes on long enough, it doesn't matter who the candidate is - Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama - Democrats WILL lose.
Still don't want to believe it? That's fine. Just don't come crying to me when between January 2009-January 2013 you find:
:: 4000+ more dead in Iraq
:: A Supreme Court stacked and ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, and allowing unfettered government intrusion to your privacy
:: More Bush economics
:: More unfair trade deals
But, hey, at least you had an energizing primary, right?
On the other hand - Maybe they'll tell the truth and use the Straussian-powers to make the sheep believe that hunger, disease and slavery is good for them. (like when NBC had Alan Greenspans' wife - Andrea Mitchell give a "fair and balanced" report on the effects of Globalization)
This country isn't running short on idiots that do and think whatever the TV (or a radio DJ) tells them to.
SO THE EFFORTS OF THE CORPORATE MEDIA AND THE H M O 'S IS PAYING OFF MAKING MC CAIN THE BEST CHOICE AND KEEP THE POWER AWAY FROM THE AMERICAN CITIZENS!!!!!!!!!!
HOW MANY MILLIONS ARE THE H M O 'S PAYING THE CORPORATE MEDIA TO SKEW THE POLITICS?
WHY DID MC CAIN SUPPORT BUSH'S TAX INVENTIVE TO MOVE AMERICAN JOBS OVER SEAS IN 2005????
IT WAS IN THE 2005 BUDGET!!!!!!!!
If she gets her wish and makes decent people so afraid of the racism of OTHERS (people they don't even know), which--afterall-- is what her "unelectability" claim is anyhow, the party is NOT going to reward her with its nomination if the convention is deadlocked. And her supporters are already trying to change the rules and threatening to take their votes elsewhere, so it is unlikely that they will nominate Obama either.
My feeling is that the candidate will be some third party...maybe Gore or Edwards (who have stayed safely out of the endorsement fray). And the country will have another black eye for refusing to nominate a qualified man who campaigned FAIRLY and decently and was on his way to the nomination until he was blindsided by racists, or--in some ways-- even worse: people who used the fear of latent racism of others as a way to destroy his candidacy..
Otherwise I say O needs to play the Blue Dress and the Cigar... because the repbublicans will!
Independents (like me) certainly WILL NOT.
If anything is "destroying" the Dem party right now is whiny Democratic panic. People just need to chill out. We will eventually have a nominee, and then there will be what seems like 2 years of mudslinging before the general election. Everyone will get a slice of the mud pie. Calm down.
Have you ever heard of any other race or contest in which a winner can only be determined if someone drops out? It's preposterous. If the Dem leadership doesn't have clear rules in place to determine a winner at the end of this thing--if there really is no track laid down at the end of the train line--then maybe we don't deserve to win this one.
In 2000, they lost, and despite indications then and academic proof today, that the Green Party's running of Ralph Nader had nothing to do with it, they've trotted that excuse out til its hooves fell off.
Could their karma being coming back to bite them in the ass?
Spirited debate about ideas is something this nation was built upon. We should encourage that- all ideas, from all parties and those who chose not to join a party. This nasty, down and dirty vitriol brings back memories of similar exchanges I observed post-2000 however, and the legal maneuvers perpetuated by the party machine ever since- suing candidates, making sure 3rd parties had to submit challenging numbers of signatures, throwing a legal juggernaut at those signatures, etc. etc.
It was juvenile and ugly then, it's moreso now. It would be hilarious though if so much were not at stake.
This race is the Democrat's to lose. Maybe they've just had too much practice being mean to everyone else they don't remember how to be civil?
Well, what 's she trying to accomplish by staying in up to now and continuing? First, a very strong showing might put the Clintons in a good position to extract concessions from Obama. So far we have little idea of what such concessions might be (other than possibly the health mandates thing). I wonder just what kind of PRIVATE agenda & powerful vested interest demands HRC plans to extract from Obama over the coming months. Certainly I haven't seen this angle discussed in the media at all. Someone please let me know if there's been such SPECIFIC speculation.
Then there's the possibility that HRC is DELIBERATELY doing all she can to sabotage Obama's chances in 2008 so she can run in 2012. After all, by 2016 she'll be 68 & have no more a lock on the nomination than she did this year. So helping to see Obama loses in 08 could be part of a most (characteristically) cynical hidden HRC agenda.
As for disaffected women, Obama would be best advised to nominate a woman running mate NOT HILLARY. I think Barbara Boxer would be best, some say Sebelius. It's worth discussing
We have a lot of stupid people in this country. There are a lot of people that want us to Kick Ass in Iraq without thinking what the hell that means. There are a lot of people that feel we should just take over the entire Middle East and take their oil! So even when the moron says something totally stupid they will like what he has to say.
We are on the brink of extinction as Free American Citizens.
1) CORRUPT: A houseowner wants to sell both a house and adjoining land. Obama can afford to buy only the house. No problem, the criminal Rezko to the rescue. Rezko pays full price for the land, whereas Obama gets a discount of $300,000 on the house. Nice to have criminal friends like this!!! (ref ABC News)
2) LIAR: Obama claims he did not know about Wright's America-hating (God damn America) and racist views till it was revealed in the mainstream media in March 2008. Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years, was married by Wright, had his children baptized by Wright, donated over $20,000 to Wright's church and named his book "Audacity of Hope" after one of Wright's sermons. You really believe after 20 years and all this he did not know?
3) ILLUSION: Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants in Illinois. Obama, a senator for Illinois introduces a bill to make disclosures mandatory. Seems like Exelon doesn't like it. Each draft of the new bill by Obama goes more and more towards Exelon till disclosures end up being "voluntary". What gives? How about $250,000+ donations by Exelon!!! Obama is not change, he is WASHINGTON BUSINESS AS USUAL. (ref NYT)
People need to realize that Hillary has been fighting for them all along. All the way back to 1993 when she tried to introduce universal health care.
Just once it would be nice to have an election, however hard fought, without being beat over the head continually with lies and twisted information, a la Rev Wright and bittergate, or, for that matter, Hillary's complicity in the murder of Vincent Foster and Bill's record of serial rapes and McCain's verbal wife-beating. This kind of behavior dumbs down the whole process and no one is safe from it and it turns people off--which, I suppose, is the whole point.
Interesting that Obama's the only one in the race who isn't doing this.