Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement of Barack Obama today is a big boost for the grassroots wing of the Democratic Party. I thought all along that Richardson was just running to be Hillary Clinton's vice presidential candidate, but I was pleasantly surprised to see that Richardson recognizes the historic direction Obama is trying to take the party. (Where is John Edwards?)
If Barack Obama can wrench the Democratic nomination from the cold, dead hand of Hillary Clinton, the score of the game goes back to 0 to 0 and overtime begins. He will have a clean slate against John McCain. The Democratic primary campaign has been a ridiculously lengthy and bruising affair but the minute it is over, the political earth will shift. The nation will be confronted with a choice of voting for another failed, cynical, myopic third term for George W. Bush embodied by John McCain, or something almost entirely new in recent political history: A Democratic candidate who knows how to fight unapologetically for his core beliefs.
In recent presidential elections the Democratic Party has nominated bloviators, hypocrites, weaklings and wimps, uncharismatic sorts who are overly verbose and pretentious sounding to most working-class Americans. They have shown neither guts nor courage, neither spunk nor vigor, and they got their butts handed to them.
The Republicans (with the help of their corporate media and talk radio allies) have successfully defined the last few Democratic presidential candidates in the most unflattering terms. They said Al Gore was "haughty" and a "know-it-all," and he sighed too much during his debates with Bush. They said John Kerry overused his stentorian tone in his speeches and that he "flip-flopped" and that he looked "French."
In 1992, the only reason why Bill Clinton squeaked in with a plurality of 43 percent was because Ross Perot stole votes away from Herbert Walker Bush and Clinton aped the Republicans whenever he could on free trade, deregulation, and welfare reform. And he was from the South. In 1996, Clinton won reelection because the Republicans nominated a very weak vanity candidate and that for four years he did more to further the Republican agenda than any president since Ronald Reagan.
Before that we had the spectacle of Michael Dukakis riding in a tank (an image I wish I could rip away from my optic nerves). Dukakis, the object of the infamous Willie Horton attack ad, was one of the most pathetic candidates the Democrats have chosen in the post-World War Two era. What were they thinking?
And of course who could forget the Walter Mondale-Geraldine Ferraro ticket that handed 49 states to Reagan in a miserable rout of the party that worsened its identity crisis. And before that there was the failed one-term presidency of Jimmy Carter, also a son of the South, who showed little interest in strengthening the Democratic Party when he shifted the party so far to the Right that he provoked Edward Kennedy to challenge him in the 1980 primaries. Carter has been a much better former president than he was a president.
In other words, what is worrying the corporate media and the Bush and Hillary-loving Establishment plutocrats and old-guard elites who have had their way with our country for the past 30 years is that Barack Obama just might succeed in remaking the Democratic Party into a viable institution again; a party that knows how to fight back for the interests of working people; a party that manages the federal machinery competently and governs successfully. That prospect scares the hell out of them.
The Establishment elites love the status quo of a one-and-a-half party system: A strong and vicious Republican Party beating up a timid and pusillanimous Democratic Party in perpetuity; picture in your mind a Republican boot smashing a Democratic face forever. That is Karl Rove's "vision" for America, a right-wing juggernaut puréeing its liberal opponents. Obama offers a glimmer of hope that we will have a two-party system again where Democrats quit serving the same corporate interests as the Republicans and actually do something for the majority of people in this country who earn $60,000 a year or less. Call it the "forgotten America" or the "silent majority."
When Dick Cheney tells ABC News that the fact that two thirds of the American people do not believe the Iraq war is worth fighting doesn't matter to him at all we no longer live in a democracy where our leaders respect the sentiments of the electorate even in matters of war and peace.
If Obama can turn the Democratic Party back to its roots as the party of FDR then we might have a democracy again.
Obama will take 1/2 of the Democratic Party and 1/3 of the Republican party and form a "Progressive and Ethical Governance Party". Hillary will take the remaining 1/2 of the Democratic Party with 1/8 of the Republican Party and form the "Cmpassionate Republican Party". The remnants of the Republican Party will remain the "Republican Party", or as they are better known, the "Gross Old Perverts".
The Progressive and Ethical Governance Party will then proceed to restore America to its original ideals and observation of its founding principles, and earn new respect on the international stage as a responsible and ethical partner in the comity of nations.
I love the argument against a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton catastrophe the Obamaddicts perfume the air with. When it's Ted Kennedy's support Obama coveted most - who in 1980 was accused of using the Kennedy Dynastic Family to get him to the top - but he was defeated and the divisions he caused had much to do with Carter's loss in 1980.
So display for me a factual item in Obama's history where he has taken the American People's voice and served their needs and delivered legislation. Ethics in the Senate?(BFD) Loose Nukes?(that's been Lugar's project since 1991). You will end up like the Texas State Senator on Hardball with a lot of dead air.
Senator Obama is a militarist who will continue the corporate-sponsored wars against national self-determination that have been raging for 50 years.
Senator Obama, allegedly a Constitution scholar, will continue the usurpations of power which "executive privilege" has consolidated to the detriment of the American people and the very survival of the Republic.
Senator Obama will pander to corporate interests and no doubt hand us something akin to NAFTA, only in regards to our healthcare. A short-term deal with corporations to reorganize and pander to the populace for political reasons with the promise of future power and profit.
No matter who wins, I guess I'd better watch my weight so I'll be ready for the selective service in a few years.
Go back to sleep America.
Americas wants a change we can believe in.................... Thanks Gov. Richardson for standing up and speaking out for change. And for being man enough to call on the other elder democrats to end this madness and pull this party back together. Other should join the great governor from New Mexico and insist that the Clintons reel it in..
Nonsense! Perot took as many votes from Clinton as he did from Bush Sr.
That is a most callous statement. That actually hurts my feelings. But then I have to remind myself that you are part of the coalition for whom words mean nothing.
You, just like the other Obama supporters, need to remind yourselves that Hillary is in this race because of millions of people who want her to be the next President. The number to be exact is 12,577,409. Compared to Obama's 13,281,132. That's 46.9% to his 49.5%. That's a close race, not a landslide for your guy.
If you only look at the popular vote, then your are excluding from the process Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, American Samoa, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, Texas (1/3), Wyoming, and Guam. These are all caucuses.
Essentially all these voters from these states would be disenfranchised.
The person with the most delegates is the nominee. I mean, seriously, Iowa doesn't count???? Come on.
Considering all this talk about not disenfranchising Michigan and Florida this position seems odd.
And it seems also that all these "ideas" center around the effort to make HRC the nominee even if more people voted for Obama.
Great blog
I agree with you completely.
Than you,
I'm not saying that I think that Hillary is a bad person, but I am VERY tired of the way that she learned the wrong response from the attacks leveled at her and her husband during the nineties. It's almost like an abusive situation, the abused usually becomes either a new abuser, or shifts COMPLETELY away and breaks the cycle. Unfortunately, Hillary has become a new abuser this election cycle. I hope that she fixes that and can become our first female president in 2016!
And, I have to say, it would work out very well for them. If Obama does get the nomination, he will need the support of Latino voters (who have been Hillary supporters all along). The fact is that many Latinos would sooner vote for McCain (who they admire because of all his talk on amnesty) than Obama. And Richardson on the ticket would bring them back to the Dems.