A Few Words On This Democrats Coming Together Business

stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust

Posted May 9, 2008 | 10:47 AM (EST)



Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

The study of politics involves reading the tea leaves - what one very savvy businesswoman at the top of her field told me she does everyday to see which way the wind is blowing in her company. She listens for what is being said, but more importantly what isn't.

Wherever you work, what you see is rarely what you're going to get unless you work in a minimally political arena. Few of us do.

In highly political divisions or organizations, formally sanctioned rules are only involved when they serve the interests of the people in power.

In pathologically politicized contexts, daily interactions are fractious. Nearly every goal is achieved by going around the formal procedures. People distrust each other - even ones who used to enjoy mutual regard. Information massaging is the only form of communication. Barring an early turn-around, a quick demise is the most merciful outcome for such organizations. This rarely occurs before scavengers take what they can and move on to wreak more damage elsewhere.

Does that sound like one of the political parties? And if we do some tea-leaf reading here, unless they reverse the intense animosity among people who actually share more views than they don't, those in the press now taking sides with little or no regard for accuracy will, no doubt, be there to not only preside over the demise but to facilitate it.

That's the thing about pathological politics. It's pathologically addictive.

As I tell my children: If people are mean to others, even if you think they're friends, eventually they're going to turn on you.

It's time to calm down and think straight. We have some mutual persuading to do.

Forcing Clinton to drop out isn't the answer. It will leave extensive, irreparable damage. And many in the press will have a field day with that.

Those Democrats who think it'll take a few fun picnics to bring the two sides together forget that hell hath no fury like anyone scorned.

No, it's going to take impressive persuasion. It's going to, like it or not, involve finding a way to resolve the Michigan and Florida debacle created by people other than the candidates - and doing so while Clinton is still in the race. Or else, to her supporters, it may look as if she was set-up right from the beginning.

It's going to require the perception, hopefully accurate, that high regard exists between the two candidates - a sentiment so sturdy the media can't undo it.

And, wait for it, whoever wins the nomination is going to have to offer the other the vice presidency even if he or she won't take it.

And those painful steps are just for starters.

I've studied persuasion for a long time. Some at the apex of the Democratic Party are "maneuverers." That type always underestimates people and overestimates their own skills. As a result, they're inevitably wrong. Their machinations are discovered and trust is out the window.

For them, though, it may only mean moving on to another high-paying job. For us it means President John McCain.

Dr. Reardon also blogs at politicsdoc.

 
 

Comments
50
Pending Comments
0

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

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)

This election is about our country, not about the Clintons.
That said, Mrs. Clinton was not "set up." She supported excluding Michigan and Florida when she was pandering to Iowa and New Hampshire. After those states voted, when this was no longer useful, she cynically changed her position.
With her polarizing comments about "hard working white voters" and the behavior of her husband, your candidate has already done extensive damage, not only to our party, but to political discourse in our country.
Whether or not that damage is irreparable is up to her and her supporters like you.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 05/11/2008

Is there some historical precedent for the winner of the nomination giving his opponent the vice presidential position? I would seriously like to know. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Even in the best of circumstances, this seems a poor way to build a winning ticket for the General. But in this particular case, there are some very serious concerns.

Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket may appease some of her more ardent (I wanted to say rabid, but we are supposed to control ourselves) supporters, but what does it do for the Republicans?
It was always their dream to fight Hillary Clinton in November--ergo Rush Limbaugh and others urging their supporters to cross over and vote for her in Democratic primaries.

On the contrary, without the poison Hillary Clinton brings with her (not to mention Bill), Obama has a wondeful opportunity to draw moderate Republicans who are appalled at the Bush record and at McCain's woeful pandering to the Right.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:04 AM on 05/11/2008

Kennedy - Johnson , Reagan Bush sr.are two examples of VP s chosen from opponents.There may be others farther back .We have had far too many wonderful Dems with great ideas to be unleashed to put Repugs who have very partisianly supported Bush every step of the way to give them even more room for damage.The only decent Repug s that haven't are Lincoln Chafee and Ron Paul. Chafee was severely punished for it too.Hagel's mentioned a lot, but the truth is he voted with Bush 96% of the time and is anti abortion. Being appalled is one thing, but going right ahead and voting with the Pres. is another!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:42 AM on 05/11/2008

It is my expectation that Obama will end the primary season June 3 with a pledged delegate margin of about a hundred votes.

Shortly thereafter, I hope the DNC and Obama's campaign will announce they will recommend that the credentials committee seat the Florida and Michigan delegations selected at their state conventions, giving Clinton a 60 net delegate gain. Obama will continue to lead the total pledged delegate count by about 40 votes.

I think that a few hundred superdelegates will announce their committment to vote for Obama at the convention. Obama will be the presumptive nominee, AND Michigan and Florida will have been counted in the total.

If the situations were reversed, and Clinton was ahead by any number of pledged delegates, she would be the nominee. To do anything else would leave her supporters feeling severely alienated and cheated. The Democrats won't do that to either side. Since Obama will almost certainly be in the lead, he will be the nominee.

I hope that the Democrats can then unite around Obama, our nominee, and win in November.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:04 AM on 05/11/2008

If Hillary Clinton cared about the future of the democratic party, here's what she would do.

She would contact Obama privately and offer him this compromise:

"There will be no revote in Michigan and Florida, so our only choice is to count the votes that were cast there and seat the delegates or to risk alienating two important states. How about you let me have those states, let me have every delegate I won, and lets give you the delegates you won and a portion of the uncommitted delegates in Michigan.

"I know you don't think that's a fair compromise, but I'm going to give you something that's worth more to you now than delegates. I'm going to give you credit. You propose the compromise publicly and I'll praise you for your fairness and wisdom.

"I've already proven to Michigan and Florida that I am a champion of their cause, but you have some ground to make up with them. This compromise will give me some delegates that I need and a fighting chance to continue competing, but if it turns out that you're the candidate, it gives you an argument to win back the affection of two important states for the Democratic Party."

I'm dreaming of course, but that's how a candidate who wanted to resolve the issue would handle it. From day one, the Clinton campaign has treated these states like the children in a bitter divorce dispute, and we all know how that works out.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:15 PM on 05/10/2008

"And, wait for it, whoever wins the nomination is going to have to offer the other the vice presidency even if he or she won't take it."

Absolutely not. And at this point I think it's quite clear to everyone that it's extremely unlikely that one will offer the other the VP slot, and there is no reason that they should. The winner will be the winner and they should act like one, which means not capitulating their second-in-command choice to a political maneuver which will not work to "calm the masses" anyways.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 PM on 05/10/2008

Thank you for the first article I have read on this subject that makes any sense. I am tired of the TV pundits who keep saying the Democrats will come together for the election. I for one do not think this will happen There is much to much hate going on in this party. Just look at the comments on this board. It is a sad situation, but it is reality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:55 PM on 05/10/2008

I think Obama is up to it, but not sure about his supporters who seem to have projected evil onto the other candidate so they can project all goodness onto him When I read things like H.C must be punished, her supporters must be kept out of government appontments , and how they plan to take over the party I wonder who is the enemy here. Not sure if there'll be enough passion left to fight Mccain with and, if there is, if it will absolutely insure Mccains nomination because it's ugly, real ugly.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 05/10/2008

"It's going to, like it or not, involve finding a way to resolve the Michigan and Florida debacle created by people other than the candidates - and doing so while Clinton is still in the race. Or else, to her supporters, it may look as if she was set-up right from the beginning."

Ms. Reardon, you're a Harvard professor, so I presume that you're a very intelligent person. How is it, then, that you can claim that Hillary Clinton was somehow "set up" because Michigan and Florida decided to violate Democratic Party rules and move up their primaries? EVERY SINGLE CLINTON SUPPORTER ON THE DNC, INCLUDING HAROLD ICKES, VOTED TO DEPRIVE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA OF THEIR DELEGATES. If Hillary was "set up," she's set herself up.

I understand that you support her candidacy, and I appreciate the fervor with which you do so, but this kind of wilfull denial of reality has got to stop. Clinton had no problem with not counting Michigan and Florida until she started LOSING.

And can you please explain this contradiction? She wants to count Michigan and Florida because it's an issue of "democracy." But even if they're counted, she'll still trail Obama in delegates, so she'll then demand that the superdelegates overturn the results of the primaries/caucuses. What's "democratic" about that?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 PM on 05/10/2008

Hillary Clinton has started a reactionary racist movement within the democratic party giving voice to frustrated uneducated whites who still hate blacks and this poison will not just evaporate because she decides she must give up. She has given permission to every racist by her her great white hope campaign. The democratic leadership must intervene and denounce and reject her before it is too late.
A little moral courage is needed!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:39 PM on 05/10/2008

In my opinion the reactionary stuff started after S.carolina, when H.C and Bill were called racist fort he usual campaign remarks that candidates make.Every week after that it was some new accusation of racism.It seems that Obama must be protected like a little boy by minions of attack supporters...

Folks , I really do think he's got what it takes to roll with the punches, he really can, calm down.This is an election, people promote themselves over their opponents.Things are said, and later we'll see the candidates attending corporate banquets and joking, whie we the supporters have , evicted, threatened and abandoned each other.I don't tink we need courage , we need that proverbial grain of salt .And a nice cold gin and tonic a little more often,LOL

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 AM on 05/11/2008

and those standing by her are complicit in it... and will pay a price 4 it... 20-21 May the SDs will rally enuff on apparent & obvious and clearly the presumptive nominee.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:36 PM on 05/10/2008

Keep accusing Hillary Clinton and the 50% of the Democratic party that supports her of being racists and see if you can get your candidate to lose by the biggest landslide in history.

Have you stopped to wonder how you're going to win by alienating and insulting half of your own party?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:26 PM on 05/11/2008


This election is not about HIllary Clinton as you seem to feel it is.

The Democratic Party will uniite because John McCain is the nominee and he wants justices like Alito who will roll back Roe, he wants to stay in Iraq, and he wants tax cuts for the rich and has no plans for the financial crisis we are in right now.

These issues will unify the party. There are no serious policy differneces between Barack obama and Hillary Clinton. She started this race with overwhelming leads and lost because she didn't plan for fight and couldn't pivot her campiagn quickly enough; it was a series of strategic errors. She lost fair and square and he won fair and square and the sooner she steps out of the nomination battle; the sooner this party will heal.
ay.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:22 AM on 05/10/2008

You can have an Obama Presidency or a Clinton Presidency - you cannot have both. You would have better luck mixing oil and water. You cannot 'give' Hillary power or you will have to fight her version an entire term. These are either two completely different philosophies of politics or Obama has completely mislead his supporters.

You can either have the Clinton/McAuliff version or the Obama/Dean version. The versions do not work the same and they will not coexist peacefully, it is an invitation to open warfare. It has been that, this entire campaign. There is no 'not first place' position that will mollify the Hillary dead enders, the Hillary or stay home McCainiacs. The Hillary supporters willing to reason will get to Obama for their own reasons, not Hillary's position in an Obama administration. This VP, etc is abject nonsense.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:17 AM on 05/10/2008

I believe that the candidates will do the right things to bring their primary battles to a dignified and graceful conclusion. That's politics. But as noted herein and reinforced by too many comments, "pathological politics" has distorted a political contest into a hate fest. In the end, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton can bring about a rational unification of their forces. That has to be our responsibility. This election is indeed about us. Its results will say much about us. The "divided house" is of our making, not the candidate we choose to blame. The candidates have run a fair and intense, yes at times over the top, campaign. It is we who have taken the liberty of translating the minimal differences between them and the tactical manuvering of both sides into an irrational battle between good and evil. They are going to do their job in the end, but what of us? Coming together is up to us, not them. The alternative is "McSame" or Bush term number three. Peace and love to all, now come together!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:10 AM on 05/10/2008

Hillary has disqualified herself from serious consideration as VP by saying that she and McCain are credible as possible presidents, but Barack is not.

It would have been one thing for her to express such sentiments privately, and then do a reprise of Kennedy-Johnson.

But she simply can't pivot off of that very public rejection of Barack, and then be his VP.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 05/09/2008

A two way deal. Obama needs to be a graceful winner Equally, Clinton and her camp should be more graceful losers.
It would be good if Obama counseled with Clinton about what she actually wants to do for the American people. He doesn't necessarily need to offer the Vice Presidency, but rather the opportunity for Clinton to accomplish some of her goals--in the Senate, perhaps as Majority Leader; a cabinet position, where her detail-oriented administrative know how can be put to use; or if that really would be her ambition, Vice President with specific areas (health care) of focus; that is, if he thinks that she could work in concert with him rather than being constantly at odds and underfoot.
Assisting her with her campaign debt is touchy; from an Obama perspective, she could have saved herself, him, and the party a lot of grief, let alone millions of dollars, if she were willing to bow out earlier, though it would be a feather in his cap to do so.
The Clintons have done damage to Obama's candidacy, not the least of which exacerbating a racial and generational wedge in the party. She and her camp need to rectify the damage they have done to his reputation. Falling short of that, it may be up to them to be, since they seem to be so good at it, the vangaurd of the attack mode against Mc Cain, allowing Obama to remain above the fray.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:16 PM on 05/09/2008

No problem with Clinton staying in the race all the way. But it's time for her to lay out a positive vision of what a Clinton presidency would be and to reserve her negatives for the other party.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:24 PM on 05/09/2008

I most humbly disagree suggestions that her behavior should be positively reinforced in any way whatsoever. She has been nothing but divisive and destructive to the Democratic Party and for that, deserves no reward. She is a Republican. She should turn to them for a spot on the ticket and as a means to pay off her campaign debts. As she has helped them tremendously, I'm certain that they would welcome her with open arms.

She is not part of any solution, nor can she be. She is a huge part of the problem, and we all know how little capacity she has within herself for admitting mistakes or changing behavior. It's time to make a clean break and tap into the talent that this country will need to solve the real problems that CheneyOilCo will dump on us.

Putting the Clintons in a position to sabotage and subvert the real changes that we need to have transpire, is not a healthy or wise thing to do. Let her go back to New York and continue her carpetbagging ways.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:21 PM on 05/09/2008

I think you're right. I've come to find out what the true definition of a Democrat is and she is not that. She is no where near weak, but a strong leader. I would not go as far as to call her a republican, but she should not be defined by those who have hijacked the democratic party. Maybe she should run as the independent candidate and that way everyone is happy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:08 AM on 05/10/2008

Hillary Clinton has lost.

She does not call the shots, like all losers, nor do her supporters.

Her supporters can cry and shout, but that will not change the outcome.

And like all losers, she and her supporters must accept their loss and move on.

I dare you to vote for McCain.

Double dare!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:43 PM on 05/09/2008

We don't have to.

We can just stay home.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 PM on 05/09/2008

Or write her name in.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:10 AM on 05/10/2008

Then, frankly, you're no better than the people Democrats blame for costing them 2000, namely Nader voters like me. I voted for Nader not because my candidate lost, but because Gore didn't represent what I wanted in a candidate. I've gotten a lot of grief for this, and I don't know 100% whether I'd do it again. But if you make Obama lose just out of spite, you're just plain nuts.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 AM on 05/10/2008

Brain flash:

Obama is William Wallace... to Hillary's Robert the Bruce... to McCain's Edward Longshanks.

Here's hoping for a better ending.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112573/

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:25 PM on 05/09/2008

Clinton as VP would not be a pragmatic compromise - it would be a poor choice. She has been promoted by a very rich and powerful cabal with an agenda that runs directly counter to Obama's. The cabal will want a Cheyneyesque position for her to exercise their agenda. Obama really cannot afford to give her the position if he is to tackle corporate money's influence in politics - she would undermine him every step of the way.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:58 PM on 05/09/2008

What she means is that Hillary is little girl who will get upset if you demand that she quits.

We need to coax her, give her some candy etc and then nicely lead her out.

Or hell hath no fury like Hillary scorned.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 05/09/2008

sexist , as usual.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:44 AM on 05/11/2008

No one is trying to "force" Hillary out of the race. That is a false premise. They are questioning Hillary's judgement to remain in the race when it is clear that Obama is now the presumptive nominee. In playing the racist card, Clinton is looking like a desperate, delusional woman who has gone off the deep end, to the detriment of the Democratic Party. This is the problem when candidates have something to prove. Clinton wants to prove that she is tough ("totally obliterate Iran") and a fighter. Many are saying that is a syndrome associated with some female candidates, who feel they have to prove what men they are. I was hoping Hillary wouldn't go that route but she has. Now she is looking desperate and irrational.

This is one of the most important elections in the history of this country. It isn't about Hillary anymore. She says that Obama is unelectable and has set out to justify her claim by trashing him to the point that he is unelectable. She must drop out now in the interest of the Democratic Party. If she continues, she will give women a bad name and set back the women's movement for decades.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:47 PM on 05/09/2008

No, it isn't about Hillary herself, its about her voters. Try to win without them. Go ahead and continue to alienate them by mistreating her and Bill.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 05/09/2008


Marijam, please answer RedDogBear's question. It's a fair comment on the state of the Clinton campaign.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:24 PM on 05/09/2008

How is Obama or his team or the vast majority of his supporters mis-treating Senator Clinton? Can you give some examples please? A lot of his supporters (such as me) used to BE supporters of Senator Clinton. I switched over because I was so appalled at some of the tactics of Senator Clinton while at the same time I was very impressed by the integrity of Senator Obama. I challenge you to look through all the comments on HuffPo. I am sure that any objective analysis will find at least five comments from Clinton supporters that say she is "entitled" to the nomination or that Obama supporters are deluded cult followers for every one misogynistic comment about Senator Clinton. No reasonable person wants to dis the Clinton supporters. We do need them. But I don't understand how you can threaten to vote for someone who will appoint more anti-choice people to the courts, continue and start more wars, etc. just because your candidate lost.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 05/09/2008

Senator Clinton is not qualified to be vice president as we do not want to encourage racism as she has done. She should be renounced and rejected by all people of good will.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:11 PM on 05/09/2008

I see Obama , a man confident in himsef and his abilities, not needing to resort to saying racism every two sentences.I see too many of his supporters , not capable of seeing the difference between racism and a adversarial campaign, painting him into the corner of black candidate, ironically, the very thing they accused the Clintons of doing, by these ongoing accusations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:49 AM on 05/11/2008

Forgive me, but 90% of blacks vote for Obama and no one's suggesting blacks are racist.

Sadly, we live in an age of identity politics. And that's not Hillary's fault. In fact, she's the numero uno punching bag for the practitioners of such tactics. Including many Obama supporters.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 05/09/2008

If you renounce her, you renounce 50% of the voters who voted in these primaries. That's just plain stupid. If you think she is being racist, see what happens in the general election if you continue to try and ostracize her.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:48 PM on 05/09/2008