Everything was supposed to be different this election. After all, a quick glance at the lineup on the GOP side -- Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, not to mention Ron Paul, made it pretty clear that this was certainly not a bench full of Adonis types. (Although Mitt Romney and his Ken doll looks and matching family did seem straight out of central casting. Unfortunately his election year makeover into a real Republican made John Kerry's flip-flopping look like child's play). Months ago I was sitting in a greenroom preparing to do an interview when a GOP strategist lamented about the sad state of John McCain's campaign. Not only had he been reduced to carrying his own luggage -- serving as his own one-man-band-advance team -- he had allegedly arrived late at an important event because his transportation had broken down and he had to find his own way there without the ubiquitous team of handlers, a luxury his tattered campaign could not afford.
Meanwhile the Democrats for once had an all-star lineup. Or so it seemed.
So how did it all come to this, with Democrats preparing to battle all the way to the convention, and to ultimately grant the GOP another four years in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Below, a look at the top 10 people and moments that are helping the Democrats return to the glory days of loserdom:
10. Howard Dean. You've heard the saying "the fish rots from the head." Well the head of the Democratic National Committee is Howard Dean. From his inability to reign in state leaders when setting the primary calendar, to his inability to effectively moderate and resolve the Florida, Michigan mess, Dean has proven himself to be a likable leader but not necessarily a strong one. Just as a parent has to know that sometimes you spoil and other times you spank, it doesn't appear that Dean has mastered the good cop/bad cop routine. As a result the kids have taken over.
9. The South Carolina Debate. Have you ever been at dinner with a couple that seemed perfectly normal until a slight disagreement erupts into an all out verbal slugfest in which they start airing each other's dirty laundry? Like about the time one of them cheated on the other while they were both in grad school? Well watching this debate was almost as uncomfortable. From Wal-Mart to Rezko it was as though the Democrats were determined to give the GOP opposition-research team as much helpful info. as possible. Mission accomplished! And the tone of the campaign? Well it's all been downhill since then.
8. Saturday Night Live. Let me start by saying that I am a fan of "Saturday Night Live." It's funny. That's because it's this thing called a comedy. Comedies are meant to make people laugh not to serve as an instruction manual for how to run a presidential election. But for some reason some members of the media (and certain campaigns) have decided to reference SNL as if it were a journalism class taught by the ghost of Edward R. Murrow. While we may be laughing with them (and they continue to laugh all the way to the bank) there is no doubt that the SNL crew has helped reshape the coverage of the campaign (72 straight hours of Rev. Wright coverage anyone? After all we wouldn't want that Obama to have it too easy) and thereby they have reshaped the narrative of this campaign as well.
7. Bittergate. There's a lot of blame to go around for this one. You can question the motives of alleged Obama supporter Mayhill Fowler for recording the comments in the first place. You can question what Obama -- Mr. Oratory -- was thinking for putting the remarks together so clumsily. You can also question the Clinton camp's efforts to capitalize on a comment that while un-P.C. -- was essentially true. When I first heard the remarks I was immediately reminded of a scene from the TV show I'll Fly Away, which was set in the South in the 1960s. A poor white teen from the "wrong side of the tracks," told his wealthier white friend that his skin color remained the one thing that allowed him to maintain some measure of status in society, regardless of what side of the tracks he lived on. As a result, he was not exactly psyched about civil rights. Yes we've come a long way since those days, but for a few, that reality holds some truth. The sad thing about "bittergate" is that we were all so busy trying to assess the political fallout that we didn't really tackle much of the substance behind the remarks.
6. Marc Penn. Marc Penn. Marc Penn. This one is pretty self-explanatory but please allow me a couple of quick thoughts. Hillary actually has (gasp!) a personality. One that smiles and laughs, and yes, occasionally cries. But with svengali Penn at the strategic helm of her campaign who would have known it? His extreme focus on numbers (and getting himself on TV) seemed to suck what early life there was in her frontrunner campaign, out of it. Is it a coincidence that since throwing him overboard the S.S. Hillary seems to be running a lot more smoothly?
5. The Edwards Campaign, R.I.P. 1/30/08. After years of reminding us to never forget the nation's working poor, John Edwards became the butt of countless late night jokes, all because of one ill-advised, overpriced haircut. But guess who's having the last laugh now. Watching Obama bowl and Hillary drink beer in Pennsylvania, one couldn't help note the irony that after Democrats kicked the one true, good ol' boy candidate to the curb, they then decided that the good 'ol boy vote was the most prized possession of the election. And the economy -- particularly its impact on the working class -- is not just an important issue this election but the deciding issue. Looks like the son of a millworker was on to something when he spoke of those "Two Americas."
4. Rev. Jeremiah Wright. So much to say, and yet I am hesitant to give this guy any more ink than he's already gotten. Yes the media fed into to his story (myself included). Yes the media is partially to blame. But there's a saying: Just because someone gives you the gun doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger. Rev. Wright just doesn't know when to put away the ammo.
3. Bill Clinton. Having been raised as a child in the cult of Clinton (one parent is a full-fledged fanatic) it was a bit of shock to see the laid-back Bubba (aka first-black president) that I remember watching as a kid blow his sax on The Arsenio Hall Show, replaced by some grumpy guy who runs around making un-P.C. analogies between black candidates who don't really have much in common. As the most brilliant political mind of the last century (or at least one of them) he knows that the ongoing bloodbath between his wife and Obama is ripping the Democratic Party apart, and possibly his legacy as well. But overcome by his lifelong overachiever streak he's been rendered helpless by his desire to win, and his yearning to give us all the presidency that he thinks Ken Starr shortchanged us on last time. Honestly, can you blame him?
2. Florida and Michigan. It's hard to believe that the states responsible for bringing so much joy in the forms of Motown and Mickey Mouse could also be responsible for such a reign of terror. The "will they or won't they" be seated at the convention question has turned older, faster than any of the "will they or won't they" romantic entanglements on a long-running sitcom (think Ross and Rachel on Friends or William and Joan on Girlfriends.) We get it. It's the not the fault of the citizens of these states that their knuckleheaded elected officials put them in this position by ignoring the DNC's mandate. Here's a suggestion. How about an old-fashioned game of rock, paper, scissors to decide this mess? Or maybe Howard Dean can make everyone draw straws? Anything to just put us all out of our misery already. I know this much. When this election is finally over the last place I'm going is Disney World.
1. Superdelegates. Raise your hand if you actually knew what a superdelegate was 18 months ago. Now raise your hand if you now wish that you had never heard of them and that they didn't exist. Regardless of how this primary ultimately turns out the reality is that what started out as a minor party battle could have been prevented from turning into an all out war were it not for this cadre of super-wussies. Operating as some sort of political Opus Dei, they are ready, willing and able to serve if their party needs them -- needs them to overturn the will of the people that is. Democrats always get defensive when they are labeled as know-it-all elitists. So to disprove this stereotype they have helpfully put together a team of hundreds of party "insiders" who will correct the nominating process should the idiotic masses get it wrong. There's nothing like watching a bunch of political types pick a presidential candidate based on their own personal career ambitions to restore one's faith in democracy.
Let the kamikaze campaign continue. Onward and downward!
P.S. I'm sure I missed a few so please feel free to post your own nominees for the list in the comments section.
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
Who are you? And why should anybody care about what you have to say about anything?
Good question?
Actually, really bad question, as it could be asked of many, many bloggers here. Who she is matters less than her ideas, which are fine.
11. The Horserace. The MSM has milked this so-called "close race" eight weeks past the critical inflection point (the Wisconsin primary). They have systematically ignored the delegate math at the behest of the Clinton Royal Family amidst their brain-dead thirst for a Neilsen ratings bump.
Keli - I was with you until point #1. I, for one, am not anti-superdelegate. American parties are too weak. They are personality-driven, not idea- or platform-driven, which makes large scale reforms like health care difficult. Most proportional representation and/or parliamentary systems have party "insiders" draw up party "lists" of other party "insiders" who they want to represent their party. In the general election, citizens vote for parties, not individuals, and representatives are skimmed from the top of the party lists. Parties thus have ideological and programmatic coherence and representatives are subject to party discipline. Citizens vote for platforms, i.e., IDEAS, not PERSONALITIES.
Personally, I find the US primary system (especially "open" primaries) to be strange and unsupportable. Superdelegates are just a small measure to allow the Democratic party to function a tiny bit more like a European party, and that's fine with me. After all, party insiders know the candidates better and have the best interests of the party, to which they've devoted their lives, at heart. Would that the same could be said of all our candidates (yes, you, Mrs. Clinton).
I could argue against all of the above point by point, but I think that instead I will give a cliche such as "forest for the trees" etc. Look, this contest has been rougher than most but this post doesn't look at the upside. Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers? They've been "aired out" by the fall they'll be useless as attack points. Rezko could be a problem but if and only if a new bad thing comes out of his trial or something. As of now the whole thing is he bought a home with the the logistical(non-monetary) assistance of a less than savory character three years ago, that's it. Keating five McCain will need better than that.
My point is that Obama has been toughened up and ready to do battle. Something that wouldn't have been true if this contest was a cakewalk.
I agree with you that Wright & Ayers are impotent weapons now. My assumption and opinion are that Obama will remain on the high road. He took the "kitchen" from Clinton but did not stoop. Lordy, if there was anyone open to harsh sliming it would certainly be a Clinton. He didn't, and I think that won him many very valuable points with voters. We get sick of hearing all the shit. For someone to rise above it is refreshing to say the least. Sounds like the voters agree.
I think the campaign has been pretty tame with the media attempting to fan the flames.
OBAMACIDE: This phenomenon has to be the main reason why the Democrats will lose this election. In the fall debates, Obama will be exposed as incompetent, t ready for the job. America will compare a 72 yr old senator with 30+ years in the Senate to a 46 yr old senator with 3 yrs in the Senate. Al Qaeda will release some video of Osama, just like the did before the 04 election, everyone will get scared, and vote in grandpappy McCain to make us feel safe. There is a way for Obama to one day be President, and that is to be Vice President under Hillary for 8 yrs. In 2016 he will be 54 years old, perfect time to run, combined with his oratory skills and the lack-of-experience argument nullified wtih 8 years Veep, he would be UNBEATABLE by any Republican candidate - he would be assured the Oval Office then. But now, because he's shooting too high too soon, he will fail, lose the election, and NEVER be President because the Democratic Party won't nominate him a second time. All of these college kids and African Americans that are filling the arenas for his rallys are going to be SO DEEPLY HURT when he loses in the fall to McCain. If he is the nominee, he has my vote, but watching American politics for 26 years as a voter and realistically assessing how Americans vote and why, I'm confident Obama cannot win this election this time.
You are so much smarter than Pat Buchanan. He is so lucky you have never told him to shut up.
And you are right about SNL. Charlie Rose laughed at Ed Rendell when he referred to SNL as part of his pro Hillary argument. The whole thing seemed so surreal.
And what does it say about the MSM when they can be easily swayed and manipulated by an SNL skit.
The main reason it's even close is that George Bush is not in the process of being impeached. Total cowardice on the part of the Democratic party.
Ms Goff,
Smarminess is a poor substitute for a cohesive argument. Writing smugly about Democratic "loserdom" without taking a rigorous look at the problems the Democratic party faces is frankly quite useless (unless your goal is to project the usual media member bullshit "insiderdom").
What forces have motivated Democrats to field weak candidates in the previous election cycles? What are the factors that make "Bittergate" and Rev Wright such an immense problem for Barack Obama? There are a whole bunch of questions coming out of this specific election cycle that call for insight - not irony.
But in line with your feckless list why don't we add the Media - more interested in hearing their own voices and seeing their own words than making a positive impact on society.
Let's not forget that it is more in the media's financial interest to create controversy out of any minor mis-step than provide the detailed, probing coverage proper for an election.
Didn't we learn our lesson in '00 and '08 about Fla.? They suck as an electoral body.
Since when is "Saturday Night Live" funny anymore? It lost its edge years ago. And how is it the fault of the Democratic party that the media uses SNL's "humor" as a surrogate for intelligent political insight? I don't get your point.
As for the rest, I agree with other posters hereabouts that you and other hand-wringers need to take a deep breath and relax, for God's sake.
The November generall election will pit the deeply-flawed John McCain against a thoroughly-tested and skillful Barack Obama. There is no chance in my mind that our next president will be anyone other than Obama.
Democrats seem always to view the glass as half empty and Republicans as half full. It is time to change the psychology and attitudes of progressives, because this election could be as transformational for our precious country -- in a very good way -- as the election of Franklin Roosevelt was in 1932.
I've got one to add to the list Keli.............................................actually four.
Hellary, Hellary, Hellary, Hellary. She just won't drop out.
Relax, Keli. We're going to win.
Keli, You've got a few serious flaws in your reasoning, based on some mis-comprehensions, or bad information too easily believed.
As examples: 1 - McCain, when he stopped using his regular flight arrangements, used his wife's company's jet! He flew, essentially, his own friggin' jet!! (Yet, his 'myth' has it he was down to begging for economy class seats on regular flights - twaddle!) 2 - Mickey Mouse and Disney was not brought to us by Florida. It started in California.
Details DO matter.
I'll Fly Away was a great show.
Kelli you raise some valuable points, but we've seen nastier party nomination races than this before. But if you actually think that Democrats will allow this fiasco to go to the convention, then your sadly mistaken. I agree with your superdelegate argument, but it's moot, because as silly as the process is, their not dumb. They know the ONLY thing to do will be to rally around the nominee that has been elected by the people. The larger issue is the way the climate will change once a Democratic nominee is elected, and polling will reflect that. No Mccain/republican spin will erase a tanked economy and weakened dollar, record high gas prices, an unpopular war, record debts and deficits, and being the party of an incumbent president who has the highest disaproval ratings of any president in recent memory. And let's not forget something more telling, a single party has secured three presidential terms only once in the last 60 years, what's the likelyhood of it happening now? I'll tell you...none!
[Stewie Griffin]Keli! Keli! Keli! You sound like a cool, happenin' "with-it" woman of the Twenty-First Century. I mean, you've got a gig bloggin' with the Huffington Post. Fetching head shot up there at the top. Maybe got a little book deal in the offing? Writin' a novel? A little roman-a-clef about a young African-American woman feelin' kinda right in right-wing world? Lookin' forward to the gravy train pullin' in when John McCain thrashes that Barack Osama fellow? Hmm?
Goin' with the "Democrats as feckless losers" motif this time? Ignorin' that whole "fifty-state strategy" thing? The fund-raising disparity? Those albatrosses around the Republican neck? Hmm? You know it's lame! Sure you do, don't you? Just havin' one on with us. Ha-ha. Ha... [/Stewie Griffin]
I agree. Howard Dean does not deserve that. Remember how in 06 his 50-state strategy helped us win seats. He's a very strong leader.
I also agree that we foolishily didn't nominate Edwards because the media once again made sure to help the Democrats pick our candidates for us (HAIRCUT HAIRCUT HAIRCUT). Thankfully we wisened up and didn't listen to them about Obama.
But casting the Democratic Party as a bunch of losers is not helpful at all. We were strong and smart, put away the stupid Jeremiah Wright controversy, listened when Obama told us that the gas tax holiday was blatant pandering and nominated a great candidate. We are going to win and not even the DLC (notice they still are trying to get Hilary on the ticket with Obama, as if) or the media can screw this up for us. Obama is a strong candidate and Democrats aren't messing around this time.
This is....what? Jealousy? Sexism? Racism? Just plain old-fashioned incomprehensibility? What gives, MacDaffy?
I don't know. Seems pretty on target to me.
First of all Ms. Goff, the dems are going to win. This isn't McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis or Kerry they're running. It's Barack Obama and he's going to win. By a lot.
As for the things that aren't making it easy for him/them, I will agree with you on Dean, Florida/Mighigan (actually Dean's main gaffe was the mishandling of those two states), Marc Penn, Bill Clinton, Rev. Wright and Bittergate. The rest not so much.
I can't hold Hillary blameless here. She's the candidate, not Bill or Penn and she has chosen to run the kind of campaign she has. Which is why she is not getting the nomination and why she is hurting Obama in the general.
But make no mistakes about it. Barack Obama is the next President.
I don't know who Keli Goff is, I'll read the bio shortly, but I have to admit that this top ten analysis is great (unlike some are saying). The last ABC debate in Philadelphia should be poured over by political scientists on how to muck up a gravely important high stakes election with extremely unimportant topics.
Of course. I've seen you as an MSNBC analyst with Rachal Maddow and Pat Buchanan.
Keli, nothing personal, but I find your analysis flawed & superficial. Floridians (& perhaps Michigan voters) felt miffed at having been stuck with John Kerry almost immediately after the Iowa & NH voting. Kerry was able to get his Vietnam comrades (Swiftboat crew) into small meetings with Iowa voters, where their tales of Kerry's bravery under fire swayed those very heartland, conservative-leaning Democratic voters.
We see where that got us in November!
Also (because of vast corruption in the state) Florida Dems were told, "You go along with the early primary date, or NO VERIFIABLE VOTING law." That, Florida Dems realized, was far more important than one vote in Dem primary.
I had high hopes for John Edwards, but, sadly, he could NOT have won re-election to senate in North Carolina in 2004, & he had NOTHING to show for his six years in the senate. He simply did not have the "bite" or gravitas we look for in Dem. leaders (like Truman, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson).
Edwards entire career, pre-Senate 1998, was in the very structured confines of a trial judge's courtroom, where he only had to woo one judge and twelve jury members. (Often by picking up trial cases of children's lives harmed by corporate negligence.)
Not exactly life in the political hard-ball (much less cuttting-edge progressive) lane.
Your notion that Edwards is a marker of the blue-collar working whites is simply misplaced, as is your notion that Dean is responsible for Florida & Michigan.
Oh, please Keli...stop trying to secure a spot on CNN or MSNBC as a pundit. Go away...just go away...
Geeze, go easy on her. She's better than Buchanon.
Number one has to be the Clinton/McCauliffe influence of turning the Democrats into money-grubbing corporate-owned Republican Lites. They're the ones who started turning this party away from the people. I can't get excited about "winning" an election if it means a Republican in Democratic clothing will be in charge. I don't trust anyone who's been given almost a billion dollars in recent years (Bill Clinton) by the richest, most powerful people and corporations in the world. Who is Bill Clinton representing? Not the people, but he still controls the Democratic party.
The Clintons decided it's okay to be racist. They rounded up $200 million in elite contributions at the start then strong-armed people into not giving to any competitor. They not only are committed to destroying the party, they also have policies to destroy the country.
As for Howard Dean, he's the first breath of fresh air in this party in decades. It it wasn't for him, they could just adopt the new name the Clintons proposed: RepublicansToo.
Howard Dean along with his brother has developed the 50 state move. The repugs will have pour money into almost all of the states. A person in Missouri during the 2004 election stated that was the door to Democrat victory. Obama will be our next president.
by the way, I ran out of words in my own screed below so didn't get a chance to say how much I appreciated, for a rare occasion, an unbiased column on Huffpo. A breath of fresh air.
Kelli is the best writer they have at this place.
Number 1: the smacked ass Democrat rules re: apportioning delgates.
Leave it to the Democrats to make up rules ( instead of winner take all- like the REAL election) in an effort to protect the party-- which winds up screwing the whole thing up.
Under the general election rules- Hillary wins.
Posted May 6, 2008 | 04:35 PM (EST)