Some Apocalyptic Observations on the Democratic Nomination Fight from Here on Out
A young friend who lives in a small town in a rural state sent me the following observation today:
If the Clintons push for the win in Denver, they're going to split the goddamn party down the middle. I read your chapter on 1968 Chicago, obviously. I'm of the generation who supports Obama. I know what we're like. Shit, I know what I'm like.
Rick, if the Machine tries to give the Clintons the victory at the convention, I swear to God, Chicago's going to look like a Sadie Hawkins dance. People my age are going to be throwing stones. We all have transportation -- cell phones -- disposable income -- the Internet -- free time -- and Seattle as our example. Part of me is scared of a riot. Part of me isn't. The nomination belongs to Obama. Do you think we're going to let the Democratic Leadership Council take it? "God gave Noah the rainbow sign. No more water, fire next time."
He's referring to my forthcoming book Nixonland, about the American civil war that broke out between 1965 and 1972, specifically the chapter about the beatings by Chicago police against both anti-war protesters and anti-war delegates at the 1968 Democratic Convention. I thought it a bit too melodramatic, and didn't take it particularly seriously, though I did pass it on for discussion (with my friend's permission) at a couple of listservs I belong to.
One of them yielded up this response, from an Iraq War vet who works full time in Democratic politics (again, quoted with permission):
Not to mention that there's going to be a significant Iraq veteran contingent at the convention, ready to rock 'n' roll. We've already had planning meetings about it -- we're going about it the same way that we would plan any decent military operation.
Put it this way: if she goes for the gold in Denver, she'll have to claim the medal somewhere other than the Pepsi Center.
I began to take all this a little bit more seriously.
He then added this:
I can't emphasize enough how potentially scary things could get -- we've got folks working on the inside of the convention, and it's all done on a cell basis, so that folks only know what they need to know.
I'm trying to keep everyone calm, as I just mentioned, but it's getting harder and harder to do so. The mood's getting ugly, and if we go to Denver without a nominee, the pressure's going to be intense from without to nominate Obama. She can win the nomination, but it won't be a prize worth having.
I took it more seriously still.
I pass this all on without comment, for superdelegates and my friends in the Hillary Clinton campaign to read, and in categorical abhorrence of anyone who'd contemplate introducing violence as a variable in American civic life.
Loading comments…
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
I think this is less about Obama, than it is about peoples' sense of justice.
It's outrage that the results of the primaries and cuacuses (sp?) could be thrown out.
I truly believe that if the roles were reversed, and Clinton was at risk of having the nomination taken from her, people would be just as angry. I want whomever is ahead in the delegates (won by voters), to be the nominee.
All that said, nobody's gonna get violent.
I understand the anger, but i'd be surprised if anyone was seriously considering violence.
Gimme a break.
The question is, at what point do you stand up and say NO WAY to the blithely rapacious corporate system of goverment that has insidiously replaced our democracy?
Never? !
Turn the other cheek and watch as everything, all human potential (to feed the hungry, to effect peace among nations and peoples, to develop sustainable forms of energy, and other, shall we say, worthwhile stuff), all life on Earth, is threatened and destroyed by stupid greed for profit and for power?
Obama is not perfect --of course he isn't!-- But there is, as another commenter observes (not sure whom) "a core of decency" in him that none of the others have. Believe it or don't.
God I resent that Obama is compelled to get nasty now that Hillary has defamed him on false pretenses.
Hillary. Please. Go. Away. Be rich, be famous, be a fantastic senator, I don't care!
Just stop poisoning us all further with your moves right out of the republican playbook.
Enough is enough. I'm sick unto death of the arrogance and murderous corruption.
I'm for civil disobedience all the way: Preferably non-violent! The proud tradition of real American patriots; our country's raison d'etre.
obama has a good message, it just isn't his time
he does not have the broadbased infrastructure built up around the country at local and state levels that could ensure him like minded members of congress.
this is a result of his inexperience and egoism.
he should have waited 4-8 years and built up his own resume and the support he truely will need to initiate his change.
it's too bad he didn't have the wisdom to know this
i understand that the thought of hillary was devastating to people wanting an end to the games played in DC but you jumped the gun.
even if he forces his way to winning this nomination, he will enter the white house without a snowballs chance to achieve anything at this juncture.
I get the feeling that in most of these big-gun endorsements, obama is being used as the vehicle to inflict damage on the clintons rather than as a first step towards change. these current congressmen aren't ready to buck their K-street sponsors for obma's change.
The infrastructure you are speaking of are the State Democratic Parties. That is Hillarys infrastructure. The same people who have given us years of failed elections. The appeal of Obama is that he is not beholden to those party bosses. It is not his weakness it is his strength. That is the reason that Hillary has done well in the large blue states. NY, CA, NJ, OH. It is also why she did well in Texas even though it isnt a blue state. It is also why Obama has done well in red states because the party machinery is lacking as is Hillarys ability to mobilize the grass roots. The threat that Obama poses to the state party people is that if he wins he owes them nothing. Unlike Hillary who will have a fresh new bunch of sycophantic party clowns that have a chit. This is no different than Ws host of imbeciles like Brownie and Ashcroft. Hillary will need to pass out so many favors at this point that nothing will get done. Just like her husband before her. The other danger that Obama poses to the status quo is that his supporters are actually activists. Organized at the state level, outside the party hierarchy. They can offer primary challenges to legislators who are reticent to adhere to the will of their constituencies. In the past you had to be vetted by the party to run and the party is always loyal to the incumbent. Obamas supporters have not only shown a will to vote their beliefs but to open their wallets to finance their candidate outside of the corrupt traditional funding machinery. They will continue to fund challengers to the failed system if Obama is successful and probably even if he is not. By the way I take issue with your characterization of Obama forcing his way into the nomination. To date more states, more delegates, and more popular votes. Doest sound like force to me it sounds a lot like democracy. Good try though.
Yes, I agree totally that Obama jumped the gun. He could have been a powerhouse, an unstoppable force, in 4 or 8 years, when he was more seasoned, having built alliances, and he would have had more credibility with older and more conservative Democratic voters.
A few more years navigating the political 'machine' that is Washington politics is what this guy needs, to prepare him for the presidency. Like you said, he needs time to build alliances and infrastructure, and as anyone knows about history - no one changes anything on the Hill except from within the system. An outsider merely gets shut out.
I agree that a lot of the support, even money he is receiving - the so-called "Obamacans" - Republicans that are now supporting him - are all weapons being used to stop the HRC machine and prevent her nomination. The Republicans made no secret of this at the beginning of the campaign, that they WANTED Obama to win, since they felt he would be easier to beat than Clinton. It will be interesting to see what happens to all of them when he does get the nomination. And by some miracle, should he be elected president - he will crash and burn, because he is just not ready to lead this country yet, during these exceeding difficult times. You don't send in a 3rd-string rookie quarterback to play during Sudden Death overtime in the Super Bowl.
Frankly, the acrimony and bitterness of both Obama and Clinton's campaigns have done nothing but split the party in half, and while all the supporters on either side are finger-pointing and blaming the other side, the Republicans are breaking out the champagne, because the Democats are proving once again, how to lose an election - what SHOULD have been a slam-dunk victory, after 7 nightmare years of Bush incompetence.
Obama's inexperience, his youth, his arrogance and his ego made him do this way too soon. Which is a shame, because in a few years, he could have made a very different and tremendous impact.
My sentiments exactly. I probably will be changing my party affiliation within
days to the Green Party or Independent. I have had enough of Washington
politics and Hillary Clinton.
So Democrats all agree it's No Country for Old Men this year, but viciously disagree on whose country it should be. Seems appropriate that There Will Be Blood at the convention - Juno what I’m sayin’? Violence may seem extreme, but I guess I'd rather come out swinging and seek Atonement later. Oh man...where’s Michael Clayton, er, Howard Dean when you need him?
(with apologies to the Oscars)
I've always leaned Republican but I did become captivated with Obama's only real message. Maybe something different. Probably not, but there was a maybe. A real Conservative once crossed the aisle and this country even at the edge of the abyss made a resurgence. Why can't a real Liberal do so if he wants to make the effort. Hillary offers us another 4 years of NO WE CAN'T.
Look, she's capable and will do the best job she can. There's no doubt of that.
The bottom line is that she really hasn't lost. With it this close even heading into the convention behind in popular vote and delegates, I'm not so sure it could be said that the Superdelegates giving her the nomination will go against the will of the Democrat constituency.
I have to say for a political site very few people make the sensible obvious points: First, we don't know if the reported threats are real or part of a false-flag operation. It would be bizarre if people were ready to fight in the streets for a candidate who is actually TRIANGULATING against Hillary by suggesting that he would appoint Republicans like Hagel and Lugar to Defense and State, the two most important posts outside of the presidency. Second, Hillary and Obama are about tied and the OBVIOUS outcome is a joint ticket. Now Obama truly wants to bring unity, let him start with the Democratic party and accept the junior spot on the ticket. I don't understand why his supporters don't consider this possibility and are whining about the nomination being "stolen" from Obama. I just don't think they are used to thinking about politics at all. In eight years Obama will be 54, which is actually a better age for a President than 46. Older people know this, and they are the most reliable voting bloc of all. The lesson is that a party united will actually be stronger. So be nice.
I am 55 years old and I get what you don't understand- it's not about Barack Obama. The reason Sen. Obama's dedicated followers will not accept a ticket where he is the VP candidate is that it would make a statement that he is, after all, just another part of the old top down political machine. The VP (except in the case of Dick Cheney) doesn't really do anything nor does she have any power unless the President happens to die. Obama would be relegated to standing by and watching the system of accountability to special interests, earmarks, and back room deals which has allowed the abyss of the Iraq invasion to go on and on unchecked instead of investing money in the future of the US of A. In the unlikely event that he took the second spot, his followers would desert him in droves and start looking for a truly 21st Century candidate who will work directly with the people (liberal, moderate and conservative), not with the power brokers.
If people think there's a chance Obama will get robbed of the nomination THERE WILL BE LARGE CROWDS outside the convention center ready to protest a back room deal. I'm not saying I think it will be violent, but I can say it will be a PR disaster for the Democtratic party. Imagine that scene as they come out and say despite all the millions of people who voted for Obama, who donated millions, the fact that he'll have more pledged delegates, probably the higher popular vote, and whatever else - just imagine the nomination getting taken away from Obama. And that entire spectacle will go down live on TV being seen all across america and all thru the world... Is this the Clinton strategy????
Hopefully, Mr. Perlstein has posted the irrational, over-emotional ratings of a tiny minority here. After all, political violence is un-democratic, un- American, and runs counter to everything Sen. Obama ostensibly stands for.
After a record turnout of some TWENTY MILLION Democratic primary and caucus voters to date, the race is all but tied, with several significant and delegate-rich primaries still to go. Barring some unforseen development, neither candidate is likely to "pull away" between now and the convention.
The idea that Sen. Clinton should abandon her supporters and withdraw is no more practical than the idea that Sen. Obama should. The idea that Obama is "due" the nomination because his enthusiastic supporters want him to have it so much is just silly. Every candidate has enthusiastic supporters who believe that thier guy has just GOTTA get in. Sen. Obama will have to win it on the merits (which is quite likely....he is, after all, a GREAT candidate,....as is Sen. Clinton.)
That a candidate (Sen. Obama) whose campaingn is built around a positive, uplifting message of hope and inclusion should inspire certain of his supporters to such VIRULENT hatred has puzzeled me from the outset.
There is a sizable portion of Obama's supporters who do not see Sen. Clinton as a fellow Democrat in competition for the nomination....they see her as an EVIL ENEMY,..... underhandedly trying to take away something (the nomination) that is Sen. Obama's by RIGHT.
Supporters of Sen. Clinton are not fellow Democrats with a differing political opinion...they are WRONG...and by extention also enemies.....warmongers!....Clinton shills!...As bad or worse than Republicans!
To draw distinctions between the records of the two candidates, or to take issue with Obama's policy proposals..are not mere political differences open to debate and rebuttal....they are LIES!......the Clinton slime machine!...fearmongering!.....a SMEAR campaign!
It's really quite remarkable! I can't recall anything like it in a lifetime observing Democratic politics!
I've wondered if it might be the presence of so many very young folks unfamiliar with the electoral process in the Obama column (don't get me wrong...a very GOOD thing for the party and the country)...or maybe it's just the common revulsion with the politics of the last 7 years and displaced anger with the Bushies and the war.
If I could, I'd ask these floks to take a look back,....not to dusty history.... but just six months ago...when Democrats were energized and optimistic to see seven VERY GOOD candidates vying for the Democratic nomination....ANY ONE OF WHICH would be a vast improvement over the current crooks and liars in the executive branch!
We seem to have lost sight of the fact that Sen.'s Clinton and Obama...while putting foth somewhat different messages are both STRONG candidates and both would be, potetially a great president.
I will happily vote for either (OR BOTH!) come Nov.
As far as the nimrods Mr. Perlstein quotes in his chilling piece goes......I'm sure the law enforcement folks in Denver will exhibit a high degree of vigilance, and should these idiots cross the line from obnoxious blowhard (which is protected SPEECH),....to violent criminal (which is proscribed CONDUCT) I'm sure law enforcement professionals will be happy to administer a lesson in democracy,....by sequestering them in jail,....where they belong................................................................tm
I've seen the exact same demagoguing you describe on behalf of the Clinton supporters. Except with the added insult of being called a cultist and a self-loathing female just because I dare to support someone other than a Clinton.
Hillary is a DLC'er. The party old guard that wants a strong national party, weak state parties, lots of corporate cash and top-down party politicking. They don't want the people to be part of the process. In that way ,what she represents is really no different than the Republican Party. Her supporters, surrogates and her campaign have spent this whole time insulting and denigrating the grassroots, the youth, and state parties. That was not smart.
What the blogger describes may be a bit extreme. I believe what will likely happen (which is what the DLC prefers) is that millions of people will just become disgusted and all of the progress the Democratic Party has made in the last eight years will be lost. They'll return to not caring and believing that their participation means nothing. I think that's almost worse than the scenario described in this post.
Nice reply, Clevelandchick. Couldn't have said it better, myself. I would only add that, your sad conclusion is what the Clintons and the DLC want -- a whole nation of cynical or sleeping sheeple.
"There is a sizable portion of Obama's supporters who do not see Sen. Clinton as a fellow Democrat in competition for the nomination....they see her as an EVIL ENEMY,..... underhandedly trying to take away something (the nomination) that is Sen. Obama's by RIGHT."
Tommy, I agree with you. But even more sadly, as the Pugh Poll linked below indicates, there's a cohort of Hillary supporters two and a half times as large that feels the same way about Barack.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/03/03/pew/index.html
Leo
"leo" When I posted the above comment I also attatched one to your comment below specificlly addressed to you. Wanted you to know I EXCLUDE the millions of reasonable rational Obama supporters like yourself from the comment above.
It was rejected for some reason, (maybe just lost in the shuffle)
As far as the belief that the nomination "belongs" to a given candidate by right ....there certainly has been plenty of that from both camps. In fact, It might be fair to say the Clinton supporters were the first to display this tendency.....remember when Hillary was "inevitable"??
The gist of my comment remains:......as per Clinton/Obama....both are skilled politicians.....neither are saints........while Obama has the POTENTIAL to be transformative...even revolutionary.....either would be a good President...........and either would be far preferable to any Republican........politically, no Democrat should be an enemy.
Highest regards..............................tm
After all, political violence is un-democratic, un- American...
-----
Sorry, that's not what our history reflects. The very fact that there is a United States of America undermines your premise.
There are two ways that the Clinton campaign can hope to "win" the nomination: by character assassination or by back-room dealings. If they manage to destroy Obama's reputation and political career, then it's obviously not worth fighting for him to get the nomination, because he wouldn't be able to win. However, if they use their political capital and trickery to steal the nomination, then we have a mandate to make things right.
I was an Obama supporter since he announced, but I've never hated Hillary Clinton. I've respected her for her intelligence, and I believe that she's a very skilled lawmaker. But it's getting hard now. I can't stand what she's doing to hurt our chances of defeating McCain. She's the worst possible Democrat we could run against McCain. Every contrast she's drawing against Obama is a losing issue against McCain, and she doesn't have the contrasts that Obama does that will work well against McCain. Obama has to be the nominee, and Hillary can't be on the ticket. Otherwise we'll have President McCain. It's that simple.
This is all rather silly I think. Okay, so the convention errupts in violence and there is a major incident, what is that going to achieve? I do agree however that it will split the party in a way that wll make the label "democrat" obsolete.
I for one, as an Obama supporter and lifelong Dem, plan to "riot" with a vote in the general for Nader or McCain, depending upon the degree of hostility I feel at that particular moment.... but one thing I can safely say is that I will never classify myself as a democrat again!!!
BNAUGHTY: Welcome to the political wilderness. You will find that, indeed, THERE IS LIFE after the Democratic Party. If you don't vote for the Democrat (gasp)I hope you will cast your vote carefully. Voting for McCain is a bad idea.
Well, as a Barack supporter, I can't imagine a better way to undermine his chances than publishing this stuff. It validates all the claims about the extremism and belligerency of Obama supporters, and the false meme of a cult of personality. Just when there's polling data coming out confirming these characterizations are less true of Obama's supporters than of Hillary's (see Jason Linkins's post today -- link below), this throws fresh gasoline on the fire. Nice work. The Clinton campaign will no doubt use this to claim they and the DNC are being blackmailed, as well they should, because this is not legitimate politics.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/exit-polls-obama-support_n_90018.html
Everyone...STOP WHINING! SETTLE DOWN!
Obama has the delegates but he hasn't won this thing yet. He has to show he has the right stuff and he has to win it. He's got to show he has the stones, double down and go for it.
There is an open question that the delegate count can't hide...Is he tough enough? He obviously hasn't proven it so far. He needs to prove it now. He has to go toe to toe with Hillary and he can't let himself be pulled down to her level.
The rest of us support him if you think he is worthy but stop with these childish violence fantasies. Remember...at the end we get the government we deserve, and if we act dispicably we get dispicable. Act with honor, and we will get honor.
The Buckaroo
ps. tough is not the same as aggressive. tough is not the same as negative. tough is not the same as sleazy.
Your point about Jefferson is correct. After having two elections stolen and the possibility of another one within our own party, and the total mess of our voting system.....all this leaves people feeling powerless and disenfranchised. The shenanigans of SNL, the repeated 3AM TV ad where HRC had the benefit of unlimted amounts of exposure.....how do we fight against this? I agree Barack has to toughen up....he tried the honorable track and it didn't work and won't work. With very little options sometimes violence is the only option. I'm not advocating violence, but we can get our message across more effectively by taking to the streets and peacefully protesting, which could result in violence. Ranting and raving online is a healthy form expression, but still gets us no where.....it amounts to spinning our wheels. We supposedly live in the greatest and wealthiest country in the world yet we can't come up with a comprehensive, well organized, fair way of voting. How else can our voices be heard. As a society we've gotten way to complacent and comfortable, with the help of the biggest addiction: the television. I finally got rid of mine and went through tremendous withdrawal, but I am so much more productive and sociable. I decided to live life instead of watching it.
How did Clinton wind up on SNL, Comedy Central and other media outlets wall to wall right before the March 4 primaries? I'm a 50yo white male and there's no way I can stomach that pantload Bill Clinton back in the White House. I voted for him twice but he totally embarassed the Dem Party and the country with his escapades in office. It was obvious that he was quilty of harrassing other women prior to being elected and Hillary sold out to keep her political life alive. She is not going to unite anyone. Their corruption runs too deep. This country needs to make major changes to survive our debt which is now crushing our currency. We account for half the worlds defense spending. All the other countries aren't wasting all their tax dollars building weapons which don't make the lives of their people any better. They are letting us handle it while we go down the tubes economically. Clinton is in the pocket of the special interests as is McCain. That's why she got wall to wall publicity.
"...and in categorical abhorrence of anyone who'd contemplate introducing violence as a variable in American civic life."
American civic life was founded in violence. Jefferson openly advocated revolution every few generations to ensure that government responsive to the needs of the people. If the Party defies the will of the people, it should reap what it sows.
I lived in Los Angeles during the King riots. I didn't agree with the rioters, but I definitely understood where they were coming from.
If the people planning this are already blabbing about it in E-mail, DHS will round them up well ahead of time...
unless, that is, Bush allows it to happen so the Democrats will look bad.
I just had an epiphany moment. I sat here watching Terry McAuliffe (who was the former DNC chairman) and within a 5 minutes period he managed to say Rezko some 10 times and it suddenly dawned on me that there really is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. I have naively clothed the Democratic Party with my hopes and my ideals. But whether they belong to the Democrats or the GOP they are the same people. Rove, McAuliffe (sp?), Clinton, Bush, Morris, Limbaugh all the same. They employ the same dirty politics, they use the same yellow belly journalists, they have the connections in the Middle East, they spin and lie just the same. And that is the appeal of Obama. That he is different. That he has a core of decency. That he will approach politics with a different mindset. But power corrupts and watch as the corrupt Clintons push him into negative, nasty political campaigning just to win. My heart aches for all of those young and young at heart who thought that finally we could do something different.
We CAN do something different, and it begins with electing Obama President of the United States of America. Don't lose heart completely, MH, I have been very discouraged myself about the same thing. But it is Hillary who is acting like a Republican, and certianly not ALL Democrats. Please don't be too disillusioned (I'm 44, so I'm not a baby anymore) and definitely don't give up the good fight!
I had the same epiphany during the 2006 election you've had just now. And you're not alone. I had a conversation with a local Dem leader who knows the Clintons well. He is so disgusted by the Clinton campaign and verrrry upset because the word on the street is that if Hillary gets the nomination; she is going to push to get Howard Dean ousted from his position as head of the DNC. The DLC wants a yes-man in that seat and they want Harold Ford who is a Republican in donkey's clothing.
He was so upset because of great help Howard Dean has given the state parties; that the DNC and DLC could have given a crap about. Ohio has finally turned at least purple after 20 years of being blood red and all of that is thanks to Howard Dean.
I had my epiphany when I learned that Rahm Emmanuel - big time DLC'er - put right wing dems up against anti-war progressive candidates picked by the state parties in the 2006 election. In all instances but one, the anti-war candidate was pushed out by Emmanuel and went on to LOSE against the Republican in the general election. If it wasn't for Emmanuel, the Democrats would have gained a lot more seats in the House in 2006. If that isn't a perfect example of who the DNC is I don't know what is.
Here are two articles about slimy Rahm meddling with democracy :
http://www.counterpunch.org/walsh10142006.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/090607J.shtml
Good work Clevelandchick. Thank you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
