The Politics of Hating Your Spouse

The old saying is that politics makes for strange bedfellows. I would modify this to say that political parties make for stressful marriages... and we are seeing one marriage fall apart before our very eyes. More and more, the Democratic presidential primary is like watching years of frustration boil over between a couple that has been faking a loving marriage for the sake of the kids.

One spouse (I'm not saying who is the wife and who is the husband) is the Democrat's liberal elites who are unleashing their fury for having to soil themselves with Bill Clinton for eight years and are seeking absolution through Barack Obama. It is not so much that these elites want to avoid the kind of dirty politics they associate with the Clintons; they just don't want to be so publicly identified with it. It's the same reason the Lake Shore liberals in Chicago cheer Mayor Daley but wince at any mention of corruption within his administration and find it in poor taste to raise it (particularly in public). Joining the liberal elites are the African-Americans, who have always had an unspoken feeling that they were being taken for granted in the marriage but now wonder if anything their spouse every said was true. Imagine, Hillary Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro finally being revealed for their true Jesse Helm's selves.

The other spouse is the Democrats who really believed that Bill Clinton felt their pain and bonded with Clinton over eating at McDonald's. They know that it is the liberal elites who cheated on them and voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. You can hear this spouse screaming that if they are the ones actually losing the jobs, the health care and the sons/daughters to war that are causing liberal elites so much pain, why does their opinion not matter? And isn't it possible that this spouse might not support Obama and still not be a racist? It is as if the first spouse fashions themselves to be the morally superior Tom Cruise character in A Few Good Men, while the second one is Jack Nicholson screaming, "You want me on that wall" and "You can't handle the truth."

While both spouses are feeling a sense of relief (and in some cases glee) that comes from releasing years of unspoken rage, the collapse of this marriage seriously threatens the Democrat's ability to win the presidential race in November. If Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she will still be able to capture the liberal elites vote, because like the evangelicals in the Republican Party, they may not love their spouse but they hate the other couple more. However, many African-Americans will stay home. Nothing between now and a Hillary Clinton nomination would convince a majority of African-Americans that this election was not stolen from Obama. While they may eventually come back to the marriage, the trial separation will last at least through November.

If Obama is the nominee, he will also face an uphill battle. While conventional wisdom holds that Obama will have a better chance of winning in November against McCain because he appeals to independents, conventional wisdom has been wrong throughout this election. Obama will have trouble holding onto many of the Clinton Democrats, who will become McCain Democrats, let alone appeal to the independents. In the meat-and-potato big states that Obama has lost to Clinton, they'd rather be with a true American hero, McCain, than be married to someone whose nuclear family treats them with arrogance and contempt, and keeps them in fear of being called racists. At the end of the day, Obama's new progressive movement may look a lot like McGovern's.

While the Republicans may not love their spouse, they'll stick by them in November (think Silda and Eliot). For the Democrats, it seems that the spouses will be too busy fighting and belittling each other to see what it's doing to the kids, and they may end up losing their marriage and their family.

Comments

[larmarch5]

Oh please, the contest going forward is the best thing for the Dem party. Stop wanting the "game" to be over. Who wants the Sweet "15" teams to just quit now and declare Kansas "the winner." Look at how many people have registered to vote in the Dem primary in PA as well as record turnouts in the other states. Look at the free publicity for the Dems and money still pouring into HRC and BO's campaigns comapred to "where's Waldo McCain" and his contritubions. Calm down. The readers and bloggers on these types of websites are miniscule in number even though our rants seem stupendous. Regular voters are out working or looking for work, not sitting around on numb butts pounding their keyboards. Let these historic moments play themselves out. HRC and BO will benefit from the sharpening stones. They need to be "steeled" for the onslaught they will face from the Wall Street maniuplated Bible thumping pseudo-patriotic racists and woman-haters. Let these games continue and encourage your candidate without angst. Once we have only one candidate, interest will wane in our party. By the way, what are you doing to ensure a 60+ Dem majority in the Senate and to increase the number of Dem reps? The Prez can't do it alone.

[AnninCA]

I agree with you that the Democrats have a split. It's been interesting to me to see the differing values in the two groups. The "lunch-bucket" Dems really apparently didn't buy into the Republican slime machine. They aren't afraid at all to be for Hillary. They aren't embarassed by Bill Clinton, and I would be willing to bet that they never bought into the Rovian attacks on the Clintons in the past.

[mommadona]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZkuka6rH8

[mommadona]

"WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF?"

[intellifem]

The only thing wrong with this excellent article is that it doesn't admit that this split has already happened. The last nail in the coffin was Obama's supporters in the MI legislature killing the revote there. BO is willing to trash the party, disenfranchise voters in 2 states that Dems must have in Nov because of his massive Messiah complex. If MI and FL revoted, Obama would not win the nomination, so he's preventing DEMOCRACY from running its course. He would prefer to win on a technicality. Yeah, the new politics. Same old hokey doke. The only way his nomination would be legitimate would be if MI and FL voted. As a Hillary supporter, if he won these states fair and square, I would vote for him in November.

[marthlois]

OMG - Obama said from the very beginning that he would support anything that the DNC decided upon. Now really, I know that you wished he did ........ but can you actually hold it against the man for not jumping when Hillary said "jump" and let the January 2008 stay as it is? Come on! That's basically what she wanted. When that didn't work, she got onboard for a redo. Florida and Michigan both decided against it. He Always wanted the delegates to be seated. But please try hard to understand that it was not up to Hillary Rodham Clinton to orchestrate this effort! She needs to learn how to work and play well with others and then she'll get better results.

[BJohnson]

In a re-do, would people who voted in the Republican primary, which was sanctioned at the time, be allowed to vote in the Democratic primary? Is it really so easy to dismiss the threat of lawsuits that would tie up and draw out such a process?

[TekTami78]

LOL you wouldn't vote for Sen. Obama! Much like your candidate, if he DID win, you would 'move the goal posts'.

[AnninCA]

I agree with you that MI shows the tale. His supporters are now bragging about how he "outwitted" her in MI.

[courgood]

There's just one minor/major problem in your construct - it wasn't 'liberal' elites but 'cranks' for Nader that betrayed the party in 2000. And truth be told, kinda like the 'Bill problem' - the real infidelity rests w/ the 'Anti-liberal elites' you described - who abandoned us once before to become 'Reagan Dems' and I suspect some Bushie 1st termers as well. So forgive us if the 'faithful' part of the spousal equation is no longer willing to trust the cheaters. African- Americans - for example - have NEVER been disloyal to the Dem Party - even when everything should have inspired the contrary.

[NABNYC]

Nice way to trivialize all democrats. Unfair, inaccurate, but clever. Obama has gathered support from many different groups of people who see that the people who are in the leadership roles in this country, whether democrat or republican, or fundamentally corrupt and accept enormous bribes from corporations to sell their votes. The entire system is corrupt, and we need big changes, not just changing faces from year to year, but a fundamental re-thinking of the entire system. Everyone who is sick of the corruption, the lies, the theft, the greed combined with the devastation of working people, those are the people supporting Obama.

[Christines]

Is it like Michelle and Barack?

[nk007]

Christines, It is more like Hillary and Bill!

[cynara]

Twice you hit on the idea that Obama supporters are thin skinned and will call anyone "racist" who doesn't agree with their candidate. Well, I've been called a "Hilary Hater" by more bloggers and commentators than I can count, as if there was something wildly irrational about wanting someone else as the nominee. I've been called a "Hillary Hater" by Taylor Marsh and Earl Hutchison, and I was told by Gloria Steinham and Erica Jong, that I am betraying my sex for not voting for Hillary. And you think Obama supporters are the thin skinned people playing the victim card??

[shep1900]

Is is not possible that both sides have become a bit thin-skinned?

[cynara]

Absolutely. I never denied that there are also thin skinned Obama supporters. But to read Sunil's blog you would assume that all of the overly-sensitive reactionist name calling was coming from the Obama supporters - I would say Hillary supporters have been equally guilty of reactionist name calling. (And in the end, none of these "racist" or "misogynist" charges will help us win the general election...)

[AnninCA]

Oh yes, everyone is a racist now who doesn't vote for Obama. Heck, even Ohio has been labeled racist. *haha

[TurnThePageGA]

And everyone is a mysogynist who doesn't vote for Hillary as we have been told over and over again by Taylor, that nut up in New York who is president of something up there, Gloria Steinham and others.

[jdevienne]

Do YOU think McCain is a "true American hero"? A seriously tarnished one, if so....

[RationalDem]

I'm tired of people saying Clinton backers won't support Obama. All of these older women who support Hillary will not vote for McCain if it means a Supreme who will help overturn Roe v. Wade. You can count on it. When the chips are down they will support the Dem who will appoint a Supreme who will uphold a woman's right to choose.

[cynara]

Good point. The feminist wing of the Democratic party is not going to vote for another Republican. Its a given.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

If there's one thing the Dems should have learned from Reagan it is this -- party discipline.

[AxelDC]

Tell that to Mike Huckabee. If McCain is taking for granted the 41% of Republicans who voted for Huckabee in Virginia, he is doomed. On the other hand, any attempt to court the religious fundies risks alienating the centrists so critical to any competitive election.

[casiguapa]

Nice analysis

[nk007]

I am sorry this is a very shallow analysis that is aimed at promoting more divisions within the democratic party. I am sure if it was Clinton who was ahead in delegates, people like you will be asking the question what does Obama want? I distinctly remember that question asked when Jesse Jackson was behind Mike Dukakis! If then, why not now? What does Hillary Clinton want?