Skip to content
Categories:

Fighting to Transform Politics, Not to Lose

Post date:
Author:

Guest Post by Ron Chusid

Having three of us guest blogging for Steve is bound to create a different atmosphere here than usual over the weekend, allowing for a variety of impressions of the same events or articles. Steve M. started off with his views of Francis Wilkinson’s op-ed in The New York Times.

Steve M. certainly has a point in his disdain for this op-ed. Wilkinson writes, “If Mr. Huckabee and Mr. McCain continue to set the tone for the Republican side, Mrs. Clinton would find it hard to escape the partisan past she unwillingly symbolizes.” From what I know of both Huckabee and McCain, it would be a serious mistake to believe they have buried the hatchet. More likely they are just holding back for just the right moment to stab their Democratic opponent in the back.

It is probably true that Huckabee and McCain would run a less negative campaign than the demagogic warmonger Rudy Giuliani. Mitt Romney has already been planning to run against Hillary Clinton by the ridiculous tactic of equating her with France. Even should McCain or Huckabee win the nomination it would be incredibly naive to believe that the right wing noise machine is going to just pack up and shut itself down. A democratic candidate must be able to respond to their attacks.

I’ve never been a great fan of Hillary Clinton, but I must admit I did respect her for not mincing words when interviewed on The Today Show back on January 27, 1998:

Matt Lauer: “You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here.”

Hillary Clinton: “Well, I don’t know if I’ve been that dramatic. That would sound like a good line from a movie. But I do believe that this is a battle. I mean, look at the very people who are involved in this — they have popped up in other settings. This is — the great story here for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.”

There were also times during the campaigns of 2000 and 2004 where the old Clinton war room sure would have come in handy.

If Wilkinson really advocates unilateral disarmament this would be a terrible mistake. However I see more in his op-ed and there is an element of truth in what he says. To build a new majority, as opposed to scraping by with a narrow win along the old red/blue divide, a Democratic campaign must concentrate on why people should vote for them, and not just what was wrong with George Bush. As Wilkinson wrote, “If this fragile moment endures, the next president will be the candidate whose person and politics make the sturdiest bridge across America’s political divide.”

Many Democrats mistake the repudiation of years of incompetent and often corrupt Republican rule in 2006 as embracement of all their positions. In reality, Democrats have not solidified this support. Democrats won partially due to the support of independents, along with “Starbucks Republicans” who rejected the social conservatism dominating the party, as well as their disastrous foreign policy.

The 2008 election has the potential to transform politics. We’ve become so accustomed to the red/blue state divide that most forget how recently this version of the electoral map was drawn. Although John McCain would be a formidable opponent, few are very eager to remain in Iraq for another one hundred years. Hillary Clinton has an excellent chance of winning should she be the nominee in light of the overall disdain for the Republican Party at present. However such a victory would likely come from picking up Ohio and a few other red states. In contrast Barack Obama has the potential to reach across the partisan divide and create a new Democratic majority as Franklin Roosevelt did.

Even Wilkinson concedes that this “strange and wonderful civility, with its hint of an underlying commonality of purpose” might not endure. Democrats need a nominee who can both respond to the right wing noise machine when necessary as well as present a message which will bring in the votes of those who are repelled by the partisanship bickering. It will take a candidate with considerable oratorical skills to pull off both of these somewhat contradictory goals, as well as draw in the votes of those who do not typically vote Democratic.

(Cross posted at Liberal Values)

Comments

  • jen flowers

    says:

    The Republicans only want to play nice when they aren’t on top. When they are, they mock those asking for “nice” as sissies.

    A campaign focused on issues and solutions is of course what we need now. But if the Republicans swiftboat any candidate, the retaliation should be the advertising equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    Matt Lauer: “You have said, I understand, to some close friends, that this is the last great battle, and that one side or the other is going down here.”

    I agree with this…
    But I disagree with what Lauer and Clinton regard as the two sides.

    If you refocus: Not on who is going down but rather,
    what is coming up you will see where to draw the lines between the “two sides.”

    Here is what is coming up:The American people want change.
    Wait. I really should put it in bold:
    The American people want change!
    Good old-fashioned, amorphous, show me something new: CHANGE!

    We are sick of the bickering.
    We are sick of the Bush family.
    We are sick of the Clinton family.
    We are tired of being yoked to the same masters decade after decade!

    IT IS ALL ABOUT CHANGE, DUMMY!

    If you think you can run Hillary and win…
    Your finger is not on the pulse of what this country wants.

    Instead you are playing the same goofy-ass, weak-ass liberal heartsong tune…
    The same song that keeps you regularly nominating NE liberals for the firing squad…
    The same song that blinds you to the fact that the Hill and Bill show is old and tired and loathed…
    They are not new. They are a national nightmare!
    They do not represent change.
    They represent more of the same old bickering shit.

    The only way the Clintons can win…
    Is if Jeb Bush gets the nomination.
    I guarantee you one thing: The Republicans aren’t that stupid.
    The Democrats on the other hand……..

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    If you think you can run Hillary and win…
    Your finger is not on the pulse of what this country wants.

    I was going to wait for a more appropriate top post, but this response gives me a good basis to note that the continued “Hillary isn’t electable”/”[Obama][Edwards] is the only one who beats all the Republicans” memes are simply not grounded in fact.

    Granted general election polling this early means little, and much will always come down to how the candidates and their teams perform (see Gore, Al and Kerry, John – and for that matter Bush, G. H. W.).

    But Survey USA actually used a pretty solid approach in looking at general election match-ups on a state-by-state basis in key swing states.

    The result: the Repubs would do well to nominate McCain (the theme of PoliticalWire’s story), but contrary to the untested “conventional wisdom” Clinton does better than Obama in the main match-ups.

    This electability thing, the “everyone hates Hillary” thing, is wishful thinking on behalf of a small handful of folks on the fringe who personally hate Hillary for reasons no one has every quite been able to sensibly explain to me.

  • JRS Jr

    says:

    “the Repubs would do well to nominate McCain”

    If McCain is not teh nominee, the GOP doesn’t have a chance. Too many moderates and indies will flock to the Dems if it is any other candidate.

  • Nell

    says:

    zeitgeist
    Well said.

    Senator Clinton has won the most, if not all the debates with the other democratic candidates. I like her.
    I’d be thrilled with any of the top 3, and hold no hope for Kucinich, whom I also like a lot.
    But the Hill bashing MSM have me solid for Clinton now.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    wmr, i also wondered why – particularly since they were taken just before Iowa – they went 4-deep on the R side and only 2-deep on the D-side. while Edwards is not my first choice, i certainly think his supporters have a legit beef with the MSM and their bretheren in the political machine (pollsters included) for marginalizing him before there was any principled grounds to do so.

    had the MSM done that on the R side, McCain should have been out of this thing a long long time ago when his numbers tanked.

  • jen flowers

    says:

    Zeitgeist and ROTCetc – I’ve been an Edwards supporter from day one but am inching toward Clinton. When I told this to a friend who supports Obama, she said, “You can’t trust her.” And I said why? My friend couldn’t answer except to mention that she didn’t apologize for her vote on Iraq. If she apologized, she would be branded as a weak woman. Between a rock and a hard place. While watching the press attack Clinton for the unshed tears, I realized that much of my vehemence against her has been conditioned by right wing press. She isn’t perfect. Obama isn’t perfect. Edwards isn’t perfect. I will vote for any of them. But the hatred for Hillary Clinton seems to be much more rabid and pronounced on the left than that for Bush and Cheney who truly deserve it. Another case of double standards, I guess.

  • N.Wells

    says:

    I suspect that Hillary can narrowly win the general election given the way everything looks bad for the Republicans this time around. I even suspect that quite a few Republican voters would come to decide that she isn’t so bad after all. However, I have no doubt that Republican lies and smears will be abundant and deep no matter who ends up as the Democratic nominee, and I don’t think the electorate is sold on voting for Democrats and Democratic principles.

    Nonetheless, I see Obama as someone who has the potential to generate excitement and thus produce the coat-tails that can lead to a greater democratic majority that can finally get stuff done. His speeches are inspiring, and that does provide an effective counter to the spirit-eroding Bush years. Moreover, his record in Illinois, for example with the videotaped interrogations bill, suggests that he can craft a new consensus that brings in or wins over his opponents rather than gives in to them.

  • ROTFLMLiberalAO

    says:

    Zeitgeist:

    Oh so the USA today polls (all taken before Obama’s capturing of the country’s zeitgeist in Iowa) can tells us the mood of the country and the framing of the debate and the attack of the republicans months from now?

    Please.
    I bet if you went back in time you could find polls that showed Dukakis and Kerry looked pretty good too…

    And you dare to use last month’s polls to predict the country’s pulse 7 months from now?
    Before we even know who McCain’s running mate might be?
    You might as well just make up some BS poll numbers.
    Please… that’s just silly.

    No. There is a reason why Karl Rove attacked only Obama in his WSJ piece.
    Rove is no dummy. He knows what trash talking is.
    And it sure ain’t Obama joining Hillary in an affectation of being back in grade school and saying: “I like you enough Hillary.”
    Please…
    Rove knows where this country is trending: Good old fashioned amorphous CHANGE!
    And that emotions and morality and likability count for far more than a shopping list of agendas read in a sonorous voice by a Kerry or Dukakis or Clinton.

    And most importantly, he knows that Hillary doesn’t represent change.
    She represents Bill:
    “And I did not shag that young gal.”
    An ongoing nightmare that is seared in the consciousness of most Americans.
    These are easy buttons for Karl and club to push.

    Sorry.
    You can’t have Hillary without having all the lead baggage.

  • Joe Klein's conscience

    says:

    Jen Flowers:
    You misread things. I’ll tell you one quick reason why I dislike the Clintons. It is because everything is about them. What about to Congress and the DNC under their watch? Clinton was supposedly all popular but why couldn’t he keep control of Congress for more than his first two years when Bush kept it six? Need we discuss the DNC? What about people like Rahm Emanuel and Terry McAuliffe? Do you want them having a higher profile?

  • Toast

    says:

    There is no “partisan bickering” in Washington. There is right-wing scumbaggery and the Democrats’ weak and ineffective response to same.

  • Steve

    says:

    The difference between Dems and ReSkunks can be found in these few words:

    ***the sturdiest bridge across America’s political divide.***

    If the Democratic nominee is to not only win in November, but also bring this Republic back from the abyss, then that candidate must, by sheer, default and common sense, build the bridge that will bring both Indies and moderate-minded GOPers back to the side of sanity. Partisanship will only produce a stop-gap of 4 years—8, if the country is lucky—with visions of wild spending sprees and diplomacy-trumps-war philosophies giving the GOP another dangerous opportunity to whip the People into another rabid “fear-fest feeding frenzy.”

    For the GOP, however, this may very well be their “Remagen” moment. Their last, best hope now is to either (1) keep the bridge from being built, or (2) burn the bridge as a “keep-’em-in-the-barn” tactic.

    For the sake of the Republic, the Constitution, and the People, it is the duty of all to establish and protect that bridgehead, thus denying whoever the GOP nominee turns out to be his “moment.” His greatest fear will be that the bridgehead—the connection between Progressives and Liberals on the one side, and moderate Conservatives on the other—will wipe the foul disease—the political pandemic—of Republican neoconservativism from the planet for all time…

  • RonChusid

    says:

    ROTFLMLiberalAO,

    Agree it is far too early for national polls to mean very much. I would expect Clinton to do better than Obama in polls at this time as she has been around longer. The polls do not reflect what Obama might be able to achieve as a candidate.

    Toast,

    Good point. Regardless, this is how most people perceive the situation and many voters would prefer someone like Obama who could transcend this.

  • dnA

    says:

    I can’t believe no one’s mentioned anything about the fact the idea that Mitt Romney could credibly attack Clinton as being like France when to my knowledge, he’s the only person running for president who actually LIVED IN FRANCE.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    Ron

    many voters would prefer someone like Obama who could transcend this.

    While I am a Clinton supporter, this reaction and reason for backing Obama makes perfect sense to me (indeed, unlike many past elections, I’ve always felt I could wholeheartedly support and vote for Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden or Dodd). What I don’t understand is the hatred among Democrats for Sen. Clinton.

    I was having lunch with another Dem the other day and he was arguing that Republicans hate Clinton, to which I said that seems to be their problem, not mine as a Democrat – I wasn’t about to let them make or limit my choices. His response was “that’s naive, Clinton is divisive – thats like saying Bush’s unpopularity is our problem, not his.” I asked what, specifically, she has done that is so unforgivably divisive? I mean, Bush has done tons of things I can point to that make him unpopular – but Clinton has, by most accounts, worked well across the aisle, in her Senate re-election did well in Republican-dominated upstate NY, and was the victim of her husband’s infidelity which, at least in public, she handled with strength and dignity. What has she ever done to merit the scorn? Because if she is divisive just because Republicans choose to dislike her irrationally, that is a stark injustice I am not remotely sympathetic to.

    My friend had no answer. Nor has anyone else I’ve ever asked. Sure, Kyl-Lieberman may be a reason to favor another candidate, but dozens of Dems voted for it and not one of them are villified like she is. Politicans and Presidential candidates have taken occasionally unpopular stances from time to time for 200 years without engendering (pun partially intended) the hatred.

    What has she (not her husband) done that so different from what any other person in presidential politics has ever done that justifies this level of vitriol from her own party? It just seems totally irrational to me, and given the lack of a rational basis, it sure starts to look suspiciously like sexism.

  • stevem

    says:

    I bet if you went back in time you could find polls that showed Dukakis and Kerry looked pretty good too.

    Hell, Dukakis was 17 points up after the Democratic convention. They only needed from August to Election Day to destroy him.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    Run a race-bating ad and make fun of how someone looks in a tank until you’ve made people embarassed to like him. I knew that latter part worked pretty well for enforcing social cliques in high schools; it appeared to work well in Presidential politics as well.

    Of course Duke put the final nail in himself by not ripping Bernie Shaw’s head off for that totally inappropriate question about Kitty being raped.

    Sadly, the MSM of those days looks reasonably good by comparison to the present.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    zeitgeist,

    I disagree that opposition to Clinton is based upon sexism (while obviously it could be in the case of some individuals).

    For those who oppose her nomination because of being a major target of the Republicans, and being more divisive, this has nothing to do with sex. The Republican hatred of Clinton is quite clear. The Republican noise machine will try to demonize any Democrat who wins the nomination, but there are already far too many conservatives on record with favorable comments on Obama for them to go as far as they will with Clinton.

    The fact that your friend has no answers regarding opposition to Clinton does not mean others do not have reasons beyond sexism. (Of course I’m taking a more moderate line here, in arguing for reasons to prefer Obama over Clinton, not to treat her with the degree of vitriol which is sometimes seen.)

    I disagree with the conventional wisdom that the Democratic candidates are all basically the same. I see distinct differences in their views and philosophy of government. These differences are not apparent in their Senate votes. Other than for when they propose legislation, which was limited when the Democrats were in the minority, Senators only vote on a narrow choice of measures presented, and the bulk of votes are along party lines. However a president has greater influence in shaping policy and differences between the individuals do matter.

    Something that is also implied in this answer is that, while I see the value of Obama as a candidate based upon his possible ability to transcend current political divides, this is only one reason (and not the main one) why I support him. It just happened that this reason was relevant to the material here today.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    (Of course I’m taking a more moderate line here, in arguing for reasons to prefer Obama over Clinton, not to treat her with the degree of vitriol which is sometimes seen.)

    Which is exactly my point. I, too, can see reasons why one might prefer Obama; I just don’t share them.

    Apparently you, too, cannot explain why so many take it to the next level – to some odd vitriolic hateful reaction to her. That is the part I don’t get. That it the part the strikes me as having a sexist undertone (to reiterate, in no way am I suggesting those who prefer Obama or Edwards over Clinton do so in part due to gender. my only and entire point is about the haters on the left.)

  • orion

    says:

    McCain would run a less-negative campaign, but Hickabee? He of the multi-million and counting push-polls?

  • Dennis - SGMM

    says:

    Sure, Kyl-Lieberman may be a reason to favor another candidate, but dozens of Dems voted for it and not one of them are villified like she is.

    None of them are attempting to become the Democratic standard bearer. It isn’t just Kyl-Lieberman, it’s her introduction in 2005 of a bill to outlaw burning the American flag – something that even Antonin Scalia views as Constitutionally protected speech. It’s her unapologetic vote for the AUMF. It’s her moving to the left then tacking to the right.

    Hillary is the Democrat most Republicans love to hate and she’s the only Democrat on the ticket capable of seizing defeat from the jaws of victory in ’08. She will have a huge negative effect on Dems running down-ticket if she becomes the nominee. I am convinced that Hillary has this opportunity only because of her married name and because the Dems believe that any Dem can beat the Republicans this time. If she was just Hillary Rodham I doubt that she’d even be the Senator from New York, let alone a candidate for president.

    I don’t hate Hillary Clinton. I just don’t believe that she’s the right person for us at this time. I don’t get all dewy-eyed about a chance to have Bill back in the WH either because I do recall “Welfare Reform,” NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act of !996.

  • zeitgeist

    says:

    i’ve now asked three times on here and no one has said how the TCA of 1996 as a whole was such a bad thing. Considerably fewer people could afford the access to these Internets without it.

    as for HRC being a Senator only because of her husband, how are her qualifications significantly different than most other Senators? She was a very successful, well regarded lawyer, she had held a key position in a progressive policy organization, she had been on Congressional counsel staff — a pretty par-for-the-course resume for a Senator. it is as if people have created this myth that the only thing she ever did was marry Bill. As I posted earlier this week, Hillary had actually been written up in Life magazine before anyone knew who Bill was – she was considered the one with the potential; he was considered the one trying to ride her coattails.

    there is absolutely no basis for assuming a women with her credentials would have not become accomplished absent her husband. that assumption is pretty demeaning.

  • Dennis - SGMM

    says:

    What is demeaning is that a corporatist, triangulating politician would confidently assume that we’re dumb enough to accept her as an agent of change.

  • independent thinker

    says:

    In response to #17 zeitgeist:

    I agree with everything you said about Clinton and the unfairness of the perception against her. However, like it or not, Obama does not have that same persception problem. And, like it or not, he appeals to many people across the political spectrum that Clinton will not reach. And, like it or not, Hillary Clinton will fire up social conservatives like no other Democrat in the running.

    I believe that either Clinton or Obama can win the presidency in November, but only Obama can build the kind of consensus so many Americans crave right now. His ability to inspire, to motivate, to reach out is desperately needed right now.

    Will I vote for Clinton if she wins the Democratic Party’s nomination? Absolutely. Would I prefer Obama? Absolutely.

  • libra

    says:

    Thanks for guest-blogging, Ron. You say:
    It is probably true that Huckabee and McCain would run a less negative campaign than the demagogueic warmonger Rudy Giuliani.

    There are always all those 527s, over which the candidates “have no control”, and which can do all the nasty stuff they want, while leaving the candidates themselves look lily-white (and smelling like a rotten corpse under the lily blanket, but is MSM going to look that closely?). We have far fewer of those than the Repubs do.

    PS I think “war-mongering demagogue” might have been better than “demagogueic warmonger”; I couldn’t find “demagogueic” in my English dictionary (though the adjective formed the same way in Polish works just fine)

  • RonChusid

    says:

    zeitgeist,

    While I certainly cannot say what the inner thoughts are of everyone who expresses vitriol towards Clinton, and in some cases it might be due to sexism, the circular firing squad is common in the Democratic Party. Primary campaigns make this worse. There is also a lot of vitriol expressed towards John Kerry from some Democratic bloggers with sexism not being a factor.

  • CalD

    says:

    Just as long as you’re OK with the fact that “building a new majority” in this case means building a less progressive Democratic party, then the idea works. The problem I have with that is that the extreme right wing, by hook, by crook, and by ruthlessly mugging anyone from the center or center left who tried working with them in recent memory, has succeeded in moving our national political discussion so far to the right that Richard Nixon would have little choice but to run as a Democrat if were in politics today.

    The notion that we can achieve real balance in ourr political institutions without returning our center of gravity more to center first, strikes me as the most wishful if wishful thinking. Moving our center centerward however, also means moving it leftward of course, and one has to imagine the extreme right wing interests that control a Republican party long since effectively purged of moderate voices will have something to say about that.

    Oh, I suppose we could try asking Republicans nicely to stop being such reactionary right-wing extremists, hell-bent on tearing down everything good that progressivism has achieved in this country in the last 60 or 70 years, and start playing ball with us for the larger good of society. But I have a feeling I already know what the answer to that one is going to be.

  • Evergreen

    says:

    I don’t think it is a matter of “hate” on the left. (hate is more a Republican value)

    Speaking for myself (which is all any of us can do) I just don’t want any more corporate pocket voters running our country into the ground (free trade isn’t free for most of us). Corporate dominence that backs “our” politicians and is greed fixated is pulling us down as a democracy and as a viable planet. To the best of my knowledge that includes most of the top Republicans in the race and Clinton. Edwards seems totally unattached to corporate money. Obama minimally attached.

  • Ed Stephan

    says:

    Not that it matters at this late hour, if at all (I’ve been up in Canada watchin the live performance by the Met of Verdi’s Macbeth), but there’s a typo in Ron’s original post. The The Today Show was January 27, 1998, not 1988.

    Libra (#27), “demogogic” is in 15 online dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster and Americaan Heritage.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    CalID,

    Just as long as you’re OK with the fact that “building a new majority” in this case means building a less progressive Democratic party, then the idea works.

    Nobody is suggesting anything like “asking Republicans nicely to stop being such reactionary right-wing extremists.” You are confusing the the right wing extremists who make the most noise with the average person who has voted Republican. Many people who have voted Republican reject many of the extremist ideas of the Republican leaders. We don’t expect to get the support of the smaller, activist base which does hold such ideas.

    A new majority as built by nominating someone like Obama would be less progressive than some would wish, but that is not necessarily bad. If I was saying to echo Joe Lieberman to win, I could see the objection, but Obama’s views are hardly right wing. I don’t find a government of the left which tries to rule by 50% plus one as the Republicans have as being all that desirable either. It also would not remain in office very long.

  • beep52

    says:

    After reading Steve M’s earlier post, Ron’s thoughts and reader comments above, I still find Wilkinson’s piece wrongheaded — in particular, notions of civility, building bridges and transforming politics. Those things are all very nice, but what I really want is a big, big win in November — not just a Dem in the WH but new Dem blood in both houses of Congress. Even with these, rolling back the Bush/Cheney expansion of executive powers, constitutional abuses and our standing in the world is not a given, but without them I don’t even see a chance. So, a lot rides on winning big and the question is how to go about it.

    Why do Dems need to build bridges to cross divides when all they have to do is walk across the one that’s there? It just so happens that a majority of voters are already with Democrats on most issues. Yet too many have bought the Republican line that Dems are weak and no one knows what they stand for. Just stand up for the majority and boldly reclaim the mainstream mandate that the right stole. There’s no risk in claiming that Republicans are out of touch — people already know that. What America doesn’t want is a wimp in the WH, so whoever gets the nod has to be ready and willing to stand up and fight if that’s what it takes. And it will.

    Similarly, the greatest source of partisanship is not in the electorate but among lock-step Republican leaders who, as we’ve seen will burn down the house rather than share the kitchen. So why bother transforming politics during a primary — or even during the general? Win the election first, and when you have the executive and a more favorable Congress, then go about transforming politics. One thing is clear, Republicans in Congress are going to continue bringing knives to fistfights until someone disarms them, and the best way to do that is by marginalizing them through an electoral defeat.

    Ron is right on when he observes that to pull this off is going to require exceptional oratory and political skills. That, and backbone.

  • john

    says:

    I keep reading where people are questioning the “hatred for Hillary Clinton, or the Clintons”. I do not have hatred for “Clinton” – I am just ready to move past the Bush – Clinton – Bush era. I also see that Sen. Clinton arouses the most (negative) emotions from the Republicans. I do not want her dragging down other Democrats. While I personally prefer Edwards’ style, I am voting for Obama as the only one who may be able to help us move past the partisanship of the past.

    Please, let us progressives not tear each other apart. Let’s work together to take the White House, get 60 Democratic senators in the senate and a 2/3 majority in the house. Then we can really get something accomplished.

  • libra

    says:

    Ed Stephen, @32
    “demagogic” — yes; “demagogueic” (original spelling in the post) — no. Please don’t confuse a dumb Polack any more than she’s confused already, ‘K?

  • Steve

    says:

    beep,

    You ask, “Why do Dems need to build bridges to cross divides when all they have to do is walk across the one that’s there?” The answer to this one is simple. If you look at how polarized the nation is right now—and forget the surveys; if anything can prove they’re extremely unreliable right now, it’s the past week’s worth—all it takes is one or two issues to swing just enough votes to gain—or to regain—control of the Congress. Remember Newt? Remember the “Contract with America?” All of that played on the visualized conceptualization that Dems were taking the country for a ride, exploiting their majority for their own selfish gains at the expense of all else. It was Dems who were painted as being “lock-step leaders who were willing will burn down the house rather than share the kitchen.”

    More bridges spanning the political divide will extrapolate into more difficulties for the hardcore GOP’s ability to block those bridges. Think “Berlin Wall” here for a minute. It was easy for the East Germans to control and contain the exodus from East to West when there was only one checkpoint through which to pass—but when people started pounding down whole sections of the wall with sledgehammers with hundreds of cameras rolling, the East German border guards started quietly slipping away into the background. They lost control of the situation—and their “Party Network” couldn’t rant endlessly enough, and convincingly enough, to stem the tide.

    The same thing can happen here. Build enough bridges for meaningful discussion between Dems and moderate-leaning Republicans (between West Berlin’s democratic freedoms and East Berliners tired of the lock-step orthodoxy of “The Party”), and we just might see the hardline “old guard” of the GOP start stepping back. Lott’s gone, Delay’s gone, Cunningham’s gone, Frist is gone, a lot of others are gone, and many have either announced or are tending towards leaving. They’re losing control of the situation, and their “Reskunklican network, FOX, cannot rant endlessly enough, or convincingly enough, to stem the tide.

  • Dresden

    says:

    The reason why I will never, even as a lifelong Democrat, give Hillary my vote is because I believe she voted for the Iraq War more out of political expediency then out of moral conviction. I think she was afraid of being on the wrong side of a popular war and with her eye on her future White House ambitions, sent our kids off to die in the desert so that she couldn’t be called weak. The unseemly contortions she made back then to support her vote for the War are the same kind of contortions her supporters make now in diminishing and/or dismissing the importance of her support for the War. I liked Hillary previously but her stance on the War showed me that she cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Obama has my vote.

  • Peters

    says:

    Dresden,

    Then you must not trust McGovern either since he voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which authorized the Vietnam war, a war he later vehemently opposed.

    Listen, it’s great that Obama had the judgment, but what’s the point of beliefs without taking a stand? At this point, I would not be proud to support either candidate b/c they’re both outrageous cowards when push comes to shove on Iraq, but, at least, I hold them to the same standard. Read both of their foreign policy statements in Foreign Affairs; Obama is just as hawkish as Clinton. It’s horrible.