Coming from a perspective of a former GOP dittohead and current proud Obama supporter, I want to offer some tempering to the growing dichotomy of liberal blog rhetoric. There is an undeniable fact that Daily Ko's has become a strongly pro-Obama blog. I don't have any problem with that in principle, but let me lay out a case for moderation of a shift in the current tone of discussion. Being that I am a self admitted Obama fan, I am trying to approach this from a detached and logic based perspective.
My plea and the rational for it below the fold:
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, can we take a step back and tone down the bickering, just a little.
I myself have probably been a little guilty in this regard as well, but I vow to stop now, and to practice what I preach from here on out. I have been draw into the political discussions and arguments far more deeply in the past couple months than I have ever been before. This race has energized a lot of people, especially the Left of this country. The problem I see is the growing polarization of what was previously a fairly united half of a different set of polar opposites. The liberals in this country are letting the media, and stubborn adherence to their candidate of choice, split them into quarters of the whole. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that 25% of a population, no matter how committed has no chance of changing anything in a democracy. The Democratic Party is burning its candle on both ends.
I have been watching CNN, MSNBC, FAUX NEWS; Reading Daily Kos, MyDD, and other blogs; and discussing these issues with anyone willing. My conclusion: the blogosphere is a representation (I’m not implying causation, merely correlation) of this Right-Left style divide in our Party. I’m not going to liken either side to the Right, because I think it’s counterproductive and contradictory to the plea that is my theme here. I only observe, having seen and believed in the way both sides (Right and Left) think, believe, refute, demagogue, lie, twist, spin, and ignore certain facts that are injected in to the ether to support their predetermined belief that their candidate is infallible, or at least the only one for the job.
I’m here to say that the more we engage in this activity the more it hurts the party, Dem candidates, and the eventual nominee. I’m not the first to express this opinion, but a lot of the time I hear it expressed under the guise of arguing why the other candidate should give up. Regardless of why I believe my candidate is the best choice, I have to look at the bigger picture here. Sinking to the level of a Right vs Left style debate will only galvanize the diametric split that has formed in the Democratic Party. We lose sight of the important things when we trod out partisan arguments against either candidate.
When we have a democratic process to pick a nominee we can’t pull the playground trick of taking our ball and going home when we’re losing the game. We have to play by the rules of the game we’re playing and see the process out until the predetermined conditions for the finish. The rules of the primary were well known, or should have been, to all candidates who signed up to compete in it. Just because it is a close contest does not justify bending the rules or ending the game early so your candidate can win. This is like trying to declare the Cubs the winner of a NLCS game because a fan interfered with a foul ball being caught. You can be mad at the fan if it was done to intentionally influence the play, but you can’t turn one controversy into a justification to toss out the results. Arguing over electability is akin to saying prior to the Superbowl, that the Giants should have not have been allowed to win the NFC Championship because they had less chance of beating the Patriots. The person who wins the delegates and votes in the primary gets the nomination, PERIOD.
I have read some of the recent comments on MyDD, and listened to rhetoric coming out of the Clinton campaign, and a lot of it sounds like Repub style arguments. But I’ve got news for my fellow Obamaphiles out there: So does a lot of yours. We need to take off the blinders. I’m not saying it’s not ok to believe in and support a candidate. What I’m saying is that we should listen to the counter-arguments and listen to ourself. If their argument doesn’t pass the smell test, or the logic test, make sure ours does. I can’t stand to see Clinton supporter comments that are O’Reilly style regurgitated talking points, spin, and exaggerations. I ALSO can’t stand to see these people alienated with vitriolic, equally unfounded responses. Both sides should take the high road. If you can’t make a logical, non fear-based, not previously debunked argument, then you are no better than a GOP talking head or think tank shark.
Obviously I am troubled by this divisiveness. If we are on the high road it will be easy to spot those below us. Here is an example of my hopefully moderate take on some of this rhetoric:
"Big States:" This theory and the recent comment that Obama can not win the GE if he can’t win PA is bunk. I have laid out my case in a sports analogy above that any argument to have Super-delegates overturn the popular vote based on supposed electability should not be entertained. I think it is ok to discuss electability only within the confines of a primary discussion on the better candidate to defeat McCain. This should be allowed to sway the voters; the voters should sway the Super-delegates. Clinton can have her argument about experience fully explored, but she should not set herself apart from her Democratic opponent by propping up the Republican one.
Rezko: ‘Guilt by association’ is a pervasive political maneuver. What politician hasn’t at one point been in a relationship with or been associated with someone that makes politically poisonous decisions? The question is not whether the subject was friends with or had dealing with the person, but whether or not they participated in the acts or decisions deemed reprehensible. That is debatable, but in the grand scheme of things this is pretty benign. This tactic is not new, going away soon, or carrying much water for any candidate.
Ferrarro: See comments above. The significant difference in this is Clinton was trying to pin Farrakhan to Obama in the whole "reject and denounce" exchange and needs to avoid the hypocrisy of a more tepid response to her comments. Ferrarro truly believes she is right (which she isn’t). Right or wrong, there’s no place for this type of analysis in this campaign, EVER. This being said, Ferrarro is not the only person to blatantly inject race into the discussion. I cringe when pundits constantly trod out the demographics. It’s as though the only thing that defines us is our gender or phenotype. This type of generalization is not healthy. It lowers the discourse, pits groups against each other, and further drives the wedge when we should be working for the opposite. Obama has to treat his former pastor and any other’s in his campaign making ridiculous statements, in the same way Sen Clinton should treat Ferrarro.
Campaign Donors: I’m prepared to accept a Clinton Presidency on the back of the "better than the alternative" thesis. This is one of the areas I feel Obama Presidency has a distinct advantage and sharp improvement over both politics as usual and over the ‘W’ style regime that is in place. If he has any sketchy fundraising he needs to root it out and put it to bed. The same goes for Hillary. The ends don’t justify the means when it comes to taking dirty money. Dirty money has a way of sticking around after the elections are won.
To sum this up, let’s keep the discourse above board, and reach out to the other side of the Democratic rift. The GOP has no problem utilizing this situation in a divide and conquer strategy. If anyone has a rational and venom free argument to any of my stances I am more than happy to entertain them, and try to bridge the gap between us. I think this attitude should be more pervasive here. Don’t shut out the other side and expect they will eventually join you. We have to be like Obama and expand the tent. I could probably keep going but I’ll open it up to discussion and ask that civility be our guide.
Thanks for your attention