This situation was inevitable, and has been brewing for at least 15 years.
What made me realize this was, interestingly enough, a recent statement by Glenn Beck on CNN. Beck was conflating the Clintons with the Democratic Party. That made me realize that the Democratic Party will be able to recover its ability to be the majority party when it purges itself of the Clintons once and for all.
Bill Clinton has been given a pass regarding his caving to the right while President. You could argue that he was faced with a virulent Republican Congressional majority backed by a screaming-monkey base and a hostile media and had to compromise for political expediency. A reasonable argument, but not by any means the whole picture.
Beck's comment made me revisit what I had been thinking about that era. Beck was accusing the Dems of "changing the rules in the middle of the game," referencing the attempt to have re-votes in MI and FLA. Of course, the first thing you think when you hear that kind of thing from a Con is "pot, meet kettle." But because the effort to have re-votes in MI and FLA was not being pursued by the Dem Party, but rather by the Clinton campaign, I thought to myself, "he's mistaking the Clintons for the Democrats."
At that moment, a light went off in my head.
What has been happening since 1994 is that the GOP has been able to capitalize on the conflation of the Clintons with the Democrats. This may be a result of the need of corporate-based top-down thinking that needs to analyze movements in terms of their leaders, top-down, instead of the constituencies, bottom-up. Additionally, because the corporate media is so invested in Democrats compromising with Republicans, it reflexively promotes narratives that define the Dem Party as virtuous when it compromises with Republicans, and at risk of electoral defeat when it does not. Thus, the conflation of the Clintons with the Democrats serves the critical corporate goal of making people think that the Clintons are the natural and only possible expression of the Democratic Party. When the Clintons do something, that's the Dem Party doing it.
It makes me think that the biggest mistake Scaife and his repugnant machine made was exaggerating the self-interested nature of the Clintons. Because looking back, and seeing Senator Clinton's conduct right now, it is apparent that they have been motivated more by ideology than self-interest all along (though they also have plenty of the latter), torpedoing the traditional character of the Dem Party ALL ALONG, intending to turn it into a corporate-lite party, and that continues to this day. The battle-lines could not be clearer. Clinton has wound up with the Lanny Davis's and the Ed Rendells of the party, and Obama is ending up with everyone else. The Clintons have done everything they possibly can since at least 1994 to damage the progressive movement and to foil progressives from taking back the Party. So much so that now they are blowing up the Party rather than letting it go progressive. This isn't about 2012. They are too smart not to realize that four years is an eternity in politics. This is about keeping the progressives at bay.
I realized that when the screaming-monkey right thrashes the Democrats, it is the Clintons that enable them to do that. Same with the media. They are able to say that the Dems shouldnt challenge the Republicans on the war, for example, because that is the only tenable position for a Party whose "Big Dog" made his entire reputation compromising with Republicans. If Clinton is such a compromiser, then the Dem Party must be also. So it feeds the media narrative that for success, the Dems must yield to the Republicans. I remembered the Con meme that "the Democrats will do anything to win." Again, many of us reflexively respond to this by claiming that it is a projection. Which it is.
But try substituting "the Clintons" for "the Democrats" and apply the statement to the present situation. Empirically, it does appear, does it not, that the CLINTONS will do anything to win, yes? Including sabotage the possiblity of winning the general, word? And now they are calling Obama the "liberal" candidate, among a host of other Rovian tactics, hmnnn? Could it be that the Clintons refuse to brook the possibility of a progressive Democrat in the White House, yo? So how easy it is for the dopehead MSM to then say, "The Dems will do anything to win." When the Clintons no longer have power in the Party, no longer will Republicans, Conservatives, or their handlers in the media be able to conflate the Clintons with the Democrats. The stronger the kick that kicks them out, the better.
It couldn't come a day too soon.
The best outcome that could happen here is that the "Tonya Harding" strategy backfires, kills the Clinton hopes of re-gaining the White House, catapults Obama into a strong margin of victory at the convention and then again in the general election and with a progressive mandate to boot. Clinton's slash-and-burn campaign is making this much, much more likely to happen. Hopefully, the superdelegates see this writing on the wall also. it could also mark the beginning of an era in which negative campaigning is suicidal.
It's kind of like when you step in dogshit and you really, really wash off your shoe really well - you end up with a much cleaner shoe than you would have had otherwise. The sooner you realize you have stepped in the shit, the less damage done.