Daily Kos

The Race is becoming the 'Perfect Liberal Storm.'

Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:46:17 AM PDT

I'm surprised that Edwards message is not being heard or being pushed aside and drowned out, but now I know why. I figured it was the timing and the messenger. I like his message but I don't care for the messenger.
The battle facing us is bigger and more important:

The woman vs. the black guy
Who's more terrifying to red states, smart Hillary or savvy Barack? The nation trembles
By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

It is this: Just how the hell did it come to pass and which planets finally aligned and what sort of Kool-Aid has been gulped by the universe that the two white-hot Dem frontrunners, the two brightest lights on the political spectrum for the 2008 presidential election also just so happen to be members of the two most controversial/least represented groups in modern uber-white ultra-patriarchal American snake-oil politics — which is to say, a smart, savvy woman and a smart, savvy black male?

Women and blacks are the right wings worse nightmare. That Hillary is a Clinton is a double sharp thorn to the righties (and the so-called progressives here who bought into the MSM slime over the years.)

It's a stunning thing to watch. Right now, the various spurts of venom aimed at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama from conservative pundits and politicos are, at best, scattershot and convulsive..

The woman angle:

Yes indeed, the sexism that surrounds Clinton's run like a toxic fog is almost too easy to spot. (Fox News is, naturally, fueling its entire 2008 programming schedule with it.) It is de facto, built-in, implied and inherent in the coverage of just about everything she does, and what's most amazing to me is that people are still surprised that the sexism is there at all, much less so apparent and shameless.

To which I can only reply: I'm sorry, did you somehow miss the last seven years of brutal, testosterone-drunk war-sucking macho neocon hell? Did your noise-canceling headphones somehow block out the sound of those 10,000 tiny, clashing penises, banging like Satan's own baby rattle all the way from Osama's cave to the Oval Office to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's gay fetish dungeon in downtown Tehran?

Because truly, while a record number of women currently serve in Congress, Washington is still very much an inbred old-boy's network, so deeply entrenched in ancient male power structures and so drunk on stagnant machismo and so poisoned by the Christian right's woman-in-her-place mentality, it will require a couple more decades and a few hundred more dead southern congressmen before the innate sexism finally fades to a tolerable scar.

The black angle:

As for Obama, well, he's not so easy. The inherent racism simmering all over Bush Nation right now over his, um, Negro-ness? Blackitude? Really good tan? (they don't know what to call it, safely) is decidedly more subtle, more insidious, less acceptable as public display than flat-out, everyday Chris Matthews-grade sexism, and therefore, not so easy to spot. Not yet, anyway.

So far, no one on the right really seems to know the best way to play the race card against Obama. Not that they won't try. Will they go after the drug thing? Paint him as a friend to scary hip-hop thug rappers? Resort to saying 'Obama' and 'Osama' in the same sentence so as to confuse the same red state knuckle-draggers who still believe Saddam orchestrated 9/11? Hard to tell. But rest assured, they'll find a way.

This battle has been going on for centuries. It is a battle that also needs to be won. The glass ceiling needs to be crashed, shattered and for me either Hillary or Obama will do just fine as the first one to do that.

The people empowering battle is bigger than money issues, and hopefully, always will be more important.

Edwards message just is not as important this time around. If Obama had Edwards message (which he and Hillary both do in many regards) it would be a slam dunk. But a rich white man is not the right messenger..for now.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, political battle, race, sexism, John Edwards (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 75 comments

    •  The MLW infused hysteria is notable too. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      I walk away feeling pretty good about myself after all the crap I see here everyday.

      The NeoCOM (Corporate Owned Media) is Neocon.

      by Brahman Colorado on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:02:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not sure how you came to this conclusion..... (7+ / 0-)

      if I read you right you are saying that Edward's message of changing our system and drastically reducing corporate control of our government is less important than breaking the glass ceiling?

      Could not disagree more, respectfully so.

      I would rather have a "rich white man" attempt to change our broken, corrupt system than have a female or an African American man put a coat of gloss over it. It is the system that needs to be changed; the personal sex or skin color of the one who changes it (whether female, black or white) is, or should be, a secondary concern at this time.

      "I am on nobody's side because nobody is on my side" -Treebeard

      by waf8868 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:31:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It shouldn't matter but it is what it is (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        waf8868

        and society as a whole is to blame for that not me.
        dkos is a drop in the bucket. Apparently there is a new mind-set affot and I see that as progressive in the BIGGER picture.

        "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

        by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:34:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  the character changes the play (0+ / 0-)

        Not that this is how it must play out, but to have a POTUS that is obviously not cut from the same cloth as every single POTUS in our history carries an expectation of change. This would be true in the foreign policy arena, where a clean break from our arrogant recent past is critical to any resuscitation of our clout in the world, but also on the home front.
        Though Edwards is saying more "radical" things than either of the others, he would likely run into more resistance than they would in attempting to enact real changes on our nation and our political system. Also, the ever-nauseating pundit class will prattle endlessly about how the election of Obama or Clinton is a "mandate for change"(thus giving it the OK), whereas an Edwards win would be a "victory of the base over the sensible people".

        Apparently only elections of Republicans have consequences. My bad.

        by kamarvt on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 07:38:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  LOL (4+ / 0-)

    flat-out, everyday Chris Matthews-grade sexism

    :-)

  •  Brilliant :) (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Superskepticalman, roseeriter, debedb

    Now look at it from this angle :
    Black, Female, Gay and Republican.
    Ms. Barrack Hillary Craig-McCain. for President.

    Blame God and you'll get away with anything.

    by langerdang on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 02:59:50 AM PDT

  •  And suddenly I'm reminded (17+ / 0-)

    why I'm scanning past almost every candidate on any list these days.

    Once upon a time we wanted the candidates to address The Issues.

    Now the candidates themselves have become The Issues.

    When you get back to Those Other Issues, give me a holler.

    Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

    by Fabian on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:01:09 AM PDT

  •  Different bases (10+ / 0-)

    Edwards is running for the base of the party, the real voters.  Clinton and Obama seem to be running for the party's financial base, the so-called "elites".  Winning the White House with a message aimed at these "elites" will sink the nation even further into despair.

  •  The race/gender card was played at every level (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter, snootless, keymom

    As it turns out, the most important "change" is the gender or race of the candidates so long as they are close on fundamental issues and can talk. It is a dangerous game that has been played for the Party and the country but perhaps the author here has done something important. He isn't pretending it isn't happening.

    To have won, Edwards would have to have a plainly superior message that the others could not or would not copy (he lost the copy argument for the most part), be an effective messenger (he was just OK, too much personal injury lawyer and too emotional when it wasn't called for) and the others would have to have demonstrated disqualifying flaws (that's what pushed me to Edwards). His problem was that the voters don't see many flaws yet in the others -- the white male bigots are now in the other party -- and the media has yet to identify the flaws that will soon be the subject of public discussion (that's coming to a theatre near you).

  •  Poor John Edwards. (4+ / 0-)

    He's not even invited to the truces.

  •  Heh,heh, Great Post. (7+ / 0-)

    And that about tells the whole story. With either candidate,Obama or Clinton, it will be a fight for power over the good ole boys club. And the more we fight, the more ammo we give them.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:23:37 AM PDT

  •  Remember the Mondale model. (5+ / 0-)

    If you cut deal with women's groupd, African American groups, Latino grooups. Asian groups. Labor, Liberal interest, etc, you have a potential of 375 percent of the vote.

    •  375% of vote- lol- that's funny:-) (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Caoimhin Laochdha, bugscuffle

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:33:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There's a lesson in this. (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Fabian, Caoimhin Laochdha

        If Identity Politcs was so great, elections would be unloseable.  And of course, as a white male Protestant Texan, I would be compelled to vote Republican.

      •  Too bad Former FBI informant & part-time (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        snootless

        President Ronald Reagan received the remaining 475% of the vote in the 1984 Reagan-Mondale election by:

        Promising less taxes;

        Promising more defense spending;

        Guaranteeing a balanced budget w/tax cuts (including a ** cough ** balanced budget amendment); and

        Reagan's gleeful proclivity for generally blaming Negroes welfare queens for the economic ills his regressive fiscal policies were perpetuating and exacerbating against working and middle-class Americans.

        So much for the discriminating American voter.

        Pretty soon we need to address the facts and the issues and tackle the systemic economic and policy corruptions that are killing America. If we do not demand honesty and FDR style leadership from our Democratic leaders, these games of playing off people's prejudices, ignorance and promising plenty for nothing will further destroy any hope for this country.

        sláinte,

        cl

        Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

        by Caoimhin Laochdha on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:23:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Here's an article worth reading (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter
    •  Good article and one of good concern (3+ / 0-)

      and also why I like both Hillary and Obama- I do hope we don't destroy each other in the process, but believe the worse of the instigators on the right will do their best to pit us against each other and that both Hillary and Obama supporters consider the source as the 'attacks' continue.

      I hope we all remember we are on the same side.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:42:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Party is already divided (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        teresab, snootless

        The race-based attack campaign of Senator Clinton has and continues to damage Party unity.

        For a moment it was a hopeful moment the my Party had three extremely talented and qualified people running at the top of the field.

        Then Obama won Iowa. That was a surprise and the Clinton campaign embraced the tactics of Lee Atwater to take him down. I think it has worked and her whispered appeals to the basest demons lurking within the American electorate have taken hold. This type of thing is an expected tactic from Republicans, but not from Democrats. Now before you freak out, let me add that I am certain that The Clintons ARE NOT RACIST. But they are willing to exploit tribalism, fear and yes, racism to win.

        Dividing our coalition to cave out a 50%+1 victory may give Clinton the Nomination, but it will hurt us in November. We will lose seats we otherwise would've won. Folks spun out of the coalition will stay home, vote third Party or even vote for the Republican.

        This will be especially true is the GOP does something savvy like a McCain/Watts ticket to compete with the Clinton/______ ticket. And I do not see Obama being the name to fill the blank. Odds are good that it will be some DLC type like Bayh.

        She will be our Nominee and she will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Her short-sighted, self-destructive, coalition-busting primary campaign almost guarantees it. Her only pathway to victory is a Republican candidate who will run a campaign even dumber than hers, but Rudy is already out of it.

        She has divided the Democratic Party to win the nomination and I think that will help McCain win come November.

        So it goes...

        At least we'll get another chance to try and take this Country back in 2012.

        Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

        by dengre on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:12:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I could swear I read this same post from you... (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          roseeriter, lotlizard

          ...last night on a different thread.

          At any rate, I found it to be just one particular POV then (and not one I agree with), and the same now.

          •  I've made these points in other comments (0+ / 0-)

            The trouble with UNITING the Party after a dirty campaign is that the folks behind the winning effort never seem to realize the bridges they've burned until it is too late.

            Bridges have been burned. UNITY will be hard to re-build. Fear of the Republican Party will only go so far. It will not be strong enough if the GOP nominates McCain.

            There are real divisions in the Democratic coalition and it is a problem.

            Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

            by dengre on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:29:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Letting the media divide us. (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter

      I wish we could just put that quote and the Reagan/Obama comparison quotes behind us.

      The media has pushed our buttons.  Both of these quotes are technically correct.  The Reagan quote does not mean Obama wants to be Republican and the King quote does not mean Clinton thinks King is less of demigod than the rest of us.

      Stop letting the media read for you.

      Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. -=-H. L. Mencken

      by crazyshirley2100 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:44:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  McCain wins the general (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    snootless, Owllwoman, John Poet, tom3256

    The republicans hate Edwards for his populist views and because he's a white male. He's more electable in the general election than either Hillary or Obama (the opinion polls bear that out) R's aren't afraid of a black man or a white woman, esp Hillary with her poll record of people either strongly liking or disliking her. There's a reason the MSM somehow didn't report much about Edwards; he got sidelined easily enough.

    Bottom line - the zeal by so many on the left to break the old boys club is going to allow McCain into the oval office.  Too bad so many voters are choosing on the basis of race or sex instead of message.

    The Fink wants to be a King!

    by teresab on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:41:58 AM PDT

    •  If the Dems stick together once whoever (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Bouwerie Boy, crazyshirley2100

      wins we should be able to win the White House. I hope the Edwards supporters will at least do and agree to that.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:45:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I expect the Dems will stick together (5+ / 0-)

        but McCain is fairly well liked by the independents and it is likely to be a very close general. Edwards polls the strongest in head to head match-ups against the R's, and the eagerness to break through the glass ceiling (which I'd like to see too) might lose us the WH.

        Edwards isn't doing well in the primaries because he is a white man not because he has a lousy message. Discrimination against a white man for his race and his sex could cost us dearly.

        Yes, I'll be there bright and early at the polling place to cast my vote for the Dem and then bite my fingernails to the quick to see if we lose by a hairbreadth (or a court case yet again) 8 years of another republican will finish off the nation very well

        The Fink wants to be a King!

        by teresab on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:02:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and add in global warming (3+ / 0-)

          another republican drag-assing about getting off fossil fuels will finish off the globe

          The Fink wants to be a King!

          by teresab on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:05:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I see no reasonable basis for assuming (0+ / 0-)

          the Dems will not stick together.

          All candidates are general election winners.  I'm voting for Edwards because I see him being the most effective campaigner for liberal policies AFTER January 20, 2009.

          That said, I hope the GOP nominee is McCain.  He is over-hyped and has been wrong about every meaningful position he has ever taken in his ignominious political career.

          Beating McCain will mean beating the GOP nominee who is most closely tied with the current GOP policies, which will be a huge asset for the incoming Democratic President.

          Beating McCain will be the biggest Democratic policy asset after the election.  I fear him not at all and neither should any of you.

          sláinte,

          cl

          Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

          by Caoimhin Laochdha on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:31:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The most idiotic state ever? Or just an idiotic (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        teresab

        statement? When has this ever happened?

        If the Dems stick together once whoever
        wins we should be able to win the White House

        Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!

        by ichibon on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:24:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yes it is our year (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        snootless

        If the Dems stick together once whoever
        wins we should be able to win the White House. I hope the [INSERT HERE] supporters will at least do and agree to that.

        I don't know why you are singling out one particular candidate's supporters. My impression is that the Edwards supporters are the strongest advocates for the liberal policies that need to come from a Democratic presidency.

        Let's not throw stones at any candidate's supporters. There are three sets of Democratic partisan bases right now, all of which can put together a winning gen. election campaign.

        The argument about sticking together would be no different if, instead of singling out Edwards, it went something like this: "If Obama's newly initiated supporters can stick around until November and if Clinton's establishment oriented vested-in-the-present DLC conservatives don't turn into fair weather Democrats, then we'll do just fine in November.

        sláinte,

        cl

        Religion is like sodomy: both can be harmless when practiced between consenting adults but neither should be imposed upon children.

        by Caoimhin Laochdha on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:40:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  strongest? I think stats are saying differently (0+ / 0-)

          and that does not mean that Edwards has the wrong message. Its just not resonating much outside dkos.
          I think its a different 'status quo' that has come to the forefront.
          And all 3 have very similar messages and plans for our  main concerns.

          "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

          by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:44:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is not being HEARD outside of Daily Kos (0+ / 0-)

            becuase it is not being reported.

            Period.

            As long as the corporate media control the news, I don't know that we have nay hope of an anti-corporate message in a 3 person race.

            If it was just Edwards and Hillary, or just Edwards and Obama, I think the message would get heard.

            Rick
            08 Preference - Obama
            -9.63 -6.92
            Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

            by rick on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Morford is a brilliant writer (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter, crazyshirley2100

    You can sign up to his weekly column via email, he is never short of full-on funny outrage!

    Proud member of the Coalition of the Insignificant.

    by justforkix on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:46:22 AM PDT

  •  just wait (3+ / 0-)

    Assuming Kucinich's master plan does pull through, I will put money down that the day after either Hillary or Obama is the official nominee, some pundit will come out and say 'maybe America just isn't ready for a (black/female) President just yet.'

    That's the thing I was afraid of with the whole 'The first black/woman President will be a conservative' meme, because I imagined having to campaign to defeat a douchebag like JC Watts, then hear 'maybe America just isn't ready for a black President'.

    Not that anyone here on DailyKos would pull a 'if you don't support Hillary you are a sexist pig' or 'if you don't support Obama you are a racist bastard' move, we are wwaaaaayyyy to mature and intelligent to say anything like that.

    Recovering Intellectual. 12 days stupid.

    by scionkirk on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 03:51:26 AM PDT

  •  So let's ask the woman and African-American man (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1, snootless

    Why they're using SOP--taking all that nice money from Big Pharma and the insurance industry, etc.  

    It was only Edward's meme that forced them to talk about labor, poverty, veterans, etc.

    Yawn--same old, same old with both of them.

    •  I believe both Obama and Clinton are very (0+ / 0-)

      concerned about "labor, poverty, veterans" and have been working in the Senate on those issues. What has Edwards done the past several years- just talkin' 'bout them.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:32:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hillary is concerned about getting elected (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        M Sullivan

        President.

        Period.

        Just my opinoin...

        Rick
        08 Preference - Obama
        -9.63 -6.92
        Fox News - We Distort, You Deride

        by rick on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 07:50:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um, (0+ / 0-)

        As we know, Washington works slowly and takes its cues from the money people.  Forgive me if I missed the radical legislation necessary for this nation to regain its solvency and dignity, authored by HRC or BHO, that begins the new trust-busting age.

        Yeah, thought so.

        Their both business as usual corporatists.  JUST what we need.

  •  Calling All Democratic Women (4+ / 0-)

    who form the core of Hillary's support, to consider a few facts, probablities, and questions:

    1. While it's understandable to be excited about the first frontrunner woman candidate, does the fact that she's the wife of a popular ex-president undercut that pride just a little?
    1. Have you thought about the consequences of Hillary LOSING (which is certainly probable, especially against McCain)? Since the first female nominee will have been the wife of a popular ex-president, and will STILL have lost, how long do you think it will be before EITHER party seriously considers a woman who actually gained prominence on her own? 25 years? 50 years?
    1. Do you think Hillary could be doing this well if Bill Clinton sat at home and shut up?
    1. Are you telling your daughters with pride, "See, if you work hard, one day you might marry a man who gets elected president, and then you can run for president, too!"
    1. Do you think it's possible that Hillary's candidacy is a recipe for electoral disaster in November, not because Hillary is a woman, but because she is an uninspiring speaker, an uncharismatic figure, with high unfavorable ratings who reminds people of a partisan and polarizing political atmosphere that they want to move past?
    1. Knowing that the most "likeable" candidate always wins presidential elections, would you reconsider your support of Hillary?
    1. Is having a female nominee, even one who got the nomination through marriage, more important than having a Democrat win the election?
    •  Is that you Tom P? (0+ / 0-)

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:43:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Have you considered therapy? (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, skohayes

      I sincerely thank you for your concern, but assure you that this woman can think for herself, thank you very much.

      Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

      by Fabian on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:55:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are some of us who feel... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, Fabian, skohayes

      ...Hillary Clinton has had her best days lately when Bill was consigned to a closet somewhere, so we would disagree with your premise -- as well as what really feels like more than a little sexism in your comments.

      Aside: I can't understand people who complain about Bill Clinton, as a spouse, campaigning for his spouse -- when the same people N-E-V-E-R utter a word about other spouses doing the same.  You could argue than Elizabeth Edwards has run a better campaign for a year now than her spouse.  The anti-Clinton crowd have ZERO problem with that.

      •  Sorry it feels like sexism, but (0+ / 0-)

        do you think Bush would have been the nominee or elected if his father weren't president?

        You may imagine that Hillary is the frontrunner on her own merits, but it's a fantasy. She's no better a politician than Granholm, Boxer, Feinstein or a lot of other women who haven't even been considered. If she weren't married to the popular ex-president, she wouldn't be within a hundred miles of this nomination.

        •  She has an advantage (0+ / 0-)

          but she shouldn't use it?

          You get ahead by using everything you have at your disposal.  You don't do it by saying "Oh, dear.  I'm married to a popular, intelligent, articulate ex-president and that gives me an advantage over practically every other person in the entire world.  I shouldn't use that to my advantage because it wouldn't be fair.".

          Given that logic, each candidate should be voluntarily give money to other, less fiscally fortunate candidates because otherwise it wouldn't be "fair".

          Politics isn't about being fair.  It's about being the winner.

          Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

          by Fabian on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:54:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly. But Hillary isn't "winning." (0+ / 0-)

            She's not "winning," she's like a Little League pitcher who gets to start every game because her  father is the coach, even though there are better pitchers on the bench. Is a kid in that situation "winning" his starting role?

            You'd think after 8 years of the worst nepotistic president in history, Hillary might think that, gee, maybe the best thing I could do for the Party and the country is to stay in the Senate and help elect a more brilliant and skillful and inspiring and non-polarizing African American candidate, especially since I haven't been able to lower my unfavorable rating at all over the past two years and my candidacy would unify the other party against my party, and there's really no over-arching principle guiding my candidacy, but just my ambition to be president, which, if I think about it, doesn't really justify the high probability that my candidacy will lead the party off a cliff against a far more EXPERIENCED candidate.

            Her candidacy would almost be acceptable if there were some discernible, overarching principle to her campaign, but there isn't. Her camapign is based on the ridiculous theme that she is "experienced", an idea that will blow up in her face if and when she runs against McCain. I mean, she's running 8 or so points behind McCain now. By November, she'll lose 65 to 35.

            •  Why don't you talk about who (0+ / 0-)

              you DO like?

              Your reasons for not liking Hillary are probably not going to change anyone's mind.  Your reasons for supporting your candidate might.

              Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

              by Fabian on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:24:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I like Obama for the obvious reasons: (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Fabian

                he's a brillaint, inspirational speaker, a charismatic candidate, a harbinger of the post-ideological, post-hatred politics. He's a great social values candidate, and he would be a GREAT foreign policy president, if for no other reason than the fact that everybody will be so thrilled to think Americans are capable of electing a black man and one whose incandescent intelligence is a match for Clinton's, whom all foreign leaders found dazzling.

                Whether he can dispatch Clinton and the Frau is an open question, however. He's frustrated me a little recently. He's had some tremendous opportunities to short circuit her completely, by showing some real leadership, as on the MLK-race baiting issue, and has made some odd mistakes, like the SS`tax proposal and his praise of Reagan. But his appeal is great. He may be able to take the Party into the 21st Century yet!

              •  Why Not? (0+ / 0-)

                Is everyone impervious to reason and fact?
                And I don't NOT like Hillary. I've always liked her, and Bill, too. I don't like what they're doing now, because I see disaster for the party, and for no good reason.

                The Dems need to move on beyond the Clintons. If she were clearly the best candidate we had, fine. But she's not.

                •  Because negativity is not a winner. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you went into a job interview, do you think the interviewer would be more impressed if you listed the reasons why you would be a great team player or the reasons why you thought the other applicants were hopelessly unqualified?

                  If you really have faith in your candidate, then you should be able to communicate that without going negative on any other ones.  I don't think Hillary's priorities are really in line with mine, but I totally admire her attitude, hard work and determination and her touch of ruthlessness as well.   Partisanship will not dissolve not matter who gets into office and it will be useful to keep the Democrats from sniping and squabbling with each other.  The Republicans in Congress knew how to do this and they still have far more party loyalty than I would expect given the mess the Bush administration is.  They might not be loud and proud, but they still deliver the votes.

                  I can't actually remember any President who managed to unite the parties.  Presidents get their policies through by whatever means necessary and the Republicans certainly have proved that they aren't above anything at all, even breaking the law, lying to Congress, and lying to the public.  I simply don't see those Republicans backing President's Obams's policies or even getting out of his way without making sure their get their pound of flesh first.  

                  Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!

                  by Fabian on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 10:46:54 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

                    First of all, I'm not applying for a job, Hillary is. Second, as we all know, negative campaigning works. The Clintons' near-hysterical trashing of Obama (plus her teardrops) are the only reasons Hillary is even competitive with Obama right now. Her entire campaign theme--her alleged "experience"--is a  negative fabrication directed specifically at Obama (think about it--what's she going to say when she's running against McCain?)

                    This has nothing to do with who would be a good president. I'm sure Hillary would be okay. So would thousands of other people that can't be elected. I'm talking about who has the best chance to take power from the right wing. And it sure isn't her.

                    Obama's superiority as a communicator, an orator, a visionary, a campaigner, and a likeable candidate are so obvious as to barely need restatement. Hillary herself acknowledges it by inferentially comparing him to MLK and dissing his soaring rhetoric. The polls scream it with her unfavorable ratings.

                    Who's talking about "uniting parties?" What's important is the Democrats taking over the executive branch. Serious progress and change will be stalled until that happens, and if it doesn't happen in 2008, who can conceive of any circumstances when it COULD happen? Nobody can imagine a more perfect storm of events undermining a Republican win. Christ, if the Democrats can't win this year, they should just jump off a bridge. Who could take them seriously as an opposition party if they can't win in 2008? And you know what? If they nominate Hillary, they'll lose big time.

    •  You wanna pinch my cheek? (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Fabian

      Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. -=-H. L. Mencken

      by crazyshirley2100 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:47:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Answers (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      roseeriter, Fabian
      1. No
      1. Republicans: Never

        Democrats: When Kathleen Sebelius runs. ;)

      1. I think she'd be doing better
      1. No daughters here.
      1. Why has she won the last two states?
      1. I like Hillary and I don't think Kerry was considered the most "likeable" candidate.
      1. No
      •  Thanks for answering. (0+ / 0-)

        1. Why not? What are women to take from this? That to be seriously considered, a woman must be married to a successful politician? Some progress!
        1. Maybe. But I'm reminded of Branch Rickey, the Dodgers president who brought Jackie Robinson in to the major leagues. He said that if the player he chose to integrate baseball wasn't an outstanding performer on the field, the "experiment" would fail for that reason alone. Having Hillary as the first female nominee is, to extend the baseball analogy, as if Rickey brought up the son of an African American friend of his who was a decent minor-leaguer, but hit .220 in the majors. Hillary is just NOT a very good politician. So far, she's managed to go from "inevitable" into a dogfight; she hasn't diminished her unfavorables over the past two years, even though she knew she was going to run;and she's made her "experience" the cornerstone of her campaign, which will make her look ridiculous if she's running against McCain.
        1. Nice deflection.
        1. She hasn't "won the last two states." She's won, barely, the last two Democratic primaries. It's not the same thing. She's won only because she's riding on her husband's popularity, and the willingness of women to vote for her because of gender pride. She's clearly a less gifted speaker, less charismatic, less inspiring. She's the George W. Bush of the Democratic Party, the presumptive nominee whose frontrunnership is based on nepotism.
        1. Kerry lost. Bush was considered the candidate you'd most like to have a beer with (if he drank beer). You like Hillary; a lot of people don't. In fact, she has the highest unfavorable rating of any candidate in either party.
        1. Good.
  •  if we can only find a liberal to run we're set (4+ / 0-)

    both clinton and obama are neo-liberals, only edwards and kucinich can be thought of as traditional liberals.

    "There are many truths of which the full meaning cannot be realized until personal experience has brought it home." John Stuart Mill

    by kuvasz on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:45:11 AM PDT

    •  Kucinich yes, Edwards no (0+ / 0-)

      I am a Kucinich thinker but I have a realistic and practical side. I wish Kucinich had Edwards backing early on, then I might have voted that way. I just see Edwards as more of the same oh same oh.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:48:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  sorry I am bit late getting here (5+ / 0-)

    and recommending your fine diary, but I have been a bit busy with my own  :-)

    It is an interesting take.  Although about a rich white man -  it has sometimes been rich white men who have done the most for poor people and people of color.  Maybe they started rich, like FDR and JFK.  Maybe they had to be pushed into it, like JFK.   And maybe their own experience of poverty and discrimination impelled them to take action, as was the case with LBJ, who in that case is somewhat most like Edwards.

    It is unfortunate that the substance of Edwards' message did not get wider play.

    Peace.

    Those who can, do. Those who can do more, TEACH! If impeachment is off the table, so is democracy

    by teacherken on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 04:59:03 AM PDT

    •  The timing, I think for Edwards is why (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey

      and people are tiring of the status quo in more ways then just with Edwards message- which both Hillary and Obama have variations of also.
      Appreciate you rec'cing me.

      I hope we all can find some peace back here on dkos sooner rather than later.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:09:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Classic American Failing (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Sychotic1

    So, what you're saying is that we should welcome style over substance?  Isn't that how we've come to this pass in the first place?

    "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

    by PrahaPartizan on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:21:34 AM PDT

  •  Whiny People Bore Me (nt) (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    roseeriter

    Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard. -=-H. L. Mencken

    by crazyshirley2100 on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 05:49:40 AM PDT

  •  I am so tired of the politics of (0+ / 0-)

    "who would you rather have a beer with" or "let's break the glass ceiling" or "wouldn't it be wonderful if a black man could finally become President." I see eight more years of I told you so waiting in the wings.

    Of course it would be wonderful if a black man or a woman or a real charmer were to inhabit the White House for a few years. I was the southern white guy that voted for Carol Moseley Braun in the Primaries in '04, I am not immune. However, remember how excited we all were when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House? How did that particular breaking of the glass ceiling work out for us? The bar needs to be higher this election.

    The most important lessons one can learn in modern politics, I believe, are to follow the money and find out who their advisors are. The candidates of General Dynamics, big Pharma and Rupert Murdoch are not going to push the changes that this country is in such dire need of. Period.

    It hasn't been fun saying I told you so for the last seven years, it will be even worse when it is a member of our own Party that we have to say it about. Frankly, I never want to hear another argument starting out with "bbbbut Clinton!" I think that dynamic would sink any chance we have at structural change for decades to come. But then, I am just an "advocate", as Nancy Pelosi would say; what possible use could my opinion have in the greater scheme of things? If the rich white guy is sincere in his positions, and that is a big if, then he represents true change regardless of his unfortunate choice of sex and race.

  •  The glass ceiling is a little thicker for race (0+ / 0-)

    Sorry but the whole discussion about gender was weighed in on by some pretty major guns. Gloria Stenam had pretty much stated that being a women was harder than being Black. Yet Black people don't even have enough institutional respect to field a rebuttal to this BS. Despite the pro-women editorial Hillary is not characterized as the woman candidate even though women dispoportinatley vote for her. Yet notice how the multi racial Barak Obama has become the Black candidate.

  •  so image, not content, is most important? (0+ / 0-)

    ..to be healed/the broken thing must come apart/then be rejoined.

    by Zacapoet on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:17:37 AM PDT

Permalink | 75 comments