"The Truth Is, This is How We Were Warned It Would Be"

Over a year ago hardcore Dems, political junkies neutral or supportive of progressive causes warned us. They warned us of fracture.

Here we are at the gates.  The party itself has not split.  It does not need to split into outright civil war.

It is enough for the Convention to be bitter.

For the Clintons to have chipped enough shoulders, entrenching the perception they will hurt any sensibility in order to win.

That alone will depress enthusiasm in fundraising. In volunteering. In turnout.

I offer no prophecy.  Only that those observations last year were not mere paranoia but educated guesses based on how human nature works in politics.  I am a life student of how human nature works in politics, as are many of my fellow kossacks.  I hope to learn far more in the future.

But the horrible effects of the Clintons on the party, if they do not get there way, is not a lesson I need to live through:

And it's a risk too great for our country.

•  Tips

  by Nulwee on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:50:06 PM PDT

  •  what's with the DNC

    the RNC has instructed McCain and Mitt to address the economy, the DNC is letting the spit get ugly.  Why can't there be more professionalism in our party leadership. I used to admire Dean, but he's acting like a hack, someone who does not know how to lead. It's a party nomination and this split if it occurs will be a direct responsibility of the DNC.  

    by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:57:41 PM PDT

    •  Why should anyone listen to Dean when Bill

      Clinton is seen as the head of the party?  Kinda hard for him to call a ceasefire.

      by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:31:22 PM PDT

      •  that lets him off the hook?

        the candidates are running for office, each side is spinning what the other says and does and each side is complicit in making this a slugfest.  that's what leadership is supposed to be for. to lead.  Why should he get a pass and blame it on Bill?  That's the Obama spin right now to blame Bill, tell people what he really means when he's said something that may be spun to advantage.    

        by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:58:45 PM PDT

        •  It's not spin, Bill Clinton is viewed as the head

          of the party.  Dean and the DNC have all the legal authority to represent the party, but they are not going to be able to exercise sway over Bill Clinton. There's also the unspoken threat that if Hillary win s the WH, Dean is out as DNC Chairman. In the past, we've always had former Presidents act as a moderating influence on the party.  You must admit, no matter who you're supporting, Bill Clinton can't function in such a role this cycle.

          by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:06:48 PM PDT

          •  that's wacky

            Bill isn't any more head of the party than Al Gore, who is also not head of the party. Dean is head of the party, it's his job, his day job, he gets paid to do this job.  Somehow it's fashionable to blame Bill for anything and everything, and you may not know how weird that sounds to normal people who don't have time to blog and who remember when times were better.  They'd think Obama sounds like a whiner. even the pundits who love him have suggested he stop obsessing about Bill and stop that incessant whining.  Makes him look like a sixth grader.  Meanwhile the party of 'ideas' (pugs) are leading, and they've set the agenda for their credible candidates.  We're stuck with slackers?  

            by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM PDT

            •  I disagree.

              by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:31:40 PM PDT

              •  not enough

                you claim Bill Clinton is responsible for the DNC. Defend it or take it back.  

                by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:33:59 PM PDT

                •  neither, I'm not looking for a pointless argument

                  by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 05:40:56 PM PDT

                  •  cause you lost?

                    face it, not everything is bill clinton's fault. Sad, yet truth.  

                    by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:06:03 PM PDT

                    •  Whatever makes you happy.

                      by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:23:11 PM PDT

                      •  That was to glib. You're right, not everything

                        is Bill Clinton's fault, but his role as a combatant leaves a void in this contest.

                        by lordcopper on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:28:52 PM PDT

•  Lovely.

  by Ky DEM on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM PDT

•  They're boxing themselves into a corner.

  More people are joining the Obama movement each day. There is no guarantee these people will simply fall back into line if the Clintons eventually win the nomination. Inevitability doesn't work on Independents or moderate Republicans. Threatening "Supreme Court!" doesn't work on people who will Never Vote for a Clinton.

  They're burning so many bridges in the primaries that we might get blown out in the election.

  by haruki on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM PDT

  •  HIllary

    on teevee this morning spoke the truth - both she and Obama have the same group of supporters, who are making a choice between them, but who would be fine with either. It's the pundits who are creating this rift, and sad to say quite a few right here.  At the Clinton Cocktail Hour yesterday evening some from all sides stopped by for a drink and a little reprieve.  At the end of the day it's going to be up to the people to be adult, we can't expect any leadership from the media or the DNC.  It's sad, and worse it's stupid.  

    by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:01:12 PM PDT

•  I have confidence

  in the ability of any Republican nominee for president to ensure a tsunami of Democratic fundraising, volunteering, and turnout. And I'm uncommitted in the primary wars at the moment.

  by uffdalib on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 03:59:42 PM PDT

  •  the people who rely

    on good government will vote Dem. Those who have less at stake may have a snit.  Where is the empathy for ordinary Americans. those who are too busy working two jobs to blog.  

    by anna shane on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:02:38 PM PDT

•  whoever wins the WH

  (and i am assuming it will be a democrat) will need support from the House and Senate to enact the kind of policy that we all want.  imo, our job is not only get a democrat in the WH but as many democrats in the House and Senate.

  Over a year ago hardcore Dems, political junkies neutral or supportive of progressive causes warned us. They warned us of fracture.

  the only way repubs win is to "divide and conquer"....we can't let that happen.

  by sc kitty on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:02:57 PM PDT

  •  correction

    our job is not only get a democrat in the WH but GET  many democrats in the House and Senate ELECTED,too.

    by sc kitty on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:11:58 PM PDT

  •  Ha, ha, ha

    lol.  Dems are like herding cats....think it's bad now between dems, wait until a dem wins the presidency.  Then we'll really see some fighting between dems!

    by dfarrah on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:20:52 PM PDT

•  Tim Russert

  I watched the election coverage on MSNBC where Tim Russert was one of the political pundit.

  I wish I could find the link. But Russert said the 51 percent white vote between 18-29 year old was the real story. The Democrats must grow the base.

  by wisconsin girl on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:05:29 PM PDT

•  OH cry me a river.

  Did you read that Bill Clinton was asked specifically about black candidates when he made the comment about Jesse Jackson?
  The media is out to get the Clintons..
  that doesn't have to be a reason for you to vote FOR Hillary, but it damn well shouldn't be a reason for you to vote against her! Find the truth and make a rational decision.

  by BoringDem on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:15:35 PM PDT

  •  More untruths from the Clintonites

    The question from the reporter was about it taking "two Clintons" to defeat Obama. It was not about black candidates. That's when Clinton commented that Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice to.

    So you see, Clinton's answer was totally unrelated to the question. He wanted to go there. This was something he went out of his way to say.

    by Travis Stark on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 04:30:44 PM PDT

•  Oops! Sorry! I was looking for pie

  and apparently wandered into the wrong diary by accident.

  I'll just slip out quietly now.

  I'm sure you'll all carry on without me.

  by sxwarren on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:16:04 PM PDT

•  Yeah, the Clintons suck @$$...BUT,

  am I the only one who remembers that during the ENTIRE LIFETIMES OF MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THIS SITE, the only democrat to win a nationwide election was named Clinton? Fer Chrissakes, those 8 years alone should earn the bastards a modicum of respect if for nothing else than keeping the jackals from devouring the hens entirely. Or maybe we should just torch their political butts since, God knows that's the last thing we want in the democratic party is a tough politician who's willing to kick some tail. Fuck me, but if not for Clinton, we'd be 0 - 7, not 2 - 7 and that would've had greater consequences than just 'losing the elections'...so I'm gonna show a little mercy to the "horrible" people.

  by PBJ Diddy on Sun Jan 27, 2008 at 06:18:45 PM PDT