Hillary/Obama tension hurting local races and parties

The tension between the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama presidential campaigns is now filtering down to local races and party organizations. The stuff you see on a daily basis at the national level is being duplicated locally, and this is where the candidate(s), once again, better think about the results of their actions and the tone they are setting for our party.

I just spoke to a local Party official here in Colorado Springs who had a local candidate come to him for help. The candidate is running for State House in a district that's trending our way. She made a go of it two years back, and is ready for another run.

Her campaign manager backs Hillary. Her finance director backs Barack. They are both at each others' throats and the candidate, instead of focusing all her energy on removing one more whack job Republican from office, now how to deal with the Hillary/Obama fight on a daily basis.

We can't win - locally or nationally - with this never-ending bickering. One person can end it. And I don't see it happening...........

•  150 more days of this.

  thx Hillary

  by Geekesque on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:45:01 AM PDT

  •  We supposedly want a candidate who's tough

    enough to take on Karl Rove.

    The huge, huge problem with HRC is that, in a primary, she's now focusing on personalities and race rather than on issues, credentials and proposals. I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday. If I were voting in a primary tomorrow, I'd vote for him again.

    But, on the other hand, if people in this thread are expecting her to bow out, not just run a better campaign: I think it's not all that reasonable to expect HRC just to give up and slink away when she's still pretty close to Obama in the delegate count.

    Sure, I would do that. But I would probably have bowed out in January 2007, if the other candidates had glared at me in a really mean way. Fortunately, HRC and Obama are both a lot tougher than I am.

    Unfortunately, HRC seems more apt to compensate for weak communications skills with dog whistle racism.

    Certainly, HRC ought to be focusing on issues, credentials and proposals.

    But HRC still could be running a harsh, scorched earth campaign even if she were running a cleaner campaign.

    She's responsible for the foolish, divisive things she and her supporters have been saying, but the people who designed the primary are the ones who are responsible for the race dragging on and on and on.

    Example: just why is that we're still having primaries? Why doesn't the party make sure that all the primaries occur within, say, a month?

    If close races are problem, is it possible that there's some way to set up the primaries to reduce the likelihood that races will stay close?

    To avoid overly divisive campaigning: is there a way to build rules into the primary system that permit party leaders to disqualify candidates who engage in or benefit from racist, sexist or otherwise inappropriate attacks on rivals?

    by sclminc on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:16:11 AM PDT

  •  There is another way to end this

    As i just finished writing in my own diary

    There is another way out:   we need a block of about 100-200 Superdelegate to sign a pact spelling out the expected rules of behavior for both cnadidates and committing to vote, as a block, against the candidate who violates them.  Otherwise they commit to voting for the overall popular vote winner.

    It could force an elevation in the tone of the campaign and end a lot of the unahppiness that is filtering down to local races.

    And this is the precise reason the Delegate could be convicned to sign such a pact.   Many of them are Elected officals that have to race in Novemeber too and anything that energizes and excites the base to turn out  will help them too, but a long nasty acrimonious campaign that depresses turn out will hurt them too.

    by Magorn on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:34:51 AM PDT

•  Well, that sucks... but...

  Her campaign manager backs Hillary. Her finance director backs Barack. They are both at each others' throats and the candidate, instead of focusing all her energy on removing one more whack job Republican from office, now how to deal with the Hillary/Obama fight on a daily basis.

  Um, get rid of the campaign manager and the finance director.  If they can't see the importance of working together until November, and they allow this to affect their jobs...  Find people who can work on the candidate's campaign, not on the presidential one.

  by sheddhead on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:48:23 AM PDT

  •  I agree, that's very unprofessional

    to let personal issues get in the way of running a successful campaign, the same thing is happening in Clinton's campaign, it's not that some of her people support Barack, but they hate each other, and therefore can't work together.

    by Muzikal203 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:36 AM PDT

    •  every warm body

      counts up here. We can't afford to get rid of anyone who's willing to volunteers.

      by Zappatero on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:23 AM PDT

      •  Well she needs to tell her "warm bodies" to get

        over it and work together so she can get elected. What they do on their own time is for THEM, but a house divided cannot stand (which is going to be a big problem in Nov. for Democrats as a whole if this primary goes on any longer).

        by Muzikal203 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:58:30 AM PDT

      •  I can understand that belief.

        But...  well, that's the choice the candidate has to make.  And if the candidate can't lead them past their rivalry to commit to the campaign, and feels like they can't make the necessary corrections needed to get the focus needed -

        Well, it still sucks.  But if it weren't this, they'd be fighting about something else, sounds like.

        by sheddhead on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:30 AM PDT

      •  We had the same deal here with one of our local

        candidates.

        The candidate is an Obama supporter and there were volunteers that resigned from the campaign because they supported Senator Clinton...

        They had no problem at all with the candidate, other than the fact that the candidate supports Obama.

        It's all insane to me and I really hope it ends soon.

        by MichiganGirl on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:07:23 AM PDT

    •  Zappatero was right - there were only two state

      house or senate races in El Paso County that had "paid"  campaign managers - everyone else's campaign had minimally paid volunteer staff. So, calling them "unprofessional" is something like accusing a high school football player of being "unprofessional".

      by tjlord on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 10:23:47 AM PDT

  •  Exactly my thoughts.

    This isn't about Hillary vs. Barack -- this is about two schmucks who don't deserve their jobs.

    by Finck II on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

•  you're 100% right

  here locally in tarrant county, the scorched earth approach of the clinton campaign is certainly starting to tear people up.  frankly, most of our precinct chairs are fed up with it and tonight at our CEC meeting we'll find out just how bad the split is.

  this primary needs to end. we have a great opportunity here in tarrant to take back the texas house, and i will be damned if i let this presidential campaign damage my chances of getting a democratic rep.

  by anna on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:49:25 AM PDT

  •  So, what do we do?

    Seriously. I need homework.

    by iconoclastic cat on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:00 AM PDT

•  What is clear, and what could be done

  1.  Super-delegates will decide this.

  2.  The longer we have to wait for them, the less time to fight McCain and fundraise.

  3.  The interim fight may hurt both of our potential nominees.

  For these reasons--the supers should decide now, one way or the other, and put an end to this.

  The "loser" could suspend his or her campaign, but still remain viable if unforeseen circumstances cause the chosen nominee to no longer be electable in November.

  These arguments about electability and preferability to woo super-delegates should be done, mostly, behind closed doors, as they only undermine the electorate's confidence in each candidate's ability to beat McCain.  Both candidates would probably beat him, by the way.

  by foxsucks81 on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:52:05 AM PDT

•  Radioactive.

  Clinton is trying to turn Obama radioactive.

  I'm pretty sure she already is. I predicted this would happen.

  by YoursTruly on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 07:57:52 AM PDT

•  There are those who say the hostility between

  the Obama and Hillary camps is limited to the blogosphere. They are wrong. Whenever I am around fellow Democrats in the real world, the discussion is no less heated than it is here. And as evil as the Clinton campaign has been in recent days, I myself would think twice about voting for any politician who continues to support her.

  by beltane on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:05:47 AM PDT

•  Can Hillary be removed from the Democratic Party?

  by Texasblu on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:14:49 AM PDT

  •  I'd estimate the chances at about 1 in 5

    that she does it herself within the next four years if she isn't nominated, à la Lieberman. The only reason I don't rate the likelihood higher is that I doubt New Yorkers would swallow it.

    by Geenius at Wrok on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

•  There are 3 factions now.

  There is the Clinton Faction, the core loyalists and their apparatus, the Anti Clinton faction coalesced around Obama and his apparatus and the Democratic Party no particular candidate faction.

   The squabbles of the first two,that occasionally as in caucus and primary day drag the others into it are now a fascination for the media and especially the Repubs and corporate infotainment merchants.

   Democrats are interested, appalled, disgusted, energized and are waiting for the silly season to get over and a candidate selected. Sadly, it is going to run a few months more before the miserable gang of losers, traitors, thieves and warmongers  who want to inflict more pain on the American people get tackled properly.

   

  by Pete Rock on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:16:23 AM PDT

•  Zappatero - I can tell you at the local level

  the volunteers are working to straighten this out. The Obama and Hillary people are trying to reach across the divide (the candidate thanks them, BTW) and make the local stuff work. But, yes, every credential fight, every maneuver for delegates has direct impact on local races.

  by tjlord on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:21:05 AM PDT

  •  good news

    thanks for the update!

    by Zappatero on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 09:31:26 AM PDT

•  Can DNC speed this up (healing the divide) by:

  permitting the two states penalized for jumping the line and calendar to have a do over by mail? Restricted to registered Democrats only? Mail in the vote and have the state party distribute the delegates as to the % per the rules? Do it before the end of the primary season?  The situation is different in the two states, but right now the sentiment is for them not to count (one faction) or redo a flawed process. If the two candidates agree to a do over, that might work.

  Even if Obama loses the majority,he would still get significant delegates and get closer,possibly to the nomination. With a hundred plus delegate lead he would pad it.  For HRC,it would be a bit of a boost, even though it would not make a huge difference in the margin of her catch up count.

   It would salvage a broken and flawed vote that as of the moment is out of the counting at the convention.

   We need to fix this mess ASAP.

  by Pete Rock on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:28:21 AM PDT

•  What's that?

  Hilary's divisive and racist campaign is hurting local races?

  by word player on Thu Mar 13, 2008 at 08:41:49 AM PDT