Clinton Fans: True Progressives, Truly Lost To Despair

I have to believe that many Clinton supporters feel in good conscience that now is clearly not the time to test the wider American electorate on their willingness to see an African-American in the White House and feel that testing this now, no matter how excellent the candidate, is a death sentence to a wide range of long-valued progressive objectives among them preserving Roe v. Wade.

And a lot of Obama supporters would abide Clinton's candidacy were she to somehow grab the nomination, for this one reason.

And others can excuse a lot of distasteful activities when they hold the bigger objective of preserving their agenda in mind, in this particular frame...that if it takes tossing African-American voters off the voter rolls, if it takes maligning a traditional core demographic to see this through, they are going to roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty and not lose a moment's sleep about it.

These are Democrats, true and blue, but they can't make themselves accept the postulate that Americans aren't as base as the Republicans have treated them for the past three decades, because they (the Clintons) succeeded in that frame.

And having tasted success in that game, they are not prepared to allow the game to be changed, no matter how good it is for the Democratic Party, no matter how good it is for America, because it is a game that is good for Barack Obama.

And that, I think, is what we are facing: differences in perspective, held in good conscience, that unfortunately serve nothing but to enable Republicans to minimize losses in downticket races and quite possibly retain the White House.

In most moments, I am far from forgiving and acerbic in my commentary on the Hillies as I call them.

Events like the WVWV robo-calling mess currently hitting the news and blog pages only confirms my outrage, but the game they want to maintain, the game they feel confident at playing, is a game that is going to ruin us all -- Clinton supporters, Democrats and Americans -- and what it takes to win is not only immoral but illegal and there can be no place for that type of activity nor those who engage in it or condone those who do.

•  Weigh in jar

  by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:46:23 AM PDT

•  time to change the channel

  Return to you den of Cro Magnon politics Clinton cave dweller.

  by stormon60 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:48:38 AM PDT

  •  hopefully that is not meant for me

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:51:03 AM PDT

  •  Rrrrr? (tilts head) nt

    by iconoclastic cat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:54:12 AM PDT

•  I think this is very true

  These are Democrats, true and blue, but they can't make themselves accept the postulate that Americans aren't as base as the Republicans have treated them for the past three decades, because they (the Clintons) succeeded in that frame.

  But most won't see it until Hillary has been out of the race for a while.

  by Sun dog on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:13 AM PDT

  •  I love systematic understandings of history

    and find myself arguing with historians on this site a lot for it, but the truth is there are episodes in human experience, and sometimes the lessons learned are universally applicable (rarely), sometimes often but not perfectly aprops, and then sometimes the lessons that apply in one translate only weakly (or not at all) to later eras.

    This is one of those cases; what worked for the Clintons in 1992, even tweaked, will end us as a party in 2008.

    We can't play to a center-right, when the center-right point is equivocation on waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, telecom amnesty, pre-emptive nuclear strikes, etc.

    That's not acceptable to Democrats. Strike that. It's not even acceptable to most Americans.

    The country is aching for change. Not a reversion to all-power-to-the-Soviets ideas but a new vision of not just words but how words and ideas are shared and developed into civic action, new and necesary reconsideration of the Constitution after its being abandoned for the past eight (and perhaps more) years.

    We don't need a deliverer. We need to deliver to ourselves that which we should never have forsaken - our dignity as citizens of the United States and just because a television says we are outcasts, all 70+ percent of us who disapprove of the "center-right" agenda that led us into disaster at home and abroad, doesn't mean it's so.

    And we know it.

    And we are going to do something about it.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:59:29 AM PDT

    •  I don't think many here realize

      the profundity of these words.  Both in this statement, and in the diary.

      They are not easily digested.  

      But they are true.  

      Iv'e read this several times and feel like my eyes are opened to something I didn't want to look at before.

      Thank you cskendrick.  Honestly.

      by Brubs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:03:36 AM PDT

    •  They think we're stupid.

      I think they're incestuous morons of the Deliverance variety.

      Do do do do de do do de do.

      by ek hornbeck on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:07:12 AM PDT

      •  TV is designed to get at states of mind

        But people are innoculating themselves to it.

        by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:30:53 AM PDT

•  Well said, actually. I think you nailed it. n/t

  by chicago DEM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:49:51 AM PDT

  •  Well, OK... one caveat... there are other forces

    at work here.

    One is the desire for women, especially older white women, to see a woman president in their lifetimes blinding many to the shameful practices of Hillary's campaign. I understand it, but Hillary's campaign tactics must be rejected.

    The other force of course being the now painfully evident, if rare, racism within our own party.

    It's all rather sad.

    by chicago DEM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:55:32 AM PDT

    •  I think the Pubs raised the racist bar very high

      and have justified to many of our Democratic brethren a range of activities and outlooks that, since not being as bad as the GOPers, aren't really racist.

      But they haven't run their new freedom to express and act on their views past any African-Americans, either...

      by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:01:05 AM PDT

•  Great piece of writing...

  in this diary.

  by mayan on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:51:10 AM PDT

  •  Thanks.. I do my best when I cool off...a bit :)

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:52:00 AM PDT

•  This is one slap-to-the-face post.

  I read it twice, and the impact didn't set in until I realized the grave nature of what you are saying here. Very well done, albeit sobering.

  by iconoclastic cat on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:53:27 AM PDT

  •  To reconcile, we will have to understand this

    that even good people self-justify and grant themselves a lot of licenses when they feel the stakes are imperative and they so no other recourse... or refuse to consider alternatives.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:10:00 AM PDT

    •  The core of this diary would be a good basis for

      a speech to heal the party once Obama gets the nomination.

      I say put it in a form you consider presentable and forward it to his campaign.

      by chicago DEM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:13 AM PDT

      •  Really? You're making me blush :)

        by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:55 AM PDT

        •  Sure! We've all wondered what tact he should

          take when the time comes. His acceptance speech will be monumentally important for the party. And I've been at a loss to figure out how he should approach it. But there are nuggets of undeniable truth here that I think both sides can see clearly. The tone of understanding is key. The truth just needs to be presented in such a way that it can't be denied by any true Democrat, regardless their candidate.

          by chicago DEM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM PDT

          •  I'll see what I can do.

            by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:20:36 AM PDT

•  Sadly agree, cs.

  I commented elsewhere this morning that Clinton believes to her core that there is no way America will vote for a black guy.  She sees herself as rescuing us from our dumb-ass selves.  She sees herself as rescuing the entire Dem party, and probably the entire country.  What that all boils down to is pretty simple - she believes the American people are a gigantic collection of idiots.
  Irony of ironies, this belief of hers, this willingness to stoop to anything to "rescue" us, is proof that her judgment is so poor we must never trust her to decide anything that will affect us all.  

  by sherlyle on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:56:46 AM PDT

  •  That's darn nice of her to look out for the peeps

    But her way of doing it is a degree shy of monarchist in its approach.

    It conveys the same overt dismissal of the legitimacy of the very process she hopes will give her the Oval Throne, I mean, Office.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:22 AM PDT

•  Very strong diary

  with a lot of truth in it, is how it hit me anyway.

  by American in Kathmandu on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:57:35 AM PDT

•  Great diary, cskendrick.

  Thank you.

  by sheddhead on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM PDT

•  Some of my friends are supporting Hillary

  They are good progressives but I see in their faces that they believe I am CRAZY if I think this country will elect a black man.  And, they excuse Hillary's campaign tactics because they honestly believe that's what it takes to win and that Obama will lose in November because he's a) black and b) too naive to play  the rough and tumble politics that are required to win.

  Thanks for writing this diary.  You helped me understand  what's going on with some people.  

  by St Louis Woman on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:02:24 AM PDT

  •  One of the reasons why generation is a big part

    of the party split.

    I'm on the old side of young at 38. But I just don't see in the younger generations anything like the racial animosity I see in the older generations. I am more tempted to believe now than ever before that we're nearing a tipping point of having a majority who strongly feels that race simply shouldn't matter as much as it once did.

    The younger voters of America are willing to gamble that we're just past that tipping point, while the 40+ crowd isn't as convinced. I am willing to gamble with the kids. The benefits of winning that gamble are enormous.

    It helps that this "gamble" simply means voting for the candidate I feel is the most remarkable our party has seen in decades. I feel no compromise.

    by chicago DEM on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:09:34 AM PDT

    •  I'm a bit more on the older side of young :)

      I'm one of the really silent Gen Xers who watched most of my cohort dive shiny-eyed and pinstriped into the pool of Reaganite kool-aid.

      I knew I lost one of my best friends in 1984 when he had this to say about politics:

      All I know is I'm for Reagan.

      This from a guy with a 1400-handle SAT.

      by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:12:39 AM PDT

  •  Your friends r crazy/Clift promised retribution

    Eleanor Clift a supporter of Hillary Clinton has stated as a fact that if Clinton wins there will be severe retribution against all progressives & others who supported Obama.

    I am a Jewish woman living in an Orthodox part of Long Island,NY where many are against  having a black president. So I understand racism. Yet I believe Obama can be elected unless you allow yourself to believe the bigots. I believe that  Obama is a man with a high set of ethics that provide me and millions of others in this country with hope & the concept of being part of the solution!! Hillary has run a sham rovelike campaign and as such is unacceptable. Friends who claim to be siding with Hillary because a black man is unellectable are bigots!

    We do not need  a female BUSH and that is what Hillary has become!

    Furthermore the DLC has made it clear that with Clinton as president the DLC/The republican democrats will take over the party.  This is not acceptable!!!

    by marsbardem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:17:03 AM PDT

•  CLINTON RUNNING ROVELIKE CAMPAIGN

  I am a 63 year old NewYorker who has voted in every election for a democrat since I was able to vote.

  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WILL I VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!

  We should under no circumstances replace the corrupt republican, Bush,
  with a ROVE STYLE DEMOCRAT, Hillary!

  Through Eleanor Clift Hillary has let progressives and all others in the democratic party know that there would be severe retribution for any who were against her.  

  The DLC has made this a fight between the DLC part of the democratic party and progressives, not just a presidential issue. THE DLC WILL DESTROY PROGRESSIVES IF SHE WINS!

  Hillary Clinton has been sabatoging Obama in a rethug republican manner by having supporters set up the speech of Wright at the National Press CLub.
  She has not stopped illegal 527 ads or the criminal robo calls.

  SHE DOES NOT EVEN DESERVE TO BE SENATOR. She has ignored her responsibilty to represent her constituents at the state level. I know because her
  people who deal with health care are nowhere to be found most of the time and are not helpful even when there.
  If not Obama the dems better go to Edwards or Gore.
  Neither myself or most of my friends will vote for her.

  by marsbardem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:04:33 AM PDT

•  True Colors Temperment Assessment?

  any into career advising here?
  she's a gold.
  and was once a goldwater girl.
  he's a true blue.
  bringing us together is his cause.
  he's said it himself, it's in his "DNA."

  they are what they are.
  and i know what i am.
  they don't have a choice and neither do i.

  by stagemom on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:08:59 AM PDT

•  A lot have fear

  of the right and can't let go of fighting political battles that long ago ceded the ground to the right. They cannot except that the paradigms are shifting, that it's somehow a 'fringe' element that supports Obama. Perhaps they also feel more secure in keeping the status quo, where it is. Focusing on individual issues, identity, and past alliances makes it hard to affect overall change. Taking back your party and your country means new coalitions, and the bottom up concept requires us to have faith in both the people and the institutions we were founded on.      

  by shaharazade on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:21:03 AM PDT

  •  Now THIS is a post. Nice!

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:38:22 AM PDT

•  good diary

   The feeling I get from the HRC supporters is they took a really different lesson from all the Right Wing BS we put up with the past 8 years.. Where I felt disgusted by the swift-boating and smearing of a candidate I hear HRC supporters say "Well the Republicans are going to do it so it's fine to do to our candiates also"  WTF?  The "can't beat em' might as well join them" crowd makes me sick and always thought we would be better than the other side but this Primary proved that to be false.. Sigh...

  by ebbinflo on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:21:08 AM PDT

  •  They treat politics as war by other means

    And consider Obama supporters silly for not taking the fight seriously enough..and Machiavellian enough.

    They miss the key lesson of the Prince - Have a reputation for trustworthiness, if you would betray...

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:37:54 AM PDT

    •  The last part of that quote is key

      If I were convinced Obama's velvet glove actually covered an iron first, I'd probably have a higher opinion of the guy as a potential nominee.

      by Curufinwe on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

      •  He showed it two days ago

        He was magnanimous with Wright, then sent him away in shame.

        He has been magnanimous with Hillary repeatedly, but she has been contemptuous, and gone right on being vicious.

        He has carte blanche, any time he pleases.

        However, I do think he prefers not to do such things.

        Would that we had a president with self-restraint.

        Bush..Clinton..other Bush..Reagan...

        been a while.

        by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM PDT

•  progressive agenda

  This election truly is about the soul of the Democratic Party and, for me, Obama's nomination is the party's last chance to prove it is relevant.  There was an excellent article on Truthout yesterday about what progressives need to do after Obama is elected.  It's called "What Obama Can't Do for the Progressive Movement" by Brewer and Frisch and I recommend it to all posters here.  Right now it is most important to maintain the belief that Obama will be elected because the American people are not the ninnies the mainstream media and the DLC believes they are.  The country will change eventually because it has to, but it would be nice if it didn't fall into a sinkhole before people understand what their true priorities should be.

  by Fabienne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:29:39 AM PDT

  •  We can get a 20-year jump on our future

    I would have prediction a long dark couple of decades, with both Dems and Pubs screwing up, before Obama hit the scene.

    Why? Because the chief grievance of the Clinton/Beltway Dems is not that Bush is fighting wars and concentrating power, but that he's in the way of their fighting wars and concentrating power to use it to advance an agenda.

    That, and a professional disgust that he is not very good at either.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:45:26 AM PDT

•  Or perhaps...

  some people think that she would make a better president.  

  Can you conceive that such a thing might be possible, even absent closet racism and existential despair?

  by evanaj on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:30:37 AM PDT

  •  Goes to track record

    and demonstrated tactics and rhetoric.

    Also, Clinton's policies gravitate toward a center-right point that is strongly skewed to the right, such that ambivalence about things like torture and detention policy, and use of nuclear weapons, are the litmus test of who is flexible and bipartisan and who is one of the 60-70% of Americans who are too extreme for mainstream America.

    Sure, some people think that she would make a better president.

    Some think that John McCain would be.

    Most Americans think that emulating George W Bush is unacceptable behavior.

    Most Americans think that blatant lying about, say, being in harm's way in Bosnia is unacceptable behavior.

    Never mind the implications for what it takes to be president.

    But some people still feel she is a better pick, no matter how much she lies about being under sniper fire, no matter how much she threatens to nuke Iran, no matter how much groups affiliated with her tamper with the voting rights of African Americans.

    So, sure. I can see that some people would rather her be president.

    They are people I am talking about - she is so good in their eyes, that lying and cheating on her behalf is no problem for them.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:43:20 AM PDT

  •  And the people who

    believe this weren't really paying attention during the 90s and have a very poor understanding of global economics and the role the Clinton's played in essentially rightwing economic policies.  While the Clinton's did so in a slightly abated form, they continued neoliberal economic policies of deregulating business, privatizing social services, dismantling welfare programs, and ferociously assaulting organized labor.  Clinton supporters suffer from their own version of the "what's the matter with Kansas" syndrome, and mistakenly attribute the dotcom boom of the 90s to Bill.

    by Philoguy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:48:16 AM PDT

    •  Many Clinton supporters

      seem to think that former Edwards supporters and Obama supporters are just naive, youthful dupes.  However, they were people paying attention during the 90s, paying attention to where most of Clinton's campaign contributions came from, and paying attention to the positions she takes on issues.

      by Philoguy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:51:08 AM PDT

•  Soon, a day of reckoning

  Through her tactics, her willingness to resort to the kind of Rovian politics most of us abhor, Hillary has made herself unelectable. Have you noticed the absense of any real support for Hillary's candidacy since Pennsylvania other than from a few suck-ups? Party leaders, OTOH, have been conspicuously silent. Reconciliation is no longer possible and Hillary has only herself to blame. I believe this realization is hitting the SD's right now too. That we either win or lose with Obama in the GE, but we will lose with Hillary. Too much of the base would feel disenfranchised if Hillary becomes the nominee. Her negatives are too high.

  After this is all over, we're going, I'm sure, to be looking at how the Dem primary system in place damaged out candidate unnecessarily. The Dem political machine in place won't recover. They will have lost influence and credibility. Although I'm only gradually realizing this, we're looking at a complete shake-up of the party. What I hope emerges is a more bottom-up, grass roots, progressive, ethical Democratic Party.

  by txdemfem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:34:17 AM PDT

  •  The system works just fine

    had Obama been less capable of raising funds and voters independent of the major (and long since domesticated) Democratic committees, we would have had a coronation of Empress Hillary by now.

    What we saw was the grassroots power of which you speak, working.

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:48:08 AM PDT

    •  Good to talk to you again

      You know, if the Dem Party machine hadn't been in place, this would have ended after Wisconsin. The Clintons still had too much support from political insiders who weren't ready to give up power. While some people felt the enthusiasm of the primaries and registering new Dems was a big plus, (and I agree,) we're now dragging this thing around like a dead carcas. It so needs to be over.

      by txdemfem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:44:51 AM PDT

      •  Definitely. Based on the five (?) superdelegates

        who have come out for Obama today, I think things are winding up promptly.

        by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM PDT

•  Well...

  not to quibble but it's the WVWV not the WWWW.

  by ek hornbeck on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:04:01 AM PDT

  •  sigh been misreading it

    by cskendrick on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM PDT