Primary! Fight! Fight!

I have to say that I agree with this: For all the hype, this isn't an especially vicious primary race on the Democratic side. The fact that there aren't large issue differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is lending their efforts to attack each other a bit of an odd vibe, but high-stakes political campaigns are always at least a little bit nasty.

The idea that this might open up some unbridgeable rift within the Democratic Party, meanwhile, strikes me as almost laughable. There ideological lines of cleavage within the Democratic coalition are much smaller than they were five or ten years ago when the party was riven by contentious arguments about globalization, etc.

Comments

Fair enough, but if one candidate is perceived to have won the dem nomination by using race to divide and rule, there will be repurcussions that are much more serious than a disagreement over policy. If you don't understand that you understand little or anything about politics.

Posted by pt | January 25, 2008 5:55 PM

The idea that this might open up some unbridgeable rift within the Democratic Party, meanwhile, strikes me as almost laughable.

Pull your head out of your ass. It already has.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 25, 2008 5:58 PM

Even so, it would be nice to see liberals being a little less vitriolic about the candidate they don't support. That doesn't mean we can't have a competitive campaign, but it's a little unnerving to see the knives come out among the wider liberal base when so little policy differences actually exist between Hillary and Obama.

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 25, 2008 5:58 PM

The idea that this might open up some unbridgeable rift within the Democratic Party, meanwhile, strikes me as almost laughable.

You either haven't read Ezra today, or you need to write a post explaining why he's wrong. Hillary's setting a fire in the party's basement.

(I realize you're talking about demographics and not territory, but this FL/MI gambit really is important and reckless.)

Posted by southpaw | January 25, 2008 5:59 PM

The idea that this might open up some unbridgeable rift within the Democratic Party, meanwhile, strikes me as almost laughable. There ideological lines of cleavage within the Democratic coalition are much smaller than they were five or ten years ago

What strikes me as laughable is the idea that ideology is what determines party or candidate loyalty. IIRC, every study I've ever seen linked in the blogosphere disputes that (or a related) idea. But don't let that slow your roll.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 25, 2008 5:59 PM

I agree that, so far, this campaign has had only minor dust-ups, although both campaigns have certainly spent an inordinate amount of timing whining. Did you know that Obama has never had a negative ad run against him? No wonder he's uptight.

I'm not so sure that it will be that easy to paper over the differences, however. In the first place, it's not clear to me what Obama's policy positions really are. You keep saying they're the same as Hillary's, and maybe they are, but they are well-hidden, if so. (Krugman tells us that Obama's positions are to the right, and Krugman's credentials here are pretty good.)

Secondly, I like Sen. Obama very much, but I have to say that I'm a bit put off that a guy three years out of the Illinois Legislature is mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln and RFK.

Jesse Jackson won 11 primaries in 1988, and nobody called him a "transformational leader."

Posted by John Petty | January 25, 2008 6:04 PM

Anecdotally, here's one democrat who will NEVER vote for the dynastic duo again.

Posted by Tom | January 25, 2008 6:04 PM

Even so, it would be nice to see liberals being a little less vitriolic about the candidate they don't support.

"Less vitriolic" is not in their nature.

It is an interesting scenario: Hillary wins nomination. Hillary-hating Dems stay home on election day. McCain wins election.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 6:06 PM

The ideological lines of cleavage within the Democratic coalition are much smaller than they were five or ten years ago ...

If you think that young blacks -- especially educated ones -- are going to swallow Bill Clinton lying about and trashing the most charismatic, young black leader to come along in our lifetime, you need to send your diploma back to Harvard. Or find a new line of work.

Posted by Econobuzz | January 25, 2008 6:11 PM

It is an interesting scenario: Hillary wins nomination. Hillary-hating Dems stay home on election day. McCain wins election.

This is what I'm really worried about.

Posted by Mr. Noah | January 25, 2008 6:13 PM

It is an interesting scenario: Hillary wins nomination. Hillary-hating Dems stay home on election day. McCain wins election.

It's becoming an increasingly likely possibility. (It won't just be Hillary-hating Dems, though, but also some moderates and independents who would have otherwise gone for Obama.)

Posted by DaveWoo | January 25, 2008 6:18 PM

This is what I'm really worried about.

Don't. People--even Dean people--came out strongly for Kerry. What seems more likely is that HRC will, if she wins, be a weak President, because some not insignificant set of her voters won't much like her.

And, hey, maybe she can build bridges, etc.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 25, 2008 6:18 PM

A 1989 biography of Jesse Jackson is titled, "And the Walls Came Tumbling Down." So maybe it didn't use the phrase, "transformational leader," but Jesse Jackson was talked about in fairly glowing terms.

As for the bigger question, tone matters. You might be able to win elections by dividing us into microtrends, but it is a lousy way to govern.

All of the Republicans problems fade away if we unite them by nominating Hillary.

Posted by Curtis | January 25, 2008 6:22 PM

Matt,

I don't think it will wound the democratic party forever but Hillary's hardball bullshit has definitely turned me off. I wasn't happy about the idea of her being president, but I would probably have voted for her.

But at this point, I absolutely won't vote for her, and I will even vote for McCain or even Romney over her at this point. I'd rather have "The enemy" in charge then be "represented" by a sleazebag. Besides, I'm wealthy enough to benefit from republican nonsense, rather then suffer from it. So if poor, low-information democrats want to vote for Hillary they can starve for all I care. No skin of my back, frankly.

Posted by example | January 25, 2008 6:37 PM

Secondly, I like Sen. Obama very much, but I have to say that I'm a bit put off that a guy three years out of the Illinois Legislature is mentioned in the same breath as Lincoln and RFK.

Fair enough, but any Lincoln comparisons are actually about the shared inexperience (and home state). However, Obama, presumably, is for abolition and against the secession of half the US.

Posted by anon | January 25, 2008 6:40 PM

Well, the New York Times today "strongly recommends" Hillary over Obama to Democratic primary voters.

As someone who loathes Edwards, I love their condescending swipe at him:

The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 6:40 PM

The film "Primary colors" perfectly captures the Clintons.

Their appeal lies in their success. The establishment (maybe Yglesias now) fears the repercussions of opposing them.

But the bottom line: if you really care about the country...if your idealistic...etc...They will crush your sense of hope.

Posted by thehova | January 25, 2008 6:42 PM

Don't. People--even Dean people--came out strongly for Kerry. What seems more likely is that HRC will, if she wins, be a weak President, because some not insignificant set of her voters won't much like her.

Kerry may have gone after Dean, but it was mostly Gephardt who really took him down, and after that, it was "the Scream". There was never any kind of public smear/distortion campaign against Dean.

Posted by example | January 25, 2008 6:45 PM

"Don't. People--even Dean people--came out strongly for Kerry"

That's because of Bush, not Kerry. Bush was so obviously incompetent, and destructive that he was able to unite virtually all democrats, even people who liked Nader, against him. That won't happen this time.

Personally I'm an Obama supporter who has been disgusted by the Clinton campaign, but I'll vote for her anyway, if just for the supreme court.

Posted by mad6798j | January 25, 2008 6:48 PM

I continue to be surprised by your nonchalance toward Clintonian tactics, particularly when juxtaposed with Obama. As with others above, I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I will never vote for Hillary -- character to me matters just as much as policy, if not more. If Hillary wins I plan on voting for McCain, if only to shut down the Clintons for good and leave open the possibility for someone better in 2012.

Posted by Chris Hauser | January 25, 2008 6:54 PM

Matt's just trying to tone down the criticism he got for his situational ethics over Clinton's tactics.

So he figures dismissing the Clinton hatred is a good way to do that and make himself look better to the readers.

Based on the initial posts above, doesn't seem to be working.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 7:07 PM

"But at this point, I absolutely won't vote for her, and I will even vote for McCain or even Romney over her at this point. I'd rather have "The enemy" in charge then be "represented" by a sleazebag."

Oh sweet Jesus, have you learned nothing from the last seven years? I'll bet you voted for Nader in '00, too.

I'd prefer a sleazebag to someone who's seriously going to fuck my shit up. Back when Bill was cuddling with Monica, did you miss out on those emails comparing the drunkard and the womanizer with the vegan war hero and the idealist union organizer? Churchill and FDR v. Adolph and Stalin.

Posted by cmholm | January 25, 2008 7:16 PM

You laugh at the idea of a rift. I can tell you, unequivocally, that as a life-long democrat, I will vote against HRC should she be the nominee regardless of who her Republican opponent may be. Feel free to continue to laugh, though, when I tell that my circle of friends mostly share this sentiment.

And the reason is quite simple: there is nothing they will not say, no one they will not betray, nary an issue they wont renege upon, in order to place themselves firmly into whatever political position they wish. The Clintons have only the benefit of themselves at heart and any person who honestly searches their soul, and wishes to protect it, sees that.

I hope you are still laughing uproariously when me and my Democratic friends are willing to make Mike Huckabee the next President of the United States as long as Hillary and Bill go forever into the annuls of history.

Posted by taodon | January 25, 2008 7:35 PM

Perhaps your right about this not being the nastiest primary... I'm in my 60's and I can remember a few. But I don't think you're right if you think this doesn't have the potential of splitting the party. I have heard a number of committed Democrats assert that they would not vote, or would vote for a Republican if HRC wins. I'm pretty much close to that myself and I've been a Democrat through thick and thin for decades. But like a lot of folks, I'm tired - bone tired - of holding my nose and voting for undesirable candidates who only later prove my instincts right. I'm tired of candidates who claim character and leadership and then prove they lied by their own conduct. I don't find it attractive to vote for the baddest junkyard dog, just cause they're mean and can kick butt. I don't find the manipulation and conniving and meanness to be a good substitute for leadership.

I am a loyal Democrat, but if 9/11 taught us nothing else, it should have taught that it's way past time to return to the standard of country over party, over ego, over self serving victory. Yes I want to win, but I want to be able to say to my grandchildren about our leaders, "there is someone to look up to and emulate!". I want to be able to tell the world, I'm an American and be proud of it. I want to be able to look at me in the mirror and say to me, I stood for the best side...

If this campaign continues on this road, the Dems are going to alienate a sizable number of minority, young, and older voters for a generation. Which is ironic because they stand on the brink of doing just the opposite. If they get their act together and put country and party over self, they will not only win the next election, but they will build a strong and enduring coalition that will last a generation. But as always, we seem to find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by plainbrown1 | January 25, 2008 7:36 PM

There seem to be two types of I-won't-vote-for-Clinton voters, or should I say non-voters. The first type is the independent who's moderate-to-conservative, who is uniquely attracted to Obama among the Democratic candidates. That's perfectly understandable--he's the only Democrat who speaks to them, which is why some love him and some (myself included), well, not so much. The second type is the progressive, and frankly, that kind of person is spiteful: they would consign the country to something they know will be doom, simply because they didn't get their way in the primaries. Sometimes they will try to square that circle by saying outright that Clinton wouldn't be any better for the country than the Republican, but that's so ridiculous (for a progressive) that it doesn't qualify as a good-faith statement.

Posted by Rich | January 25, 2008 8:31 PM

"I'd rather have "The enemy" in charge then be "represented" by a sleazebag."

Oh boy, it must be nice to be so extravagant. Never mind that McCain thinks it's OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years, or that Romney favors the rich. It doesn't affect you guys, right? You think politics is about feeling good, feeling morally superior. For most of us it's about keeping our jobs and feeding our families. I will vote for the Democrat no matter who it is.

Posted by Kate | January 25, 2008 8:35 PM

"I'd rather have "The enemy" in charge then be "represented" by a sleazebag."

Oh boy, it must be nice to be so extravagant. Never mind that McCain thinks it's OK to stay in Iraq for 100 years, or that Romney favors the rich. It doesn't affect you guys, right? You think politics is about feeling good, feeling morally superior. For most of us it's about keeping our jobs and feeding our families. I will vote for the Democrat no matter who it is.

Posted by Kate | January 25, 2008 8:36 PM

The idea that this might open up some unbridgeable rift within the Democratic Party, meanwhile, strikes me as almost laughable

Yeah! You go boy!

I am sooo sick of all the ninnies in teh blogosphere not just falling for this shit, but getting hysterical over it, and promoting it, it's distressing to find that there are so many shrill idiots. Makes me want to talk politics with the relatives that watch only Fox News, at least they are definitely savvier. Certainly anyone who has watched at least one episode of Saturday Night Live much less Comedy Central in the last 20 years should know better.

Posted by artappraiser | January 25, 2008 8:38 PM

Just to add my own perspective to the conversation . . .

I'm disturbed by it. I was never as engaged in a primary as I am in this one, so I don't have a sense of how it compares, but Bill Clinton's attacks on Obama, vis a vis Las Vegas, and Hillary Clinton's dissimulation about what Barack Obama said about Reagan, and, finally, this strange move over delegates in Michigan and Florida, I find deeply disturbing. Maybe it's normal, but I hate it. It seems almost as if the Clinton's being smart people have seen what Karl Rove/Swift Boat Veterans for truth did, what the republican party did in Florida in 2000 and said to themselves, we understand that . . . and we can do it too.

I maybe didn't even realize it until I started writing here, but, in truth, I find it deeply demoralizing. I'm in tune with Clinton's platform, and I will vote for her against which ever Republican wins their nomination, but one of the most important aspects of replacing George W. Bush with a democrat has to be that it would represent a collective refutation of his politics above all else approach to governance. If the democratic nominee wins the general election with the same tactics Hillary is using in the democratic primary, we will have a better president and generally more just policies, but we won't have extracted ourselves from this postmodern, cable-tv-addled mindset that the present administration has pressed onto the national consciousness.

I don't think Barack Obama is any kind of transcendent figure and I have serious doubts arising from his occasional incoherence, but to the extent that he seems to me now to be more reasonablethan the Clintons, I'm leaning more strongly toward him than I have toward any of the other candidates so far in this race.

I'm actually deeply curious about the degree to which the present direction of the Clinton campaign will penetrate the non-internet-grounded political junkie segment of voting democrats. I wonder how other people are feeling.

Posted by MrTimbo | January 25, 2008 8:42 PM

Rich - you are free to pigeon hole me and others like me into whatever categories you feel gives you the greatest illusion of superiority, but the fact remains that your little quips and back-handed slights is so indicative of the entire Clinton philosophy, that your political allegiance is readily apparent.

Unfortunately for you, I will not be guilted or cajoled into voting for a candidate I know with every fiber of my being to be the wrong choice for America, simply because she has surreptitiously chosen to place a (D) after her name.

In my book, being a progressive means supporting candidates that offer actual progress. She offers a return to the "glory days" of her husband, full of endless psychosis, lies, and betrayal.

Thank you for the concern, Rich, but I can assure you, I will sleep quite well after I vote against doom, rather than for it as you suggest.

Posted by taodon | January 25, 2008 8:47 PM

Matt, I think your nonchalance is probably b/c you're too young to really understand (and I'm not being condescending, this is just about the math) how really full of angst and strife the Clinton years were, and how they wore the country out.

Somehow we fooled ourselves that it was gonna be different this time. Bill was remade into elder statesman. Hillary would bring sanity and reason to the white house. People are bitter b/c of the shock of recognition that nothing indeed has changed. They're asking themselves: do we really want to replay the emotionally twisted psychodrama of the Clinton years? And the answer is no.

Posted by Liz | January 25, 2008 8:50 PM

Another point to consider is not if it will or has cleaved the Democratic Party... but if that party will have a broader coalition going forward.

The GOP is in absolute crisis, their coalition is broken.

GOP members and Independents are ripe for the picking right now. I left the Democratic Party in 1996 (after witnessing corruption), and would like nothing more than to return.

The Clintons' behavior is not distinguished from Rove's ... They excite their "base" - but alienate Independently minded people. That's not the way to move the country in a long-term progressive direction. It is possible to start such a move right now. The Clintons' appear to prefer a short-term political win.

Posted by jackifus | January 25, 2008 8:59 PM

You do know the line that rhymes with "Fight! Fight!" don't you? Or didn't you get in a lot of fights with black kids when you were a kid?

Posted by godoggo | January 25, 2008 9:05 PM

Yeah, thank you for this post, Matt! We need some sanity over at the Atlantic blogs. Why does every comment read like the screechy dramatics of Bill Shatner hamming up Captain Kirk? It's not that bad, guys. Matt, can you post the lyrics to Kum-Ba-Yah, and let's all chill?

Posted by Chris in Cal | January 25, 2008 9:10 PM

Pretty much what Mr. Timbo said. I have concerns about Obama, but folks like Matt underestimate the deeply personal loathing many "high information" Democratic voters now feel for the Clintons. There might not be enough of us to matter in the overall calculus, but we're out there. The Clintons' smear tactics forced me to recall the Nineties, when I would be forced to defend Bill's blatant lies on the utilitarian grounds that, "hey, he's doing a good job and I fundamentally agree with him." Then, you had the GOP bogeyman to focus your anger, and it's easy to rationalize that the ends justify the means. But in a Democratic primary, it's hard to argue there is some laudable end goal (besides satisfying the Clintons' insatiable ambitiousness) that warrants defending willful distortion and lies.

Politics is a rough game, and I'd like to see Obama step down from his heavenly perch more. But why spend another decade defending incorrigible liars when you don't have to?

Posted by Ryan W. | January 25, 2008 9:11 PM

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Someones singing lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbayah

Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Someones laughing, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

can you post the lyrics to Kum-Ba-Yah, and let's all chill?

Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Someones crying, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Someones praying, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Someones sleeping, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Posted by rea | January 25, 2008 9:40 PM

Ryan W,

Yeah, I'm sure that during the Clinton years you were going around saying "Bill and Hillary are incorrigible liars but I'm supporting them anyway because I like their policies" in response to attacks from their political opponents. In any case, the same kind of utilitarian argument could be made in support of Hillary over Obama today by someone who believes she is more likely to win the election or to be a better president, assuming they even agreed with your assessment of the Clintons' character.

But don't worry, I'm sure Obama has some dirty laundry that the Republicans will be able to dig up if he wins the nomination. It's a dog-eat-dog eat world, and you don't get to be a serious presidential candidate without doing nasty things somewhere along your climb up the ladder.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 10:00 PM

This is what I'm really worried about.

Don't. People--even Dean people--came out strongly for Kerry. What seems more likely is that HRC will, if she wins, be a weak President, because some not insignificant set of her voters won't much like her.

What we'll have is 4 years of bitterness followed by a Republican. Who can stand four years of Bill Clinton inappropriate/out-of-control/off-the-reservation stories, let alone eight?

Yglesias and Digby are too smart by half. Matt's falling into the same trap he did with Iraq, letting others in the Party decide what is the proper course to take in addressing this issue. Matt is an establishment man, all the way. He doesn't recognize the historic significance of the tactics used by the Clintons. It's a panic, really. Every thing's happening so quickly, there's little time to reflect on the impact.

Hillary cried, CRIED! That's the dirtiest, most unprincipled stunt ever pulled in a Presidential race. NOBODY has ever attempted to manipulate public sentiment that grossly. So, you could have a historic campaign winner on that alone, but lucky for us, the Clintons only get more and more shameless.

They decided to perpetuate and advance racial stereo types with their own southern strategy, but Yglesias doesn't care. He's too busy shouting at the Confederate Flag to say anything against actual modern racism. He either can't see or doesn't care about this little bit of nastiness. This racist game they are playing has been played in the same way since the 1950s. I have no doubt Yglesias would take the same position on this mess were the Clintons trashing a Jew, but that's because the establishment doesn't really care about Jews, either, and Matt's loyalty is to the establishment. Matt is just like Robert Johnson, a house Negro, willing to sell out the field slaves. He knows MLKJr was nothing without his white master, LBJ.

AND STILL, the madness continues as the Clintons see the strategy begin to work. Few people dare to state the obvious. The Clintons decide racism and sympathy votes only go so far. They needed to disenfranchise people. TAKE THE VOTE AWAY! Unbelievable. This would never ever be tolerated coming from a Republican and we all know it. Absolutely unacceptable cheating, but the Clintons get people to convince themselves that it's only political steroids. The strategy in Michigan and Florida has been long planned.

Most recently, the Clintons are simply lying about everything. It doesn't matter that Bill praised Reagan before and Drudge has the picture of the Clintons with this Rezcoe person in 1999. They can lie with impunity. Everyone knows Bill is a liar already, anyway. It depends on the meaning of the word "news", I guess.

Everyone seems to believe the ridiculous notion that Obama is only catching the flack the Republicans are going to throw at him, anyway. He's gotta prove he can take it. Well doesn't the same apply to Hillary? What would you say if Obama started asking her who killed Vince Foster and how she made all that money trading futures in Chicago? It's certainly what she can expect from the Republicans.

And for all the talk of "breathless" anti-Clinton articles, I'm not seeing any that do justice to the monumental damage that the Clintons are inflicting upon this country.

Posted by Just Karl | January 25, 2008 10:32 PM

This could be, but if you read Mr. Sullivan's posts there is another side to the story. The Clintons' recent antics in trying to win the nomination have lead to a growing sentiment among some democrats that they are wrong for the country and there is a growing block of ABCD voters- Anyone but Clinton Democrats.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 10:36 PM

This could be, but if you read Mr. Sullivan's posts there is another side to the story. The Clintons' recent antics in trying to win the nomination have lead to a growing sentiment among some democrats that they are wrong for the country and there is a growing block of ABCD voters- Anyone but Clinton Democrats.

Posted by Mike | January 25, 2008 10:36 PM

This "but they are so close on the issues" is so typical...High minded liberals seem to be allergic to the idea that people (probably most people) rank other criteria higher than issues when choosing their candidate, and, therefore, this kind of a race is a godsend for them, since they don't even really have to worry about issues (we'll be pretty much OK on issues whoever it is) and can focus in on personality, charisma, psychology, and just who is engaging in the dirtiest tricks today. Issues, schmissues...

Posted by JMS | January 25, 2008 10:43 PM

and another thing. Yes, most Dems (even the ones whining about it now) will come back and vote for HRC. What they (and I) resent and resent heartily is that we are basically being blackmailed into doing so. It's what the Clintons did back in the 90s too...to say that we had to accept every bit of questionable behavior or questionable policy because the alternative was worse--and they were right--it was worse, but at that point the comparison was between abysmal and so-so. At some point, I made some Devil's bargain and said that even if Bill HAD philandered and perhaps even sexually harrassed a few women, his presence in office was overall better for all women, so we had to overlook anything he might have done. It's justifiable, and pragmatic, but it's not the kind of thing that makes one very proud.

The amazing thing is that we're finally being offered a way out of mediocrity and out of the trap of having to accept something not so great to prevent something worse, and yet we might not get it. That's what's frustrating.

Posted by JMS | January 25, 2008 10:54 PM

Liz

Matt, I think your nonchalance is probably b/c you're too young to really understand (and I'm not being condescending, this is just about the math) how really full of angst and strife the Clinton years were, and how they wore the country out.

You certainly see things differently from me. It's like you were on another planet. Or are you like 4 years older than Matt or something? Get real, I can't believe you think of those years as stressful for this country. That's just plain silly.

My first first campaign, I was a high school volunteer for Clean Gene.

I look back on the Clinton years as the only golden time in my life in this country, when the 1/3 conservative wingers in this country were the only angry ones, finally marginalized, no longer the not so silent "silent majority."

First and foremost, outside the Clinton years, my whole lifetime, the economy was as bad, one way or another, as it is now. Things were ALWAYS bleak. Either unemployment was high or inflation was.

How can you even compare them to the LBJ or Nixon years, generation gap, kids being thrown out of their homes by their fathers because they were anti-war, construction workers beating long hairs in the street. Follow it up by race riots for decades, an endless cycle of inflation and unemployment where it looked like there would never be enough jobs for the overeducated boomers and ALL the economists told us it would never be better, there would always be deficit and debt and either high unemployment or inflation, gas rationing, Japanese buying up the country working, crime crime crime, the black underclass on welfare with babies having babies followed by greed is good corporate buy-outs and tossing people out of jobs and homeless roaming the steets of all the cities, more crime crime crime crack epidemic fueling racism so bad Bill Cosby said he switched to the other side of the street from young black men. Not to mention other just minor things like the fight fur/agin the ERA, the months the country spent on the Thomas Clarence hearings and sexual harassment, with wives and husbands arguing into the night or the breakdown of academica into shrillfests about Andrea Dworkin or some other similar thing for decades.

I can come up with a lot more if you want BUT
SHEESH there is no comparison cince like 1963. The Clinton years were the best years in this country. Yeah, the peace, prosperity and the irrational exuberance of the internet boom, and the wingers squealing in Congress about lying under oath while 2/3 of the public was amused and continued to give the president a high approval rating, it was just so horrifying I guess. It was a great time unless you were a winger. I used to watch them on C-Span's call-in morning show, they sounded so hysterical about "that man," sort of like some bloggers now. It was great fun to know how impotent they were except to conduct an impeachment circus.

Posted by artappraiser | January 25, 2008 11:05 PM

P.S. It is certainly legit to argue that people want a change and don't want the dynasty thing, and/or that people don't want to have to hear the same old Clinton stories and games allover again, but it's quite another to argue that the 90's were a stressful political time, matter of fact I find it ridiculous. A day after Gingrich would call Clinton some name in the well, it was possible to see him meeting with Clinton over some other matter, at Clinton's invite, and both being not just civil but jovial. Mho, all the wannabe war room spinners in the blogosphere right now are causing more political stress than there was then.

Posted by artappraiser | January 25, 2008 11:15 PM

Maybe this Dem. primary isn't "especially vicious" -- or maybe it is, but I have no idea what Matt is comparing it to. Does anyone else?

I can't and won't vote for Hillary in the general, and not because I'm black: indeed, I'm a white male, which seems about as compelling; maybe less.

I had been open to the possibility, slightly, but her campaign has been too disgusting to allow me to rationalize voting for her. Last straw for me (not just in retrospect, but at the time it happened) was Billy Shaheen in NH. This was was supposed to be a Democratic primary. Since when do Democrats use the "do we know he was NOT a crack dealer" card against political opponents? Thanks to the Clintons, the answer is "since last December," or maybe "when a black man is in our way." If Clintons = the Party, => Party = dead.

A lot of people seem to be reading a lot less into these Obama-is-Black Reminders than they ought to. Why is it that only black democrats are expected to react badly to the Clintons' racism?
And of course they're racists. The Clintons are what the Clintons do, not what the Clintons allege to feel in their hearts.

And since when are we bound by some duty to vote for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee? I've been old enough to vote since 1994, and I've never voted for a Republican (or for a Nader): In 2000 I voted for Bradley, then Gore in the general. 2004, Dean (P), Kerry (G).

I voted for Gore and Kerry because they seemed to be (a) decent persons who at least try to be honest in public, and also (b) qualified to be president of this country. Why should I vote for Hillary when I'm convinced she is NOT decent, NOT honest, NOT qualified? Really, I'm wondering where the alleged obligation comes from?

Posted by max mason | January 25, 2008 11:23 PM

Mr. Timbo,

I'm disturbed by it. I was never as engaged in a primary as I am in this one, so I don't have a sense of how it compares

Read John Joseph Brady's book on Lee Atwater. Then you'll have something to compare, and you won't be in total shock and further demoralized when Obama comes out and supports Hillary as the nominee or vice versa, or even when one selects the other as running mate or offers a cabinet post. None of what is happening is rough stuff and it is showing as very divisive outside the blogosphere. There is no evidence in polls that the identity groups that are lining up behind one or another hate the other candidate as much as some of the loudest mouths in the blogosphere.

A similar thing is happening in the GOP, by the way. All the major conservative talk radio hosts are "smearing" John McCain as an evil liberal. I don't know how they are going to get out of that one if he wins, but they will figure a way.

Posted by artappraiser | January 25, 2008 11:34 PM

appraiser,

I look back on the Clinton years as the only golden time in my life in this country, when the 1/3 conservative wingers in this country were the only angry ones, finally marginalized, no longer the not so silent "silent majority."

Er, Clinton's disastrous first two years in office created the 1994 Republican Revolution, which led the GOP to gain control of the Senate for the first time in 10 years, and control of the House for the first time in over 40 years. Some "marginalization."

This effectively destroyed any real prospects Clinton might once have had to pass any major "progressive" reforms. His prized health care reform attempt had already gone down in flames. He blew it. He squandered the best opportunity you guys had since the 60s. What, exactly, are Clinton's "progressive" accomplishments as president supposed to be? Welfare reform? NAFTA? The Defense of Marriage Act? Economic inequality grew dramatically under his watch, and his one serious effort to do something about that--the increase in the top marginal income tax rate in the 1993 budget--has now been reversed.

Posted by Mixner | January 25, 2008 11:34 PM

I agree with what Rich said above. There are the new people that Obama is speaking to, and, quite understandably, they may leave if Obama doesn't get the nomination.

And then there are those who always seems to proclaim themselves "life-long Democrats" who say they are outraged at the Clintons for something or other, and they're sitting this one out. Guess what? These are the same people who ALWAYS diss the party's nominee because he or she is not "pure" enough for their tastes. Result? Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

I'm for HRC, but I like Obama quite a bit too. I have to say, though, that the myriad of false accusations against the Clintons is torqueing me pretty good. I've thought to myself, just today, if I would support Obama if he got the nomination. I'm pretty sure that I would, but today I don't feel much like it--and I ALWAYS vote Democratic.

As for the race card: Who brought Oprah to South Carolina? Who said Bill's remark about "fairy tale" was a racial slur, when it clearly wasn't? Who said Hillary's remark about Pres. Johnson was dissing MLK, when it clearly wasn't? I'd say Obama is the one who is playing the race card, and doing it--I must admit--with subtlety and deftness. His fingerprints aren't on it, but he's sure doing it.

Posted by John Petty | January 25, 2008 11:35 PM

Maybe this post is bringing out all the "won't-vote-for-Clinton" people, but I'll add my voice as one of them.I was happy to vote Clinton in my first ever presidential election in 1992.  But the slime and smear is too much for me.  I want a modicum of morality and honesty from my president.  I'll consider voting for Bill and his sidekick Hillary when they fire Karl Rove.

Posted by guachi | January 25, 2008 11:40 PM

And then there are those who always seems to proclaim themselves "life-long Democrats" who say they are outraged at the Clintons for something or other, and they're sitting this one out. Guess what? These are the same people who ALWAYS diss the party's nominee because he or she is not "pure" enough for their tastes.

No - those people are trolls, shills, and operators. They'll disappear the day after the general, and they'll try to spread FUD until then.

Posted by boonie | January 25, 2008 11:46 PM

The second type is the progressive, and frankly, that kind of person is spiteful: they would consign the country to something they know will be doom, simply because they didn't get their way in the primaries.

This is not an accurate characterization. It is entirely coherent position to take that it is worth four years of divided government followed by what I think will be a very strong shot for the Democrats to take the White House in 2012 in order to shut out the Clintons and drive a stake through the heart of the DLC. The damage that McCain or Romney could do in a single term with a Democratic congress is considerably less that what would result from another 8 years of a deeply disfunctional DLC-led Democratic party. I don't think we can really hope to turn the country around until we are able to get the Democratic party turned around. And that can never happen while the Clintons are running the show.

Posted by J.B. | January 25, 2008 11:49 PM

Don't forget Hilary's union-busting friend Mark Penn. Look, I'll vote for her, if it comes to that, but I really feel, in policy (moderately progressive + hawkish) and tone (ratfucking), like I'm voting for Nixon.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | January 25, 2008 11:54 PM

Dirtiest. Campaign. Ever.

At the start of the McCarthy era, Floridian Claude Pepper, one of the Senate's most outspoken liberals, was on the conservatives' "hit list" along with many other senators. George Smathers lashed out with some typical right-wing invective -- he called his opponent "the Red Pepper" -- and he launched a campaign to expose Pepper's secret "vices." Smathers disclosed that Pepper was "a known extravert," his sister was a "thespian," and his brother a "practicing homo sapien." Also, when Pepper went to college, he actually "matriculated." Worst of all, he "practiced celibacy" before marriage. Naturally, rural voters were horrified, and Pepper lost. The reason this example is actually clever and lacking the typical viciousness of Republican dirty tricks is because Smathers was a right-wing conservative Democrat and this example happened during a primary race.

Posted by Just Karl | January 26, 2008 12:03 AM

Maybe this post is bringing out all the "won't-vote-for-Clinton" people, but I'll add my voice as one of them.

I'm convinced that there are millions of us. I still haven't seen any new general election polls in the last couple of weeks... but I'd be willing to bet her support among Dems (and therefore overall) is tanking.

In some ways, it's exhilirating. A couple of months ago, I was resigned to the fact that I would likely hold my nose and vote for Hillary in November.

Now I feel, at worst, I can vote for McCain against HIlwith a clear conscience.

Posted by Tractarian | January 26, 2008 12:05 AM

Has anyone seen McCain's latest ad against Romney, where he puts Romney's face on top of Sen. Kerry's wind-surfing body, and calls Romney a flip flopper? I couldn't believe it -- and of course, neither the media nor the Republican party thinks that's a problem. Could you imagine the outrage among Democrats and the media if a Democratic candidate were to run an ad like that?? Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama's head on top of someone else's body?? That's what I call negative -- even outrageous --campaigning. (And of course, it's from McCain -- the so-called integrity candidate.) No matter who the Democratic candidate is, we can expect more of the same against him or her; he or she better be up to the task of responding.

Posted by Lisa | January 26, 2008 12:06 AM

I may be in the minority here, but I just don't feel that John McCain is really such a bad person. He'll have a Democratic Congress to blunt his worst tendencies, and the courage to spurn his own party when necessary. We know that McCain often doesn't give a hoot-n-hollar what the Republicans think, and he'll want to deliver big changes so as to cement some sort of legacy. I don't think that Hillary is capable of delivering 60 Senate seats on her coat-tails, and it will be in the Republicans' interest to obstruct this already unpopular figure, so she isn't likely to get much done. Moreover, it's clear that McCain has far more political courage than Hillary. Only Nixon could go to China, so perhaps only a Republican can pass a number of contentious pieces of legislation on climate change, the evironment, the budget, healthcare, executive power, torture, and Iraq. We know that Hillary isn't about to stick her neck out for us -- just compare the lives lived of the candidates in the race. Hillary graduated from Yale and immediately went to work for a corporate law firm. How inspiring. John Edwards, savior of the poor, took a similar path of self-enrichment. But Barack Obama went to work as a community organizer, and John McCain served his country in a time of war. Policy be damned, we all know who possesses the courage and principles in this race. And to those Hillary supporters worried about Roe v. Wade: If it's so damn important to you, find a better reason to vote for Hillary than her gender (and let's not pretend that this isn't the reason that many of you are supporting her). Because if you make her the nominee, many of us are going to vote for John McCain. And it isn't because we aren't strong Democrats; It's because we want a leader of moral strength and clarity.

Posted by Gabe Addonimo | January 26, 2008 12:08 AM

I'd say Obama is the one who is playing the race card, and doing it--I must admit--with subtlety and deftness. His fingerprints aren't on it, but he's sure doing it.

I'm sorry, but that's daft and deeply irritating. Just ask yourself who's benefiting from all this. Ask yourself if Obama has the mind control powers to make Clinton's surrogate Andrew Cuomo use the words "shuck and jive." Ask yourself if Obama made Robert Johnson--standing right next to Hillary--call him Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner.

It takes a certain deliberate obtuseness to believe that Obama would so deftly and subtly orchestrate his own marginalization. When they write the history of this primary season, they'll fit the Clinton campaign for a white hood not a white hat.

Posted by southpaw | January 26, 2008 12:15 AM

Gabe, voiting for McCain is nuts, just on the Iraq war alone. On the other hand, he'd almost certainly be a one-term president. He's too old to stay in it for eight years, and in 2012 the Dems might get their shit together and put up someone electable (it happens sometimes). So you'd be right that he would have no incentive to tow the Republican line.

But moral strength? what? Clarity? Does McCain have any political position that he's adhered to for over a decade? He may have been a hero, but he's a pol now.

Oh, and I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances. I've never been able to participate in a presidential election in which someone named Clinton or Bush isn't running. I'd like to do that some time before my little boy reaches voting age. I don't have to vote for her either since I live in Texas. Why vote for her in a state she can't win in anyway? She hardly deserves my loyalty.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 26, 2008 12:29 AM

Because if you make her the nominee, many of us are going to vote for John McCain. And it isn't because we aren't strong Democrats; It's because we want a leader of moral strength and clarity

Maybe this post is bringing out all the "won't-vote-for-Clinton" people, but I'll add my voice as one of them.

folks like Matt underestimate the deeply personal loathing many "high information" Democratic voters now feel for the Clintons

Just wanted to pile on here, as it's wonderful to see my feelings shared by so many others.

Perhaps the reason Obama does so well with high-income Democrats is related to Maslow's hierarchy of needs: "authenticity" gains importance once more basic human needs are secured. Sure, most Democrats will vote ideology in the general, either enthusiastically or "holding their noses." But there are plenty of us who are sick of holding our noses when we vote, and simply won't do it any longer.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 26, 2008 12:58 AM

We'll see. This is not the dirtiest campaign ever, distasteful though it may have become. Ideological rifts will not tear the party apart, put it asunder. But it could make Dems losers.

Most people aren't ideologues and don't vote for the specifics of this policy proposal or that one. They vote based on feeling, they vote for a person. The country remains pretty close to 50/50 or 55/45. If Democrats are simply less enthused about their candidate, if Republicans are filled with antipathy, that could make the difference. Who deserves the blame if that happens? Certainly not a "vast right-wing conspiracy."

Campaigns matter.

Posted by Jimmy | January 26, 2008 1:18 AM

"High information Democratic voters"?

I always enjoy it when our betters inform us of how smart they are, and, if we only listened to them, they'd lead us great unwashed into the Promised Land.

Are these the same self-proclaimed "high information" Democrats who were so smart they sat out the Nixon-Humphrey race? I believe these smart folks told us that was "no difference" between the two.

Oh, and yes, these were the geniuses who were too smart to vote for Al Gore in 2000, and we got W.

Gosh, those "high information Democratic voters" sure are smart.

Posted by John Petty | January 26, 2008 2:25 AM

In December I assumed that Hillary would be our next president and would have had no problem voting for her. But then there was Obamas win in Iowa and that victory speech, I was in awe and the Clintons were dumbstruck. I had never been inspired by a politician in my life, but that night, for the first time I made a campaign contribution. I jumped on the band wagon I was carried away, a lot of people were.

The Clinton response was a masterstroke: You will remember the 'fairy tale' comment, well that had nothing to do with Obama or his record and certainly was not a play on race it was an accusation leveled directly at the voter. Bill was scorning the hopeful impulse as naive and gullible.

If Hillary does get the democratic nomination it is going to be very difficult to overlook the condescending jab that got her there.

Posted by jon thomas | January 26, 2008 4:16 AM

In December I assumed that Hillary would be our next president and would have had no problem voting for her. But then there was Obamas win in Iowa and that victory speech, I was in awe and the Clintons were dumbstruck. I had never been inspired by a politician in my life, but that night, for the first time I made a campaign contribution. I jumped on the band wagon I was carried away, a lot of people were.

The Clinton response was a masterstroke: You will remember the 'fairy tale' comment, well that had nothing to do with Obama or his record and certainly was not a play on race it was an accusation leveled directly at the voter. Bill was scorning the hopeful impulse as naive and gullible.

If Hillary does get the democratic nomination it is going to be very difficult to overlook the condescending jab that got her there.

Posted by jon thomas | January 26, 2008 4:18 AM

In December I assumed that Hillary would be our next president and would have had no problem voting for her. But then there was Obamas win in Iowa and that victory speech, I was in awe and the Clintons were dumbstruck. I had never been inspired by a politician in my life, but that night, for the first time I made a campaign contribution. I jumped on the band wagon I was carried away, a lot of people were.

The Clinton response was a masterstroke: You will remember the 'fairy tale' comment, well that had nothing to do with Obama or his record and certainly was not a play on race it was an accusation leveled directly at the voter. Bill was scorning the hopeful impulse as naive and gullible.

If Hillary does get the democratic nomination it is going to be very difficult to overlook the condescending jab that got her there.

Posted by jon thomas | January 26, 2008 4:19 AM

Maybe the thousands strong Holier than Thou contingent can go find a Congressional or state candidate to support since they will have some time on their hands this fall.

Posted by be the change | January 26, 2008 4:25 AM

Matt, it doesn't seem so bad to you because you (and digby) aren't the ones being thrown under the bus. southpaw hit the nail on the head, IMO.

Posted by Killjoy | January 26, 2008 4:27 AM

"As for the race card: Who brought Oprah to South Carolina?"

This is frankly a bit creepy. So campaigning with someone who is black is now playing the race card? So I guess us non-whites don't count like "normal" people like whites. If Oprah was still Oprah but white, would that be playing the race card? Was it playing the race card when she campaigned for him in Iowa? It sounds to me that you're dealing with some underlying anti-black resentment.

Really, the Clintons first threw the gay and lesbian community under the bus with DOMA. They fired Jocelyn Elders over such minor shit (OMG teens masturbate!), which just shows they have no spine to stick up for good ideas. Eventually everything becomes about them. They define themselves as progressive, so therefore what they do must be for liberalism even if it hurts liberalism (I beat you because I love you). Get it through your heads people. Clinton pulled a Lee Atwater. Not only that, she pulled it in a Democratic primary. If Barney Frank faced a primary challenge where the other Democrat wouldn't stop asking him about Clay Aiken, a real liberal would be outraged. If a primary challenger to Barbara Boxer or Russ Feingold insinuated they were Jewish neocons, a real liberal would be insulted. If a primary challenger to Salazar insinuated that he beats his wife or is an illegal immigrant, a real liberal would be appalled. If Obama was insinuating that if Clinton had just gotten down on her knees and assumed the position in the late 1990's we wouldn't be in this mess, then a real liberal would be appalled, but he hasn't played the gender card against this daughter of white privilege even though she has race-baited him. If we want to be the anti-bigotry party, we have to walk the talk. I cannot bring myself to vote for a bigot. If you aren't bothered by her race-baiting, you have to ask yourself why. Why is it ok for a Democrat to do it? If we let her get away with it and vote for her in the general, we lose all right to call Republicans on their bullshit. The next time a Trent Lott type pulls some racist-ass bullshit, how can we criticize him without being hypocrites? She isn't just attacking a black candidate, she is doing it in a way to 1) use stereotypes that many black people, including friends of mine, have had to fight in their own lives, such as insinuating he was a drug dealer and 2) gambling that she can win the nomination by alienating black voters (once one of the Clintons' key support blocs) in a way to pick up more white and Latino voters. She is trying to square off white and Latino voters against black voters. Tell me, is that really good for the long-term health of our party, exacerbating ethnic tensions and divisions within our base?

Two months ago, I would have been ok voting for her in the general. However, I morally cannot bring myself to vote for someone who runs on a Southern strategy. Flirting with the idea of just not voting and not having to associate her with my voting record feels a bit cathartic.

Somehow Obama supporters are the angry ones for wanting to unite the country behind progressive change and shift the center leftward, while Clintonites are somehow the non-angry ones who support someone who can only divide the country at a critical moment. Besides during Obama's victory speech at Iowa, how often have you heard a crowd of liberals yelling "USA! USA!"? Do you think Clinton can really inspire that? Divide and rule is a policy an imperial power uses against colonial subjects, not a policy that should win one the Democratic nomination.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 7:04 AM

This comment over at Ezra's blog really sums up a lot of good points:

"Jesus H. Christ, what the HELL is wrong with you Democrats? You get a candidate in Barack Obama that has the capability to utterly smash the Republican party into little pieces that it won't be able to put back together for a generation; a person who will create a generational shift to the left that will last for DECADES. Instead, however, more and more of you flock to the Republican-in-Democratic clothing that is Hillary Clinton, a person who won't push the Republicans apart, but will instead bring them back together more united than they have been, ready and more than capable of beating her in a general election. You're virtually guaranteeing 4 years of a John McCain presidency by doing this (unlike you Democrats, no matter how fucked up the Republican party is, they always come to their senses and manage to nominate the person they know has the best chance of winning). Man, you guys sure know how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's mindboggling to watch.

Posted by: firebrand | January 26, 2008 3:45 AM"

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 7:08 AM

All these Dems screaming about Dems who voted for Nader or who didn't vote for Gore "and we got W"?

Where were you when Kerry was running? Where was Nader then?

In 2004, you clowns threw up a candidate who COULD NOT BEAT BUSH! As they even said in 2000, it should have been a SLAM DUNK! So what happened?

And today, you're gonna throw up a candidate who CAN'T BEAT McCain! Whether that's Hillary OR Obama, I don't know - but either way, you're going to have a problem, whereas beating that senile old fool should be a slam dunk as well.

Smart work.

Why the hell don't you draft Gore? At least he has a Nobel prize to run on instead of a history of corruption (I assume - I don't know what corruption he might be guilty of.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 26, 2008 7:31 AM

I hate to post three times in a row, but I just realized something. Transformational candidates that end up drawing the center towards themselves tend to find their moment when 1) the other party is in the gutter while still being in power or 2) when their own party does the same, but is doing badly by acting like the other side. When Hoover made Republicans the party of the rich who didn't care about shantytowns during the Depression, FDR came along. RFK probably would have won in 1968 when the LBJ brand had been tainted by Vietnam (and the Vietnam War, an idea on paper that would make the Democrats seem strong on resisting communism, was the springboard that helped to marginalize liberalism for decades afterwards more than any other, in part due to the backlash against protesters and McGovernites, taking our eyes off the ball of the Great Society, etc., making ideas like "peace with honor" popular, etc.). After Carter had to clean up Nixon's mess, got stabbed in the back by Reagan's secret deals on the hostages, couldn't deal with stagflation, etc., Reagan's election lead to twelve years of Republican rule and to an era in which Clinton declared "the end of big government to be over." Don't be surprised that a Clinton win in 2008 won't just lead to a new Republican renaissance around a new Reagan in 2012 or 2016, especially if we are still in Iraq.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 7:36 AM

I do believe that what is happening now is throwing away a chance to build a long term, effective democratic majority. There is a true generational difference. Younger voters were viewing this as beyond race and gender. And they were very turned off by W and I think hyper-nasty partisan politics. So here we had this opportunity to capture that generation and excite them about the democratic party. But we are blowing it. It feels nasty and racial, discouraging and uninspiring. And I see Bill Clinton taking the lead role in driving that damage. I'm so disappointed. So - big ideological rift - maybe that's not exactly the issue. Big loss of opportunity to build the party - I thing that's it.

Posted by rg | January 26, 2008 9:25 AM

A number of posts suggest that fair-weather democrats voting for Nader caused Gore's defeat, and see those who oppose a second Clinton candidacy as falling into the same trap. Let's be real, however, particulary since it is now difficult to tell whether we are voting for Hillary Clinton or for a dual presidency. Bill Clinton's sexual addiction and his antics with Monica Lewinsky in the oval office did far more to make George Bush the next president of the United States, and to sandbag Al Gore, than did Ralph Nader. Some of of us are just really tired of the Clintons, and want a new direction. For me it's Edwards. For others Obama.

Posted by smokin'stogies | January 26, 2008 9:39 AM

It is a pattern -- going back to at least 1968.
The moralistic, idealistic Left trashes the horrible bosses of the Democratic Party because it (meaning the voters in lots of primary states) don't recognize the vast moral superiority of Eugene McCarthy over Bobby Kennedy and then Hubert Humphrey, of Teddy Kennedy over Carter, of Gary Hart over Walter Mondale, of Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton, of Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

If Hilary Clinton wins the nomination it will be because MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR HER in primary states.

One reason why the great, morally upright, noble, innovative, transformative candidates of the past forty years don't win primaries is because lots of Democrats see through their pretentious upper middle class moralism, and don't trust them. They want somebody to deliver for them, not just symbolize a new and better way to be.

The Obama campaign has fallen exactly into this pattern -- at least among its vocal supporters in the netroots. They simply assume that everyone knows that Obama is morally superior to Clinton -- and that any criticism of him must come from a morally reprehensible place -- and must be met with outrage. That morally superior tone is the characteristic sound of the progressive movement, and it is offensive to many.

The netroots are angry at Congressional Democrats who don't go to the mat against the Bush Administration because they think that 'bi-partisanship" is morally superior to fighting. But that is Obama's strategy for change, and his promise of a morally uplifting way to govern. Yes, in the end, everything comes down to putting together a deal to get something through Congress -- many Democrats know that in that case, you don't send a boy scout to the bargaining table with Mitch McConnell.

Posted by Tom in Ma | January 26, 2008 9:39 AM

Notice how Tom in Ma just glosses over race-baiting like it isn't anything. How does race-baiting and implying Obama is secretly a Muslim "deliver for them?" Ted Kennedy, who you malign above, got us S-CHIP, not Clinton. Clinton failed to get us universal health care. She voted for the war and has done little to attack the idea of preventive war since. She has never gotten anything of any real meaning through a legislature. Meanwhile, Obama got interrogations in Illinois videotaped to prevent innocent black men from being tortured despite opposition from Republicans, most of the state legislature, the incoming governor and the police, but he was able to co-opt them to get them to back his legislation, which passed the state senate 35-0.

Meanwhile, Clinton has never accomplished this. Just because she works in the gutter and people can't seem to warm to her personality doesn't mean that she can hammer things out with McConnell. If she did, I would have health insurance, yet I don't. She's running on experience with no accomplishments. She is also showing that she is willing to screw over her key supporters - African-Americans, often the most loyal Clinton supporters - in order to advance her own career, not her supporters' interests. The same thing happened to the gay and lesbian community. Having an abrasive personality that makes it impossible for people to stand you didn't lead Bolton to many successes in the Bush administration besides acting like an asshole (he pissed off everybody, especially Condi). At least LBJ was one of the most active Senators on civil rights legislation before becoming VP and thus stood for something (he was often blocked by Richard Russell and the other Southern Democrats before he became president) and could claim experience and some form of a record of moral leadership (at least fighting for the right issues) and accomplishment. Clinton lacks all of this. Does anyone know what she stands for anymore besides herself? Think of how that same problem sunk Kerry.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 10:21 AM

Well, I'm no huge fan of Hillary but I'd say that "Reality" Man should pick a new, less totally deceptive moniker...

Posted by RKU | January 26, 2008 10:30 AM

And then there are those who always seems to proclaim themselves "life-long Democrats" who say they are outraged at the Clintons for something or other, and they're sitting this one out. Guess what? These are the same people who ALWAYS diss the party's nominee because he or she is not "pure" enough for their tastes. Result? Richard Nixon and George W. Bush.

John Petty, this is absolute, complete bull. I am a life-long Democrat. I dont' know how old you are, but my first vote for president was for George McGovern. I voted against Richard Nixon. And Ronald Reagan. And George W. Bush.

I will not vote for Hillary Clinton, certainly not because of some phony "you're not enough of a Democrat" argument. I have nothing to prove to you and others who spout this stuff.

I was lukewarm to Hillary Clinton. Now, I'm rabidly anti-Hillary, and anti-Bill for that matter. The lies, the deceptions and, now, trying to change the rules on seating delegates purely for her own benefit are enough for me. I'm tired of defending the lying, cheating, sleazy Clintons. I had enough of that in the '90's. It's time to move on, as they say.

As the commenter above said, I'm well off enough that the Republican policies favor me. Still, I'm willing to vote against that for the benefit of others, but not for Hillary. So take your "real Democrats", which make up about 35% of the vote, and go lose another election. Fine with me.

Posted by Pug | January 26, 2008 10:30 AM

It's not the toughness that turns many of us off the Clintons. Politics is tough, and fighters are required. Toughness and composure in a fight are among HRC's many fine qualities.

It's the LYING. The Clintons lie. A lot.

If they had merely run a tough campaign against Obama, pointing out differences in policy, experience, and temperament, that would have been perfectly honorable. But they knowingly lie: about the Reagan comments, about Obama's record of opposition to the war, about what surrogates say for them and meant when they said them.

Why would liars in a campaign suddenly turn into truth-tellers in power?

Matt had a post where he stated that the "tendentiousness" of the Clintons' attacks was sort of the point. It shows they're fighters, supposedly, who will unleash the same sort of thing on the Republican nominee. Well, to many of us, the casual relationship their attacks have with the truth shows they lack honor.

Insult those of us for whom honor is important all you want, but doing so won't build any sort of effective coalition.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 26, 2008 10:40 AM

Those are many of us out there trying to convince voters to select someone more inspiring than Hillary Clinton - someone who can do long term good for the party and the country - we're not bad democrats. We are fighting for something inspirational at a really important time. Let's transform things. Let's bring young people into our party. Let's be forward looking. Let's not degrade and degenerate into this place where the race seems to be going. I hate to see this moment in time pass without the democrats seizing it. I know that Clintons attract many long term devoted democrats. Like Kerry did. But really - can't we do better this time? Please - think about it. Don't settle. Don't give up. Don't let it be the ugliest, nastiest fighter wins. And on we go to an ugly, nasty fight with the republicans. There is a better, more exciting, more world changing way to go here. There is a chance to build a long term democratic majority. Do you remember how it felt between Iowa and NH. When our party seemed to be about something special? What happened to that moment. Why did we run away from it? Can't we get that back? Can't we be the exciting, special, hopeful party again? The party of Robert Kennedy? The party that moved us forward? The party that can stop global warming? Reduce poverty? Regain the respect in the world. Don't settle and don't believe that those of us who are fighing for this are not fighting for the democratic party. We are.

Posted by rg | January 26, 2008 10:48 AM

The moralistic, idealistic Left trashes the horrible bosses of the Democratic Party because it (meaning the voters in lots of primary states) don't recognize the vast moral superiority of Eugene McCarthy over Bobby Kennedy and then Hubert Humphrey, of Teddy Kennedy over Carter, of Gary Hart over Walter Mondale, of Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton, of Bill Bradley over Al Gore.

So which of these guys ever won 50% of the vote? None. The Party loyalists seem to know quite a bit about electibility, they always choose the person without it.

Posted by Just Karl | January 26, 2008 10:59 AM

If Hilary Clinton wins the nomination it will be because MORE DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR HER in primary states.

The delegation process does not work on popular vote. It is guided by it, but delegates are not required to follow their preference during the National Convention. So, no, if Clinton wins the nomination, it will mean that more DELEGATES voted for her, and not necessarily that more voters did.

If you need a further example of this, look at Nevada. Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama has more delegates going to the DNC. What is to stop Clinton's delegates from switching to Obama during the National Convention? Technically, nothing.

And finally - shout all you want - it's not going to change the fact that many of us will not vote for HRC should she be the Democratic Nominee. As a matter of fact, the more you shout, the further away we will get. Maybe you should try to work on the inclusiveness that Obama suggests, rather than alienating his supporters.

Posted by taodon | January 26, 2008 11:19 AM

I don't have to vote for her either since I live in Texas. Why vote for her in a state she can't win in anyway?

Exactly-- I wouldn't abstain or write in my vote (not voting for McCain, because it's silly) if I lived in a real swing state, but since Kerry lost here by 14 points (IIRC), the guilt trip ain't gonna work.

Maybe the thousands strong Holier than Thou contingent can go find a Congressional or state candidate to support since they will have some time on their hands this fall.

They'll need plenty of help if HRC's on the presidential ticket, that's for sure.

And I agree with everything Reality Man said upthread, too... I'm no historian, but this is like having to choose between Tammany Hall vs. the mafia, while the mobsters are fleeing & turning state's evidence. Why reward the only somewhat less corrupt operation when its more-reprehensible opponent is so weak?- much better to take the opportunity to shunt them aside as well.

Oh, and re: Matt's original point, the truth is that divisions are more painful as people get closer. That's why it's more likely for one to be murdered by a spouse than a stranger, or have one's car vandalized by an angry neighbor who's pissed about an HOA meeting, or whatever-- intimacy enables conflict. In politics, the 'how' becomes a lot more important after the 'what' is mostly agreed upon.

Posted by latts | January 26, 2008 11:20 AM

"The moralistic, idealistic Left trashes the horrible bosses of the Democratic Party because it (meaning the voters in lots of primary states) don't recognize the vast moral superiority of Eugene McCarthy over Bobby Kennedy and then Hubert Humphrey, of Teddy Kennedy over Carter, of Gary Hart over Walter Mondale, of Paul Tsongas over Bill Clinton, of Bill Bradley over Al Gore."

Generationally, aren't older voters more Clinton-friendly, meaning they're the same people who actually backed McCarthy, Hart, Tsongas, etc.?

Posted by huh | January 26, 2008 11:22 AM

Strange that all of the posts that essentially read "I'll vote for any Republican over HRC" sound the same. Especially, from the "life-long Democrats." I'd be interested if they're all being generated from the same machine.

Posted by SavageView | January 26, 2008 11:27 AM

My Vote Belongs to Me!

As the primary campaign has heated up and folks chose sides, there has come a trickle of discontent with the fracas. Some folks have stated with great fervor that if HRC wins the election they would (a) not vote (b) vote for a republican. That has caused a howl of protest from some who consider themselves “true progressives” or “party stalwarts” (or whatever) who opine that not supporting the parties nominee is heresy, or unpatriotic, or unprogressive, or something.

But as one of the “old folks” here, I’d like to take a time out and discuss who owns my vote…

Forgive me as I digress, but a little history is needed here. I am one of the “minority” voters who are so much talked about these days. I was born in the waning days of WW II. I was 10 years old before the Supreme Court decided that I was worthy enough to sit beside my majority brothers and sisters in a public school. I was 20 years old before the Congress decided I was equal enough to be served a Coke at a public restaurant counter. And although I was guaranteed the right to vote by the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, I was 21 years old, and wearing the uniform of my country, before that same Congress passed the Voting Rights act ensuring my right to exercise that vote.

During the time between my 10th and 21st birthday, I watched my peers, friends and sometimes classmates get beaten and spat upon and washed down the street by high pressure fire hoses and bitten by dogs and lynched to get that Congress to take action ensuring my right to cast a vote. And since that birthday I have endured humiliation and assault and attended more Memorial Services that anyone should ever have to. That was in payment for my right to enter a polling place, pick up a ballot and express a preference for a candidate or initiative or bond measure.

I spent 4 years wearing the uniform of my country during a time of war. I lost friends, classmates and neighbors in that endeavor. I have marched and chanted and participated in demonstrations a bunch. I have defended women against sexual harassment, workers against discrimination and unfair treatment, handicapped workers against discrimination, organized unions, and negotiated contracts for poor, uneducated workers and well pain and highly educated professionals. I have stood with, walked with, worked with and fought beside, Latinos, Asians, Gays and Lesbians and a hell of a lot of Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews, Native Americans and good old Anglo Saxton Protestants. I have paid my dues and then paid compounded interest on them.

I have taken the oath of office on several occasions, and each time I swore to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.” I have never taken an oath to protect or defend the Democratic, Republican, Green or Libertarian party. Never!

My vote didn’t come cheap. It cost in both blood and treasure. And I, and millions of Americans like me willingly paid the price – and would again if necessary. And I have learned that like anything that’s precious, if you want to preserve it, you’d better be responsible with it, and take care not to waste it.

So I don’t feel like anyone, or any party is “entitled” to my vote. If they want it, they have to earn it, just like I did! No individual, no party and no cause, “deserves” my vote. And I am not obliged to give it to anyone simply because, if I don’t somebody else will win.

IMHO – one of the reasons we are in the mess we’re in today is because too many of us have given our votes away to freely, on the strength of a promise, or a maybe. Or because someone made us afraid that if we didn’t something bad would happen (it usually did anyway). We are responsible for the leaders we spend our votes to elect!

Now, I love that there is a new generation of “progressives” that we can hand the torch to. I’m getting a little weary of carrying it, truth be told. And I love the fact that you are involved and dedicated and fired up! Love it! Been waiting a LONG time for you to arrive. But always remember, there is blood on my ballot, the blood of men and women of all races and creeds who died trying to get to the ballot box, and died pushing me forward so that I did.

I will never, ever, ever give that ballot to anyone who uses race or sex or condition to divide us. Never!

The cost of my vote was extravagant, the price of my vote is not... it is merely honest effort to bring us closer to our shared humanity.
So if you want me to vote for your candidate, or any candidate, it’s easy… just tell them to work as hard and as honestly as I did to earn it... and I'll be glad to give it to them!

Questions:
What is the difference between (a) a politician who says, vote for me or the (fill in the ethnic group of your choice) will do bad things to you - and one who says, vote for me or the Republicans will do bad things to you?
Why should I vote for a politician who would segregate my vote, if I wouldn't vote for one who would segregate my neighborhood?
Why would any politician change an unsavory tactic, if despite their use of it, I'll vote for them anyway?
How can you ever hope to win, if you are always afraid you'll lose?
If you are not willing to walk away from a bad deal, how will you convince any politician to give you a good one?

Posted by plainbrown1 | January 26, 2008 11:29 AM

Because if you make her the nominee, many of us are going to vote for John McCain.

Then I hope your children are the first dragooned into the military as we gear up for the invasion of Iran. You people f-ing disgust me.

Posted by SavageView | January 26, 2008 11:35 AM

plainbrown1, thank you. The biggest reason I'm a Democrat is the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. The number two reason is the New Deal. Clinton failed to give us universal health care, thus failing to expand the tradition of our party since Roosevelt. Now she is pissing on my biggest reason for checking the "D" box next to the name of everyone on every ballot I've ever voted on. At some point, you need to have standards.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 11:41 AM

"Because if you make her the nominee, many of us are going to vote for John McCain.

Then I hope your children are the first dragooned into the military as we gear up for the invasion of Iran. You people f-ing disgust me.

Posted by SavageView | January 26, 2008 11:35 AM"

Her main advisers on foreign policy are people like Albright, who went nationwide to drum up support for the Iraq Liberation Act, which was basically a way to get Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress to overthrow Saddam. She has never refuted the basic idea of preventive warfare, yet Edwards has. She has shown she is willing to piss all over her key supporters for momentary gain. She may give us red meat like calling Cheney Darth Vader, but she has never given us anything of substance. Members of her own campaign have been leaking that she is probably more willing to use force than Bill ever was. She is the closest of the three to AIPAC hawks and has the approval of Rupert Murdoch, whose FoxNews network was instrumental in setting the tone of debate in the run-up to the war. I don't know whether Edwards or Obama would be more likely to get us out of Iraq, but I would say they are both a lot more likely to get us out of their than Clinton.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 11:50 AM

A healthy dose of collective hysteria me thinks. Look, sports suck, the Sopranos are over the villagers need entertainment. Arm chair politicians we all get to play them. The blogosphere, or rather the people that occupy it are not the world.

@Savage View...I agree. I am live in fear of the lifelong Democrat who will not vote for HRC. Lets all fall on our knees. I would love to see some real life of them.

Posted by stellaa | January 26, 2008 11:53 AM

artappraiser and Tom in ma handled all of these pathetic "I'm voting Republican, whaaaa!" posts, I would just add I love it when HRC/WJC and Bush/GOP advisors are equated.

Because, remeber all those wars Bill Clinton and those advisors started? Remember all those dead U.S. soldiers under his watch?

No? Well, then you have a good memory.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 12:27 PM

"Because, remeber all those wars Bill Clinton and those advisors started? Remember all those dead U.S. soldiers under his watch?

No? Well, then you have a good memory.

Posted by Andruw | January 26, 2008 12:27 PM"

They're not the same, but Clinton's foreign policy, especially his support of the Iraq Liberation Act, had its own momentum that helped make the Iraq War a reality. There was institutional pressure in DC to support the ILA that helped to mold the elite Democratic decision makers in certain ways under certain incentives. After all, it was a guy close to Clinton's like Pollack that wrote a book on why invading Iraq was a good idea. They traingulated to cover their asses and left the rest of us behind.

Posted by Reality Man | January 26, 2008 12:40 PM

I was going to point out to Matt that perceived values are more important to voters than issues, but I think my comment has been rendered obsolete. This thread, like nearly any other that pertains to the Democratic primaries, is dominated by Clinton being accused of poor ethical decisions, and Obama supporters being accused of falsely making those accusations. I hear a lot of talk about Clinton supposedly race-baiting and Obama supposedly whining, and almost nothing at all on ideological differences.

While I welcome a greater exploration of the ideological differences between the candidates' stated positions, and between their records, the fact is that we don't trust candidates on the basis of one or two issues. My friendships do not require that the other parties share my ideological views, either, nor do I consider them when determining whether to accept a mutual commitment. What I do consider is whether they are of a nature to take that commitment seriously.

If a person's first reaction to stress or surprise is an ethical reaction, or if a person fulfills his promises at great expense to himself, I'm more likely to trust in his character. If he consistently has good ideas and nuanced approaches to tricky problems, I'm more likely to trust in his intellect. And so on. Basically, I am more likely to accept a candidate's disagreeable ideology, if the candidate himself pursues that ideology honestly and intelligently.

I do not share Senator Obama's ideology, because I am economically conservative. But I do think he is more likely to take my position into account when he crafts his progressive notions of wealth redistribution, and that he may come up with good ideas that I would never have considered. In Senator Clinton's case, I'm fairly sure that her ideas will never put my interests over the interests of her career.

Ideology is really just a symptom of different values, as I see it. A smarter, better position on an issue (unless the position is, itself, a fully formed legislative plan) is primarily important in that it suggests a smarter, better administration. I want Obama to win in 2008 because I see a guy who is willing to talk to his political enemies in search of the truth, running against people who obscure the truth out of convenience. As a guy who is tired of seeing conservative complaints dismissed by progressives and vice versa, this aligns with my values nicely. But if he loses the primary election, my next choice will not be the candidate who best reflects my ideology, but the candidate who best reflects my values. I think there are many in the Democratic party who would agree.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | January 26, 2008 1:33 PM

Policy differences??? Are we watching the same race?
That's never been the issue. What's at issue is the Clintons' scorched earth tactics against a fellow Democrat who presents the best opportunity to finally change from a conservative to a progressive playing field A LA REAGAN did in 1980.
The Clintons, who I loved up until maybe 6 weeks ago, have so disappointed and angered me, that under no circumstances will I vote for them in November. I'll vote for McCain or Romney before I'll vote for them, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Enough is enough!

Posted by Jenni | January 26, 2008 2:15 PM

Policy differences??? Are we watching the same race?
That's never been the issue. What's at issue is the Clintons' scorched earth tactics against a fellow Democrat who presents the best opportunity to finally change from a conservative to a progressive playing field A LA REAGAN did in 1980.
The Clintons, who I loved up until maybe 6 weeks ago, have so disappointed and angered me, that under no circumstances will I vote for them in November. I'll vote for McCain or Romney before I'll vote for them, and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Enough is enough!

Posted by Jenni | January 26, 2008 2:15 PM

Right on, RealityMan. I feel your pain. I don't vote for Democrats who lie to me. I'm not as stupid as they apparently think I am. They can go to hell. Go McCain!

Posted by SAM | January 26, 2008 2:32 PM

Re: "It's the LYING. The Clintons lie. A lot."

Exposing the discrepancies between Obama's words and actions is not tantamount to telling lies about him. Obama's comments about the "excesses of the 60s and 70s" were a pathetic attempt at traingulation, and his votes to fund the war undermine the notion that he opposes it. Any examination of his record is immediately decried as "divisive" or "negative" and now "racist."

How about when Obama's campaign said that Hillary was partly responsible for the death of Bhutto? Or when they ran a Spanish language ad in Nevada saying that Hillary is "shameless" and doesn't care about "our people." That sounds like race baiting to me. And how is it racist to say that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Bill? That's a fact of history. And let's not forget that racist slur "fairy tale."

Obama has painted himself as something above a mere politican, above politics in general. But how do you run a political campaign without being a politician? You become a victim. That way your supporters can still imagine you as "pure" and "uncorrupted."

But victims don't have a voice, and if Obama has no voice now, he won't have one if he becomes the nominee. A campaign has to be based on the issues, not on a charismatic personality. The 24 hour media cycle and the internet can dismantle a candidate's persona in a few days. If Obama gets the nomination, watch how fast they take him apart. Only issues last, and that's why Hillary can withstand so many attacks. Her supporters aren't looking for a messiah, or a spiritual leader. They like where she stands on the issues and they know she will fight for them. Will Obama do that? Nope. Because it would ruins the tacit contract he has made with America not to be like Jesse or Al.

Posted by Kate | January 26, 2008 2:36 PM

They like where she stands on the issues and they know she will fight for them.

To wit: To authorize the war in Iraq and to ban flag burning by law. Sweet.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 26, 2008 2:58 PM

This isn't a vicious fight between the campaigns.

That kind of misses the point. If it were only personal animus between the candidates, then this would be no big deal. However, this is degenerating into a hate fest between the campaigns supporters. Thats what can cause real, lasting damage. Losing a few thousand votes in a few counties in the western or southern states has a great deal of potential to cost the Democratic party the Presidency.

Posted by soullite | January 26, 2008 4:44 PM

I think it's clear at this point - that the reaction to the Clinton divisiveness in this campaign has been negative.

Because the Clinton's are very smart - I look forward to their tactics changing.

Unfortunately, it also seems clear that the notion of an ABCD (Anyone But Clinton Democrat) is a very real one. I, as an independent, have been turned off hugely and will not vote for the Clintons in the general.

Perhaps, because the Clintons are so smart, they can alter that negative and divisive impression between now and the general. I do not believe they can.

Posted by jackifus | January 26, 2008 8:51 PM