Missing the Party
Let me start this post by throwing out some assertions.
- The most interesting question about New Hampshire, IMO, is not whether Obama beats Hillary or whether Mitt survives against McCain. It’s whether Obama has a greater draw over Independents than McCain, which thereby deprives McCain of any victory there.
- In her very gracious concession speech the other night, Hillary seemed genuinely thrilled by the huge Democratic/female/youth turnout (even after bitching about Obama’s direct appeal to "out-of-state" students for several weeks beforehand), even as she seemed to be recognizing how failed her strategy in Iowa had been.
- Mitt Romney won handful of delegates today, and regardless of what happens in NH, will go onto MI, a state where several buildings in Lansing bear his Daddy’s name, to compete against a guy who had a huge victory here in 2000.
All of which is my preface to saying that the pundits are (for the most part) dealing with a much too flat conception of what this primary is going to look like, seeing only the intra-party competition, and they’re not seeing that we’re already thick into a competition between the two parties that may well have real ramifications for the outcome.
That said, let me go back to the beginning and explain what I mean. The press has largely assumed that McCain, the "maverick" who won in NH in 2000, stands to be the non-Mitt there this year. That assumes, of course, that the Independents (and even the Republicans) who turned out for McCain in 2000 will turn out for him again and it assumes that McCain’s prime contestant is Mitt. Now, ignore the fact that NH is a pretty solidly anti-war state and McCain is up there threatening a hundred year presence in Iraq. The bulk of the press still seems to be ignoring an unstated contest between Obama and McCain for Independents. Chris Bowers reads it right, IMO, when he suggests,
No momentum for McCain and Huckabee whatsoever. Obama is sucking up all the air right now, and probably the New Hampshire independents that McCain needed.
If Bowers is right, it suggests another dynamic that Iowa, at least seems to suggest and these poll results seem to support. The entire makeup of parties has changed this year, created by two factors. First, there’s Obama’s ability to attract both voters whom conventional wisdom has written off (youth and women) and cross-over voters in large numbers. His ability to draw cross-over voters means you can’t look at NH without wondering how Obama and McCain will compete, and only against that backdrop do you get to the competition between Mitt and McCain.
As for Hillary’s concession speech–I thought it was more fascinating than Obama’s truly awesome speech. That’s partly because Hillary was so damn gracious; as I’ve said elsewhere, it was one of the first times that I felt Hillary was a member of the same Democratic party I am, and that she cares about the party more than Hillary.
I suspect that message came from the realization–as she saw the returns come in–that Obama’s success at bringing out voters (both the traditionally low turnout youth and women, and Independents and some Republicans) has completely changed all the assumptions about this race. Hillary would have nearly tied Obama had her assumptions about politics held true (32 to 31 percent of the vote). But the difference was enough to give Obama a commanding lead–eight points–in one of the purportedly tight swing states that will determine the Presidential election. And huge huge numbers. I suspect Hillary may recognize that she doesn’t have the time to recalibrate to factor for this completely redefined conventional wisdom, but I also suspect that she has grudgingly recognized that Obama may well be able to deliver a resounding victory for the Democrats in a way that will make a difference for the good part of a generation.
But Obama’s success is not the only thing that has completely overturned conventional wisdom. The splitting of the three-legged stool that has, in conventional wisdom, made up the Republican party, has also utterly overturned conventional wisdom. Digby explains,
What we are seeing is the three legs of the conservative stool fighting for supremacy: Romney from the money wing, McCain (or Rudy) from the hawk wing and Huck from the God wing. The first two are part of the political establishment and rely on it for guidance. Up until now, the God wing did too. But now they have one of their own and they really don’t need the permission of the money boyz or the hawks to vote for him. And they sure don’t care what the pointy headed TV gasbags think about it.
Huckabee won big last night with no money and no organization. Maybe he can’t replicate it anywhere else. But I think he might. The religious right is the biggest single voting bloc in the GOP — the people they cultivated and trained to vote en masse for the Republicans. They have a very specific agenda of social issues that they care about and understand very well. They are true believers. And they are the only constituency in the party who actually likes their candidate and feels inspired by him. He’s one of them. I think he can win it and win it in spite of the many unforced errors he’s bound to make. His followers just don’t care about stuff like that. Unless he suddenly goes soft on abortion or gay rights or one of their signature issues, he’s got them.
I’d add a few more points to that. First, depending on how you classify Ron Paul, arguably 45% of Iowa’s Republicans rejected the kind of corporate cronyism that has become the hallmark of the Republican party. In fact, I’m not really sure the corporatists are even still in the Republican party. Add in the fact that 60% of Huckabee’s voters were Evangelicals, and I think it’s possible that the remaining legs of the Republican party have either gone elsewhere (many of them–probably the corporatists–to Obama) or stayed home. While I’m sure Bush’s remaining supporters will vote for a hawk like Giuliani or McCain, there really don’t appear to be that many of them left–or at least, they don’t appear energetic enough to haul their ass to a caucus to vote. And I sincerely wonder how many of the party’s corporatists will remain loyal if and when Huckabee wins a few more primaries.
Understand. I think the Republicans may have lost the corporatists for two reasons. I see corporatists as divided into two kinds of people. The vast majority are simply in favor of the kind of brutal efficacy and competence that capitalism supposedly requires. And those corporatists are increasingly dismayed and disgusted with the rank incompetence of the Republican party. They’re going to vote, but they’re going to vote for someone who looks competent, and if they have a choice between Obama and Mitt, I’m not sure they won’t pick Obama. (The same is largely true if they had to pick between Hillary and Mitt.)
In addition to the efficacy and competence corporatists, there are the cronyists–the people who love love love the fact that Bush has sole-sourced contracts out to corporate cronies and gotten rank incompetence in return for emptying the nation’s treasury. I think Giuliani, to some degree Mitt, and Huckabee have something to offer these people, at least so long as Huckabee’s nationally-televised speeches are as devoid of populist ideology as his victory speech was on Thursday night. But the thing is–there simply aren’t that many of these people; they’re the business owners who have managed to suck the teat of Republican generosity without yet being tainted by scandal. And if the media and the horrified Republicans continue to paint Huckabee as a populist, I’m not sure the crony corporatists won’t stay home, particularly if the near-fascist Giuliani continues to crash and burn.
Digby is right on (big surprise, I know) in her depiction of the revolt of the Christian Conservatives. But I would add that they party seems to be hemorrhaging a significant number of its corporatists as well. Perhaps just for this election, perhaps for a longer prior, that three-legged stool no longer exists, and all the pundits working with that as their base assumption are likely to be off in their predictions.
Meanwhile, the coverage is virtually ignoring the role of Wyoming and Michigan in affecting the dynamics of the GOP race. How many of you have been watching today as Wyoming assigns fourteen delegates to Republicans, four so far to Romney and one to Duncan Hunter? [Updpate: Last count, Romney took 8 delegates.] Romney looks set to pick up as many delegates in Wyoming as are available in New Hampshire. And even assuming McCain wins New Hampshire (which I’m not assuming), I couldn’t begin to tell you what will happen in Michigan’s primary the following week. Like Wyoming, Michigan has lost half its Republican delegates, but that still leaves it with 30 and still makes it the biggest state to vote thus far. From what I’ve heard, the party has been pushing Mitt for some time–and that might work in this state, where lots of public buildings bear daddy Romney’s name. But it’s also a state in which McCain scored a big victory in 2000. And who knows what Michigan’s own brand of wingnut Christian Conservatives will do? Huck might bring Chuck Norris around and score a chunk of delegates to recoup the lead heading into South Carolina. Finally, I can’t even predict what Michigan’s Democrats will do. Hillary is the only viable candidate on the ballot; so will Dems vote for her, take the initiative to vote "uncommitted," or cross over a wreak havoc like we did in 2000? All of these complexities (and the 42 delegates no one seems to be talking about) come before South Carolina and another forgotten GOP primary–the heavily Mormon Nevada.
All of which is to say that I think the assumptions of many, if not most, of those doing the punditing are questionable if not already proven wrong. I don’t think Mitt is out if he loses NH, because he’s got two winnable states with a lot more delegates even assuming Huckabee romps in SC. At the same time, aside from some heavily Mormon states, I’m not sure how many corporatists are still going to vote for the GOP this time around. So it may well be that Huckabee wins big in a party that only commands the support of a small fraction of the country.
I heard that Bill Clinton told Iowa audiences that if Hillary was elected, she would send out Bill and George H.W. Bush on a world tour to calm our old friends and enemies aboard. People might not have liked hearing that Clinton/Bush connection again from the Big Dog, and figured Hillary is not exactly the person for change.
Wyoming in a couple of hours will be announcing the results of their GOP caucus. Being Deadeye’s home state, should be an interesting take.
They’ve called it for Romney–he had gotten six delegates, Thompson one, and Hunter one, thus far. That’s with 58% of the results.
Or something like it.
EW, I don’t know much about the WY caucus, are all the GOP candidates there or only some (as is the case for Dems in MI)?
I think they’re all there but only a few people visited (though Romney did).
The GOP is definitely advertising here–saw Mitt’s Mug on my teevee last night. Lucky me!!
The most disconcerting thing I’ve seen lately is that, according to the betting markets, the Dems are only 61% (Repubs are 39%) to win in November.
‘We’ really should have a much wider lead than that.
WY called for Romney. back w. link in a sec. meanwhile thanks EW for the fresh air and point of view. feetknockingoff from the first para.
Emptywheel,
I know you’re in Michigan, but I had thought that by moving their primary up, the Democratic primary in Michigan was going to not be binding on the delegates there — so maybe it’s not so surprising that no one seems to be talking about it.
I have to agree that if you value competence, there’s not a lot to like in the GOP.
The Democratic primary is meaningless. The REpublican one, IMO, will be meanginful.
Also, the way the parties punished the state parties for jumping the gun is different. ALL of our delegates have been pulled–though presumably we’ll get them back to vote for the person that NH and IA select. Adn Hillary is the only viable candidate on the ballot, though she’s not spending here.
The REpublcians, on teh other hand, are contesting it, which isn’t surprising since both mcCain and Mitt have reason to believe the state will treat them nicely.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/…..caucus.php
RE:
.
I am speaking from personal observation of MI, not study or familiarity. Aren’t they the Blackwater Prince type of ultra-election of the elite Dutch Calvinists? Very very work ethic oriented, even when they are corporate–ex. Herman Miller Co.? How will they face religion/competence question?
Emptywheel:
From what I’ve read, polling already shows that ‘independents’ will be voting at a 3:2 ratio in the Democratic primary. Not quite as high as Iowa’s 2:1 ratio, but still pretty good. Also, I suspect the NH polls are under-polling the under 30’s, so I wouldn’t be surprised if the independent vote ultimately swings towards the Demorats in an Iowa-like ratio.
So, yes, Obama will win over McCain in the independent category. I’m afraid the more pertinent question is whether the press will acknowledge that discrepancy, or simply ignore it, as they did the news that all three of the top Democratice nominees outpolled Huckabee in Iowa.
If the latter, then, yes, Obama will deprive McCain of the victory, but the press won’t report it. I suspect this is the most likely outcome.
Thoughtful post EW. My take on this whole thing is that Americans for the most part have become so jaded with the lies and the distortions foisted on them by politicians of both sides and the MSM that individually and as a voting group they have decided that the only person they can trust on making a decision is their own “gut” response. Hillary and Romney simply seem (look, sound) too fake, too phoney, too willing to say whatever it takes to get elected. McCain, Rudy, and Edwards on the other hand elicit a bit too much emotion (they seem a bit too angry, too close to the edge) to be completely trusted. Obama and Huckabee on the other hand seem to look one in the eye, seem to care, and seem to speak from the heart. Both also speak very well and though you know you are being “pulled” toward someone who can take this country to a higher/better plane (for Huckabee it is clearly a religious thing, as in “verticality”) Americans are so weary of the mess we are now in, so that they are willing to be pulled along.
EW, I am groping toward implications here. Lots of questions.
Am I right that you are rejecting ‘the McCain last man standing argument’ and saying don’t exclude Mitt too quickly, given MI and a few Mormon States?
If so, but then what? I am not sure of how you arrive at your Huckabee scenario. Surely the Mittster is playing to the competency crowd, that’s the Olympics/MA. gov. shtick. So why will he stop collecting votes then? More generally, will the cronyists and the corporatists hold their nose and vote McCain when faced with a Huckabee?
Moreover, whither the cronyists? Who is Comstock and her Birkin bag working for? (Do ask Jane is she brought it Iowa.) If they are all supporting Gouhliani, where will the Repubrats do when the ship goes down.
Assume a McCain victory in NH, even if the turnout is small because the independents opted democratic. Doesn’t he get the delegates and more importantly, the bounce.
Finally, are you implying that a possible outcome is the Repubs throw this one away, on the Dole model? Surely BushCo want’s the way cleared for Jeb, and this would suit the flight suit who is still the head of the party (even if his brain has gone west).
Or that there will be a brokered convention and who knows what?
These are many queries for one thread, so take your pick.
Oops. Just realized that I misinterpreted EW’s speculation as whether Obama would win more indies than McCain, when I should have read it as, will Obama get so many indie votes that McCain loses the Republican contest.
If it happens, that will be interesting. I don’t think it’ll happen, though. Most of the NH polls seem to be focused on Republican voters, which means that McCain is already winning among the registered Republicans even before the indie vote is taken into account. It kind of makes sense. I can’t see the NH Pubs voting for Huckabee, and Romney comes across like Chris Cooper playing Steve Forbes. Romney’s phoniness and flip-floppery and will hurt him in NH much more than his Mormonism.
Agree on NH not voting Mitt, for different reasons. They know the guy almost first hand. Many, especially those in the “golden triangle” around Nashua, a kind of silicon valley, come from or have worked in MA. Many others live in NH ’cause the real estate is cheaper and commute to MA.
Result: I think they will know that in MA he is perceived as as big a flop as the ceiling that fell in the Big Dig tunnel thanks to the cretins/cronyists he put on the MassPort Authority. Flop even before the flip flop.
Thanks, BlueStateRedHead. I’m in NY and not a familiar with NH, so the added info about the Nashua triangle is good to know.
Article in today’s Boston Globe has more.
Oh yes. You answered one of my questions when you explained that EW thinks the indy flow away will cause McCain to loose. Thanks.
On a democratic note. Obama’s speech. Somewhere here or or on FDL a note of skepticism was raised about it. The speech was said to be great but the credit should go to the speech writers. I am not an Obama promoter–I remain undecided–but I thought that underestimated his rhetorical skills.
I did some checking. I does not seem that he won the coveted moot court debating prize, at least my mole at The Law School as they call themselves did not recall him doing so, and Wiki does not note it. But the NYT did quote a classmate
That may provide the anti-obamist with a Gotcha moment, but my point is that he was an orator then and an orator shapes the speech, even when others write them.
That wouldn’t be me–I love his speaking skills. I just found Hillary’s really remarkable–not so much for its content, but for its apparent sincerity and content.
In case anyone wants the ref. to Obama at HLS. It’s NYT January 28, 2007.
Clinton impressed me the other night also… if Edwards goes, I’m giving her a very hard look.
I have never understood why people are so convinced that Hillary, both Clintons for that matter, don’t care about the Democratic party and won’t fight for it. Say what you will about them, and there is both good and bad, but save for Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone(RIP) and later Feingold, who in the world has fought the Republicans but the Clintons. They have served as the human lightning rods for the heaviest and most vicious political broadsides I have ever seen in my life, have absorbed every bit of it and not only remain standing, but are emerging victorious (and I say that irrespective of whether Hillary gets elected). And they have done this with literally pathetic and shameful efforts by the Democratic base in the way of support; in some instances, the Lieberfuckheads, joinder with the Republicans. For this, they have my complete respect and admiration. I can’t imagine what desolate leper colony the Democrats would inhabit without Bill Clinton’s presence over this time. Before the field started getting culled, Hillary was not my first choice, and she may not win, but the people writing her off this early, when she still has the most talented politician currently walking the planet, Bill Clinton, around are fucking nuts. The Clintons care, and they will fight for themselves and then whoever is the nominee if it is not Hillary. You don’t have to vote for Hillary, but hating on the Clintons is just plain stupid.
Well said. I think she is the person most likely to do the two things I want done. First, she will go after whatever r’s are left in important places in the upper ranks of the government. Second, she will expose the evil-doing by Yoo and Addington and Cheney and the rest of this crowd of demons. I think Obama really doesn’t understand the importance of doing this. If this doesn’t get done, these people will be back like blood-sucking vampires and drain the life out of our Republic.
Why Hillary more than Obama who has the “street cred” from well, the street. And there is the Clinton record on pardons that makes me worry they will go the heal the country way. OT, a little, she has those brothers who got scott free after some shenanigans,too. I share your sentiments, but not your confidence.
So convince me.
Here’s why: she realizes that when Bill got elected, he tried that forgive and forget stuff on the criminals from the previous 12 years. They thought he was soft, and went after him with a vengeance. If he had gone after them from day one, they would have been so busy defending themselves, they would not have been able to go after him.
Of course, no one can campaign on a platform of rooting out the republicans, or punishing the offenses of a rotten administration. So we have to look carefully to see who is most likely to do it. HRC is my best guess.
I hope you are right. On one of the TPM offspring sites had a report that I now can’t find.The reporter described some of the negatives that the Clinton staff were spinning (and were presumed to be in the advert. they are not running.)
They attacked Obama for suggesting that mandatory sentences be rethought. It was a straight red meat soft on crime Republican meme. There was more in this anti-progessive vein. At the same time, they were calling him not decisive enough in the Senate.
Simultaneously one of the Clinton supporters interviewed on NPR, a female, said about the young women crowding around Obama that “they should be on their knees thanking her for what she has done” for women. I am of the generation that had things done for them and may have done a thing or two myself, so I say. “Hillary, I knew Bella Abzug, and you are no Bella Abzug.” (for the young’uns: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bella_Abzug)
That kind of march-in-step mentality that I have observed in other women Clinton supporters is the very opposite of what we are here and what we have accomplished.
You can see why I am asking you to convince me.
Dinner time. Back later.
Well, politics is a contact sport and the Clinton’s know how to play rough. I don’t necessarily like it, but it is coming in spades from the thugs in the general. Clinton won’t be throwing anywhere near the heat that the future holds for Obama if he is going to be the nominee. Where was all this concern when political nuclear missiles were being fired daily at the Clintons? And they still are. People are whining about Hillary doing exactly what is being done to her. I don’t get it. Obama ain’t going to Kumbaya his way to our salvation and a battle of wits, policies and skill with Hillary will only make him, and us as a party, better.
The great thing about this election for us yellow-dog democrats is that all our candidates have something to recommend them. On the days I think we need to root out and shame republicans, I like HRC. I also think she understands how to run a government. I like Obama best on the days I feel like the most important thing is to elect the one most likely to improve our image, and offer an inspiring change to our young people. My daughter is one of those Obama fans: she says she’s had it with baby boomers, which would hurt my feelings if I didn’t feel some distaste for my generation myself.
Mostly, I think we need someone to take on the problem of the corporate stranglehold on the political process. I watched the bankruptcy bill as it inexorably wound through the legislature. It had no constituency except the financial industry. Its passage really hurt a lot of people. I think Edwards is best suited to deal with this huge and cancerous problem.
My Tennessee vote might actually count for something (we vote February 5) and I’ll have to make a real decision. Ain’t that a great thing?
Agree with all that and detest the last paragraph. In 1968, all the votes counted, and we didn’t really know which way things were truly headed until early morning June 6; even then although Kennedy clearly had the juice, it was going to the convention. Of course the train went off the tracks moments later, but the point is that its better when the candidates have to prove themselves over a long haul. This quicky reality show front loaded media driven stuff sucks.
BMAZ:
I think I may take my vote on Feb. 5th, and give to to whichever of the top three candidates is the underdog in my state. I suspect that’ll be Edwards, but we’ll see when the time comes.
Why?
Because I don’t want any of them dropping out that soon. I want the three of them to keep talking, debating, formulating policies, solutions, and responses, and competing all they way up till April at least. Get them skillz honed and keep’em honed for the general.
Besides, I like all three of them. Yes, even Hillary, whom I just watched at a NH Q&A on C-Span this afternoon, and was reminded of how good she can be at both policy and retail-level, face-to-face, politiking. Almost as good as Bill, whom she’s definitely picked up some pointers from.
BMAZ:
Agreed. Just thought it beared repeating.
I do not doubt that the Clintons care a great deal about the Democratic Party. However, their vision of it differs a lot from the progressive vision. I think this vision has been consistent since about 1994, and is also consistent with the strategic blunder that Hillary has made regarding the primaries. She has not courted the progressive wing at all, and has treated us with condescension, taking us for granted. As a result, the progressive base has been looking for change, for someone who does not treat us as bothersome rabble. So the progressives have looked for someone else, and have gone to Edwards or Obama.
It is a weird strategy for the primaries, to court the center and ignore the base. But then, to the Clintons, the “center” *is* the base.
Bob in HI
I don’t disagree with a word of that, and that is indeed exactly why we have elections. But they will be there for their party either way, and they have been all along; even if not in the same wing you and i may be in. As much fault as i can find with some of Clinton’s policies and actions, and there is a good deal, I shudder to think where we would be without them. Steamrolled by the insane Reagan Bullshit Cultism that we now have seen the end game on I should think.
BobSchacht:
I think this specific criticism/analysis is valid, but I think you’re exaggerating a little bit at the end there. Clinton has done some outreach to the progressive wing, she even contributed a post or two at FDL.
That said, most of Clinton’s outreach to the progressive wing had to do with specific legislative initiatives. You’re right that she hasn’t done much general outreach to the progressive base. And your comment – that ‘to the Clinton’s, the center is the base’ – might well identify the core of the problem. At least as fare as we’re concerned. No doubt some consider that her strength.
In the 90’s, they might have been right. Apparently, they’re not now.
Yes, but her efforts have been strongly circumscribed. For example, her visits to FDL had ground rules that limited discussion to what *she* wanted to talk about– a little more strongly than the usual Book Salon/special guest rules. It was clear that she knew we had issues with her that she did NOT want to talk about. And her encounter at YearlyKos– if she didn’t use the term “you people,” she referred to the netroots in a way that clearly indicated that she didn’t feel like she was one of us.
About 1991, I used to be a Hillary Clinton- Jesse Jackson Democrat. At least one of us has changed since then.
Bob in HI
Hillary was at DKos 2. And I think that what she had to say was really good. Granted, she was looking at the general election rather than the primary, but a good show. She made a mistake in assuming she was going for the general.
Those who do the heavy lifting, and maybe assume they are therefore, due an award (think cheney, “this is our due”), are often the people whose shoulders the next generation stands on. So HRC and her coterie may feel it’s “her time,” but honestly I think people have moved on.
Case in point. My 90 year old life-long repub dad. I had him just about convinced for Dean 4 years ago. Now he and my mom are leaning toward Edwards or Obama. That is huge!
Sorry so late to the party missing…
bmaz: the Clintons did virtually NOTHING to build the Democratic Party during their two terms in office. They’ve also done little in the interim to build the party.
Building the grassroots infrastructure goes against the old school machine politics; they cannot fix leadership positions within the party if the grassroots are too powerful. Carville was so taken aback that the rank-and-file wanted an actual democratic (little d) election of party chair in 2005, going so far as to ask “why somebody hadn’t fixed this thing”, meaning taken the election of the chair back into a smoke-filled room and anointing the chosen chair for the rank-and-file to affirm.
Many of the old school rank-and-file resisted Howard Dean as chair — but once he showed up at their doorsteps, made a point of helping each state work on building their own base and their apparatus, found them organizers to assist them, developed infrastructure that all Democrats could use, there was a lot less grousing about Howard. He walked the talk with them, unlike predecessors, and unlike many of the elder statesmen of the party, including Clinton and Clinton.
If Clinton becomes the nominee, it will be a step back for us; the machine will try to push the grassroots activists back to the basement and out of sight. We’re talking about an effort to undo a generational shift, which really can’t happen without completely ripping up the party. You think those young voters who’ve participated in their first caucus and primary for Obama are going to put up with that?
And I don’t disagree with much of that either. Hey, like I said there is a good deal of bad too. But you know they were just a little embattled when in office, and from literally the second they took office, and didn’t get a lot of help in some regards from the Democratic backbone, including all the grassroots activists. There is plenty of blame to go around on all. Putting it all on the Clintons, and hating them for it is a cop out and wrong. I would also hate to see the chewed up hulk the Democrats might have become if there had been a Democrat less tough, resilient and capable than Bill Clinton there when the conservative blitzkreig came; and it was coming no matter who was there. The virulent strain of Republican politics, built on hate, division and authoritarian domination that we suffer from now was building into what occurred irrespective of Clinton. I have no problem pointing out the bad from them and there is enough of that, but there is a fair amount of credit they are owed too.
Hillary voted for the war. So much for fighting the repukes.
If you’re talking about that dog and pony show last April, I’d hardly call that a “contribution.” I’d call it a carefully massaged and vetted bone, thrown to FDL (whose “owners”) were thrilled to have someone, ANYONE, in the race, show up. They fell all over each other to make sure HRC didn’t have to answer for her vote on the war.
Sorry, Clinton is anti-progressive and if she is the nominee, I’m voting for my cat, or Joe Walsh. Or Pat Paulsen. We get the government we deserve, and if HRC is elected, we deserve another eight years of republican rule because her policies bear a much closer resemblance to K Street republicans than they do to to traditional Democrats.
I am wondering in the wake of Obama’s victory this past week whether Peter Daou will be with the campaign much longer. He’s either not in touch with the blogosphere, or she never listened to him. Doesn’t matter, the damage is extremely obvious and symptomatic of HRC’s inability to see or hear the base of the party.
Those shiny, bright young faces we saw cheering for Obama didn’t come out of nowhere; they had the guidance and precedent of earlier netroots activists from which to draw. Add up both of those pools of voters and you have something to reckon with. She could have and should have seen and felt this force this summer at YearlyKos, when she was soundly booed not once but twice during the presidential forum; that was a highly predictive event. (Richardson was booed once, Gravel ignored for the most part as a crotchety old man.)
I must confess, I am not very familiar with the players in each campaign, but your exposure of my ignorance is motivation to learn more.
It pleases me no end HRC was roundly booed at YKos, not only because she is a sleazy, right-wing K-Streeter, but because it is, in a sense, a repudiation of the kind of softball session FDL threw for HRC back in April.
If we can’t get down and dirty with the people to whom we send hard-earned (and post-tax) dollars to try to earn our POV a voice, and if we can’t count on those who claim to be “giving” us a voice to get down and dirty with them, how are we to know how they react to a straight-forward and blunt-edged question?
I sure don’t have that answer.
I should point out that HRC was booed for dodging questions. Imagine how torqued I was the next morning, knowing that HRC had been booed twice and Edwards had received the loudest, longest applause, to hear from a talking head on CNN that HRC had done well and Edwards had slipped to second tier during the same convention.
Grrr.
Rayne: Welp, what do you expect from the MSM? Other than Olbermann, I don’t really even listen to them.
Wavpeac: I won’t argue your points because I’m not familiar enough with YOUR specifics to fully grasp that situation – but HRC voted FOR the war and has never once admitted it was a mistake. Not once.
That trumps all. It trumps EVERYTHING else because this country is in the shape its in specifically because of the war, and the way it’s sucked resources away from *everything else,* and I hasten to remind you, she may have been a voice in the WH during Bill’s term in office, but she had no vote, never signed a bill.
I cannot and will not vote for HRC, if she is the nominee. She is a corporatist and a shill for multi-national corporations. I cannot support her. It’s time to stand up and say “ENOUGH!,” as Chris Dodd did in the Senate.
You are mistaken. The war is a symptom. Not a cause. The cause is deeper. The betrayal of the Constitution through a near-dictatorship, the unleashing of the oligarchy flouting the rule of law, the executive with the pixie dust. The exceptionalism that believes in preemption in the service of controlling resources. The crime family network, siphoning off everything to subvert the constitution in so many ways.
Just a thumbnail presentation of what’s really wrong. If you haven’t been paying attention to the candidates and the issues, then sit back and read. Get educated here (and elsewhere) first.
Don’t be insulting. I HAVE paid attention to the candidates and issues. The #1 issue is the war. Stop that, and you stop a lot of other things that have brought about the “near-dictatorship you speak of. It all stems from that.
Sorry to piggyback, but your mentioning HRC dodging questions is another reminder of her appearance at FDL in April, where the “owners,” enabled her to dodge ALL questions about her role in approving and perpetuating the war.
Emptywheel”
Thanks, I agree. It’s nice to see the whole problem analyzed & written up so well.
The migration of the corporatist wing started in the late 90’s, as some of them realized what Bill Clinton had been saying all along was true: the economy, business, and the stock markets all tend to do better under Democratic administrations. But I think it really started ballooning in 2005, when they also realized the Pubs were going to lose Congress. Like you, I don’t think there are many of them left in the GOP. Except, of course, for the crony corporatists at the local, state, and national levels, making them still quite numerous.
Also, a lot of what’s in your essay, especially about the corporatists, supports an idea I’ve been thinking about: that the GOP has inadvertently, almost accidently, turned themselves into a niche, Christian block, party.
I mean, 60% of their turnout in Iowa was evangelical/fundamentalist/born-again? That’s huge, even for Iowa. They’re going to find that’s the case throughout much of the south, the midwest, the plains states, and the mountain west. Huckabee has a very good chance of winning all those states, except where the Mormon population is large enough to form a block with the cronyists and give Romney the win.
Meanwhile, where do the hawks go? The cronyists are they’re friends, but the need the religious zealots’ passions to support their warmongering.
I guess they triangulate?
That looks like what McCain and Giuliani are planning, anyway. To become the default GOP candidate once people realize that neither Huckabee nor Romney can win the general. Never mind that Giuliani can’t win either, and McCain’s chances would be slim in normal election as opposed to one where voters prefer change over experience.
No matter the nomination’s outcome, the GOP is still left with a base that is more than 50% evangelical/born-again in the majority of states. A niche party for fundamentalists.
I don’t see a third party replacing the GOP, though. That only happens if the business wing founds a third party and comes to dominate the Republicans, much as the GOP did to the tattered remnants of the Whigs in the 19th century. But, frankly, the business wing can negotiate just as easily with the Dems. More likely, the Republicans will have to spend years in the woods rebalancing their base.
Looks pretty bad for the GOP. Sucks to be them.
Sounds like you have got “THE MATH.” They had THE MATH and they are still up the creek in a boat leaking voters. Does any know any corporatist type who is sufficiently self-reflective to be explaining how the hell did it get this bad? It is important to understand their point of view to know what they will do next.
Greed. That is how it got this bad; that is their point of view.
Whose greed? The cronyists greed? Like Erik Prince whose pre Blackwater crimes are being discussed in a post on FDL as I write? How they distinguish their profit motive from someone else’s greed.
Well, everybody’s greed as a collective whole I suppose, as the foundation for what the corp[orate business community has done. But, more specifically, I was referring to big business (what appears to be being referred to colloquially in this thread as “corporatists”). The almighty goal of maximal instantaneous share value at each and every moment has corrupted and fragmented the human community of American society. In the long whole its a zero sum game; not everybody can have maximum everything and the unrequited lust of the few haves at the business, political/busiess and financial top have sapped the infrastructure and well being of the greater rest of the country to the point that we are really teetering in a profound way that few appear to realize.
And the people pretending to be on the top are losing their homes and even their cars. You can only pretend you are rich for so long.
The people I was referring to aren’t losing anything. They, both corporate and individual, are collecting up everything the rest of us are losing and securing it in freaking safe international formats. Pilfering AND plundering if you will.
I made this prediction over at The Lake back in early December and it seems appropriate to resurrect it again here on this thread.
It would not seem out of the realm of possibility that we will see come convention time that:
A. No Democratic candidate will have sufficient numbers of delegates to win the nomination outright.
B. No Repug candidate will have sufficient numbers of delegates to win the nomination outright.
As much fun as the MSM has in trumpeting the “winning” of any particular primary is for any particular candidate, in the end it is all about the number of delegates.
I’ve even gone so far as to predict that it is not impossible that the Repugs might not be able to agree upon and nominate a candidate by the conclusion of their scheduled convention (in my poor ol’ hometown no less *g*).
As for the Democrats, I noticed that EW did not mention Edwards at all. That is not to say I’m critizing Marcy, but I wanted to make the point that in regard to the Democratic nomination, the stealth candidate Edwards may end up holding the winning hand wrt to who gets the Democratic nomination.
It may be that neither Clinton nor Obama get sufficient delegates to win the nomination outright, and that Edward’s delegates are the most valuable Democratic commodity in the Universe.
The era of the “Backroom Deal” in Presidential politics for both parties may have returned with a vengeance.
Cigar anyone?
MAdDog:
Yep. Looking over the maps and polls the past few days, it looks like a brokered convention for both parties is a real possibility.
Personally, though, I doubt it will happen on the Dem side. It looks like Obama is going to develop some real momentum by Super Tuesday, and might pull off an outright majority before the convention begins — unless he gets sucked into some scandal, real or manufactured, before then. (And I say that as someone who’s still favoring Edwards for my primary vote.)
The Republicans probably will end up in a brokered convention though. It seems like none of the Pubs has enough national strength to dominate.
I think I’ll stick with the popcorn, thanks.
Some additional points I’d like to make is that the MSM has fallen into their traditional bad habit of trying to create a 3-ring circus.
The MSM is all about “entertainment” and not about informing the public.
One should not be distracted by the MSM’s “look, shiny thing over there” antics vis a vis Obama and Huckabee. That’s just, again, entertainment.
Primaries are not “winner take all” events. The real facts are that delegates are proportionately elected based on primary votes.
If what EW says is true about MI (and I have no reason to doubt it), then Clinton is going to capture the majority of MI Democratic delegates. Said delegate numbers are far more than what was to be gained in Iowa.
And yes, I do believe that the Democratic National Committee come convention time will have relented and allow their punishment of states like MI and FL to lapse.
So in the end, we shouldn’t be distracted by the “shiny things” that are being foisted upon us by the MSM. They are fulfilling their own ideas of their role by creating that 3-ring circus. And again, that’s just entertainment.
More studious analysis would show focus on 50 states and the delegates to be gotten by each candidate.
No–none of the delegates will be assigned in MI–we’ve lost our delegates, and will only get them back if we promise to support the eventual nominee.
As for Edwards–he has a shot, but’s it’s pretty slim now. That was why I left him out–but I don’t think his odds are any smaller than Hillary’s.
I still think the DNC will relent. There is plenty of time for some back-room deals before and during the convention.
Based on current events, I would agree with you on Edward’s chances at the moment. Stuff may change, but that’s not predictable.
If Edwards has the money to make it to the convention, I’m guessing he’ll have sufficient delegates to play kingmaker wrt to the nomination.
As an addition to my 53, the reason why I think that the DNC will relent on punishing states like MI and FL is simply they want and need the states’ turnout support for the general.
All will be forgiven in due time.
The 235 Democratic House members and nonvoting delegates, 49 senators, the District of Columbia’s two shadow congresspeople and 28 governors, a total 314 in all, are automatically delegates to the convention. These “superdelegates,” almost 16 percent of the 2,025 delegates (4,049 total) a candidate will need to secure the party’s presidential nomination, while officially uncommitted and thus “unreplaceable”, can publicly endorse a candidate, adding to his and her total. Coupling these currently existing endorsements from super delegates, with the Iowa results, yields this breakdown of accumulated delegates as of today: Hillary Clinton 77; Barack Obama 31; John Edwards 16; Bill Richardson 7.
Dang. I hope the convention is safe.
I don’t think a lot of them really care. Ideological ties don’t run quite as deep in the business class as most people assume. Most corporatists are willing to support whichever side, or candidate, suits their business needs best. Or both sides, if that’s what it takes to ensure they have someone’s ear.
As for the GOP becoming a fundamentalist niche party, if that’s how it plays out, they won’t take the blame for it. They’ll just blame the Republican strategists and move on. The corporatists have more important things to worry about, like their money.
I see a few themes emerging. First, the Republican party is fracturing in very serious ways. This really shouldn’t surprise anyone, but the political class is trying really hard to ignore this fact. What really happened in Iowa was that the Religious Right’s activists and rank and file rejected their own leadership and went with own of their own instead of a faux RR (Romney) in the mold of Bush. This is really bad news for the Republican party because the RR has provided the shock troops for the party and the establishment can’t afford to let Huckabee win. With Ron Paul siphoning off what remaining grassroots money exists and Huckabee disrupting the party’s ground organization, the eventual nominee is almost certainly toast in the general election.
The second big trend is the generational trend towards the Democrats. Kerry did well with younger voters in 2004 and it looks like Obama will do even better. Although I’m a big Edwards supporter, I don’t see any scenario that doesn’t end with an Obama victory in 2008. He’s going to win New Hampshire and might very well sweep the board after that. If you care about the institutional future of the Democratic party (and I do, at least a little), you ought to be rooting for Obama. Look at the history of generational voting in the U.S. If you get a cohort to vote for your party in their first 3 Presidential elections, you generally have them for life. Obama’s candidacy is the best chance for that.
On the Republican side, their is no clear leader. The party bosses (who’ve been able to pick the nominee pretty much since Nixon) chose Romney and he didn’t deliver in Iowa. They could have been happy with Giuliani, but he’s flopped completely. If they coalesce around McCain, they run the real risk of a RR splinter. They may be willing to let the voters pick the candidate (as long as it’s not Huckabee), but there is no way there will be a brokered convention.
WO, I’m similar to you wrt to Edwards.
I would however say that I’m not similar to you in forecasting Obama to run the table. I think that folks are underestimating the heat that will be turned on him in the next 30-60 days.
Heat that will start peeling away some of his oratorical-generated stardom and nail him on the issues and the substance of his positions.
I think Obama tends to overdo style versus substance, and even the fact that now the MSM has found a headliner to promote their own entertainment interests, Obama is not going to get a free pass by the folks in both the Clinton and Edwards camps. Ain’t gonna happen,
Bingo! The Obama spin machine is running on full speed with no interruptions from either the right or left. How in the hell have they been able to spin him as the candidate that is the ‘agent of change, bold, and the antiwar candidate”. When he had the opportunity (kyl Lieberman amendment) to make a stand he sat on the fence on aggressive legislation based on unsubstantiated claims.
I have more respect for HIllary for voting even though I completely disagree with her vote.
I think you and a whole lot of other people are underestimating what Obama accomplished in Iowa. For my entire life, I’ve been hearing candidates say they will bring new voters into the system. I’ve never seen anybody really do it before Obama. I didn’t think Obama could translate the big crowds into caucus votes, but he has. Obama has also been very effective at political judo, turning attacks to his advantage.
I have a lot of concerns about Obama as a President, but as a candidate he’s very, very strong.
Perhaps, but I also know a con-artist when I see one. *g*
I think that in the case of both Obama and Huckabee, there is a similar segment of folks who just want to believe.
In the case of some of the young voters that have been attracted to Obama, I’m thinking of them in terms of “progressive wannabees”.
They like the sound of things from Obama, but have yet to really delve into the substance of who he is, his positions, his record, his translation of views into action (or not as the case may be).
I’m not calling this particular block of folks naive, but that’s getting pretty close to the mark. I’m not saying this particular block of folks is easily duped, but IMHO the wind is blowing from that direction.
I view both Obama and Huckabee as preachers. Old timey, barnstorming, revival tent preachers. They enchant a lot of folks by their preaching ability.
That has never appealed to me personally. I find it too close to con-artists who take advantage of the the intellectually-challenged, and soon part them from their money.
In terms of actual substance, neither Obama nor Huckabee make my grade, nor do they seem likely to do so.
You’re reading the followers correctly, but you are misreading the men (Obama and Huckabee). While it is true that preachers (which is what Huckabee is and Obama sounds like) use many of the same techniques as con artists, the purpose, and therefore the dangers, are much, much different. Huckabee is about as authentic as a politician can be. He is what George Bush pretends to be. I could write a dissertation on Huckabee and his type. I grew up with them in northeast Texas (my dad is currently a Southern Baptist preacher in southwestern Missouri).
As to Obama, the very things that make you (and me to a lesser extent) uncomfortable are the things that will ensure his victory. The vast majority of people who vote in Presidential elections don’t want to think about policy at anything but the most superficial level. I think Obama is going to great for the Democratic brand. It’ll be up to people like me and you to hold his feet to the fire and make sure he delivers on the substance.
Well, we’ll have to see what the future brings, won’t we? *g*
While I don’t share your vision of Obama, I agree to its possibility.
I think WO is right about the symbolic potential of Obama; but he is also right about the necessity of backing it up. I don’t even discount one bit the argument of Obama folks that he has shown a knack for effectiveness at every level he has been at in his somewhat rapid ascent. But keep in mind that Obama, as smart and charismatic as he is, is no more so than Bill Clinton was in 1992 and is far less skilled, steeled and experienced than Clinton was when he first took office. Yet even Clinton was bureaucratic administrative nightmare the first two years; and it was all in a whole lot better shape then. Our whole gig is so fucked up now that you can’t even get your arms around all of it. Basically whatever it is you want to talk about, its fucked up. Hillary is an aparatch; if you don’t believe me, ask any of those tough old boy GOP Senators. When off the record and need to spew the line, they all, to a man, say she is one tough, smart and effective cookie. Good, put her to work. If Obama wins, he will need her and he will need us. And a whole lot more.
Make that “apparatchik”. Preview may want to be my friend; but i have never met him….
Late to this party. I agree with your comments, WO. For me it’s about electing someone who can speak to the country, convince people to sacrifice, and hold that person’s feet to the fire.
Obama, when not explaining policy, when appealing to voters has the right language and I think there’s a Dean-like quality to what he’s saying that leaves people feeling empowered.
As an aside, it felt to me last night like charlie gibson was operating on the side of the corporations. We strongly felt he was unfair to the Dems, debating them rather than letting them debate each other.
I think you’re going to find that the phenomena and ability of Huckabee and Obama are nothing whatsoever alike, and their destinies will soon be much different.
WilliamOckham:
How do you figure? There’s a broad swathe of states in which the party bosses might not be able to stop evangelicals from supporting and nominating Huckabee.
Not enough for Huck to win the nomination outright, but enough to prevent anyone else from getting a majority either.
Look, here’s a list of states Huck can win: North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennesee, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and maybe Alaska, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (more fundies there than most people think, and they *all* vote Republican).
Sure, most of them are small states, and he probably won’t win all of them. But he has a good chance to win a lot of them, or pick up substantial delegates with second place finishes. And he’ll probably do well with second place finishes in states I haven’t listed.
Huck’s biggest problem will be staying financially solvent long enough to campaign in these states.
BTW, I have no brief for, or anything invested in, a Huckabee win. I think it’s better for all concerned if he does poorly, because the last thing we need is a party/wing of fundamentalist social conservatives with even more strength in our politics.
But the fact is, the potential for Huckabee to do well is there. Especially, if non-fundamentalists continue drabbling out of the GOP, making the fundies stronger.
Anyway, in such a scenario, there’s no way any of the other nominees can go into the convention with an outright majority – unless all but one of them drops out, and all the rest promise their delegates to the last non-Huck man standing.
As far I can see, that looks like a brokered convention.
I suppose it is possible that the dynamics of this campaign will be different than every other one in the last 40 years, but I’m not betting on it. Here’s what’s going to happen. Some time in the next 2 weeks, the Republican contest will be reduced to a front-runner and a challenger. I have no idea who they will be, but it will happen. Given the way the primaries are timed this year, we should know on Feb. 6 who the nominees of both parties will be. I wish it wasn’t so. I don’t get to vote until Mar. 6.
I keep wondering when the MSM will stop allowing the Obama spin machine to get away with all of the hullabaloo about being an “agent of change, bold, and an antiwar candidate” Based on what? Where is the proof?
Mr. “agent of change” walked out the back door on the Kyl Lieberman amendment, he sat on the fence with his finger in the wind. Obama could have demonstrated a real anti-war commitment by voting NO NO NO on an amendment which Senator Webb described as “tantamount to declaring war on Iran”. Obama the “anti-war” candidate could have taken a stand on this amendment based on unsubstantiated claims in regard to Iran.
No Obama is not an “agent of change” he has an incredible spin machine based on “hope” which is just another word with nothing left to prove.
When is the MSM and the lefties going to play hardball with Obama and start paying attention to Edwards second place in Iowa. (go listen to Mark Green over at Air America) he just had a one hour program where all he talked about was Obama Clinton Obama clinton Obama Obama Obama. Arianna Huffington and Gary Hart played along as Obama cheerleaders. I have to give it to Katrina of the Nation she attempted to be fair and balanced. But Mark Gfeen swept every one of her attempts to talk about Edwards under the rug.
Mark green should be ashamed of himself…this is progressive..this is fair and balanced. Pitiful
Seehawks win. 35-14.
Here’s a good take on the framing the candidates chose
http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/
Man, if anyone’s watching this Republican debate–it ROCKS!
They’re pitting the Thugs off of each other requiring them to either endorse or renounce Bush. My only complaint is that somehow Mitt has positioned himself to be in the background shot of everyone else, with Mitt looking all mocking at those speaking. Partly, it’s because he’s seated between Paul and Huck–so he’s always in the background wiht a “oh, aren;t they cute” as these guys tee up on Bush.
But it’s a great format.
Thats just sick. There is perfectly good football on….
You beat me to it.
Though I’m guessing that EW either has 2 TVs on or is flipping the remote like crazy.
I’m very good with a remote. Hand-eye coordination.
Marcy, is there anyplace to watch this debate on the internet?
No television set here. (Yes, I’m one of *those* people.)
“bomb Bomb Iran” Mc Cain just said that Obama does not have enough National Security experience to deal with foreign policy.
McCain, the worst pilot in the Navy. The man who probably was involved in the loss of more assets than any person actually on our side during Vietnam. Neocon Warmonger. Leader of the Keating Five. Last in his class in Annapolis (or very close thereto). The man who walked out on his marriage to take his carpetbag to Arizona solely out of sheer ambition to be on the political dole somewhere. That John McCain?
Read about Mc Cain in The Nightingale’s Song, same character as Junya,
only difference is he got sent to sea duty off Vietnam in daddy’s navy,
got shot down, comes home a “hero”… alky runt phony.
Thanks for sharing, more. When McCain sang “bomb bomb bomb Iran” I about pissed myself. If I lived in Iran I would be scared of McCain and Clinton.
Pardon me, I have had the pleasure of Saint john McCain ever since he plopped his carpetbag down here. He is an intemperate, fairly slow witted, pompous ass. But I’ll be willing to keep him here if that is what it takes to keep him out of the White House.
The football is excellent, even a rookie fans like me can tell. The Republicans are intolerable. You guys are however great.
The Center, imho, isn’t going to ‘win’ this election – Change is going to Win.
‘08 should continue the ‘House Cleaning’ started in ‘06. Candidates with the slightest active scandal are going to get summarily bounced by a Scandal Weary Public. The People want a Protracted Period of Stability and Opportunity – free from Bush’s Fucking Crisis Politics.
I’m reading it, and hearing it, more and more often these days – “The Old Folks let us down in the last two election cycles” – People are sick of the gutless, immoral, greedy, cronyistic Status Quo.
Hillary “I voted for Lieberman-Kyl to Combat the Axis of Evil” is More of the Same.
Obama is Change.
Obama is a cipher carrying the mantle of a concept at this point. As admirable as that concept is, it will not do the heavy lifting of governing once the election is over. There is an absolutely across the board need for rote attention to details and mechanics of government critically needed. I think no one touches Clinton in ability to actually pull off the best overall effort in this regard, but if it is to be Obama, he needs to be indoctrinated in the reality of what we face. There is an awful lot of behind the scenes work to be done if we are to realize the audacity of our hope.
I hear you, bmaz! We could really use a Rallying President, like FDR, to engage the Citizens in the Well-being of the Country, and re-invigorate the Machinery of the Founders with a Great Respect for Freedom Nearly Lost, once again.
JFK got US going with the Space Program – We could use something tangible and real like that again, imho. Bush’s Paranoid Fantasyland of Unseen Terror Everywhere has long ago worn out its “Because I Said So” credibility – It’s really sad to still see anyone supporting his So Obviously Failed Policies.
I think the Country is ready to move on with providing for our families, and living in our neighborhoods, and enjoying our lives without the Bush squeeky toy getting on everyone’s nerves anymore.
More than anything else – whether its a Republican or Democrat or Independent – We need Candidates with Genuine Integrity at the Core of their Characters.
Nobody wants another Bush – A Say-Anything Front Daddy for an (hateful/judgmental) Ideological Agenda full of Enemies – that only He and a Small Gang of Loyal Thugs can ‘See.’
Omg it was a love fest at the debate. I bet that made the people in Iraq and Iran feel better.
Fair enough, and you’re right, it may well play out that way. I just can’t see how – like you, I have no idea who might be left on Feb. 6.
The thing is, I think the dynamic is different this year, because I don’t thing McCain will drop out until much later, if at all. Romney is more likely to concede, but he’ll have enough money and probably enough delegates to convince him to stay in. Huckabee will probably have enough delegates to hang in there too. Giuliani and Thompson may both drop out. Paul may hang in, if only to collect delegates or as a stealth campaign for the Libertarian vote.
And, hell, either Thompson or Giuliani may hang in just to get the VP nom, on the grounds that it’ll make Jeri or Judith happy.
This is all complicated by the possibility that the party bosses themselves don’t know who they want as the alternative to Huckabee. They might figure, better to go into a brokered convention and pick the strongest nominee then, when it’s closer to the election, than to pick a loser now.
You know, in a fucked up way, this really is the most democratic primary the Republicans have ever run.
Thats about dead on the mark I should think.
Do we get to call then Repub-rats at the first Democratic President’s State of the Union?
Why wait?
cuz “repuglitard” is funnier ???
G’morning. On the Repub-ratic party, and not waiting. One of my ‘fall asleep assuring myself something can get done before Jan 19 08 thoughs’ is the vision of George II giving a speech and calling the Democratic Party the Democrat party and the assembled Democrats or Press people all hold signs
that say
Hey, lookee here, Kevin Ryan, the former USA for Northern California who oversaw the investigation of Barry Bonds and other athletes, but was otherwise a complete disaster at his job, has accepted a job as Mayor Gavin Newsom’s criminal justice director. What the hell is wrong with Newsome; Ryan was a horrid administrator and is a Gooper to boot.
I think the modern Republican Party (stool version…in more ways than one) is about to hock up a loogie of a Know-Nothing split ala the Whig Party in 1840-50s. Take a look at the Know-Nothing platform via Wikipedia:
* Severe limits on immigration, especially from Catholic countries
* Restricting political office to native-born Americans
* Mandating a wait of 21 years before an immigrant could gain citizenship
* Restricting public school teachers to Protestants
* Mandating daily Bible readings in public schools (from the Protestant version of the Bible)
* Restricting the sale of liquor
Sound familiar? Anti-Catholic bigotry in American history is not really a topic of modern politics beyond “Kennedy gave a cool speech about it once” but I wonder if it explains a bit of Sam Brownback’s non-starter of a campaign in Iowa and Huckabee’s rise. This is a great post EW. I hope you can examine the Democratic Party “stool” and see where the resulting factions from both parties can combine to govern on an issue by issue basis.
This has been a very FDL-ish thread. I forgot I was at Emptywheel. This runs the risk of being very close to the best blog in the toobz.
yeah, but don’t tell anybody
we just got the place fixed up, and we don’t need a bunch of newbs raiding the fridge and leaving their beer cans everywhere …
okay, bmaz. Reread, corporate theft. Ultra wealthy individual theft. Out of America to where? Europe? Dubai? Paraguay?
Yep. All those and more; not to mention the banking islands in the Carribean.
Had the Clintons done a better job from day one of Bill’s first term of going out and helping build the party, they likely would have had more support from the base when going got tough.
The Clintons may have been embattled at the end of Bill’s term, but post-9/11 and tsunami and Katrina, Bill rather squandered his chance to help HRC. I suspect that not wanting to appear (or be) too supportive of the new approach at the DNC drove choices made. The Clintons’ proxies also didn’t do a bang-up job of building the party; Carville, for starters, Donna Brazile for another.
Armstrong and Kos’ “Crashing the Gates” explains a lot of it; perhaps the Clintons were blinded by an old worldview in which the consultantocracy was to be trusted and believed, rather than the voices of the rank-and-file. But two terms under Bush and an over-long Republican majority in Congress should have made it clear that the consultants SUCKED.
I’d like to know where I owe the Clintons any credit, save for Bill’s tepid moderation in office. NAFTA and Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell come to mind as part of that package.
I think you’re a bit harsh on the Clintons. Remember, the left had little voice in the 90s, no blogosphere, and nothing in the MSM. Move-on was the first real noise from the progressive wing of the party in decades, and it wasn’t much left of center at all.
the clintons were victims, just like the rest of us
the poison welling up in the repuglitard party has been brewing since 1964
George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry all suffered the same type of treatment from the repuglitards
Clinton was demonized the most because he threatened the repuglitard power structure the most of all of them
in a way, the Democratic Presidents and Presidential Nominees have been the “First Victims” of a nation of victims
we didn’t perpetrate this
it was done to us, just like it has been done to the rest of the planet
Don’t mistake the symptom for the problem; there was little heard from the left because their infrastructure and organization had been allowed to dissipate out of neglect. Hillary was certainly aware of the “VRWC”, and surely Bill was, too; they responded too late to stop Bush’s ascendancy. They also ignored labor, a built-in left-leaning group; they forfeited them to the right who claimed them through fear of abortion and threats to gun rights, rather than fighting for them against NAFTA.
As for the MSM: Bill did himself and all of the left no favors signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That allowed the increased consolidation that shouted down any early attempts to stave off the right.
Speaking of MI primary…EW, you going to the DFA Forum tomorrow? I can’t make it, would love to hear if MDP chair Brewer gets spanked yet again about this joke of a primary.
Rayne, don’t ask, don’t tell seemed radical at the time.
I guess I didn’t see it that way. They were already serving honorably…the bigger problem I saw that wasn’t being addressed was the pervasive “old boys club” in the military.
The kinds of firm enforcement of regulations that could have prevented Tailhook could also have made gays in the military entirely possible. It wasn’t radical; we merely lacked the political will power, choosing to use triangulation instead (”We’ll pretend you’re not gay if you pretend you aren’t either.”)
Getting the Nominees set in Feb…
…leaves 4 months before the Conventions to Impeach Bush and Cheney.
The Constitution-reinforcing thing to do is to Reject the Bush UE Power-Grab via Impreachment, rather than letting Bush and his Henchpeople skate out of Office with his claim to Absolute Power left unchallenged – an Ambiguous invitation to Future Republican Riff-Raff.
No President should ever again be able to Declare Himself and His Loyalists part of a Secret Society (that Spies on Citizens and Tortures ‘Enemies’) – Above the Rule of Law – Beyond Legislative Oversight and Judicial Review – Specially ‘missioned’ to unquestioningly carry out the Word of the “Unitary Executive.”
We need to slam a Cell Door shut on that, or it Will Be Back!
Not Impeaching would be the same as leaving a Cancer untreated.
Our Country is not ready to roll over and die just because the Ideologically Blind and Badly Panicked Bush has worked himself into a Corner, too overwhelmed to Face the Reality of his Gross Errors of unchecked and unbalanced Judgment.
To Restore Integrity to the Constitution, We should Impeach Bush and Cheney.
Bloomberg’s likely to try his third party gig with Unity08 if Obama or Edwards end up as our nominee and Romney is not the Repug nominee. The capitalists will go for Bloomberg if the Repugs nominate Huck or the war-mongers. They would stick with Romney, though, as he’s one of them. I don’t think the money crowd wants more war — it’s tanking the economy.
There aren’t enough of them to win, though, and Bloomberg won’t compare well to anyone on the stump.
Huck loses to any Dem. This year, America is not going to vote for a televangelist. Rudy loses to any Dem because he’s a one-trick pony. McCain loses to HRC and Obama, but might beat Edwards. Romney loses to any Dem because his phoniness cannot be concealed. If Romney is the nominee, we’ll have the delight of watching him lose his home state of Massachusetts in a frickin’ landslide — we’ll make sure of that. We hate his guts here.
Wow! Are you guys on a roll tonight or what? BMAZ is knocking heads like Hulk Hogan! And I’ve got to agree that Hill would make a great VP for either of these guys. My ticket would be Edwards with Hill as VP, but I’m not so sure we could actually expect Hillary to roll many Rethuglican heads in any capacity, BMAZ. She just seems so corporate estabishment to me, and I think the number one priority or this country is to get these damn corporations back in line – End the corpstocracy.
Now for a funny story. The fiance’ and I were out to dinner this evening, and I took a moment to look around the room, I mean really look and observe people. I commented how interesting people are when you really look, and Lisa said “What do you think of that table over there?” It was two couples right in my line of sight, and I said, “Kind of a bucket-headed looking bunch.” She smiled and said, “Yeah. I hear one of the guys say – ‘Mitt Romney looks really good to me.”
Now can I read a table or what!
Should be an interesting week.
I can’t quite get a handle on how Obama will handle the republicans. His style of conflict resolution at this point seems like avoidance. I just don’t have a good sense of him when truly tested. Yes, he attacked back at Hillary but Hillary’s stuff was so tame compared to what the racist republican elite are going to do to him.
He’s smart enough. He’s fought republicans his whole life as a black man. But I think republicans have been very quiet in dealing with him for now and I worry about what happens when the onslaught begins. I hate to sound like the Hillary campaign, but I think it’s a valid concern. My prayer is that he gets tested soon, so we get an idea of his backbone here.
Edwards gets it. He knows how to fight the corporatocracy. He’s been doing it for a long time. He’s been tested, in sight, for so long, I believe we’ve seen most of his potential skeletons.
Listening to the debate last night all I could think was that it wasn’t for the american people. What average Joe listened to that debate as McCain and Mitt argued over healthcare evils and whether or not big pharma was the cause of high prices? I felt that the whole discussion was aimed at the corporate world not individual human beings living their lives. They kept touting that we have the #1 best health care in the world, have they not become aware that the number one cause of accidental death in america is medical mistakes?? They seemed so totally oblivious to the real truth about america and health care and so clearly were defending the status quo.
McCain so proud with his plan was about giving limited funds (just like we’ve already done)to treat “a diabetic” and this will give incentive to the docs NOT to order every test, thereby giving them money in the pocket if they manage not to spend the money set aside to treat “a diabetic”. I couldn’t believe he could tout this as a “new idea” or that any human being would think this was a good idea. They weren’t talking to you and me. This is what we have already done, and this is what has brought our health care rating for the the top to one of the worst. It made me literally sick to my stomach to listen to.
radiofreewill,
I completely agree about impeachment. I think the shadow government needs some consequences to set them back a bit. And I also think that this would further insure that the elections go our way, it makes election fraud of a plausible tact, no close election. I think the american people clearly see the bush regime as criminal, and keeping that in the lime light with all those candidates “supporting” bush policies in past statements cannot hurt america.
I think it’s like following through with a consequence with a child. Sometimes it’s a pain in the ass for the parent, but a bigger pain for the future if it doens’t take place in the here and now. Consequences are messy, but no president deserves them more than this one.
“I think it’s like following through with a consequence with a child. Sometimes it’s a pain in the ass for the parent, but a bigger pain for the future if it doens’t take place in the here and now. Consequences are messy, but no president deserves them more than this one.”
I agree. What’s at stake here is nothing less than re-claiming Our Moral Compass as a Nation – re-asserting that We are a Nation of Laws and not a Nation of Men.
If We Impeach, then We re-claim the Spirit of Freedom bequeathed to US by Our Founders.
If We don’t Impeach, then We get placed into the hands of another ‘Caretaker’ Government – That ‘Knows’ What’s Best for US – A Confirmation of the Sheep Status given to US by Bush the UE.
You’re absolutely right, while Impeachment is Messy to deal with Now, a further slide towards towards Totalitarian Rule might be alltogether unmanageable in a Year, or 5 years, or 17 years, under the Next UE.
Now is the time.
Republicans have campaigned on hate since FDR in the modern era. The
Clintons came in at the height of the neocon takeover of both parties.
Bill and HRC were McGovern coordinators in Austin in 1972, but morphed
through Arkansas politics into a more Hubert Humphrey type Democrat.
As a labor union officer in 1992, we heard from Arkansas locals that
we might as well vote Republican as they were no friends of labor. NAFTA
proved that to be correct. NAFTA was the wet dream of the Rockefellers,
to crush labor once and for all, and it worked. He believed all that
Junior Civitans crap, never had a job in his life, brags about all the
money he makes hanging around with Bill Gates and Bono, whoever the FCK
he is, and will not let HRC campaign on her own. It is already over, their
time has past, one deal too many down the road. Hopefully a new, real
Democratic Party is emerging, not as deeply compromised as the one that
sold us all out in the 1990s.
You know “thatguy” while I will absolutely agree with you that Hillary is a centrist, and that she has voted in ways I do not support, and that Nafta was a horrible deal and that the telecom situation illuminated by Rayne sucked, I think that your statement is hyperbole.
I have read a run down of her voting history and a comparison with republican counter parts. There is no way you can make that statement accurately if you are willing to do the homework. She does not vote like K street. She has had a couple bad votes, (mistakes that a majority of dems made as well)…It’s not like she voted like Lieberman. (and yes, she supported him, but her votes where not his). And I agree with Rayne that the Clintons were like battered women who neglect their children…in the way they handled the democratic party. But I see some valid reason for this because I do see them as victims of a vast right wing conspiracy. I think the Clintons made it clear that trickle down economics were a sham. That the Reagan economic policies were clearly bunk. This is what I see as their greatest achievement and greatest threat to the vast right wing.
I would like to see Edwards get the nomination. I just think he has fought hard, and stayed focused in a way that is really admirable. I wish he were black or a woman. I like Obama, and I don’t think the world will end if Hillary is back in the office.
Your hyperbole damages the party. It’s not accurate. Don’t pull a bushie and forget the grey…we can’t afford black and white thinking. She’s not the anti christ. I think the Clintons use a style of compromise that actually worked well for Bill. I do believe this style of governing helped him get some things accomplished. We could argue at what price.
I work in a domestic violence sexual assault program, and I can tell you first hand that because of Bill Clinton and the VAWA act, we were able to develop some incredibly effective programming for the welfare to work program. Since Bush we have lost two shelters, we have lost several full time counseling positions, and we have seen our poor folks sharing less money and less resources. We were able to treat children who live in domestic violence situations and we were able to treat long term trauma survivors. This was a direct result of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I won’t defend everything they did, but during the Clinton years life was much better for the poor, the working poor, women and children in domestic violence. Bush stripped these programs within a year of his presidency. Vawa was reinstated, but was not funded like it had been during the Clinton years. Clinton did much for my cause…a cause the lies at the heart of poverty in america. We are a violent country, and violence has long term financial and economic costs. The Clintons knew this, and did something about it in word and deed. And I saw first hand that it made a HUGE difference.
I don’t want to argue about Hillary…she’s not my first choice, but I do see their behavior as very similar to the abused. It such a problem because sometimes when victims don’t act as strong as we think they should be and they get tripped up, we tend to be very hard on them…for not being model victims…you know, perfectly innocent. She’s not my first choice, but she is not in any way shape or form “a republican”.
Should Obama become the nominee, I would love to see Edwards in charge of healthcare. That’s a fight he was born for!!!
The beauty is that so many of these Dem candidates can become standard bearers for change. Dodd for the Constitution. Hillary and Bill, put them to work… let them hit the ground running in some way that is really beneficial. Send Richardson back to N.Korea if need be.
There is more than enough work to go round. I think the important thing, and wavpeac above expressed it so beautifully, is to make sure these folks do not tear one another apart. If they love this country, they must be selfless. Nothing less is going to save us from the brink that bushco has brought us to.
If only the national press had investigated the realities of Bush
governance in Texas, the record of the Bush administration could have
been foretold. The Republicans finally had majorities and a “crisis”
and the gloves came off at home as well as abroad. The establishment
press in Texas knelt and still kneels before them, raw power is not
pretty to watch or endure. But it has been overplayed into moral and
fiscal bankruptcy, just like 1929. Too bad for HRC that the Bush/Clinton/Bush bathtub ring is hers to bear, but when the times finally
change the broom sweeps wide. Too much like Lieberman, good Democrat in
the 60’s, too much time at the big banquet table in DC, too much Likud
Kool-Aid, too much triangulation. A Democratic administration will be
difficult to staff, not enough patronage over the years to have enough
people ready to finish off the Republicans. Tough times to come even if
we win, a huge task to rebuild our country.
I figured Huckabee would surprise people because I first read about him in a health-related magazine in an organic food store in Boise, Id in July 2007. His message of personal health and fitness crossed ALL political boundaries, was focused on ‘personal empowerment’, was non-ideological and more lifestyle-oriented than overtly political.
Why is that potentially significant?
Organic foods are now the biggest expanding segment of the US food market — and health/fitness is definitely driving that bus. (Tip: See the movie, Michael Clayton, the single most under-rated, under-discussed US movie this decade for interesting background.) People of all political persuasions shop in that Boise market, which is also the case in many, many cities across the American West. And many evangelicals are deeply engaged in the organics movement.
‘Organics’ used to be affiliated with ‘woo-woo’ lefty Birkenstockers. But the Mormons and evangelicals are also quite active in the area of health and nutrition. So if you mix ‘nutrition’ in with health issues and organic productes, then you end up with Mormons, Lutherans, and all kinds of people in a conservative region of the nation shopping for organic foods in the same store.
And who was on the cover article on a newstand in the organic food shop in Boise, ID? A conservative Republican governor from Arkansas, using his own life story to encourage people to adopt ‘healthy lifestyles‘ and ‘fitness’.
Whether Huckabee’s campaign deliberately sought out that low-budget publication dedicated to organic foods, or whether it was simple dumb luck, it was brilliant. And it was perhaps the single most-missed, undermentioned, below-the-radar thing that I’ve seen in years. I’ve watched Huckabee’s rise with interest, but it didn’t surprise me all that much.
Huckabee’s ‘interview’ mentioned his candidacy, but put it squarely in the context of helping people live better, healthier lives. It was not at all ‘political’ in terms of Republican/Democratic; it was very much about personal empowerment at the level of the grocery store, personal daily routine, and lifestyle ‘issues’ related to health, health care, and fitness. If there were ‘issues’ they were cultural, economic, and personal. It was not framed in any partisan framework, which is part of why it was so powerful and appealing.
Cronies will leave the Republican party the instant they can’t control politics — they’re control freaks who think of themselves as ‘political investors’ and expect a good ROI for their contributions. Ditto corporations. If Obama falls prey to that, he’s toast. That perception is largely what’s caused static from people seeing that Hillary has the best mind of all the candidates.
I still think Edwards has the best message, and FWIW, he and Huckabee are actually saying some eerily similar things. But Huckabee is embodying it, or personifying it in a very positive way. Edwards is ‘talking about it’ — if Edwards were running marathons, more of Huck’s voters would pay attention to Edwards.
Biggest loser in Iowa: corporatists. And cronies. Both look at politics as an ‘investment’, and it appears they don’t see enough ROI this time around. They’ll lie in wait like slime under a rock, to surface the moment they seen an opening.
Biggest loser for now, right. The Corporatists have hosted the Republicans of late but are well represented by the establishment Democrats. Hence my wait and see approach to the Obama phenomenon.
The modern corporation has more power than the government as of now.
Their threat to take their marbles elsewhere is not new, they financed
the german economic miracle in the 1930’s rather than invest in depression
era US business. Huck will take the deal, WalMart owns his state. We have
not seen real adversarial politics in the US in 70 years. The post WWII
consensus gave us the corporate war contract bloated lobbyist dominated
mess we have now, and they will not go down quietly, remember the Republican zoot suit riot in Florida 2000? It will be hardball, and I
don’t mean paddy’s little chat show on MSNBC.
Huckabee and McCain for 2008!
Huckabee and McCain for 2008!
Huckabee and McCain for 2008!
There is a place for Mitt also, if he wants it, but he is the kind of guy that likes only the top place. Still I would like to see his managerial skills used over in the Pentagon, or in some of the other crazy bureaucracies of our Government.
Those crazy bureaucracies… are so crazy.
JodiDog:
Sigh. Of course. I don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner.
Jodi, for once, has: a point.
Romney can’t win the general, and it’s increasingly unlikely that he can even win the Pube Primaries.
We all know this, and it’s why most of us suspect that McCain will end up as the Republican nominee – the least bad from a set of bad choices.
But McCain needs someone young on the ticket to offset his age. I mean, seriously, try imagining McCain campaining with Thompson. Or Lieberman, for that matter. And, except for a few New Yorkers, Giuliani brings no one to the party that McCain doesn’t already pull in.
Any talk of pairing McCain with Hagel, et. al., in some sort of Unity ‘08 ticket is complete loser for the GOP. They’ll lose the fundies, while the indies are already leaning Dem.
But McCain will need help pulling in the fundies, who don’t like him.
And there you have it, the perfect Republican ticket: McCain/Huckabee.
The Pug Pundits will probably figure this out sometime between today and Florida primary. Watch for it.
(And, yes, I know Hagel is a Republican, but his ties and reputation, whether misleading or not, are more closely identified with the Independents than the Republicans these days.)
It’s going to be a funny bumper sticker when McCain cannot take Michigan, and Huckabee will be forced out about the same time.
There are a lot of places of Romney, but none of them will be in the Democratic administration in 2009.
We have been fed so much bull, for so long of a time, that this is what serves as a Breakfast of Champions.
My breakfast of champions comes from this place.
I’m not sure how much credence to give this, but Zogby is now saying that Indy turnout is going 3:1 Dem in the NH primary. This quote comes from TPM ElectionCentral:
Honestly, Independents going 75% Democratic sounds a little unrealistic to me – but reaching 65% Indy-Dem crossover in Iowa was pretty unprecedented too. So, who knows?
EW, your speculation that McCain lose the Pug Primary due to Obama sucking up all the Independent votes is beginning to look very prescient.
I get this feeling – and I force myself to suppress it, that perhaps there IS a chance we can shove the ‘pukes out of the White House.
But then I think of the seemimgly inevitable economic collapse, and I yearn for a big ol’ pickup with a cabover camper, so when I’m homeless, at least I’ll be dry, warm, and have a place to cook.
Arrgh.