The Democratic Party's Deepest Internal Battle: It's Not One of Gender and Race

Almost every time I participate in one of these discussions I try to lay out a few reasons that I'm not a Clinton supporter. I do, of course, say honestly that of course I will vote for her if she's the nominee.

Everyone who participates here and elsewhere, please specify what you like about your candidate and/or
why you don't like the other candidate so well. The point is not to argue about which partisans are going off the deep end, but to share ideas and opinions. Also, if you say a candidate said this or that - how about a reference or a direct quote. Then we can go look for ourselves.

Further, I recommend that everyone read Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father." It's moving, very well-written by Obama himself (not ghost written or 'as told to'), and written before he went into public life. I'm not suggesting that it will persuade you to support him rather than Clinton, but if you care about this country you can't help but be interested. It's a great American story.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

Those supporting Hillary do seem awfully like Republicans.

Scant wonder that ...

I am always pleased when someone expresses an idea that I firmly agree with. You say it more nicely than I do.

As long as we view this election as a contest between "us" as Democrats and McCain and the Republicans we are going to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage.

Maybe we should begin to realize that HillBilly and the DLC noise machine are as much of a danger to our values as McCain, Son of a Bush. These are the people who voted for war, approved the worst of Bush's judicial appointments and who vote against every piece of legislation intended to protect our dwindling rights.

We have a chance to clean up the worst of the Democratic Party just by getting rid of the DLC gang - and we shouldn't settle for anything less.

We can't immediately get rid of Rahm and the boys, but maybe we can get some actual progressive Democrats selected and supported instead of more DLC/neo-con candidates.

There is no point in winning the election and leaving the Blue Dog Dems in any kind of position of power. These guys have got to go. It's not quite as good as running the Potomac River through the Capitol, but it would be a good start.

There is a substantial risk that this might throw the election to McCain. Strangely enough, I believe the John McCain is wrong more from principle than from calculation and triangulation. His election might be a disaster, but nowhere near the disaster that would result from once again empowering the DLC gang.

I disagree w/ your glib and innaccurate use of the word neo-conservative to slander Clinton and moderate democrats. That's like calling Guliani a Nazi (he was only a thug and a jerk). This is the type of dishonest or lazy intellectual behavior the far left has been engaging in and which is driving other moderate democrats away from their own party. I myself recently re-registered as an independent because I am so tired of being considered a racist and neo-conservative and anti-progressive because I support Clinton or happen to think differently than the bourgeois left. It's not enough to make reasoned arguments, I have been seeing the words "hate" and "disgust" and "loathe" being thrown at Hillary for months...this from Obama cult of "hope" and "change" and "unity" and the new politics of their fearless reborn leader. I've also seen from the camp itself lines like "Hillary failed at health care," ignoring the fact that it took a republican controlled congress and $300 million health care/pharmaceutical campaign to bring it down. Doesn't she deserve an ounce of credit for bringing universal health care as close as it ever came to becoming a reality? So forgive some of us for thinking the sentiment of the Obama campaign is a bit of a sham--especially in light of the instructive comments from the reverend Wright (which any sane person would consider racist or hate speech), as well as his wife (I've never been proud of my country). But I hope you and others are proud that you're losing thousands of progressives a week (some, like myself, active in progressive causes for more than 20 years) who are just fed up w/ these toxic Republican antics. And while the Obama cult accuse Clinton of dividing the party, I don't see any of the same language of hate emanating from Clinton supporters. I see people who, for whatever reason, believe Hillary would make a better president. No racist, disparaging comments. But mostly dismay at what happened to the wing-nuts in their own party. I personally never supported the war, and I'm sorry Hillary voted for it...or the authorization if I may split a few hairs. But I find Obama's position (as w/ Rezko and Wright) a bit difficult to believe. The other day he said "I never heard anything while I was there...in the pew." And today "I heard things while I was in the pew that I objected to..." Which one is it? Or shall we continue to allow him to have it both ways? What's more, he wasn't in the Senate but loves to take credit for voting against, but while he was there, voted 3 times to fund it. Is that progressive by your own definition? Wasn't he just making those votes for political expediency? Wasn't he calculating? Dishonest? Untruthful? All the unity building republican style language he repeats, like a mantra, when referring to Clinton? Now let's step back to New Hampshire. No racial issues existed, for the most part, before New Hampshire. Just about the time they lost New Hampshire and leading into S. Carolina, the race baiting came to the fore. Out of nowhere, comments about LBJ and other very simple comments were deemed "racist." Everything anyone said out of the Clinton camp was racist; no matter whether some or all were coming from people who had spent 30-40 years fighting against racism and descrimination. And by the way, Most members of Obama's family are, in fact, Muslims. I'm not saying he is, per se, but he hasn't come out and defended them. Hasn't come out and said "I'm not, but if I were...so what." What, he can't stand up for his own family? Also, to state as fact (a vice of bourgeois leftists) that she "sided w/ the neocons" is also very simplistic, although slightly more accurate, at least, than calling her a neocon, which is just more incendiary dishonesty. Something else you all seem to forget. Even though I was against the war 6 months before it started, there was at the time (30-90 days in) a very good chance that the US could have provided electricity and political stability w/out letting it all go to Chaos. In other words, they could have "won" the war, for lack of a more accurate description. In fact, I always wondered why Bush didn't just spin it that way: "we won the war, but we're losing the occupation" or something else that wouldn't have buried his legacy in the dustbin of history and saved a little face. I guess he didn't do that because chaos and high oil prices were more what they had in mind in the first place rather than democracy, although it would have been difficult to predict that. Even at this point in time, one gets confused sometimes as to whether they were brilliant and knew exactly what they were doing (chaos theory), or complete idiots. No one who supported that stupid war supported the manner in which it was conducted, including the actions that immediately followed. You may consider this thin logic, but I think it's the same as suggesting that headstart programs don't work, because once you remove them from the program, they devolve to the same sub-levels that preceded it. And of course, McCaine will use the Rumsfeld argument, as he has in the past, to good advantage--even though I question it's longevity. But the point is: please try to be a little more intellectually honest and civil and less hypocritical. It's offensive and harmful, it's splitting the party, and it will ultimately lead to division and defeat...A house united cannot fall, and all that good stuff. J

The Dims have failed again. They've failed to get us out of Iraq, failed to impeach Cheney, and failed to support a progressive candidate. Billary and Obama and McCain all support increased military spending and oppose single-payer. None of them will get us out of Iraq, although the Dims will try to pull the wool over our eyes be designating our soldiers as "non-combat" even while they're being shot at and blown up. With Edwards out of the race, I support Ralph Nader rather than any of the corporate drones.

I am a Hillary opponent, and could only vote for her if my state was a close battleground. That said, I was not an Obama supporter ........ until this morning. His speech changed my mind about him, and now I can feel positive about voting for him rather than against a senile and/or crazy McDubya. Clinton after hearing it should fold her tent ASAP, and let America have at least hold a small hope of saving itself.

It is extremely disturbing to me watch the "teflon coating application" that is so reminiscent of the CORPORATE MEDIA'S APPLICATION OF TEFLON to virtually everything RONNIE said or did.We have two DEMOCRATIC candidates with so many CORPORATE ties that WE are going to NEED the MOST PROGRESSIVE CONGRESS we can get to really have "CHANGE".It is commentators like you that are part and parcel of a "DEIFICATION" process with regards to OBAMA the man and CANDIDATE.Questions about how he would still "use BLACKWATER",his belief there is a "CRISIS" in SOCIAL SECURITY, he will NOT be "wedded" to a "ROLL-BACK' of the "BUSH TAX-CUTS", why did Bob Farmer(DEMOCRATIC fund-raiser) quit OBAMA'S campaign, his own MINISTER describing OBAMA as "being more CONSERVATIVE" than him,his HEALTH plan proposal with its resulting :free riders",that he, OBAMA would CONTINUE to use SIGNING STATEMENTS as President, etc.,etc. are obviously NOT food for thought and OPEN DISCUSSION/COMMENTARY.It is startling that OBAMA would invoke, "CHANNEL" if you will, "RONNIE with regards to his desire "to move" the nation as "RONNIE" did? Which of RONNIE'S ideas is he referring to...supply-side/trickle-down economics whose resulting record deficits nearly BANKRUPTED the country(GWB has surpassed that achievment ten-plus fold),destroy UNIONS,negate and make ineffective all government agencies mandated to protect us, contra-drugs and a NANCY "NO TO DRUGS" hypocrisy, the potential suspension of CIVIL RIGHTS programs he brought from California,etc.,etc., ALL of this while the CORPORATE MEDIA constantly "TEFLON COATED"his statements, policies, programs regardless how UNRELATED to the REALITIES of our lives at the time? Is it political"naivte'", lack of knowledge, or what...raising the question that ultimately leads to wondering is it this same TEFLON generating DEIFICATION PROCESS that was what he, OBAMA was referring to???????? Jay Leno, was recently quoted, in commenting on "concerns" about "where" the CANDIDATES where "born", pointing out that McCain was born in the "CANAL ZONE", Clinton "outside of Chicago...And if you believe the media, Barack Obama was born in a manger"! ENOUGH!

Does Obama even stand a chance anymore? If he doesn't get the nomination, will it be enough to make me vote for Ralph. Almost. As an older, (49+) white female I can't say I was happy with the way Hillary voted on the war. If, as she said, she didn't understand what George would do with the power she gave him, then she doesn't deserve the presidency. I got it! This was a crass and cynical attempt at the "free-trade utopian experiment" of Paul Bremmer and before him William Kristol, that is still raking it in for the greedy friends of the administration who cooked it up. And if I can figure it out, it can't be too hard. I like Obama and voted for him in Illinois' primary but if he doesn't get the nominatation, I can't figure how she will be anything but more "Business as usual." And the BIG business oligarchy is the real, underlying problem to all of this. Our chickens HAVE come home to roust. See 'Confessions of an Economic Hitman' by John Perkins and you will finally understand why so much of the rest of the world has been ruined by the real economic policy about which we hear nothing in the press. (Unless you listen to NPR.) If you see someone cheating someone else, you can speculate how their behavior will apply to yourself. These very greedy people that have pillaged the rest of the world have finally noticed the people of their own country as the next target. They don't hold to quaint ideas of "country" or any kind of geo-political allegiances. And with George in charge, they need only ask him for permission to write the legislation. Looking at NAFTA, I worry that Hillary will be in the pockets of these very greedy people who wrote that and other legislation. I don't have any proof that Obama will be very different, he is untried. But I can say that Hillary has a track record that demonstrates that she has corporate sympathy, almost as much as McCain. If we could just focus long enough in this attention-deficit riddled society of ours, maybe we could talk about these issues. People are dying, can't we please pay attention?! Jennifer Shroder — Elgin, IL ——— I don't belong to any organized political party, I'm a Democrat. —Will Rogers

Remember when you learned long division? I kinda do, but it's been a while. It would appear that the Democratic Party has a choice to make. Does it want long, or short division? Does it want the division in the party to last over the long haul, or for the short term? If the short term option is chosen, Hillary needs to withdraw after Pennsylvania. The Party needs to stick to issues. It needs to start opposing Republicans. Not Democrats. If the long term option is chosen, the Party leadership will allow Ms. Clinton until the primary in Puerto Rico, to convince the American people that Barack Obama cannot be elected to the oval office. John McCain wins. We all lose. In matters of national security, those Republican voter cross-overs who got her wins in Texas, Ohio, and other "open" primary states, will go back home. Progressives, feeling cheated, will stay home. So will blacks. So will the young people who have so re-energized a stagnant party. So will a lot of other people who would rather have "hope" than "fear." Florida doesn't re-vote. Michigan is a new ball game. Texas told Clinton "no." It's time for her to drop the pretense of running for national office, to provide cover for the goal, which is really, to destroy the progressive movement in the Democratic Party. Hillary, Bill, Terry, you had your time. As of now, your time has past.

That is exactly the division in the Dem party. I'd also like to point out that we are not the party of blind devotion. We argue and that's fine, as long as it's about the issues. What's happened over the past few weeks from the Clinton campaign is un-democratic lunacy. But let's not forget the wisdom of one of our elders: "I don't belong to an organized political party, I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers.

But then as an activist for low income women for years, I know Hillary Clinton could have cared less about the millions of women she supports plunging into permanent poverty with Welfare DeFormed. Where women used welfare to get an education, she supports denying that. When women live in depressed areas where there are no jobs, too bad, throw the whole family, babies included, out on the street. Perpetuating the myth that welfare benefits women of color the most when in reality more white women than women of color are on welfare, she is right there. Low income women in her district have been standing below her office window in NY city for years trying to tell her what is happening right under her nose and she refuses to hear them. Welfare DeFormed says that parenting is "doing nothing" and the *only* way you can contribute to your community is to work a McJob, any job even if it will not even pay the rent. Anyone who thinks this law only applies to poor women, think again. It is saying to ALL Americans raising the next generation is "doing nothing!" If raising the next generation is truly "doing nothing" ask yourself sometime, since we are now paying the previous generations' Social Security, who is going to pay yours? Who is going to run this country when you are too old to do it? Are YOU going to get out there and fight for your country with your cane? Raising the next generation is one of the most important jobs we are doing, and this is "doing nothing" to the likes of Hillary Clinton? And who is it that is doing most of the work raising this next generation? Who are the poorest and most maligned people in this country? Women! Hillary Clinton could care less about women or she would be very concerned about the plight of her low income sisters and she turns a blind eye. This is because she only cares about the elite, not you and I. Or she would have a better record with promoting better programs to support the low income, and she would be talking about poverty more. Because those of us who have a sense of community already know what she does not get: what hurts the least of us, hurts us all. My 2 cents, Cat In Seattle >^..^<

P.M. Carpenter wrote, "Some political acts are so cowardly, so callous, so cynically motivated and lastingly harmful AS TO SHUT DOWN ANY CONSIDERATION OF FORGIVENESS [capitalization my emphasis]. Hillary's was one of them. Absent it, her...'35 years of experience' would have blown away Barack Obama. This would have been no contest." Mr. Carpenter has clearly identified the key issue for Democrats to consider in this primary election. Unfortunately, Mrs. Clinton represents the entrenched, dysfunctional majority of the Democratic Party. I am an "over-50 white male working-class veteran gay rural Pennsylvanian." I shall be voting for Senator Obama in the primary. If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, I'll be voting Green (if there is a Greem to vote for) or with my feet to the EU. At least, with a President Obama, we will have a modicum of hope that this country might move beyond the stagnant, self-destructive status quo of the NEW "Old Jim Crow" Democrats, who have a selfish vested interest in preserving the status quo to the world's detriment. Jude Rene' Montarsi

Amen. Hillary is in the process of destroying the Democratic Party.

Make no mistake -- this flap about Wright and digging up video of all his sermons was done by Democrats, not repugs. Most likely, Clinton and her supporters. This morning MSNBC all but declared Barack Obama's candidacy dead, using phrases like "fatal blow" and "have to drop out of the race." No one can tell me that the Clintons aren't behind this. Congratulations America and the Clinton Dynasty -- you've proven that you are utterly without scruples and are horrifically racist. You've virtually destroyed the best thing that could have happened to this country, and what we're left with is old John McBush and old Hillary Clinton -- old Washington, the old ways, "it's how things are done in DC," old politics of fighting and division, dishonesty, big money interests, red states and blue states. And congratulations also to the Democratic National Committee who demonstrated a remarkable ability to stand on the sidelines and allow all of this to happen. Nice going Howard Dean, and all the so-called "party elders" who stood by and continually wiped the spattered blood off themselves but kept on watching, saying nothing, doing nothing. Kiss the black party voters goodbye, because you've shown you don't care. Democrats hopes for the White House are gone, kaput, because Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Hatred for her in this country is stronger than the racism Obama might have faced. Now for the next several months, we get to relive the Bill Clinton years and everything that comes with it -- the scandals, the humiliations, the mockery, the cheapnesss, the sleaze. Yes, we get to dig it all up again, and won't that be fun. Gee, it'll be like 2000 all over again! I'm feeling nostalgic already. Then it'll be the McCain years and all the wonders he will bring to us -- 100 years of war, bombing of Iran, the death rattle of the middle class, the country going bankrupt while the lobbyists and the rich feed at the trough of whatever is left, rampant corporate policymaking and ruling over the peons, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, no taxes for the rich whatsoever, fanatical Christian right extremists finally getting their way as we move toward theocracy. I don't know about everyone else, but I'm packing my bags, renewing my passport and and getting the hell outta here.

Your article is part of that sad battle; instead of speaking graciously of both sides of the party and attempting to see both sides of the argument and reconcile their differences you actually take sides and fill your article with republican hatred towards one of our candidates. We have had one president of consequence since LBJ and if you keep the hatred alive we will never have another. Believe it or not I have voted Democrat since 1960 and I am a Clinton supporter and I will support Obama if he is the nominee but I am saddened at the hatred you show towards any Democrat who disagrees with you.You are a new breed of democrat that I don't recognize.