Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Could This Eventually Be the End of the Democratic Party?

Submitted by pmcarpenter on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 7:22am.

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

Talk about being out of touch: "Pennsylvania did the job of calming any nerves that existed. It showed that the big states around the country think she's the best person to be president."

Those whistling-through-the-graveyard words were crooned by Clinton campaign spokesman Jay Carson, who, at the time, must have been either drunk or off his medication. Pennsylvania calmed nerves? -- rather than shattering the almost partywide hope that finally, at long last, a stake would be driven through the merciless heart of the Campaign That Wouldn't Die?

The quote did perform a public service, however, in that it showed just how colossally egocentric the Clinton campaign is. Here we have a preconvention situation in which supporters of the last two candidates standing -- one, barely -- are going at each other with a verbal brutality unequaled since 1968, and all Mr. Carson experiences is relief. Next, his candidate will be assuring us that it's not all about her.

Yet the Washington Post pointedly differed with Mr. Carson in its coverage of Pennsylvania's aftermath: "The protracted and increasingly acrimonious fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is unnerving core constituencies -- African Americans and wealthy liberals -- who are becoming convinced that the party could suffer irreversible harm if Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton maintains her sharp line of attack against Sen. Barack Obama."

You will note not only the obvious -- that, objectively speaking, the situation is broadly seen as "unnerving," despite Carson's characterization -- but the Post's subsequent, more subtle wording about cause and effect. According to the Post, these "core constituencies" aren't emotionally unraveling because of any perceived threat to their candidate's eventual nomination, but merely because of the opposing candidate's "sharp line of attack."

In other words, Sen. Clinton's nomination is now seen by even the mainstream press as irretrievably doomed. It's her present attacks, and not any down-the-road threat to Obama's nomination, that unnerve, and the situation is now being reporting as such with all due objectivity. It's a subtle journalistic shift, but a shift nonetheless.

Far less subtle, however, is what these core constituencies are now projecting openly; and what they're projecting is nothing less than a virtual race war within the Democratic Party, which the press -- until it catches up to this reality, as it finally did with the nomination battle -- prefers to call a "rift": 

"[Majority Whip James] Clyburn accused Clinton and her husband yesterday of marginalizing black voters and opening a rift between her campaign and [the] African American Democratic base.... Some surrogates in her camp are trying to render Obama unelectable against the Republican nominee so she could run for the Democratic nomination in 2012, he suggested."

One can easily, and perhaps more precisely, substitute "ghettoizing" for "marginalizing" and "blue-collar males and older white women" for "her campaign" and, presto, suddenly read the writing on the wall -- a simmering ethnocultural war that will, in time, boil over into clearly defined, unpatchable factional ruptures within the party.

Clyburn's "suggestion" is finding prominent and outspoken allies, such as Rep. William Clay, who further suggested to the senator from New York: "If you have any, any kind of loyalty to the Democratic Party, perhaps you need to rethink your strategy and bow out gracefully in order to save this party from a disastrous end in November."

For now, Clay's projection extends no farther than November. He's restraining himself.

Clyburn, on the other hand, is already pondering the underhanded ramifications for 2012.

But give this matter another couple of months and the same or equally prominent Democratic voices will be talking openly not merely of a problematic 2008, or Clinton's designs on 2012, but of the ultimate unraveling of the party itself.

For the Democratic Party to endure nationally as the oldest political party in the world, which it quite literally is, it requires the allegiance of both Clinton's camp and Obama's. If the latter is deprived of that former allegiance in 2008, then Clinton can forget about 2012, because there's a rather good chance that the party will have long since and permanently divided.

For the Clintons, characteristically, that's a problem to worry about tomorrow, since they care only about today. But for rank-and-file Democrats who care about tomorrow, it's a problem to worry about now.

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter




»

americas doomed either way but

Submitted by godblessfdr on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 8:01am.
people have forgotten because of too many media lies.this country was built by liberals.The only liberal running in the primarys was Dennis Kucinich who was marginalized by the news media and so called Democrats.I have finally come to the conclusion that i will vote for Obama,I was undecided whether to vote at all.Bill Clinton was a Republican in all but name only who catered to the corporations by passing Nafta and setting up an anti worker national labor board.Hillary follows the same kind of southern conservative democratic policies.Obama won"t stop Americas problems,he is too much of an in the box Democrat.He may slow down the rot of America but McCain and Clinton will further accelerate that rot.I often wondered if America when faced by anotheer great financial challenge would elect another FDR and the answer was a resounding no.So we have another hold your nose and vote for the best of the worst and Obama is that choice unfortunately
»

And What if The Democratic Nominee Is For Staying The Course?

Submitted by crackerjack on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 10:55pm.
"We support someone else?" "Why?" "Either we end the Iraq War or it'll be the end of us." "But who?" "Someone who if elected is going to end the Iraq War, negotiate with Iran plus turning things around here at home." "And then what sort of world?" "It'll be up to us."
»

Time to address the deeper and more problematic divisions.

Submitted by hazmaq on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 9:20pm.

The internal problems of the party are not what most people think they are. And the two camps cannot be resolved - because part of Clinton's camp doesn't owe any allegiance to the Democratic party. Those are the same who admit they'll vote Republican, rather than for Obama.
No true Democrat would ever vote for a Republican Bush/convert like McCain. Unless you were an 'issue' voter first, a Democrat second.
And the Clinton's pandering to those issues began in 94', coincidentally in unison with these 12 long years of election failures and the demise of the Democratic party itself.
Hillary now suffers as a candidate more because of her actions and votes to appease those same interests.

A new article by Avrham Burg of Haaretz spells it out in stark words:
"..the Jewish lobby in Washington - is the bluntest conceptualization of institutionalizing near treason and turning it into an enormous octopus of a political mechanism with enormous dimensions and numerous victims."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/978118.html
And one of the biggest victim was the Democratic party, who became so weak, so watered down with hand picked hard line Democrats they couldn't gain a majority to override the Republicans, because most of the newer hard line Democrats now voted with the Republicans, both by choice and by the vote controlling fearmongering used by Emanuel and Schumer. Every election brought fewer and fewer Democrats out to vote and the party declined more rapidly than the Republicans. We ceased to be, in effect.

The following instance defined the perverse problems Burg refers to:
In late summer of 2006 Israel dumped over 400,000 cluster bomblets in 3 days, over all of Lebanon, after a cease fire was announced. The world rose up in anger not only at the disproportionate use of cluster bombs over a border skirmish incident, but at the silence of the US for the 34 day long blitzkrieg by Israel.
The first distasteful thing that happened was that the only member of our Congress who publicly spoke out and blasted Bush and rice to get off their asses and stop the war, was Chuck Hagel. Not one Democrat spoke out.
-Worse though, in the House Chris Van Hollen, a new member of Congress from Maryland. wrote a simple letter to Rice asking her to intervene. Several weeks later AIPAC took him on a all expense paid vacation to Israel, and upon his return he came out publicly and apologized to Israel for for implying Israel had done anything wrong. Van Hollen - a new congressman -was given the reigns of the DCCC shortly after, taking over Emanuels job.

The second and final connected event came in the Senate. Diane Feinstein offered up legislation only asking to place a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas. She had the world virtually behind her as well as the majority of Democrats, including Obama.

Hillary Clinton joined with all of the Republicans and a few of those same hard line Democrats, to defeat the bill.

When Democrat cross the aisles to save cluster bombs, but not the minimum wage - they aren't Democrats. And quite frankly aren't people I ever want to associate with.

Nationalism is not terrorism. And an adversary is not an enemy.

»

Let it Go

Submitted by Uncle Goat on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 9:20pm.
Here in the 28th year of the Reagan Administration, it is laughable to worry about the "death" of the Democratic Party. It's gone, son, the rotting corpse of the donkey occassionaly looks like there's life in it, but those are maggots feasting away. Our system has boiled down to millionaires working for billionaires, and we the people are beneath their notice. The boys of K-street write our laws, the Senate and House are just cash machines for networks and other special interest. The American Experiment ended solidly in 2000. Like the Democrats, it's gone. Let it go. Let it go. Stop thinking in terms of whether or not Hillary or Barack can save the nation. They can't. Because they're living in clouds and we're stuck here on the ground. Stop worrying about McCain becoming president and assume he will become president. The GOP is skilled in stealing national elections and since the remains of the other party are prepared to split apart even further, the "election" of 2008 will be another easy one to rig. We need to stop wringing our hands and nodding our heads in agreement to well-meaning, but pointless, Op-ed pieces in the paper and on the web. We need to take to the streets and start fighting for our freedoms. In any way we can. We need to be public nusances. We need to be blocking traffic. We need to be screaming at the top of our lungs, knocking things over, getting attention. Sitting at home patting ourselves on our backs for being smarter than the average reader of USA Today isn't cutting it anymore. Until we're willing to take giant risks in our comforts, we're no better off than cows in the slaughter pen. Knowing and not acting is the same as not knowing, people. We need to show our anger in more places than a small online group.
»

More on demographics

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 6:05pm.

I was born in '42 and live in MA. Educated in NY and MA, never went to a segregated school.
As I've written here many times before I've been dissatisfied with Clinton's Iraq vote since the day she made her little speech, which I happened to hear live, and voted "yea." She's never disavowed her vote and any nonsense about "we didn't know" is horse shit, because sitting here in Cambridge I knew not to trust Bush at all. I saw a few Iraqi movies presented at Harvard last week and was thereby reminded of the 1990's sanctions against Iraq and that several hundred thousand infants and children are thought to have died because of lack of food and medicines. Now it seems to me that she's defending Bill Clinton's administration.
Then she says she'll "obliterate" Iran if they attack Israel. Wow! That is appalling.

I'm sick of the Clintons, sick of their joint sense of entitlement, convinced that Bill will not play the usual hands off presidential spouse role, think we need someone who is not a Bush or a Clinton.

I'm right in the Clinton demographic but I'm not a fan.
I will vote for the Democrat, come hell or high water. McCain is a loose cannon.
Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

»

Re Demographics

Submitted by Juli in Jax on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 7:39pm.
Thanks, Colleen, JCARV and Citizen over 50. I appreciate your experiences and your analyses of the "Women not necessarily for Hillary Clinton" demographic. It is still a puzzle to me how my Sister and I are so opposed in this primary season, but as you have also indicated, I will vote for the candidate who is not John McCain. I am just terribly concerned that our Party and the Progressive ideals the Democratic Party purportedly upholds are being whittled away by this sad and fruitless obsession of the Clintons to regain power. I have to agree with Congressman Clyburn about how this continued struggle against reality is threatening to fracture the Party AND may allow McCain to appear a sane alternative to those sickened by the spectacle of the two Democratic camps. Thank You, Ladies for restoring my faith in the wisdom of those slightly my elder.
»

Clinton's Actions

Submitted by ernieson on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 5:45pm.
The Clintons did a pretty good job of hurting themselves with their lies and attempts to cover them with other lies and lame excuses. I once admired them, but their dirty tactics and dishonesty cost them their credibility in many many voters' eyes. It would seem that they have sacrificed integrity for ego and ambition. The welfare of a nation is more important than the ambition of a pair desiring to occupy the White House a second time. In jeopardy now is the strength of the Dem Party this year and the dark thought of a Republican being the next occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
»

2012

Submitted by quousque on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 4:14pm.

If a Democrat other than Hillary is not elected President in 2008, then America is a goner. Our noble experiment hangs by that thin a thread.

Identity grouping is killing the Democratic party ......... get over it!

»

cj

Submitted by cj on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 1:42pm.
The biggest problem for people like me was the the way the progressive websites amd Obama supporters ganged up on the Clintons with viscous attacks, using GOP talking points to degrade them and treating Obama as though he has no faults. Why is the campaign fighting the inclusion of Florida and Michigan's right to a voice in the nominee? Why is Obama ducking a debate with Hillary one-on-one? Is it because his campaign knows Obama would show his lack of knowlege and detail when compared to Hillary.
»

A word from a Florida voter

Submitted by Juli in Jax on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 8:41pm.
CJ, I appreciate your concern about us Florida Dems, but let me tell you about the Florida Democratic Party. Karen Thurman, our State Party Chair, came to JAX after the 2004 elections to admonish us all that the Party would have to voice more "moderate" stances if we ever wanted to win back the White House. I stood up at that meeting and furiously pointed out to her that Kerry did indeed win and that election fraud spearheaded by Ken Blackwell in OHIO effectively stole the election right out from under us all. She would have none of that truth, but rather advocated stepping further to the Right of Center as the Party line. Thurman is a useless pile of suet, as is Steve Geller (a State Senator) and Bill Nelson, our national Senator. Bob Graham, who was the ranking member on the Senate Intelligence Committee voted against the Authorization for the Use of Military Force in Iraq; Nelson voted for it. Most of the Florida Democratic Party is in the pocket of Senator Clinton, and they will play just as many dirty tricks to get her elected as the Repugs did for GWBush in 2000. Why can't the Clinton Campaign win without breaking the rules? Fewer Florida Dems turned out to vote than Repugs on January 29th, something Steve Geller neglected to mention in his little rant on CSPAN a few weeks ago, and this half truth is being promulgated by Clinton enablers like Ed Rendell and by YOU, CJ. Florida Dems knew their vote in the primary wasn't going to be counted, but many of us turned out anyway because of Proposition One, to reduce our property taxes and thereby starve the public school system. Prop One passed overwhelmingly throughout the State, thanks to low Democratic turnout. So don't lecture me about the poor disenfranchised voters of Florida. Our State Party blew it by trying to jump ahead in line, hoping Hillary Clinton's name recognition would give her the edge in an early primary. To award her the delegates now would be the real disenfranchisement. Play it fair and campaign on your merits; don't try to rig another Florida election!
»

Really?

Submitted by bettysdad on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 7:49pm.
Please list the ganging up, viscous attacks and GOP talking points used by progressive websites that were not TRUE. The favorite trick of Mrs. Bill Clinton's supporters is to conflate a legitimate attack based on facts with a smear. Ain't so. Also, whenever she lies about Obama and he counters the lie, her campaign complain he's not sticking to his "new politics." They're truly insane liars.
»

Ever watch MSNBC,listend to

Submitted by cj on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:02pm.
Ever watch MSNBC,listend to Air America, read blogs on Buzzflash, Huffington Post, or Kos? They have consistantly demonized her and have never once have a seen a negative article about Obama, is he perfect? Why has Buzzflash not commented about Obama's reluctance to debate one-one so we can really judge who really is the most qualified to run the country? Why has Buzzflash never had an article about the Obama campaigns blocking of any comprimse to include Florida and Michigan? (his comprimise is a 50-50 split in a state she would have won. And as far as Florida, both names were on the ballot and Obama lost big there.
»

Deservedly, CJ

Submitted by drprodny on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 1:12am.
Samantha Powers Was Right - and So Is Reverend Wright. God DAMN the Monster DLC "Centrist" Rethug Lite Clintons!
»

Demographics

Submitted by Juli in Jax on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 12:12pm.
My sister was born in '54, I was born in '59; she's in Boston, MA, I'm in Jacksonville, FL; we're both married, both have kids in middle school, both are professional working women with post-graduate degrees, making over 50K per year. She's for Clinton, I'm for Obama. So what is the rationale for each of us? We both want BushCo impeached, indicted and imprisoned--she thinks Clinton will make that agenda a top priority, while neither of us think Obama will. I'm looking for redemption for our nation in the world as well as here at home, and am convinced that Obama's agenda has re-engaged the electorate and energized the Youth vote. I don't want to just take back the White House and the Senate in 2009; I want a Progressive Majority in governance for at least the next 16-20 years. My Sis thinks Obama is a stealth Republican who will do their bidding and never hold THEM accountable. She continues in this frame of mind DESPITE Clinton's vote FOR the Iraq War authorization, her bellicose rhetoric about attacks on Iran, her vote for the bankruptcy reform bill, for the use of cluster bombs against civilian populations.... the only real difference I've been able to discern in our up-bringing is that I started school in a desegregated system, while she was already out of grade school when Florida Public schools were desegregated. Or maybe it is her closer geographic location to the attacks of September 11th, 2001. We both talked to each other that day, both new about PNAC and the pre-requisite "new Pearl Harbor", both felt the attacks had been forseeable and preventible. PM, you do the demographic math: why the split within such a similar cohort?
»

I am your sister's age...

Submitted by jcarv on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 4:03pm.
born in '54, and I agree with you entirely. Hillary voted for Bush's war, and tries to talk tough, to the point that she threatens Iran with "obliteration". Hillary hasn't pushed for a Bush impeachment, and she isn't going to go after him for war crimes... there is absolutely no reason to think so. Also, it is clear that Hillary and Bill are not truthful people. Why do we want someone like that in the White House again? I can't believe that there is a Democrat alive who will still vote for Hillary after the Tuzla lie, and the remark about "obliterating" Iran.
»

Not all Older White Women Want Hillary!

Submitted by Citizen over 50 on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 12:52pm.
I was born in '52 and I am married, kids are raised adults in their mid 30's and was a professional working woman without the degrees, but also once earned over $50K a year. I can't work anymore because I am disabled with an illness, and that experience has given me insight to the future of fixed incomes and the tribulation faced by seniors like healthy people can never have. I know how tenuous that line is between wealth and no wealth. I also know how too much importance is placed on it. I remember my first campaign. I was dating a guy who was working for Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy entered the race. I jumped ship so fast that guy never found out where I went to. Bobby was like Obama in that he was able to draw the progressive hopeful elements of our young people into what is commonly called "a movement". And our movement had heart.. and soul.. and purpose. We had a vision of the future that was never realized because Bobby was murdered and that final blow to the movement was indeed, the one that demoralized us. That demoralization cost us FIFTY YEARS of living in a country that never ever became what we envisioned it to become. It's why we are stuck on gasoline; breathing and eating pollution and monster food made by factories and chemical companies. It is why our wealth has been stripped from us and we have been relegated to the position of peasantry. We act like a nation of whipped puppies, peeing on the carpet when they show us a picture of a bogeyman in a cave (who is long dead by the way) a half a world away, who, by the way, has no navy. This is NOT the America I was raised to envision or believe in. We wanted unions and fair wages. We wanted clear skies and clean lakes and streams and land that was not permeated with chemicals and radioactive waste (which is being shipped in from Iraq to hide the sins of this administration). We wanted ELECTRIC CARS. We wanted SOLAR ROOFTOPS. Did you young people know they had solar panels back in the 1960's? And electric cars? They have been there all the time but nobody will pick up the ball and fund it because everyone who does suddenly DIES. I voted for Obama because he is energizing the young to have hope in the future again and they have vision and are forming a movement, which is what is REQUIRED to overthrow the republican machine that has ground America down into poverty. It is time. This generation is filling the halls of the schools and it is THEIR ideas that should rule there, not the sick antiquated totalitarian lies of the republican bullies forced on everyone by their bully children and passive school teachers. People are all but worn out on this model and it is time for a CHANGE. A BIG CHANGE. Having Clinton Round Two; the gift that keeps on giving to corporations, and subduing the masses with bells and whistles and LIES... is not going to build a future at all. It will just become another PLACE MARK in history that will hold the line on the masses until the republicans can regroup and stuff another zelot into the white house again and re-stuff the congress. Of course all the while they will continue to protect the unlawful supreme court judges who should be impeached because they have made unconstitutional calls and because they were put on the bench by hacks who should be before the court of the Hague. You see, if we find the honchos of the current administration guilty of war crimes it follows that everything they built and everyone they placed should then be removed. THIS is the fear they have and why they want a place mark. We need a movement to take them down. We need to pass the torch to a new generation and let them build a future we no longer have the time to build. The old starchy stubborn biddies who are standing behind Hillary are quite out of their minds. They do not see America in prospective and they have no faith in the young people. They should be ashamed of themselves for doing this to their own children, to their own nation. I stand by my belief that the youth can carry the future and that Obama is the right person for them to have as a leader. I am an old white woman and that is what I think.
»

Commonsense is More than Impressed!

Submitted by commonsense on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 8:03pm.
What a magnificent statement! "Citizen over 50" a more well-put analysis and description of the present moment has not appeared in these blogs.
»

It's the country I'm concerned about

Submitted by rabidlyindependent on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:55am.
Our country is in peril. There can really be no doubt of that. What is even in less doubt is from where the threat comes and that is from within. (That is not to say that there is not an exterior threat now, where one did not exist before the last 7 years. That threat is not military but, rather, economic and even that threat is caused by our governments policies.) As people typically do, we cling to that which is familiar in times of great stress. But what do either of the parties stand for anymore? The Republicans have turned into theocratic fascists on a suicidal, imperialist adventure. The country cannot endure one more year of their insanity. I'm concerned that Hillary's slime machine and Obama's former pastor will be the least of our concerns by November. Who knows what the hell the Democrats stand for anymore? There are the DLCers, the blue dogs and who knows what all else. Obama is the nearest I have seen to a Kennedy Democrat since Bobby was murdered, so I will be willing to crawl over hot coals to vote for him, but I can't say I care much about what happens to either political party. They have both failed the people of this country so many times in the last forty years with empty promises and out right criminal lies, it simply makes me sick and I cannot trust people who know longer stand for anything but greed, gluttony and lust for power. It borders on pure national insanity. Maybe it is better for the political parties to fall apart rather than the nation go to pieces. Maybe neither can be prevented by this late date, as the very thing that makes Americans "a people" is our constitution and both parties have sat by and watched this heathen, sociopathic administration rip it to shreds. We are dying for lack of authenticity in this nation. Barack Obama appears to be authentic. With this man, I honestly believe that what you see is what you get. I like what I see. It takes me back to another time, before America's streets ran red with the blood of Kennedys, Dr King and many lesser known young people who were beaten in the streets, jailed and killed on college campuses and everything blew sky high. No, we can't go back. But we can and must go forward. The obvious leader for these times is the living product of the vision of the country we all had back then.
»

Hillary holds the coalition cards

Submitted by pgbowden on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:41am.
I listened to Al Sharpton's radio show last week and you'd be hard-pressed to find an African-American who is not convinced that what Rep. Clyburn said is true--that Hillary is deliberately sabotaging Obama this year to set up her own run in 2012 (thank God Clyburn said it in the MSM). Of course, it really doesn't matter what year Hill picks to run because she'll never be a democratic president without the support of blacks--ergo, after her (and Bill's) conduct this year she'll almost surely never be president. So there are two questions now. How long will it take her to accept this reality (i.e.- how long does she plan to drag this year's nomination out); And how will she bow out when it becomes apparent she's lost. Will she lose with grace? Will she be conciliatory and sing Obama's praises (as I'm sure he will hers)? Or will she pull a Ted Kennedy ala 1980. It is Hillary that holds the democratic coalition cards. How will she play them? Does she really want a democrat to win this year? Or do African-Americans have her properly pegged? Only time will tell.
»

Could the Dems soon pass from the Scene?

Submitted by crimson ghost on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:23am.
Democratic party problems go way beyond the current antics of the Clintons. There is a fundamental conflict between the party's progressive base and the pro-corporate, pro-war, and pro-Zionist policies favored by many of its big funders. Ad a great Republican President once said "a house divided against itself cannot stand". The Dems could well go the way of the Whigs if they lose in November to a clone of the worst and most unpopular President in US history. They could also self-destruct if they win in November but only tinker around the edges of the many major problems facing the nation.
»

Maybe the way it should be

Submitted by smchris on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 10:56am.
If we are _ever_ going to get more than the choice of the greater evil or the lesser evil, what better name for a viable third party than the "New Democrats". What better start than a large base that is already motivated.
»

I agree

Submitted by cagey on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 12:21pm.
Or maybe, the Independence Party. Obama already has the large, highly motivated base, and could draw huge numbers of disaffected Democrats and Republicans to it.
»

Constitutional Party

Submitted by lastbastionofreason on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 1:37pm.
I would bet that more than 60% of Americans would join that party. The one that remembers and promises to follow the Constitution, which is what this country is all about. Not flag pins, not preachers of any candidate, not friends. Just the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
»

How about an American Workers Party?

Submitted by Citizen over 50 on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 12:58pm.
One that stands up for the rights and needs of the American workers? Not the American corporations. Let's get real, it's corporations versus workers. Of course, we can take it all down in a month if we quit buying their products and quit working for them. Don't you think? Just sit down and DO NOTHING AT ALL. JUST....... QUIT! That would get their attention don't you think? Anyone stepping into the void would be stopped from doing so. At least I didn't call for a RIOT! Like Limbaugh has done.
»

Hillary Clinton = Lurleen Wallace

Submitted by JosephEBacon on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 12:28pm.
Whatever respect I had for her is gone. Her crucifixion of Reverend Wright shows that Lurleen Clinton has become the Veruca Salt of American politics. She is the penultimate spoiled brat who insists that Daddy Bill gets her whatever she wants and if she cant get the Presidency, then she will mortally wound Obama so he cant get it. The Clintons have been shown for what they really are, self centered insatiable narcissists who will do anything to get what they want. Neither one of them care about building up the Democratic Party. They only care about themselves. We saw this before when Bill Clinton just let the rest of the party wither on the vine. We need a STRONG Democratic majority big enough to bypass the chicken Blue Dogs who still shudder and shake whenever Bush farts on them. the damage that President Cokehead has done to this country is deep and wide. It will take a generation to clean Bush's skidmarks off of the Constitution. And as for Bill Clinton, his race baiting has exposed him for what he really is--George Wallace in a latex mask. Deep down inside, old Slick Willy wants to walk in Wallace's footsteps. Just as his pal George skirted around term limits by having Lurleen run to succeed him, so is Slick Willy getting Hillary to do the same Lurleen two-step. Sorry folks, but the last thing we need is Lurleen Clinton bringing us more NAFTA, more triangulation, more deregulation, more empty rhetoric, more broken dreams and just think of four more years of your Corporate Controlled Conservative Press (CCCP, sounds familiar????) chasing what's behind Bill Clinton's zipper. If L'il Lurleen actually gets away with stealing the Democratic nomination, 2010 will be a rerun of 1994. The last thing America needs is giving the Republican party another blank check. She has to be stopped. Now is the time for Gore, Pelosi, Reed and Dean to step up to the plate and remind the superdelegates of who has won. It's over, Lurleen.
»

Game of Chicken

Submitted by Coolasice on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 8:37am.
Your points bolster my theory on the Clinton's game of chicken... Hillary's best chance - due to the math not working out for her in any realistic way - is to get Obama to step aside due to his concerns of party break-up or party weakening for the Nov. election. The Clinton strategy seems to me to be to threaten the destruction of the party through exploiting the anger in Florida and Michigan, and the demographic race rift in the democratic party. In essence they are threatening to take it to the end, which would result in party collapse, at least in terms of the party coalition. The strategy counts on Obama's sincere concerns for the bigger picture outcomes and his likely realizing the best outcome for the party and the November election requires him to be the martyr who needs to stept aside - despite being in the lead. Sadly unless the superdelegates step in and with the Clinton's demonstrated ruthlessness and win at any cost tactics it may be the Dems only hope for a victory in November.
»

Game of Chicken

Submitted by Coolasice on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 8:37am.
Your points bolster my theory on the Clinton's game of chicken... Hillary's best chance - due to the math not working out for her in any realistic way - is to get Obama to step aside due to his concerns of party break-up or party weakening for the Nov. election. The Clinton strategy seems to me to be to threaten the destruction of the party through exploiting the anger in Florida and Michigan, and the demographic race rift in the democratic party. In essence they are threatening to take it to the end, which would result in party collapse, at least in terms of the party coalition. The strategy counts on Obama's sincere concerns for the bigger picture outcomes and his likely realizing the best outcome for the party and the November election requires him to be the martyr who needs to stept aside - despite being in the lead. Sadly unless the superdelegates step in and with the Clinton's demonstrated ruthlessness and win at any cost tactics it may be the Dems only hope for a victory in November.
»

I seriously doubt that

Submitted by Barry Schwartz on Sun, 04/27/2008 - 11:34am.
I seriously doubt that Hillary Clinton thinks Obama would consider dropping out. I have seen it suggested by one of Hillary's followers--posted by Josh Marshall under the title "Fascinating", if I remember correctly. I was just as fascinated as Josh was. But Obama isn't dumb enough to try to secure party unity by conceding to an inferior candidate who, being a little bit childish, threatens to break things if she isn't given the nomination; and I think Hillary Clinton is smart enough to know that Obama isn't that dumb. Hillary already has said "We'll be fine" and so I think she understands what she is going to be called upon to do; she and Bill just don't want to do it until the very last minute, meanwhile hanging on by their fingertips, hoping that something, anything, who knows what, will happen. I don't expect her to be enthusiastic about the party supporting Obama over her, but that's just how the cookie crumbles, both for her and for us.
»