Thought for the day

Have Democrats and progressives crossed the point of no return? That’s a serious question.

Why is deciding if voters in FL and MI should count such a difficult decision? That does not bode well. The progressive community has alienated about half of the Democratic Party and have made it such that non-Obama Dems have to go to Fox for “fair” coverage. Meanwhile, the once formidable liberal blog has essentially turned into an Obama 527 and have not bothered to hold him accountable on Universal Health Care, Social Security, gay rights, the war in Iraq, etc. I hear more and more and more every day about Hillary supporters who would rather vote for McCain (believe me, it’s really gonna happen) and Obama and his wife have already said his voters won’t vote for Hillary and that they would “have to think” about voting for Hillary.

Yes, that is politics part of politics and not new. But I think the fundamental difference is that the DNC and many of Obama’s surrogates and progressive supporters are going so far out of their way to justify deliberate disenfranchisement. I believe that’s a Party ending position. And I am starting to believe more and more that we are passing the point of no return for the Democratic Party and the progressive movement. This may very well turn out to be an historic election in that it ends the Democratic Party. I put the odds at 50-50.

Update: See mad4clark.
Update II: If this is accurate, I’ll probably put the odds at the end of the Dems at 70-30. Sigh.

Bookmark and Share

Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Thought for the day

  1. coldH2Owi says:

    You might be correct. Then we’ll probably have a Democratic Party & a Democratic Leadership Council Party. Sounds like you are about ready to take your ball & go home.

  2. Pingback: Thought for the day | Hillary Clinton Chronicles

  3. Janis says:

    It still amazes the hell out of me that Obama and the party bigwigs who are behind him couldn’t just sit tight and wait for him to mature. In four years, or eight, all the rocks in his field would have been overturned one at a time, and he could have replied to them at his leisure. In four or eight years, the gunk hiding beneath them would have dried out and lost interest.

    Why did they insist in shoving him ahead before he was ready? Clearly, people can like Hillary plenty if she’s still neck-and-neck even with the massive blitzkrieg against her.

    What the hell were they thinking? What the fuck is wrong with those people that they could do this? Clearly, it was the worst possible decision they could have made, both for their pet candidate and for the party as a whole.

    I think Hillary could pull it out — I think that she’s almost the only one who could bring things together, because it’s the one and only thing she’s focused on. Obama I’ve come to realize is focused on himself. Scorched-earth in service to the Great One is perfectly okay as far as he’s concerned.

    We’ll have to see. I hope I still have a job in twelve months.

  4. Janis says:

    Thanks for contributing to the problem, cold. A constructive voice as always.

  5. Gilbert Martinez says:

    I think protecting votes is more important than a game of basketball. But perhaps that’s just me.

  6. atdleft says:

    Janis-

    Agreed. cold just proved Gilbert’s point. When Obama supporters defend the disenfranchisement of other Democrats (in the case, FL & MI Dems), defend the demonization of Hillary Clinton by such “progressives” as Randi Rhodes, and use right-wing talking points to attack Hillary’s policy proposals, this does NOTHING to assuage Hillary supporters that all will be well if Obama’s the nominee.

    And btw, this is my first comment here. I’m a long-time lurker, and I’m so glad to see so much great content at Democratic Daily! 🙂

  7. Gilbert Martinez says:

    Welcome, atdleft!

    For me, it’s one thing to trash your opponent–I can get over that, it’s politics–but disenfranchisement?

  8. bjerryberg says:

    The financial system is coming unglued. That is the backdrop to this election and do not forget it, amidst all the ‘inside politics,’ game-playing.

    The financial community is for Barack and bailout–unless, of course, McCain, Gore or Bloomberg seem electable instead.

    Traditional Democratic voters, to date, are heavily for Hillary Clinton–when and where their votes are allowed to be counted.

    So the Democratic Party has to decide whether it serves its voters and the tradition of FDR–or whether the demands of the Anglo-American financial community come first.

    I can hardly wait for the obese Hedge Fund manager, Al Gore, to weigh in for Barack and bailout. The mighty Gore’s endorsement was key , after all, to President Howard Dean’s election.

  9. campskunk says:

    dhonig, the blogger who made bill o’reilly cough up an on-air apology, has the dirt on donna brazile’s finger on the scales which you reference in the 70-30 update. big tent democrat was asking about my diary on myDD, which jerome promoted. i got my info from dhonig, who wrote the definitive monograph on donna’s dirty tricks. read it.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/17261/4418

  10. coldH2Owi says:

    If traditional Democratic voters are so heavily for Sen. Clinton, why hasn’t she won every election so far this season? Could it be that you are wrong? & as far as being constructive goes, this post is about splitting away from the Party because your candidate isn’t way out ahead. I believe Sen. Obama is as centrist as Sen. Clinton. I believe that the centrist point of view is, frankly, not healthy for the country, nor is it at all reflective of where the majority of the country is in term of politics. But I believe either of them will be way better than McCain. I also believe, sadly, that there are a lot of folks who feel entitled. Doesn’t anyone here feel at all odd about a history of Bush/Clintin/Bush/Clinton? This is about bashing Sen. Clinton, people. If I felt like y’all, after ’68, I would never have voted for a Democrat again. I would never have given money. I would never have had a good thing to say about the Party. I took that period of my political life, very early in my life, in fact, back then I had to be 21 years old to vote, but not die in another bullshit, illegal war. & for all the crocodile tears about disenfranchising voters, come on, & move on. I suppose this makes me a hater of females, a terrible person. You’d be wrong.

  11. coldH2Owi

    FYI, there are more centrists and moderates in this country that liberals or conservatives and that is why candidates from both parties tend to court the centrist voters every time there is a presidential election.

  12. coldH2Owi says:

    Ms. Leavey:

    The great Center is, I believe, an invention of the media to make sure we stay controlled. There is no center. If there really was a center, Kerry would be President. Yeats told us years ago that the center cannot hold. I’m actually glad about that. I haven’t seen one really good thing come out a centrist in my life. But, as long as you believe in a center, well, then we will continue to lose the big elections. Don’t believe it, Ms. Leavey, don’t buy into the conventional wisdom. Don’t settle for the dismal

  13. Gabriele Droz says:

    Gilbert,

    I’m all over the place trying to help out on dozens of sites. I see your comments in the same places I visit, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate your efforts. I’ve got limited time to post or write diaries, but you’re in my bookmarks now, and I’ll do what I can to spread links to your site whenever I can.

    Thanks for all your hard work.

  14. coldH2Owi

    Unfortunately in ’04 the center still leaned primary right, FYI. That has changed drastically since then. But since you think you know it all, maybe you should be leading Obama’s campaign and then maybe he might do better against McCain because right now he’s clueless about how to handle McCain.

    Thanks so much for sharing.

  15. It simply amazes be that some bloggers (like Janis) would refer to Barack Obama as our, “pet candidate.” So we have a pet candidate who’s campaign is just a “fairy tail.” (Bill Clinton) Both the manner in which he has conducted his campaign and the content of his two books: “Dreams of My Father” and “The Audacity Of Hope”, prove without any doubt that Barack is a worthy opponent of Hillary’s. Where have we gotten this mistaken notion that a candidate must “wait until it’s their time?” I guess I just didn’t realize that a candidate had a specific time or cycle when it was appropriate for then to run or abstain from running. Obviously many Hillary backers felt that 2008 was ordained for her and her alone. To me Hillary exudes an attitude that the office of the presidency in 2008 was her devine entitlement. It becomes increasingly obvious as this endless campaign wears on that Hillary, and especially Bill, thought that the 2008 Democratic National Convention was to be a corination, not a nomination process. Most former Clinton appointees and confidants like Ed Rendell have remained true to their colors by supporting Hillary. However those who have the utter audacity to jump ship, like Gov. Richardson, have been likened to Judas (Carvel) and bad-mouthed (Bill yesterday in California) It is an established fact that the Clinton’s have a fierce political machine that attacks enemies (often on non-policy issues) and quickly cuts loose former friends, if they have the perception that they have been wronged.
    In “Dreams From My Father” Barack states, “what is most troubling today is the gap between the magnitude of our challenges and the smallness of our policies.” “Many Americans are easily distracted by petty and trivial things and thus thwart the building of any consensus.” I would submit that the Pastor Wright and the Bosnia sniper incidents both qualify as being trivial and petty!! But, of course, these are the things that the media likes to dwell on. Although an Obama supporter, we should really be celebrating the fact that we have two brillant candidates, either of which would make a great President. Once we have settled on a candidate, it is imperative for us to unite. After eight years of this dreadful Bush administration, it is really neither “Hillary’s time” nor “Barack’s time” but “America’s time to shine again!!! Buzz

  16. Buzz

    It wasn’t so long ago that you were quite dismayed by the Pastor Wright issue and expressed that here. People who support Hillary have got passionate reasons why just as Obama supporters do. The Dem Daily is one of the few blogs in the progressive blogosphere that Clinton supporters can discuss their support for her with out being bullied.

  17. coldH2Owi says:

    Bullied?
    Thank you for sharing.

  18. Gilbert Martinez says:

    William, Bill Clinton never referred to Obama’s candidacy as a “fairy tale”. The media’s coverage of Obama’s Iraq stance was what he called a fairy tale.

  19. coldH2Owi

    Yes bullied — many of the large progressive blogs don’t support Clinton and Clinton supporters are regularly bullied on them.

  20. Kendall Johnson says:

    Yes guys,

    History looks like its repeating itself!!! They are shoving this black teenager down our throats, because the good old boys of the democratic party hate women. Well, I can assure that this women will vote for McCain just to make the point!!! I am so angry that they have screwed Clinton so badley for no other reason. Somebody, please give me one!!!! And don’t say that fucking war. Nobody treated that loser John Karry this way. Now I am so angry that I would work against the party for McCain. My party has sold me out. THEY HATE WOMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

  21. Jessica says:

    Kendall: You’ll have to remind me of the last time the democratic party “shoved a black teenager down our throats.” I know you think there’s a huge sexist conspiracy against Hillary and who knows, maybe there is. It’s also possible she got outworked and outorganized when everyone thought she was inevitable.

  22. John P says:

    regarding FL and MI…rules are rules. i don’t think we can call it “disenfranchisement”. even Clinton agreed originally that they should not be seated because they broke the rules. why now should we push to seat them when they benefit just one candidate? if seating them is your only concern, why not split them all 50/50?