GDAB_Store_1008.jpg




Order my book

« Ending The Hubris | Main | "I Think I Made A Reasoned Judgement" »

February 01, 2008

Unity! Fuck Yeah!

Michael Shaw wrote a thoughtful response to my latest Huffington Post item. Seriously, it's a great read and makes a lot of sense.

I stand by my view, though, that it seems like a strange time for the progressive blogotubes to remain neutral. Party unity and loyalty never stopped the blogs from favoring Lamont over Lieberman, or Donna Edwards over Al Wynn. Unity never stopped the blogs from hammering the DLC wing of the party. Unity never stopped the blogs from going after otherwise decent Democrats who supported the wrong side of FISA, Bankruptcy, Iran, Iraq, Military Commissions, etc.

So why now?

We're all going to hug and make-up once there's a presumptive nominee anyway. That's the way it always works. Four years ago, Howard Dean supporters shifted their enthusiasm over to Senator Kerry. In 1992, I published articles in favor of Paul Tsongas but when President Clinton became the presumptive nominee, I switched my support and ended up a feverish defender of all things Clinton for eight years. And I suspect the same thing will happen this year if Senator Obama drops out. Vice versa for supporters of Senator Clinton.

Even the primary process itself is designed to behave like shifting sands. Superdelegates, for example, are out there endorsing candidates all over the place -- but when there's eventually a presumptive nominee, the superdelegates will flip over and support that nominee with whole-hearted enthusiasm and zeal. That's the system even though it's a screwy one.

(On the delegate tip, by the way, a brokered convention is never going to happen. We'll have a presumptive nominee long before then. It would be party suicide -- on either side of this thing. The party, quite simply, won't allow it.)

So that's all I have to say about that. My support for Senator Obama notwithstanding, if Senator Clinton wins the nomination, we'll have to reconcile her Iraq votes, her posture on censorship, her suspicious campaign tactics, and all the rest. But we've done it before and we'll do it again.

Posted By Bob Cesca | February 1, 2008 03:44 PM | DIGG ME!

Comments

I'm going to keep my opinion to myself as I am not a member of Democratic Party (but will be if Obama is the nominee). You know you have my support.

Good luck Democrats, that's all I can say. Seriously, good fucking luck (no snark intended).

Posted by: lnbno13 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 04:05 PM

I'm gonna go on record as being an Obama supporter, but I have to agree that if Hillary wins the nomination, we have to rally behind her and not bolt to some no-chance johnny-come-lately such as Nader or Bloomberg. That would insure a Republican't win in November, and do we want four or eight more years of these mean-spirited, regressive assholes? I don't think so.

Posted by: bajasteve [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 05:58 PM

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but to some, as an only choice, she’s just as regressive as McCain. I assure you, whether you like it or not, whether you want to discount them by calling them stupid, if Clinton is the nominee a whole lot of people will be staying home next November. Independents and Republicans who would have never imagined voting for a Democrat are voting for Obama, a lot of them, but they’ll never vote for a Clinton, ever.

Posted by: lnbno13 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 1, 2008 08:47 PM

There's no way Hillary is as regressive as McCain. She's for universal health care, she wants to bring the troops home, she wants to let the Bush tax breaks for the obscenely rich expire, she wants to help folks who are facing foreclosure.

Hell, I supported the war at first. Maybe simply because I'm retired military, but I supported it. I've since changed my mind. Does that make me a flip flopper, or a warmonger? I don't think so. I was convinced back then that it was the right thing to do; I've seen how incompetent Bush and his cronies are, and how they sent our troops in without proper numbers and without proper equipment, and how Bush doesn't give a shit about the thousands who have died or been horribly wounded in our military. Add to that the hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis that have died.

I'm just saying that it's possible to change your mind about something, and still be sincere about your current position.

Posted by: bajasteve [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 2, 2008 02:37 AM

Again, I'm not saying I disagree with you, I've just talked to a lot of people, and just think it's just not going to happen. I also don't think she'll have the backing to get much done once in office, I hope I'm wrong if she get the nom. And to clarify, it doesn’t directly have much to do with why the old right-wing republicans hate the Clintons. It partially has to do with 9-11, and no matter how wrong they are, people view the Clintons as partially responsible for the lax that allowed 9-11 to happen. It doesn't matter how wrong they are, it's all about perception. If she gets the nomination I think we're all going to be counting on our Hispanic brothers and sisters in the south to turn out and keep the GOP out of the White House.

From my experience a lot of people like McCain over Clinton, but like Obama over McCain. Not saying I agree, it’s just what has been repeated to me by all types of people across party lines, because they think that McCain is more moderate than he’s letting on, and the right-wing pundits are making his case for him.

And she may be, but she's a career politician, so my cynicism tells me she's probably not sincere about much of anything. The regular citizen or patriot who serves our country, of course they can change their mind, but if I have a chance to vote for the candidate that didn't need to change their mind, it's just no contest.

You, Steve, are not a “flip-flopper”, you're a respectable man, who makes sound decisions, but like the rest of us, happens to wrong sometimes, but you have the balls to admit it. That's what makes you sincere and human. That’s why people don’t like her. She’s not admitting anything, and she's always lacked authenticity.

And I fucking hate the buzz word "flip-flopper", it's a meaningless degrading word, can we all agree to retire it once and for all?

Posted by: lnbno13 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 2, 2008 08:36 AM

Just who are ya callin' respectable? I've never been so insulted....

Seriously, though, I have to take you to task on your statement that Hillary is a "career politician", as if this is a disqualifier for you. If it is, then Obama should not be on your list of good guys; counting his state legislature time, he's been an official "career politician" for much longer than Hillary has. She's been in elected office only since 2001.

Posted by: bajasteve [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 3, 2008 01:58 AM

Let me clarify, any career politician must prove their sincerity, whether it be on the local, state or federal level because of what it takes to be one. You can be an effective politician, but lose all your sincerity as the job becomes routine (like Harry Reid only not ineffective). There is more sincerity in one drop of Obama’s piss than in all the tears Clinton shed in her bullshit breakdown. There isn't more of a career politician than Ted Kennedy, but I don’t question his sincerity. I didn't think Hillary has been sincere since her stupid husband made her look like a frigid fool publicly, several times, with ugly chicks. It's fucked up she was put in that position in the first place, but to me, after the impeachment proceedings were over, we "lost" the election she could have publicly told him to go fuck himself and we wouldn't even be talking about Barack Obama right now. Of course that was her decision, I think partially to appeal to Christians to due the political climate at the time (and until recently), but to me she has reeked of longing for this position since the mid-nineties, and for all of the wrong reasons.

And I’m not really talking about elected office, I’m talking about her “35 years" of experience. The first time she uttered that line I thought, "she thinks she's got the nomination in the bag, or they're underestimating the under-40 age group that is tired of the same old shit". I think I would have really liked Bill and Hillary 15 years ago, but Washington changed them. That’s all I’m saying.

No taking to task, sir. :)

Posted by: lnbno13 [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 3, 2008 11:48 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?