Andrew Sullivan - The Clinton Rules

[Quixote1818]

The new meme is that politics has returned to normal and that this election will now be run by Clinton rules. Many are relieved by this. You could sense the palpable discomfort among many in Washington that their world might actually shift a little next year. But if elections are primarily about fear and mud, and who best operates in a street fight, Beltway comfort returns. This we know. This we understand. This we already have the language to describe. And, the feeling goes, the Clintons can win back the White House in this atmosphere. What she is doing to Obama she can try to do to McCain. Maybe Limbaugh will help her out again.

What I think this misses are the cultural and social consequences of beating Obama (or McCain) this way. I don't mean beating Obama because the Clintons' message is more persuasive, or because the Clintons' healthcare plan is better, or because she has a better approach to Iraq. I mean: beating him by a barrage of petty attacks, by impugning his clear ability to be commander-in-chief, by toying with questions about his "Muslim past", by subtle invocation of the race card, by intermittent reliance on gender identity politics, by taking faux offense to keep the news cycle busy ("shame on you, Barack Obama!") and so on. If the Clintons beat Obama this way, I have a simple prediction. It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future. I'm not sure that Washington yet understands the risk the Clintons are taking with their own party and the future of American politics.

The reason so many people have re-engaged with politics this year is because many sense their country is in a desperate state and because only one candidate has articulated a vision and a politics big enough to address it without dividing the country down the middle again. For the first time in decades, a candidate has emerged who seems able to address the country's and the world's needs with a message that does not rely on Clintonian parsing or Rovian sleaze. For the first time since the 1960s, we have a potential president able to transcend the victim-mongering identity politics so skillfully used by the Clintons. If this promise is eclipsed because the old political system conspires to strangle it at birth, the reaction from the new influx of voters will be severe. The Clintons will all but guarantee they will lose a hefty amount of it in the fall, as they richly deserve to. Some will gravitate to McCain; others will be so disillusioned they will withdraw from politics for another generation. If the Clintons grind up and kill the most promising young leader since Kennedy, and if they do it not on the strength of their arguments, but by the kind of politics we have seen them deploy, the backlash will be deep and severe and long. As it should be.

More: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/the-clinton-rul.html

[xchrom]

1. sullivan is a republican -- and an apologist for some of the most

reprehensible conservative policies since reagan.

intellectually disingenuous and and dishonest.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. And he has spoken out more and more lately against republicans

[MonkeyFunk]

4. So?

Ann Coulter has spoken out against John McCain - does that make her a reputable source for DU?

[jaxx]

8. My guess is that when Hillary endorsed McCain

we became up for grabs. The integrity of the dem party has left the building.

[MonkeyFunk]

14. Clinton didn't endorse McCain

the very notion is just stupid.

[jaxx]

16. She put down a dem candidate in order to push McCain's experience.

If you call that stupid, don't aim it at me...send it to her because it was a damn stupid thing to do.

[madfloridian]

6. Most of my family are Republicans.....

so let's not use such a broad brush. Sullivan is intelligent and often has great insight...and often very little tolerance for some of the right wing idiots.

[xchrom]

13. yeah -- i have no respect for sullivan -- he liked to critisize the lgbtq community

while using his own gay status among conservatives to gain a kind of niche.

and you having republicans in your family is a useless comment -- i have them in my own -- probably a majority of DU does.

he remains dishonest and disingenuous -- but see here's where i think the rubber meets the road -- i think you know that sullivan is discredited -- to a large degree -- i think you post this crap as your kind of ''in your face'' moment.

it's bullshit.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. The third time

I've seen this Andrew Sullivan article posted.

HOw did he become an acceptable source here on DU? It's just beyond my comprehension.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

5. andrew sullivan is our source now?

:rofl:

[shraby]

7. Republican supporter or not, he certainly has

hit the nail on the head. He makes a lot of sense in this instance.

[QC]

9. Here's some info on your new hero:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4998631&mesg_id=4998631

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. thank you.

[Quixote1818]

11. He also hates Bush now. You could say the same thing about Ariana Huffington

but she is on our side now.

[QC]

12. Did Arianna push a racist book and then brag about it for a decade?

Did Arianna publicly condemn promiscuity while secretly running ads looking for bareback sex?

It's not quite the same thing here. Sully is simply beyond the pale, even if he happens to agree with you that the Clintons are Satan incarnate.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. just because someone agrees with ones blind hatred, doesnt invalidate other things they have said

i totally agree with you on this!

:thumbsup:

[Mme. Defarge]

17. Isn't this the goal

of the corporate overclass?

"It will mean a mass flight from the process. It will alter the political consciousness of an entire generation of young voters - against any positive interaction with the political process for the foreseeable future."