The Clintons believe it is still their party. I am convinced of that.

madfloridian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Apr-16-08 10:05 PM
Original message

The Clintons believe it is still their party. I am convinced of that.

Edited on Wed Apr-16-08 10:58 PM by madfloridian

Yes, I know, I changed the subject line several times. There is no good way to say it. It makes me sad, because it is painful to see.

We talked about this over a month ago, that Hillary Clinton can not win unless Barack Obama loses.

As Rush Limbaugh famously said...we need Hillary in the race to bloody up Obama.

"We need Barack Obama bloodied up politically."
Limbaugh explained to fellow right-wing gabber Laura Ingraham � yes, they are now interviewing each other -- that Obama has gotten this far in his race for the presidency with most of his popular appeal intact. As such, he would be hard to beat as the Democratic nominee in a race with Republican John McCain.

"I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They're in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It's fascinating to watch, and it's all going to stop if Hillary loses," Limbaugh argued, as he suggested that Republicans in primary states should cross party lines to vote for Clinton.

Only by keeping Clinton in the race, Limbaugh explained, will it be possible to "sustain the soap opera" that might ultimately diminish Obama sufficiently to secure an undeserved Republican win in November. Well, the soap opera has been sustained

From The Nation:

This campaign moves so fast that it is easy to forget everything that happens in a two-week timespan. But, since Clinton lost Wisconsin's February 19 primary, the hits really have kept coming. There was "Barack stole lines from Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick" hit. There was the "Barack stole a page from Karl Rove when he sent out negative mailings" hit. There was the "Barack dresses like a Muslim" hit. There was the "Barack's campaign told the Canadians one thing about trade and Ohio another thing" hit. There was the "Barack's not the guy you want answering the phone in the White House" hit. There was even the "Barack's defiling the memory of Ann Richards because she would have wanted Hillary to have a clean shot at the nomination" hit. And always, always, always, there was the steady drumbeat from candidate Clinton that: ""I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech (against authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq) he made in 2002."

Now, the strategy has been sufficiently-if-not-completely validated.

So Clinton will go on, and chances are that she will go on rough. Will it be enough to secure her the nomination? Clinton and her aides think so. Their calculus goes like this: Obama is really just another Democratic presidential "flash-in-the-pan" who started strong but will ultimately wear thin� like Gary Hart in 1984, like Paul Tsongas in 1992, like Howard Dean in 2004 � and Clinton can slowly but surely take advantage of uncertainty about Obama until she "closes the deal" at a convention where she arrives with momentum from late primaries and caucuses, maybe even revote victories from Michigan and Florida, and a clear advantage among super delegates.

I was really shocked when a poster here at DU said to me that Obama was the one who was causing the problems. The poster further said that he should have waited for Hillary Clinton to have her two terms, and then he should run. It was said clearly.

This article from very early in 2003, before the race had really gotten started...goes along with that entitlement theme.

Still Clinton's Show?

The last two paragraphs are looking ahead to these primaries this year.

The next presidential nominee could swiftly eclipse the Clinton legacy by starting out with a new script for the Democratic Party, one that discards the bond trader's economic analysis in favor of addressing lunch-bucket concerns directly and forcefully. The longing many Democrats feel for the Clinton "good times" might also be replaced by exasperation at his continuing presence. His campaigning for Democratic candidates in 2002 yielded mostly disappointment; most of the Clinton alumni who ran for public office with his blessing and support lost. Maybe the magic is already wearing out, and if so, Clinton's charm with the big-money contributors may dissipate too.

Bill Clinton was a winner, a brilliant tactician and candidate with rare personal skills. Still, it is worth remembering that in both of his presidential victories Clinton polled less than 50 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, during his reign the Democratic Party lost majority control of both House and Senate, governorships and state legislatures. Something is profoundly amiss with modern Democrats and their connection to the electorate. While it's unfair to blame Clinton for everything, it is even more mistaken to believe that he found the solutions. Rank-and-file Democrats will have some limited influence on the party's direction during the next twenty months, particularly by what kind of Democrat they favor during the narrow window of nominating primaries. There is, as yet, no obvious rebel offering to do a drastic overhaul. In the meantime, it is still Clinton's party.

Bill Nelson talked about having blood all over the floor in Denver. That's really a pleasant thought after a bloody campaign.

I watched the debates tonight for only a short while. It was unnerving, just as the whole dialogue lately is unnerving.

I see the same scenario I saw in 2004 at Democratic forums. A mindset of beating each other down, and only the less bloodied were standing.

I saw a mindset then as now of just saying anything that suited the purpose. Just posting anything, just saying anything.

This is not just a dangerous time for our party, it is becoming more than that. It is becoming a time to define who we are as a party. I see changes where I live now, people are upset with the tone of things.

I see and hear that stale old saying...that beating each other up will make the candidates tougher. No, not in this country at this time with its lack of intelligent media and its dumbed down electorate.

All you will end up with is a lot of blood on the ground, and John McCain in the White House.