|
He has accomplished more in his lifetime than I could in ten, and I suspect
that goes for many of us. He was making an objective statement based on his
observations, which go back a long way. He remembered as rather symbolic the
Carter administration installing solar panels on the White House and the Reagan
administration removing them. His interests these days are still vast, but
environmental considerations are up there. He knows there is bile on both
sides, much if not all of it irrational. I agree--but it is there, and it
will have to be overcome if we are to win in November. Plus, there is a LOT
of groundwork and strategy to be done. Now that Obama has virtually cinched
the nomination, you'd think things had calmed down somewhat. Obviously not so.
I said it in the OP, but I'll say it again: I went to the meeting thinking we'd
waltz into the White House. I went out of there thinking we wouldn't. Talk to
someone who has been at the heart of Democratic Party politics since Humphrey,
and you get a long-term perspective that you can't have if you haven't been there
in the trenches for 4 decades. He has. I haven't. Have any of you? We SHOULD win
this, but it is not a given, and if anyone thinks Karl Rove will sit this one out,
dream on. He may not be on TV as the head Republican talking head strategist, but
his foul stench will be there. Their dirty tricks team has been successful all but
three times since 1968. They may look to be the underdogs this time, but the RNC
has 5 times as much money in the bank as the DNC, and they have a few hundred million
advantage as well with Fox and, to a lesser extent, CNN and the networks. We have
Keith Olbermann. He's great, but he preaches to the converted. National Hate Radio
preaches to millions of listeners exhorting them to, once again, vote against their
own interests, and tens of millions of people will do just that.
We try to see things rationally--a dangerous pitfall. Republicans win elections
because they know how to win over people who are very susceptible to irrational
arguments, and we ignore these people at our peril. The DNC and Howard's 50 State
Strategy is trying to make inroads here, but it is an uphill struggle, and just because
the Republicans have made a wretched mess of things doesn't mean people will vote
against them. Rather than trying to convince fellow Democrats to bash each other, our
energy would be better expended trying to convince people who can be made to fear
Democrats that their "family values" would be better protected by having one of our
party in the White House. Just look at the numbers--Bush at 28% and McCain at 45% or
so. He's already got Rove or his surrogates formulating his message. The tactics will be
the same--throw out as much evil trash as you can, and if any of it goes too far, you
"discipline" the offending member of your campaign and distance yourself from their
outlandish remarks, all the while enjoying the boost their effect gives your campaign.
Except for 1992 and 1996 (Gerry Ford's campaign had a Nixon problem, and so didn't really
have much of a chance to make it work for them), worked in 1968, 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988,
2000 (with a little help from their "friends") and 2004 (again, with a little help from
their "friends"). That's not such a bad track record. They did a LOT of damage in that
time. Infighting within the Democratic party helps them. Pretending it isn't happening
won't help anyone. Stopping it will.
Hillary supporters--if you think Obama is a phony, insincere, whatever, fine. But he is
also a brilliant orator who inspires hope in many people, and will try to follow through
on that oratory to push through tax reform and nominate progressive Supreme Court Judges.
He is a far better prospect than McCain. Obama supporters: if you hate Hillary
for all the reasons that have appeared in GD-P these past months, fine. But repeating
them in the same emotionally charged posts over and over ignores her mostly progressive
voting record, plus the fact that she would sing into law any major health care and tax
reform that a new Democratic Liebermanless Congress can come up with, and she would
nominate Supreme Court Judges in the same vein as Obama. McCain wants them in the vein
of Tomás de Torquemada.
Obama and Clinton have both said that when the nominee is decided, they will work their
hearts out to get that nominee elected. Will their supporters follow their lead? That's
pretty lame support if you won't.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
