![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
The Democrats’ Three ChoicesPosted on Feb 11, 2008By E.J. Dionne MANASSAS, Va.—It’s come down to this: Who can beat John McCain? Winning that argument could allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to reach beyond their respective demographic comfort zones. Only if one of them can build a clear majority will the party be saved from a descent into the mire of rules fights and back-room dealing. It will also take leadership to protect the Democratic village from chaos and recriminations. For the moment, the world is moving Obama’s way: He swept four states last weekend and is favored in virtually all the contests between now and the more-competitive March 4 primaries in Ohio and Texas. Polling suggests that Obama can draw independents whom Clinton can’t reach and can mobilize new and younger voters in a way Clinton never will. Obama drove that perception by offering a brief against the politics of Clintonism: She “starts off with 47 percent of the country against her,” he said in Alexandria, Va., on Sunday. Her husband presided over the Democrats’ loss of Congress. It’s hard to imagine that she can “break out of the politics of the past 15 years.” The alternative: the anti-depressant right there on the shelf in front of them. Its brand is Obama. Yet there is another world in Democratic politics, a practical, mostly middle-aged and middle-class world that is immune to fervor and electricity. It is made up of people with long memories who are skeptical of fads and like their candidates tough, detail-oriented and—to use a word Obama regularly mocks—seasoned. These are the Hillary people, and they gathered here in significant numbers at the Grace E. Metz Middle School, cozy schools being a preferred venue for a Clinton campaign aware that mammoth rallies are normally beyond its reach. She does not lack for loyalists. Paulie Abeles of Derwood, Md., held aloft a hand-printed sign that did not mince words: “Talk Is Cheap. Mistakes Are Expensive.” Abeles explained that people who are being “swept along by the eloquence of Barack Obama’s speeches” forget that at one time, George W. Bush was seen as “charming” and “inspirational.” And electability was on her mind. If President Bush raised the terror level four days before the election ("I happen to be very cynical,” she averred), the Democrats would want their most experienced candidate confronting McCain. Clinton spoke directly to her audience’s skepticism of good talkers—ironic in light of her husband’s oratorical gifts. “You’re so specific,” she quoted people as telling her. “Why don’t you just come and give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and get everybody all whooped up?” The crowd actually whooped at that. But eloquence, she said, is not the point, since the election “is not about me, it’s about us.” If Obama is passion, Clinton is bread and butter. If she needs more flourishes, he could afford to traffic a bit more in the staples. Her speech is a well-crafted recitation of how government could ease the lives of those without health insurance, students burdened by college loan costs, homeowners facing foreclosure, veterans who have been abandoned, the working poor who deserve a hand up. As she speaks, Doug Hattaway, one of her aides, notes that her practical litany is precisely what appeals to working-class and middle-class voters who respond to “tangible issues.” They also rebel against the idea that they are not part of the cool, privileged masses for Obama. One of the signs at the Manassas rally defiantly touted “Well Educated High Earners for Hillary.” This is a party divided not by ideology but by sensibility. Things have gotten very personal. And that is why feelings would be so raw if this nomination were settled by something as grubby as a credentials fight over disputed delegates from Florida and Michigan. Two things are true. Delegations from those important states, currently in defiance of party rules, will eventually have to be seated. But if Clinton were to take the nomination because of her “victories” in primaries that all the candidates agreed not to contest, she would be seen by her adversaries as cheating. The only solution is for the two states to agree to hold new rounds of voting that look as much like primaries as possible before the process ends in early June. Doing so would increase the chances that voters, not insiders, would pick the nominee. Democrats would not have to put up with invidious comparisons between their battle and the ugliness of Bush v. Gore. And one of these candidates might then actually be able to win. A breakout, a fair deal, or bedlam: Those are the Democrats’ options. E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com. © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: There's a Republican Under My Bed Next item: Aboard the Condoleezza Rice Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By Marlene Lunsman, February 13 at 8:07 pm # I have heard the term “shadow government “ before I heard it linked with Bilderberg group, Trilateral commission, and some other groups I can not remember right now. All the members of these groups are very wealthy and influential. How they operate I do not know and do not understand. You can find out about them on the internet. Spookyprairiewoman
By DennisD, February 13 at 5:03 pm # This is a choice?“The Democrats’ Three Choices” ? Behind door number one we have - the same, behind door number two - much more of the same and behind door number three - infinitesimally less of the same. OK now voter, make up your mind, which door do you choose? For a country that allows it’s corporate lobbyists to write most if not all of it’s legislation just how is anything going to “change” without an outright revolution. The corruption runs too deep for anything less to make a difference.
By greg, February 13 at 2:31 pm # Your assertions are completely opposite from all the polls that have been done about potential matchups, what is the common wisdom of most voters, and what all Republicans, other than a handfull, have said on this issue: The Republicans want to face Hillary Clinton because they think they have the best shot of winning against her. I understand Hillary supporters are getting a little desperate by now, but at the risk of dashing your “hopes,” let me just predict that Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination, and that that deal will be sealed on March 5, and that he will then go on to beat John “100 years of war” McCain in November to be the President of the United States of America.
By Conservative Yankee, February 13 at 9:47 am # I have explained over and over why no working US citizen should vote for Hill-the-business-shill. I’m not gonna do it again here. I will never cast my ballot to a Clinton for any office above dog-catcher. If the business-shill is nominated (with or without Obama. this family has decided to vote Republican. In the short term, perhaps, not in our best interests, BUT maybe yet another loss will serve notice to the Democratic leadership that they can’t win (no matter the opposition) by once again serving us a plate of shit!
By John Kennedy, February 12 at 9:59 pm # It will be very hard for Obama or Hillary to unite the Democratic Party if the hate with passion continues within our candidate supporters. I don’t know why any democrat will undermine the Clinton years. Let’s not forget that in general election whether Obama or Hillary will need Bill Clinton. He is still the shining star of the Democratic Party. Demonizing and alienating the Clintons will be a disaster. Both John Kerry and Ted Kennedy can only energize the Democratic base but Clinton is going to reach out to the independents. The idea that Obama is going to reach out to independents is over hyped. There is a big difference between independence during primary election and Independents during the main elections. The only chance that we have is a CLINTON – OBAMA 08 or OBAMA – CLINTON 08
By Thomas Jefferson, February 13 at 7:49 am # Re: Obama represents the new generationAre you watching fox news?? Do you know what you are saying? obama is controlled by aipac and the cfr traitors to this country..wake up!! mike gravel is the best of the dems..
By odlid, February 12 at 2:53 pm # My big hope is that the Dem nominee will pick a high-quality running mate. When Al Gore selected the monstrous Joe Lieberman, I was stunned and disgusted.
By Conservative Yankee, February 12 at 7:14 am # Surely you jest. There is one difference between the cheating, lying, reprehensible Republican party and the Sell-out, treasonous, despicable Democrats. The Republicans are the most recent architects of the decline and fall, and US citizens (who seem to have memories half as long as their dicks) have forgotten why the Clinton/Gore crowd was fired in 2000. I know, I know… the election was stolen, BUT even given that, half the voters elected to fire Clinton/Gore. If they were as good for the “people” as some claim here Gore would have enjoyed a Reaganesque landslide...almost impossible to steal. We need change, not the political word “change” but systematic realignment. This would entail “voting ALL the rascals out regardless of party, BUT so long as we treat elections like sporting events, that won’t happen.
By Conservative Yankee, February 12 at 5:37 am # What is amazing is that people, unfettered by any sense of reality or knowledge of history, believe in their “heart” or “mind” that either of these candidates can “change” the course to hell “we” have chosen. As an aside, here in Maine where Obama won the caucuses, the State Democratic party has chosen a slate of “super delegates” favorable to Clinton. John Baldacci our Governor, Tom Allen (who happens to be running a contested race for the Senate...how fair is that?) and ex-Senator George Mitchell (suposedly the most honest man in the nation....if you believe the press)and second district congressman Mike (I like this war) Michaud are all Hill-the-business-shill supporters. Only John Knutson head of the State Democratic party has declared for Obama. There are five other “super delegates” In the race, Obama won 15 of Maine’s delegates and Clinton won nine, but the super delegates could overturn the people giving Clinton the State. This has happened before in 1992, when Jerry Brown won Maine, but The super-delegates count at the State convention and awarded all Maine’s delegates to Clinton. This is simple machine politics, and if the Democratic party attempts this crap again, I will vote Republican in the fall.
By Hank Van den Berg, February 12 at 4:50 am # Clinton’s back-handed attempt to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations from primaries all the candidates, including Clinton, agreed to not contest, would not seem like cheating, it would be cheating. Please, all the pundits should stop describing the Florida and Michigan delegations as an “issue.” Clinton’s leaving her name on the ballots when everyone agreed to not contest the primaries is cheating. It is completely wrong, and she knew that. But she did it anyway, and now she employs lawyers to complete her shameless scheme. Letting Clinton get away with this kind of blatant cheating would pretty much destroy even the pretense that the Democratic Party can clean things up. Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article