Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Idaho's Democratic Father-figure On "Second-Class Delegates"
http://www.idahostatesman.com/newsupdates/story/299147.html
Senator Clinton, it is time that you start disciplining your staff for their offensive comments. We Democrats do exist in red states. We do matter. And we do have the potential to change things at home with the proper leadership in Washington. You have proven so far that you are not that leadership, and that you do not deserve to lead this NATIONAL party. There is a reason that you lost Idaho by over 60 points, and these comments are it. You don't care about us, you never bothered to even find us on a map before Super Tuesday, and now you are allowing your campaign to dismiss us as "second-class" Democrats. I may be second-class, then, but you are class-less. Under no circumstances will I cast a ballot for you in November, even if that means leaving the top of the ticket blank. I will, however, show up to vote Democratic down the ticket because, unlike you, I think that progress can be made in even this, the reddest of red states.
Comments (7)
Take solace in the fact that for HRC none of us will matter once she gets our vote. She was just being a bit more honest with you.
I remember when the Clintons were identified as the Baby Boomer taking control of things from the older generation. One of the stereotypical characteristics of the Boomers was a narcissistic streak -- "it's all about me".
That stereotype seems to hold in the Clintons case time and again.
February 18, 2008 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like I wrote earlier, when people start proclaiming they will under no circumstances vote for the Dem nominee unless it's *their* one and only, beloved nominee, it's a cult. I don't recall any other election where there was such fanatical devotion to an individual, rather than a platform or a party.
February 18, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one has been saying that they will only vote for the nominee if it is not their choice. People (includin my mother who has voted for the democrat in every election since 1948) are saying that they will vote for the nominee unless it HER. It is a problem with HER. It is not that they like our candidate so much that we will not vote for anyone who beats him. It is that they will not vote for HER. It is not that they will not vote for a woman. It is that they will not vote for HER. It is not that they will not vote for some one who is on the wrong side of one issue. It is that they will not vote for HER.
I probably will hold my nose and vote for HER because I think that the SCOTUS is important and know that the next president will get to appoint two justices or more. But I will be voting for HER despite my intense dislike for HER.
February 19, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a pro vote, or pro attitude. It's against the kind of blind, self-centered, win at any cost presumption of Hillary Clinton. It's her way or the highway. We just had 8 years of that baloney. Even with her progressive position on domestic issues, (she's a neocon on war) her and her campaign's attitude earns her the distrust and rejection of most Democrats
February 19, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
pmj6:
Don't go off with accusations of cult-like blindness here. Instead, come live in my state. Come live where we hadn't seen a Democratic presidential primary campaign office since the early 80s (that is, before Obama had faith in us). Come live in my state where we apparently have "second-class" delegates. Come live in my state where we're consistently written off by the national party. Come live in my state where everyone assumes that the Republicans will always have control, so why bother?
This has nothing to do with Barack Obama. There is no cult following. There is no "beloved nominee." There is, however, a candidate that took a chance on us. A candidate that put in 6 campaign offices months before Super Tuesday. A candidate that didn't ignore us, didn't abandon us, and even came to SEE US! A candidate that knows where Idaho is on the map! And a candidate that isn't going to dismiss us as "second-class" once things don't go his way.
My lack of enthusiasm (and lack of support) for HRC has nothing to do with my support of Barack Obama. I would have, for example, gladly voted for John Edwards in the general had he gotten the nod. No... No... this has everything to do with Hillary Clinton and who she has demonstrated herself to be throughout this campaign. One candidate has taken a chance on us and believes that we can change the red-ness of the states in which so many of us Democrats live. The other, well, let's just say she threw us out with the bathwater. I'm returning her the favor with my ballot in November.
February 18, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here I go again harping on the evils of the Democratic Leadership Council which came into existence in 1985, as the Dems response to the Reagan "revolution."
It was the DLC that decided the party could effectively cede huge chunks of the country to the Republican Party and not even bother to campaign in places like Idaho, The Dakotas, Kansas & Nebraska.
Al From was the founder.
Bill Clinton was the Chair in 1990-1991.
Other exciting products --oops! I mean "members"-- of the DLC's "New Democrat Movement" which defined its strategy as providing a "Third Way" in American politics are:
Joe Lieberman--chair 1995-2001
Evan Bayh--chair 2001-2005
Tom Vilsak--chair 2005-2007
John Kerry
Al Gore
Dick Gephart
John Edwards
Hillary Clinton (Chair of the American Dream Initiative.)
The first big initiative of the DLC was Super Tuesday--the idea at the time being to host a boatload of Southern primaries early in the season--the idea being that the South would be "winnable" should the Party present the right White, Male, preferably Southern candidate.
The goal was to win back disaffected White, male, working class voters who were seen to be "Reagan Democrats" (a constituency that voted for Reagan not on economic policy or other "movement" agenda items, but on racial resentments. Reagan's comments about "welfare queens" were the red meat for this constituency.)
On the first Super Tuesday in 1988, Jesse Jackson was able to thank the DLC's Southern Strategy for making it possible for him to win 4 primaries right out of the gate. The DLC and the Party freaked out.
The DLC was also actively opposed to Howard Dean and desperately pushed the notion that Dean was "unelectable" in 2004 while John Kerry was "electable."
The "Party" --and more specifically since 1985, the DLC--has always known better than do actual Demcratic Primary Voters who is "electable" and which (so watered down so as to be meaningless) policy issues are "winnable."
They have tailored campaigns, rhetoric, resources, positions accordingly.
Senator Paul Wellstone--a much loved and missed Upper Midwest Liberal--the kind of politician this region--which the DLC has written off for 20 years-- reliably produced for decades-- proudly said of his unwillingness to condone the DLC strategy:
"I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party."
February 18, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know what's hilarious about this whole thing? Those DLCers and their media mouthpieces (Krugman, Begala, Carville) spent a lot of Nov. '06 taking credit for wins, when it was actually grass roots activists implementing Dean's 50 state strategy. After those wins, the DLCers immediately started focusing on the Clinton installation WH race, meanwhile grassroots activists turned to see who else they could field against unchallenged GOP seats, who else they could primary in all 50 states. There was never a stated fact that those "flyover" states were GOP holds, the DLCers gave those up without even trying. They wanted to focus on the coasts ignoring the millions of people in the middle of the country who feel like they lacked a voice.
Obama's wins are a testament to Dean's 50 state strategy. That's why we get to see/read rabid nonsense from the Carvilles and Krugmans. That's why Clinton's team is bent on saying Kansas and Idaho and Georgia don't count. That's the reality they live in. They refuse to look at those numbers, those huge leads Obama has over the entire GOP field in those states. Just looking at head to head matchups, it seems the only state Obama can lose is Alaska. Meanwhile, Mrs. 32% can't even compete with McCain's numbers in some of those states.
February 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment