Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
DKos, Change, & the Netroots Smackdown
I need to get this idea in print before it passes; so I apologize in advance if this post isn't particularly cogent or clear.
A few minutes ago, I read <a href="http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=904">this post</a> at The Field regarding the <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/17/12417/1285/527/478498">throwdown at DKos against the Clinton Civil War</a> that Hillary is bound to foment if she attempts to claim the nomination via a coup at the convention.
Kos' post is essentially a call to action to try to blunt Hillary's advance, to put quicker end to an increasingly bucolic primary season.
And as I read it, it occurred to me that much of the Democratic electorate, the Democratic National Committee, and the Democratic party big-wigs themselves are all somewhat paralyzed by this issue. They don't want to move on the issue, for fear of a) prematurely ending a campaign that may produce an upset in their favor, and b) potentially offending the campaign that ends up getting the nomination.
This is an understandable, if spineless, position.
And it also occurred to me that throughout this entire campaign, Obama's whole message has been about Americans standing with their own voice to enact the change they want, and that is precisely what I saw as I read the Kos post - that despite the paralysis of the Democratic leadership, the people themselves may end up resolving the issue, in a demonstration and a validation of Obama's approach to government - inspiring us to change our nation, not expecting leadership to do it for us.
I realize this is simply me projecting my own impressions on the issue, but I don't think it's a wholly invalid view, either.
What do you think?
Comments (5)
Sigh.. we need the ability to edit.
The paragraph with links in it, fixed:
A few minutes ago, I read this post at The Field regarding the throwdown at DKos against the Clinton Civil War that Hillary is bound to foment if she attempts to claim the nomination via a coup at the convention.
March 17, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the reason the supers haven't moved on it yet is that they think it in everyone's best interest to let it play out. Hillary and her supporters cannot have this prematurely decided for them. Forcing it on them would leave them very, very bitter.
The problem, of course, is the way Hillary is destroying party unity and ripping apart the clear nominee. If she wants to sit back and play Huckabee, praying for an Obama meltdown, that's fine. Just so long as she doesn't contribute to it.
The supers may not be moving officially but they are unofficially - Richardson and Pelosi have made that very clear. Also, when people are forced to decide, as in the next stage of the Iowa caucuses, they decide very clearly for Obama.
The more I read at The Field, the calmer I am about all of this. Al's insight is awsome.
March 17, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are spineless.
We can only do this if we win by seriously good numbers. That's what the Parties That Be will notice. "Even" numbers and we are in peril.
So a lot of focus needs to be on the casual electorate. They are always progressive in nature, even if they don't know it: They want the progressive policies that will build the economy and supply them with healthcare. They want jobs, they want a safety net, they want safe food and water, they want to only go to war if there's no other choice. And I think they want an end to the division and hate. They are just not accustomed to voting.
That's the "silent majority". They have already come out in increasing numbers, feeling empowered. But we're going to need more of them.
That's why I still have hope. If it was about changing the minds of the orgy of hate I've seen since Friday, we'd be doomed. But the younger voter is far more post-racial than his parents, and nothing is really going to change that. Until Barack is President -- he will be able to convince them then.
But in all age groups there are voters who need to understand that it is their vote that involves them in the health of America. It's a good thing, a great thing to get these people to vote.
My suspicion is, we haven't even begun to tap that source.
And that is why I have hope.
March 17, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have a different point of view on this. Made a comment on Tara's earlier post.
Kos is connected to the destruction of the DLC, so he has a huge ideological stake in solving this in Obama's favor soon. I'm not surprised at that post at all.
From the highly partisan point of view, I would do the same thing: whip the crowd into a frenzy now so that the pressure becomes unbearable.
Technically speaking, the only delegate votes that are binding take place on the convention floor. Anything before that is an "understanding" and a "statement of position".
So, the Kos tactic is pretty smart, if risky.
March 17, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
From what I understand, the Democratic party seems to be split between the DNC and the DLC. The DNC being led by Howard Dean who leans toward progressivism and the DLC is led by the Clintons who lean toward Republican-litism (Lieberman?). If the DLC manages to get rid of Howard Dean, I hope he starts a third party based on progressive ideals. For a look at the DLC check this article out.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0304-27.htm
I sometimes wonder if the DLC deliberately undermined Gore and Kerry so that Hillary would win this year. A little far fetched, I know, but I do wonder nonetheless.
March 17, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment