"The path for the Clintons and the Clintonistas is now the path of the rebel. Our way is now the way of the guerrilla. Our causes are the forgotten causes: universal healthcare, women's and children's rights, privacy, an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, finding a fair way to share the pain of the end of oil, renouncing torture, and all of the other causes that will be compromised by both candidates on the way to the White House."

Well said. But maybe its like picking ponies. Everytime I pick Gumdrop in the third at Hialeah, the damn horse can't get out of the starting gate. Everytime I pick a candidate (like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) they fail too.

So maybe there is some kind of contrarian demiurge that haunts the blogs picks up our predictions and inverts them. I hope in your final paragraph's case that happens.

Its rare that I disagree with you Billy but this time I think you're wrong. I think the reason so many superdelegates held back their endorsements is they were hoping for Hillary to get a popular vote win that was large enough to give them the cover they needed to go with her. She had already signaled that if she got the nomination she would take Obama as her vp. That I think was the preferred scenario of most of the political professionals. If she won with obama as the vp, I think it probably would have been a landslide, in 8 years the country would have gotten used to the idea of a black man as president, but more important, all of his negatives would have been overcome. His inexperience would have changed to 8 years of experience as vp. His connection with Wright would have been old news, forgotten. He would have been well poised to win the wh for the democrats for another 8 years.

Something bothered me about your use of the term "rebel" here, I just don't think it's quite right, doesn't fit the situation.

If Obama wins, theoretically he no longer plays the role of a party leader so much, he is the president of all the people. And if we are to believe his rhetoric about political process, it won't just be theoretical with him.

Tradition is for there to be activist branches of the party in Congress with certain natural leaders with the power to get things to start happening, i.e. Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank being pushers of the classic liberal line, Newt Gingrich getting things to happen on the conservative side, Black Caucus to push for related special interests....

Then I thought, didn't I just read something on the draft Dem party platform and Hillary:

The Democratic Party’s 186-member platform committee just endorsed a draft of the party’s 2008 policy outline at a public meeting today in Pittsburgh, granting several concessions to supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. The document will next go before delegates at the party’s convention in Denver for ratification.

Granted, no one pays attention to the party platforms. But it was an indicator to me that the active party members in general are very open to Hillary's campaign platform.

Remember, the president does not set the Congressional agenda, Congressional leaders do. He/she's got a bully pulpit and veto, but he/she doesn't set the agenda. Doesn't look to me like she's being set up to be a "rebel," not at all, looks to me like she's being set up to help lead a new Congress.

So much for family unity:

http://starbulletin.com/2008/08/09/news/story04.html

The plot thickens.

Now that you have clearly acknowledged supporting Obama, however marginally, I wanted to stop by your thread.

Your post propagates a number of your favorite themes with which I disagree. This comment is confined to one of them.

You talk about the "Party professionals" doing away with the Clintons, and I think that is more untrue than true. First, it is untrue in the sense that the Clintons enjoyed a 100 SD lead for a long time, and that the uncommitteds were so in fear of Bill. Second, it is untrue (as a lobbyist friend of mine remarked in April, and this is a universally held sentiment on the Hill) because when Hil was behind in March/April, and had no real mathematical chance of winning the pledged delegates, the SDs would have migrated to the obvious winner much sooner, so fear of Bill and urgings from Bill (and to a lesser extent from Hil) kept them from doing so. Only a Clinton would have been allowed to run out that groundball at a cost to their campaign of $20MM, and other costs to others. Third, it is untrue because if it were a vote of pols alone, she would have won at the start, again Bill.

But there is a deeper sense in which what you say is half-true. Democrats hate being told what to do. Always have, always will. They fight it like rabid animals. And the Bill Clinton machine within the process, which was so strong, provoked a correlative irritation with the jam job it was. Because Democrats don't like being told what to do. So Bill pushed the process in a hard, heavyhanded way, in a manner Bush 41 would never have for Bush 43, and in a manner no exPresident ever has in any race ever. And people accepted that, until it got emotional. When it got emotional, it pissed off a lot of Democratic voters, and also a lot of pols, both halves of that having equal importance. And that is the lone element of what you say that I agree with.

Billy,

Great post. However, please have patience with my ignorance on the issue:

"Bill Clinton speaks on Wednesday, putting Hillary's name into nomination for Vice President."

The VP position is put up for nomination and not automatically the choice of the 'nominee'?

Thanks.

(Rec'd.)

Why do people get caught up in personality cults?

It is equally laughable and disturbing when Obama's rabid fans defend his FISA vote as a "good thing", while Clintonistas paint her frankly sad and offensive campaign as a tactical mistake or some form of rebellious martyrdom.

To me, both viewpoints seem like born out of a dangerous illusion of a "good leader" taking the "true believers" on a "righteous crusade" to glorious victory. It seems to be a close cousin to a need to subscribe to some religious orthodoxy, to be part of some large group, all marching in lockstep to some mythical destination.

This sad syndrome usually affects Republicans, but during my relatively short time at TPM, I have learned that it is reasonably well spread among Democrats as well.

Wasn't it that kind of comment that got Ferraro labeled a racist?

Easy: No.

Thread:

So why take the loser on a "crusade"? Would it not be logical to take the winner on one?

Why do you think you have fallen victim to the tritest of all political afflictions - a banality known as a "personality cult?"

Georgia:

This has been an area of deep ethnic conflict, which are not well resolved by application of force. I am certain American military does not need to get involved in yet another ethnic conflict, this time on the Russian border. However, your question may find sympathetic resonance in one Senator McCain, who has over the years been a kind of champion of the Georgian causes and quite anti-Russian. Are you sure you don't like him as a candidate?

Cleansing TPM:

I find your attempts to cleanse the thread funny and weird.

she misjudged the determination of the Party to throw off the yoke of the Clinton era

I disagree with this description, Billy. The Party was divided about this and still is. The division began as a relatively small minority of power-hungry Party professionals: Kennedy, Dean, and a merry band of loser-nerds like Daschle, Kerry, and Edwards may have hatched it. This small group was determined.

But others, like Richardson and Gore, were conflicted (that's why Carville publicly called out Richardson as a Judas: to embarrass him). And still others were adamantly opposed to the coup plot because they are sick of losing elections (Wasserman-Schultz, Rendell, Brown, Strickland come to mind).

The Party division at the bogus Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting in May was clear. The public, of course, could see the fix was in as it played out before their eyes. Even though the Obama-rebels won that round, the whole event was an agonizing realization of their limitations. (Not that the winners will ever see it that way.)

Since Clinton conceded, the ironic thing is that the role of the rebel has now switched. Obama has embraced the status quo in a great big bear hug, while Clinton has become the trail-blazing rebel. It's a much better role for her. And for him. He is the more conventional of the two.

Clinton made the mistake of running a general election campaign without first securing her super delegate base. In the end, that base turned on her

I disagree with this as well. Clinton's mistake was in not being true to herself at the beginning. The leaked memos will reveal this (as the excerpts already do), although few in the media will be able to see it. (That's because it's a classic female experience, which we are not used to seeing in real life, outside of literature.) It wasn't until all the experts failed her that Clinton was forced to find herself, to tap the inner strength that has always gotten her through the bleakest moments in her life. When she did find herself, she was able to finish competitively. The "wounded Hillary" encapsulates the highest concentration of her power.

Because Clinton underwent a transformation during the course of the primaries, the leaked memos cannot destroy her power or ultimately damage her. In other words, the memos will document a moving object. She'll remain untouchable as long as she trusts herself.

As far as the "progressive blogoshpere" goes, you seem to forget that the it is comprised mainly of former or closet Republicans: Markos, Ariana, Josh. They are not true progressives, like you or I define progressives. Also, in the real world no one cares about the progressive blogosphere. It has no power outside of its own bubble. It never will.

The leak of these memos is part of a mopping up exercise to make sure her credibility and power cannot be restored should Obama lose to McCain.

I agree that's the intent of leaking them, but again, Clinton is untouchable.

Bill Clinton speaks on Wednesday, putting Hillary's name into nomination for Vice President.

This is funny. You're an anarchist at heart if not in practice, Billy. As am I.

The most important one is that it's time to pass the torch to a new generation of Democrats.

Because you keep repeating this, you force me to say out loud that this is a figment of your imagination, Billy. There is no new generation of Democrats. The proof is there's a real chance Obama will lose.

The path for the Clintons and the Clintonistas is now the path of the rebel. Our way is now the way of the guerrilla. Our causes are the forgotten causes: universal healthcare, women's and children's rights, privacy, an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, finding a fair way to share the pain of the end of oil, renouncing torture, and all of the other causes that will be compromised by both candidates on the way to the White House.

Now this I agree with!

I like Hillary (although I supported Obama over her), but I agree that she's not a good choice of VP.

Dr. Tantillo ('the marketing doctor') has a blog on branding ( http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv ) and did a post back in May on the idea of an Obama-Clinton ticket--arguing that from a branding perspective, it makes no sense, and actually wouldn't be a good move for Clinton's brand, either.

"Because of the length of this primary fight, brand identity and loyalty to brand have become central. What this means is that a kind of brand mutual exclusivity has set in."


At this point, I think it would be a bad move for both Obama (who has not only winning the election to think about, but potentially working with someone over the 4 years) and Hillary (who can accomplish a lot for the party elsewhere, on her own merits.)

Link to Tantillo's post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/05/14/marketing-101joint-ticket-makes-little-branding-sense.asp