Could Hillary Bequeath Us Our Long-Awaited Third Party? -David Michael Green

[MilesColtrane]

I found this to be an interesting read, especially considering the "my candidate or I'm leaving the party" types of posts I've seen here at DU lately.

Note: I'm not advocating for the split of the Democratic party, and I don't believe the author is either.

Could Hillary Bequeath Us Our Long-Awaited Third Party?
By David Michael Green, AlterNet. Posted March 7, 2008.


Oh boy. Where have I seen this movie before?

I think it was four years, surprisingly enough. Hey, what a coincidence! Wasn't there a presidential election going on back then, too?

Remember how Howard Dean came out of near total obscurity, how he started walloping the presumptive front-runner, John "Fearless" Kerry, by taking bold positions (at least in the context of American politics) against the war, and against George W. Bush? Remember how Kerry changed his tune to ape Dean's message, and how nervous Democratic voters played it safe and came home to the guy with the experience and the name brand? Remember what an outstandingly effective candidate he then turned out to be? Remember the "real deal"? (Oh, and what a deal it was. I think experienced card players refer to that hand as a 'jack-shit straight, seven high', if I'm not mistaken.)

More...

http://alternet.org/election08/78973/?page=entire

[AtomicKitten]

1. No doubt, and this time it's for real.

[MilesColtrane]

3. The author posits Obama walking with his delegates if he doesn't get the nomination.

But, at this point both candidates and their supporters appear to have such acrimonious feelings, I can see either of them splitting to run if they aren't the Democratic nominee.

[polichick]

2. Yep - this is a time of great transition, no matter which Dem gets the nomination. nt

[andym]

4. If 1948 didn't do it, this won't either

If 1948 didn't do it, this won't either
1948 Dems split into three for presidential race: Progessive (left), Democrat, Dixiecrat (right). Truman won anyway.

Furthermore, the US republic's geographic system of democracy favors a two-party system (if you believe Duverger's law.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

[MilesColtrane]

5. Yes, and the two parties have only made it more difficult since then.

I certainly don't think that would stop either one of them from trying though.
Both Clinton and Obama have the large egos and rabid supporters to try such a gambit.

Just another way to insure more Republican rule.

[TexasProgresive]

6. The way it works is if a new party were to suceed

then one of the old parties dies. Then were back to 2. Our system and laws don't support more then 2 party rule.

[redqueen]

11. No, the way it works is people get fed up and jump ship...

and a while later, one of the major parties takes up some of that party's planks to draw those voters back in.

[tgnyc]

7. Obama should have always run as a 3rd party candidate

He spent as much time in the Senate blasting Democrats as he did blasting Republicans. I don't think he even likes the Democratic party.

[MilesColtrane]

8. Some times I don't like it either.

But, I'll be damned if I would do anything to actively destroy it.

That's Nader Logic. He thinks the only way to change the country is by tearing it down until it breaks.

How's that been working out since 2000 Ralph?

on edit: I seriously doubt your assertion that Obama bashes his fellow Democrats with equal fervor and frequency as he does Republicans.

[avrdream]

10. Maybe that is what he and Bloomberg were discussing.....

Shame that it is happening to OUR team.

[ieoeja]

9. Third party needs one overriding issue.

Republicans in 1860 were the anti-slavery party to the pro-slavery Democrats and Whigs. Obama may excite and encourage people personally, but on the issues he supports fixes, not throwing it away and starting over.

He has the charisma to be a starting over candidate, but he doesn't think that is the way to get things done. But I support him because his fixes are at least a step towards progress. While the Clintons, as this article notes, continued the downward spiral back to the Gilded Age. Not to mention the fact that they abandoned the state Democratic Party anywhere the presidential candidate didn't stand a chance of winning.

[MilesColtrane]

12. Well he is the only candidate of the three who didn't cast a vote for the IWR.

That gives him some right to tout himself as the only "true anti-war" candidate. He could declare himself the candidate of the Peace & Prosperity Party™ or something like that.

That's probably not a winning tactic though since the war is rapidly being overtaken by the shitty economy as the #1 issue for most voters.