Why is this primary race still going on? Because it's not just about the White House.

[WilliamPitt]

There is a huge war in the party for control *of* the party, and it is playing out in this primary race. Clinton, her husband and their people have been basically running the deal for 16 years, and deservedly so. They fought to repair it, won two terms with it, and have the thing pretty much wired the way it suits them. Anyone who finds it odd that they now are fighting to the knife for their hard-earned standing in the party, or thinks it is in bad form to do so, should take a second and look back over Democratic party history. This happens every so often; the old bulls v. the young bulls, and it's never easy or pretty or dignified, but you might as well wish for gravity to stop throwing your stuff on the floor.

Clinton and her people are basically in charge of the party on any number of levels, and they worked hard for it. Obama winning the nomination, however, would make him the leader of the party...out of nowhere, this young guy with a gift for gab and no record, this guy who was rude enough to not wait his turn, this guy is gonna come down with the last drop of rain and take charge of the house Clinton/Clinton etc. meticulously reassembled from the ashes of Dukakis and Mondale?

I think he is ( ;) ). But this contest for party control is, for one recent and vivid example, what Kennedy's endorsement of Obama was aimed at. Not about primaries or who wins the Oval. Teddy is a liberal who thinks Adlai Stevenson was a bit too moderate (joke), and he has spent 16 years and one impeachment living and dying with a Democratic party leadership cadre way too right for his tastes, voted for the war, DLC, etc. Sixteen years.

He saw his shot and took it. Teddy wants Obama in the Oval, but he REALLY wants Clinton to accept the situation. She is only still campaigning because a) It allows her to continue fundraising so she can try to ameliorate the $31 million hole she's in; and, b) To keep at bay any sense that she and her crew have any interest in relinquishing party control.

She'll bird-dog this to the end, until she is confident that her status in the party, along with her crew, isn't going to get taken out to the curb on trash day after 1/20/09. Teddy would like her to make these very reasonable arrangements without making Obama spend money better used to annihilate McCain...and yeah, he wants her and Bill and their DLC folks to lose some influence over the party, because he's a liberal, and that's how it goes.

Obama and Clinton will work something out, maybe even by June. The DLC folks will still have keys to the washroom, Clinton and her husband and their crew will still pretty much be running shit in the party, and President Obama won't screw with that until late into his second term, after wisely taking time to learn how that shit works, where the landmines are, and why being the leader of the world's most powerful nation plus a dime won't get you coffee at Starbucks if the sales associate happens to be a PA delegate, or a MI delegate who had to stand during the whole goddam convention.

Selah.

P.S. for what it's worth, I believe Teddy earned the right to throw some elbows. The world would be a better place if some of his fellow Democrats followed his lead, even if doing so risked hurting the feelings of their cross-aisle colleagues...you know, the ones who wouldn't piss on a Democrat if that Dem was on fire in front of them. Teddy earned the right, in spades.

Cheers.

[grantcart]

1. this isn't going to help her fund raising it is now essentially over

[papau]

63. LOL - she raised $20 mil last 30 days - the DNC raised near zero - if Hill not VP the DNC HURTS

[KSinTX]

70. She is nearly on par with McCain now

and brings an inconsistent fundraising apparatus.

The DNC appears weak compared to the RNC but the truth is they are being much more strategic by crushing them financially at all state levels and is supporting those efforts by waving off donations in favor of those campaigns. Dean's 50-state strategy is paying off in grand measure.

[ross3000]

92. McCauliffe sabotaged the DNC

on his last day as Chairman.

He turned over the donor lists to the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Committee)

This was a deliberate attempt to hurt Dean as the new Chairman in his attempts to fund the DNC.

This worked in diminishing the DNC fundraising; but not Dean's 50 state strategy which helped us in 2006 and will help us this year in re-jiggering the whole "electoral map."

Whenever i get requests for money from the DCCC and the DSCC... and i get many... i write back and tell them i will not give them anything till they renounce this sabotage and turn back the lists.

I give to the DNC directly (and to our local Pasadena United Democratic Headquarters)

ross3000

[ExPatLeftist]

93. And how much has she spent? n/t

[nachoproblem]

105. More than that

because even after recalculation she is $20 million in the red.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/corrected-item.html>

[ExPatLeftist]

110. My point exactly.

Pointing to income without mention of spending is always dubious.

[IllinoisBirdWatcher]

113. WRONG

When the "Change the rules for me, me, me" and moving goalposts nonsense ceases, millions of us will once again return to supporting the DNC.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

119. Proof that Clintons don't care about our country, its all about their own selfish gains

ownership of the US is money for them and their cronies

[janx]

2. Yeah...

I knew this was going to happen eventually, but I didn't realize it would be so painful to watch.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Like I've been saying, let party realignment happen...

EDIT: Dean's 50 state strat was the beginning, Clinton sowed the seeds herself with her vote to start the war. Everything came together with Obama to make the perfect storm.

[tavalon]

30. And whatever power the DLC loses is just fine with me

Making them become Republicans and living with the traitors seems about right. No loss to us as far as I can see.

[natrat]

100. i agree, i don't get the sympathy for the dlc in a time when crooks are the last thing we need

i think the dlc is more a wing of the gop than anything and is just screwing with liberals

[Cosmocat]

98. I have been saying this for a couple months ...

it is a big part of why, since Super Tuesday, BO has picked up most of the Super Delegates ... As they have seen that he is for real, and legitimate candidate, they also have seen the opportunity to break the party from the Clinton stranglehold ...

[Occam Bandage]

4. Cogent.

[rox63]

5. The first real blow against Clinton rule of the Dem party was Dean getting elected chair of the DNC

The Clintons have been trying to get rid of Dean ever since.

[sybylla]

16. You've got that right.

I'm still amazed at the party insiders that still don't see that. It's no wonder the general public has no clue about the biggest reason Clinton is still in this race - control of the party. Electing Howard Dean was all about the grassroots activists taking back control of the party from the corporate interests that set up shop under the Clintons.

That's why I'm so happy to see Obama staying strong.

[tavalon]

31. And we still have work to do

It's our party and I'll be damned if I'm going to invite in Nike or Exxon.

[tabasco]

57. Or Richard Mellon Scaife or Rupert Murdoch.

[Cha]

52. AaaaaMen! AaaaaaMen!

HalleeeluJah! I was so happy when that happened and knew good things were a comin'.


They're worse than repukes 'cause they're sneaky little dinos ..fuck 'em if they can't stand the heat.

[Connonym]

81. I hated to see him pushed out of the presidential race however

I sometimes think we're lucky he became head of the DNC instead. He may very well be the savior of the party in this whole big mess.

[bagrman]

116. Deans demise came after he said that he wanted to break up the Media Corps.......

Shortly there after he was gone. Edwards made to much out of fighting the big Corps, he got no mention in the press and he was gone. Now Obama has come out saying he's going after the Corps. and his press coverage is going to go in the tubes. Just wait The Clintons will start getting the good press and Obama will start sinking in "their" polls, or according to them he will become less and less electable.

The Corps aren't going to allow Obama to get in if they think he's going to effect their control or bottom line.

[cali]

6. Consider this, Will

In many ways, the Clintons lost control of the party when Howard Dean took over the DNC. Why do you think they fought that so hard. The last thingvthey wanted was someone who wasn't "their's" in that position. I don't think you're correct in your assessment that the Clintons run the party and would continue to do so even after Obama became president. This race has revealed how many powerful dems- it's sure the hell not just Teddy- were not part of the Clinton coalition.

[Tatiana]

8. I agree with this.

Obama is pulling senior Democrats from both conservative and liberal constituencies.

No one is going to accuse Daschle of being a liberal.

No one thinks Rockefeller is a liberal or Lee Hamilton or Robert Byrd.

There is a wide array of Democrats within this party that is saying, "ENOUGH. We don't want the Clintons ruling our party. We need to move in a new direction."

The Clintons can either accept this sentiment with class, dignity, and grace or they can continue to wage this intra-party war using the likes of the DC establishment, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, Karl Rove and John McCain to bolster their crusade.

[wiggs]

17. Good and true points but I think you just helped WP with his argument. A good

portion of the party is turning against her and she's trying to resist. Will's point seems valid to me because I don't buy the "she's a lunatic" theory and I don't buy the fundraising theory (she's getting deeper in the hole each week) All that's left is Will's idea and the notion that HRC is assuming (or knows) there's a big problem with Obama we haven't heard about yet. In the first instance, Will could be right but she won't be successful in the end and it won't matter; Obama is going to roll. It's the second possibility that worries me.

[Tatiana]

20. I do not buy the idea that HRC assumes there is a big problem with Obama.

Unless the big problem about Obama is the fact that the special interests cannot buy him off.

He took Dean's idea, ran with it, and lo and behold... it actually worked beyond anyone's imagination.

The people who are used to controlling Washington DC and our government care less about whether there is a Democrat or Republican in office and more about who is going to be friendly to their interests. One candidate insists he is beholden to the people. Another doesn't even pretend to deny ties to lobbyists and says that they are "regular people like you and me."

Think about it. Honestly think about it. Think about who the Clintons owe. Think about why James Carville and Mary Matalin are leaving Washington DC.

For the Clintons, this is bigger than being in the White House or even "controlling" a political party. That's the only explanation for this continued campaign.

Who do the Clintons owe? How much do they need to pay back?

[Maria Wr]

51. HRC is the one that scares me

we don't know enough about the donors to the Prez Library, Bill's deals with Dubai and other
MidEast countries. Just look at Mark Penn. he couldn't wait to start wheelin' and dealin'.
Hillary is no patriot. She's in it to win it, and damn what falls by the wayside (the party).

[goclark]

112. The world is seeing her big problem before our very eyes

Her lies, her negative campaign tricks are spreading throughout the internet world.

IMO, this is the first effective internet campaign of the 21st Century. With youtube and "clips" and MoveOn etc., campaigns are on a new playing field.

There are lots of things about Clinton that worry me. The main thing is " Why is this couple that we loved and admired changing before our very eyes every day?"

We don't need to wait to see a problem with HC or BO.... we see her End of Month Statement right on time and it's not pretty.

We saw her Bosnia "misspeak" immediately,

Oh, she has some major problems that are in the wings.

And, please keep Monica from doing a brand new book tour in August and tell "the real story" according to her now "refreshed" memory. :(

[Ian David]

7. Hillary for President of West Kentuckyginia! n/t

[Bread and Circus]

9. Meh...it's more like this...

If Obama wins the GE, the Clinton era is over. Done, kaput. They will be sent with their bags packing and the DLC will need to realign, dissolve or be relinquished to only the "red states".

If Obama loses the GE, get ready for the "Southern Strategy" in future elections and all the stealth racism and DLC'ism that involves. That is, until the demographics of this country change enough (and that change is coming in the wave of a mass of brown people) whether Southern white gentlemen and ladies want it to be so or not. In 20 years the whole electoral landscape will be changed when a vast swath of Latino/Mexican Americans become of voting age. Why do you think Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs are so damned worried?

[tavalon]

34. Isn't there some way we can destroy the DLC?

I mean do they have to continue to exist. Maybe we could buy them off and get them to join the other party or make one of their own. They are a cancer upon our party.

[Arugula Latte]

123. Howzabout sharks with frickin' laser beams...

It's worth a try.

[unblock]

10. missing. entire. point.

no one really objects, in principle, to the clintons fighting for whatever power they can get. sure, some want them to just go away, but really, that's not what politicians do, certainly not sitting senators and, for the most part, ex-presidents.

it's the methods by which they are trying to cling to power that is objectionable. had they been pushing a specific agenda (say, the fight against poverty), then they could advance their cause in a cooperative fashion and accomplish something positive.

instead, sticking with the campaign, refusing to grant the party certainty about the nomination, keeping alive negative memes that republicans will capitalize on in the general election campaign, and otherwise dividing the party is NOT a healthy way to lobby for retained power. it's closer to extortion, and only works when you actually already HAVE the power you're trying to retain.

the truth is, the clintons have not come to terms with the fact that they have, in fact, lost considerable power within the party and are in the process of further diminishing themselves by adopting the wrong tactics at the wrong time.

[tavalon]

35. I'm more than willing to help them understand their place

Tell me what to do to help them get the hell out of dodge, and I will do it. I will be a happy foot soldier.

[windbreeze]

11. I absolutely agree with this..

I told my husband the same thing, about 3 hours ago...this has to be about control of the Democratic party...and then I come here and find you, more or less, espousing the same thoughts...it's the only thing that makes sense...but I'm not so sure they are going to agree on much..we'll see...(O is smarter than the average bear, so I can see him biding his time)wb

[housewolf]

12. It's also a generational battle

Many baby boomers feel that they haven't been in power "long enough", having only 8 yrs of Clinton & 8 yrs of Bush. Prior to that, the bb's parents were in power from 1960 - 1992. Some bb's, raised with a sense of entitlement to always outdo their parent's generation, think that they are "entitled" to at least 16 more years of being in power.

Obama is a very late bb'er, more of a transitional period between bb'ers & gen x'ers. Hillary, on the other hand, is an early bb'er.

The problem is that the bb generation has contributed to and is deeply entrenched in the problems that exist today. Those younger have new ideas and energies to fix the problems that the bb'ers have had a hand in creataing.


btw, I'm an early bb'er myself.

[underpants]

15. Then the TK and Byrd enorsement were meant to end boomer reign

I don't think it is as generational as it is just anti-DLC

I think we have the chance to revert our party (forwards by going back) to its core and away from the "new" way that being DLC for us and Neo-Cons for the Repubs (see where THAT got them).

[Texas Hill Country]

24. 2 things: byrd probably endorsed out of respect for Kennedy, and look who his biggest

campaign contributor is...

in 2006 bid, it was moveon.org... $88k... #2 contributed $21k.


Think that may have had something to do with it?

[Grinchie]

82. It is more Anti DLC/Anti Corporate

We all know what the Corporations are doing to the earth.

Obama has been called "Generation Jones" and I am a proud member of that age group. I have seen forests destroyed, millions of acres of farmland paved over. Entire Coral Reefs bleached white, the fish in the sea's reduced by 80% in the name of profit and Increased Efficiency.

I have seen the food supply transformed into a toxic mixture with seemingly safe ingredients like "Spices" and Phosphoric Acid, or High Fructose Corn Syrup.

We have engineed plants to tolerate repeated drenchings of RoundUp, and have classified the entire plants and Pesticides, yet for some reason, Monsanto doesn't have to label out foods as coming from GMO. We have rice plants that produce Human Blood Albumin! That is just plain wrong.

I feel in my heart that Obama's eye's have been open and has noticed this monumental destruction of our world too, and his distance from the most odious of the Corporate crimimals is refreshing and welcome.

The Clintons are the enablers for most of what I relate above, and they need to be swept out along with all the other DLC cronies and put the Corporations on a leash.

Just remember, when Organic natural food costs more that the untested GMO, it's a warning sign that our food supply is in trouble. When Organic food are not available, the GMO's will have a monopoly, and that's the end game.

[dixiegrrrrl]

121. my sentiments exactly !!

and you put it very well.

I am one of the "early boomers", very involved in late 60's to late 70's issues.
And this election cycle I am older and wiser.
For me this is about what the Dems have become.

I will vote for Obama in the GE.
I won't vote for any other candidate because I am sick and tired of having a forced choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dumber. x(

[Texas Hill Country]

23. i disagree... it is hard left idealism vs the middle pragmatism.

[susankh4]

38. It is that!

And it is Hillary trying to prevent a total derailing. She knows what she is doing. And how this government works. As long as her finger is in the pot... I trust us Dems to safely deliver a viable ticket for November.

[peacebird]

64. the DLC pulled the "middle" so far to the right that even a moderate Dem looks like a far leftie

I say the sooner the DLC is out of the picture the better. They are far too beholden to K Street.

[eridani]

72. More REPUKE horseshit

51% of REPUKE voters and 92% of Dems want a government-paid health care program. It's only corporate shills like Clinton and the DLC who think that something most of the population wants is "hard left".

[bread_and_roses]

88. Exactly what "hard left" do you see on this political landscape?

Obama? I guess I missed the part where he proposed nationalizing the energy companies, abolishing the family, and outlawing organized religion.

And I've always wondered anyway what "hard left" means? Do we even have any "soft left" on the national scene? As far as I recall, neither of our candidates is even proposing national health care.

[ekwhite]

104. I totally agree

Obama is moderate to center right, in my book. He is is not even a soft leftist, in my book. It is just because the Clinton/Lieberman wing of the party is so far to the right that he looks liberal.

My ideal candidate (who would in no way win the general election, unfortunately) would propose nationalizing utilities, re-regulating the media, universal healthcare, aggressive promotion of green energy, emergency funding to rebuild inner city neighborhoods by hiring the residents to rebuild those neighborhoods, rebuilding our schools, prosecution of the Bush administration members, and most of all, immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq.

[crickets]

111. Agreed. I'd rec the comment if I could.

And I just don't see "hard left" in anything you've listed, unless "hard left" is now code for practicality and common decency. Oh, wait...

[ExPatLeftist]

94. There is no such thing as "hard left" in US major party politics.

On a global standard, they are ALL right-wingers.

[JDPriestly]

80. I would put it differently, but my thoughts are similar.

Hillary represents continuity with the past -- tradition, familiarity, something known and certain.

Obama represents the future -- change, novelty, opportunity, but also risk.

So, Hillary's fans are looking for the things she represents -- the good ole days so to speak.

Obama represents challenge. Lots of older people resent the fact that so many of Obama's supporters are just "kids."

Personally, I see good things in both candidates.

But, Hillary is very closely tied to the current corporate dominated D.C. culture. I think that is why Edwards, although a baby boomer, endorsed Obama. Edwards, in spite of his age, wants to see a change in the D.C. culture. And Obama has promised that.

[mmonk]

13. Yep.

That's what I told my wife. And it's what the voting public democrats that show up ever so often don't know.

[katsy]

14. Alpha Male. Alpha Female.

It follows; we have Alpha Statesmen.

[antigop]

18. Kick the DLC to the curb and be done with it. n/t

[tavalon]

36. How?

I'll help. I hate the fuckers and what they've done to our party.

[Grinchie]

84. How you ask? I'll tell you how!

Vote like your life depended on it!

Call them out on every lie!

The DLC and crew need to be booted out just to get real work done. They are just gumming up the machine works at the moment.

[Major Hogwash]

19. Sure, but that still doesn't explain why they think they can take it all the way to the convention.

For what it's worth, Hillary has lost a lot of veritas within the party for all the arrogance she has shown lately, taking advantage of the media by claiming they are being too hard on her and going on Faux Snooze at the same time!!

If ever there were a two-faced Democrat, she is it!!

[zeemike]

21. From the view of the conspiracy theorist

And i guess I am one the real power in the party is not even known to most people. and it is likely that the power control's both parties and plays one against the other to give the illusion of democracy and to keep the nation divided into two basic camps.
The Clinton's started out fighting them but soon learned to go along with them. And with that was the promise of power. Now we have the up start that the powers will have to train all over again to compromise with their wishes and they would prefer not to have to go there.

[kentuck]

22. And what does this have to do with FL and MI ?

Because Hillary and the Party establishment had what they thought was a set-up for her to win in both states. They had worked hard to establish her base in both places. But FL and MI stuck a needle in that balloon. If they had stuck with their initial schedule, Hillary might very well be standing where Obama is today - at the threshhold of the nomination.

[crankychatter]

25. It's the coming War - Iraq has always been a logistical platform for expanded operations

I only wish you were right.

Clinton will give them what they want. Obama is considered a loose cannon.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. what have you got in that pipe?

[tavalon]

37. A great deal of thoughtfulness and an awful lot of political smarts

What're you smoking? It's over for your candidate.

[MilesColtrane]

27. What a sense of entitlement.

Bill and Hillary, it's called the will of the people. That's the way this country (usually) works.

There's a reason Ted Kennedy's been in office for 45+ years. The people want him there.

Regardless of the skins on your wall you can't expect to control the party when the people want change.

You'd be best suited by going back to New York and doing a little soul searching as to why you were shown the door. (hint...your records, your donors, your hubris)

[merh]

28. See, that's just it - IT ISN'T THEIR PARTY - THEY DON'T OWN IT

anymore than Bush and his ilk own the government. IT IS OUR PARTY - and but for the grace of God, the Clinton's all but ruined it for us and are now trying to ruin it out of a sense of ownership, control and entitlement.

Bill did more damage to our party with his personal hobbies, stop giving them credit while absolving them of their responsibility and, yes, guilt. If you think the GOP won't come blasting with the trash from their past and their lies and their abuses in office then you are as delusional as they are.

IT IS NOT THEIR PARTY - they were never crowned and they don't deserve the crown and there will be no dynasty.

THE DLC BE DAMNED, we want our party back.

:argh:

[tavalon]

29. Nail, meet head

:thumbsup: :kick:

[susankh4]

32. "She'll bird-dog this to the end...

until she is confident that her status in the party, along with her crew, isn't going to get taken out to the curb on trash day after 1/20/09."

Well, Gawd Damn! Did I just hear an Obama supporter agree with me on something??? Well hot diggity... this may actually still be the party I came of age supporting.

You are one hundred and twenty percent correct, Mr. Pitt. And I'll even raise you that dime for a Starbucks!

Hillary will never abandon the party she and Bill worked so hard to save, and turn around. And she sure ain't gonna hand over the "keys" to some slick talkin' neophyte without a record. Unless, of course, she and her DLC are assured of some oversight.

That's a good thing, my friend. We shouldn't want to place our beloved party in jeopardy .... no matter how much we like our "left wing fantasies." Things change slowly here in the good ol' U.S. of A. The founding fathers set it up that way on purpose. It's painful to realize... but it is what it is. And, if we can play this thing out to an amicable conclusion... we'll have a strong, slowly evolving party that begets change born of experience. Rather than a train wreck that will take us years to repair.

Everything is just fine with my party, thanks. And as long as I see Hillary nodding her a-OK I will go along with the party's choice in November. If, OTOH... Ms. Clinton gives me reason to believe that the party has jumped the track... I am out of here.

Four years just ain't that long in the larger scheme of things.

[haymakeragain]

33. Clinton won because of Perot, without him,

we'd arguably would have had Bush because Perot voters might not have fallen his way. Remember, Perot got 20%.

The main problem is that when he obtained the White House through good fortune, he did not come through for the Democratic Party as well as he should have, while doing a decent job fending off Newt and the loonies (even though it was him that led to their take-over), but worst of all, he fucked us but good with that Monica thing. BUT GOOD.

Their claim on the Democratic Party and its soul is tenuous at best, artificial and self-serving at worst.

It appears that they are too selfish to be part of the group and lend a hand, it is control or sabotage.

[paulk]

45. this claim has been debunked numerous times

here on DU

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml

[madrchsod]

39. let the old guys and gals sit back and advise.

..it`s time for new leadership from the local level to the president...

[blm]

40. Bull - Clintons got into office and immediately HURT The party and this country by siding with Poppy

Bush and protecting his secrecy and privilege throughout the 90s.

They did not FIX anything in our party - they allowed the party infrastructure to collapse state by state in too many states as the RNC gained control of every level of the election process where the votes are allowed, cast and counted - which came hom to roost for Dems in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Parry has it right about the Clintons and their protection of BushInc. You have it wrong, Will. You are still living in a Demland where Clintons never undermined Gore and Kerry and Dem voters and Bill never really used his summer2004 book tour to repeatedly defend Bush from the criticisms of the 'left' and our Dem nominee.

After reading Bill's book there is no way ANYONE with respect for the accuracy of this nation's historic record should feel comfortable with his stewardship of that record. He sided with CLOSED GOVERNMENT.

[Career Prole]

41. Very happy to add a rec to this'n, Will! n/t

[theboss]

42. Will just re-read Fear and Loathing '72 again

Just sayin'.

[WilliamPitt]

43. You do need a hobby

Once a week you drop a little poison into one of my threads. Here's the one from last week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5879894#5881704

Keep at it, if it somehow validates your existence. Personally, I find you generally pathetic. But hey, I read books and stuff as you indicated. Or something.

You must have better things to do. If you don't, that's kinda sad.

:shrug:

[theboss]

44. I'm sorry that it took me 8 seconds to recognize that this as an update of the convention chapter

I read books too. I just don't rewrite them and pass them off as original in my posts.

But you are right. I need a hobby. I should start drunk posting in order to keep what's left of my little online fan club placated.

(And I'm sorry, but your political predictions NEVER come true. Is it my fault for pointing that out?)

[IndianaJones]

47. who is the author of the book you are talking about? nt.

[theboss]

50. Hunter S. Thompson

It's a good book and there is a slight parallel between the Obama/Clinton race and the McGovern/Whoever race. The big difference is that the Whoever in '72 was never really defined. It was Muskie for a while. Then Humphrey. Then possibly Kennedy. In '72, it was Establisment Control vs McGovern. In '08, it's Clinton Control vs Everyone.

It's really amazing in a lot of ways how the Democratic Party had become The Clinton Party.

[Barrymores Ghost]

54. Your first line after your subject header was a direct lift from "Good Will Hunting."

Now who's re-writing a script and passing it off as his own?

Just havin' a little fun, here.

[theboss]

55. Well played, sir.

Well played.

[Barrymores Ghost]

56. Paul Rudd. Bar Scene.

"40-Year-Old Virgin."

I could do this all day.

[theboss]

62. I don't remember that scene

Um...these are not the droids you're looking for.

[WilliamPitt]

76. If anybody on this forum needs to get drunk,

it's you, hoss.

:toast:

You're the last person around here who still tries to throw out stuff about my "fans." Get some new scriptwriters...and have a drink.

[leveymg]

90. Thought the Clintons were good at fundraising. Seems they don't even have a nickle for a beer.

That's not much of an endorsement for letting them keep control over the Party apparatus for the next seven years.

Besides, it seems that every other buck they did manage to raise comes from China, Saudi Arabia or AIPAC.

Enough of THAT, already. They're done. :beer:

[DemExpat]

46. The best article on factors fueling Clinton's fight

that I've read here on DU lately.

Enjoyed the optimism on working it out, and the tribute to Ted Kennedy.

Thanks!

:kick:

DemEx

[Genevieve]

49. same here...nt

[Cha]

48. Yeah, even I knew that..thanks for the eloquent

reminder.

I say hilary, bil, and the dinos get their keys to the restrooms taken away and they do their shit somewhere else.

[lastliberalintexas]

53. Yep, the same Kennedy who voted for NCLB and the Medicare drug fiasco

The same Kennedy who made sure to derail Carter's second term because of personal ambition? The same Kennedy- well, I won't go into the rest of it since the man is ill, but suffice it to say that he isn't exactly the liberal lion of your OP.

And your OP is also founded on another flawed premise- that Obama is a liberal and wants the DNC to go in the direction Dean has been pushing. He's certainly no liberal, in fact is very, very close to Clinton on actual policies. And who the heck knows who he'll put in charge at the DNC? For all we know, it could be Axelrod or even Brazille, who I've seen has basically become an Obama surrogate of late. That would kind of dampen the anti-DLC supporters of Obama.


There is a reason I am old and cynical, and politicians justify my cynicism every single day. It's going to be a sad day in Obama land when he begins disappointing his supporters.

[kohodog]

58. Spot on, and I would add

That many power brokers in DC do not want a president that is not beholden to them. Obama's money coming from millions of small contributors are a threat to the status quo. This is the power struggle I've been watching for.

[seasat]

59. I'm glad you posted this. I've saying this for months.

My father is an older southern Democrat and he mentioned to me that he thought Obama was supported by only liberals. I pointed out that some of the early Obama endorsers are some of the most conservative in the Democratic party. While Obama clearly has support from us liberals because of his stance against the war, foreign policy, and opposition to media consolidation, he is more main stream Democrat on other issues. While he isn't DLC, he's no Dennis Kucinich in his positions.

The party officials that support him are those that were not part of the Clinton group in the Democratic leadership. You have New England liberals mixing with western moderates. IMHO, it's not really a battle of liberal versus conservative but a battle of approach in party building and management.

I pointed out to him that the reason a broad coalition supports Obama is because it's about control of the party. The Clintons brought in a winning strategy in the early 90s that involved courting southern Democrats and triangulating on issues. They were very successful in bringing big money donors into the party especially with Bill's charismatic style. They went on to position supporters in every area of the party dominating it's structure. They do have some liberal backers who were brought into power along with some of the conservative and moderate Democrats. Their policy served to keep the party alive while the political barometer of the country swung to the right from the 80s through the 90s.

However, now that the pendulum is swinging clearly back to the left, it's time to follow through and consolidate our position as the dominant party. I think that the 50 state approach brought on by Dean and the grass roots organization ability of Obama is a great match. If we build a party that's no longer as regional, we'll be able to push the agenda even further to the left on many issues. Our policies will have greater broad based support by bringing in involvement from the population. I think the Clinton's approach will not build the party as fast or as strong as the approach that Obama represents. It's one of the many reasons I support him.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. I beg to differ...but only slightly

Control of the Democratic Party has already begun slipping their the DLC (and Clinton) fingers. Howard Dean is no Friend of Bill and his campaign was based on opposition to the DLC -- remember the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party?"

Barak Obama will have effective control of the DNC starting with his nomination -- there was a wire service story today to the effect that they're already starting the transition. And when he's finished thrashing John McCain and a larger majority sweeps into both Houses of Congress, largely due to his coattails, the DNC is going to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Barak Obama, Inc.

Obama won't need to wait until late in his second term. As the increasing defections of Super Delegates from Camp Hillary would indicate, their political capital is nearly spent.

So I differ just on the matter of the timing, otherwise I think your analysis is spot on.

[AtomicKitten]

61. "Let me explain the contamination process.

Pine cones go in here, party liquor comes out here and proceeds to here, fights begin, fingerprints are took, days are lost, bail is made, court dates are ignored, and the cycle is repeated." * Squidbillies

[H2O Man]

65. Much appreciated.

This is one of those OPs that I'd like to recommend a dozen times.

I spent the afternoon talking with my son about how every so often, a group with younger democrats comes along to challenge the older democrats. We could start with 1960, and a young Bobby Kennedy being the moving force behind his brother's campaign for president. Older people resented the young upstarts, and called Bobby "arrogant" when he refused to consider the value of having John "wait his turn."

Hamilton Jordan was a youngster who masterminded a plan for a largely unknown parochial politician to get to the White House. The party elders resented him, and the word "arrogant" was used to describe him.

You are right on target on the information about the Clintons, and how Obama today is the young lion challenging the party establishment. By no coincidence, we hear people who support Senator Clinton refer to Obama as arrogant, and suggesting he should wait his turn.

[rhett o rick]

66. Well written. nm

[bill for obama]

67. Really,

Your statement - "Obama and Clinton will work something out, maybe even by June. The DLC folks will still have keys to the washroom, Clinton and her husband and their crew will still pretty much be running shit in the party, and President Obama won't screw with that until late into his second term.."

Did it occur to you that this might be close - that we could actually lose??? Two weeks of fundraising at their respective levels is about 25 million dollars.

SO if this is a close race - would 25 million dollars be enough to tip it??

Are we going to screw this up again??

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. The only problem with that:

BILL has been top dog in the party for sixteen years. Hillary is not Bill, and the Democratic Party is not a fiefdom. And to be perfectly blunt, the years of Clinton leadership haven't been great ones for the Democratic Party, despite Bill's two terms; just look at the losses in Congress and state houses during the Clinton years. Terry McAuliffe, Clinton loyalist that he is, was a spectacularly ineffective DNC head, who was able to get donations but not so much to win elections, and Howard Dean has done a much better job. If staying on control of the party is more important to the Clintons than winning elections, then it's long past time to turn the page on them.

[WilliamPitt]

75. Spider!

Great to see you.

I still say you have the best sig in this joint.

:toast:

[Time for change]

69. I don't blame Hillary for working hard to win the nomination

But what I seriously object to is her saying things that weaken Obama's candidacy against McCain. Doing that means one of two things IMO: 1) She's a Republican at heart, or 2) She puts personal ambition above the good of the party and the good of her country. Either way, it has caused me to lose a great deal of respect for her.

I do not feel that because the Clintons won two terms in the WH already that that means they deserve a 3rd term or deserve to continue to control the Democratic Party. It is not their Party. It is the people who should choose who our next President will be, not the current Party leaders. If the people want Obama, that that's who they should have IMO.

[eridani]

71. The Clinton's notion of "repair" was to ditch the traditional Dem constituency

--and to remake the Dems to be a party dependent on big bucks and consultants slicing and dicing a passive electorate. It meant a lot of dead and dying state parties, loss of state legislatures and governorships, and even loss of Congress.

Dean got state parties out of receivership when necessary, and initiated a voter tracking system that is just beginning to catch up to the Repubs in this respect. Obama used the VoteBuilder system, and more important, put his data back into it. Clinton has her own database and ain't sharing. How does this get us the farm teams of local officeholders who are our future governors, senators and presidents?

[C_U_L8R]

73. They're acting like it's their ball

and they're throwing a tantrum because other people are playing with it.

We've seen this meltdown before... it doesn't have a happy ending.

[union_maid]

74. You're making me feel smart

I've been going around saying this for the last week or so, but not clearly the way you did. I hope you're wrong about the Clintons retaining control of the party, though. I'd really like to see the insurgents win that one a bit sooner than into a second Obama term.

[rhett o rick]

77. Great post. We can not win in Nov without the support of our grassroots

movement. We can win in Nov with out the support of the DLC and the Clintons. We are currently in a war to save the party for true blue grass roots Democrats that are tired of being relegated to the back of the bus by the power Democrats. We The People run this party.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

78. Thank you, my dear Will!

I was hoping that someone with some degree of intelligence would post an explanation of what in God's good name is going on...

And you, sir, have just done so...

Bookmarking for future reading, should I become confused yet again...

Thank you!

K&R

:patriot:

[Ellipsis]

79. Thanks for the perspective. K&R

Prost

:toast:


"And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God."

[Dammit Ann]

83. Kick for Teddy.

Spades, interesting way of phrasing it, but YES, my GAWD, has he PAID. I will weep for the tragedy of that family for the remainder of my miserable (drunken Irish) days. REC'D. :beer:

edited for beer.

[democrank]

85. Change. That` what it`s all about.

Real honest to goodness (much-needed) change.

~PEACE~

[frogcycle]

86. Excellent piece.

It is certainly refreshing to read the rare post like this that presents insight, regardless of whether one agrees in full ( I pretty much do) written in actual sentences and well-constructed paragraphs, no less, with a lighthearted touch to boot. Thanks

And a tip of the hat to Teddy for all that you describe and more. One of the good guys, indeed.

[quickesst]

87. Unless you're....

deaf and blind, it should be apparent to you that Obama supporters have no interest in uniting wjth Clinton, or her supporters. They remind us many times on a daily basis, that all they need for a landslide victory is app. half the Democratic Party, and those repugs who have seen the light, repented, and given up their hatred for anything Democratic, or liberal. When and if Obama is the nominee, many will put on a false smile, extend their right hand, and say "let's work together", all the while, the left hand will be holding a big steaming pile of hateful shit, ready to be unleashed upon Clinton, and her supporters once their vote is no longer needed. Bottom line is, we had the presidency in the bag, but Obama's ambition, and the gorging of Kool-aid by his supporters derailed that, and in order to become the nominee, the Clinton's had to be become racists. It was the only way he could win. They've been looking for this opportunity for a long time, this certain type of liberal, and Obama fits the bill for them to a tee. If the Clinton's were racist, why did it take almost two decades to find this out? And if a large portion of DU were racist, why couldn't the all-seeing, and wise Obama fan figure this out years ago, and have them banned. Many of those Clinton supporters were widely read, and respected before this primary, and because they chose to go with experience, and a proven record, they were, and are being demonized with false accusations, and slurs on their character. Face it, Obama fans are worse than Bushbots in 2000 and 2004. Dubya had religion, Obama has racism, and they're both flawed beyond any reasoning, but for some, they are the nectar of the gods, and are being used in the most dispicable, and dishonorable fashion possible. That pundits such as the author of the op have fallen into the same mode has more to do with avoiding the same labels Clinton and her supporters have been tagged with, rather than any genuine conviction that Obama is the best choice. Self-preservation. Wrap it in eloquency, tie a ribbon around it, and douse it with perfume, but the inside of the package still smells to high heaven, and it's a smell Hillary-haters, and "respected" pundits will have to live with for the rest of their lives. Thanks.
quickesst

[ExPatLeftist]

99. It must make your thought processes much more simple

To lump all Obama supporters into a single group and discuss them as one. Simple, but fallacious and incorrect.

To bad for your simplified thought processes that in reality they are all fully developed individuals who share a single trait: their selection of primary candidate.

I would suggest re-joining reality, putting down the over-sized brush and remembering that people are individuals.

[kentj44]

89. hil needs to switch

parties.

[Jersey Devil]

91. Good job giving some perspective for all of it

Sometimes you have to stop, take a deep breath, step back and look at what is really going on from a distance to see what things are all about and your post goes a long way to help us see that. Thanks.

[bigtree]

95. I don't think the Clintons have had as much influence as you assert here

Hillary Clinton never seemed to achieve any significant influence as senator over legislation. Certainly, on important issues, her involvement was seen by many as polarizing.

As for Obama being more of a liberal than Clinton, I don't think he's edged her by much in the various measures used to judge such things. So, I don't know what she would do differently than Obama would if she actually had the influence you describe. I think both would rely on the party to set most of the agenda and they would amplify that agenda from their office, much like Bill Clinton did.

So, I think any 'elbows' or 'fire' employed needs to be used in Congress more than they need to be used to elevate one of these candidates over the other. If Congress doesn't change it won't make a dimes worth of difference which of these Democrats presides in the White House.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

96. So Hillary's supporters are just paying off her debts now?

that's sad for them.

[bigtree]

101. if you gave money to Obama you've helped with his debts

Why don't you just concern yourself with your own money?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

118. what debts does Obama have?

[BlueJac]

97. It's about econmics....

The free traders and their power to run everything and keep the strangle hold on American workers. Clinton kept Greenspan a Milton Friedman follower, which led to more economic disaster.

[irish.lambchop]

102. So the Clintons and their people

are fighting to retain their control and power over the Democratic Party without concern for the effects of their behavior on others within the Democratic Party? Okay, now I understand. Sociopaths.

[bigtree]

103. what a *false argument. EVERY politician wants to control the agenda

That's not restricted to the Clintons. And find me ONE politician who has control over how their actions affect 'others' within the Democratic party. The disconnect in this argument about some influence Clinton might gain over the party as a trailing candidate is in the fact that we don't know for certain what the makeup of that Congress will be after election day. That makeup will be the most determinate factor in any 'change' that is to occur as a result of putting a Democrat in the White House.

Clinton is a sociopath? Not hardly. She's a typical politician exercising every lever of opportunity available. That's not unheard of in a presidential election. Neither is the fact that there will be some shifts in influence as a result of who achieves office. And, that influence won't be some static thing where bad leaves and good comes to stay. There is an entrenched political class in Congress which will have to be unseated by voters before any significant 'change' can occur beyond the expected reversals of the Bush agenda and administration. The differences between Sen. Clinton's potential influence on that and Sen. Obama's potential for any successful 'purge' of the 'status quo' is going to be limited (at least in the first couple of years) to whatever coattails the nominee demonstrates in November.

[Major Hogwash]

122. They are talking about it on the radio programs today!!! Hillary is nuts!!!

Not a sociopath? Try egomaniacal pathological liar.

And you thought Bush was the only crazy ass politician who wanted to rule the world!!!

[defendandprotect]

106. This is a battle to overturn the right-wing-corporate DLC and HRC is DLC ---

If you want the party to be pulled to the right, vote for HRC --

If not, vote for Obama ---

[global1]

107. So If The Dem Party Is The Party Of The Clinton's Then.......

do they support this war (HRC voted for it)? Do they not want to impeach Dubya? Is this why the Dem congress since '06 hasn't been able to accomplish much? Is is all because the Clinton's and their ilk control the party? And if Hilliary wins - we will just have more of the same going forward? They would let *Co off scot-free and not take them to task for shredding the Constitution - because they really support all of what *Co has done to us over the last 8 years?

And is the fact that Kennedy looks like he will be taken out be supportive of the Clinton control? Without the voice of Kennedy around will the other side (not the Clinton control side) be weakened?

Is this why Hilliary has pushed this hoping that something would happen to her and the Clinton's benefit? Do they have a Kennedy voo-doo doll that they have worked on?

[CaptJasHook]

108. Bingo, Washington hasn't changed. Vote Down ticket.

I like to compare the exodus of working class votes out of the Democratic party to the exodus of the white middle class out to the Suburbs. They both happened at approximately the same time and for the same reasons. Republicans flamed the flames of racism with their Southern strategy, their Willie Hortons, their Welfare Queens. Their crass lies scared Hillary's "hard working white voters (hereafter HWWV)" into believing that Blacks and other brown skins were stealing their jobs or getting unfair benefits that were not afforded them.

Bill Clinton and the DLC stopped the mass exodus of HWWV in the 90s. HWWVs, Union members were always a mainstay of the Democratic party since Roosevelt, yet they were fleeing to Reagan/Bush because of racial and class divisions flamed by the Right. The DLC gave the HWWVs some false promises about NAFTA, gave welfare "reform" to get rid of those Straw Queens, and made it cool to be a Saxophone playing White soul brother. So the mass exodus slowed down and the inherent racism of the entire mess was covered up.

And Hillary supporters, I might add, that all of you women were taken for granted in the entire lousy deal. The DLC knew they could count on you, and if you honestly look at their NAFTA policies and their Welfare reform you will see that they have not improved the situation for women of the world.

A large part of my support for Obama is a vote to move beyond these ridiculous divisions. Yes, Obama represents a step toward post-racial, post-gender politics. I am tired of the politics of division, subtle or otherwise. I am tired of feeling ashamed of America, my race, my gender. I am tired of Straw victims and Straw isms.

The DLC, the Clintons, need to grow the hell up, get on board and start rebuilding this nation. They can lead, follow or get the fuck out of the Progressive way.

[goclark]

109. Thanks for your post ~ The Party is now The Jets and the Sharks......

"the Jets are an all-white street gang at war with Bernardo (George Chakiris) and his Puerto Rican friends, the Sharks, over control of territory in their mutual neighborhood."

[CaptJasHook]

114. There's more truth to that than I would wish, nt

[Beacool]

115. I believe you nailed it when you explained why Teddy endorsed Obama.

I personally know the Kennedys enough through politics and having lived in Palm Beach, vacationing in Cape Cod, etc. Sooner or later you end up in the same crowd and see the same faces at every event. You also make connections and friends.

Kennedy has resented the power that the Clintons have within the DNC for quite some time. They are centrists and he is very liberal, but it's also about being top dog in the party. The Kennedys were the most powerful political family in the party for decades and Clinton changed that when he won the presidency twice by retooling the party and moving it closer to the center. Yes, this election is about two factions in the party: the liberals and the centrists.

Who will win? The jury is out on that. Despite the general consensus, several Reps. and one senator I've talked to in the last few weeks still have doubts about Obama's electability. They are worried about his lack of experience and what the Repugs are going to throw at him. Obviously they know better than to voice their opinion in public, but there are a lot of worried people in the party right now.

[DirtyDawg]

117. The thing that concerns me about this...

...is that Obama, in an effort to pacify Billary, will allow them to throw Howard Dean under the bus (I really have grown to hate that term). If Barack does that I will lose a hellofalot of respect for him. Howard has done a great job in re-building the DNC following the 'surge' of the DLC which basically had abandoned what the Party had stood for (except for the South of course) since FDR.

And of course this is really the story here, just as it was in '76 when an upstart Jimmy Carter and the Georgia Mafia came riding into town with what they/we thought was an mandate to make changes....but nooooo. The irony is that Teddy Kennedy fought him, Carter, tooth and nail...wouldn't shake hands with him at his Inauguration and ran against him for the '80 nomination. Sadly, and indeed yet an even larger irony, just two days ago the architect of the Carter winning campaign, Hamilton Jordan, passed away from cancer. Sure if Jimmy had brought a few more of the 'old guard' into his administration he may have survived the battle of 'Inside The Beltway' - face it, he was against Repugs and Washington Dems for the entire four years and in the end, succumbed.

Obama, I know you've got to make some compromises to keep the Clintons from detonating their 'Doomsday Device', but don't let 'em lynch Howard, we'll never forgive you for that.

[nichomachus]

120. So what you're basically saying is

that the battle is about whether the Democratic party just continues to be the slightly less right-wing branch of the Corporate Party that really runs the country as a one-party enterprise.

[moondust]

124. DLC was the future. In 1992.

In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s as the world became economically unipolar and global capitalism was "the way to go."

In 2008 the world is a much different place. It's time for the Clintons and the DLC (Democratic-Leaning Corporatists) with their NAFTA-style wrongheadedness to step back and let the post-globalization era unfold. Their time has passed.