• 📚 A new project from the admin: Check out PictureBooks.io, an AI storyteller that lets you build custom picture books for kids in seconds. Let me know what you think here!

Is the Clinton / Obama fight fracturing the Democratic Party?

emzie

wicked witch of the North
Moderator
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
21,364
Location
Ottawa, Canada
Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment. It is also an education, and there is something heartening in this.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are "high minded" on the surface but "smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years."

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

Mr. Obama takes the pummeling and preaches the high road. It's all windup with him, like a great pitcher more comfortable preparing to throw than throwing. Something in him resists aggression. He tends to be indirect in his language, feinting, only suggestive. I used to think he was being careful not to tear the party apart, and endanger his own future.

But the Clintons are tearing the party apart. It will not be the same after this. It will not be the same after its most famous leader, and probable ultimate victor, treated a proud and accomplished black man who is a U.S. senator as if he were nothing, a mere impediment to their plans. And to do it in a way that signals, to his supporters, How dare you have the temerity, the ingratitude, after all we've done for you?

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

It's a Peggy Noonan editorial, and she's not my favourite commentator, but she hits at something I've been feeling.

I'm for Obama but head told me Clinton would probably take this nomination. I reluctantly decided that if she did, I would vote for her despite my dislike for her, the person.

Over the past few weeks, that's all changed. Whoever wins the nomination will receive the support of the looser, but the bitterness I feel towards Clinton (and I'm sure there are Clinton supporters who feel this way towards Obama) I don't see disappearing. Am I wrong?

I don't remember the '99 Primaries. Did Bush and McCain's supporters heal?

All I know is if Obama isn't on my ballot come this November, I'm voting Green.
 
It's possible. Feels like a generational thing, a changing-of-the-guard thing (if it happens), establishment versus the new guy, etc., etc., etc. I don't think it would be a permanent fracture, though.

I don't remember the '99 Primaries. Did Bush and McCain's supporters heal?

They did in time to ally for the 2004 election against John Kerry. But that was one brutal race.
 
I don't think it's as big a threat to the Party as the news media (or the Republican Party!) would like it to be, but it's not something the Party needs, either. The Democratic Party has a tremendous track record in getting qualified candidates to lose spectacularly, as Mark will probably point out shortly. Although any polls suggest that people will be more likely to vote for the Democrat whoever it is this November, the numbers are somehow much less for either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama.

The thing is, from an outside observer, there aren't any significant ideological differences between Clinton and Obama. Both seem to be standard-issue Democrats to me, without any defining characteristics outside of image. That wasn't the case with McCain and Bush. While Bush was, and continues to be seen as, a textbook "Christian conservative" with his attitudes toward evangelical Christianity, Karl Rove's version of politics, and corporate interests over the environment, the same cannot be said of McCain: his campaign got off to a bad start in the South in 2000 when he referred to a few high-profile Christian hotheaded leaders as "agents of intolerance," and he's an honorary member of the "Republicans for Environmental Protection." Opposition to corn subsidies in Iowa and corporate welfare to automakers in Michigan didn't enhance his popularity any. Still, I don't think any significant split occurred in the Republican Party between Bush and McCain's faithful... not one to doom the Party's chances, at least.

So it is with Obama and Clinton, except without significant differences of opinion. Their arguments stem not from whether to institute universal healthcare, but whether to require coverage for everyone or just for children and those with a certain income level; not from actual records, but on perceived potential for experience or change. Both are Democrats who seem to hold acceptable positions for the average American Democrat, and if Hillary is the nominee and the Clintons shred the Republican candidate effectively enough to bring the Democrats back to the White House, Obama supporters will grumble that their guy might have done a better job or looked better doing it... but that Pres. Clinton XLIV is still better than Pres. Romney or Huckabee or etc.
 
I have a similar feeling to that stated in the OP so yes it is. I must say it is Bill more than Hillary that has bothered me. His aggressive role in the campaign is just a turn off and I wonder if it might be better for the policies I want in the long run to just purge the Clintons by haveing her lose in 08. I'm sure I will come to my senses and be a strong Hillary supporter in Nov. But ATM I am developing a bitter dislike for those 2 and the thought of seeing them in the news every day.
 
I hope so. I'd love to see the democratic party fall and hopefully be replaced with the Libertarian party.
 
Naw. Recall the predictions of the implosion of the Democratic party before? And then *boom* 2006 comes along.
 
I think it ultimately won't matter. There is plenty of fracturing going on over on the GOP also. That being said, Bill Clinton needs to play a more positive role for Hillary's campaign. He is playing the bad cop which wouldn't normally be a bad thing for a high profile spouse to do except that Hillary will never be seen as a good cop. Bill should be emphasizing the positives of Hillary's campaign and let her take care of attacking her opponents - it's what the public expects of her and if people see Bill being viscious, they are only going to assume that Hillary is acting even worse.
 
The thing is, from an outside observer, there aren't any significant ideological differences between Clinton and Obama. Both seem to be standard-issue Democrats to me, without any defining characteristics outside of image.

No. But we don't elect policy platforms to be implemented by robots.
... Obama supporters will grumble that their guy might have done a better job or looked better doing it... but that Pres. Clinton XLIV is still better than Pres. Romney or Huckabee or etc.

If it wasn't for what Huckabee did to Romney to get where he is, I'd prefer him at this point. Probably because I'm pissed.

I have a similar feeling to that stated in the OP so yes it is. I must say it is Bill more than Hillary that has bothered me. His aggressive roll in the campaign is just a turn off and I wonder if it might be better for the policies I want in the long run to just purge the Clintons by haveing her lose in 08. I'm sure I will come to my senses and be a strong Hillary supporter in Nov. But ATM I am developing a bitter dislike for those 2 and the thought of seeing them in the news every day.

Bill's out there because Hillary's campaign wants him out there. They spin it as if it's the same as Michelle Obama campaigning for Barack. He's a former President, it is not the same.

Did Bush Sr ever campaign hard for his son like Bill is for his wife?

I hope so. I'd love to see the democratic party fall and hopefully be replaced with the Libertarian party.

That's... not likely.

I think it ultimately won't matter. There is plenty of fracturing going on over on the GOP also. That being said, Bill Clinton needs to play a more positive role for Hillary's campaign. He is playing the bad cop which wouldn't normally be a bad thing for a high profile spouse to do except that Hillary will never be seen as a good cop. Bill should be emphasizing the positives of Hillary's campaign and let her take care of attacking her opponents - it's what the public expects of her and if people see Bill being viscious, they are only going to assume that Hillary is acting even worse.

That made a lot of sense!
 
I hope so. I'd love to see the democratic party fall and hopefully be replaced with the Libertarian party.

:lol: :lol: . Your grandchildren will not live to see that day. The Dem party is on the rise and will very likely increase their gains in the congress and Hillary or Obama will probably win as well. The responses in the Dem party are surface emotional issues and a weariness with the Clinton/Bush thing rather than a real fracture. If you want that look to the Republicans. That is where there is a real substantive fracture.
 
They criticized Gore for not using Bill to get elected. Maybe he just overcompensated?
 
I think it ultimately won't matter. There is plenty of fracturing going on over on the GOP also. That being said, Bill Clinton needs to play a more positive role for Hillary's campaign. He is playing the bad cop which wouldn't normally be a bad thing for a high profile spouse to do except that Hillary will never be seen as a good cop. Bill should be emphasizing the positives of Hillary's campaign and let her take care of attacking her opponents - it's what the public expects of her and if people see Bill being viscious, they are only going to assume that Hillary is acting even worse.

Excellent insight. If Bill was talking Hill up I would not have the same reaction at all. I never liked Bill all that much and I resent their use of their machine to perpetuate his legacy. If Hillary was just the Jr. Sen from NY she would be going no where. She reminds me of all the past democratic policy wonk automita.
 
Bill Clinton is doing his greatest damage to his worldwide charity effort, the Clinton Global Initiative.

For his recent history, he's come across as a powerful orator of hope and figure who trascending political bickering. After his slug-fest in South Carolina, the world is already perceiving him differently. He's lost part of his aura, and auras are important if you're going to be a statesman of the world.
 
No. But we don't elect policy platforms to be implemented by robots.

Of course not, but it's not like there's an Obama wing and a Clinton wing to the Democratic Party, in the sense that a corporate business Republican wouldn't like Huckabee, a Christian conservative wouldn't like Romney, and a Ron Paul Republican wouldn't like anyone else running.

If it wasn't for what Huckabee did to Romney to get where he is, I'd prefer him at this point. Probably because I'm pissed.

Or because you prefer Democrats so much, you'd rather we get our "Carter" in office so the Dem presidents to succeed him will look brilliant by comparison!

:lol:

Actually, that's an excellent idea for the Democrats... to support Huck's campaign...
 
It's a Peggy Noonan editorial. There's no fact checking, and very little sourcing. The woman is a Republican speech writer -- if she's writing something about the Democrats, wouldn't you think it's intended to benefit Republicans? Take it for what it's worth.

And:

Originally posted by gallego:

They criticized Gore for not using Bill to get elected. Maybe he just overcompensated?

Maybe Republican speechwriters just criticize Democrats for whatever they do.

Cleo
 
I think people are just getting caught up in the heat of the moment and giving too much service to the media's overly dramatic hype. After this is all finished I'm sure it will be business as usual and Obama/Clinton will make horrible oval office porn together.
 
Umm Cleo and other interested Democrats, since I deal with election stuff on a daily basis in my job, here's what I see. Keep in mind that I'm waiting to see who the nominees are, so I dont have that much bias when it comes to the Democratic candidates (cept Kucinich cause his wife is HOT!...lol)

Here's the situation. The problem of having Bill Clinton attack Barack Obama to the degree that he's done, has the potential to tick off black voters. Tick them off enough, and they may just stay home on the general election. This has happened before in Presidential contests. Normally, its not a good idea to tick off a big constituency by throwing dirt on their candidate.

That is the danger. Our take on it here is that if Hillary were too win, there'd be about 1 in 3 chance that black voters would stay at home or not vote for the presidency enough that it may swing a state...or two...in the south, back to the republican candidate
 
Back
Top Bottom