I was born in 1969. I don’t remember the 1972 race, but I do remember my older brother’s faded McGovern-Shriver t-shirt that he proudly wore until it fell apart. When I was in the second grade I cast my first vote for president. I remember the night before, I asked my parents who I should support between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. I knew Ford mainly from his bicentennial speech in Philadelphia and the fireworks that surrounded his appearance there. I don’t think I knew Carter at all. I don’t remember what advice my mother gave me, but I can still remember my father’s emphatic endorsement of Gov. Carter. Ford had pardoned Nixon and, for my father, that was an unforgivable offense. The next day, I cast my vote for Jimmy Carter and I have never stopped voting for Democrats in the intervening thirty-two years.
But, with the exception of 1980 when I stuck with my man (despite some fascination with John Anderson), I have consistently supported the progressive wing of the party. In 1984, (the last election in which I was ineligible to vote) I supported Gary Hart. I supported Hart again in 1988 (until the Monkey Business) and Dukakis thereafter. In 1992, I supported Paul Tsongas early, and Jerry Brown late. Although, to be honest, I saw Clinton as electable and did not think Gov. Brown had a realistic chance.
In 1996, I did not vote in the presidential contest because I thought the Clinton-Gore ticket had broken campaign finance laws and stood a good chance of getting impeached (oh…the irony).
In 2000, I supported and volunteered for Bill Bradley’s campaign. I was so disgusted with Al Gore and DLC politics that I did not make up my mind to vote for Gore until the Sunday before the election.
Only in 2004 did I break my pattern of supporting the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. I did not think Howard Dean had the temperament to run a winning campaign. So, in spite of being sympathetic to his cause, I supported John Kerry from first to last.
I tell you all this, as an introduction to the following. Paul Tsongas is dead and Howard Dean’s position as chair of the Democratic National Committee precludes him from endorsing, but Gary Hart and Bill Bradley have something to say to the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Here’s Gary Hart:
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party’s nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her…
…For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
Here’s Bill Bradley:
Former senator Bill Bradley, who is a leading supporter of Obama and ran for president in 2000, accused the Clintons of “lying” in pursuit of victory.
“The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach,” he said. “She’s going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different.”
Bradley believes that Clinton will stop at nothing to tear down Obama even if it boosts John McCain, who was confirmed last week as the Republican nominee: “The Clintons do not do long-term planning. They’re total tacticians and right now their focus is on Obama, not McCain.”
You might expect Hart and Bradley to say nice things about Obama and critical things about Hillary Clinton. After all, that is their role as endorsers. But their criticism goes beyond simple advocacy. They are both passing the harshest judgment on the Clintons. And that means a lot to me. It reinforces my own view that the Clintons represent a kind of foreign body within the host. They are certainly not progressives, but they go beyond that. They are less Democrats, or even a wing within the Democratic Party, than they are a party unto themselves. I really do see them as a kind of parasitic force that has hijacked the Democratic Party for the last sixteen years, and I see the crew that surrounds them as having a nefarious influence on American politics.
When I look at Hillary Clinton I do not see the same thing that her supporters see. Or, rather, I do see it, but I see it as a surface reality, a mirage, the shadows on Plato’s cave. Yes, she is impressive, and she is qualified, and she is tough, and is prepared on Day One. But when I look at her I see Mark Penn and Lanny Davis and Terry McAuliffe and Dick Morris and James Carville-Matalin and Paul Begala and Harold Ford Jr. and Bruce Reed and Marty Peretz. And those are not impressive people. I don’t consider those people to be my allies. I don’t think they are honest people.
I know this is only one of many possible ways of looking at this race. I know a lot of people are invested in Hillary Clinton as a kind of standard bearer for female empowerment. I know a lot of people have mostly fond memories of the Clinton presidency and see nothing wrong in giving them another chance to ‘clean up after a Bush’. I just don’t see this contest in those terms and I never did.
In my mind, the whole point of spending the last three years blogging has been to lend my talents to a party I love, but that had lost its self-confidence in its own principles. The Clinton Team exemplifies everything that went wrong with the party during the Bush years. They opposed Howard Dean for all the wrong reasons, and they have opposed the rise of the netroots at every turn.
If you don’t believe me, listen to the past progressive champions, Gary Hart and Bill Bradley. I trusted them then, and I still trust them today. So should you.
I would consider that despicable duo the downfall of my party. But, luckily…I’m a socialist.
Good post. You should post this in Orange too, if you haven’t already.
I’ve been trying really hard to come to terms with Clinton in order to be ready in case she became the nominee. I was almost there for a while, but now it’s an impossibility. She is conducting a joint campaign with McCain instead of attacking him, as is her job. Her handlers are so abysmally stupid that they apparently don’t see that every argument she makes that Obama is not ready to deal with security the way McCain is, applies equally to her and every other Democrat. She is willing to kneecap the most likely Dem nominee for president, as well as every Dem running this year, in order to shore up her fading campaign.
I’d really like to hear some Clintonistas explain how they can possibly believe that she will suddenly transform herself as president and stand with Democratic values and positions, when she openly prefers McCain to Obama. Bill crippled Gore’s campaign and handed us 8 years of Bush. Now Hillary is willing to hand us a decade of McCain as long as it serves her short-term interests. Looks like the Change she keeps talking about takes the form of an old white guy.
From the comment from Obama’s campaign that she is the most secretive politician….I add the horrific thought that her presidency would inherit Bush’s unitary executive chair.
Come on Mississippi!
I only wish that someone deserving of our respect could have filled that role in this race. Maybe in 2012.
That’s one of the reasons I’m against her. Our first woman president should have earned the office, not married into it. I despise her as a role model. She’s too much like all the mean girls I never wanted to hang out with.
BooMan,
With the Clintons, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in The Sunday Times UK, what were a watching is a horror movie that never ends.
go take a read
The Clintons, a horror film that never ends
el sicko couple.
BooMan, that is exactly why I don’t support Hillary. She has surrounded herself with people who hate and fear the grassroots. People who believe that we are too ignorant and uncritical to have a say in who we select to govern us.
And just a little p.s.: I’m a 64-year-old white woman who supports Obama. I find myself gritting my teeth every time I hear someone say Clinton has “the older women”. Not this one, she doesn’t.
Me too SusanD…I have nothing against people(msm) mapping out various demographics but then they seem to think these results are written in stone and that there is absolutely no deviation at all to them. Another way of putting people into little boxes and boy do I get sick of that..another old women not for Hillary.(I’m not for Obama either but could possibly come around to him)
Exactly. And everytime I stop in at the local coffee shop I get a certain satisfaction at sitting across from the local gaggle of middle aged (60-75)… year old ladies who are all proud to declare their support, to the whole room, of Obama. Friends and neighbors all and it is such a relief to see the animosity of RvsD dropped from our lives and all because of a tall man, a born leader, who reminds us YES WE CAN.
For all the various failings of Clinton’s campaign her denigration of Obama supporters to have hope that ‘we’, all of us together can make a difference and her continuing insult that the states he won don’t count is not only terrible strategy but certainly alienating to many many people.
Re: Hart.
This takes me back. I recall working at both the Wirth and Hart headquarters in 1980. Once, while walking from the Wirth HQ to the Hart HQ, I stopped and took part in a crowd scene for Mork and Mindy on the Mall. That episode involved a roller skating sequence.
When Hart ran for President in 1984, a group of almost sixty of his supporters flew to Philadelphia to work. We were known as Gary’s Guerrillas. My group, the western group, traveled throughout central and western PA, ending up in Pittsburgh at the end of the week. There’s more I could say about that trip, but the upcoming PA primary jogged some memories and I thought I’d mention it — in case there are any other ex-Guerrillas out there.
Dude broke my heart with Monkey Business business. I look back at the broken promise of what might have been. It would have been an uphill fight, but I firmly believe we would be two decades ahead in the fight against global warming had this guy kept it in his pants.
Again – it wasn’t so much his cheating that bothered me, it was his beyond dumb taunt to the press daring him to catch him at it. That’s when I realized he was not smart enough to be president. Let’s hope Obama IS, in that regard…!
And lest anyone read that wrong – I’m not suggesting anything re Obama. I just hope he doesn’t do something equally dumb, is my point!
Not to worry – Michelle would whoop his narrow @$$ if he slipped out on her…
Tim Wirth held the first Congressional hearing on the greenhouse effect in 1987.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,956632,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
Re: the 1984 race. There are interesting parallels between the 1984 nomination race and this one, as well as some interesting differences. Mondale was clearly the quintessential establishment candidate, up against an anti-establishment candidate with new ideas. Just as with this race, traditional, blue-collar Democrats supported Mondale, while Hart’s —
“…voters who were younger, more educated, more affluent, whiter, and disenchanted with the orthodoxies of the Democratic Party.-” [Jeff Greenfield from Slate]
I recall the term yuppie being used to describe us. Considering how many of us were blue collar, it clearly was a sweeping generalization. Like now, there was a clear difference in enthusiasm, too.
The critical distinction between the 84 and 08 race is that the black vote saved Mondale. His campaign was also much more successful at garnering superdelegate support. Although I don’t recall what the difference was in pledged delegates (it was small), much of Mondale’s margin came from the superdelegates. Unlike 84, when Mondale’s campaign clearly had an edge in political know how, which appeared in their ability to understand the process and out-organize the Hart campaign in places such as Texas, the situation has been inverted this time, with the Obama campaign out-organizing the Clinton campaign. Curiously (or perhaps not), at that time, we felt the system favored the insider and was somewhat unfair and undemocratic to non-establishment candidates.
Greenfield’s article below, from Sept. 07, is prescient in some respects. He discusses the length of nomination race and how it’s been changed because of past results. It’s short and worth a read.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173455/
Gee, I feel that way about Spitzer right now. The Wall Street set is laughing its ass off right now. Someone was finally doing something about their highway robbery, and he was on a course to actually make a difference, and he throws it away for sex? Seriously????
In a very, very, very small way, I almost give 1/2 a pass to Hart, only because he thought the old rules of not publicizing the immorality of our elected officials was still in place.
Spitzer could not have possibly been under any illusions that the rules would somehow be different for him. Dammit, there are a lot of rich folks who’d like to steal even more…did he REALLY think they’d not use every tool available against him–and pay to have more tools invented–to go after him? Was he really arrogant enough to think he was above the rules? Did he really think that he was too slick to get caught? He sounds as stupid as Kwame Kilpatrick.
Not to mention that his family–especially his daughters–have likely lost all respect for him? Great role model there, Dad. Dumb ass.
I am really, really, pissed. Damn his selfishness!! I hope the sex was worth it.
if Marty Peretz is for it, then I’m against it. And vice versa.
I guess when there is so much discussion about ‘super-delegates’ and how they’re supposed to be some sort of conscience for the party, Hart and Bradley are certainly two voices which carry a great deal of weight.
The superdelegates were an attempt to restore some of the insider wisdom that appeared to be missing in the process. It’s closer to the “smoke-filled room” process.
I don’t actually have a big problem with superdelegates, although it’s a system that can reward well-connected politicians rather than wise choices. McGovern was the people’s choice, and lost badly, but I still regard him very highly. Kennedy was produced by smoke-filled rooms, over popular sentiment (in the convention, largely) for Stevenson. As much as I respect Stevenson’s intellect, Kennedy was the superior choice. Humphrey was produced by the insiders, over Gene McCarthy (my teacher in 86, BTW), and he was a so-so choice, at best (I know people who knew him, and they speak highly of him). Carter was a popular choice, but had some flaws, as well as strengths (which he hasn’t been recognized for yet). Mondale was too establishment, and Hart would have stood a better chance, but probably would have lost. Any conclusions about the virtues of the nomination process should be looked at through an impartial lens rather than whether you like the eventual candidate.
My problem with superdelegates is that they are part of the system, as politicians and party officials, and thus often unwilling to embrace change. Their influence is undemocratic in the direct democracy meaning of the term, but so is representative democracy. We don’t argue that having Senators and members of Congress is undemocratic?
I hear the comparisons of caucuses and primaries and cringe — usually. Caucuses are a form of direct democracy in participation but they’re a form of representative democracy in terms of amount of participants. I keep hearing how total votes is what counts the most, which is dismissive to caucus states. Actually, it’s delegates that counts, and we just hope the superdelegates choose wisely.
I’m still torn on whether I’d hold my nose and vote for her in November. This race has made me despise the Clintons. (I’m not old enough to really hate them for the administration, although my earliest political memory is of Bill Clinton saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms Lewinsky.”)
The bottom line for me is this: If she became the nominee and sold us out on the war (as I think she would), I wouldn’t vote for her. It all hinges on the war.
And of course, God willing, you will be referring to the Iraq & Afghanistan war, not the strike on Iran Bush would like to leave us with.
Fallon’s out, it’s coming.
My thoughts when I read that too. SCARY.
Oh. My. God. Ignorance really is bliss, as I am actually terrified. Seriously. Shrub and Buckshot have PLENTY of time to wreak havoc on their way out the door. I can’t imagine the fresh hell we will catch if they are loosed to go full speed ahead on this.
And that damned Hillary Clinton just went along with that, too w/ Kyl/Lieberman. Christ Jesus, she’s gone from my last choice, to someone I loathe and despise and now to someone so drunk with her own sense of entitlement that she’d rubber stamp anything if it means she’ll be president.
Can I return to the Matrix and just forget I know any of this? Just erase my mind of all government policy, programs and politics, upload American Idol and Dancing With the Stars and send me shopping.
I was extremely encouraged that Fallon was head of CENTCOM, especially considering was adamant that the Iraqi occupation was diverting resources from more important areas — he revived my faith in the wisdom of the military.
I’ve written extensively (elsewhere) on the danger of the administration’s drive for a war in Iran, which looked worse than their contrived case for Iraq. Fallon’s leaving is ominous.
BTW — everyone should read about the Congo story (below), which is stunningly similar to the Niger story. Watching these people in the process of generating a pretext for war is astounding, especially since we know what they are trying to do.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Intelligence_officials_doubt_Iran_uranium_claims_0818.html
Notice that the Iranian Directorate acted just like the OSP. They even had Shulsky, of both the OSP and PNAC, who wrote his dissertation on Soviet disinformation techniques (which says all we need to know about the neocons).
I think she’s as likely to take us to war with Iran as McCain. That’s what scares me.
I wouldn’t go quite that far, but the key word in saying that is “quite”.
I almost fear her more – she’d be eager, as a woman, to prove her tough credentials and would more likely cave in first. McCain has at least stood up to his party before, and I think he’d be more hesitant, of the two, to put troops in harm’s way. I hope. One of them has to have a little sanity there…
I agree about her feeling the need to prove her toughness, because she buys the horseshit argument that women have to behave like right-wing men. But, as I just said, I think it’s horseshit. That said, I think we’d likely see that manifest itself in not getting out of Iraq rather than going into Iran.
I completely disagree about McCain. The man is, frankly, insane. I don’t know if it’s aging, or 9/11, or political calculation, or what, but the John McCain of 2000 — conservative, but, yes, with some commonsense tendencies — is clearly dead and replaced by a vicious warmonger with delusions of grandeur.
Being of the draft kind of age, I’d rather not take my chances on McCain, especially knowing what state of mind this country might be in should we endure another serious terrorist attack (and knowing how poorly DC is defended I don’t discount that possibility), if Clinton were willing to behave herself on the war.
BooMan – I appreciate your analysis.
One of the things that has struck me this primary season as I read the front page postings and diaries is that there is a lot more “Why Hillary Clinton and the DLC are very, very bad for the Dem party and the country” rather than “Why Obama is the best candidate for President” (other than “coat tails” which is certainly not insignificant).
This translates to a vote for Obama is really a vote against Clinton, so vote for Obama.
I live in a very Republican area. The Kerry-Bush race stunned me cause there was a real effort here directed to getting Bush out of office – not necessarily pro Kerry, just very anti-Bush.
People I met with last week are ready to organize again for the next presidential election. A little discussion on whether the candidate would be Obama or Clinton, much more talk about getting the presidency out of the hands of the Republicans. The focus was on getting ready for the general election.
Now I realize that Clinton can’t win the nomination with the current and predicted delegate count. But I also know “Age and treachery can overwhelm youth and skill,” and that “rules” can become “guidelines” and Clinton through an intra-party conflagration could end up the nominee.
Will it be better to not vote in the general election than to vote for Clinton?
Does it matter if the next president is Clinton or McCain?
I won’t vote for Clinton, but that’s my personal business and not something I want to see universalized. If I had the power to select McCain or Clinton and my decision was decisive, I’d pick Clinton. But I think it would be like winning the battle and losing the war.
Interesting that we shared nearly all our votes, save that I supported Jerry Brown (and worked on his campaign), and Howard Dean (and worked on his campaign) from the start. In both cases, I was pretty sure neither would get the nomination, but I so believed in their goals that I wanted to support them as long as possible.
This is the first time in my life someone I actually have high hopes for has a chance of making it to the White House. For me, that’s personally historic, hence all my volunteer efforts. I can’t afford to quit my job to run off and work for his campaign, and frankly, volunteers are more valuable than staff, since you have to pay and feed staff! 😉
I don’t feel the Clintons are members of my party. I never have, since 1992. But you’re the first person to put your finger on it – they are a party unto themselves. Now it all makes sense. That’s exactly how it feels.
When I read the part about Tsongas, I wondered who his wife, Rep. Niki Tsongas is supporting. So I looked at the endorsement lists of both Clinton and Obama and she’s on neither, so I suspect she hasn’t endorsed yet. Just as a sidenote.
Booman are you not bothered by Obama’s promise to appoint Hagel as Sec of State and Lugar as Sec of Defense? Both of these guys voted for the military commissions act, they voted for torture.
There is no progressive in the race.
did he make that promise?
I wrote about Obama’s comments when they occurred.
Pardon me for chiming in, Alice.
I like both those Repubs, actually. A lot of people voted for some pretty heinous stuff lately. Many have voted again, and voted against these — only to have the bill vetoed.
I still like the idea of appointing worthy Repub.s It’s the one way to get consensus on issues, which is necessary if we’re attempting produce lasting change rather than transient changes that become a cause celebre for the next Repub. administration.
There has never been any promise. Sheesh. Let’s not muddy the waters any more than they already are.
trial balloon rather than promise
by your standard, FDR was not a progressive.
” They are certainly not progressives, but they go beyond that. They are less Democrats, or even a wing within the Democratic Party, than they are a party unto themselves.”
The Clinton’s are the Dixie-crats of the pre-Voting Rights Act days.
The Clinton’s have always supported the war on drugs because they have always known that it weakens the pluralistic complexion of the Democratic Party and restores the Jim Crow glory of the Democratic Party.
They though are not the parasites. It is we humanists and pluralists who, coming out of the 1960-70’s, mistakenly thought that the Democrats were a refuge for diversity just because Lyndon B. Johnson grew balls and did the right thing under threat of massive protests and riots in the streets.
I have always said that the war on drugs was how Richard Nixon and the Dixie-crats in congress then re-imposed Jim Crow and effectively subverted and neutralized the Voting rights Act. The Blue Dog/DLC/DCCC Democrats of today are simply the heirs of that legacy. Why do you think Bill Clinton gave us the record prison population in 1996? And why Hillary promises to reassert that prison industry culture today? They are in the same position as the Republicans. They can’t win in a pluralistic democracy.
This is why, while he is a world better than Billary, Obama supports drug war policies as much as he does. He knows that the victims of the drug war can’t vote for him. The status quo in American politics is maintained by the Jim Crow mass disenfranchisement. To go against it is to declare political suicide among those empowered by the Jim Crow system. The only way to win is to abandon the hopeless and pander to the Jim Crow predators.