Root cause: FL 2000?
Here's a half-formed thought about the intensity of the current state of the Democratic campaign. One of the root causes of the Clinton/Obama divide springs from the different reactions to the Florida 2000 constitutional crisis.
There were a variety of responses to the events that led to the inauguration of President Bush, but I believe there were two main reactions among Democrats. (Of course this is a simplified, generalized opinion, and these two reactions are not mutually exclusive.) I hope my theory may improve the dialog and explain things from a new perspective.
The first reaction to FL 2000 was to counter-attack, to get into the ring with the Republicans and fight it out blow by blow. Don't be afraid to get dirty, because politics is about winning and losing. We lost in Florida because we did not fight hard enough and ruthless enough. The Roves of the world only respect one thing: political power. This constituency is drawn to Hillary Clinton and her dogged pursuit of the presidency. Her willingness to skirt the edges of Democratic campaign etiquette are a feature, not a bug. Hillary Clinton will not be swift-boated like John Kerry in 04. The Republicans will throw the kitchen sink; Democrats better be able to do the same. The shifting rationales for counting delegate votes shows that the Clinton campaign will do whatever it takes to win. Again, that's a feature, not a bug.
The second reaction was more ephemeral, but no less intense. Civic institutions need to be rebuilt. The principle of one person, one vote is paramount. We lost in Florida because political gamesmanship became more important than the first principles of our democracy. It is just as important to rebuild our democracy as it is to gain political power. Maintaining our own dignity and respecting honest opposition are key virtues to winning a new liberal majority. Rising above the will to power and earn the trust of a new American coalition is the way to gain victory. There are enough independents and open-minded (or disgusted) Republicans to create a new majority. This partially explains the 04 Dean phenomenon and is represented clearly in Barack Obama.
The campaign styles show the values important to the candidates. True, the debate over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations is flaring up because of the closeness of the race and few people anticipated the controversy. I believe that the two reactions to FL 2000 explain to some degree the reasons the debate has developed in this matter.
There were a variety of responses to the events that led to the inauguration of President Bush, but I believe there were two main reactions among Democrats. (Of course this is a simplified, generalized opinion, and these two reactions are not mutually exclusive.) I hope my theory may improve the dialog and explain things from a new perspective.
The first reaction to FL 2000 was to counter-attack, to get into the ring with the Republicans and fight it out blow by blow. Don't be afraid to get dirty, because politics is about winning and losing. We lost in Florida because we did not fight hard enough and ruthless enough. The Roves of the world only respect one thing: political power. This constituency is drawn to Hillary Clinton and her dogged pursuit of the presidency. Her willingness to skirt the edges of Democratic campaign etiquette are a feature, not a bug. Hillary Clinton will not be swift-boated like John Kerry in 04. The Republicans will throw the kitchen sink; Democrats better be able to do the same. The shifting rationales for counting delegate votes shows that the Clinton campaign will do whatever it takes to win. Again, that's a feature, not a bug.
The second reaction was more ephemeral, but no less intense. Civic institutions need to be rebuilt. The principle of one person, one vote is paramount. We lost in Florida because political gamesmanship became more important than the first principles of our democracy. It is just as important to rebuild our democracy as it is to gain political power. Maintaining our own dignity and respecting honest opposition are key virtues to winning a new liberal majority. Rising above the will to power and earn the trust of a new American coalition is the way to gain victory. There are enough independents and open-minded (or disgusted) Republicans to create a new majority. This partially explains the 04 Dean phenomenon and is represented clearly in Barack Obama.
The campaign styles show the values important to the candidates. True, the debate over seating the Michigan and Florida delegations is flaring up because of the closeness of the race and few people anticipated the controversy. I believe that the two reactions to FL 2000 explain to some degree the reasons the debate has developed in this matter.
Advertisement
Respect!
March 12, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not hear or see the Clintons, either of them, lift a finger to protest against the 2000 election theft and Supreme Court coup.
If it had been the other way around, if the Democrats had lost the popular vote by over half-a-million votes but somehow wiggled through with electoral votes, do you think the Reprobates would have been meekly and "patriotically" acquiescent?
Hell, no. NOT ONE DAY would have gone by after the inauguration of the impostor administration that the Thugs would have been taking to the floor of Congress, and demonstrating in the streets, and filling the airwaves with vitriolic denunciation, and making life hell for the impostor regime.
This would have been only fair, because they could show that the PEOPLE had been cheated out of their clear choice.
That is what the Democrats should have done---but they didn't. They played along with the betrayal of the voters, thinking that their duty was to adhere to rules which enabled the Thug-Reprobates to win, even though they had clearly cheated in Florida by throwing black voters off the registration lists.
Yet the Democratic Party leaders wouldn't even object loudly to THAT signal injustice, for fear of white backlash or some such lame alibi.
The problems we face today DO have their roots in 2000. That is when the Democratic leadership chose to cave-in, to kow-tow, to sell out instead of standing up defiantly against the gangsters who stole the election and have spent their time in power trashing the Constitution, looting the treasury, ignoring terrorist threats, and then waging unprovoked war for oil instead of going after and knocking off bin Laden.
And there is plenty of evidence that the 2004 election was ALSO stolen, chiefly by black-box voting mischief.
March 12, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I did not hear or see the Clintons, either of them, lift a finger to protest against the 2000 election theft and Supreme Court coup.
--------------------------------------------------
That was Gore's call as was his decision to not use the senate to fight the republican theft and to not to use Bill on the campaign trail before the election.
I do think the Fl and MI issue has its roots in 2000. Many democrats were furious that the vote count was stopped. I understand totally why Obama supporters don't want the delegates seated as they are now. What I don't understand is how anyone can be against some sort of revote. There will be a revote because the Dean and the other party leaders know that people in Fl at least will not be disenfranchised again and there will be a backlash if they try.
March 12, 2008 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore, just because Hillary Clinton knows how to campaign dirty, doesn't mean she can beat the criminal republicans at their own game. Maybe, MAYBE, she can beat Senator Obama by doing it, but so what.
You say, Hillary Clinton won't be or can't be "swift-boated." Hell, she ALREADY has been, years ago, so much so that she is just as unpopular with the electorate as Junior Bush is. "Independents" and uninformed voters just plain don't like her, thanks to the fascist radio diatribes they have all absorbed over the last 20 years, when Thugs captured the airwaves while Democrats fiddled.
March 12, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink