Stop the Sucking

Sure, she's wasting campaign money. And Democratic opportunities to attack John McCain. And attempting to create divisions in the Party.

But of all the many reasons that Hillary Clinton should graciously concede the Democratic nomination to the clear winner of the contest, none has been more overlooked than the impact on downballot races.

No, I'm not talking about Obama's major coattails, though that is certainly important. I'm talking about the oxygen that this continued farce of a campaign is taking away from the deserving and overlooked women and men running for Senate and Congress.

Clinton supporters not making their votes based on identity politics, and who are not currently deluded enough to believe that their candidate is more electable, presumably are making their votes based on specific issues. Maybe they believe that mandates on health insurance programs are a good idea (I don't); maybe they believe that freezing interest rates for 5 years is a good idea (I certainly don't); maybe they believe that we should pull out of Iraq more slowly (I disagree). Who knows?

But the truth of the matter is that without a strong Democratic congress to help the Chief Executive to push these plans through the legislature, none of them will come close to passing in the forms being pushed by the candidates. Any voter truly making decisions about these candidates based on the issues while ignoring the state of the downballot races is making a colossal error in judgment. Much I find Clinton's candidacy and modus operandi highly distasteful, I know that a Clinton presidency with a strong Democratic, progressive congress is likelier to lead to the policy outcomes I desire than an Obama candidacy with a weaker Democratic congress. The reverse is, of course, doubly true.

I know that there are some who say that continuing this primary is good for the party, as it registers new voters and create ground operations in every state. But that help is dramatically overwhelmed by oxygen being sucked out of lungs of our deserving candidates: the media attention and money that are the lifeblood of such campaigns. Every second of every minute of every day that the Clintons spend desperately trying to maintain their grip over the Democratic Party and its levers of power is precious sand running out of the hourglass for the candidates who could actually use the most time, energy and money from the netroots and the progressive movement. Every campaign donation drive from the pockets of the netroots faithful on behalf of the Obama or the Clinton campaigns to maintain this petty and ultimately pointless intramural fight the Clintons are waging, is not only money that could have been going to attack John McCain: it's money that could have been going to candidates like those on the Red to Blue list--to say nothing of the many other deserving candidates like Ron Shepston, Mary Pallant or Gilda Reed.

My good friend clammyc and I have been conducting a series of online, podcastable radio interviews with deserving progressive, Democratic congressional candidates (the interviews also get posted to Heading Left, in case BlogTalkRadio's format is a too intimidating). In every single show, I make the case that as important as the Oval Office is, and as much as the presidential candidates deserve our time and effort, these candidates need our aggressive support to succeed in sometimes extremely difficult circumstances. Not all of them will have Bill Foster's good fortune in having a single special election to focus on, or having Barack Obama appear in ads for them, or having as sadsack an opponent as Mr. Oberweis. These are very difficult battles, and they could use a little more love coming their way. And they won't get that love from most of us unless Hillary Clinton ends her quixotic quest to put herself and her husband back in the White House.

One of those candidates I'm talking about is Ron Shepston in CA-42, running against the odious Gary Miller. As many of you know, Ron Shepston (whom clammyc and I will be interviewing tomorrow) started his political career right here in the blogosphere, posting under the name CanYouBeAngryAndStillDream, and has had our backs as a progressive activist for years. Fellow Kossacks hekebolos, theKK and I just hosted a fantastic fundraiser/house party for him this last Saturday. And Ron is just one of many, many candidates who stands to gain enormously by our party turning its attention away from the Clintons' desperate power ploy, and back to the issues and candidates that matter.

If Hillary Clinton or her supporters care anything at all about the Democratic Party, the issues we hold dear and the legislation we want passed, they must know that the time has come to end this charade. We've got more important things to worry about at this point.


--------------------------------------

By the way, for those interested in hearing the real voices of some great candidates, you can hear prior interviews in our candidate series below:

• Betsy Markey (CO-4) - The diary about Betsy is here. The link to her interivew can be found here
• Gilda Reed (LA-1) - the diary about Gilda is here. The link to her interview can be found here.


• John Laesch (IL-14) - the diary about John is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Dennis Shulman (NJ-5) - the diary about Dennis is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Barry Welsh (IN-6) - the diary about Barry is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Charlie Brown (CA-4) - the diary about Charlie is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Mark Schauer (MI-7) - the diary about Mark is here. The link to his interview can be found here.


• Heather Ryan (KY-1) - the diary about Heather is here. The link to her interview can be found here.

What Hillary Means By "Obama Isn't Vetted"

Among the memes this election cycle that are so patently stupid that it makes me want to beat my head against a wall is the idea put forth by the Clinton campaign that "Obama isn't vetted." Here's just one example of Hillary Clinton herself pushing this idea:

“I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises. There’s not going to be anybody saying, ‘Well why didn’t we think of that?’ or ‘What, my goodness, what does that mean?’” she said. “I am going to be able to go up against any Republican who they nominate.”

And here's longtime Clinton booster Taylor Marsh:

I'm getting quite a lot of heat these days for my posts on Mr. Obama. Frankly, I don't care because when a man running for office hasn't been vetted by the media or our own party, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

The pertinent question is, "What could the Clinton camp possibly mean by this?" It certainly can't be the fabricated Rezko scandal, or the silly Exelon story, or the ridiculous charge about "present" votes, or the insulting "cult" insinuations, or the plagiarism charges, or his supposedly incomplete health care plan, or his supposed "lack of experience" in domestic or foreign policy. All of these are attacks are easily batted aside and debunked, of course--but more importantly, they've already been used by the Clinton campaign. Most of these broadsides are more influential with Democratic voters than with the general election; if hitting Obama with them hasn't sunk his presidential campaign in a Democratic Primary against an opponent with better name recognition who started off 20 points ahead in the polls, why should anyone believe that they'll stick in the general election?

Certainly she can't mean that Obama has yet-unseen skeletons in his closet. After all, she had to have been using at least some of the $140 million she wasted on oppo research. If the Clintons couldn't dig up serious dirt on Obama with over 13 months to run against him and most of the Democratic establishment until recently at their disposal, Democratic voters should not too afraid of what 9 months of Republican research in Obama's background will bring. Not to mention the fact that the Clintons' last seven years of financial dealings have not been vetted, as the disclosure of the $100 million Boratgate scandal reminds us. Add to that the fact that Clinton refuses to release her tax records until after the nomination has been secured and continues to resist releasing Clinton Library records, and it becomes a serious question who has more undisclosed skeletons in their closet (to say nothing of the numerous Clinton skeletons that have already been exposed and are lying all over the bedroom floor). That Hillary Clinton has survived rightwing assaults is no great shakes: surviving a challenge from Rick Lazio in bluer-than-blue New York is no more a badge of honor than Obama's beating Alan Keyes in Illinois.

No, the frustration and exasperation seen on the faces of the Clinton campaign and its supporters about Obama's supposed lack of vetting has nothing to do with scandal or experience: it's all about race and Muslim smears. This is an uncomfortable truth that was first pointed out by Bob Novak, of all people.

The Clinton camp is frustrated because they know that the "Black/Muslim" line is the only one they can't use in a Democratic Party without its blowing up in their faces. They also know it's the only one that has a prayer of working to smear Obama enough to stop his incredible grassroots movement and fundraising momentum. And as is typical of the DLC, weak-willed finger-in-the-wind bunker politics practiced by the Clintons and many of their backers, they believe that when Republicans use this strategy on Obama in the general election, it will destroy Obama and secure the nomination for John McCain.

But they couldn't come out and say that explicitly--not, at least, until the Clinton campaign became as desperate as they are today. Now that the Clinton camp is all but certain to lose the nomination, they are throwing all caution to the wind and actively going with the sort of campaign that they have been signaling with various dog-whistles that Republicans would be running: an overt strategy to paint Obama as a black African Muslim.

It is actually a boon to the Obama campaign to see Clinton begin this line of attack, especially after her ridiculous attempt to accuse Obama of having started the gutter politics first, right before she knew that she would be using the filthiest line possible against him. To the Obama campaign's credit, David Plouffe has has responded quickly and coherently to this tripe, which just goes to show that the Obama camp, as usual, is on its toes and ready to counter such vile fearmongering. The Clinton camp, in true Fox News fashion, is playing coy, neither affirming nor denying that they were behind the attack, but stating with extraordinary nerve that

We think it is wrong for the Obama campaign to say that this is divisive photo. It’s not a divisive photo.

This Rovian strategy of accusing the other camp of doing exactly what you intend to do, combined with appealing to the worst instincts of the American electorate, is exactly what Obama can expect to encounter from the Republican machine.

It is the final barrier; the final vetting. Clinton has hit Obama with every other attack possible but the Black/Muslim smear. This last is what Hillary means by "Obama isn't vetted." So let's vet him and get it over with. That neither Obama nor any of the other candidate shave gone this route against Clinton (e.g., Vince Foster or Chelsea Hubbell rumors) even when things looked hopeless for their campaigns is a testament to their collective character. Let us demonstrate once and for all who our friends really are in the Democratic Party.

And, more importantly, let us demonstrate that the American people can respond to the better angels of our nature and reject the gutter politics being pushed by the Clinton campaign just as surely as we can reject it from the Republicans.

Yes, we can.

Am I a Cult Member?

Am I a cult member? Jake Tapper seems to think so. The Guardian seems to think so. Many commenters here seem to think so.

One must, of course, admit that there has been more than a whiff of the euphoria of fervent aspiration among Obama supporters. It is certainly a phenomenon, a movement that has rarely been paralleled in American politics. Obama's message, his speeches, his policy platforms, and his personal charisma have been deeply inspiring to millions across America. But is there more to it than that? Is it about Obama--or is it about something else entirely?

One of the central tenets of a cult of personality is, by definition, that the cult disappears without the person behind the cult. Thus, by this thinking, if Obama himself were to die tomorrow and his candidacy disappear, there would be no movement. There would be no fervor, no animus, no euphoria. The cultists would, as though deprogrammed and removed from a trance-like state brought on by the sight and sound of the Obama wurlitzer, come to some "rational" support for another candidate--a candidate with a more pedestrian style perhaps, but with the hard-nosed experience to fight against Republicans.

The biggest problem with this thinking is not that the millions who have voted for Obama are too many to accurately describe as a cult, or that cults tend to be closed systems while political campaigns are not, or that cults utilize brainwashing tactics to recruit and retain their members (where's that secret Obama handshake?).

The biggest problem is that this movement--this phenomenon--was already in place. It was happening before Obama took it by the horns and ran with it. It has been growing and building since Howard Dean's candidacy gave progressive Democrats the will to believe, and provided a reason to hope for the future. And it has had many, many faces--Obama's is only the latest.

This movement is about CHANGE. Change from not only last eight years of Bushism, but from the previous eight years of Clintonism before that. It is about change from neoliberalism, from centrism (no, Obama's inclusivity is not centrism), from triangulation, from arguing over the same boomer battles from abortion to Vietraq year after year, from corporatism, from playing not to lose, from apathy. Change from the belief that we have to settle for the lesser of two evils. Change from the belief that the nice people at the top of the food chain will do what's best for all of us--whether that's supply-side economics, or a candidate who believes that LBJ's pulling the levers of power was more important than MLK's grassroots movement.

Obama didn't create this movement; he's just the last and most credible candidate left to harness it. Perhaps more importantly, it is a movement that cannot and will never have Hillary Clinton at its head--first female candidate or not. Not because of sexism against her first and maiden names, but because of anti-DLCism against her last name.

One way to demonstrate these twin points is by looking at candidate support on DailyKos over the past year. While acknowledging that Daily Kos readership is not the same as the Democratic electorate (obviously) or even Obama supporters in general, it is nevertheless indicative, in a broad sense, of the Netroots progressive movement that has been a key part of the "change" demographic since the rough-and-tumble days of Howard Dean and before. And since almost 80% of DailyKos readers now support Obama, they are at least somewhat indicative of a certain kind of very passionate and well-informed Obama booster.

Let us examine, then, the latest tabulated dkos straw poll results provided by Markos on 12/20/07:



What you will notice here is fairly obvious: Obama's support is a recent phenomenon. Obama support hovered on average around 25% of DailyKos all the way from February of 2007 until mid-December--even cratering to 16% as late as October. His fluctuating numbers are proof that many of his supporters were not so mesmerized by his personality that they didn't switch their support from him to other candidates--particularly Chris Dodd, who at that time and to this day showed himself a greater champion for progressive values and for change from the politics of the past than did Obama himself.

You will also notice something even more obvious to those who have paid any attention for the last year: DailyKos has historically been Edwards territory, not Obama territory--by wide margins, in fact.

You will also remember that many Kossacks (myself included) were holding out for Al Gore to enter the race, leading as many as 9% of voters to reject all of the candidates in the race in favor of the man who would not, unfortunately, end up running for more than an Oscar and a Nobel.

Most importantly, you may notice that in all these fluctuations, Hillary Clinton never broke the 11% barrier among those committed to this change movement. Not once. Even Bill Richardson (ugh) hit 13% at one point in May. But not Hillary.

Now let's examine the straw polls since then. Here we are on January 2, 2008 eve of the Iowa caucuses:



John Edwards reaches the height of his support at 48%. Obama has fallen to 27%. Dodd limps along with Dennis Kucinich at 4%. Hillary, the Democratic Default Candidate, stands at 8%--with 92% of 22,568 Kossack votes against her, spread out among various candidates.

But then came Obama's victory in Iowa. And after that came Hillary Clinton's surprising win in New Hampshire.

Now let's see what happens. From the straw poll taken on January 16:



By now several of the candidates (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have dropped out of the race. Obama's momentum, stalled by his NH loss, has carried him to a 41% surge. Edwards' failure to take Iowa where he was putting all his marbles (combined with his dismal NH showing) deflates his support to 37%. In spite of Hillary's amazing New Hampshire victory being recently in the minds of poll-takers, Clinton once again hits only 11%--barely tying her highest mark to this point. With the first two states down, the "change" vote is split between two candidates--neither of whose supporters are yet being labeled cult members at this point.

Now let's move on to the latest straw poll to date, taken on January 30:



With Edwards out of the race, Obama has now taken a whopping 76% of 18,784 voters in the dkos poll; the die-hard supporters of dropped out change candidates plus Gravel account for 5%, putting the "change" vote at over 4-in-5 Kossacks and lurkers. As for Hillary? Once again, she stalls at 11%. Because Obama is the only credible candidate left to defeat the Clintons, all the support is now thrown his way.

-----------------------------------------

What all of this should tell you is that Obama's supporters aren't part of an Obama personality cult: they're part of a "Change" cult. A change cult that wants to end Clintonism almost as badly as it wants to end Republicanism. A "Change" cult that sways from one change candidate to another--be it Gore, Gravel, Edwards, Kucinich or Obama--but that is in no way motivated to switch its allegiance to a Clinton.

It is a movement that believes as much in itself as it does in its chosen candidate(s). It is a movement that needs no leader, no figurehead, no reason to exist beyond the courage of its own convictions and its own aspirations for a political future radically different from that of the past 30 years.

And this story is, in fact, my story. For months I held out in vain hope (get that word?) for Gore to jump into the race. His incredible book The Assault on Reason is in many ways my Progressive Bible, ranking right up there with Markos' own Crashing the Gate. I have never promoted Obama's books before; I have repeatedly promoted Gore's and Markos'. When it became clear that Gore would not enter and that he chose to make his mark in ways other than electoral politics and elections, I moved squarely into the undecided camp. I could not support Richardson or Kucinich for several reasons; Edwards bothered me, admittedly, for reasons that had much more to do with image and electability than with substance (perhaps I can write more about what I believe was wrong with Edwards' campaign when the flames of passion have died down here somewhat), while Obama's seemingly conciliatory rhetoric turned me off.

Like my good friend clammyc, I became a Dodd supporter because of his hard-nosed fights on our behalf. When I went to YearlyKos, it was Dodd I went to go see speak--not Obama. I still have the red wrist-tag somewhere to prove it.

But then, as it became clear that Dodd could not get traction for several reasons (again, grist for a diary someday), I moved into the undecided column again. As of two days before the Iowa Caucuses, I still couldn't make up my mind. And then, after leaning his direction for a while based on the movement he was building, this video sealed the deal for me and convinced me he would be the fighting candidate we need:



From this point on, my destiny was set. I signed up to become a precinct captain in my neighborhood; I went to Nevada where my suspicions about the lack of ethics of Clinton machine support were confirmed in ways that even I couldn't believe; and I've been turning out voters for Obama ever since.

Does that make me and the other 80% of Obama supporters here in the progressive grassroots members of a cult of personality?

Hardly. It makes all of us members of a Cult for Change: a cult that will continue to exist well beyond Obama's candidacy should it come to the same unfortunate end as Howard Dean's. A cult that will only with extreme reluctance unite behind Hillary Clinton as a nominee in order to end Republicanism (in the dual quest to end Republicanism and Clintonism, I guess I'll settle for 1 out of 2).

A cult that will not stop, come Republican or Democratic victories, until it has actually succeeded in creating the cultural transformations and political realignments demanded by the urgency of our times.

Why It's So Important that Hillary be Defeated

I have refrained so far from explicitly coming out in favor of any Democratic presidential candidate, or of explicitly bashing any of our presidentials. In fact, many may remember my post I would work hard for a Hillary/Lieberman ticket, in which I took the position that getting Republicans out of the White House was too imperative to allow intra-party fights to sour our work ethic and enthusiasm.

But now I must insist on the importance of explicitly coming out against the Hillary juggernaut. As is obvious from observing the recommended list on any given day, many here are already boosting their own preferred candidates in a hope of defeatign Hillary for the Democratic nomination. But the majority of progressive bloggers here and elsewhere are taking more of a wait-and-see approach to this primary--partially, I am sure, in a desire to avoid the sorts of meltdowns that took place in the wake of Howard Dean's narrow loss in the 2004 primaries.

The first reason for my change in attitude about this election can be found in my post from yesterday titled The Time for Radical Change is NOW. As much as America cannot afford 4 to 8 more years of Republican leadership, America cannot much better stand 4 to 8 years of middling lack of leadership on ticking time-bomb issues that require immediate, radical attention: reversing the income inequality gap, significantly curbing carbon emissions, and defunding the military-industrial complex (which includes, of course, withdrawing troops from Iraq.)

But the second reason is one that strikes close to home for the netroots: if Hillary wins, it will not be seen as a victory for both progressives and Democrats, or a mandate for progressive values. No matter how far to the left Hillary tacks in the primary to make herself seen as a viable agent of change (laughable as that may seem to us), her eventual victory will be seen as nothing less than a huge slap in the face to the netroots progressive movement, and a vindication of DLC ideology.

If you doubt this, look no further than today's preening and repulsive column by Washington darling David Brooks in the New York Times. In the tauntingly titled "The Center Holds", Brooks takes the opportunity to disparage the entire progressive movement and the netroots by using a single cudgel: Hillary's increasing lead in national Democratic Party polls.

In the beginning of August, liberal bloggers met at the YearlyKos convention while centrist Democrats met at the Democratic Leadership Council’s National Conversation. Almost every Democratic presidential candidate attended YearlyKos, and none visited the D.L.C.

At the time, that seemed a sign that the left was gaining the upper hand in its perpetual struggle with the center over the soul of the Democratic Party. But now it’s clear that was only cosmetic.

Now it’s evident that if you want to understand the future of the Democratic Party you can learn almost nothing from the bloggers, billionaires and activists on the left who make up the “netroots.” You can learn most of what you need to know by paying attention to two different groups — high school educated women in the Midwest, and the old Clinton establishment in Washington.

The reason, says Brooks, is Hillary's lead in the national polls--which stands in opposition to the prevailing preference of the progressive blogosphere and many of the educated activists in Hollywood and elsewhere. Meanwhile, says Brooks, the DLC is still firmly in the driver's seat when it comes to making policy in the Democratic Party:

Clinton has established this lead by repudiating the netroots theory of politics. As the journalist Matt Bai makes clear in his superb book, “The Argument,” the netroots emerged in part in rebellion against Clintonian politics. They wanted bold colors and slashing attacks. They didn’t want their politicians catering to what Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of the Daily Kos calls “the mythical middle.”

But Clinton has relied on Mark Penn, the epitome of the sort of consultant the netroots reject, and Penn’s approach has been entirely vindicated by the results so far.

In a series of D.L.C. memos with titles like “The Decisive Center,” Penn has preached that while Republicans can win by appealing only to conservatives, Democrats must appeal to centrists as well as liberals. In his new book, “Microtrends,” he casts a caustic eye on the elites and mega-donors of both parties who are out of touch with average voter concerns.

Fourth, the netroots are losing the policy battles. As Matt Bai’s reporting also suggests, the netroots have not been able to turn their passion and animus into a positive policy agenda. Democratic domestic policy is now being driven by old Clinton hands like Gene Sperling and Bruce Reed.

Moreover, Brooks argues that in spite of the lip-service Democratic politicians may offer the netroots, the kowtowing and cowardly votes that the Congressional Dems make are reflective not of fear of Republican retaliation, but rather of their own (outdated) views of the electorate.

The fact is, many Democratic politicians privately detest the netroots’ self-righteousness and bullying. They also know their party has a historic opportunity to pick up disaffected Republicans and moderates, so long as they don’t blow it by drifting into cuckoo land. They also know that a Democratic president is going to face challenges from Iran and elsewhere that are going to require hard-line, hawkish responses.

My point here is not to argue with Brooks' self-satisfied pompous idiocy. It would be too easy to point to polls showing that voters prefer Democrats to Republicans on handling terrorism. It would be too obvious to point out that the electorate can no longer be described as conservative, or that the views of the public do not reside in vaccuum, untouched by recent events and experiences. It would be too simple to point out the victories of self-described progressives and the losses of DLC dems in 2006, or to indicate that Clinton's strong name recognition among those who barely pay attention to politics may be helping her significantly--especially since the attack ads haven't yet begun. It would be too facile to demonstrate that preference for presidential candidates is dependent on a variety of factors, arguably the least important of which is specific policy views.

None of that is the point. The point is that in the noxious air of Washington, D.C., in which the major decisions are made, people like Brooks will misguidedly see a Hillary victory as a reason to breathe a sigh of relief and remain comfortable with a lack of serious change in the way business is done in American government. Regardless of the reality of the situation, Hillary's inauguration will be nothing less than confirmation of the prevailing wisdom of the status quo--just with a little less swagger and explicit giveaways to Wall Street, the oil industry, and military contractors.

Hillary, unfortunately, has made her stance clear--and that tiger isn't going to change its stripes. She is the DLC candidate, and she is intending on staying that way. And as far as she has swung left in order to capture the Democratic primary, she'll swing just that far back to the center in the general election, working under the misguided theory that she must do so in order to appeal to "moderate" voters (who, by and large, actually stand to the left of the Party overall on most issues).

And because she has chosen that strategy, the actual repercussions of her hypothetical victory are beyond the control of us, the Congress, or even Hillary herself. The message that will be sent to America at large is that while Bush's excesses will be gone, nothing major will actually change--and "the adults" like Broder will still be firmly in charge.

For that reason, if for no other, there can no longer be any ambivalence about Hillary's candidacy among the netroots. This is not an issue of some better and some worse candidates from among a good field. The battle has been pitched by the Beltway class: either she wins, they get vindicated, and we lose--or we win, she loses, and people like David Broder are forced to explain just what happened to their precious conventional wisdom.

There's just no other way.

this is as good as they're going to get

Now that the first debate between the Democratic candidates for president is behind us, the blogosphere has been treated to a massive array of posts, counter-posts and arguments trashing one candidate's statements and performance while supporting the statements and performance of their own. And while this phenomenon has not been entirely unexpected, it is also disturbing and quite frankly puzzling.

I find it amazing how many Democrats and progresssives are willing to overlook the blemishes and flaws in their favorite candidate's positions. I see supporters of specific candidates defending their candidates' choice of centrist positions and rhetoric on everything from the Occupation of Iraq to healthcare to impeachment, and I'm amazed. I refuse to single any candidates out specifically, though certainly Hillary's stubborn refusal to call her war vote a "mistake" and centrist positions on civil rights issues, and Obama's tip-toeing and often capitulating rhetoric towards the administration on Iraq and a number of other issues do come to mind.

I've got news for people: this is as good as it's going to get with these people. If you ever intend to hold a candidate's feet to the fire--even your favorite, darling candidate--you MUST speak now or forever hold your peace. And quite frankly, though some are indeed better than others, I haven't seen any candidate SO devoid of flaws and SO progressive that I would be willing to defend them unto the death at this point and promise with undying affection my well-considered vote.

Why? Because this isn't just a Democratic primary race we're in right now: this is early in a Democratic primary race. It's a truism that the base is key in a primary election. But what often goes under-reported these days is that, while this election is unusual in the intensity of the attention given to candidates at this early date, it is still very early of even the primary election cycle. And what that means is that while the traditional media is providing cursory coverage of the race, pretty much only the Democratic activist base is paying a lot of attention at this point.

When you, the Democratic activist blogger, hear a candidate on our side speak at this point, realize that they are pandering to YOU right now. This is their best effort to earn YOUR support. Not the support of a Republican; not the support of an undecided; not the support of a moderate Democratic; not the support of your run-of-the-mill progressive. No, right here, right now, they are attempting to engage the support of YOU--the activist progressive base paying an almost unhealthy attention to all matters political.

If you don't like everything you're hearing out of a candidate right now; if you're not completely comfortable with a candidate's progressive language, credentials and policy positions, it's time to get worried RIGHT NOW. Everything they say and do now is their wedding proposal to YOU, down on their knees and on their best behavior in their best Sunday clothes. Just like in marriage, it's only going to get uglier from here from the moment you say "yes"--and unlike in marriage, you don't have the option of divorce.

Because once the primary race comes down to its last two months, the primary race itself will come down to swaying undecided, average Democrats. And once a candidate has taken the Democratic nomination, we're stuck with him or her for better or for worse, 'til death do us part--because the alternative is unthinkable. Papering over a candidate's weaknesses and centrist flaws now is as stupid as getting engaged to a lover thinking that you'll change his/her behavior once you're married, or that he/she will be more faithful to you once there's a wedding ring involved. It ain't gonna happen.

So be discerning. Play hard to get. Be choosy. Stop papering over weaknesses and pledging undying loyalties.

Because this is as good as they're going to get

I would work hard for a Hillary/Lieberman ticket

I would beat down doors for Hillary/Lieberman. I would fly across the country to swing states for GOTV operations for them. I would donate my hard-earned money to the campaign. I would serve in any capacity as an official attache or strategist for the campaign. I would carry signs and happily risk being pelted with objects by passing red-state motorists for Hillary/Lieberman. It would be an honor and a privilege to do these things for the Hillary/Lieberman campaign.

Or for Biden; or Dodd; or Kucinich; or Gravel; or Richardson; Obama; or Edwards; or Wes Clark; or Al Gore.

Any Democrat would be great, for that matter.

Today should be a constant reminder to any progressive sitting on the fence, insisting that they will positively not vote for any one of our primary candidates for any reason: the stakes are too high to allow one's personal feelings about specific votes on Iraq, bankruptcy bills or allegiances to the DLC to stand in the way of doing what is right by our country.

Today, as we all know, the Supreme Court insisted that the EPA do its job in acting on reduction of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming--and it did so by the narrowest of 5-4 margins. The four rightist members (Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas) stood firmly and unsurprisingly in opposition to justice and human decency, as they usually do.

Remember: the balance of the court hangs by thread. Five are sane, if not exactly progressive; four are nuts. All they need is one more nut.

Just ONE more rightwing activist judge, and you can say goodbye to commonsense rulings like this one. For the next decade or more, regardless of who wins the House or Senate, if a Republican takes the White House, the probability is that the the balance of the court will shift dramatically.

And there will be no solace or comfort in the nature of the Republican president: even the likes of Rudy Giuliani has pledged to nominate judges like Alito to the court, in the hopes of assuaging his distrustful wingnut base.

There is also little solace or comfort to be derived from the ages of the justices--especially the sane ones. Unfortunately, the nuts are comparatively young while the moderates are no spring chickens. Here's the list:

Stevens: 86
Ginsburg: 74
Scalia: 71
Kennedy: 70
Breyer: 68
Souter: 67
Thomas: 58
Alito: 57
Roberts: 52

Given the fact that incumbent presidents rarely lose elections, if a Republican takes the White House in 2008, it will probably be eight years before a Democrat can replace him. At that point Stevens will be 94 years old--if he survives that long.

And I'm going to say something somewhat controversial here: our immoral, misguided and inept invasion and occupation of Iraq will be a blip on the radar screen compared to decades of future Supreme Court rulings--especially those concerning the balance of power between the Executive and the Legislative branches. In the long run, we and the people we have violated in the Middle East will recover from our criminal actions in Iraq. The world will not so easily recover from runaway climate change and a runaway Imperial Presidency.

What that means is that I will fight like hell for whichever Democrat comes out of the primary process next year. Even if it's Hillary. Even if it's Biden. Even if it's Ben freaking Nelson, with Joementum as his running mate.

Now don't get me wrong: I will do everything in my power to ensure that a progressive we can be proud of graces the national Democratic ticket in the fall of 2008. But should we fail in that endeavor get a DLC centrist, occupation-justifying candidate, I will still work my heart out to ensure that that Democrat gets swept into the Oval Office.

And the same should go for anyone who calls themselves a Progressive. Or a Liberal. Or an Environmentalist. Or a Libertarian. Or an Economic Populist. Or an Anti-War Activist.

The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

Big Trouble for GOP Candidates in '08

The bad news for the keeps rolling in for the GOP.  While the '06 elections were like a tsumani, drowning Rove's and Delay's long-dreamed-of "permanent majorities" in one wave of popular disgust, the Republican difficulties in '08 are like a high tide before an unrelenting full moon on an endless night.  They're slow, foreboding and dismal--and they're creeping up with the inevitability of an unwanted season.

The bad news I'm talking about today comes in a USAToday/Gallup poll that I found through the Hotline Blog.  It's three days old, but I haven't seen any major hay being made out of the results.  And the results are ugly for Republicans, as you can see below.

The Gallup poll asked a simple question: "If Your Party Nominated A Generally Well-Qualified Candidate For WH '08 Who Was ___,  Would You Vote For That Person?

As a market researcher myself, I would have interested in seeing party-line breakdowns for the purposes of primary battles--but you can't get everything you want.  Even so, the results are deeply instructive.  And while they may be bad for societal progress, they're also bad for Republican chances.

  Yes No

Catholic  95% 4%  

Black   94 5

Jewish  92 7

A woman  88 11

Hispanic  87 12

Mormon  72 24

Married for third time  67  30 

72 years old  57 42

A homosexual  55 43

An atheist  45 53

Now, let's take a real good look at this for a second--and see what it means for each candidate.

John McCain: Everybody is talking about McCain's perfidy and the Bullshit Express; his presence on the gang of 14 and his strong support of escalating the Iraqi Occupation; his "maverick" status or lack thereof; his pandering to the religious right and whether Dobson will or won't make up and play nice with him.

What far too few people are talking about is what will really do in McCain if nothing else: a full 42% say that they will not vote for the man simply on account of his age alone.

What's even more shocking is that the negatives against a 72-year-old  president are as EQUALLY as strong as the negatives against a HOMOSEXUAL. 

Let me repeat that: according to the poll, 72 years old = homosexual.  Nobody in their right mind would think that a gay man or a lesbian could become president today in America.  Yet conventional wisdom says that a 72-year-old McCain can be elected president.  This is the sleeper issue in McCain's presidential run, bar none.

Rudy Giuliani: Everybody talks about his social liberalism; his stance on gay marriage and abortion; whether he was actually that good a mayor; whether America really wants a mayor as president; whether 9/11 and its various ghosts can still sway that many voters.

And yes, his marriages are a big deal--but few are talking about them as  if they were the BIGGEST deal.  And they are.  A full 30% will not support a thrice-divorced man as presidential nominee.  Period.  And I would  be willing to bet that the vast majority of respondents who state that as a negatie criterion are Republican social conservatives.  That alone makes him almost unelectable (I know, it's a bad word--but I'm gonna use it anyway) in a GOP primary--and I don't really see how he wins a general election, either.

To paraphrase what we say about DLC Democrats: offer the people a choice between a Democrat and a Democrat-lite (but a secret corporatist shill), they'll pick the Democrat every time.

Mitt Romney: Well, there's no denying what his biggest issue is--and it's not his flip-flopping on abortion or gay marriage (though those will be his undoing anyway).  As everyone has been saying for some time now, his Mormonism is still his biggest obstacle.  A full 24% of Americans say that they just won't vote for a Mormon. 

No major commentary is necessary here, except to say that it's pretty hard to reach 50% of the electorate when you give your opponent a 24-point headstart from the beginning of the race.  He could still pull it out--but he'd be really hard-pressed to do so.

Finally, we have Hillary vs. Obama.  Everybody talks about how Obama's race will play against him, and talk about it as if it were a bigger issue than Hillary's gender.  And honestly, no one should read too much into the results of the poll in this regard: when even politically unaware Americans think of a woman president, Hillary comes to mind; when they think of a black president, Obama usually comes to mind (and maybe Jesse Jackson).  Thus, those who have a negative opinion of Hillary might respond negatively about a woman president in the poll--even though they might vote for a different woman president if given the choice.

Meanwhile, American voters have a habit of telling pollsters that they will vote for an African-American--and then go vote their racial prejudice in the privacy of the booth.

Even so, however, if we take the poll at face value, a female candidate starts at a six point disadvantage behind a black candidate--and statisically equivalent to a Hispanic president, which is rather surprising given that Hispanics are the GOP xenophobic target-du-jour.

Even so, NONE of the Democratic frontrunner candidates in the field have anything CLOSE to the sorts of simply inherent personal negative attributes that the GOP field does.  No divorces.  No religious difficulties.  No age issues.  We can certainly argue that society should be free of such prejudices--but it isn't.  And we'll certainly take what we can get, since such prejudices usually work against us, rather than for us.

---------------------------------------------------------

At any rate, this is BIG trouble for the GOP.  Their top candidates start with huge obstacles in their way--in addition to the nearly insurmountable obstacles created by Iraq, George Bush's personal identification with the GOP brand, Hurricane Katrina, economic malfeasance and generally bad government.

McCain's age is almost equivalent to homosexuality as a negative.  Giuliani's divorces are enough to kill his candidacy with one third of the American electorate.  And Romney's religion kills him with one fourth of the electorate.

Meanwhile, Hillary's gender isn't doing her favors--and may even be a bigger obstacle to her than Obama's skin color to him.

These are dark omens indeed for the GOP field, and for corporatist warmongers the world over.