Monday, May 26, 2008

Kicking Your Friends

"Chuck, we can't allow a flap such as Sen. Clinton's latest become a reason to give up comity between factions of the party.My judgement of the Clinton campaign parallels your own, but this is politics and we have to be able to put behind us campaign tactics that rankle when it's time to close ranks and win.As for Hillary's gaffe, it doesn't matter to me why she explicitly raised the specter of assassination, because she has to have known better."

This is a blog friend of mine and we support the same candidate. He is exactly right in one aspect and exactly wrong at the same time. There are political supporters of both candidates and these folks will be approachable and then there are the Hilloons and Obamabots and these aren't approachable. The don't support their candidate, they have reached a cult like state of mind in which their candidate becomes messiah and through that definition the opponent is evil. (I give you This) It is, of course, utter nonsense, these are two politicians involved in a political struggle and separated by narrow differences in policy outside foreign policy and even there a large degree of commonality exists. Neither is sparkling clean in past and current associations or decisions.

I oppose Hillary Clinton more than I actually support Barak Obama and that is for political reasons. Race, religion, and gender don't enter into my calculations, I flatly don't care. There wasn't a Democrat in the race that I particularly opposed other than Clinton, opposed in a Primary race. That is a distinction. Some of her campaign I find pathetic, some of it I don't care about, and a couple pieces infuriate me. I can leave her alone about the pathetic victim sexism piece, if that's the image she wants to leave, her business. I don't get angry about her triangulation and pandering and short term thinking, I believe it isn't a good thing but I'm not angry and I can address it without blowing a gasket. Then we get to the piece of threatening to blow up the Party and trying to hold it hostage to her ends. That is where it ends with me.

For all its failings the Democratic Party far surpasses the Republican Party on almost every issue I care about and in general philosophy is a hands down winner. I care vastly more about the Party than I do either of these two candidates and I particularly care about the survival and construction of the DNC. Hillary Clinton has decided to turn Michigan, Florida, and the DNC into a political football for whatever advantage she can gain. Politics is a contact sport, whether you're Obama or Clinton you know it and work it from whatever theme your campaign has taken. I think a gas tax holiday is stupid, but it is a political device. Playing the, 'you can't win KY/WV,' is a political device. She may have wandered off from much of Democratic thinking with some comments, but they were aimed at Democratic voters - which is a reality, uncomfortable as that may be, and I figure pretty much useless, but...

There are two strings to the 'blow up the party' strategy and they both involve freezing supporters by establishing in their minds that this election has been somehow stolen. In order for this tactic to work there must be an offender or offenders and an obvious victim accompanied by aggrieved parties. The sanctions on MI/FL offer the most potent source of victim and aggrieved associates. Now, there is no doubt that the voters in these two states were poorly served by their legislators, their governors, and their state parties; there is even less doubt that DNC was going to have to help sort out something that helped smooth the waters, but these voters were not victimized by outside parties, not until Hillary stepped in. Hillary cannot make her stance as co-victim/primary victim of the mess on that basis alone. There is entirely too much involvement on her part and her representatives' part in the sanctions so the victim pose must have broader basis. This has gotten increasing play as time has gone on and she hasn't closed with or passed Obama and culminated in the June/RFK mess. I lost my temper.

The assassination statement didn't cause me to lose my temper, it was simply the straw. It was the last building block in her strategy that I could take. Now I don't care if people have a political or gender basis for supporting Hillary, neither is addressed by a McCain victory and they can probably see that once the campaign is over providing they do not see the nomination as theft. There isn't a 'super' delegate or political analyst that doesn't understand that particular piece and that is exactly the thrust of the Hillary campaign. If there is doubt in your mind that the strategy exists or is working look at the percentages of those who state they won't vote for their opponent in the General and who has what numbers.

I really don't have a problem with the supporters of either candidate, but the loons disturb me because there is something at work there that is not reasonable and as such at least somewhat out of control. That is not good. I have a huge problem with this strategy that the Clinton campaign has embarked on and I'm not about to back off on that. I'll go straight to the heart of the matter and I'll be real plain about it and I don't give a damn if somebody's feelings get hurt. If they cannot see this one, then there is no reasonable approach to them. What my friend I quoted misses is that the approach he advocates assumes the Hillary campaign has any intention of its realization - at any time. I agree with him and I'd love to leave Hillary alone but that is conditional, and the condition is the health of my Party. Not her continued campaign or policy disagreements, the health of the Party. That decision is not in my hands.

2 comments:

KISS said...

"For all its failings the Democratic Party far surpasses the Republican Party" Fiddle Faddle! What planet are you on. This primary summarily points to why we need more parties and Kiselings primary change of voting is part of the solution. K street is the victor and little else will matter in the end. The dimmos showed their capacity for ineptness with a majority and the repugs eating them alive with procedural maneuvering, proof of this is only one override of a veto. The dimmos had many chances to out maneuver the repugs but failed. Chalk up smartness to repugs.
Just maybe if McCain won and the dimmos control the house and senate we might be better off. Unlike you, I am not blinded by the glories of my party winning, I look to what is best for the citizens not K street which is always the winner. With dimmos in control of house and senate fear over who will be chosen for supreme court is not a fearsome thing. A repug president would be a gelding and nothing more. Unless the dimmos would acquiesce.

Chuck Butcher said...

KISS,
Have you noted some rather disturbing developements in the Executive branch over the last 7 yrs? We need more?

No, they are not the same thing. Yes, the big winners will continue to be the big winners, maybe not so much, but yep.

That is the nature of having real wealth, you win. That POS voting plan will simply ensure it not only continues but is aggravated.

C'mon a one vote Senate majority amounts to what? You've read me long enough to know I don't brook BS from my own Party.