Over A Cliff and liberals...?

There are Democrats and "liberals" who are managing to act surprised by what is going on in States and in the GOP Primary. Yes, they're astonished that Right To Work For Less passes in Indiana, that Walker, Kaisich, Scott, Mcdonnell exist and sign bills, that goddam birth control is a GOP issue. The really disgusting apologists try on the Dems stayed home in '10 bullshit. Another bunch blame the left for criticizing Obama and Congress. Some others want to blame Democratic over-reach in legislation.

If you look at who got clobbered in '10 it wasn't the progressive (it's a stupid label but I have to use something) folks ... it was the Blue Dogs. Try to get this, the people who lost ran on "we're just barely Democrats" and "I'm not as bad as." The thought process of those who stayed home and those who switched their voting isn't real available so one is left with trying to see what correlates with what.

The first thing is disgust and discouragement with the current ('10) environment. ACA polled badly - a GOP health insurance plan - polled badly and then those losers ran away from it. First Democrats passed a GOP national health care plan and then ran away from it because it was toooooo - much. They went along with the GOPers about deficits, only half-heartedly. They went along with the social warfare of plutocrats versus the rest and especially against the losers in that equation.

They did not stand up as Democrats and they did not stand up for the good of the general populace - no, they tried to spit the difference. They tried to muddy the waters by being almost GOPers. Within the Party and the "liberal" coterie there is the stupid lack of awareness that the GOPer policies of today are a direct result of the opposition to their views consistently shifting in their direction - and trying to muddy the waters.

Curiously you'd get the idea the this is some kind of purity test, a desire to ape the GOPers. Let's get down to a case, if you are not to the left of St Ronnie it is pure pretence to claim a (D) label. That is not a goddam purity test unless you propose that the Parties are all the same. The process of muddying the waters has allowed the GOP to define the terms of the argument, right down to things like "liberal." Media reporting facts and digging for facts becomes "liberal media." In point of fact, the Beatification of St Ronnie is a natural outcome of that muddying and defining.

I'm about sick and tired of my Party forcing me into taking a the label far-Left because they've become the GOP of yester-year. Not giving the voters a clear choice invites this kind of disaster. Right now the GOP is making it very easy to make clear differences, how would you like to make bets on how that one works out?

You "liberals" can kiss my butt, you're happy with a label that means you were just barely sane enough to run away from, almost, the GOP. Please, either pick your authoritarian plutocrats or pick the people or just go away and let that "liberal" tag actually mean something again - along with Democrat have actual meaning. Democrats? Run campaigns that put meaning back into the damn word so those "liberals" have to chose.

Liberal is a word so debased by the GOP and the Blue Dogs that polling Americans puts it around used car salesman. It does not belong there - but you've asked for and gotten it.

Lessons Not Learned

What Democrats and Republicans have learned or not learned from this mid-term election is open to question. There is one thing that is for sure, Americans did not get what they wanted. The argument will now be about what it was that they didn't get.



I'm getting to listen to Dan Boren (D-OK) talk about how the Caucus needs to move to "the center." This is the kind of thing I'd expect from someone with seriously limited intellect and the news media in general. This is the kind of stupidity that reads getting blown out of the House as disdain for liberalism rather than fury over lack of accomplishment. This in the face of huge accomplishments.

You wouldn't know it from the polling. The Democrats own the Bankster Bailouts, Ds will raise your taxes - despite lowering them, health care death panels, failed socialism. Ask yourself why clear untruths are held valid by voters. It would seem that Democrats were really bad at letting voters know what they were trying to do, what they had done, and how it benefitted Amvericans. They were particularly bad at letting the GOP set the terms of the debate. You would think that with about 1/3 of the stimulus cost being tax cuts and voted against by the GOP that voters might think differently about who is on their side economically. Nope. Wall Street reform legislation was almost totally opposed by the GOP and yet ... anger at banks landed on Democrats.

I'll lay you a bet, the damn Democrats will attempt some move to the Right in response to their own ineptitude at communication.

Dear Mr President & Assorted Democrats - They Lie

I'm not sure how to break this to you: the Right lies. Yes, Rupert Murdoch's crap-tastic propaganda Faux News network lies, repeats the lies, and then blames you if you fall for it. They start with the assumption that Liberalism is guilty of some crime against America and uncritically repeat any such accusation. The Right view themselves as at war with a somehow evil foe and any means is justified.

It would seem that that the lies propagated about Van Jones, burying his actual problem, would have given you a clue. No, a perfectly useful organizantion like Acorn gets destroyed because you fall for concept that accusation is fact - you do understand that video can be used to lie? Then comes Shirley Sherrod making a speach before a reputable organization like NAACP and you assume racism because a Right-wing blogger with zero goddam credibility feeds his shit to Fox. In the face of the reputations of the conflicting organizations you buy into the demonstrably crappy ones?

This isn't an example of an exercise where compromise will serve the interests of the nation - they are at war with you and your destruction is the aim. There isn't a middle ground in that, their lies won't cease because you're partially wrecked. Surely some of you watched the health care "debate" and their actions. You know what was proposed or in the Bill and you know what they had to say about it. And you keep letting them set the dialogue?

I know you expect Democrats to get out and work for you in the upcoming elections and you'd like to be touted and defended. What exactly are we to say? Do you expect us to point out the lies that you fall for and thus justify and encourage? You may not want to be at war with your fellow citizens, but they do want to and you'd best get used to the idea. You are allowed to call people who lie, liars.

Drill, Baby...Huh?

President Obama declared his intention to open some of the coast to oil drilling. There is almost undoubtably oil down there, a question occurs as to how much. There certainly is not sufficient oil to significantly affect domestic prices - despite GOP lunacy there just isn't that much oil here, period. The argument can be made that some is much more than none and while that is true there is the question of relative risk. I can't answer that one, the oil industry is considerably cleaner than in decades past but ooopses are real nasty.

I guess the question that I have is to what end this change in policy is being made? If it has anything to do with getting GOP support - well, I'd sure prefer some handcuffing going on, support or forget this. If it is about voters, I just don't know. I'm having a problem figuring out the targets. I keep seeing downsides and not much of anything on the upside.

Ok, that's a lot words to say, "Huh?"

Stupack And The Nuns

The Catholic Nuns sent Rep Bart Stupack a letter stating that he should vote to pass the health insurance bill, his reaction was, 'so what?" He told Matthews on Hardball that they didn't count because they haven't been working like the Bishops. Hmmm.

So the nuns don't count because they're not the politically active Bishops.
The nuns don't count because they don't agree with Stupack.
The nuns don't count because they have vaginas (unused?)

Lets get to some of the crunch on this, nuns aren't being accused of molesting choir boys - that appears to be those vagina-less characters. The politically active Bishops, on the other hand, come from the ranks of those who are and have been molesting choir boys and who acted to cover it up and let it continue. Now in Bart's mind that bunch has the credibility. OK...

Well, no Bishop will ever get pregnant.

The Stupidly Intransigent Left

Since Rep Kucinich switched to yea what is there to be done with this metric? The evil villain of leftyism who held out is now whipping his colleagues after visiting the President on Air Force One so...
A) the CiC threatened to drop Dennis out the door at 35K feet
B) promised not to sell pics of Dennis and his wife
C) persuaded Dennis that this was as good as it was going to get and showed him why
D) whatever ???

I've tried to make this point to my more "moderate" friends, the left always folds to the Democratic "middle." It makes no difference how often the left is later proven correct on issues and the "middle" shown to be asses, the middle will have its way and call the left idiots.

Kucinich has stood fast calling this bill out as corporatist crap, which it is. Only a segment of that middle doesn't acknowledge how crappy the bill is but it seemed all screamed about the traitorous left all the while they were pushing at Reps to pass a bill they're not fond of. The left was pushing for results Reps weren't fond of but that is somehow different. The claim is that what the left wants may be good policy but just isn't possible.

Here's news flash for you, it isn't possible because you keep deciding it isn't possible. The Democratic Party drift into the party of 70s GOP isn't an accidental occurrence; it is that so - called middle always getting its way despite how right it wanders.

Let's Not Be Stupid

A whole lot of us aren't remotely happy with what has become of the so-called Health Care Reform bill in the Senate or the House, especially considering the time and effort spent on it. We can easily point at the Republicans as the villains for total obstruction but that isn't real satisfying - somebody had to have failed. Here is where the hunt starts for the incompetent hack on our side.

I mentioned the left bashing previously as one incarnation of that, lately it seems Rahm Emmanuel is a target. A lot of people on the left or even progressive side heartily dislike Rahm for his disdain for anything not DLC. Some don't like him for being rude or raucous. No, I don't like his version of Democratic politics. Rahm Emmanuel is Chief of Staff to the POTUS - he has a BOSS. Even more than that, the executive branch does not run Congress.

Real frankly, I don't think there is anyone in particular to blame. I think the failures have been on the part of darn near every Federal elected Democrat. Taking a run at passing health care legislation has proved damn near impossible at the Federal level and this Party went at it like a collection of monkeys trying to do the deed to a football. Not one of the pieces is exempt from this, not the White House, not the House, not the Senate, and for good measure throw in Governors and the higher regarded State legislators and the damn Party organizations.

The first damn thing you have to do when you have a bunch of disparate views and competing interests is to get the confounded public on your side. When you are not going to win the big money powerhouse interests your lever is public opinion. You create a situation where the voters are going to remember who screwed the pooch where their interests were concerned. Considering that the ability to connect with the public is President Obama's great strength, this lack is mind boggling.

I'm not going to address the Congress, I don't want spit all over my monitor. In very short terms, knowing the votes, knowing the negotiators, knowing the honesty, and keeping some sort of discipline and consequences in place did not happen. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are not dictators, that part is up to their Caucuses but getting blind-sided by Nelson, Baucus, LIEberman, and the House wankers is inexcusable.

The pols who are close to their voters geographically are strong voices and frequently more popular and well regarded than the Federal legislators - crickets chirping. Where was the vaunted OFA and the DNC? How in the world did we have the spectacle of Cabinet officials being all over the map? Whose opinion on what was supposed to be important?

I'm not sure it makes squat difference now in regard to the end product or that it can be passed. What I am sure of is that if Democrats want to get anything at all done from here on out, they'd better figure this one out. All I can say to the rank and file is that if you want to throw rocks at anyone responsible, you'd better get a lot of them.

Bipartisan Politics

Engaging "wayback machine" this is Jan22,2007

Here's a phrase that seems to be getting big play, it started shortly after the '06 election results and has gained ground ever since. It has a nice ring, bipartisan, it sort of rolls off the tongue with lovely strong syllable breaks and an element of cadence. I'll bet it would sound good if you did it with a mouth full of marbles and it looks nice in print - bipartisan - hey even in italics - bipartisan. It seems such a long time time since it had any currency.

You may be familiar with the name Frank Luntz, he of the Republican dictionary, well now he's decided to tell the Democrats how to use Words that Work over at HuffPo. The idea is to bury the hatchet...not in the Republican's heads, but actually bury it. He's on to the spirit of bipartisanship (-ship kind of spoils the cadence) and even notes, "Democracy is at its best when its practitioners use language to unite and explain rather than divide and attack." I also think it works pretty well when "Clean Air" doesn't mean pollution and estate tax means that and not "Death Tax" which means you get charged for not living anymore, um, dying. It would be pretty crass to charge for the dubious privilege of being dead. He just doesn't think being vindictive will work out for the Democrat Party (sure he knows better, he just can't help himself), that the Party should figure out how to work with the Republicans. He's actually right, the Democrats cannot afford to be perceived as vindictive. What I find odd, though, is the idea that it's the Democrats who are supposed to be bipartisan. Maybe it's the bi- piece of the word that's throwing me. All the way through Webster's 9th Collegiate (again) bi- has two involved, I think the part about "both sides" (2) may just be what's up with the word. Well, anyhow, thanks Frank.

I have a little different take on this Congress deal, nobody on that side wants to get along, what they want is a chance to score points for '08 and make Democrats look bad. When you reach across that aisle, if you get your hand back, you better count your fingers. What Democrats can do (listen up Hillary) is come up with good policies, make sure everybody knows they're good, ram them through, be seen ramming them through, and make sure the Republicans get the blame for their failure to happen. The President says he can do as he pleases, well now, that's an idea, but hauling them up before investigative committees makes that a bit tougher and when the dirt falls out impeachment really ties you up. Jail can give you time to reflect on hubris.

You already know that the Republicans would like very much to undo the 06 damage and hang onto the Presidency, since they're the minority their only hope is to be obstacles and then blame Democrats as "do nothings." You can thank Mr Luntz for showing you the genesis of how it will be played, "We were reasonable but all they wanted to do was keep hitting us with a bat." Just make sure that it's obvious that the Republicans stopped the game by stealing the balls, the bases, and the scoreboard. Then whack 'em with that bat again.

That's not being vindictive, it's culling the herd.

The Coakley Massacre

One would suppose there are lessons to be learned from something as ... interesting as the MA special election results. Not having a bunch of faith, I suppose Democrats will mostly learn the wrong ones.

Here's a newsflash for you - you're supposed to run as though winning means something to you. Little things - like not taking a vacation in the middle of a six week elections cycle. Things a novice might miss like showing up at campaign events. It might even occur to you that a political campaign involves the novel idea of giving people a reason to like you and to believe that you care they exist. Those might be something to do. Even if the seat has been held by a Democratic legend for a really long time.

While the lesson might be to behave as though you're in an election, my bet is that the losing Party is going to decide that they've completely over-played to an ungrateful left and need to shift right. Nearly 40 years ago I had the State hang a (D) after my name because my alternatives were either lunatics or no party at all. Now all these years later I find my alternative to be well to the right of the lunatics of the time. I suppose I'm the ungrateful left since I can't recognize Democratic handiwork in the health care bill.

There's been a lot of wailing about the loss of the 60th Democratic seat in the Senate. I'd contest that it ever existed unless you'd like to rename the Party LIEbercrats (or hell Nelsonites). I dislike purity tests, but I'd like to see legislation that is recognizably Democratic come out of a Democratic Caucus. I know all about "it's what we could do" but then I wonder about votes for the Patriot Act and other civil liberties abortions and who made them. Once I've hit that damn iceberg I start wondering about Iraq War authorization, and then - well hell - about 30 years of political history...and the ship goes down.

You probably haven't noticed that this site is stripped of all references to my involvement in the Democratic Party and that is because as an officer it wasn't in my job description to throw rocks at Democrats; and I had boulders in hand; so I resigned. Don't start thinking that anyone in the DPO mistreated me, quite the contrary the organization is full of friends and valued colleagues.

You'd think that the Congress is composed of a handful of progressives rather than very nearly half of each house being of that description. That is one of the features of holding such large majorities, but the Senate rules mean a handful of Neanderthals can make legislation into something the majority elected don't want to do. Chances of ever getting Democrats to agree on everything are always small, but the usage of procedural rules against your own Caucus ought to be political poison - nope.

After the Democratic Caucus finds out the Snowe or Collins is more reasonable and honest than Hoe LIEberman maybe they'll shit can that asshole. Don't hold your breath.

Democratic Political Disaster

Health Care Reform would be extremely hard under the best circumstances and none of those have been laid into place before this thing hit the fan. It should have been known in the Democratic Caucus what could fly. It should have been clear what the President was willing to sign. Consequences for Caucus obstruction should have been laid out clearly and absolutely. The vote should have been known.

The blame for this is all over the board, from President Obama to Freshman Senator.

Here's what that responsibility is going to entail. Voter turnout is always down in midterms and the most fickle voting groups are: 1) The Poor, 2) The Young, 3) Minorities. Those most impacted by what the current health care reform looks like are those folks and whether they will turn out depends on their enthusiasm, real enthusiasm. I think the most optimistic measure would be, "I don't care," and I think that is fairy tale land. Those Obama/Democratic demographics you were so proud of, bye-bye.

That in itself is horrid, but what about the activist wing? You know them, more left than mainstream out in the electorate trenches Democrats. Since the end of the Vietnam War the left has been almost endlessly faithful and forgiving of Democrats. There is noise and nose holding, but they do the part campaigns can't pay people to do. I do not know how that is going to go. I do know that in the face of the current mess it is going to be difficult to make arguments to them to bring in money and effort for Democratic majorities. We aren't as bad as the GOP isn't a real recipe for enthusiasm, true as it may be. You can try to make the case that the outrage around the apparent current Senate version of health care reform is limited to noisy bloggers and loon pundits. Um, polls are showing something different going on. If something is passed and signed, you still have to sell it as some kind of product. Much of this political year has been devoted to this mess and that means Democrats are stuck with having to sell it. Good luck with that one.

Older white voters do vote and that 25%+/- total loss Republican loon portion will also vote. That part of the demographic pretty much loathes Obama and anything they think he stands for. This puts you starting somewhat behind in the turn out game. You really need the activists out getting voters and you need them to carry a message that will get people out to the polls. The latest I've heard for a message is, George W Bush.

A Bad Bill Is Not Victory, Liebercrats

Let's get some things out of the way right up front. I did not vote for Joe Lieberman as President. I did not vote for Joe Lieberman for Senate Chair positions or anything. I also did not vote for President Obama as a "transformative" progressive. I knew whom I was voting for. Rather, I thought I was voting for a Democrat.

I don't care about the regulations Health Care Reform is supposed to have, they are at worst a paint job on a whorehouse and at best some force for reform of practices. There is no real harm done and even a possibility of progress, slim but there. My prognosis is that the insurance companies will do as they please with these reforms and the consumer be damned. That much is crystal ball stuff.

What I can tell you with no doubt whatever is that mandates with no options will force American consumers to take whatever crap is offered by the sharks that have set this course. Not only will it force Americans screwed by their system to buy the junk, it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for it. The States with the worst insurance systems will suck hell out of the public teat. Understand, the worst outcomes will be rewarded with the most money from taxpayers. All you have to do is look at the highest rates of uninsured in states and their version of health insurance to understand where the money will go and who will get it. That much is assured.

Right behind that inevitability is this, the sharks who already benefit from a monopolistic system will have the reward of federal dollars and enforced consumer expenditures to swell their influence and income. If you think the Senate outcomes in this debate were owned by these people wait and see how that plays once they aren't just taking advantage of their existing power, but have it multiplied.

I've been told how important mandates are to insure those excluded by decision or economics and (for some reason) start forcing the system in a positive direction. There is no doubt that the uninsured drive insurance costs up when their failures are spread back out into the system. I've been talking about this for years. What nobody has shown or is even willing to try to show is that HealthInc is the least responsive to market desires or in any way attempts to serve consumers. What has been demonstrated is that they use whatever means they can to avoid paying or to pay as little as they can. That is not immaterial.

Does somebody want to argue about whether the health insurance system in this country is a disaster? If exploding costs, denials, etc in the face of federal tax rewards is not a disaster, well - OK. Now the Senate is poised to reward that failure with federal money and the involuntary servitude of the public. I may be forced to buy auto insurance if I choose to own vehicles, but I do have a "choice" about owning one and I do have a hell of a lot of insurance companies to pick my mandated coverage from and those companies have varying reputations but certainly better than HealthInc. I will point out that people are actually not in a position of choice about owning a body and virtually no choice regarding health insurance providers.

I will not support mandates without choice and I will not support people who make this happen. I will repeat the words Halliburton and Blackwater, anybody notice these failures being removed from the system or their continuation as necessary - in the face of their behavior? I will not support a Party that goes there and I will not support a President who lies to my face about it. I don't in the least care what Ron Wyden or Jeff Merkley say about health care reform, if those mandates stay in without choice they are Liebercrats. It should be obvious to anybody that if one or two Democratic Senators stood up and said no choice/no mandates or no cloture that the mandates would go away. That isn't going to happen and they will pat themselves on their backs for not pulling a Lieberman and enabling Lieberman. They can try that in public and I (at least) will be standing right there calling Bullshit - in public. It is unfortunate that the House is going to suffer right along with Senators since they provided some version of choice, but they're going to get hammered. The goddam Senators seem to have forgotten that the House is part of Congress and the President gets to sign or not whatever crap comes out of Congress and the suffering for their bullshit gets spread around.

The Senate has proved how it will handle as important an issue as health care reform, still to come are issues around climate warming, jobs, banking regulation, and the rest of 30 years of fallout of Republican junk. I suppose you have optimism... Howard Dean versus Joe Lieberman? Ahahahaha...

Senator Tom Harker just got done lying on MSNBC by implying that Dean's support was predicated on single payer - odd since he's played booster right up until choice was removed... Damn, that crap sounds familiar.

Lieberman Still Crapping In The Democratic Bed

I understand that most levers the Senate Democratic Caucus has to use on other "Democrats" lose effect if they are public. That would mean that there is a lot I don't know. I sure do know a couple things.

The Senate health care reform bill proposals have consistently neutered the neutered House version. This process is still ongoing. This process is ongoing because some so-called Democrats are threatening to block cloture if the bill is at all meaningful. If the Caucus was taking itself in hand this would not be the case. There are more than enough votes to pass real reform once cloture happens. Democrats don't need to play GOP purity games on the vote, but cloture is another issue all together.

I'm beginning to lose all respect for this body and considering their 6 year terms that loss of respect can easily mean I'll just quit playing. Democrats have asked a lot over the years and now they've finally been delivered a theoretical filibuster proof majority and the Presidency and are demonstrating an entire inability to get cloture on signature legislation. You folks want my support for what? Are you going to ask me to help get an 80 seat majority? I know you're asking for help to maintain seats, as things stand - I think not.

Somebody will probably accuse me of playing purity games. Nah. I'm well left of any candidate that has run for national or state office in my memory and I've been useful anyhow. I'm not expecting the kind of health care reform I'd really like without an entire melt-down of the system. I'm a realist, but now I'm offended. I'd like to point out to Democratic elected officials that I'm a lot more patient and pragmatic than a hell of a lot of people you count on. I know you do realistically discount our vote numbers, but our numbers do include a lot of money and ground troop effort you count on.

Sitting on your hands and blaming Lieberman, or Nelson, or etc is entire horseshit. You have the numbers to cripple any of these Senators for the rest of their terms and effectively shut down their re-election. If you cannot get your own damn Caucus past cloture because you are unwilling to do so I am to understand that you are better alternative to the GOP exactly why? This effectively means that electing you guys does not mean any progress but rather being frozen in the morass of BushCo. That being the case I'd rather let real Republicans trash the place sufficiently to get the idea across. Yes, opposed to watching your pointless flailing I'd back the Confederate Party of Republicanism so we can have some real failure since BushCo wasn't obvious enough.

Do you think I wouldn't send them money and shoot you in the foot every time you offer one up in search of that end? Yes, I'd back the Confederate Party of Republicanism in their plutocratic racist theocracy ends and all their warmongering just so Americans can see what they actually are. I'd say we've now been allowed to see what you guys are and that is an exercise in paralysis.

*** Updare ***
Profile has been modified because I am no longer comfortable with speaking from any place reflecting a political Party's official views. For the time being I'm done.

Senatorial Sticks

I've spent a lot of years watching Democrats get rolled on anything remotely resembling the public good and I expect to see quite a few more years of the same thing. That is because I see the public good from somewhere well left of the center. I understand that.

Looking at the health care reform actions in the House and the Senate I'm not surprised how things are working out. What I am incensed about is the Caucus' inability to show the recalcitrant members the sticks that are in their hands. Chairmanships and Seats on Committees are a start. There is a hell of a lot more.

Elected officials at the federal level need badly to show the folks at home that they bring benefits along with their office holding. Any bill you can think of contains stuff that is narrowly focused to that end. There is absolutely no reason whatever that the stuff has to stay in a bill other than collegiality. Senator Lieberman, would you like to write some of that stuff into a bill? Well, here's a real good question for you, how did you vote on a filibuster? Do you, Sen Lieberman, think your Chairmanship is important? Why should anyone think your vote for the Caucus will be forthcoming in the future if you're not whacked? Somebody might be able to remember the 2008 election at this point in time.

I've reached the point of no return with this. I understand that the junk measure in front of the Senate at this time is the best you could get in front of the Senate. That doesn't mean it isn't junk compared to the need, it just means that is what could get done at this point. Alright, if you can't get this piece of offal into a vote because your own Caucus won't do it, then why is it I should put anymore effort into you if they get to do that for free?

I'm not being a purist, I just want a vote on something that remotely resembles health care reform. If you let this handful of Senators blow this up without clear consequences, then I'm done with you. Clear done. You may be the good guys and that's really nice, but in the world where I live there are consequences to actions. Being an activist isn't so much fun that I can't see my way to walk away from everyone of you all the way down to town officials. It isn't much of a threat taken by itself, but if someone as stubborn and ornery as I am is on the edge, it might be something to think about.

Nobody has to vote against their conscience to allow a vote to happen. They can certainly vote against passage and should be able to do so without Caucus revenge, but to stop a Democratic initiative from coming to a vote isn't acceptable. If about 56 Democratic Senators can't lean on the remainder of the Caucus, then what good are you? Why should I care if Republicans get another opportunity to run the place into the ditch if the only difference is the initial after a title as far as results are concerned? Is there some reason to believe that unless it involves a Corporate/Banking/HealthInc giveaway this same bunch won't just filibuster again?

Your call on how you handle your Caucus, my call on how I waste my time.

Sen Ted Kennedy Is Gone

The news just came in that Ted Kennedy has died. This isn't a real big surprise given the nature of brain cancer but it has come rather suddenly. Whatever happened at Chappaquiddick and whether or nor he paid a full price for it, one thing is certain - he has stood for the ordinary man for most of his career.

I don't make heroes out of politicians and Sen Kennedy had enough of a past to disqualify him from any pantheon I might form. That said, there are enough of the wealthy and wannabes out there that cannot see that a large portion of society is left out of our system that he stands out as one who not only could see them but made and active effort to improve their lot. I won't go into the issues where I've disagreed with him, there are some, but looking at his record and contrasting it with fellow Party members like Baucus and opposition Party members like ... well hell, all of them is informative.

I had hoped that in light of his efforts that he would have a chance to to vote for and see passed a real health reform bill. It is clear that wasn't to happen and now I have to wonder if such a thing will happen within my lifetime. This could have happened for Teddy and now it looks as though those of us who also see a broken system that could be fixed won't see any more than another defeat at the hands of lies and fear mongering and name calling.

I don't know what shame or guilt Ted Kennedy may have felt or deserved, what I do know is that he dedicated himself to public service rather than the accumulation of wealth and power. The opponents of his efforts show no shame or loss for their abhorrent behavior while denigrating Ted and his brothers for their shortcomings. The loss of the promise of that family is stunning in its depth and breadth, we can only acknowledge their efforts and dedication with admiration and let be their failings as paid.

Goodbye Teddy, fare thee well.

Homeland Joe, I Think No

I'll blame GWB for as long as the name Homeland is attached to any official agency for the hair standing up on the back of my neck every time I see it. I have very nearly the same reaction to Joe Lieberman keeping his chair of the Senate Committee bearing its name.

I approve of politicians acting on the basis of their conscience rather than votes or personal gain. I don't have a problem with politicians disagreeing with their Party, frequently the most effective resistance to stupidity comes from inside. It has automatic validation as sincere. It is something to have attention paid to it and it is fairly rare.

Anyone who paid attention to politics and foreign affairs over the past six years knows where Joe Lieberman stands on Iraq and over the past four years where Obama stands and they are opposed. Lieberman supporting McCain on the basis of Iraq alone wouldn't be a surprise and shouldn't have been. Given Joe's views, it was the right thing to do, a lot of important aspects of that issue were heavily weighted by who won. So far, so good.

Then the train runs off the track. A former Democratic VP nominee, a Senator supported by Obama in his contested Primary - which he lost - and an Independent caucusing with Democrats and holding an important Chair not only criticizes that Party's nominee on that issue, but goes on about experience and the security of the nation in very negative terms. Once you've gone past disagreeing about a policy to questioning the very patriotism of your Party's nominee you've signalled your complete opposition to your Party's President Elect and your determination to harm him politically.

There is absolutely no reason for the Democratic Party Senators to give such a platform and such power to an avowed opponent. If you are to excuse his McCain backing on the basis of principle then you cannot discount his vote on the issues you'd expect him to support as a part of the Democratic Caucus simply because he shifts to Republican Caucus. If he is so childish as to switch his social issues positions over that Chair, then he is a dangerous ally. If he is that untrustworthy and unprincipled there is no forgiving his Election behavior. Supporting him in his quest to keep his Chairmanship is not rational thinking, it is wishful thinking to avoid a conflict which is inevitable in either scenario.

I have respect for Evan Bayh but his position that avoiding this conflict helps to keep Lieberman's vote within the Caucus' positions is poor thinking. This needs to be resolved cleanly and quickly, there is no reason to leave a scab to be picked at. I'm real sure a bunch of Senators have been waiting with bated breath for my analysis...

Obama, Buyer's Remorse?

It seems there are a bunch of people who are now unhappy to find out that Barak Obama is a politician. This a guy who started his career in Chi-town politic and in that city and Illinois they play the game in a rough and twisty manner. Barak knows how to be careful with his language and how to read the public. Many of the unhappy people have not paid attention to what he has actually said, rather what they wanted to hear. They also are apparently unaware of how the politics of legislative bodies works.

Let's start with what he's said versus what people wanted to hear. In February when it became clear that the Supreme Court was going to hear the DC gun ban case on the basis of individual versus collective right he said clearly that he did not see how the 2nd Amendment could not be read as an individual right. He was not and is not a friend of gun owners in general, what he is being is a realist about what the ruling means. He is neither responsible for the ruling nor is he a fan of the outcomes - challenges to blanket bans and capricious or draconian licensing.

He has repeatedly stated that we need to leave Iraq more carefully than we went in, that his 16 month withdrawal plan was subject to conditions on the ground. Anyone proposing military strategy that ties themselves to one particular line is a fool - need I mention George II? The simple fact is that a withdrawal or retreat is one of the riskiest military maneuvers and things can go bad suddenly and drastically. Many people are aware of this and it is politically stupid to ignore that people are aware, and just as stupid to ignore that his opponent is trying to make political hay out of military inexperience.

Ignorance of legislative politics leads to unrealistic and rigid expectations. The FISA bill that has people in an uproar was decided some time ago, like virtually all bills. The speeches on the floor are window dressing, all for looks, the positions were fixed long before all the public relations talk on the floor. Supporters were courted and counted, amendments offered and accepted or rebuffed long before you see it. Political calculations were made by both Parties and individuals regarding votes. Many of the "maverick" votes you see were Party approved to allow a legislator to appeal to home voters without damaging the vote outcome. On odd occasions a Party will deliberately sabotage a vote or an amendment, there are costs involved that make this rare. Even more rarely a legislator will cross the Party position when his vote matters. People see the show and think it is the reality, it is not and cannot be. You may hear explanations on the floor or partisan attacks but this is for the show not the action. Read Obama's explanations and forget the media's and Republicans' and the web's nonsense.

I am entirely unsure now and in the past how people expected Obama to achieve consensus and bipartisan accomplishments from a hard left position. If you are actually left and you actually expect to elect a politician from that point of view, I would assert that your home is LaLaLand. Wishful thinking regarding leftism is silliness, the country is not left, it may be drifting more left than in recent years but the starting point for that drift is what counts. This country is centered much more right now than when RMN was President, so much that he now would be considered left of center. Any drift that is talked about today is encouraging but it is not what many seem to think it is. Obama's home districts both in the Illinois legislature and Congress are fairly liberal in outlook compared to the nation in general and even there he has been pretty measured in his politics, this isn't new. Buyer's remorse is not reasonable nor sensible and feeding the media and Republicans attack material is not a good idea nor based on facts.

Senator Clinton And The Democratic Party, Where Now? (Redux)

*****This is a re-posting of a 3/14 article that Reuters and USA Today seem to like enough to keep posting and driving Blogburst numbers up, at this late date. I provide it again because people more professional than I keep using it and seem to think it has some value*****

Before the Texas and Ohio Primaries I stated that without a convincing win in one or both states Hillary should quit. She got that type of win in Ohio, ugly, but she got it. I stated afterwards that she should stay in because there is real value in a contested primary, the voters get a chance to measure judgment and character as well as policies; all the while allowing candidates to grow. A certain nasty undertone had followed the Clinton campaign since South Carolina, it flowered before Texas and Ohio and is now in full bloom. It is the ugliness of political opportunism. I suppose you're ready to read a call for a Clinton withdrawal.

You won't get that. I am sincerely disturbed and angered by the recent tacks taken by Hillary. They are an aspect of politics I'd much rather left to the Republicans, who have worked hard for and earned the disrespect of a large segment of society. They have the potential in this year, of all years, to splinter the Democratic Party and blow away gains in a large non-participatory piece of our electorate. There is a very real chance of serious damage to the DNC and the Dean vision of how to expand the Party's numbers and strength. Democratic dialogue has coarsened and lies and misrepresentations have been validated as strategy. This climate of opportunism run rampant occurs in a year where a campaign of principles and cool judgment and behavior could result in the gutting of the Republican machine. All these negatives outcomes and I'm not calling for a withdrawal or cease-fire?

It is absolutely necessary that this contest goes all the way to the Convention floor and the super delegates hands, with the States of Florida and Michigan right in the mix, however resolved or unresolved. The entire sack of dynamite goes to Denver, with the fuse lit. This is not a horrid foretelling, it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

That is exactly right. This time the fight is to the end. Some version of the Democratic Party is dead and done in Denver. November has ceased to be more than a coda in this work. The conductor has been chased from the podium by the percussion section and this song is driving hard and fast to the final crescendo. We are going to learn how the notes are strung and the result may be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. This is the process, this is what all these years of political wilderness and dramatic and slight return of 2006 have been about. The fates of downstream candidates are going to be determined in Denver and the public perception of this latest Congress is going to play larger than anyone may have thought. The dynamics of an explosive confrontation have been building since the Clinton administration.

The elements are nearly worthy of a work of fiction. The victim hood of Hillary, the Bush destruction of what good came of Clintonism, the electoral career of Hillary, the ouster of the McAuliff faction at DNC and the Dean vision engaged. Swirling around these characters was the atmosphere set by an out of control Republican Congress rubber stamping an out of control President who bulldozed a Democratic Congress and there was fear. Fear and naked blatant fear mongering. Narration was provided by the Machiavellian Rove and the politicization of government to its bowels. And there was a new and charismatic black Senator. The mood is set, the characters in place, and the conflict defined.

There are four main actors in two separate and yet linked conflicts. The Dean version of grass roots small money all states bottom up responsibility against the McAuliff autocratic big money 50%+1 wins and consultant driven corporatism is the underlying conflict. The really visible actors are Hillary and Obama, two different visions of political practice. Both are politicians, no mistake, but Hillary offers up a school of political thinking that sees the vote margin gained now, through whatever opportunism, as the end political capital, one vote margin, however gotten, allows the political agenda to go forward with its ends justifying its manner of achievement. Disaffected voters for the opponent are dispensable, the purpose is the win. The Obama campaign predicates its win as based on the enlargement of the electorate and its activation as a political force, and not only its win, but its hopes of governing. It is the philosophy of inclusion to the extent of creating a public force for its agenda surpassing that of the opponent in the General Election. Such a campaign is restricted in scope in a Democratic Primary, it must by definition not be perceived as divisive or opportunistic and it must project an aura of reasonableness and concern for the opposition.

These conflicts would be explosive taken singly, they are not separate but linked and more than that they are each catalysts for the other. The Obama campaign set out on a 50 state strategy, mimicking the Dean operation and built solid and successful organizations everywhere it went. Along with that strategy was the idea that every voter counted and the creation of new voters counted and the only way to get there was to bring them something new and different. Proportional awarding of delegates rewards that strategy, losses are minimized and gains maximized. There is no base, there is the creation of an entirely new base, but this base is deeply skeptical of the old order. They are brought to belief reluctantly and once activated relentless, the fire of converts. They are a dangerous force, almost as dangerous to their creator as the opponent; a single instance of opportunism by their champion laid bare and they're gone. They are fierce in their opposition to perceived opportunism in their opponent.

Hillary was schooled in the nastiness of politics, what lessons of selective ethics she had not already learned before the White House were driven home there. Her hate driven persecution by Republicans over small time ethical lapses and her recovery from it with an ardent base taught the lesson that gains taken through virtually any means are only meaningful if you win. The shady dealings not only resulted in profits but were wiped out by surviving an all out assault. The Republican failure to achieve criminal prosecution became a success, it all went away except with the people who hated her for it and they were just short of a majority. (I am neglecting, deliberately, the skeptics) The strategy of 50%+1 is validated, you need only barely win and everything works out - your husband is reelected, you are a hero with book deals, and afterwards a Senate run. The woman the nasty Republican men tried to crush is victorious. But care must be taken to stay safe and unassailed, the 50%+1 means you are always walking a political tightrope, 50%-1 will not work and you've been a part of a Democratic bloodbath, already. Here is Terry McAuliff, the architect of 50%+1 and big money and master of DNC's string of losses and the evaporation of that money. Congress is a touchy deal, normally incumbency is a safety mechanism, but it you've widely depended on narrow support and the public mood shifts a little, you will be wiped out. Neither Party has sufficient registered voters to count solely on them for a win. The 50%+1 strategy counts on getting your members out, picking up some Independents and suppressing the turn out of the other guy and his piece of Independents. The Republicans have run this one hard. It depends on an enthusiastic base, a partial appeal to the middle and the demonizing of the opposition. The lower the general turnout the larger the effect of your base. The Hillary campaign knows this and runs with near 50% negatives, additional voters are only a threat, unless they fear the demon.

Where this contest has gotten was predetermined as soon as Obama started winning. The McAuliff strategy came up short and the inevitable candidacy had turned into a bust as the 50 state every delegate strategy rolled. There was only one alternative and that was the kitchen sink, suppress turnout and demonize the opponent while scaring the base. The party regulars must be appeased so the opponent's successes must be minimized, despite alienating voters. Illegitimate contests are touted, no matter the damage to the Party machinery - it already isn't in line with the campaign's strategy.

One of these philosophies is going to succeed and the linkages between the conflicts means that one or the other is dead as a candidacy and as a party methodology. If the divisive opportunistic philosophy wins, the Party will explode. The Dean and McAuliff models cannot coexist and the scorched earth strategy will not keep the activist new comers and idealists and may drive out long time loyalists who were not in the Clinton base. With the DNC already unfairly stressed by the Michigan and Florida debacles it will only take a little of Terry McAuliff to set off a wholesale exit and loss of income following the loss of reputation. A blown apart Party will not win in November and the chances of putting the wreckage back together will be small, downstream candidates will have suffered and no one will trust the Democratic Party with their visions again for a very long time. The destruction wreaked by an unreformed Republican Party over the next 4-8 years with an ineffective Democratic opposition will be fearful. The numbers of disgruntled Obama supporters who will bail in November is steadily climbing from the initial low numbers and there will be scant arguments to be made to them.

Within the Democratic Party this is a fight to the finish and there are two endings, and one really stinks. The entire Party from voters to super delegates needs to look carefully at where it wants to go and to remember that there are two potential victims in this, the Party and the Nation. The lines are clearly drawn, now.

Obama Would Investigate White House

In an interview with Will Bunch at Philly.com Barack Obama said he would investigate the previous administration if there was evidence of criminal behavior. It was a cautious answer, noting that he would not want his actions to be symptomatic of a political witch hunt.

So this is an area where I would want to exercise judgment -- I would want to find out directly from my Attorney General -- having pursued, having looked at what's out there right now -- are there possibilities of genuine crimes as opposed to really bad policies. And I think it's important-- one of the things we've got to figure out in our political culture generally is distinguishing between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.

I am quoting lightly, the article is Bunch's and I have no desire to step on his work. This quote is pulled from the middle of a longer quote with much more content. I encourage you to go there for the entire article.

Obviously my strong concerns for the Bill of Rights and other protections within the Constitution generate some enthusiasm for this outlook. While I am sure that some of the laws passed by the Republican Congress leave a fair amount of wiggle room for the thugs of this administration, there has been quite a bit of wiggling going on. I have little doubt there is dirt laying around. Some have proposed that George II would pardon everybody - including himself - there is a problem with that idea. Self-serving pardons are considered void.

What I found of particular interest was the comments section - it made me really thankful for my comments section participants. There were essentially three points of view, the obvious one being those in favor of the idea and two either against or scoffing at it ever happening. The negative view seemed to break down into two camps: whatever was done for security was justified and the nothing bad ever happened - it's a librul plot against St George. I found the scoffers most interesting: a segment that held that nothing would ever be done to the powerful and the Obama is a liar segment. These are two distinctly different groups, one holding that the nature of power is such that it just won't happen and one which puts the lack of likelihood on Obama in particular. The latter were or seemed to be Hillary people.

Of the anti-camp all I can manage is puzzlement, were the laws violated ones involving say dealing pot they'd be falling all over themselves to hang the bastards (OK, I suppose blowjobs are included) but sainted George II is somehow too good to be pursued (and by extension any of his cronies). Any suggestion that they wouldn't want it done to their children is turned on its head as hate of Americans - somehow the evil left is suggesting it should be done to Americans . The others seem not to have any awareness of the news world beyond the fact that libruls are questioning some imaginary events. I am not talking about a question of whether there is question of legal cover, these things simply never happened. Here's the rub, this group was apparently able to read the article and type comments so they are literate.

I completely understand the sentiment that says nothing bad will happen to the wielders of power, I haven't exactly noticed it being prevalent in our society, either. It is not that I find such malfeasance inevitable, it is mostly the strength of character and will required is rare in such circles. The constant struggle to get votes and financing and pass legislation involves a lot of compromising and it assuredly gets pretty easy to have flexibility slide into spinelessness and weathervane ethics. You will please note that I am not using this brush to tar wide swathes of elected officials, such is not my assertion. Wealth and power confer huge advantages on people in conflict with the legal system.

The Obama deniers I have a bit more trouble with and I'm lukewarm on the guy. I have found no evidence that he is particularly ethically or morally challenged and yet there is an assumption that everything the man says is a lie. I'd be the last to assert that any politician doesn't exaggerate some or put the very best light on something questionable, but this requires a nearly pathological liar. How exactly Hillary and Bill getting caught out on absolute prevarications transfers to Obama I'm not sure. Evidently one's opponent must be Satan for being the opponent. This crap is going to cause real trouble in the General election - what strikes me is that it is so...Republican.

DPO Platform Convention Platform

The Democratic Party of Oregon met this weekend to put together its 2008 Platform. The document is broken into three parts:

Platform and Planks - general statements of the philosophy of the DPO
Legislative Agenda Items - specific legislative goals attached to planks
Statements of Democratic Principle - the specific principles informing the legislative agenda

The Platform and Planks was approved in record time, this reflects the hard work of the Platform and Resolutions Committee headed by Leo Schulman and their ability to fold interested parties into the process preceding the convention. It also shows the wisdom of breaking the document into separate pieces, keeping specific agendas out of the general philosophy retains that character and allows for the more hot button issues to be addressed separately in more compact forums.

The Legislative and Principles sections were addressed in individual breakout sessions allowing a concentration of interested parties who were required to register for two sessions. Items were amended, edited, or added in those sessions prior to being voted upon by the convention. This in general also moved along smoothly. The results will be available on Democratic Party of Oregon in about 3 weeks.

It may seem odd that I keep stressing the smoothness of the Convention; this is actually quite a big deal. Platforms are considered the guts of the Party and anytime activists are dealing with the basic statement of a party there is a large opportunity for dissension. How this is dealt with says a great deal about the party and has large impact on its ability to function well. It is wise to remember that the primary goal of the DPO is to elect Democratic officials and support Democratic ideals. It is not the purpose of the DPO to write legislation.

The Democratic Party proposes to be an inclusive Party, that is to represent a broad range of individuals' interests. Anytime such a thing is proposed there will be conflicts of interest which need to be ironed out. Because an organization like DPO is composed of the activist elements of these interests, there will be strong feelings and strong commitments to those interests. It is the goal of a Platform to unite those interests. I am happy to report that this Convention succeeded.

I am known within the organization as a plain speaker and one who sticks to principles while attempting to work with others. I'm also pretty easy to find in a crowd. I am a lightning rod for complaints. I didn't experience anything of note. In a contentious Primary season this is something for the DPO to be proud of and to take home to their County Parties and voters with confidence.

Senator Clinton And The Democratic Party, Where Now?

Before the Texas and Ohio Primaries I stated that without a convincing win in one or both states Hillary should quit. She got that type of win in Ohio, ugly, but she got it. I stated afterwards that she should stay in because there is real value in a contested primary, the voters get a chance to measure judgment and character as well as policies; all the while allowing candidates to grow. A certain nasty undertone had followed the Clinton campaign since South Carolina, it flowered before Texas and Ohio and is now in full bloom. It is the ugliness of political opportunism. I suppose you're ready to read a call for a Clinton withdrawal.

You won't get that. I am sincerely disturbed and angered by the recent tacks taken by Hillary. They are an aspect of politics I'd much rather left to the Republicans, who have worked hard for and earned the disrespect of a large segment of society. They have the potential in this year, of all years, to splinter the Democratic Party and blow away gains in a large non-participatory piece of our electorate. There is a very real chance of serious damage to the DNC and the Dean vision of how to expand the Party's numbers and strength. Democratic dialogue has coarsened and lies and misrepresentations have been validated as strategy. This climate of opportunism run rampant occurs in a year where a campaign of principles and cool judgment and behavior could result in the gutting of the Republican machine. All these negatives outcomes and I'm not calling for a withdrawal or cease-fire?

It is absolutely necessary that this contest goes all the way to the Convention floor and the super delegates hands, with the States of Florida and Michigan right in the mix, however resolved or unresolved. The entire sack of dynamite goes to Denver, with the fuse lit. This is not a horrid foretelling, it is absolutely required by the state of the Democratic Party. We are going to have this out. We are going to use the process for what it was intended, to determine who and what the Democratic Party is. The process of proportional delegate apportionment is going to finally come into its own. The smaller pieces of State Parties are going have a say, the ability of underdog campaigns to flourish in that environment is going to come to pass, we are going to find some things out. We are going to find out where the Party officials and the elected Democrats want to go. We are going to find out what works and does not work in Democratic Party politics. The Howard Dean and the Terry McAuliff visions of the DNC are going to collide. This is going to be a brawl and it will go to the final round and end in a knock out. Sending the doctor into the ring will be pointless, because one is not going to get back up, ever.

That is exactly right. This time the fight is to the end. Some version of the Democratic Party is dead and done in Denver. November has ceased to be more than a coda in this work. The conductor has been chased from the podium by the percussion section and this song is driving hard and fast to the final crescendo. We are going to learn how the notes are strung and the result may be the end of the Democratic Party as we know it. This is the process, this is what all these years of political wilderness and dramatic and slight return of 2006 have been about. The fates of downstream candidates are going to be determined in Denver and the public perception of this latest Congress is going to play larger than anyone may have thought. The dynamics of an explosive confrontation have been building since the Clinton administration.

The elements are nearly worthy of a work of fiction. The victim hood of Hillary, the Bush destruction of what good came of Clintonism, the electoral career of Hillary, the ouster of the McAuliff faction at DNC and the Dean vision engaged. Swirling around these characters was the atmosphere set by an out of control Republican Congress rubber stamping an out of control President who bulldozed a Democratic Congress and there was fear. Fear and naked blatant fear mongering. Narration was provided by the Machiavellian Rove and the politicization of government to its bowels. And there was a new and charismatic black Senator. The mood is set, the characters in place, and the conflict defined.

There are four main actors in two separate and yet linked conflicts. The Dean version of grass roots small money all states bottom up responsibility against the McAuliff autocratic big money 50%+1 wins and consultant driven corporatism is the underlying conflict. The really visible actors are Hillary and Obama, two different visions of political practice. Both are politicians, no mistake, but Hillary offers up a school of political thinking that sees the vote margin gained now, through whatever opportunism, as the end political capital, one vote margin, however gotten, allows the political agenda to go forward with its ends justifying its manner of achievement. Disaffected voters for the opponent are dispensable, the purpose is the win. The Obama campaign predicates its win as based on the enlargement of the electorate and its activation as a political force, and not only its win, but its hopes of governing. It is the philosophy of inclusion to the extent of creating a public force for its agenda surpassing that of the opponent in the General Election. Such a campaign is restricted in scope in a Democratic Primary, it must by definition not be perceived as divisive or opportunistic and it must project an aura of reasonableness and concern for the opposition.

These conflicts would be explosive taken singly, they are not separate but linked and more than that they are each catalysts for the other. The Obama campaign set out on a 50 state strategy, mimicking the Dean operation and built solid and successful organizations everywhere it went. Along with that strategy was the idea that every voter counted and the creation of new voters counted and the only way to get there was to bring them something new and different. Proportional awarding of delegates rewards that strategy, losses are minimized and gains maximized. There is no base, there is the creation of an entirely new base, but this base is deeply skeptical of the old order. They are brought to belief reluctantly and once activated relentless, the fire of converts. They are a dangerous force, almost as dangerous to their creator as the opponent; a single instance of opportunism by their champion laid bare and they're gone. They are fierce in their opposition to perceived opportunism in their opponent.

Hillary was schooled in the nastiness of politics, what lessons of selective ethics she had not already learned before the White House were driven home there. Her hate driven persecution by Republicans over small time ethical lapses and her recovery from it with an ardent base taught the lesson that gains taken through virtually any means are only meaningful if you win. The shady dealings not only resulted in profits but were wiped out by surviving an all out assault. The Republican failure to achieve criminal prosecution became a success, it all went away except with the people who hated her for it and they were just short of a majority. (I am neglecting, deliberately, the skeptics) The strategy of 50%+1 is validated, you need only barely win and everything works out - your husband is reelected, you are a hero with book deals, and afterwards a Senate run. The woman the nasty Republican men tried to crush is victorious. But care must be taken to stay safe and unassailed, the 50%+1 means you are always walking a political tightrope, 50%-1 will not work and you've been a part of a Democratic bloodbath, already. Here is Terry McAuliff, the architect of 50%+1 and big money and master of DNC's string of losses and the evaporation of that money. Congress is a touchy deal, normally incumbency is a safety mechanism, but it you've widely depended on narrow support and the public mood shifts a little, you will be wiped out. Neither Party has sufficient registered voters to count solely on them for a win. The 50%+1 strategy counts on getting your members out, picking up some Independents and suppressing the turn out of the other guy and his piece of Independents. The Republicans have run this one hard. It depends on an enthusiastic base, a partial appeal to the middle and the demonizing of the opposition. The lower the general turnout the larger the effect of your base. The Hillary campaign knows this and runs with near 50% negatives, additional voters are only a threat, unless they fear the demon.

Where this contest has gotten was predetermined as soon as Obama started winning. The McAuliff strategy came up short and the inevitable candidacy had turned into a bust as the 50 state every delegate strategy rolled. There was only one alternative and that was the kitchen sink, suppress turnout and demonize the opponent while scaring the base. The party regulars must be appeased so the opponent's successes must be minimized, despite alienating voters. Illegitimate contests are touted, no matter the damage to the Party machinery - it already isn't in line with the campaign's strategy.

One of these philosophies is going to succeed and the linkages between the conflicts means that one or the other is dead as a candidacy and as a party methodology. If the divisive opportunistic philosophy wins, the Party will explode. The Dean and McAuliff models cannot coexist and the scorched earth strategy will not keep the activist new comers and idealists and may drive out long time loyalists who were not in the Clinton base. With the DNC already unfairly stressed by the Michigan and Florida debacles it will only take a little of Terry McAuliff to set off a wholesale exit and loss of income following the loss of reputation. A blown apart Party will not win in November and the chances of putting the wreckage back together will be small, downstream candidates will have suffered and no one will trust the Democratic Party with their visions again for a very long time. The destruction wreaked by an unreformed Republican Party over the next 4-8 years with an ineffective Democratic opposition will be fearful. The numbers of disgruntled Obama supporters who will bail in November is steadily climbing from the initial low numbers and there will be scant arguments to be made to them.

Within the Democratic Party this is a fight to the finish and there are two endings, and one really stinks. The entire Party from voters to super delegates needs to look carefully at where it wants to go and to remember that there are two potential victims in this, the Party and the Nation. The lines are clearly drawn, now.