Gustav and the future of the Democratic party

This is just a word of advice to all Democratic politicians.

If there is any flooding in the below sea level portions of New Orleans all our politicians need to remember one thing.

Whatever you do future politicians you MUST CRY.  Bite your tongue do what you must but you MUST CRY.  Onions are your friend.

Its too late to shed KATRINA tears but GUSTAV tears are almost as effective and if you CRY during GUSTAV and wear 2 different sets of clothing you may be able to convince people that you actually cried during KATRINA and earn your get out of racist free card.

We cannot as a party accept the ongoing racism of NON CRIERS.

And for God's sake if by chance there is an onion shortage and you are unable to shed GUSTAV tears you must swear a solemn oath never to cry ever again.  Even if opponents and press say you are horrible divisive figure and no one likes you.

No GUSTAV tears no crying ever again or you are just insulting KATRINA survivers in a racist way.

This has been a public announcement of the non racist movement.

There's more...

2012 Primary Schedule

This primary season annoyed me.  It annoyed me mainly because the ads started last summer and the campaigns of the last two contenders have been going on for over 18 months already.  The silly season starts sooner and sooner and with states abilities to set their own dates they all push up the calendar in order to be more important.  I personally don't think this helps anyone except a few media conglomerates who make a lot of money on advertising.

With that in mind I wanted to look at the 2012 schedule with a few assumptions about what will happen, not to really judge whether this is good or bad (I think it is bad to have it start so early) but to let everyone see what is the VERY likely outcome of the FL/MI kafuffle.

There's more...

Would you do this again?

Let's just suppose Obama loses to McCain in November. We would then have to look toward 2012 and imagine what we would do then.

This has been the most rancorous, divisive, and irrationally spiteful primary of my political existence (the first one I participated in was 1976 so I do have some political memory).  Never have I seen the Democratic party so divided 6 months before a general election.

I do not feel the candidates or their campaigns deserve the primary blame for this turn of events.  The hostilities and blows coming from the candidates have been rather unremarkable by historical standards.  The primary blame for this state of affairs falls on the supporters themselves - both in the general public and in the media.

I have stated on numerous occasions here that the divisions in this party were not created by these candidates.  More likely, these candidates were just particularly strong magnets for certain factions and particularly strong repellents for other factions.  The facts that both candidate had such strong numbers of supporters and this primary contest went on so long served to harden the resolve of each camp's members.  Particularly in the latter stage of the primary, we have seen how support for each seemed impervious to current events or the campaign efforts of the other candidate.  

As you know, I have been a strong Hillary supporter.  Right now, in the event of an Obama loss, my natural preferences should lead me to support Senator Clinton again if she decided to run in 2012.  But, then I start thinking.  Do I want to do this again?  Do I want to risk this same fractiousness again?  Would I be better off choosing someone who is less of a magnet or a lightening rod?

Many on the Obama side might say, "Well, OK, those feelings might apply to her but not to him." To those who would say that, I will tell you that I believe you are wrong.  All of these Clinton voters are not just voting "FOR" Clinton.  He has generated substantial opposition along the way.  Some of you might think that this would disappear if she were gone.  Some of it would, but much of it would not.

In my lifetime, a general election loss has killed the future presidential prospects of a Democratic nominee.  The last exception was Adlai Stevenson, but he was running against an unbeatable Eisenhower in 1956 and perhaps relatively few strong Democrats were all that eager to be the sacrificial lamb.  I'm not sure this conventional rule would apply to Obama.  Based on what I have seen this primary season, I think he could still generate strong primary support and emerge as one of the front runners after the early contests even if he did lose the GE in 2008.  I also think the same might apply to Clinton after losing this nomination if Obama loses the 2008 GE.

Let's suppose that is the 2012 set-up and both of these candidates again seek the nomination.  Would you be committed to YOUR (Notice I said, YOUR) candidate again?  Or, would you prefer to take a serious look at another alternative that might not generate the kinds of feelings we have seen in 2008?  

I would like to read your thoughts.  But, first let me be emphatic about what I don't want to read and what I believe has no place in this diary:

1) Scorn or snark about the OTHER candidate

2) Remarks like "Well, Obama isn't going to lose in 2008, so this diary is pointless." 

Responding to this diary requires that you step outside the partisan, never-give-an-inch soldier persona that you may have adopted throughout this season.  If you can't do that, skip this one.

There's more...

What is Hillary's End-Game?

With just three primaries left, it is abundantly clear at this point that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president, yet Hillary has shown no signs that she plans to leave the race any time soon. On the assumptions that she is aware that the race is effectively over, and that she does, in fact, have some reason for remaining in the race other than spite and/or denial, the question becomes, what is she looking to gain? In the extended entry, I discuss what the competing theories are, and how realistic they seem to be.

There's more...

Gavin Newsom 2012!

Gavin Newsom should challenge John McCain in 2012.

If Barack is qualified to become President according to some, then Gavin should be as well. In fact, he is more than qualified than Obama.

First of all, Gavin has at least been in an executive position unlike Barack (and to be fair neither has Hillary).

Second, Gavin can tutor Barack Obama on lessons of real leadership and courage. This guy stood up for marriage equality when it was unpopular. And Obama? Well, he refused to be photographed with Gavin because of Gavin's association with the issue.

Just some of the reasons...what do you think?

There's more...


Advertise Blogads