I'm really glad this post was written. As much as the STFU reflex can be badly abused, there really, really is something to be said for party unity.
I think a lot of people are underestimating the political trickiness of getting an almost $1 Trillion dollar stimulus through congress, based on the fact that Democrats enjoy huge majorities seem so powerless. But remember 1993. Bill Clinton had 57 votes in the senate and 258 in the House and tried to get a stimulus bill passed that was a mere fraction of the size. I'll just quote from the NYT archives:
Senate Republicans killed President Clinton's economic stimulus program today, maintaining their filibuster until Democrats surrendered and agreed to limit the bill to $4 billion for extended unemployment benefits...
Mr. Clinton's first serious legislative defeat was marked by complaints from Democrats in the Senate and the White House. But Bob Dole, the Senate minority leader, was satisfied that the Republicans had shown that they deserved to be taken seriously. He avoided gloating, and promised occasional cooperation with the President....
A brief, harsh outburst from Senator Robert C. Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat who heads the Senate Appropriations Committee, served as the eulogy for Mr. Clinton's original $19.5 billion measure, which was proposed in February. He said Republicans would accept "billions for unemployment, not one cent for jobs." A 'Difference of Philosophy'
As originally offered, the bill included about $4 billion to extend unemployment benefits, $2 billion for education grants, $6 billion for highways and public improvements and $2 billion for summer jobs. The Republicans were especially critical of $2.5 billion in community development block grant spending, which they said would pay for pork barrel projects...
After the Senate voted the unemployment money by unanimous consent, Mr. Dole told reporters that he believed the Clinton Administration would now understand the value of consulting with Republicans on such future issues as health care. "I think the White House may have misjudged the fact that when we stick together, we have some influence," he said.
I hope you're right. And I think you probably are about Moyers and the respect he's given in those crowds. On the other hand, these media narratives can be pretty hard to reverse once they've taken hold. Look how long it took with Iraq.
the interview was excellent. it will be interesting to see what the media does with it. if they actually watched the whole thing, i have to think they would at least think twice the next time they caricatured him as a racist loon - at least those who have a conscience. on the other hand, i suspect that most of these guys just have interns comb through tapes to find the segment that best approximates a drudge headline and then ignore the rest.
oh well. at least the all those previously freaked out old people who watch pbs on friday nights will sleep easier tonight.
Exactly right. Now that the re-vote is dead, the MI/FL delegates will absolutely be seated as is. And they will be absolutely irrelevant in picking the nominee. He or She will have already been chosen in June, months before the credentials committee even gets started.
As an Obama supporter, I could not be less afraid of this threat. The fact is, 99.9% of Democratic voters don't care about this stuff. They care about health care, union rights, getting out of Iraq. The other .1% who spend their time writing (and commenting on) blog posts may or may not leave the party. But if they do, no one will even notice.
Exactly. This is in the hands of superdelegates regardless of what happens in FL/MI. The real question is: will they make their decision before the credentials committee does their thing, or will they wait until the last minute at the convention. If they make their decision earlier (either for Obama OR Clinton), then they can seat the FL and MI delegations without consequence.
So, what EVERYONE should be hoping for right now - Clintonites and Obamaniacs - is for the remaining SDs to grow a pair and pick a winner. The sooner the better.
Last night on CNN, I heard Mark Halperin say that Obama's speech wouldn't work in the current media context. He then concluded, without a hint of irony, that "politics just isn't the place for discussing issues like racism". Well, if that's really true - if politics is nothing more than endless horse race - then my feeling is, why bother? Seriously, why even engage at all if that's the case?
As an Obama supporter/Democrat/decent human being, these poll results are not very comforting.
That said, the fact that a majority of Americans say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of Wright doesn't ultimately tell us much about his chances in the general, simply because it doesn't tell us how MUCH the scandal hurt him - just that it does. So, the fact that Hilary voted for the war makes me less likely to support her candidacy, but I would still choose her over McCain in a heart beat. This could be more of a deal breaker than that. Or it could be less of one. We just don't know.
Look. The fact is that BOTH Clinton and Obama are going to have problems in the general because of their gender/race. Do you really think Hillary's negatives are a reflection of her unlikable policy positions?
These are the challenges of having a historic candidate. I'd like to think that 8 months from now, the country would rather put aside their biases and vote for the candidate promising health care and peace, rather than unemployment and war. But hey, we'll see.