Tom Watson

'Among the Gasbags'

Because sometimes you just want to say Digby:

Question: Do I agree that Hillary Clinton is a racist and why haven't I disavowed, renounced and rebuked her?

Answer: No I do not think she is a racist and I haven't disavowed, renounced and rebuked her for the same reason I didn't disavow, deplore and rebuke Barack Obama for saying that white working class voters cling to God and guns because they are bitter.

Why?  Because they are ridiculous, MSM-style trumped up controversies.

Candidates speak imprecisely from time to time, particularly during presidential campaigns which are superhuman, exhausting efforts. They are human beings and they get tired.

[snip]

Again, do I think Clinton should have said what she said? Of course not. I'm sure she agrees. Neither do I think that Barack Obama was happy with himself for saying that voters he needs to win in the fall are bitter. Partisans on both sides may think each of these candidates are racists or snobs, but neither of them are stupid. Both Clinton and Obama were clumsily repeating observations they'd heard, oh --- a million times --- about"what the white working class voter really wants." It's a non-stop topic among the gasbags...

I can't put it any better than that.

When the Fat Man Sings

We've heard a lot about arcane Democratic Party rules this primary season, so much esoterica about punishing swing states, credentials committees, and wild apportionment. But I'd never heard the most important rule of all in the DNC playbook: you know, the one that proclaims the race is over when Tim Russert declares.

Tuesday night, Russert sang his high-pitched tune of grinning closure, clearing his manly throat and firmly calling the primary finished - and Senator Barack Obama the winner. Wrote Digby:

It reminds me of the halcyon days for Democrats in November 2000, when Russert used his little marking board to show us "the math" and declare that Gore needed to bow out for the good of the country. Good times.

Now, the race may indeed be in its final stages (though I believe there are scenarios that could see this through to the convention) and Senator Hillary Clinton did not get her hoped-for, longshot double shotgun blast Tuesday night, but listening to the media's big shove - Hillary must go! - that's now in its fourth or fifth iteration, I was reminded of the words of the prescient Peter Daou, Hillary's Internet director. Must've been a year ago when Peter told me - and I paraphrase - the media primary is the primary.

Consider: Obama's lead is only slightly more than it was before last night, though it now gets the modifier "commanding" routinely dropped before it by the media hounds - history-blind fools who can't recall Teddy Kennedy taking it all the way to the convention trailing by 750 delegates. Tracy Russo, who suffered through hours of MSNBC the other night (I watched Joba Chamberlain blow one to the Indians instead), detected the same strong whiff of sexism that has suffused major media coverage of Clinton for a year.

I wonder what we’ll see when we have time to remove ourselves from the daily grind of this campaign and look back at the way in which the media influenced this election and our public discourse around the candidates. Will it be as obvious then, as it is to me now, how entrenched and acceptable the misogyny spewed daily has become? Will we be able to look back and say that there was something quite unnatural about the level of hatred so many had for Hillary Clinton? Will we ever be able to understand why?

Tracy's post was spot on and  she correctly identified one of this long campaign's historic legacies. Over in his lair, Lance Mannion contemplated the political junkie's dream of a real convention - before dismissing it, because clearly the media won't allow it to transpire:

A floor fight would make great theater but lousy television. What would look like democracy in all its glory in action to political junkies like me would look to most normal people like a great big sleep-depriving mess.  And the convention is not going to be covered on TV by the likes of Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley, who would have enjoyed the fun and been careful and smart about explaining what was going on down there on the floor and backstage.  It's going to be covered by Tim Russert and Brian Williams and Charles Gibson and the gasbags from Fox News and MSNBC, all of whom will gleefully tell us how bad all this looks and how it shows the Democrats at their divided, divisive, disorganized, discombobulated, indecisive, internecine worst.

Clinton and Obama: The Feel Good Hit of the Summer!

Note: This is a special joint post from Obama supporter Jason Chervokas and Clinton blogger Tom Watson.

From the time we met, as reporters and editors covering Bronx politics almost 15 years ago -  to this spring - Jason and I have spent countless elections bickering, bantering, observing, predicting, and generally arguing. It's been no different this election, with Jason backing Obama and me blogging for Clinton.

But for once in this cycle we agree about something: the Democratic party needs a fusion ticket and it needs to move towards one now.

Yeah, we know people are angry and bruised, but here's the simple truth: an enormous latent Democratic mandate is lurking in the electorate and a fusion ticket is the best way for the Democratic party to unlock it - putting aside the issue of who is at the top of the ticket for a moment.

Want evidence? The Republicans are talking about it, per right-winger William Kristol today in The New York Times: 

Another McCain staffer called my attention to this finding in the latest Fox News poll: McCain led Obama in the straight match-up, 46 to 43. Voters were then asked to choose between two tickets, McCain-Romney vs. Obama-Clinton. Obama-Clinton won 47 to 41.

It's simple really. The last few weeks of campaigning have hardened hearts on both sides of the Democratic divide:  40% of Clinton's voters in Pennsylvania said they would be dissatisfied Obama, and 33% of Obama supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. If even a fraction of those angry, disaffected Dems lick their wounds and return to the fold in November - and we suspect well more than a fraction of them will be back - there will be a big numbers advantage for whomever the Democrats nominate.  If both candidates are on the ticket then it's “everybody in the pool!” time.

More than that, the state-by-state campaigning by two strong candidates has left an entire ecosystem of new Democrats in its wake (Bucks County has gone blue for goodness' sake). And thanks to the quirky, proportional nature of the race,  the campaigns have built vast, nuts and bolt organizations across the country, congressional district by congressional district. Combining these operations would give Democrats an enormous tactical advantage on the ground, where the GOP has for years outsourced its organizing to the evangelical wing.

Further, the Clintons have been a Democratic fundraising machine for a generation, their supremacy challenged only by the young upstart from Chicago. Together: Ka-ching.

And only hardened partisans on each side can make the case with straight faces that an Obama/Sebelius ticket or a Clinton/Bayh ticket would be just as potent as Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.

But a fusion ticket isn't just the best answer for the Dems, it may be the only answer to overturning a generation of near-hegemony for the GOP in presidential politics.

Obama needs Clinton. No other VP short-lister (with the possible exception of Senator James Webb, we both believe) strengthens Senator Obama more in the areas where he needs strengthening all in one feisty, battle-tested package - with seniors, with Hispanics, with Catholics, with Jews, with party regulars, with defense hawks, with labor union members. Perhaps no other short-lister gives him the backstopping experience he needs. Sure, some might suggest that she would be Dick Cheney to his George Bush, an ugly comparison morally, but perhaps electorally apt. And, as Andrew Sullivan wrote in yesterday's London Times, Clinton is the perfect street tough Jimmy Cagney to Obama's priestly Pat O'Brien:

By picking Clinton as a vice-president, he would be pulling a classic American manoeuvre — getting a surrogate to do the dirty pugilism of the campaign, while using his own extraordinary skills to provide a unifying and uplifting overall theme.

Clinton needs Obama. No other VP short-lister (again, with the possible exception of Jim Webb) stregthens her more with African-Americans, new Democrats, with independents, with young voters, and yes, with Republicans. Further, Obama clearly represents the future of the Democratic Party – one that changes the electoral map forver, opening the party to young evangelicals, moderates, and the formerly political dissaffected.

Each candidate would most likely become the other’s de facto successor – Obama would be only 55 in eight years; Hillary would by 69, still young enough by McCain-Reagan standards to seek the highest office. That built-in desire for the top spot usually keeps presidents and vice-presidents in the same camp. Further, a VP of the caliber of a Clinton or Obama would require a serious brief to handle, domestic or international.

Maybe 1+1 doesn't always equal 2. Even with Clinton below him on the ticket it's uncertain to us that Obama can win Florida. But with Clinton on his ticket he can certainly win Ohio, Pennsylvania and maybe still steal a state like Colorado or Nevada. Even with Obama below her on the ticket, Clinton may not be able to steal a real red state, but together they certainly can win Ohio and Pennsylvania and make a good run at Florida. And with both of them on the ticket, the prospect of a real landslide becomes far more than fantasy; and nothing could be better for every down-ticket race in the nation.

And for Democrats, a fusion ticket would be the feel good hit of the summer, a superstar tour bigger than a Led Zeppelin reunion. Can you imagine that convention? Sure feels better than the one featuring half the Democratic Party plus one lording it over the despondent other half of the Democratic Party minus one.

The problem for Dems, of course, is how to get to a fusion ticket. There's only one "elder statesman" in the Democratic party with the weight to broker a deal, and he happens to be married to one of the candidates. With both candidates so close to victory, there's no incentive for either to fold. That means another month of tough political warfare, driving up the negatives on both candidates. It may well mean a floor fight over Michigan and Florida.

Frankly, our hope for a fusion ticket probably requires the full run of the primaries and the last accounting before many prominent Democrats realize – all at once, perhaps – that there’s a happy and obvious solution to a potentially disastrous split. Both candidates have proven themselves to be realists, despite that many of their followers shout at each other. We think they’d take the deal, in order to guarantee victory. We also don’t buy two rampant themes among the bloggers – one, that Hillary is somehow posturing for 2012 by taking Obama down now, and secondly, that Barack would never accept “the Clintons” as partners in his presidency.

These are two extraordinary, big-time politicians with complementary talents and networks of supporters. Both have displayed determination, stamina, and guts. Beating John McCain in November is the primary goal of this primary season. A single path offers the greatest chance for victory.

So sign on for the fusion ticket – and please pass it on.

Euthanize the Filly

Some people are having a Field day with the political story line they perceive in the death of filly challenger Eight Belles today at Churchill Downs - you know, the horse Hillary Clinton famously picked to win the Derby: "Kind of reminds of the phrase: 'Eff you and the horse you rode in on!'” Funny. Here's another grand comment: "...this horse going down is a metaphoric representation/event of Hillary’s bid for the presidency going down.” I'm with Digby on this:

...maybe the metaphor will be perfectly fulfilled next week as Clinton comes in second and breaks both her metaphorical ankles and is metaphorically euthanized right on the metaphorical track, but the classy thing to do would be to leave it alone. It's sickening on many levels. Resist the impulse to be cute about this. The horse died. You'll like yourself better for it.

Guess not - over at Jake Tapper's they're green-lighting comments like this one:

This race parallels the nomination race as the one HRC picked lost to Obama's pick..now the only question remaining - since HRC will finish second to Obama - should she be put down because she is broken down, lying old hag?

Scene and Heard: Benefit Begging Edition

As most of you know, one of the singular joys of my actual political involvement (as opposed to spouting off on this blog) has been the four years I've spent on the board of director of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy. DMI is one of those great organizations where you know every dollar will be spent well - indeed, like it's really two dollars. Under the leadership of my friend Andrea, DMI gets more bang from a very tiny buck than any think tank in the world - and its relentlessly non-partisan stance in favor of progressive policy that supports the widest possible definition of the middle class and working poor is of national importance...and I don't that's overstated even slightly.

So once a year, we have a benefit fundraiser - this year it's on May 20th in New York at Cipriani on 23rd Street right across from Madison Square Park. I urge everyone who enjoys this little blog to support DMI - to help it produce those legislative scorecards, wonderful reports, online projects like MayorTV and the awesome DMIblog, and its vital lecture series. If you're a blogger, there's a special $75 rate for the fundraiser (that and a post is all it takes) - the regular donation is $225. And if you can't make it to New York, anything donation will help. Did I mention we're honoring David Simon, the genius behind HBO's brilliant series The Wire? We're also paying tribute to City Councilwoman Melissa Mark-Viverito,  a founding member of Women of El Barrio, and political organizer Steve Phillips, president and founder of PowerPAC.org - two important progressive leaders. There's also a cool lefty auction - wanna have lunch with James Carville or Katrina vanden Heuvel? Get your bids in. A bloggers committee is in formation - so come out, meet your favorite bloggers (rumor has it Lance Mannion will make a special appearance), and support my favorite progressive cause. Or just send a few bucks.

***

Jim Wolcott's Vanity Fair piece on the Democratic blog wars is out this week (in the Miley Cyrus issue!), and as usual, he adds perspective that those of us in the trenches sometimes lack. He correctly pinpoints the moment when simmering comments turned into a full-fledged conflict: "Once Edwards dropped out of the race, however, the buffer zone was removed, direct contact replaced triangulation, and the Obama and Hillary supporters faced off like the Jets and the Sharks. The rancor was disproportionate in intensity and extravagant in invective, a fervor worthy of ancestral foes. Months-old grievances seethed and erupted as if they had been bubbling for centuries in a lake of bad blood. On the most egoistic plane, it seemed like a clash of entitlements, the messianics versus the menopausals." I've been in that latter category for months, suffering as I am from a near-total lack of estrogen - but Jim graciously included me (on the same page as Al Giordano - that's trouble) as one of the combatants, proudly hanging out my Hillary lawn sign. Lately I've seen some signs of peace talks in this war, but we'll see.

Melissa McEwen found herself at a Hillary town hall in her home state of Indiana this week - the famed "testicular fortitude" event -  and filed this report. Her experience jibes with that of anyone who sees and hears Mrs. Clinton in person, contrasting her media image to the human being standing in front of them.

I loved Lance's post on two old Democrats sitting around talking about the race - if only such cool, hoary heads could be replicated many times over. Mannion had me with this line: "I suspect that in their hearts, Roosevelt is still the President." Great one.

And congrats to Blue Girl for making it to her 50-50 goal - now that's some serious blogging, right there. Yes it is, uh-huh. Bring it on home.

Now This Is Funny

Via hilzoy:

And yes, they were serious. The Lincoln-Douglass debates - hee hee.

Barack's Running Mate

From what we've seen so far, there are two forces that will weld Jeremiah Wright to Senator Obama for the duration - our McCain-loving, back-slapping, wannabe heartland America regular guy national media...and Rev. Wright himself. While I do not think it's fair to ascribe Wright's strange and twisted vision to Barack Obama, I do think there is an unfortunate structural reason why Wright matters in the Obama story.

Barack Obama ran on a slender political resume decorated with a rich palette of rhetoric and image and vision. To his eternal credit, that vision has brought more people to the process, particularly young people. But that slim CV is the steel weld holding Wright to Obama's campaign; in the absence of experience in the public arena, Wright becomes an essential part of who Obama is. It's clear that the young politician's embrace of the older minister was part spiritual, and part strategic - bringing the kind of street cred needed to rise to the top in Chicago. I will say nothing about Obama's religious doctrine, except to note that the Senator himself has made his beliefs - and his journey in acquiring them - central to his life story, to his political brand, to his very reason for running to change the country.

Simply said, Jeremiah Wright - whatever his strange motivation in dragging his spiritual protege down so badly - is central to Barack Obama because there isn't too much more to go on; Wright is one of the key figures in Obama's life story.

In practical terms, Rev. Wright is - for now - Senator Obama's virtual running mate. He is to Obama (in media terms, not in moral equivalency) what the failed presidency of George W. Bush is to John McCain, the albatross he can't shake off.

UPDATE: I think Digby had the best description of how strange Wright's show-boating this week has been, and why he may not be going away: "Wright's latest round of media appearances have not seemed to me to be any kind of defense of liberalism or the black church or even Black Liberation Theology so much as one man's desire to deny a rival his destiny. This was personal and I find it very creepy." And Walter Shapiro makes the point that Democrats who trumpet their faith as driving them to politics (Clinton included) are whistling past the churchyard.

You Know Who You Are

"I must tell you that I abhor an informer."

- Stephen Maturin, in The Commodore  by Patrick O’Brian

All the Wrong Moves

One of the arguments that ardent Obama supporters have used to rebut the charge that the Illinois Senator lacks experience in the national political arena is the sheer quality of his campaign. Look, they say, he's mounted a massive national campaign with excellent infrastructure, terrific grassroots organization, an unprecedented Internet operation, and a cohesive brand centered around change. He out-organized Clinton in the caucus states, raised more money, and brought in more new voters. The Obama '08 operation in itself is the strongest argument for the Senator's national executive ambitions. And speaking frankly, it's an argument that has resonated strongly with this Clinton supporter.

Lately, however, the Obama campaign has been making the wrong moves and it's troubling to a Democrat who wants his second choice to run strong against McCain come November's chill. Senator Obama allowed his supporters in Michigan to oppose a revote he might easily have won, and in doing so, removed one of Clinton's best arguments for going on the Denver. He's thrown away his massive lead in the media primary by refusing to meet regularly with the press, and acting as the most aloof of the three remaining candidates for President. And now, he's refusing to debate Hillary in Indiana or North Carolina.

This is almost indescribably stupid. For one, running and hiding from Hillary looks, well, like running and hiding from Hillary. It cements that growing perception in the press that she's tougher, and that he's a brittle political actor - all smiles when the polls are moving upward, quite another story in stormy seas. When you're running against a beloved American war hero and the Republican attack machine, this is never a good posture.

Secondly, it leaves Obama's terrible performance in the last debate at the top of people's minds when they think of the two Democrats duking it out. For all the hand-wringing about the inane ABC News questions in the debate's first half, it was Obama's sullen and seemingly lost persona that was the Philly battle's real story. Coming out strong - and well-rested, it must be said - in Indiana or North Carolina could do wonders for the battered Obama brand.

Finally, refusing to meet on the field of political combat continues to support the growing narrative that Senator Obama is trying to run out the clock against Hillary Clinton - that he's using a kind of passive-aggressive strategy to eke out a narrow win as Clinton runs out of playing time, content to take the nomination even while losing a string of primaries. This is a disastrous story for him - the very idea that after all that success, he has to just "hang on" to beat Clinton, putting out the equivalent of a political prevent defense in the last three or four minutes. That very strategy simply gives the Clinton campaign more rope to play with - and her ultimate goal is to force overtime in Denver.

A week ago, that seemed almost impossible. But as Barack Obama hides from the very public debates that could seal a decisive victory, overtime is looking more and more likely in this long contest for the Democratic nomination.

UPDATE: Hillary has challenged Barack to an unmoderated debate: "Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions. We’ll set whatever rules seem fair.” He can't possibly refuse, can he?

Wolcott v. New York Times

It's Jim, for the win:

Shorter New York Times editorial: Hillary Clinton's ruthless insistence on winning big-state primaries with traditional Democratic voters only hastens and strengthens the case that she drop out of the race and let Barack Obama finish his waffle.

Numbers Don't Lie

Here is a fact: more Americans have voted for Hillary Clinton in this presidential election cycle than any other candidate.

Now, before you frantically punch that comment button, let me clarify: I know that the votes in Florida and Michigan generally aren't counted in the popular vote total. So I know it's not a generally accepted measurement. But human beings went to those polling places and voted in the outlaw states. There's no denying that more Americans have voted for Clinton than for Senator Obama since the snows of Iowa - after last night, she holds a tiny .4% lead over Obama.

Last night changed this race. It doesn't mean Clinton has a clear path to the election, but a big victory in Pennsylvania - when she was massively outspent in media - may be the equivalent of a large undersea earthquake: the big waves may just hit the beach in North Carolina and Indiana.

And there's another metric from the last 24 hours that shows a bit of that tremor. Clinton raised $10 million since the networks called the Keystone race last night - that's an Obama-like haul, if I may compliment the Illinois senator's fabulous fundraising operation.

Two big numbers, and this thing goes on. I still find it fascinating, though that six-week gap was wearying indeed. And the longer Clinton hangs in, the more the superdelegates pause, and the better the chance for what I'd really like to see - yeah, one ticket.

UPDATE: For those who don't get it (my fault entirely), the headline to this post carries no small bit of irony in this season of the endless numbers game. That said, I'd recommend all the comment combatants go and read Jerome Armstrong's piece on the numbers and on the Michigan-Florida controversy.

Flying Over Pennsylvania

While sitting in the main concourse at O'Hare watching half of America walk by (I was at a better venue last night as the photo above shows, thought the Mets lost), I was thinking about Pennsylvania - which I'll fly over in about 90 minutes. Who knows if tonight is the end? Lance Mannion, who I read just now as I ate on of those Wolfgang Puck chicken sandwiches that are supposed to make you feel like you're not consuming airport crap, laments: "I've discovered to my chagrin that, at least when it comes to politics, I have absolutely no powers of persuasion."

Me too, Lance. Me too. I also liked this part:

The point is that I want the Democrats to win the White House and pick up seats in the House and Senate and I do not care if the Democratic President is Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

I prefer Clinton to Obama because I know her better.  She's been my senator for seven years.  She was the admirable, engaged, intelligent, activist wife of the only successful Democratic President I can remember.  As far as my experience goes, Barack Obama might as well have fallen to earth in 2004.  I like some things about him, can't stand others.  Same with Clinton.  I'm sure I've criticized Obama more or struck a more skeptical note more often but that's because I've had to spend more time trying to figure him out.  I have a good idea of what kind of leader and politician Clinton is, for better and worse. I'm still not sure about Obama, although I am a little surer.  He's not enough different from her to win me over.  He's a better orator and not a Clinton.  Otherwise he's just a very bright liberal politician on the make who is arrogant enough or crazy enough to think he's qualified for a job nobody's qualified for.

Same as her.

Neither one is or will be the second coming of FDR.  The best we can hope for is the either one will be the Bill Clinton Bill Clinton would have been if the Democrats had controlled Congress for all those eight years.

Though I had hopes on the FDR part for Hillary, and I also think that the score of 44-0 is a bad attitude to cop for our daughters. Nonetheless, I'll be over PA - transversing Penn's rectangle, really, from midwest to eastern reaches. Got any thoughts on the race or the early results? Is a close result a death knell for Clinton? If she cleans up, will Obama's candidacy finally get the questioning it deserves on electability? Let's hear it...

Small Tent Democrats II

Markos Moulitsas struck out today against "rabid Clinton supporters who think everyone is a sellout because of inadequate Hlllary worship" in response to a light volley after he endorsed the ludicrous notion that Hillary Clinton is no longer a Democrat. Over at TalkLeft, Big Tent Democrat took it as a dig against "Jerome Armstrong, Tom Watson and me," and added:

If refraining from saying Hillary Clinton is not a Democrat constitutes Hillary worship for Daily Kos, I think he confirms my point - the destruction of the Clinton Wing of the Party, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Legacy is what his web site is about now. Drumming Clinton supporters out of the Democratic Party is what his web site is about. If that is what Barack Obama's campaign will be about in November, he will lose. The Creative Class Wing of the Democratic Party is not enough.

There's a strange desire for political purity in all of this that baffles me, as if Obama's candidacy somehow represents more than a talented politician's reach for high office. I know that the "change" candidate sells post-conflict politics even while bashing his opponents with the usual slaps and bluster, but I didn't quite fathom how deeply ingrained this myth of purging the enemy has become.

When a practical campaigner like Markos - who backed Democrats like Casey and Tester, both far to the right of Hillary Clinton - seems to favor the cleansing that would rid the party of the most successful Democratic President of his lifetime and the first serious female candidate for the presidency, what's left but a narrow stripe of third party bunting,  a mere decorative touch with no hope of winning a governing majority?

Our Carnival Life Forever

Sandy, the fireworks are hailin' over Little Eden tonight
Forcin' a light into all those stoned-out faces left stranded on this Fourth of July
Down in town the circuit's full with switchblade lovers so fast so shiny so sharp
And the wizards play down on Pinball Way on the boardwalk way past dark
And the boys from the casino dance with their shirts open like Latin lovers along the shore
Chasin' all them silly New York girls

Sandy the aurora is risin' behind us
The pier lights our carnival life forever
Love me tonight for I may never see you again
Hey Sandy girl

In memory of Danny Federici, a true musician's player who died yesterday at 58. His swirling organ riffs and rolling accordion gave the E Street sound two crucial aspects - deep emotional impact and a connection to the American past. A south Jersey player from the early days, it was Federici who first invited Bruce Springsteen to join his band, beginning a collaboration that spanned four decades. And he was a part of my youth as well, never to be replaced.

The Small Tent Democrats

I don't think last night's debate was necessarily the Waterloo for Barack Obama that his political enemies hope for, but it was a hell of a tumble nonetheless. The normally silver-tongued Senator stumbled in his worst debate performance of the campaign, helped along with a few shoves from Hillary Clinton and a pair of moderators clearly committed to smacking down the front runner. I'm not sure what was more surprising:  his seeming surprise at the series of tough and personal questions - the kind Hillary has come to expect in every debate - or his failure to counter-attack against Clinton.

It may be that Obama is wearing down against the chipper happy warrior from New York, and the moderately vicious shin-kicking campaign that Clinton is tossing his way, but I hope not - I really do. This is nothing compared to a fall campaign between the two major parties - and it's really trivial when compared to what an actual president has to face once in office. Heck, John Kerry was much rougher on Howard Dean. The gifted Senator is still the candidate most likely to gain the nomination, and he may need some extended boot camp before the fall. His supporters should never forget that the national media likes Obama, but it loves John McCain. And if the likes of Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos can go baseline on you, your game needs some work.

There's another bad sign as well. Among the online progressive groundswell for Obama there seems to be a growing clamor for sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat. The dominant theme seems to be some version of "Obama's Democratic opponents can longer be called Democrats - because they oppose Obama." Clinton, in particular, comes in for this party-scrubbing routine. Here's Markos Moulitsas, capo di tutti capi of all things blogworthy on the left, after last night's dilly in Philly:

In one of the threads last night, commenter theran made a good observation:

At some point the concept of "Republicans will do X" has turned into a license for Hillary to do all the same things. It's bizarre, but I don't really consider her a Dem any more.

Yup.

Now, I tend to enjoy following these debates by watching the chatter on DailyKos or The Field or TalkLeft, just to see how other Democratic ears hear what's going down on the stage. Cutting across the grain somewhat, I particularly value hanging out with those who don't agree with my choice and very occasionally trying to spark a little back and forth. So I'm in Obama territory, among what usually is considered to be some pretty smart and progressive analysts and writers. Sure, the commenters can work up a head of wild partisan steam; last night on dKos, Senator Clinton was referred to as "a vile succubus," "a vile excuse for a human being," "a complete scumbag," "that monster," and multiple versions of liar, some with gender-specific modifiers - and that was just one thread.

In some ways, that kind of stuff is predictable - like drunks on the train late on Friday night. As is the instinct to blame the talking heads asking the tough (and inane) questions.  When Clinton took the first real debate beating of this cycle back in October, I got pretty worked up myself, as some readers may recall: "I can't remember a debate where the front-runner was literally the topic, where there was a silent agreement among eight men to go after one person with such a single-mindedness." Turns out I was overly optimistic about these things - and I saw that debate as singularly focused on taking down my candidate, who was the front runner at the time. Live and learn.

But in the some of the high emotion of this long campaign, I have noticed on the part of Obama supporters a disturbing notion that Hillary Clinton and her followers shouldn't be considered real Democrats - that the Clinton campaign is somehow working a wild, long-range bank shot that includes taking Obama down now, living through four years of McCain, and then challenging the incumbent in 2012. In reality, she's playing out the string in aggressive fashion, trailing decidedly by not hopelessly, and doing her best to win the nomination and reward her supporters now.

Chris Bowers would never suggest Clinton isn't a core Democrat, and even notes that Obama has also used tactics reminiscent of Republicans in this campaign, but he does suggest that perhaps a true liberal governing majority is at hand, framing it as an end to "liberal elitism" because liberal and Democrat will be almost synonymous. I don't think so - I think a lot people read into the Obama phenomenon that the "map is changing" in 2008, but my guess is that kind of fundamental change is a ways off. Chris writes: "If you change which voters Democrats believe they must attract in order to win elections, you change the Democratic Party irrevocably." I think of lot of Obama backers believe this, and to some degree, it motivates their support for his campaign over the more traditional and  coalition-minded Clinton campaign.

And some of that thinking manifests itself in shouts of "real Democrat" and the like. But in my view, suggesting that only Barack Obama and his backers are the "real Democrats," and that the party would best be served by the leave-taking of Clinton and her base, is so much whistling past the graveyard. If she does, you become a third party overnight. If the electoral map shows you anything, it shows in hues of blues and red and purple the continued need for a Democratic coalition based on economic common cause.

I may be more liberal than much of the pro-Hillary crowd in the Democratic Party, and yeah, I spend much of my time with the so-called "creative class," but I know that the only way to advance the cause of more progressive policy in the United States is through a big-tent party.

As the well-named Big Tent Democrat asks in a post questioning Markos: "I wonder who the real Dems are. The ones who say they will unify the Party or the ones intent on destroying Hillary Clinton?"

UPDATE: BTD (an Obama supporter, I might note) adds an insightful kicker: "In a way, there is a certain clarity that is being reached in the Obama blogworld - they want the Clinton part of the Democratic Party and the Clinton legacy demolished and destroyed. I personally think that leads to political suicide for the Democratic Party. But the Unity Schtick does not appear to extend to fellow Dems from the Obama blogs. Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

UPDATE II: Anglachel has an eloquent post on the Democratic purge that some in the progressive blogosphere would like to see: "What the hell is up with my party? Disenfranchising voters to throw an election? Declaring vast swaths of party loyalists to be racists? Deriding party stalwarts as "Republican-lite"? Dismissing the economic successes of a previous Democratic administration? Just why are the self-described progressives so frantic to remove Bill Clinton from the company of Democratic presidents?"

UPDATE III: Jerome Armstrong calls out the "tiny tent democrats" and notes: "This, in the context of a discussion about how Clinton is no longer considered a Democrat by many Obama supporters, because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama. The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle." Also, dig Batman's chest over at Shakesville. See Riverdaughter and Pamela Leavey.