A Pity Beyond all Telling

This harsh race for the Democratic nomination has boiled well beyond the melting point of igneous rock, and today's meltdown - by the erstwhile king of the netroots bloggers, no less - is no cooler. Indeed, the intemperate screed launched by Markos Moulitsas, founder of the DailyKos, singed every Democrat who read it and had to give those of us who battle it out online a reason to pause (or in one case, to purr at a pat on the head). Put on your asbestos suits and read what Kos said about the campaign of Senator Hillary Clinton:

She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

This sad embarassment has me eager, nay, desperate for another path. I'm sick of fighting nasty Democrats 'round here. Besides, it's St. Patrick's Day and as MA Peel reminds me, "something in the Celtic soul that has a natural affinity for the complex and the poetic."

So we need a third way, and I don't mean Al Gore at the convention (though, for the first time I might welcome a compromise candidate in this mess) - I'm talking culture. The fab Ms. Peel, good Irish lass that she is, has a great up over at newcritics titled Irish Altered States. She plumbs the film Kings from Tom Collins, and the play The Seafarer, by Conor McPherson. Here's a taste, but head over and leave your thoughts:

Can all these Irish souls be in such constant pain that they need to be continously anesthetized? I don’t know if that’s how McPherson and Collins see it. Some of the characters dance around stereotypes, but then become more dimensional. As for the cosmic root of the drinking–the centuries of oppression idea is not so far-fetched. It’s certainly part of what created the Irish epithet: “their wars are happy and all their songs are sad.”

To someone on the outside, it’s hard not to see an underlying sadness in these daily lives, yet you admire them for getting on with it all, as best they can.

To those on the outside of this political blogging whirl, those of us engaged in the warfare of words must also feel some of that underlying sadness - the Irish of it. I do. Hence, the salve of skippy - the moral equivalent of a pint of Guinness on this fine evening.

Comments

[judith]

I'll trade you one nay for a hey noni noni.

[donna darko]

Obama's campaign and supporters seem more power-hungry, authoritative, aggressive and divisive than Clinton's.

All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable.

When will this start?

[donna darko]

kos jumped the shark with this one.

The boy bloggers are obviously threatened by the solidarity of the Clinton bloggers.

[cdo]

I think a chart is needed that shows the declining popularity of World of Warcraft vs the rise in "Intemperate screeds" from Obamabots. Dailykos, Americablog, C&L and TPM have turned into nothing more than a recycled version of "barrens chat". And not a very good version since they have no good Chuck Norris jokes.

[mw]

The oddest bit about the Kos screed - He embraces and amplifies Al Giordano's assertion:

"DKos has been defined as a meeting ground not for every Democrat, but for the kind that wants to change the party... and blunt the influence of lobbyists, PACs and the neoliberal Democratic Leadership Council (DLC)." - AG
"I would add one more item to the list above -- this site has also been hostile to the corrosive consultant class that gave us our timid and weak party until Howard Dean shook it up in 2004." - Kos

Note that the things that Kos agrees is the defining characteristic of dKos - are mostly attacks on Democrats. Thats what Kos says dKos is all about.

Yet somehow - This is "Clinton's civil war".

How does that work?

[Adorable Girlfriend]

You want to talk about sexist:

"Mad pursuit of power."

Daily Kos is so loss in his big head that he has no clue what the voice of misogyny sounds like.

[Ralph]

I'm sorry but how does "Mad pursuit of power" turn into misogyny? Oh, because she's a woman. I get it. So, if I deliver a harsh criticism of Obama, does that make me racist? Why don't you folks deal with WHY they are saying this. To claim it's only because she's a woman is nonsense. The way she has conducted her campaign has rubbed people the wrong way, even those who like Hillary (as I do!).

[bruce b.]

the whole campaign has gone on too long. TW captures the Zeitgeist correctly.

Obama made a magnificent speech today, by the way.

[jack]

Kos's post may have been intemperate, but that doesn't mean its finer points are not accurate, or at least accurately descriptive of the popular wisdom. The popular wisdom is that Obama is going to wind up with more votes and more delegates, and the only way for Clinton to overcome that advantage is by changing the rules re Florida and Michigan, or by cutting deals with super-delegates, which is bound to cause a backlash because it will be perceived and portrayed as unfair and wrong.

[Tom W.]

Ralph - what do you mean, what tactics do you refer to - not the "we think that was racist" stuff, but actual actions? She's run a moderately tough but respectful race, in my view.

Bruce - it was a good speech. I wouldn't say magnificent but quite good. Well-written (except for the cut-and-paste ending, which was flat). And yes, it's gone on a long time - but nor am I convinced that the candidate running a very close second should in any way give in.

Jack - Kos really had no finer points. That post was digital spittle.

[jack]

I suppose if you're angry at Kos you'd want to characterize like that. I suppose in his own mind he is able to justify the intemperance of his screed because he still conceives of himself as a marginal outsider storming the gates of the DLC, while at the same time you're upset because you see him as a powerful figure with an influential blog - a different kind of insider. If one is able to abstract oneself from that dual framework, finer points might emerge, although that distancing strategy may turn out to be a form of authorship, not observation.

[mw]

Here is the problem with that formulation Jack. Obama supporters (like Kos) do exactly what they accuse Clinton of doing - Choosing rules over fairness when it is convenient. Choosing fairness over rules when it is convenient. It is somehow ok for Obama to unfairly get more delegates out of Texas despite the clear will of the voters in Texas as expressed in the primary vote - Why? because those were the "rules" in Texas. It is perfectly ok for Democratic Voters in Michigan and Florida to unfairly be disenfranchised. Why? Because those were the "rules" in Michigan and Ohio. But superdelegates completely within the "rules" of voting their conscience in contravention to a pledged delegate plurality with a tenuous connection to the "will of (some of) the voters"? Why... THATS UNFAIR!!!! The hue and cry, rending of garments, wailing and lamentations, gnashing of teeth by Kos and his ilk - I guess that is supposed to carry the day.

It is a political campaign. Clinton has a right and an obligation to her supporters to do everything she can to win. That is what I expect from her. Kos needs to understand that his preference for Obama does not make him the arbiter of who should or should not still be running.

[bruce b.]

TW, in saying "the campaign has gone on too long", I didn't intend to imply criticism of either Democratic candidate. I was just remarking on how all we politicos are starting to feel -- depleted. I think some of the weirdness going on right now is simply due to everyone's exhaustion.

[jack]

JW, I don't think your point about Texas is coherent. Obama did not seek to change any rules there, as Clinton has with Florida and Michigan. I don't think anyone has argued that the Texas system is ideal. I think the popular view, across both camps, is that Texas' primary/causcus setup was abysmally confusing and in need of repair someday.

Regarding superdelegates, people will perceive the possible use of them to overturn the Obama's popular vote and delegate lead as unfair not because of the rules (they can vote for whoever they want under the rules) but because of the history - superdelegates were created precisely to create advantages for party insiders. Even though Obama is hardly an outsider, people perceive him that way compared to Clinton, and so a superdelegate swing to Clinton will be seen as unfair.

[donna darko]

I'm sorry but how does "Mad pursuit of power" turn into misogyny?

It's misogyny because Obama is obviously as power-hungry as Clinton. It's a female stereotype that women are either nice girls or power-hungry, calculating, manipulative monsters.

the whole campaign has gone on too long.

This is also sexist because it mostly comes from Obama supporters who want the woman to drop out "for the good of the country." I beg to differ.

[jack]

"Mad pursuit of power" probably finds its resonance in the entire Clinton history - stretching back to the footage of young Bill grasping JFK's hand, not just in Hillary's most recent adventures - because the Clintons have taken a lot of hits, including impeachment, and they keep coming back. Given all the damage that's accrued over the years, some people will perceive that as strength of will, some as the mad pursuit of power. I suppose that some people fear that the Clintons' acquired immunity to long-term damage does not extend to the party as a whole, and they are so good at surviving that they will not recognize the wider danger signs.

[zuzu]

Obama did not seek to change any rules there, as Clinton has with Florida and Michigan.

Clinton hasn't sought to change any rules with Florida and Michigan. Read the rules. Everything she's done has been explicitly allowed under the rules, or not forbidden by the rules. The real rules, not the ones that exist only in the heads of those who think they know all about what a lying and conniving rulebreaking shrew she is.

The DNC has covered its ass well in terms of having comprehensive sets of rules and comprehensive sets of bylaws, all of which allow for the seating of the delegations from Michigan and Florida as is, with penalties, or however the rules committee or the convention decides to deal with them.

As for Michigan, there was no requirement -- none whatsoever -- that the candidates remove their names from the ballot. That was a bit of sharp campaigning from Obama when he was feeling down and wanted to pander to the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. It wasn't supposed to matter, but now it does, and it's his own fault he didn't stay on the ballot.

[jack]

The general perception, accurate or not, is that Clinton sought a rule change. That perception is due to two factors:

1. Florida and Michigan actually broke the DNC rules, and had their delegates stripped;

2. The Clinton campaign signed a pledge not to participate in those primaries.

So, although the complete DNC rules do offer two (unlikely to be used) means of re-instating those delegates, Clinton's subsequent second thoughts, and her effort to seat the delegates under a "different set" of rules after Obama's unexpected success, created the appearance of her seeking a "rules change" - and it was widely reported that way.