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.

Comments

[lauren]

Remember John Edwards?

Now there's someone who was ready, gorgeous, heartbreaking, progressive, and our glorious hope for victory.

I blame both hillary and Obama for being over-funded and unready candidates.

[Mawm]

I am so close right now to registering as an independent. I think the dkos crowd would say,"Don't let the door hit you on the way out", but that's because I believe they are a bunch of thugs, and if thugs end up in control of the party, I'm out.

[Fredster]

Well who gives HIM the authority to say who is a Democrat and who isn't? That is just so much bullsh!t!

[CognitiveDissonance]

It's really laughable for an ex-Republican to think that he knows what makes a good Democrat. Or that someone who has been a faithful Democrat for many times the number of years he has is not one. More Boi Blog whining. But it's getting a bit more destructive these days - not it's if they can't get what they want, they're going to tear everything up and go home. Great Democrats, aren't they?

[maureen]

This reminds me of Lord of the Flies.

[ufa]

A few days ago at the BOSC (Big Orange Sippy Cup), Senator Clinton was called a "filthy sow". High fives all around afterwards to the commenter.

[zeke]

Well, Hillary supporters will see what they want to see. What this Obama supporter saw was a candidate who was rightly frustrated, not flummoxed, at the tenor of the questions. A candidate who declined to attack Clinton on her Tuzla lies when given the opportunity, but instead insisted that the "gotcha" game played by the media does not serve the American voting public well. A candidate who shrugged off the ginned-up controversies by calling attention to their essential siliness and their irrelevance.

I also saw a candidate who, despite some chafing at the idiotic questioning she and her opponent were subjected to, nevertheless took the opportunity to expand upon their idiocy when it served her purposes. A candidate who continued to pretend that she was offended by remarks made by her opponent, remarks that were eerily resonant of statements made by her and her husband in the past. A candidate, in short, who is desperate enough about her chances in this election to play ball with her cynically inane inquisitors.

I saw an Obama who was more than ready to call Gibby and Stephy on their shit, and who I am sure will have no problem calling McCain on his.

And as for this conspiracy theory that has Hillary is about to be expelled from the Democratic Party, give me a break. You can't take the over-the-top comments of a few Obama bloggers and the readers who sound off in their comments sections and interpret them as "a growing clamor for sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat". Or rather, you can if you are intellectually dishonest enough to ignore the over-the-top comments of online Clinton bloggers and commenters who sound the same notes.

I think Clinton and Obama both made it clear last night that they will work, one for the other, in November no matter which of them is the candidate. I believe that both of them will be able to marshall their supporters and bring them along for the ride to victory in November. There may be a very few extreme partisans or self-involved delusionals who defect to the McCain camp, but I think that their cohort will be statistically insignificant.

[goldberry]

Yep, they're out to make us politically irrelevant. If they break our power this year, we will never have the strength to reconstitute ourselves and come back. Who are we? We are the remnants of the New Deal Democrats. People in their 70's and 80's are going to be leaving our coalition soon. Then what? What are they planning to replace us with?

[maxwell]

I think Hillary's campaign has become the true coalition that FDR created. Democratic party was always just a coalition of anti-republicans. To think that the party could exist without the FDR coalition means you don't know what it is to be a democrat. Obama has bascially a coalition of AA, academics, and youth Hillary has the rest, labor, women, ethnic, retired, and poor.

[Bob]

Tom: I have too much respect for you to believe you really believe what you are writing here. You continually feign surprise at the nastiness of Obama supporters and act as though the comments you get are the end all and be all of the primary process. That very game is the stock and trade of the Ann Coulter’s and Michelle Malkin’s of the world; write something negative about liberals, wait for the in box to fill with illiterate screeds from a handful, publish them and say "see, they really are unhinged." You are pro-Clinton, write post after post pointing out her strengths and Obama’s weaknesses and use the follow up comments as though they were handed down to you on Mount Sinai. Of course people who agree with you write polite responses. Not surprisingly some who disagree write snarky, rude, or obscene responses. You look at that and say “Clinton supporters are good people, Obama supporters bad.”
You should just title your posts “Unhinged” from now on. It’s a game that’s beneath you. Trust me, as an Obama supporter I have heard many rude, snarky and obscene things. It really is that simple.

[zeke]

Tom,

expanding upon Bob's comment above, you also have several posters in this forum who have avowed that they would, in fact, vote for McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. I have yet to see you take one of them to task for espousing a position that is tantamount to drumming Obama out of the Democratic Party (at least the one that exists in their minds.)

[Mary]

Why on earth would Obama allow the Clintons to campaign for him in November, zeke?

I thought his campaign called them racists.

[mrmobi]

And as for this conspiracy theory that has Hillary is about to be expelled from the Democratic Party, give me a break. You can't take the over-the-top comments of a few Obama bloggers and the readers who sound off in their comments sections and interpret them as "a growing clamor for sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat".

Well said, ufa. There are a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories going around right now, and it looks like Tom has bought into this one.

As for "sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat," I've said before, here and elsewhere, that I'll work for and support Mrs. Clinton if she is the nominee. I'm sure most Clinton supporters will do the same if Obama is the nominee.

Where I would like to see a "narrowing" is the case of a certain Connecticut Senator who might just be the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. Look, if you want to caucus with and be given committee chairmanships and seniority from Democrats, it behooves you to support that party, not actively work for the other side. Holy Joe Lieberman is significantly more of a two-faced traitor to progressive ideals than was Zell Miller.

Why the hell is our party not kicking him out on his traitorous ass?

[mrmobi]

And as for this conspiracy theory that has Hillary is about to be expelled from the Democratic Party, give me a break. You can't take the over-the-top comments of a few Obama bloggers and the readers who sound off in their comments sections and interpret them as "a growing clamor for sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat".

Well said, ufa. There are a lot of ridiculous conspiracy theories going around right now, and it looks like Tom has bought into this one.

As for "sharply narrowing what it means to be a Democrat," I've said before, here and elsewhere, that I'll work for and support Mrs. Clinton if she is the nominee. I'm sure most Clinton supporters will do the same if Obama is the nominee.

Where I would like to see a "narrowing" is the case of a certain Connecticut Senator who might just be the keynote speaker at the Republican National Convention. Look, if you want to caucus with and be given committee chairmanships and seniority from Democrats, it behooves you to support that party, not actively work for the other side. Holy Joe Lieberman is significantly more of a two-faced traitor to progressive ideals than was Zell Miller.

Why the hell is our party not kicking him out on his traitorous ass?

[Jay]

What is sad, is that there are no blogs as dedicated to hating anti-Clintonites as there are blogs dedicated to hating the Clintons, even on the left. Don't people get how bad we were losing elections before Bill Clinton? He saved the party and expanded the base big time. I am sick of these far left RADICALS like Daily Kossacks and "Democratic"Underground bashing the Clintons, rehashing the "scandals" that never really were, and reviving bs myths about Perot that have been disproven time and again, rehashed by the GOP and the media. Obama panders to them, as the only reason he doesnt wear the pin is to do that. Obama is DLC, but gets his name taken off for fear of how much the DLC is hated by the radicals. He is a panderer to them. That is not what we need. They will give us McGovern again.

[Tom W.]

zeke - I don't see a "conspiracy theory" at all, just a nascent campaign to narrow party definition - the beginnings of a purge that some people would cheer. For more intelligent folks like Bowers, it's an evolution to a more liberal Democratic party - I personally believe in that, based on demographics. But it will take the next decade or so, not the next seven months. And, of course, I see Clinton as left of center - basically in parallel with Obama - I just think she'd be a better president.

Bob, I'm not comment-hunting here, just putting down what I see at the time I write it. I do change my mind. And I've praised Obama plenty on this blog. I'll vote for him with gusto this fall against McCain, if he can put Hillary away (and will keep my powder dry on urging her supporters to do likewise till the appropriate time - timing is everything). Until he does, she's my candidate. Again, I just think she'd be a better president.

Generally speaking, we have a decent discussion here and the comments section is hardly a Clinton echo chamber. I do not believe that “Clinton supporters are good people, Obama supporters bad.”

But I will start working on that “Unhinged” post soon!

[myiq2xu]

I've been a Democrat longer than kos, and the Clintons have been Democrats longer than me. How dare Mr. Zuniga and his ilk join our party then try to kick us out!

[zeke]

"I've been a Democrat longer than kos, and the Clintons have been Democrats longer than me. How dare Mr. Zuniga and his ilk join our party then try to kick us out!"

See, Tom - this is the kind of paranoid hysterical reaction you are inciting with your baseless insinuations that Obama & Co. are bent on "purging" the Democratic party.

And for myiq2xu (I don't think so, pal) and a couple of others who are so irate because a former Republican expresses an opinion about our party, you might want to recall (if you ever knew it in the first place) that Hillary Clinton began her career in politics as a Young Republican.

How dare Mrs Clinton and her ilk join our party then try to tell us how to run it! Indeed!

[mcc]

This is nothing compared to a fall campaign between the two major parties

This is a fall campaign between the two major parties.

[Judith]

hey Tom - not one clinton supporter ever said here they would vote for mccain - that poster is a LIAR. chuckle

I thought last night was pretty startling as well. Obama is less than stellar in an uncontrolled environment.

The comment hunting thing is weird - of course you want people to come to visit so you write interesting things. But if you were looking for the mob visits you could get drunk and just post Obama raves.

okay - I came back sooner than I said - couldnt help myself. It is your comment hunting skills. LOL

[JM]

In reality, the progressive anti-Clinton are the minorty within the Democratic party, and if any group should leave the party, it should be them. The are already self-described as "progressives", so their party name should become the "Progressive Party". I have been writing this in blog posts for the last couple of months. There is a civil war in the Democratic party due to the progressives trying to assert their control. The rest of the Democratic Party is not blind, and that will be the reason that Barack Obama loses the presidency if he were to become the nominee. Many Democrats see Barack Obama as more of the enemy than John McCain. It is a well earned honor on his part. I hope that Obama and his group of rabid supporters are happy with themselves. There is a reason why the progressives never win presidential elections. Could it be that a large majority of the country's population doesn't like for what they stand?

[Judith]

I dont know who those "many" are that see Obama as a bigger enemy than Johm McCain, but I can say there are a lot of online people who find Obama fans ridiculous in their celebrity worship politics. It is like a horde of online rabidly aggressive teenagers wherein most of them are actually balding middleagers who dearly need to be somebody and be it through Obama. They have contempt for Clinton supporters but expect us to fight in the GE with them anyway if Obama wins..in a subservient way, of course. I say EFF that.

Cant say you are wrong, just havent seen it that way. I am pretty progressive myself but not nuts. And I prefer people who actually do things to those who constantly yap about it.

[getalife]

No respect or loyalty for two great leaders of their own party.

Probably two Presidents of their own party.

Very sad and embarrassing.

[JosephW]

And for myiq2xu (I don't think so, pal) and a couple of others who are so irate because a former Republican expresses an opinion about our party, you might want to recall (if you ever knew it in the first place) that Hillary Clinton began her career in politics as a Young Republican.

How dare Mrs Clinton and her ilk join our party then try to tell us how to run it! Indeed!

Posted by: zeke | April 17, 2008 at 06:12 PM

Well, Zeke, one might consider that Hillary became a Democrat much further back in her political history than some of the fairly recent "progressive" converts--like Ariana Huffington. I'd say that Hillary has FAR more of a right to "tell us how to run" the Democratic Party than the likes of Ariana Huffington or any other "ex-Republicans" do.

[Judith]

JosephW - I have had an ipod longer than Arianna has been a Democrat.