Tell me, Sweetie, What's My Name?

I'll admit it, the so-called end-game in this long Democratic nomination battle is beginning to confuse me. Let's see if we can get it all down. Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee, favored in that status by national magazine cover stories. Yet no one has told the voters: either in West Virginia, where poor laggard Hillary Clinton (attacked by rabies-infected "Democrats") could barely pull off a 41-point squeaker, nor in the general party populace, where Democrats overwhelmingly want her to stay in the race till the conclusion. They also want her to be the Vice-Presidential nominee, should she come up short. Or form a third party and keep running. Yet there was John Edwards - waiting, waiting, waiting - till after the poorest state in the nation voted to announce that Obama is his man on poverty, and has been ever since they did their manly two-step on Hillary's head in October. Does it mean Edwards wants to be on the ticket? And does it mean the Presumptive Twins will knock off the evil sister - today abandoned in grimy opportunistic fashion by the leadership of a major  women's rights group to the outrage of its membership - in 'Ole Kentucky next week? Finally, what's the truth in the rumor that Obama greeted Edwards as "sweetie" when his private jet brought the poor people's campaign to the mass rally in Michigan? It all makes my head spin with weariness - next you'll try and tell me Al Giordano's a Mets fan. Go ahead, blow my mind.

Comments

[Judith]

Thanks - I thought it was just me.

[NatTurner]

What's so hard to figure out? Hillary's "41-point squeaker" netted her 12 delegates; she's no closer to winning the nomination now than she was before WV.

[scottreads]

The disproportionately ugly and heated reaction of folks like Aravois has really opened my eyes this primary season. I never thought that people who called themselves liberals or progressives would essentially behave with all the decorum of a band of villagers with torches demanding the death of the "monster." On her worst day, the worst you can say about HRC is that she's a triangulating, split-the-difference, Village-approved Dem - you know, the kind that have ruled over us and run from an ideological fight for the last 40 years. The point is that her flaws are no different than of the vast majority of our Dem "leaders." So why the overreaction and all the hue and cry for her to get out, when (as Boehlert of MediaMatters has pointed out) NO ONE over the last 30 years ever pointed a gun at the head of Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, or Jesse Jackson to do that? People like Shakes have rightly called the misogyny theme, and folks like Anglachel and Weboy have named the class and regional problems (ie, the "creative class" boiz of the Party hate southerners and working class folks as uncultured racist assholes, and the Clintons in their eyes are too close to "them.") Which is rich when you think about it because the Democratic Party is supposed to stand for defending the interests and the aspirations of ALL the people, especially those who have historically faced real obstacles. A party can't accomplish that, though, while simultaneously indulging in virulent misogynist BS that insults all women and dissing the values and interests of working-class Americans. Silly me, I thought like Liss that feminism was a core progressive value and that sticking up for the working class was the same. As I said, I'm surprised and saddened that enthusiasm for Obama has come to mean jettisoning these essential principles, and I won't forget who led the charge to do it.

[Show Me]

Thanks Tom...you are not the only Democrat who is confused. I've said it many times, I feel as if I walked through the looking glass, everything I thought I knew about the Democratic Party does not seem to be true anymore.Obama does not hold up on any of the issues that are important to me. I never really trusted Edwards, always thought he was too slick by half, although I love Elizabeth.It has to be ambition, nothing else explains it, Obama has signaled that he has no interest in the poor of any race or ethnicity. He is weak on choice,weak on healthcare,forget about women's rights or gay rights.Looks like we are now going to have two parties who don't give a damn about working people.I am ready for a third party.Can't stay with this one. I will vote a write-in for Hillary.

[Pat Johnson]

I am as baffled as anyone else. The Breck Girl was on Larry King only a few days ago saying he would not endorse anyone at this time. What made him change his mind? And then the booing from the teenaged crowd against a woman presidential campaign as they stood there smiling and grinning was despicable. The level that has been brought to this campaign could not get any lower. It is disgusting. I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee. He has done nothing to gain my vote and has silently endorsed this sexism. The same can be said for the DNC. I see a third party in the offing.

[Tom In Texas]

Hillary would never, ever run on a third party ticket. She knows she would essentially elect McCain, who is demonstrably worse than Obama on every issue that has been raised here. On top of that, she would be unelectable as a Senator if she destroyed the Democratic Party in her attempt. It will never happen.

[Rain]

Edwards offered VP slot as poverty czar?
As soon as Obama is officially confirmed, I'm leaving the Party and sitting it out in November.

scottreads:"The disproportionately ugly and heated reaction of folks like Aravois has really opened my eyes this primary season. I never thought that people who called themselves liberals or progressives would essentially behave with all the decorum of a band of villagers with torches demanding the death of the "monster.""

Very symbolic and highly ritualised this year, more like the medieval European Witch-Craze, the treatment of heretics like Anne Hutchinson, or a ritual Honor Killing. I'm still stunned Hillary received any votes at all. Is that progress?

Most Dems will probably come back to the fold anyway, and I am probably a statistical outlier and atypical, but no matter how mainstream a Democrat Obama tries to play his game now, I can't validate his behaviour with my vote.
The Ends Do Not Justify the Means.

What the Party leadership did to rig it as well, is beyond belief. Maybe they have always been doing it, and I never paid enough attention to notice it in previous primaries.

[HenryFTP]

It seems to me that there are 3 levels to this, 2 I think I understand, one mystifying.

1. Beltway insider level -- a good old-fashioned dust-up for power and influence. The regulars (Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, et al.) couldn't wait to knife Hillary, who they still view as an arriviste after all these years (and her husband). Raised as a Beltway brat myself, this is easy to understand -- they've never gotten over how Bill and Hillary were their superiors in fighting and beating Republicans in the Age of Reagan. And they really loathe the fact that Hillary and Bill clearly have "juice" with the voters that they can only dream of having.

2. Corporate Media Manipulation level -- we all know what's up here, as the cameras are spittle-flecked in the zeal of the gasbags to get the revenge on the Clintons the media have longed for since the constitutional coup of 1998 collapsed. Just as in 1997-98, the fact that Hillary becomes more popular as more voters get to know her drives the corporate media into paroxysms of rage -- the voters are yet again decisively rejecting the media's judgment. Thus we will continue to be treated forever hereafter to the media's Conventional Wisdom that Hillary and Bill are "racist", casually repeated with utter assurance by people who for the most part would be very uncomfortable visiting the former President's office in Harlem.

3. Obamamania level -- people I once regarded as measured and thoughtful, like Joshua Micah Marshall, have become infected with a virulent strain of Clinton Derangement Syndrome. I remember some of the dismissive haughtiness from Kennedy supporters in 1980 vs Carter and Hart supporters in 1984 vs Mondale, but the rage and associated invective are new to me. Perhaps in some deep-seated way these people blame Bill and Hillary for the disaster that has befallen our country in the past 7 years. But that's sheer speculation on my part.

[Judith]

hey Pat Johnson - calling John Edwards "the Breck girl" is pretty nasty, imo. You are a nice person so you may want to rethink repeating that slam...

[Bluegrass Poet]

Thanks for the laughs, Tom. When utterly bewildered, it at least helps to laugh.

The horns of my dilemma are cutting in most uncomfortably. I think HenryFTP probably has it down, with some elements of Anglachel's arguments about Dean's 50-state strategy and trying to un-power the south, but I am as outraged as Rain about the sexism and misogyny. We're supposed to be the good guys but if we can Karl-Rove one of our own I am seriously disillusioned. And a little ashamed that I have reached my advanced age with so many illusions intact.

So can I vote for Obama who has proved himself opportunistic, offensive, and right-leaning? Or can I vote for McCain who promises us 4 more years of Bush in addition to being opportunistic and offensive? I am hoping that time will give me some solution.

At least there is some joy in seeing voters (racist all) still turning out in great numbers to vote for Clinton.

One question. Gabor Steingart here at Der Spiegel argues that the DNC is now essentially riding the tiger and dare not let Clinton beat Obama for fear of violence in the streets. Does anyone here lend credence to such an argument? Sure is scarey.

[kenoshaMarge]

Personally I doubt Edwards has done Obama much good with this sad little political play. Most people are smart enough to realize that it is a tactic designed and implemented to keep the narrative from being about Hillary’s overwhelming win in WV.

I do think that Edwards has done himself some damage with a lot of us. He could have just kept his mouth shut and let the voters have their say. That would have been the "classy" thing to do. And rolling the thing out in a state where both of them took their names off the ballot is also tacky IMO.

Next we'll have Gore stumping for Obama since everyone knows he doesn't like Hillary. That too could backfire. I don't think Americans like the "piling on" thing. And that is how it will be perceived.

And if the Obama supporters are so convinced that he's won, that it's all over, then why are they still insulting and demeaning Hillary Clinton and her supporters? Maybe because it isn't over? Or maybe because they are just as worthless as human beings as the conservatives they used to scorn?

[scottreads]

Re our choices in November, I think perspective about Obama is as important as perspective about Clinton. Let's keep in mind that the last administration launched a bloody endless war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, and has pursued that lovely GOP strategy of hand-outs to rich people and starving the govt. of funds to help anyone else. And McCain wants to continue that by doubling down and maybe launching new wars against Iran and against Hamas on Gaza. Obama on his worst day is better than that, and I'm not going to enable more blood, death, and misery by pulling the lever for McSame. I understand the hard feelings over recent events, and I didn't like the Edwards endorsement either (Obama cares about poverty? since when?), but I'm not going to cut my nose off to spite my face, especially since the lives of millions hang on that choice.

[Doghouse Riley]

I'll say it again: Elizabeth Edwards excoriates our juvenile Press in the pages of the Times; her husband primps and joins forces with Russert and Williams to gang-tackle a woman because she was running a far superior campaign to his own.

[Tom K]

"Sweetie", "Breck Girl", "private-jet" references (read, limousine liberal). If I were keeping track, this would be what -- the 20th time, maybe?; no, that's too low -- that I've seen the desire to support HRC drive traditional liberals to adopt Republican positions or terminology. It's really quite amazing.

Tom, if you want to call Edwards and/or Obama effete, or unmanly, or unfit to wear the pants(suit) on the D ticket, or whatever it is of that nature that you are getting at, just do it. As it is, you seem like a punch pulling Ann Coulter. It doesn't suit you at all, 1) because you usually operate at a more decorous level than AC, and 2) once you are down on her level, punch-pulling just looks confused, since it is by then too late to look gracious.

[Tom K]

I should add, please don't take my comment as a defense of Edwards, who I consider a pandering slickster and whose timing here qualifies him as a "Profile in Courage" nominee in the "Not Really" awards I'm planning on holding when the election is done.

[Tom W.]

TK - you may have missed Obama's actual "Sweetie" moment yesterday, when he used that diminutive on a female television reporter who asking him questions. My use of the term is ironic, given that Obama would never call another man "sweetie."

I've never called Edwards Breck Girl, nor would I - it's patently offensive.

Now, the image of jumping in your Lear to endorse a candidate after the voting in the country's poorest state has finished - ostensibly to continue the anti-poverty campaign with such an endorsement - well, call it what you will. It's quite an image.

[Tom K]

I did miss Obama's "sweetie" moment. So I'll pass on that. I didn't charge you with "Breck Girl" -- by then I was referring to HRC supporters more broadly -- but I'll 'fess up that, if it read that way, it was wrong.

On the last point -- "call it what you will" -- I don't think any phrase sums up the syndrome you're desrcribing any better than "limousine liberal". This phenomenon has irritated many conservatives for decades (without your apparent notice). That your eyes are opened to it now, in the context of the HRC campaign, illustrates my point about HRC supporters & Republican viewpoints.

BTW, how does Hillary get to the povery events she attends?

[Slappy]

The Clintons could not deliver the White House a third time around. Boo-fucking-hoo. I doubt any of you Obama-bashers were as upset when Clinton lost a long-standing Democratic run Congress as you are about losing your preferred choice of nominee. And sit out the election Rain if you feel you must. Have a drink and dream of your perfect little world where everything goes your way.

The pedestal you placed the Clintons on has crumbled and many of you can't handle the loss. Not being able to come to grips that YOUR choice is not the winning choice is driving many of you insane. It is over. Edwards' support is the final nail in the coffin. Denial. Anger. Acceptance. You, your party, and your country will be better for it. Or you can deal with fantasies of 3rd parties and convention battles and crusade against Obama in a fashion that would make Karl Rove blush with embarrassment and help elect McCain.

At this point, the longer Clinton stays in this process the more damage she will be doing to her party and the Clinton legacy. Much like Nader who will be remembered as a spoiler and not a champion of consumer's rights. Edwards' delegates will overwhelmingly vote Obama. Only denial would prevent someone from seeing that this race is over. At this point she should drop out. Period. I'd be saying the same were it reversed. Maybe it is better to make a clean cut and put this race behind us and have Edwards as VP. The indignity Clintons would suffer as only being the VP would be too much for most of you to handle. The most important female Democrat of the 20th, 21st and probably the 22nd century taking direction from someone else. The horror. Edwards spared you the shame. Rejoice I say.

Get over yourselves. Even if your political intuition is far superior to everyone else.

Yeah yeah I know. Fuck me. Blah blah blah. Obama = bad. Clinton = good. Blah blah blah. Obama = bad. Clinton = good. Yawn. Lets start the Clinton '12 campaign early why dont we. For the sake of humanity we must.

Among the gasbags indeed.

[Slappy]

Another important issue to bash Obama with: means of transportation. Almost forgot that one.

[Tom W.]

Slappy, your vitriol argues against your suggestion that you'd "be saying the same were it reversed."

Further, the angry "get out or go away, you fools!" argument is doing more damage to the party than Hillary Clinton ever could. If you were making a real party-first plea, you wouldn't put it that way...

[HenryFTP]

Slappy:

The scales have fallen from my eyes now. How could I have missed Edwards' hundreds of delegates putting Obama over the top? Or indeed, that Edwards would make a terrific VP candidate, as he will carry his home state of North Carolina for the ticket, just as he did in 2004?

It would appear that some Obama supporters feel that they have not insulted Clinton supporters enough. When we're really cowed and intimidated (and presumably reprogrammed), we'll be good and ready to support the Presumptive Nominee with enthusiasm.

[scottreads]

It really never ceases to amaze me how Obamafans (even when they're unaware of it) prove the point being discussed her again and again. Tom makes a simple point about Clinton demonstrating that she has remarkably resilient support in the face of gasbags demanding her ouster and about how interesting that is. Instead of confronting that or at least acknowledging that Clinton has had very durable support (which Obama might want in the fall), 'ol Slappy doubles down with more calls for the monster to step aside for the good of humanity, apple pie, etc. And the defensive, prickly snarkiness on display is pretty revealing too. Yeah, I totally believe that you'd be saying exactly the same thing if the situation were reversed. Um, not so much.

[Ralph]

Hey gang! Let's all repeat the right wing attacking points against our fellow Dems! Let's all vow to not vote for the Dem candidate because our candidate didn't win! Let's all act like morons. Congrats Tom, you have fanned the flames of idiotic Democratic debate about this primary. Hillary Clinton is not the feminist candidate any more than Obama is the black-power candidate. Crying about being a victim will not win you respect - being right on the issues will. So far, I have not heard any of you fools talk about the real issues. Have fun with John McCain. I'm sure you'll all have plenty to discuss then - after it's too late. Man, what jerks.

[scottreads]

"Sore winners" isn't quite enough to describe the Obamafan trollers here, but it'll do.

[Judith]

Ralph - you mean like when the GOP calls Democrats morons and jerks? Those talking points?