Conventional Wisdom

That small gaggle of small minds we Americans lazily grant so much electoral power - that is to say, the national political media - is trying desperately to pick at the scab of the nearly ancient Clinton-Obama wars, a smallish wound from a fierce fracas that is healing quite nicely, thank you.

Certainly, there are former Clinton supporters whose suppurative anger at the Democrat who beat their Democrat leaves them incapable of support for the winner. But I believe that condition, messy as the bandages can be and so often in need of clean dressing, is a generally temporary one. Little items like the direction of our national energies and the future we shall carve out (or fail to carve) for our children and their children are at stake in a few short months, and I cannot conceive of a real hard-core Clinton supporter going for McCain.

I will very happily vote for Senator Obama, and I believe firmly - despite some poll dips of late, and the general breaking out of worry beads among Democratic chatterers - that he will dispatch Senator McCain by some comfortable margin in November, and thus vanquish the disgraced party that McCain now leads. Oh, point me to the Pollster numbers if you have a mind. Sure, show concern for those Wisconsin charts. Worry aloud about the wild variations in Ohio polling. I'll pay a bit of attention, but not too much.

Truth be told, I've cut my political intake this summer in half at the very least, possibly more. The requisite attacks by the Republicans, the responses by Democrats, the hand-wringing over VP choices, the general pontification all have their place on a long summer's day. But my jets have cooled. I have my candidate, though a second choice. The conventions are generally a sad bore, a spectacle of B-minus stagecraft what would scarcely credit the WB's overnight programming. Wake me after Labor Day with some state-by-state polling.

It remains a complement to both Clintons that the media's obsessions continue, though neither stands nearer to greater power this summer. The President's wounds are still evident, even in so old a warrior - what liberal likes to be called a racist? (I do not, yet so many of those who supported his wife's campaign were tagged with that epithet this year). Even so, Bill will get his primetime convention speech - and how smart of Obama to immediately deal with that issue just as it threatened to become a larger controversy. Of course, the most successful Democratic president of these last several generations must speak, and at the right hour. No, Obama's acquiescence was right on.

As for Hillary, well, I do believe her delegates should have an opportunity to cast their votes for her in Denver. There would seem to be no downside; I endorse the "catharsis" notion of allowing the long process to complete itself wholly, then moving on as single party afterwards. But that's for Senator Clinton and her staff to decide, in talks with Senator Obama and his team. I, for one, won't kvetch should it not occur. Nor will I join the chorus of "foul!" when Obama fails to name the close number two finisher to his ticket. The man's calculus has been different from mine for a year now, and it's no secret whose was the more accurate.

Further, Senator Clinton has clearly moved on - at least to anyone paying attention. Her tough-minded op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal on the former Halliburton subsidiary KBR, and its use of of offshore tax havens to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal taxes, is the clearest sign yet that she means to lead from the left in the Senate - and she has the list and the star power to do so. If she is not named Obama's Veep - and who's to say he won't make a surprise choice - then she is poised to provide the loyal opposition to a centrist Obama Administration, building her own movement. And we should all wish her Godspeed with that.

No, the "drama" on the pre-convention jockeying does not move me as much as a Jose Reyes triple. As Al Giordano points out, it plays to the Democrats' favor to allow a little semi-tragic where-for-art-thou storyline to develop pre-Denver. Works wonders in the ratings book. Besides, Obama likes his dramas small - like gray-scaled summer replacement series that pack very little wallop and never get added to the full network schedule. Who didn't smile when reading the story of the Senator being heckled at an Ohio college, challenged loudly to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Damned if the O-man didn't stop the Town Hall meeting and lead one and all in the pledge. Probably had his flag pin on, too.

No, if you want real drama, another Democrat's waiting in the wings by name of Edwards, John - a candidate who I soured on early when he allowed the brilliant feminist Melissa McEwan to be sacked from his blog team. And it was creepy strange when Edwards seemed happy to tag-team Clinton on behalf of Obama last fall, despite his own campaign for the Presidency. In an empty subway car, Edwards is the guy who still stands just a foot away. And his summer turn on the stage is so damned well-timed, as well.

Denver, at least, will be more interesting than the smog-laden Olympic opening ceremonies in China - what a dreary digital non-culturefest that is - and come to think of it, Minneapolis may be the most compelling must-see summer TV of the three. Sure, the Clintons give the Obama team some degree of challenge - but it's because they're so damned good, even in finishing second. The Bush legacy on the other hand - phew, I'd hate to to program that mess. Where can McCain possibly stash GWB, and what do you do about Cheney? Or the Lieberman embarrassment? If you want trainwreck-like reality television, the GOP's the place to be.

UPDATE: I can't help but quote Skippy: the Edwards story does indeed blow the Gingrich narrative.

Comments

[Deborah]

Tom-Always enjoyed reading your musings. I am one of those Democrats who will not be voting for Barack Obama if he is the Democratic nominee after the convention. It's not about Barack Obama for me, though I do have questions and concerns about him, it's about the Democratic Party power elite and how they conducted the primary/caucus campaign for the Democratic nominee. I will not reward the politics of sexism and misogyny with my vote. I will not reward the politics of political deception and trickery with my vote. I expect this kind of behavior from the Republican Party, but I really thought we Democrats were different, that we really did respect and support the will of the people. Barack Obama is an illegitimate and under qualified candidate who was selected by the Democratic Party power elite. He was not the choice of the voters. We elected Hillary Clinton to represent us as our presidential candidate, despite ALL the roadblocks thrown in our way. If Barack Obama is elected as the next POTUS, then the Democratic Party power elite will believe, that regardless of the voters will, they can choose whoever they want in the future and there will be nothing we can do about it. I will not tolerate or enable this kind of treatment and disrespect of the voting public. I will be withholding my vote from them and there are many others who are going to do the same. I will be unregistering as a Democrat after the convention and registering myself as an Independent voter. AND, I will be voting for John McCain for this reason only, to ensure that the Democrats lose this election. This is about principles before politics. This is about the future power structure of our country.

[skippy]

thx for the shout out, tom!

personally, i will vote for obama, tho my first (and obviously misguided) choice was edwards...

i would respectfully submit, deborah, that the democratic elite will do as they will irrespective of the vote of independents like yourself...or even if all the dems rank and file vote for mcmuffin...because the dem elite never bothers to listen to the little guy, and they aren't about to start now.

and without disregarding your ideas of what happened, i don't believe the dem party leaders manipulated the primaries to get obama the nom...i think he just out smarted hillary's staff in terms of strategy.

[tdraicer]

I won't vote for Obama, for the simple reason I never trusted him, never liked him, don't think he is up to the job, and believe his only accomplishment as President will be to revive the GOP brand. And nothing he has done has caused me to question my judgement of him. On the contrary (see FISA or abortion or offshore drilling or...)

I've been voting for lesser evil Democrats for 32 years-but in the long run (meaning between now and 2012) I'm convinced he isn't the lesser evil.

Are there a lot of Dems like me? Don't know-there are certainly plenty of us online, but whether we constitute a sufficient number of voters to save us from a disastrous Obama presidency, only time will tell. (And yes, of course McCain will be a disaster as well. Given the choice of two disasters, it is only common sense to want the GOP to take the hit.)

[gormenghast]

"a smallish wound from a fierce fracas that is healing quite nicely, thank you"

I don't know what hospital you hang out in, but Doctor, the wound is not small and the body looks terminal. I keep waiting for you to "get it", but you never do. This is no longer about Hillary Clinton and hasn't been for a while. There are millions of disenfranchised democrats in exile who will not be supporting the DNC's selected candidate. You can play Pollyanna all you want, and it's charming, Melissa lost her mind with that article in the Guardian and Taylor Marsh - oh dear! No, I will not vote for McCain, but I own my vote and it will not be for Obama.

[Judith]

Here we go again, Tom. :-)

Deborah, as a Clinton supporter, I have no respect for your comments at this point. You are willing to reward the GOP for 8 years of the worst shitstorm of violence and death because the DNC sucks? Come on. Hint - politics sucks. Like Bill Clinton says, it is a contact sport and the rules have changed to include bludgeoning your own side.

I think Obama, for all his many and obvious faults, is still better than the GOP for 4 more years. What an incredibly stupid message it sends the GOP leadership that you are willing to overlook their heinous selfishness and bloodlust by electing them again.

I agree Clinton is the better candidate and leader but it is over. The choice is Bush 3 or the chance that Obama has good taste in advisors. Time for people who care about the future of their country to band together.

[tdraicer]

>The choice is Bush 3 or the chance that Obama has good taste in advisors. Time for people who care about the future of their country to band together.

It is because I care about the future of my country, and want to see the GOP defeated for a generation, not just given a four year period to rest and rebuild, that I won't support Obama. As for "taking a chance that Obama has good taste in advisors"-that argument is so thin as to be invisible.

[Judith]

td - bullsh*t. You post the same lame tired stupid argument thing all over the place - and have done for at least 3 months. Same stupidity over and over. Jesus, either let some oxygen in and get a new line of comment or dont address me.

I think you are a republican with what was orignally a funny line - hey, let's get those moron Democrats to vote for us because it is better for them in the looooong run! Ha, this kind of sh&t worked on the poor whites who voted GOP so we could steal their savings while they blessed us for keeping God alive - let's see what bullsh&t we can feed the dumbasses on the Dem side!

as Jack said so well: "go sell crazy somewhere else".

[tdraicer]

Judith-I don't give a (pick your expletive of choice) what you think (if you are in fact capable of thought). Tom of course can censor these comments as he likes, but apart from that, if you don't want to read my comments, don't read them. I'll post where and how I like. If that upsets you, well that's just a bonus.

As for my being a Republican, um, no. If we had a viable Democratic Socialist party, I'd belong to that. Since we don't, I've been a lifelong Democrat by default. But like quite a few lifelong Democratic voters I've concluded Obama is unfit for the White House, and that McCain is the alternative doesn't do a thing to change that.

In four years one party is going to get the blame for a disastrous presidency. I prefer that party be the GOP.

[Neil M]

Oh gosh...here we go again. I'm not sure just how Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton were "disenfranchised" and no one has ever really come up with a plausible, factually supported explanation. I guess when you're angry and bitter, one excuse serves as well as another.

Also, let's call a spade a spade. This "country first" nonsense is simply a rationalization to cover voting Republican when your interests and issues are Democratic. Now, Americans are permitted to vote based on irrational, baseless anger, to be sure, but don't try wrapping that in the cloak of patriotism.

[Palomino]

Well, we have two terrible choices this year, IMO. The DNC's rigged selection process, in the service of its clear goal of slapping down Bill (and Hillary) Clinton, may have doomed the Democratic Party, and the country, for decades to come, no matter what the outcome is this November.

But, anyway, let's walk this back almost four years, to right after Kerry's loss to GWB. Back then, we were saying that we needed a candidate on our side who was just as thuggish, just as unscrupulous, just as mobbed-up as Bush. And it looks like we've got him.

So--do we want him or not?

If he wins, at least Dems have their hands on the federal agencies for a few years.

If he loses, the party belongs once again to the Clintons, with a chance for Hillary in 2012.

[tdraicer]

>Now, Americans are permitted to vote based on irrational, baseless anger, to be sure, but don't try wrapping that in the cloak of patriotism.

When you look at Obama you see either The One or someone not much worse than Hillary, and because of this you are unable to grasp the motivation of those of us who see not a typical "lesser evil" Democrat, but someone both utterly unprincipled and utterly unqualified.

My judgement of Obama, (which I formed in large part before he decided to run, but which has been consistently confirmed by his behavior as a candidate) and not "irrational anger" is the reason I won't vote for him. And of course if my judgement is correct than every Obama supporter has been a fool and a dupe.

If Obama wins, we'll find out which of us was right-and I'll be forced to accept the thin hope that it isn't me.

[Judith]

td - if you dont care what I think why do you keep addressing me? I didnt address you - you addressed me. LOL. You may well be a nice, sincere person but you need a new line. Let us all know when you have a new thought...at the rate you are going that may be sometime after the election.

Palomino, I like you very much - but I for one NEVER said I needed a thug as a candidate and I dont believe we have one now. I do think we have a media that is beneath contempt for the most part, but that isnt Obama's fault. I dont like the guy much, but I dont hate him. So he is an ambitious s.o.b.? It aint a crime. He accepted the adulation? Who wouldnt?

I share the disapointment and trepidation of other Clinton supporters about the unknown ahead of us in an Obama administration...but I already KNOW what effing crazy selfish destructive bastards the GOP leadership is comprised of and I will go with Caroline Kennedy before I link arms with those people. The idea that one can stomach the continuation of this party after ACKNOWLEDGING all they have done makes me sick now. I have respect fot Republicans I know who say - hey, life is good for us so what is your complaint - over the dumb dumb Dems who say, the GOP is horrible and I want them to win because I am willing to risk the suffering of others for another 4 years in the hope that we can just magically pull the plug when we want. Yeah, that's realisitic. How do you know we'd even HAVE a plug to pull?

[Neil M]

Palomino, by "rigged selection process" I assume you mean the DNC primary rules that Hillary Clinton big-shots Harold Ickes and Terry McAuliffe helped write. Can you tell me just how these rules are unfair? Specifics, please, and not just general assertions of "caucuses are bad" or "the popular vote should win."

[Palomino]

Neil M: Do your own homework.

Judith: I like you too.

[Judith]

Thanks Palomino - I apppreciate it.

TD - I apologize for getting personal - it was uncalled for on my part. You can have whatever reason you like to do or not do - but if you direct it my way I will tell you what I think.

have a great rest of summer everybody!

[Neil M]

Palomino -

Ah...the fall-back of the irrational. I suspect that your objections to the Democratic primary have nothing to do with the process but the results; after all, if you had some solid evidence of malfeasance you'd be happy to show it.

Here's a question: Did you object to these rules you say are so unfair BEFORE the states began to vote?

[Tom K]

Reading this is like being stuck in the back seat while folks argue over who gets to drive, without giving any thought to debating where they should be doing. Because, big picture, folks, Obama, HRC and McC are all heading the same place.

[Tom K]

Uhh, that should be "where they should be going."

BTW, does anyone else here find the most annoying thing about the Edwards situation to be his profession, in the course of his purported apology, that his handling of it was "99% honest"? Could there be a better illustration of the cluelessness of the governing class?

[Neil M]

"Because, big picture, folks, Obama, HRC and McC are all heading the same place."

I don't know, Tom K...eight years ago Ralph Nader made the same argument, but I don't think President Gore would have made the mess we got from The Decider.

[Tom K]

I don't know that McCain would have, or that Gore wouldn't have. You could make a decent argument for both propositions, but neither goes to the fundamental point that the emphasis on the HRC/BHO/JMC horserace ignores the fact that, for example, a country that is overwhelmingly opposed to middle eastern intervention and amnesty for illegal immigrants has two presumptive candidates that stand athwart the public's positions (along with the third possible major party nominee).

If all of the options stand for things the voters say they don't want, is that a basis to question the health of a democracy?

[Susie]

"BTW, does anyone else here find the most annoying thing about the Edwards situation to be his profession, in the course of his purported apology, that his handling of it was "99% honest"? Could there be a better illustration of the cluelessness of the governing class?"

It was indeed a very odd ‘apology.’ I have a feeling that the phrase '99% honest' is going to be with us for awhile.

"My judgement of Obama, (which I formed in large part before he decided to run, but which has been consistently confirmed by his behavior as a candidate) and not "irrational anger" is the reason I won't vote for him. "

It’s very difficult for Obama supporters to grasp that not everyone who is against their candidate is a sore loser and/or racist.

[Neil M]

"It’s very difficult for Obama supporters to grasp that not everyone who is against their candidate is a sore loser and/or racist."

And it's very difficult for some Clinton supporters to grasp that Hillary did not lose because she's a woman. She lost because she didn't run as good a campaign as Barack Obama.

[Tom K]

Also, has anyone heard an explanation from the Edwards camp, or any questioning from the media, as to why he was on this lady's balcony at 2 am a few months back, if the affair ended in '06, and he isn't the father of the baby?

I don't care about his personal life, I just wish he'd keep his mouth shut if he can't think of a way to make an honest apology.

[Neil M]

I confess I'm not sure what the big deal is about. John Edwards, who is not running for president and who does not hold any elected or appointed office, had an affair. And...?

Barack Obama didn't try to cover it up. Hillary Clinton didn't bribe the woman to come forward. Nancy Pelosi didn't fund the love-nest. What's the big deal?

[Susie]

"Also, has anyone heard an explanation from the Edwards camp, or any questioning from the media, as to why he was on this lady's balcony at 2 am a few months back, if the affair ended in '06, and he isn't the father of the baby?"

The explanation is that Edwards is still being, uh, 99% honest. And he’s still receiving a free ride from the press, I assume because he didn’t actually succeed in getting the nomination or the Veep nod and possibly wrecking his party’s chances at the White House thereby.