WAKE UP DEMOCRATS!: THERE ARE NO PRINCES IN GENERAL ELECTIONS
For whatever reason--and the reason really doesn't matter--there are those within the democrat party who have taken the position that any criticism of Senator Obama's view of history or his claim of anti-war purism is illegitimate and the offending critic is to be ostracized. To his credit, the Senator himself has not taken that view.
Those who say it's anti-unity, bad manners or even racist to challenge Mr. Obama's worldview. are sewing the seeds of not only their own destruction but perhaps all of ours. First, our party has most frequently been the party of open discourse, the party that simultaneously had room for George Wallace and George McGovern. To turn any one of our candidates into a sacred cow gives that away. Second, it deprives the democratic electorate of anything but a student council election where smiles and signs decide the outcome. Finally, and most importantly, it utterly ignores the fact that any questions that might be brought up in this primary are going to asked with the volume turned up. Does anybody here really think the Rovies will care whether they alienate Jim Clyburn or Al Sharpton?
There is going to be a "big boy", intellectually and personally challenging election sometime in '08. The democrats can have it now or they can let the Repubs drive it later. We can either cripple ourselves with petty arguments to the effect that pointing out the devotion of LBJ to racial and financial equity somehow lessens the martyrdom and service of Dr. King, or we can actually have a discussion about whether the Senator's war position is what he said it is. We can either impute sinister meanings to what Mr. B. Johnson says or we can discuss the words he actually said.
There will be no Princes or Princesses in the general election. Let's not have any in our selection process either.
If that doesn't work for you and there has to be special rules for how we deal with any given Prince, then circulate a memo in advance so we know all the rules of what we can and cannot say about the Chosen One.
posted by UMRBlog @ 16:50
5 comments
5 Comments:
Given the past record of political campaigns run by the Clintons, it was bound to happen. The very same couple who coined the phrase, "the politics of personal destruction," who were most skilled at engaging in it, are now being accused of racism.
As much as I think Ms. Clinton would be a disaster as a president, I don't think it's fair to label her, or her husband as racists based on some poorly chosen comments lately.
1756,
Thank you for your comments.
I think the stakes are much higher than that. We are defining whether equality is going to apply to primary campaigns (at least as far as susceptibility to criticism) or whether it isn't. If certain people are imbued with invisible protective shields based upon their personal demographics, we might as well just use flash cards.
FWIW, I dont think it's particularly clumsy to point out that LBJ used all his juice to get the CRA of 1964 passed.
TYFCB
Well, the democrats in Michigan don't have to worry about electing a prince or princes today. The all inclusive national Democratic Party took care of that. My democratic cousin says he will just vote for McCain since he can't vote for a democrat and the democratic governor has imposed massive taxes on them to fund pet projects.
0723,
Yeah, not giving democrats a place to vote creates an opportunity to teach good people bad habits.
On your other point, though, there is nothing inconsistent between having and enforcing rules and being all-inclusive. The problem in Fichigan was that people other than the Democrat Party itself attempted to set the election day. Had it been left to the Party itself, it would have asked permission, been denied and complied.
I also have family there. As you know, Michigan is like four discreet states. Two are in recession, on is booming and one is just OK. When the current Gov. was originally nominated, I worked for and supported one of the other two excellent candidates.
TYFCB
The intensity of the dispute probably alarmed both camps. But why should they have been surprised. The Democratic party is the party of identity politics. When you challenge one of the core constituencies in the party, disunity and bad feelings are bound to surface.
Both candidates have their own cards to play for and against each other. Hillary has tried the gender card with little success (although her "Crying Moment" in New Hampshire is considered by some a variation on playing the gender card) while Obama's attempt to accuse the Clinton's of racial insensitivty did nothing but start a row that might have split the party if it continued.
It remains to be seen whether either side can resist the temptation to play identity politics. After all, that's what their party is all about. And when detonated properly, the race or gender bomb can do a lot of damage to an opponent.
Post a Comment
<< Home