Progressives Are Buying the Well-Circulated Nonsense

[Demeter]

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2008/02/progressives-ar.html


-- the columnist treated his WSJ readers to a survey of Democrats' problems, as well. He struck back, that is, with the very Schadenfreude I had gone in search of, the little creep. And his gleeful assessment was this:


"The Democratic fight between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seems certain to continue, and it is showing a clear divide between whites and blacks, between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, between women and men, and between older and younger voters.... The problem for Democrats is that the race is opening up the kind of sensitive divides that go to the party's very identity as an institution that unites races and genders."


Well, I must say, that's a pretty nifty assessment. And it would be even niftier if, at the heart of things, it were true. But it's not.


There's a "clear divide" among progressive Democrats, all right. But the actual fault line runs not between whites and blacks, or men and women, or the old and young, or any other demographic groupings. And don't let the right convince you that it does. Rather our fault line, dear Brutus, runs along the contours of the philosophical.


Which is to say, our whole bloody and internal mess is rooted in questions of war and dicey forgiveness. Some are willing to give Mrs. Clinton a pass on her tortured explanations of why she supported Bush's preemptive, imperialistic adventurism back in 2002 -- when the largely bipartisan slaughter was conceived -- and others are not. It's as simple and fundamental as that. Had Mrs. Clinton not done so, Mr. Obama's raison d'etre in this race and subsequent party divisions would have never been.


Yet at no time do the words "Iraq," "preemption," or "neoconservative madness" appear in the WSJ column as the internal casus belli among progressives. For obvious reasons the paper prefers to validate rumors of deep and far more lasting social divides among them. And the hell of it is, more than a few of the latter are buying into it. They're letting slip that sense of what fundamentally caused the rift to begin with; splitting off into disputatious groupings of gender, race, and so on, to their politically suicidal detriment and the GOP's glee.


Progressives now need to show their own gritty determination to get at the bottom of things -- to get back at the bottom of things, that is, and re-tackle the one and the only true dividing line of this race. It's not demographics. And don't let the right-wing pundits tell you otherwise. You'd just be playing their game.

[secularvoter]

1. I'm so sick of the commentary

I'm so sick of the commentary on this issue, even from sources like NPR.

From my own limited experience, it seems like the majority of Hillary supporters are women who are voting for her because she is a woman, they are viewing this election as a referendum on "feminism". If you don't like Hillary they can only view it as a sign of sexism.

On the other hand, the majority of Obama supporters, even African Americans, do not seem to be backing him because he is black, they are backing him because he is inspirational, he is progressive in his ideology yet can also reach across party lines, he is willing to engage in dialog, and he seems genuine.


The reality is that Hillary is really much more conservative than Barack, she is a part of the establishment, and she got where she is today by riding the coat tails of her husband. There is no question that if Bill Clinton had never been president then she would not be running today.

I am totally opposed to Hillary, and it has nothing to do with sex. Let me count the ways in which I am opposed to her:

1) This is by far the most important to me: She is part of a unit that has already served two terms in office. I view her candidacy is borderline illegal, as it is virtually breaking the term limit law. In truth, her being president WOULD violate the SPIRIT of the law.

As much as I am against the election of sons of former presidents to office, I am even more against electing the spouses of former presidents to office, and that goes if they are male or female. If a woman got elected president on her own, then I would certainly oppose the election of her husband to office following her presidency.

We all know that, in fact, this would put Bill Clinton back into power in a way that no president in history has been put back into power after his terms were up. I just cannot accept this issue and will never vote for Hillary because of it.

2) Hillary is conservative, and it has always been her agenda to reform to the Democratic Party to make it more conservative. Screw her.

3) She is divisive and confrontational, but not even in a good way, only in a self-serving way. It is one thing to be divisive and confrontational. The way that Edwards was was the good way. But Hillary isn't even divisive in a good way, for her its all personal, whether that's her fourth or not, its the way that it is. She's not even divisive in a progressive way, like by taking on corporate interests, she's just divisive because she wants to do things her way and doesn't listen to other people's ideas and is very cut throat.

4) I just plain can't stand listening to her speak. For the past 8 years I have had to change the channel on the radio or TV every time I hear GW Bush speak, I just cannot stand to listen to him. Its the same with Hillary for me. If I am going to learn what either of them have said I have to wait for the transcript and read it. I just have an emotional gut reaction of revolution to both of them, and I don't want 4 or heaven forbid 8 more years of being revolted by the leader of the country.

Conversely, when Obama speaks I love to tune in and listen to what he has to say.

5) Her daughter works for a hedge fund. Okay, call this petty, but to me this says something about the family, especially given the nature of this family. Its not as if she went off and did her own thing, etc., I am pretty sure that Bill and Hillary have been intimately involved in guiding her steps and making a way for her. That she then ended up working for a hedge fund, basically the embodiment of corporate evil and all that is wrong with the American financial system, speaks volumes to me.

I could go on, but this should be enough for now.

I'd love to see a woman president, but not this woman, and I will never EVER vote for her, or any Clinton for that matter, EVER!