The will to lose
I’m starting to think the Democratic party has a death wish. This of all years should have been in the bag for a Democratic win in November: horrible war, horrible economy, Worst President Ever, etc. Every day the headlines are a blaring reminder that Republican policies don’t work.
Yet leave it to the Democrats to fasten on the one candidate who is almost guaranteed to lose against McCain. Not that Barry’s got the nomination yet, but it damn sure seems like everybody’s trying to make that happen. Why? Do Democrats fear success? Are people like Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean more comfortable as the underdog party? Or are they just so blinded by all the campaign money that they really believe Obama can win this thing?
I know what’s driving the Obamabot media and the Blogger Boyz. The former are just silly childish people who clap excitedly at fire trucks and car crashes while they wait for their beloved McCain. The latter are smug frat boys intoxicated with misogyny and the smell of their own farts, incapable of understanding that they’re wrong about anything.
But what the fuck is up with the DNC? How can they not realize that Obama is gonna be pure cake for the Republicans? By election day every sentient American will know whole portions of Wright’s speeches by heart, and they’ll also know that you can’t trust what Barry says about it because he lies a lot (from NAFTA to Iraq to Wright to Rezko to when his parents met to when he heard what he heard and so on and so on — every sentient American will also know that drill). And they will walk into that voting booth and quietly say “no” to the charlatan from Chicago and his creepy entourage. Maybe he’ll go back to Illinois and leave us the fuck alone.
Personally I think there are a few things confusing the DNC. The money I already mentioned, and you know politicians live and die by campaign contributions. All that money to Barry translates in their minds into votes. Or maybe it’s just so exciting in itself that it fries their little brain cells. Another thing is inflexible thinking: they’ve spent years watching the Repubs demonize Clinton, and can’t grasp yet that Hillary’s negatives have topped out while Barry is a Republican dream come true. There’s probably some of their own Clinton antagonism in there. And finally I think it’s just insularity. The DNC types are not exactly noted for being in touch with the people: consider the bold anti-war, anti-Bush measures instituted by the new Democratic majority in Congress after being elected in 2006 on the strength of enormous anti-war, anti-Bush sentiment. Right.
I really thought we’d get a Democratic president this year. Well, maybe if Hillary is the nominee. Otherwise, hello McCain.
23 Responses to “The will to lose”
-
Dave says:
The protracted nature of the Democratic nomination campaign may not be such a bad thing. Imagine HC ‘misspeaking’ about her war adventures when campaigning against McCain. The latter could have easily cashed in on that with his real war experience. Also, imagine BO’s pastor’s speech coming to light later. Imagine what effect it would have had, a month or weeks before the elections…
I don’t see a reason for the nomination race to stop before, say, July. According to the polls, BO wouldn’t fare worse than HC against McCain. Maybe either candidate will emerge strengthened from this campaign… or maybe I’m just going nuts…April 1st, 2008 at 6:09 am EST -
Alikatze says:
I couldn’t agree with your post more, Dr. Socks! Obama is going to be *devoured* by the Republicans — especially for anything totally whack that has ever fallen from Wright’s lips. The fact that Obama has had this man as his “spiritual advisor” for 20 some years will become fodder for the Republican vultures.
The DNC has consistently let me down the past few years — I thought the 2006 re-taking of Congress was going to be a rallying cry for pulling out of Iraq, etc., but, no, it’s turned into a whimper. The DNC is unwilling to turn a critical eye on Mr. Obama and Democrats will pay for it the entire election cycle. Ya, all the Kool-Aid drinkers had better sober up and get ready for a McCain presidency. Word!
-
Bruce says:
I don’t think either Clinton or Obama is the best choice, I think Edwards should have been a no-brainer. But I’m not buying that Obama will lose to McCain while Clinton will beat him. Clinton has just as much baggage as Obama. But I do think the Dems need to change their strategy immediately and start talking about why a Democratic president, whether it is Obama or Clinton, is the most important goal. And yes, the Obamabots are annoying, but the Clinton campaign has made its share of mistakes too. They both need to start treating each other with respect and start focusing on the real issues and stop giving the Republicans ammunition to use against them in the general election.
-
octogalore says:
Violet — right on. I think what you say about HRC’s negatives having topped out vs BHO’s just beginning to grow refutes Dave’s point about current polls. The Repubs haven’t gotten ahold of BHO yet, so current polls don’t accurately reflect what will inevitably happen.
-
Violet says:
Exactly, octogalore. The Republicans haven’t started yet. Things will look very different after they’ve had a couple of months to work on Barry.
As for Clinton, people already know all the stuff the Republicans can sling at her. There’s nothing new. She has nowhere to go but up. It impresses me how many middle-of-the road people have gotten a look at her as a real person and come around to supporting her.
-
ekittyglendower says:
Sister ghost girl, you are preaching. Preaching I tell you! Barry is a fraud, I feel it deep in my gut. It just makes me so angry.
A death wish indeed.
-
K.A. says:
Another thing is inflexible thinking: they’ve spent years watching the Repubs demonize Clinton, and can’t grasp yet that Hillary’s negatives have topped out while Barry is a Republican dream come true.
Admittedly, I’m trying to shut out election stuff more and more these days, but that observation gave me pause. Yes! Of course! Duh! How could I have been so blind?! Etc.! In other words, great point. I’d never even thought about that, but that’s so huge, so obvious, right there.
-
julia says:
ekittyglendower: nice to see you on this blog! You speak the truth and yoour comments lift me up.
It makes me crazy that so many people who call themselves ‘progressive’ refuse to use their brains
and see what lays behind Obama’s speeches and image.I don’t understand: I got back to the US in 2001. People were still talking about Bill Clinton, and all the good things he did as president. So what happened?!? Many Dems don’t want Hillary Clinton in office because of Bill. I remember seeing Bill address an audience at UDC on MLK’s birthday in 2001 - they stood up and cheered ‘4 more years’ and he humbly shook his head ‘no’.
-
Lost Clown says:
The protracted nature of the Democratic nomination campaign may not be such a bad thing. Imagine HC ‘misspeaking’ about her war adventures when campaigning against McCain. The latter could have easily cashed in on that with his real war experience.
Except McCain stood up for HRC when asked about that very incident by the press by saying that you misspeak all the time on the campaign trail. fwiw
-
Lost Clown says:
I got back to the US in 2001. People were still talking about Bill Clinton, and all the good things he did as president. So what happened?!?
That was b.(B)O. (before (Barack) Obama)
-
Timothy Shortell says:
I think you are fooling yourselves if you believe that Hillary’s negatives have topped out. The Republican slime machine will be running on all cylinders for the general election. Both sexism and racism are deep, deep pools of ugly.
Either Dem will win only by shifting the focus back to the war, the economy, and Republican misrule and keeping it there.
-
octogalore says:
I would be curious about your thoughts on one possible factor in the variance between support of women for Hillary and support of people of color for Barack. Which is that, to my knowledge, there is more infighting/jealousy among women than other groups such as racial groups.
At our best, women can be each other’s best suppport systems and mentors, of course; I don’t want to invoke stereotypes or suggest they represent everybody. But I don’t see — which doesn’t mean they’re not there, of course, analogs to the Mommy Wars or Feminist Sex Wars or any of the other intra-women stuff going on with other groups.
I wonder if this make it easier for women to feel less loyalty/support for Hillary than POC do for Barack?
-
K.A. says:
Misogynist men, especially liberal men who ironically think their imaginary egalitarianism makes them superior to their mirror-image conservative brethren, won’t let Hillary get the nomination. Tonight on Law and Order they portrayed her under the name “Melanie Carver”–get it, cause she’s an intimidating castrating bitch, tee hee! In the beginning, they portray her as innocent, even after the male cop makes a snide, sarcastic crack about her–how he “loves women in pantsuits”. By the end of the episode, we find out that the Obama character is innocent, as is Larry Craig (?!), and the pathological criminal (who just so HAPPENS to be Hispanic, uhhh…) that we suspected all along is actually yet another poor, sweet, innocent man who just wants to be liked, but Hillary manipulated him as she callously lied and manipulated everyone else to get away with the triple murder of the people who were holding her back from the presidency…! BUT THE BITCH GETS AWAY WITH IT!
I can’t believe this. But watch CBS get flooded with complaints about Letterman’s insensitivity to transsexuals from last night, but guess how many letters NBC will be getting? Probably just one, wherein I will promise to never watch their shitty, misogynist propaganda hour again.
-
therealUK says:
to my knowledge, there is more infighting/jealousy among women than other groups such as racial groups.
This is a BIG topic, but I don’t think it’s so much the infighting/jealousy as an initial or innate feature of working for human rights for women, but the lack of commonality and solidarity and physical community for women - which then gives rise to what are essentially male cultural splits.
It’s the way that women are scattered through the other “groups”( eg race, class) that makes it tricky, because it’s much easier as a woman to find a sense of belonging and (usually false) power if you align yourself to men’s causes in your race/class group than aligning with “women” as a class in themselves .
-
orlando says:
Don’t forget how much our perception of female or feminist “infighting” is shaped by a hostile media keen to make us all believe that women are unable to pull together. How many times have we seen perfectly reasoned, issue-based debate characterized as a catfight? Or even beat-ups out of thin air, when no real division exists (do you know anyone who doesn’t want better childcare AND more respect for full-time mothers)? Do you really think there is more infighting, or is it just reported with more gleeful diligence?
-
Violet says:
I would be curious about your thoughts on one possible factor in the variance between support of women for Hillary and support of people of color for Barack. Which is that, to my knowledge, there is more infighting/jealousy among women than other groups such as racial groups.
I’ve written about that a couple of times, most recently here. Bottom line is women are not a natural group. Humans typically align themselves around kin and ethnicity. So those kinds of bonds are almost always going to be stronger than other sodalities that may be constructed.
It doesn’t disturb me or surprise me in the least that the African-American community is able to summon more group support for “their” candidate than women are for Hillary. In fact it would completely astound me if American females were able to create that kind of cohesiveness.
-
Violet says:
I think you are fooling yourselves if you believe that Hillary’s negatives have topped out. The Republican slime machine will be running on all cylinders for the general election. Both sexism and racism are deep, deep pools of ugly.
Yes to the last two sentences, but not to the first. It’s not about how much racism and sexism exist or whether the Republicans will be sliming. It’s about the relative exposure of these two individuals, Clinton and Obama.
Hillary has been on the national stage for 16 years, and the Republicans have convinced as many people as they’re going to convince that she’s Satan. True enough those folks exist and they’re a hard, irreducible core, but they’re not gaining new converts. On the contrary, middle-of-the-road people seem to have warmed up to Hillary over the past 8 years. They’ve heard the “she’s Satan thing” from the wingnuts and they’ve concluded for themselves that it’s not actually true.
Obama, on the other hand, is too new. The Republicans are going to regale the American people with revelation after revelation, endlessly pounding home all the shocking (so it will be presented) facts. And people simply won’t have time to sort it out and see for themselves what Obama’s really about. By November they will have been saturated with all this dirt and it will feel much, much safer to just say “no” to this unknown quantity from Chicago with the freaky preacher and the shady background.
-
Violet says:
I remember seeing Bill address an audience at UDC on MLK’s birthday in 2001 - they stood up and cheered ‘4 more years’ and he humbly shook his head ‘no’.
Same thing happened as recently as 2004, when Big Dog spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I remember the commentators saying that if the Constitution allowed it, he could easily get elected to a third term. And it’s true.
Obama found it expedient to demonize the Clintons, and those Obama babies who were children during the Clinton years know nothing except what they’ve been fed by the wingnuts and now the Obamabot Blogger Boyz.
-
Timothy Shortell says:
It’s not about how much racism and sexism exist or whether the Republicans will be sliming. It’s about the relative exposure of these two individuals, Clinton and Obama.
That’s the theory, but I don’t think it is empirically justified. Hillary has been on the national stage, but she hasn’t been running for Prez. The Repubs will be saturating the public sphere of both anti-Hillary lies and general misogyny. I don’t think we can say with confidence that this won’t push up her negatives.
The attack on Obama will be new with regard to the specific lies (”he’s a muslim,” etc.) but will also include traditional racism. That too will push up his negatives.
I don’t think it is so clear that the one scenario is necessarily better than the other. But I have a feeling that because American sexism runs so deep there are more folks in the middle (that is, not hard core partisans) who will not vote for a woman for President.
I should say that I think Hillary is more likely to be a more liberal President than Obama — I agree with Krugman. I would prefer a more progressive candidate than either HRC or BO, but I’ll settle for either at this particular moment.
If McSame wins, I am moving to France.
-
Violet says:
Obviously we need to run out both worldlines and see what happens. Dammnit, where did I put my wave form collapser?
-
julia says:
It is more fashionable today to be sexist than racist.
The people I know enthused about Obama are over 50. I learned about the dark side of the Clinton admin. but I would associate that with any Democrat in office. What shocks me are the large # of so called feminists, like Katha Pollit, people who ran collectives in the 70’s in San Francisco, voted for Nader in 2004, are vegan, don’t own a car, have a tiny carbon footprint, crazy about Obama.
I’m reading Gail Sheehy’s book on Hillary Clinton and the choice is so obvious to me - she has been working for this her entire life and knows Washington like the back of her hand.
-
blondie says:
Krugman has a great editorial today about McCain’s voodoo health care plan. And thank God for Elizabeth Edwards!
-
octogalore says:
Violet, thanks for the link. Yes, I agree with: “Humans organize themselves around kinship and language and culture, and other types of alliances are inevitably weak in comparison.”
It’s a shame, because this is also true: “For all their differences — and women are as different from each other as men are — women all over the world share a set of common obstacles as women. The Third Wave commitment to multiple feminisms seems to devolve all too often into the basest of human impulses, which is essentially fuck you, stranger. … [whereas in the 70s] the realization that if women were ever going to be liberated, it would be because we’d done it ourselves, working together as women. That we couldn’t rely on any other justice movement to do it for us.”
It’s too bad those days are gone and now other albeit worthwhile causes get subsumed into feminism because on its own it’s apparently not enough. Every day, another previously feminist blogger gives up the title, often to rousing cheers. Too bad for Hillary (though, I still hope not), and too bad for us.
Leave a Reply
« Evil Mommy vs. Jesus | Home | A must-read »
