How Can Democrats Screw This Up? You're Witnessing It

http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2008/01/how-can-democra.html

This doesn't quite rise to the immediate level of Wall Street's activities looking like something straight out of "Independence Day," but a lot of very serious people are becoming very seriously worried, as you know, about Bill Clinton's role in the presidential campaign. The reasons are varied, but taken on the whole, I think it's fair to say they largely represent the clash of long-term concerns and short-term interests; in the broadest terms, the personal versus the public good. There's also the internal matter of the party good -- which for most politicos reigns supreme -- but to date, the disgruntled have been mostly unwilling to fan the discordant flames out of fear they'll only blow things up...What they have offered, so far, is what Richard Nixon would label as "candyass politics." They're pulling their punches, telegraphing rather than slamming. Nevertheless the party's discord and disgruntlement have become a booming journalistic enterprise. In recent days, as just two examples, Dan Balz of the Washington Post and Jonathan Alter of Newsweek have funneled into the public arena the outlines of private worries.


"Sen. Edward Kennedy and Rep. Rahm Emanuel, both currently neutral in the Democratic contest," writes Alter, "have told their old friend heatedly on the phone that he needs to change his tone and stop attacking Sen. Barack Obama." Their official reasons: "There's concern that in hatcheting the Illinois senator and losing his temper with the news media ... Clinton is drawing down his political capital and harming his role as a global statesman."...Says Balz: "Bill Clinton's actions have caused consternation inside the party, even among those who are not publicly committed to either candidate. His 'fairy tale' remark about Obama's Iraq war position sparked a sharp reaction ... his heated objections to a reporter's questions about the caucus rules in Las Vegas showed a petulant side of him that was highly unflattering."


A far more amusing characterization came from the Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel last Sunday on "This Week," when she related that her friends are now saying that Bill is looking like an overheated Little League dad, always interfering in the game to protect his helpless charge. The often unstated resentment among feminists? Hillary doesn't need Bill's help. She's a big girl and can take care of herself -- yet she's allowing an altogether different picture to emerge...
By inserting himself -- that is, by a former president and head of the party inserting himself -- in the nomination process, Bill Clinton is well on the road to accomplishing what many Democrats regarded as an impossible mission: a loss in 2008.


He has, of course, revved up "Clinton Fatigue" once again, but far more threatening is this: By converting his wife's candidacy into a protection of his legacy and ultimately what's referred to as the "Clinton Restoration Project," he is also converting what could have been an easily achievable, condemnatory referendum on George W. Bush's reign into a referendum on more distant, bygone days. That does not bode well in an election pumped for "change." And that's precisely why former presidents have traditionally stayed the hell out of primaries. Their immensely influential interference stomps the evolutionary insurgencies that are vital to any party's vitality. Parties require fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh leadership, otherwise they rot like compost....In addition, party supporters resent 800-pound insider gorillas hand-picking their successors, which only perpetuates the stale and dynastic and leaves the primary-voting electorate feeling as though the game is rigged. As a former party head, a former president can disproportionately manipulate the party machine's power -- hence the contest is perceived by many among the assorted bases as The Machine vs. The People. And to these many, insurgencies such as Edwards and Obama's are then seen as having been doomed from the start. It turn, the many stay home.

I've seen the clip of Bill's "heated objections to a reporter's questions about the caucus rules in Las Vegas", and it was a little agitated but good Lord, it was more impatience with an uninformed question than anything else. And it continued to show that Bill is more in command of his facts than any of the people covering him.

As Democrats, we have an obligation to not let the media spin Bill as a comic figure. In doing so, they can negate the great good he has done for this country.

PEOPLE are taking on the masque of the media, making EVERYTHING into high drama, risking HUGE damage for all of us.

Lets all settle down and BREATHE!

The mental breakdown America has experienced since 9/11 is unbelievable. One attack on one day, two buildings. Tragic, yes. A despicable criminal act, yes. And our response? Start endless, expensive futile wars in two countries, one having nothing to do with 9/11. Spy illegally on Americans. Violate the Constitution. Take away our own freedom and civil liberties. Bankrupt our treasury. Ruin our own reputation in the world. Create hordes of new America-hating terrorists. Alienate our friends. Make everyone take off their shoes at airports.

Is there someone that thinks that this is the appropriate response of a sane nation to the 9/11 crime?

Even before 9/11, we were already sliding into insanity, as witness the wingnuts' endless, mindless persecution of successful president Bill Clinton in the 90s. Now we've arrived.

Bill and Hill = Villary, the two-headed monster.

doing everything in their power to have Bloomberg as President.

We are so good at eating our own.

It surprises me at times how some Dems march lockstep with
media.

card, then tells us it's one or another campaign that's playing said cards.

And they get away with it.

NoFederales

I was concerned that even DUers bought into it along with the general public and I've never thought a Dem was given for 2009

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080125/economy_stimulus.html

Have you guys seen this?
The Dem's want to for some reason give non tax paying families a tax rebate!
Does this make sense? The Dem party seems to be trying to change our countries values.
Democrats are there own party, supposedly not associated with the socialists!!!!

maybe they just want to help people the repukes have pissed on for the past 7 years and that includes a HELL of a lot more people than TAX PAYERS and by the way, troll, I'll take SOCIALISM over FASCISM any f***ing day.

There, their, they're...which one to use? Look, over there, it's a screaming socialist but pay no attention to the ever creeping fascism.

sometimes I think new posts like that HAVE to be a DUer playing a joke by signing in under a different name because - well, it's just SO ignorant and TOO f***ing easy a target. THEN I remember who is currently in the White House and who helped put him there. :o

Go get a mallet and ping yourself in the head until that obvious truth sinks in.

It is "their," as in "Democrats are their own party."

when they could be reporting about Sibel Edmunds expose...i.e. something truly important.

Our media is a pathetic joke.

If these pansyass lightweight democrats think Bill & Hill is to tough on poor little ole Barack, then wait till the Republicans get ahold of him, god forbid if he is the nominee,because they don't have to worry about the black vote.