Something is really wrong when we diss fellow Dems more than rethugs!

Case in point, James Carville.

Case two in point, DU itself.

I dearly hope and predict that after Obama either barely loses or barely wins in PA, after he cleans Hillary's clock in NC, and after he pulls out a close win in Indiana - that someone needs to step in and serve as a power broker for the DNC and the two candidates. We need a respected referee to call it Obama's won on points and end it.

Be it Al Gore himself, or a coalition of party statesmen (stateswomen) who propose to sensibility end this destructive dance - whoever it is - this must happen in short order after the May 6 primaries.

It needed to happen yesterday, or last month; but I don't recall anytime in recent or political history where one party had such a contentious relationship with itself. When James Carville demonizes a great governor simply because he choose to support one Dem candidate over the other, something is really wrong.

We are hardly spending any bandwidth on DU nailing the puke bastards who want to extend this trillion dollar occupation in Iraq another 10 years.

I'm calling the likes of Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, or Joe Biden to step in - meet with Howard Dean and broker an end to this morass that sinks the party deeper and deeper every day it goes on.

The good news is I remain very optimistic we can still heal, forgive, and unite as a party; the bad news is that window is rapidly closing.

While Carville stands by his words.

It was bound to happen. The Democratic Party has been somewhat unstable for years and it was brought to a head after the 2006 elections. The two sides are the realpolitik Democrats who have been moving toward the "center" since Reagan, who have a unique way of ignoring the people who put them in office, and who have made careers out of explaining why they are unwilling to do anything of substance (fill in the blank - impeachment, cut-off war funding, filibuster the Patriot Act, whatever). At various times, this side of the party is called the DLC or various other names, whether that is an accurate representation of their role or not. Certainly it's fair to call these the "Entitled Democrats", because they lay claim to the Democratic vote regardless of how they actually act and get huffy if anyone should suggest otherwise. They believe that their past "service" has earned them this right.

On the other side are the Renewed Democrats, who are fairly progressive, who were scared out of their wits during the Bush years, and who expected more from going to the polls every two years than they actually got. The RDs are pretty disgusted with the state of things, scandalized by the cowardice of the EDs and they have no real outlet for their frustration.

There was bound to be a fight and it was bound to become bitter. That it came to a head in the primary contest is not surprising - what other opportunity was there for this very real disagreement to come to the surface? I suppose that it could be argued that the real differences between Obama and Clinton don't really reflect the differences between EDs and RDs but they don't really step that far out of character either, with one side arguing that the other lacks sense and realism ("experience", "electability"), while the other side argues that the first lacks vision and scruples ("change"). That this fight doesn't choose sides cleanly is also no surprise, although it is ironic that people like Pelosi and Reed, who should probably be EDs, seem instead to be leaning toward Obama. Still, the exceptions prove the rule.

The good news is that the Republicans went through a similar battle of proxies with the infinitely stupid, senile, and spineless McCain becoming the only possible symbol for the current state of his party. But, neither battle is over - not by a long shot.

:hi:

The reason that they didn't choose sides cleanly is because neither Obama nor Clinton would qualify as ED's. Both groups of voters are forced to choose up camps with a candidate who doesn't entirely fit their paradigm.

It's an oversimplification to think that all the good (i.e. renewed) democrats chose Obama. It is also an oversimplification that the only differentiating factors are "experience" and "electability" on one side and "change" on the other.

Anyone who doesn't admit the role that charisma and specificity play in people's decisions is not being honest.

But, I've been hanging around these parts since 2004. Mostly, I don't have anything I need to say and then I forget my password or sceen name.

Of course it's not "clean" and it is an oversimplification. It is the bulge on the other side of the water balloon when you stick your finger in it. Part of the problem is that it's a ritualistic proxy fight, and part of the problem is that there are not really substantial disagreements on policy, whatever may be differences on "vision". To be "honest", that makes it certain that charisma and other personal traits will be huge. More importantly, the ED/RD fight can't be resolved this way.

BTW, for me the RDs aren't "good". I'm waiting for the NDs - the Next Democrats.

are no longer Democrats...

and, in the case of Carville, I don't know that he ever WAS one.

For him, this is all a big game, he and his wife are what's wrong with "Washington insiders" as they simply oppose for oppositions sake, not that they actually have any beliefs about what is "right" and what is "wrong". And they laugh at us all the way to the bank AND the "inside the belt" parties that they both attend (no matter WHO is in power).

Obama scares the shit out of the Washington power elite.

of the "power elite". He is just a neophyte at the trough. He also has a winning fantasy to peddle: empty platitudes.

Does your leader share your opinion?

It is my opinion that when a Democrat promotes a Republican OVER a fellow democrat for the same office, that person is no longer a Democrat. Period.

Does anyone deny that Hillary has stated that SHE is qualified to be Commander in Chief and that McCain is "certainly qualified" but that Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.

That goes beyond personal attack. That's party disloyalty. Clinton is no longer a Democrat.

And I don't have a "leader"... only a Democrat that I'm supporting for President.

I think it's maybe YOU that is projecting just a bit.

In the new excerpts, Kroft directly asked Hillary about how they defined "problems" in their marriage: "What does it mean in America in 1992, that you had ‘difficulties’?" Hillary struggled to stay vague: "We’ve had problems. We’ve had difficulties, in, in the past. And I agree with Bill that we—we think that’s between us." Fair enough, but then she went for the zinger: "We don’t owe anyone else besides each other the honesty that we’ve tried to bring as we’ve worked these problems out."

She also said, "Part of what I believe with all my heart is that the voters are tired of people that lie to them. They’re tired of people who act like something they’re not." Like acting like you have an Arkansas accent?

In another snippet out of the archives, Kroft suggested that Bill’s attractiveness to women was a political problem, and Hillary grew snippy: "You know, you are very good, Steve. You ask the same question nine or ten or twelve different ways and it—and—and I don’t mean to be avoiding the question," which is precisely what she was trying to do. She chose instead to moralize: "If character only revolves around one question—which is what you’re asking in the press—that’s a shame, you know, because there are a lot of other questions that are, if not more important, certainly equally important. You know, there are ten commandments, not one. And one of them is, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.’"

It was the quintessential Hillary Rodham Clinton moment. Asked about her husband’s violations of the Sixth Commandment, Hillary had responded by accusing their critics of violating the Eight Commandment. It was "creepy and arrogant intimidation," National Review’s Kate O’Beirne commented when we interviewed her for this book. "‘Don’t dare believe these irresponsible charges.’ It was intimidation."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/03/25/hillary-60-minutes-voters-are-tired-people-who-lie-them

is that *long-time* posters here, people who can't possibly be trolls, are regularly using right-wing talking points to bash Obama's pastor, a man who has fought the good fight all his life against racism and poverty. Every real progressive or liberal at DU should, at least, be acknowledging the truth of this man's words but instead he's being trashed for temporary political gain. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck, I swear.

Is there no shame? I wonder how many of his sermons they have listened to in whole rather than just a sound bite or two. I was raised as a RR wacko in Mississippi. I saw prejudice and racism first hand. At the time I believed I was not racist. I believed what my parents and all the other white people told me.
For people who are supposedly democrats to be spouting all the garbage talking points is sickening. They should KNOW better. They should BE better. This is a rude awakening for me, to find that some democrats are just as bad as the redneck republicans.

I agree that Obama's likely to get the nomination -- it's all but over. So why not STOP this hyperfocus on Clinton and her supporters, and start fighting McCain??

to use against Obama in the general election, we can't stop this focus on Clinton's attempt to destroy the Democratic Party for her own selfish benefit.

No one will be able to figure out just how it began . It has turned into such a mess and one can place the blame for this on every media outlet . It's not just the right wing talking heads anymore .

I suppose in order to avoid all of this in the future , provided we have a future , then every candidate will have to fill out forms with every vote they ever made, every call they ever made , every church they ever attended and every lie they ever told . They will have to provide a tax report , a physical and mental evaluation and drug tests as well as their family tree .

One sure fire way to rule them out is if they have the first dollar they ever made framed and hung on the wall .