MyDD :: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, Article Explains

Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, Article Explains

by architek, Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:07:59 AM EST

Interesting article today about how a lot of old guard Democrats felt upstaged by Bill Clinton's rise to power in the 90s and now they are trying (and succeeding) to derail Hillary's Presidential bid.

Obviously, the stuff about Kennedy wanting to be the first with a healthcare plan and Jim Cooper's profitable pandering to the insurance industry is old news, but the stuff about Kerry is news to me.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2008/05/18/as_clinton_chances_wane_ol d_slights_come_due/

Guess Obama needs to keep this kind of thing in mind if he becomes nominee or President?

Its sad that the Democratic old guard is so, well, 'old guardish'. Maybe that is why we keep losing elections, they lost, so they can't stand to see capable others with
important goals win?

I have a feeling this election is going to look a lot like 2004

Poll

Votes: 17
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: universal healthcare, jim cooper, edward kennedy, envy, old guard (all tags)

Permalink :: 95 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (1.00 / 0)

Who is the old guard? Walter Mondale and his people?

by Bobby Obama on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:10:18 AM EST

it's much broader than that... (2.00 / 2)

people have to remember that bill clinton came to washington attacking the democratic party -- and forcing his "third way" policies (policies in between the democrat's and gop's) on everyone. he naively thought that washington was just like little rock, and alienated a large segment of washington (not just the democrats).

on one level, this centrist, "split the difference" approach, worked. it re-elected clinton when the country was arguably turning to the right. but on the other, the price was significant. the clinton's consistently damaged the democratic party in the process.

it is unquestionable that the clinton's alienated much of the "old guard," especially if what you mean by that is the permanent governing/pundit class that resides in washington. others made their peace or were pre-existing fob's. but reformers, liberals, progressives were left out -- consistently, systematically, repeatedly. their mantra was, run to the center/rule from the center.

this is why republicans enjoyed so much success with the clintons in power. the clintons conceded the playing field to republicans and allowed the political debate to occur on republican terms. yes, the clinton administration was able to find success in such an environment, but at the cost of polarizing the electorate, decimating the democratic brand and destroying the party.

in florida, the clinton people set about to "reconfigure" (iirc) the florida democratic party so that it was no longer loyal to the "southern progressive" tradition of reubin askew and lawton chiles. the core principle of the southern progressive tradition as i knew it was to attack discrimination through education (both children's and adult) and leveling the playing field that way. the problem with this approach for the clintons was that jimmy carter came out of the southern progressive tradition, and the clintons hated jimmy carter; clinton and arkansas had no similar efforts; and it costs money to focus on education as a change agent.

the clintons began a "purge" of the "old guard" in the florida democratic party and refused resources to anyone who didn't follow their lead. the term "purge" was literally used by the democratic party chair to describe the clinton's demands.

the problem the clintons have always had is that they don't believe that there is another way to win. having had to tolerate bill clinton's rantings about "there is no other way" at a ren weekend in the late 90s, i know that they are absolutely convinced at the authority of their own analysis. it is their greatest weakness, for even though they were never successful in building a "third way" democratic party, never successful in providing coattails (as the mother of chelsea's fiance), never able to create an environment where the debate was over the democratic agenda, they still believe this. it's dumbfounding.

and frustrating for other democrats who see a better way. of course they wouldn't align themselves with hillary. democrats shouldn't be trapped by the limits of the clintons' intelligence. there are many paths to victory, and it was always doubtful -- given hillary's historical highs in her negatives for a non-incumbent -- that they would go through the clintons again. while some people may yearn for 1990s politics again (the psychodrama, the democratic minority, etc), not all of us do. the clintons, and their followers, find this extremely disloyal...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it's much broader than that... (none / 0)

suggestion: make a diary... it'll be better than a very long rhetoric as long as the main diary.

by SHIBAM8P on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:15:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

I haven't read the article, but I think that you are overlooking the very real problem of insisting that there is a single solution to health care and not working with and respecting others who disagree with you.

In this world of ours, we have to find solutions with others. I do, in my work and in my home. And I expect that this is true of everyone who has healthy interactions.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:11:06 AM EST

Literally hundreds of studies have shown that (2.00 / 3)

the approach taken by Kennedy, Cooper and now Obama/Cooper can't work.

Here is a good way for you to see for yourself using Mathematica Player, a free download.

It will run a Monte Carlo simulation to show that the lack of a mandate will kill its chances before it even has started.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Advers eSelection/

There is a good discussion of an important aspect of Clinton's plan here. The premium cap is the reason a mandate wont hurt anyone, contrary to the right wing propaganda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/us/pol itics/28clinton.html

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:14:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i doubt there is a single study that shows that... (2.00 / 1)

specifically since "can't work" isn't a scientific term, it's a subjective one. i believe that there are hundreds of studies that show it won't do what you want it to do. the problem is that only you know what you want it to do.

the real problem is that you keep pushing a non-option (the mythical health care plan from hillary that will never be implemented) opposed to the real plans from barack and mccain which have the possibility of being implemented. given your repeated attacks against the presumptive nominee, i can only assume that you prefer the mccain approach, and that you hide your preference for mccain in your loyality to hillary.

anyone with political sense always understood that hillary's health care plan was a fop. she knew she couldn't implement it, which is why she set the goal for it's passage in her 7th year, when she was a lame duck. given the fact that hillary has already proven to be an awful builder of consensus (not that hillary or her supporters believe that concensus needs to be built -- y'all seem to think it will magically be accepted despite hillary's historically high negatives!), we always understood that hillary's plans were doa. that is, if they were ever actually sent up to congress.

it was always far more likely that hillary would try to tinker with government, to impose her will temporarily on the bureaucracy. it was the best she could hope for. while we have consistently noted hillary's bad judgment (eg, her secretiveness in her health care commission, her vote for the war, her dependence on penn, etc), hillary's supporters choose to ignore that because they like her __. if only politics worked that way. barack is much more likely to deal with the complexity that faces us because he's consistently been successful at doing so. hillary, otoh, has been a failure. but i'm fairly sure these attacks are just trojan horses for your support of john mccain and his plans...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:13:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

When I said 'can't work' I meant 'would not solve' (none / 0)

the problems, which means that litterally millions of more people will lose everything they have and perhaps hundreds of thousands more people will die because they continue to not be abe to afford healthcare in the next four years if obama wins and either his plan is adopted (which may mean prices will HAVE to rise, because he now, just recently, claimed to end risk based pricing without a mandate, which is the worst thing you can do to worsen adverse selection. If he does not end risk based pricing (as shown in Obama's FAQ on Healthcare and which Goolsbee admits) he still wont be able to help, AT ALL, the sickest 20% of Americans, those who have seen a doctor more than average - those with chronic conditions, basically everyone who the insurance inddustry considers high risk and raises rates for.)

Obama is concentrating on healthy, employed (at big employers) people. The others get left out and indeed, will almost certainly see rates rise a little (scenario 2) or a LOT (scenario 1)

Here's a good description why:

from http://www.economist.com/research/Econom ics/alphabetic.cfm?LETTER=A

"Adverse selection

When you do business with people you would be better off avoiding. This is one of two main sorts of market failure often associated with insurance. The other is moral hazard. Adverse selection can be a problem when there is asymmetric information between the seller of insurance and the buyer; in particular, insurance will often not be profitable when buyers have better information about their risk of claiming than does the seller. Ideally, insurance premiums should be set according to the risk of a randomly selected person in the insured slice of the population (55-year-old male smokers, say). In practice, this means the average risk of that group. When there is adverse selection, people who know they have a higher risk of claiming than the average of the group will buy the insurance, whereas those who have a below-average risk may decide it is too expensive to be worth buying. In this case, premiums set according to the average risk will not be sufficient to cover the claims that eventually arise, because among the people who have bought the policy more will have above-average risk than below-average risk. Putting up the premium will not solve this problem, for as the premium rises the insurance policy will become unattractive to more of the people who know they have a lower risk of claiming. One way to reduce adverse selection is to make the purchase of insurance compulsory, so that those for whom insurance priced for average risk is unattractive are not able to opt out."

Healthcare costs - uncovered healthcare costs ESPECIALLY, are SKYROCKETING..

People are STARVING to buy medications that take pennies to manufacture.

That is why a lot of people are DEPENDING on the Democrats. They THINK things are going to start impriving next January 21, they could not care less about these feuds, and are not going to be happy when they realize they have been ripped off.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:58:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

here's your problem... (none / 0)

the crux of your argument is the complete opposite of what are the goals outlined by barack obama.

which means that litterally millions of more people will lose everything they have and perhaps hundreds of thousands more people will die because they continue to not be abe to afford healthcare in the next four years

given the fact that barack emphasizes affordability over mandates, this sentence is without merit. you don't seem to mind that hillary won't even get to her health care plan until her 7th year, so i'm not sure how serious i can take that comment anyway.

given barack's emphasis on process -- building a broad coalition that will support health care reform -- instead of proposals, i think you're tilting at windmills. i could understand if barack was like hillary (it's my way or the highway), but he's not. his proposal is the starting point, not the end point...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:38:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Literally hundreds of studies have shown that (none / 0)

This is an interesting plot...

If you follow history with a long enough arc, things always get better, and the truth always prevails...Gandhi

by SevenStrings on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:38:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

argggg... (none / 0)

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:38:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 2)

It's a complete coincidence that all these people siding with Obama are either in the conservative half of the Party or people who think they personally owned some part of the agenda.

Cooper was such a pig in '93/94, giving all the conservative Democrats cover to duck out of universal healthcare. The reason Kerry never wrote any major bill? Because Kennedy always hogged the process and the credit.

I'm fine with these people getting all the glee and fun with Obama. Sadly, a lot of time will be wasted as the next Presidency and session of Congress stalls and goes bust on their conservatism and vanities.

by killjoy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:31:42 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 2)

If Cooper's plan was passed, more people would have health coverage now than they currently do.

You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:05:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

yes, but if you are a Congressman, and a new President of your party has a plan, you go along with it, not undermine it. If less Democrats had resisted Clintons plan, 1994's congressional results may not have happened.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

That is a VERY good point and one which needs to (none / 0)

get discussed a LOT more around here NOW.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:03:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

If the plan is fatally flawed, or if you simply cannot abide by it, or your constituents won't abide by it, then maybe you don't.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

it was NOT fatally flawed, it was a. the PRESIDENT's plan, and b. it covered everyone. It was only portrayed as that by the lobbyists, and Harry and Louise, who Barack Obama utilized in his ads.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:21:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

If the plan is fatally flawed, or if you simply cannot abide by it, or your constituents won't abide by it, then maybe you don't.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

I completely agree with you and this it the reason I get upset when Democrats blame Bill and Hillary for the Republican landslide in 1994. Bill and Hillary were not in the House and Senate. They were in the White House. They had no way of preventing Congressional Democrats from drafting their own bill on their own. I remember seeing an interview with Tom Daschle in which he said that if Hillary had taken a different approach, a bill would have passed and he said that Bob Dole even expressed interested in some kind of reform bill. Why didn't the Democrats in Congress do something? Maybe because it was easier to let the whole thing fail and blame it on the First Lady?

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 1)

Yep, if there's one phrase I would use to describe Barbara Lee, it would be that she's from the "conservative half of the Party." Or are you suggesting that she thinks she personally owns some part of the agenda?

I really love how you paint anyone who supports Obama as either conservative or having an ax to grind against the Clintons. It's pretty impressive, the way you seem to block out of your consciousness the possibility - and the reality - that many in the progressive wing of the party have also backed him because they think he's the best chance to move the agenda forward.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:35:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

What does that have to do with anything? (none / 0)

The point of the article is that because of the fragile egos and infighting, Bill Clinton was not able to bring a crucial part of his agenda, affordable healthcare in 1994, and then the GOP managed to take out their 'contract on America' and decimate the middle class still further in the 90s.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right, but... (none / 0)

let's not forget that the clintons played their party in this. washington isn't little rock, and it took the clintons several years to figure this out. afiac, bill clinton had the worst first year of a presidency in my lifetime...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:40:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've always intuited this - (2.00 / 3)

Bill Clinton came from nowhere - no powerful family - and yet, unlike the story of Sen. Obama, he and Hillary are the "privileged." Hillary certainly had a solid middle class background but that is what it was - not a privileged class. Although today it looks like those days in which HRC grew up are not as common as they were then.

Thanks Architec. But the myths are out there - including her bitter old female followers - so it may take a while for the real stories to come out. But history always outs itself.

The irony is that the Old Guard picked a new voice to represent them. We'll see. I don't mind that Senator Obama is a shining ikon to the press and younger generation; but I so dislike the kind of bashing the Clintons get constantly.

As to the Regan democrats - perhaps if the Old Guard had been paying attention...

And while it seems easy to dis the boomers by some here and on other blogs - much of what you take for granted is due to these boomers - black, white and every ethnicity.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:33:53 AM EST

Re: I've always intuited this - (2.00 / 1)

I'd quibble with "solid middle class" -- Clinton's dad owned a fabric company. They lived in a comfortable suburb. She was able to attend two elite universities.

Is that mega-rich elite?

No... but let's pretend it was something it wasn't. That doesn't mean Clinton cannot speak to or represent the 'middle class', but it's mythmaking to say she grew up 'middle class'.

by zonk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:44:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He had a small business. (2.00 / 2)

His father worked on the factory floor in a textile factory in Pa. Their home was small - She had no political family with connections to help her in her political career. Her father probably went to college on the GI bill - a good Democratic event. I stand by solid middle class - now disappearing from our country.

She did not grow up wealthy or connected - the times were such she was able to attend these schools.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:00:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He had a small business. (2.00 / 1)

I never said he got handed a textile company - simply that he owned one. Yes, he worked to own one, but that doesn't change the fact that Hillary's father owned a textile company and grew up (from age 7) in a fairly wealthy suburb.

Is Park Ridge the same as Winnetka?

No.

But it's not Scranton, either.

by zonk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I owned a company myself. (2.00 / 2)

All you have to do is file incorporation papers. Putting that aside - you are right, it is not Winnetka. And these suburbs after the War were more affordable than they are today.

So if it's not Scranton - isn't that an American story - solid middle class when it meant something.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:18:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

and median income is (none / 0)

about $80,000 per year. Not bad - but by today's standard - probably both parents working.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and median income is (none / 0)

It's actually $87K -

And Park Ridge is also not the same Park Ridge from the 50s and 60s.

by zonk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No, I understand (none / 0)

it's not the same. Having lived thru those days, there was great hope in the air - now gone.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:56:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The US is one of the MOST STRATIFIED OECD countrie (2.00 / 1)

Poor people are far more likely to remain here poor than almost all other OECD countries.. Mexico is much worse, so are some other Latin American countries. Almost all of the European more developed Asian countries, and Aus/NZ are now better, as is Canada.

The economics make it pretty clear that life for people who are not rich is bad and getting worse relative to many other countries.

Realistically, barring a REAL 'change' many Americans will probably have to consider moving in the next few years and they should consider things like that in making their choice.

Assuming they are young enough to be able to continue working or if they have children.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:15:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Things in the US are in some ways similar to the (none / 0)

conditions that drove much immigration to the US in the past.

Immigrants in the US have a much better time of it. They (well, actually, their children) seem to be able to break out of the strata thing. Obama is a very good example of that. African immigrants and their children tend to do very well here. They often have the best of both worlds.

Children of biracial couples also do very well. Both groups are heavily represented in the top schools.

Self-identifying as black person also probaby helped Obama quite a bit as he has been able to draw on the hopes of millions of American born black people for more black role models.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And white people too, I might add.. (none / 0)

People like me, who would like to see more black role models.

My objections aren't to Obama's race, basically I think he is too conservative to be a help to black people as anything other than a symbol, and for me, thats NOT enough in these desperate times.

The fact that he is running against Hillary Clinton - trying to stop really affordable healthcare is an obscenity to me.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Very true! (2.00 / 1)

One only has to drive around Park Ridge to see that it isn't Winnetka (or Lake Forest or Kenilworth or Barrington or even Highland Park or Wilmette). The suburb has been very pricey but that is due more to its proximity to Chicago than to its character.

by lombard on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always intuited this - (2.00 / 1)

Definitely not middle class. She grew up in Park Ridge ( an expensive suburb to be in) in the best neighborhood. I live 10 minutes from where she grew up. It was an overwhelmingly white Republican suburb. Her home was about 1 mile from Chicago proper. Very upper middle class to upper class. He father paid $35,000 CASH for their home in 1950. No one but someone considered "rich" had that kind of money when I grew up. Her father had an office in the Merchandise Mart plus his fabric factory on the North Side. A factory that employed day laborers...the cheapest labor you can get..no benefits and crap pay. It's really annoying when people pull this mythological nonsense. She grew up in privileged comfort class.

Here's the home she grew up in: 2 story brown brick on a corner lot with 2 sun porches and a third screened in porch. I've seen the house and it's impressive even today

by Bastet on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:05:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

OK, it was a very nice house for the times (none / 0)

But it still paled by comparison to the homes in Lake Forest or Kenilworth.

Let's say she was higher upper middle class.

by lombard on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:54:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I am working class - I grew (none / 0)

up in a time when middle class was attainable. Perhaps the goal post has changed. To me - this is solid middle class.

This is a new theme - the father and his labor practices. I'd not seen this before. I don't know and would have to research. And it may be one of the forces that drives Hillary. He was a difficult man from what I've read - still just because he didn't leave the family doesn't mean she is responsible for whatever transgressions he may have committed. I'd have to research also that this home in the photo hasn't been added onto in any way - those windows look new to me. At any rate, at that time, houses were more affordable than today.

I have a corner lot in a suburb - who knew I was privileged.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:08:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In 1950 it didn't look like that (none / 0)

It was still a nice enough house, though, and you can find a picture of the original house at http://books.google.com/books?id=V02tjL8 dvmQC&printsec=frontcover#PPA10,M1

Here's some background, from Carl Bernstein's book:

His [Hugh Rodham] business acumen was also considerable, and he became quite successful as an entrepreneur. He manufactured drapes, window shades, and lace curtains that he sold to hotels, offices, movie theaters, and airlines -- printing and cutting and sewing the fabric himself. His only employee was a black man he'd found drunk on the doorstep in 1958 and offered a part-time job. His wife served as his bookkeeper at the start. The shop, near the Merchandise Mart in downtown Chicago, was stifling hot in summer, and the workroom gave off a whiff of tobacco. There was also a showroom. He invested wisely and saved prodigiously. He was fascinated with the how-to's of making money -- how money makes money, and how he could keep it.

AND:

The house was not large. Downstairs there was a living room; a dining room with space sufficient for a table and eight chairs; a cramped kitchen with a breakfast nook; a TV den perhaps fifteen feet square; and a tiny powder room. Upstairs were three bedrooms -- none large. The basement was unfinished and used for storage. Across the backyard was a garage, only slightly wider than Hugh's Cadillac but with room for a few bicycles. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18984501/pag e/3/

"...privileged comfort class"? Really?

by Swedie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:27:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you, Swedie. (2.00 / 1)

I did read parts of Carl's book but had to bring it back to the library - I remember the passage about the house being small.

Good work - this is why I just don't accept what one poster says. When I was posting on DK, I knew a number of the posters and felt they were authentic. But really, what do I know about many of the posters here -

At any rate - thanks - and I don't, and am sure you don't, want to get caught up in the just how comfortable her family was. She had a nice childhood - but certainly not a member of the ruling class, politically or otherwise. And didn't this country used to be about providing our children with a decent life.

by Xanthe on Mon May 19, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I just like accuracy (2.00 / 1)

I like accuracy no matter which candidate it's about. I'm funny that way. That's how I came to support Hillary: Doing research to discover if posts about her were accurate/true or not, I found myself defending her on a regular basis with actual facts I found after like 5 minutes or less of googling. Finally, I remembered why I so admired her and came over to her side. No matter what happens in this campaign, I'll stay on her side.

It just doesn't usually take that much work to discover what the facts are if one is really interested in "reality" versus spin, does it? I'm glad to have been helpful to you. And thanks for the thanks. ;-)

by Swedie on Mon May 19, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her elite education was due to her merits (2.00 / 1)

even if her father could pay the bills. She gave one of the commencement addresses when she graduated Wellesley and was on the cover of one of the major magazines (Life, I think) because of her address. Those things don't happen to someone simply because their family can pay the tuition.

by lombard on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:37:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Her elite education was due to her merits (none / 0)

Take a deep breath.

Reread what I wrote.

I never took anything away from Hillary Clinton. She's quite obviously brilliant.

I'm simply saying that it's not true that she grew up 'solid middle class'.

That says nothing about what she has accomplished or what she is - it's simply a statement on the situation of her youth.

There's no need to fire up the well-oiled umbrage machine.

by zonk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I've always intuited this - (2.00 / 1)

Her dad paid her tuition, but for food, books, etc. she was on her own. So she worked all through college. When she wanted to go to law school, dad said that wasn't part of the bargain. She took out student loans to pay for that (she may have gotten a small scholarship, too, I don't recollect offhand), and she continued to work all through law school, paying her own way.

That's solid middle class.

Let's not pretend it was something it wasn't.

by Swedie on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:04:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 5)

Couldn't agree more. That is why it is so laughable when they say that Hillary is old Washington and Obama is new Washington. I see the old guard and Washington insiders gushing to be in with the new cool kid Obama.

And can someone point out why no one is screaming bloody murder when both Kennedy and Kerry support Obama but their state voted overwhelmingly for Clinton? Oh but I guess voting as a super however your state went is only what Obama states have to do. It is perfectly ok for Hillary state reps to see the light and vote for the other guy.

2004 all over again if Obama is the nominee. In fact it won't be that close. I wish I could take comfort in the fact that Obama's career will be over then just like Kerry's was.

by Bornagaindem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:34:55 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

So, you're hoping that Obama loses the GE, but you regret that you couldn't take comfort that his career will be over?
Are you sure you were born again as a Dem?

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure about 2004. Eight years of Bush and a press that has turned on the Republican administration - plus Obama is bi-racial and many people see this as unifying. And it looks like the young have claimed him - this is inevitable. With me it was the Kennedy admin and with my mom and dad, it was Roosevelt.

And though I support HRC - I will certainly vote for the Democrat Obama. But your comments are spot on, especially the Massachusetts vote.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:39:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Did the Democrats in West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, find it "unifying?" These are democrats, who are likely more liberal than the general electorate in those states, and they don't find his race unifying. Its more likely divisive because it brings back out the old resentments. Not to mention, that bashing his family and him is a double whammy, it hits Obama personally AND on race, as there is clearly a racist tinge to using Obama's wife in commercials like they do

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:31:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't understand (none / 0)

your comment about Michelle. Could you flesh it out a bit for me.

I don't see how we can get around the old "resentments" -- we have to live thru it and with it.

He didn't work hard for the West Virginians. He should have. I am a HRC supporter but think he made a mistake by not going out there.

by Xanthe on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:35:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is critical to the conversation (2.00 / 2)

... particularly to make the point to the Obama worshippers who think that he has gotten as far as he has on his own merits. One of the strongest cases yet that he will only be a puppet on a string for the "old Guard" - so much for a new way of politics.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST

Re: This is critical to the conversation (1.00 / 0)

Yeah, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review is just a puppet controlled by others. Raised by a single mom who was on welfare for a time, he's supporting the elite.

Sure.

We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.

by politicsmatters on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:06:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is critical to the conversation (2.00 / 1)

why does any of that negate the fact that Washington loves him? WOW, he was the first black to be President of Harvard Law Review! WOW! Why does his skin color matter? He IS supported by the elite, notice all the Washington establishment supporting him. This article says it best. They can control him, the Clintons run their show.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:15:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Claire McCaskill (2.00 / 1)

Kathleen Sebelius, Janet Napolitano, Patrick Murphy and hundreds of other "fresh faces" disagree with the notion, along with millions of new voters, young voters and educated (4 years of college) voters.

Senator Clinton has her Old Guard as does Senator Obama.

But who cares for that little fact or any others.

Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"

by Lord Hadrian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Claire McCaskill (2.00 / 0)

those politicians just endorse him because they think they'll enhance their careers by emboldening the Daily Kos wing of the party, aka McGovern wing, which brings up their national reputation, which means their own interests above the party's, that of winning the White House.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Lol. (none / 0)

That's amazing.

I'd try taking a walk outside.

Commissar: Canadian Gal; Proletariat Policemen: ragekage, Lord Hadrian. "For the Proletariat!"

by Lord Hadrian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i believe the contention is... (none / 0)

that the "old guard" is supporting him. there's certainly an element of truth to that.

i honestly think this is an attempt to rehabilitate hillary and excuse her really awful campaign...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:21:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The POSITION and the person is what matters (none / 0)

not the consultancy firm...

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:28:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

to *you* that is what matters... (none / 0)

and this attitude is why democrats lost so many elections despite the fact that they were a majority of the electorate. if every voter shared your values, then democrats would perform better. but the fact is that voters hardly share your outlook or interest in issues...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is critical to the conversation (none / 0)

Actually - even though he was elected editor of the Law Review, the facts will show that he never published an article - just more of the same window dressing - I stand by my comment above.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:51:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This is critical to the conversation (none / 0)

Uh-huh.

Go away troll.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:11:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did he? (none / 0)

Can I read any? Ive looked but I wasn't able to find anything written by Obama in a local law library

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:30:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Maybe that is why Obama left academia? (none / 0)

Publish or perish..

the consumer book market is far more forgiving and plus, you can use ghostwriters.. (I think even professors, uh, lecturers have to give grad students credit when they add significantly to a paper, right?)

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

since you asked: barack left academia... (none / 0)

because he took on a full-time position and no longer had the time to teach. i'm sorry hillary never had the writing ability to write without ghost writers, but then, she's no barack obama. it's fascinating that you hate the democratic nominee so much that you are compelled to smear him (most progressives i know have a fierce commitment to truth)...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama and Harvard Law Review (none / 0)

here is a source for my comment and a fairly detailed look at his tenure at HLR - http://snipurl.com/29h0m

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 01:57:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow, our Congress has less class (none / 0)

than a Middle School. I knew a bunch of seventh graders were running the show, but no one ever really talks about it.

Rules are not necessarily sacred, principles are. - Franklin Delano Roosevelt

by anna belle on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:03:14 AM EST

It's the nature of politics. (2.00 / 3)

All you have to do is hear the way some people have spoken about the Clintons--Jim Cooper and Bill Bradley are good examples--to see how personal this is for some people. That's just the way it is. The longer you are in, the more people you piss off.

But in the end, endorsements don't matter that much. Obama is winning, barely winning, but he is winning. And the reason is not that some Washington elite have hurt feelings.

A reality that a lot of Clintonistas are going to have to face is that over the next few weeks, a lot of people are going to have great difficulty in containing their glee at what may be Hillary's coming defeat. I suspect that we will see Republicans controlling themselves much better than the Democrats, hoping to capitalize on a split within the party. Bill Kristol wrote a nice article about Hillary a week or so ago, and I read a quote from Dick Armey (former House Majority Republican Majority Leader) saying that the superdelegate flood to Obama was disrespectful to Hillary, given her support among voters and her history with the party. Even Newt Gingrich has kind words for her recently (I think). Of course, I'm not buying any of that. Republicans suck at governing, but they wrote the book at dividing people.

For those of us who are big supporters of Hillary Clinton, the next few weeks are going to be difficult.

Linfar's co-blogger opposing John McCain

by psychodrew on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:18:22 AM EST

indeed... (none / 0)

i hope y'all understand that you (clinton supporters) always have a home in the new democratic party, that we understand that the democratic party is a broad coalition of people and interests, and we won't always agree with each other about what direction the party should go...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's the nature of politics. (none / 0)

you're not giving in yet, are you? She's run the last legs of this race pretty much according to the plan laid out in mid-February. The volunteers and voters have given it their all and a lot has been accomplished given that she has been outspent in big markets, and in spite of all the free publicity and positive framing given to her opponent by the mind-benders who call themselves journalists. Look who has kept a positive perspective. Look who is acting like the unifier and leader of the party. Her opponent cares so little about the voters of WV and KY that he has barely shown up to speak to them. I am hoping that the Clintons and the Old Guard can find a way to meet on common ground - then get on with this thing to focus on the real issues.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons (none / 0)

"Interesting article today about how a lot of old guard Democrats felt upstaged by Bill Clinton's rise to power in the 90s and now they are trying (and succeeding) to derail Hillary's Presidential bid"

As things stand now the Clinton's are the latest iteration of the old guard, feeling upstaged by Barack Obama's rise to power in the 00s.

(not that there is anything wrong with being part of the old guard, but when it comes to the nomination it is the delegate count, stupid)

by My Ob on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:28:24 AM EST

re (none / 0)

Barack Obama has the stamp of approval of the "Old Guard", the Clintons never have, the establishment has always hated them. Obama will be a useful tool for Kennedy and Kerry etc

by rossinatl on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:44:34 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges ... (none / 0)

Yeah, that's right, Clinton was always the party outsider.

That's why she's on the board of the DLC, that's why she had tens of millions of dollars already in her pocket when this campaign started, that's why she was able to grab a Senate seat in New York with the blessings of the Party leadership even though she's from Illinois and was the first lady of Arkansas. That's why she had hundreds of superdelegates already committed to her before she even announced her run for the White House.

It's like we've fallen into Bizarro world.

Even if a few party elders were holding a grudge--how much political power do you think they have? Obviously the Kerry and Kennedy endorsements weren't enough for Obama to win Massachusetts.

Proud member of the Wikipedia Generation of American politics

by BishopRook on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges ... (2.00 / 2)

the superdelegates that she got were not the bigwig ones like the top guys on the hill. Obama got those guys, and probably had them in the bag before anyone knew it, they just came out when he won primaries because his guys thought they could finally stopped being upstaged by the family from Arkansas. the Kerry and Kennedy endorsements were HUGE, they energized the Daily Kos wing, along with Bill "the loser" Bradley who made a completely pointless run in 2000 which undermined Al Gore. YES it should have been a coronation, and he impeded on it.

Also, the DLC ones were not Ted Kennedy and Kerry, as they never were on board with them, actually voting AGAINST welfare reform, which ended welfare as we knew it, making it a second chance, not a way of life. The DLC wing actually won the White House. Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts wing never did. Ask Dukakis and Kerry.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:26:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

chicken and egg argument... (none / 0)

did the dlc represent the "establishment" before the clintons? i'd argue otherwise.

does the dlc represent the "establishment" now? probably. but you're talking about two decades, a blip in democratic party history. the "old guard" that was being discussed in the article predates the clintons and really goes back to the second world war. clinton did have some support among the "wise men," but he also alienated others. there's definitely truth on all sides here...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:29:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clintons and the DLC (none / 0)

the DLC came into existence because the approach of the "old guard" wasn't working (witness 1980, 1984 and 1988).
- Led by Bill (and Hillary) Clinton and other DLC leaders, a more centrist and pragmatic approach to the electorate and to the core principles of the Democrats as a whole (not the racial, ethnic, or other factions that divided them in the 1980's)resulted in winning the presidency in 1992 and 1996 and withstanding some of the most virilent and scurrilous attacks against a sitting head of state in our country's history.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:57:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clintons and the DLC (2.00 / 1)

I think the old guard actually is so used to being out of power they LIKE it. Its easy, play political defense and footsie with the white house, meaning you don't have to do anything but get re-elected by loading up on pork. Sadly, when they got to the White House with a reformer, they never knew how to play offense, and lost Congress.

Also, before any of the nuts respond to your post and try to use the Ross Perot myth to discredit Clinton's wings as the right wing does, I'll again point out that the pro-abortion pro-gays-in-military anti-NAFTA candidate took at least equally, if not more from Clinton in 1992 and 1996

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:10:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i agree that the dlc came into existence... (2.00 / 1)

because the old fdr coalition was fraying. but there are several problems with the dlc approach: first, it divides democrats. the dlc approach, which basically says that the only way to win elections is through centrist candidacies, ends up separating democratic candidates from their base. it is one of the great flaws in bill clinton's analysis of what ailed the democratic party to believe that running as gop-lite was actually beneficial to the party. why would voters prefer the lightweight version of anything? does that really sound like america?

contrast that with what republicans did. republicans saw their loss in 1964 and were convinced that it wasn't their candidate that was the problem but other factors. instead of casting off their ideology, they focused first on learning how to win. they specifically concluded that conservatives could win anywhere (except maybe berkeley/downtown san fran) if only they employed the right tactics. conservatives didn't want republicans to move towards the center but were dedicated to moving the center towards them. the clintons (and the dlc) walked right into the gop strategy, conceding their playing field. (but at least they are fighters, right?)

secondly, the dlc did not equip democrats to win. by trying to enforce their frames, instead of keep up with the technology and tactics of the 21st century, they literally acted as extra weight. so they alienated the democratic base and they dragged their candidates down by keeping them focused on their insular message.

finally, the neither expanded the democratic base or increased the democratic coalition. they focused on swing voters (which is appropriate at times) but never sought to bring them into the fold. this was the fatal flaw of the dlc approach.

yes, bill clinton won, but at what price?

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Centrist Lessons Learned (none / 0)

I can't quote a specific source but I have followed the post-presidency Clinton's enough to come to the position that they certainly had to have learned a few things during the 90's and have a long list of what they would do differently had they known then what they know now.
Why would a member of the Old Guard, or the rank and file Democrat want to break in another "young turk" (which Obama will be if elected) and waste so much time having him learn all these lessons anew, tempering his ego and weathering all the new firestorms that the "right-wing conspiracy" will cook up to distract him from the work that needs to be done?
And don't forget, in spite of a political price that was paid, a lot of very good work got done and the country experienced several years of peace and prosperity.

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

your first paragraph is key... (none / 0)

i agree, they have learned a lot of lessons and would do things differently. the rub is that they are still stuck in the 1990s and haven't really adjusted to the 21st century.

look at hillary's fund-raising plans. she crowed last year about how she'd dominate her opponents in this area, having locked in a lot of the clinton funders from the 90s. it was almost as if the internet never happened. i find that very telling.

as for the old guard or rank and file, this isn't a question about breaking barack in, but not being shut out, as many were with the clintons. barack is far more open to other points of view, and -- disastrously from the clinton's pov -- willing to take to "the enemy." this inclusive approach works well for those who have opposed barack in this primary -- they get to be part of his future. can you imagine barack or his supporters being a part of hillary's if she were the nominee? i certainly can't (because i've gone through this before).

this is one of barack's strengths. finally, from the old guard's pov, barack merely begins another new future for the party. they've been through this all before, and they realize that the party regenerates itself over and over again. this isn't unexpected, it's completely predictable. from those who have done this time and time again, they understand this process, and their power stems mainly from their ability to navigate through it and help the "young turks" achieve their goals. that is why they have the permanent power in d.c. barack, far more so than hillary, will be able to utilize their influence and use it to make him stronger...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: chicken and egg argument... (none / 0)

perhaps if the DLC ran things in 1988, we'd have beaten Bush I, who already was vulnerable that year, until he tarred his opponent with liberal. Bush was down in the polls a lot the whole year until September, when he began attacking, calling Dukakis a liberal, he never hit back, they stayed close until the debates, and Bush took off. He was called the underdog for most of that year, read even his convention speech. America clearly wanted change for much of 1988, but when they were turned off to Dukakis, they just stuck to Bush. If Bill Clinton had had the experience in 1988 he had in 1992, he could have beaten Bush in 1988,[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordan o/what-if-bill-clinton-had-_b_66524.html ] thus stopping perhaps many bad things. I wish the DLC ran things in 1988, and for those of you who'll say "the'd have gone along with Reagan," actually, the old Dems ALREADY all went along with Reagan in 1988, rolling over for him.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

al gore was the dlc candidate in 1988... (none / 0)

you act as if no one was carrying their banner. the problem with the dukakis campaign was not a lack of a centrist message. there were tons of problems and not very many of them were ever addressed by the dlc or it's approach to waging elections...

"I believe he can win. If he runs a campaign anywhere like the terrific campaign he ran to get the nomination, he'll win handily." - Ed Rendell

by bored now on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:52:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 1)

I think the old Democratic guard really loved the beltway politicians who occupied the White House from 1981-1993 a lot better than the Clintons, because they never actually had to do anything except play lay down for Reagan and Bush, which was far easier than working for the American people and actually getting things done. They're all jealous that a family from Arkansas got to be President, and by beating Bush I, he beat one of their beltway's own.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM EST

Nursing grudges or using judgment (none / 0)

I guess they can be referred to as the "old guard," but they're also the people who've known and/or worked alongside the Clintons for several years. If so many who've worked with President and Senator Clinton for so long decide they prefer to support another candidate for President, there are a number of different conclusions we could draw, one of which is that they may have legitimate reasons for not wanting to see the Clintons back in the White House.

I know they know the Clintons better than I do.

by Liberal Monk on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:40:49 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

You know what? Maybe he does.

But the "old guard" stood for things like a strong social safety net, equal rights for everyone, a trade policy benefiting ordinary Americans, and strong regulations on corporate power.

The Clintons came in with their "third way" and gutted the social safety net (with welfare "reform"), moved against gay rights to win political points (with DOMA), passed NAFTA over the objection of the "old guard," and continued to deregulate corporations (including the Telecom Act of 1996).

Given the choice, I'd rather stand with old-guard true liberals than with the Clintons' triangulation.

Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.

by mistersite on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (2.00 / 1)

really, because that old guard also lost 5 out of 6 elections from 1968-1988. It took the moderate wing to bring us back to the White House. Without the ability or even prospect to win White House, eventually you don't matter. Thats why Bill Clinton reformed welfare. That was the issue which was bashed over our head to landslide proportions in 5/6 elections from those years. It was the biggest problem with our image. That is why we are actually competitive in electoral votes, even with charismaless candidates. Also, what is wrong with telling people they have to work, instead of getting hand outs?

What are you talking about with that Old Guard protecting gay rights? They were the ones to move AGAINST allowing gays in the military at the beginning of Clinton's term, and went with the Republicans. DOMA was passed with veto proof majorities in the heat of the 1996 campaign. if he had not signed that, Bob Dope could have won the 1996 election, as it would have reminded the public about gays in the military, which is why we lost Congress in 1994 in part. With NAFTA, Kennedy and Kerry voted FOR it. Everyone then, including the great Jimmy Carter supported it. Also, it was important to our corporate fund raising base, without which we'd never be competitive to the White House.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:51:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dem. Old Guard Nurse Grudges Against Clintons, (none / 0)

The DLC is as relevant to our Party now as the dust bunny in the corner of the living room or dryer filter. But not to worry they can be recycled!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXmLSL_Wh As

"harlequin speech of suicide, demanding instantaneous lobotomy"

by nogo postal on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST

Re: reliance on old guard (none / 0)

May we quote you this November when McCain wins the White House by a very significant margin?

by pan230oh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: reliance on old guard (none / 0)

Ah, wouldn't you be happy if wishing made it so?

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Perhaps its time to consider starting a new party? (none / 0)

if things dont work out on November because of all this.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:33:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Or trying to get some kind of ISSUES FIRST (none / 0)

statement..

I find it particularly frustrating that in reality, I find myself agreeing with many Obama supporters on many things (for example, many of them seem to agree with me that universal healthcare really SHOULD be single payer because the insurance companies are obviously going to take at least 20-30% off the top and that money is going to be somewhat wasted, except in as it funds overseas bank accounts and CEO salaries, as well as rank and file administrative jobs, at least for now - I think many of those kinds of jobs days are numbered because they can be done by computers.) but that they seem so blinded by the fact that Obama is black and supposedly 'new' that they ignore the fact that the likelihood is far hgher that Hillary could get things DONE.

In all probability a good part of that belief is based on a rapidly evolving Democratic reality distortion field which may someday rival the Republicans one.. (although that would be quite some achievement!)

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:39:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Or trying to get some kind of ISSUES FIRST (none / 0)

The problem is that I see little to no evidence that Senator Clinton would be more likely than Senator Obama to get these things done. I say that respectfully. I look back at Hillarycare and I'm terrified that she didn't learn enough from her own behavior.

I'm being dead serious here.

by Reaper0Bot0 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:43:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Confess Architek (none / 0)

You're hoping it will be like 2004.

I'm riding the Low Road Express. Join me at www.lowroadexpress.com

by LtWorf on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST

No way... (none / 0)

But if Obama gets the nomination, then wins in Nov, and THEN, actually does wait until 2012 or actually does fight against universal healthcare as every indication is that he will, I will be trying to find another candidate to support in 2012 who does.

And I won't be the only one. People, LOTS of people, are dying, literally, because of lack of healthcare.

Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.

by architek on Mon May 19, 2008 at 09:03:03 AM EST
[