How To Win The Democratic Nomination
[cross posted at Daily Kos]
Hunter complains that the '08 election reveals that "America is definitely devolving into a contested monarchy and [worse yet] we like it that way." He also complains that Sen. Clinton (a member of the royal family, like Bush) is too corporatist, too conservative, too much an establishment candidate.
Name the top five Democrats to actively fight against the excesses -- no, the abominations -- of Bush rule: unconstitutional violations of law, the 'defining down' of torture, criminal acts by members of the administration, corporate handouts on a staggering scale. Name the top ten Democrats. The top twenty? Is Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) anywhere in that top list?I guess Hunter is talking about John Edwards? Chris Dodd? Your guess is literally as good as mine.
In contrast, Clinton has played the far more conventional establishment game, by the establishment rules -- while other Democrats have put their reputations on the line on various issues they have passion for, Clinton has carefully cultivated behind-the-scenes, institutional power, and avoided potentially damaging fights about the big-picture issues that face the nation. Very smart, yes. But not progressive, and certainly not courageous.Courage. Really, Hunter? In a politician? You also say that the most progressive candidate should be the nominee. Courage and progressive values: you're describing Teddy Roosevelt running on the Bull Moose platform. How many of them is walking the earth these days? And -- newsflash! -- Roosevelt lost that election because he split the Republican vote and gave the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.
I'm thinking Hunter probably likes John Edwards. After all, he's running an anti-poverty campaign. But it will take more than that to win him the nomination. Same goes for the others that Hunter might be thinking of.
Hunter apparently doesn't care for Obama; but I have a feeling Obama is speaking for more than a couple of "courageous progressives" (translation: "trailing candidates") when he says this::
Obama...described Clinton as a skilled politician running a textbook campaign but said the textbook itself is badly flawed and skewed against ordinary Americans. "It's a textbook that's all about winning elections but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems," he said.I like Obama, but that's what a loser says.
Perhaps you see where I'm going here. You don't get the nomination simply because you're "right on the issues." You get the nomination because you defeat your opponent(s). Bobby Kennedy -- who was right on the issues -- knew that.
So what if there are five -- or fifty -- Democrats who are right on the issues (and Clinton isn't among them). The fact still remains that any single one of them has to win before they get to use the levers of power. Is Hunter suggesting that certain candidates should be granted the nomination because they are "right on the issues?" Is he suggesting that certain candidates should be eliminated because they aren't?
It is going to take more than progressive values and courage to defeat Rudy Giuliani.
As for a "contested monarchy," we wouldn't be having this conversation if SCOTUS hadn't stuck its nose where it didn't belong.
Comments
Otherwise, why bother to advocate, argue, contribute, or even go to the polls?
Posted by: Mark Adams | November 4, 2007 10:18 AM
He complains that Clinton will be "coronated" while observing that she isn't right on the issues. Yet she has almost more support than all the other combined.
Can't have it both ways, can you?
Posted by: Ara Rubyan | November 4, 2007 11:02 AM