Progressives Are Buying the Well-Circulated Nonsense

Being curious about how the GOP Establishment is coping with its bloody Rotarian divide -- and in the hope that wallowing in others' misery would yield a brief respite from the progressive camp's troubles -- I recently visited that most rarefied radiance of editorial GroupThink, the Wall Street Journal. For one of its columnists had a piece intriguingly titled: "When Will the Wounds Heal?"

I scurried to find out, only, in the end, to meet disappointment. It seems the Journal has no better grasp on its problems than we do ours.

The piece began hopefully, I thought, because in what we men admire as gritty determination to get at the bottom of things, it first tackled the fundamentals. OK, boys, gather 'round and listen up: "A basic law of primary seasons is that the longer they go on, the nastier they get."

It occurred to me that the same is true of Republican administrations, and that it might be illuminating for the paper's editorial board to delve into that, someday soon. But hell, cut 'em some slack. This is the WSJ talking. It can only go so far.

But let's also cut right to the chase: The inquiring columnist had not a clue as to the timing of the healing wounds. After surveying the familiar carnage on the GOP side -- "these divides are natural and predictable"; the "party's core conservatives" are "often ... distrustful, if not disdainful" of Mr. McCain; the "split ... is becoming both more obvious and more nasty" -- he was left groping and staggering for some answer to it all.

Alas, he came up sadly short. The Huck's selection as a running mate might mollify social conservatives to some extent, "but the task for Sen. McCain still would be considerable. His strength as a candidate is his ability to reach beyond the party's base to independents and conservative Democrats. But before he can do that, his first task will be to try to reunite and ultimately claim a conservative base that is somewhere between suspicious and hostile."

And with that, the columnist left the field -- leaving us as befuddled as himself and Mr. McCain.

Before doing so, however -- and this turned out to be the actual intriguing part of the piece -- the columnist treated his WSJ readers to a survey of Democrats' problems, as well. He struck back, that is, with the very Schadenfreude I had gone in search of, the little creep. And his gleeful assessment was this:

"The Democratic fight between Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton seems certain to continue, and it is showing a clear divide between whites and blacks, between Hispanics and non-Hispanics, between women and men, and between older and younger voters.... The problem for Democrats is that the race is opening up the kind of sensitive divides that go to the party's very identity as an institution that unites races and genders."

Well, I must say, that's a pretty nifty assessment. And it would be even niftier if, at the heart of things, it were true. But it's not.

There's a "clear divide" among progressive Democrats, all right. But the actual fault line runs not between whites and blacks, or men and women, or the old and young, or any other demographic groupings. And don't let the right convince you that it does. Rather our fault line, dear Brutus, runs along the contours of the philosophical.

Which is to say, our whole bloody and internal mess is rooted in questions of war and dicey forgiveness. Some are willing to give Mrs. Clinton a pass on her tortured explanations of why she supported Bush's preemptive, imperialistic adventurism back in 2002 -- when the largely bipartisan slaughter was conceived -- and others are not. It's as simple and fundamental as that. Had Mrs. Clinton not done so, Mr. Obama's raison d'etre in this race and subsequent party divisions would have never been.

Yet at no time do the words "Iraq," "preemption," or "neoconservative madness" appear in the WSJ column as the internal casus belli among progressives. For obvious reasons the paper prefers to validate rumors of deep and far more lasting social divides among them. And the hell of it is, more than a few of the latter are buying into it. They're letting slip that sense of what fundamentally caused the rift to begin with; splitting off into disputatious groupings of gender, race, and so on, to their politically suicidal detriment and the GOP's glee.

Progressives now need to show their own gritty determination to get at the bottom of things -- to get back at the bottom of things, that is, and re-tackle the one and the only true dividing line of this race. It's not demographics. And don't let the right-wing pundits tell you otherwise. You'd just be playing their game.

Comments

[Linda]

I'm very glad to see you challenge the "divisions" reasoning that's all over the papers today, though I only partly agree with you about the real dividing line. There's more to it than Clinton's Iraq vote. Yes, Obama was against the war back then, but he didn't have a vote so who knows what he would have done if he was running for president then; and he's since voted for funding. The real issue for me, and for many Dems I know, is whether Obama can be trusted, when so little is actually known about him. I'm appalled at how easily so many people are taking him at face value just because he makes them feel good. I think we should be far, far more skeptical. Maybe after doing that we'd still choose him--but the fact that millions are NOT doing that in itself is making me resistant to "joining the movement."

[trank]

luckily few people will read this guy.

the real problem is the same old one. this message will be repeated all over the country on the talk radio monopoly until it becomes truth.

[MARTIN STALLER]

Recall, as alluded above, the general march to war, of almost everyone. Not me! I'm sorry, but we, as so many, are bloodthirsty and we had to do some bloodletting. Unfortunately, it was some of our own despite "shock and awe"! Hillary was not alone, but Obama is trying to make her a scapegoat for our sins of revenge and hate.
9/11 was a shock to our comfort and invinciblity. Now, Hillary becomes the "queen who must die".
Obama is a fascist demogogue in sheep's clothing.

[Jeanne]

I agree with the commentary - I was torn between the two candidates. The tipping point? Iraq. I don't buy the "we were misled" argument. Senators Kennedy, Byrd and 20 other wise senators were not misled. Yes, Obama didn't have to choose so we'll never know how he would have voted. But we know how Hillary voted.

[Mike R]

Let's see, which would I prefer, sharing a cell for eight years with a convicted accomplice in mass murder, or with a possible suspect?

[TahoeProgressive]

While Obama didn't have to cast a vote in '02, he did make a speech against going into Iraq. To me, that shows good judgment.

I was ready to vote for Edwards, even though he did vote to support AUMF. The big difference between Edwards and Clinton is that John Edwards was adult enough to admit he made a mistake.

We all make mistakes and they are called learning experiences. It's too bad this learning experience cost so many lives.

[Robert Lemon]

Yes, I find a deep and festering divide in the Democratic Party but it is between those who wish to see pResident Bu$h tried for War Crimes in the Hague and those who merely want him returned in shame and disgrace to Crawford, Texas and the dung pile of historical ignominy.

[Paul]

Martin Staller - sorry, there are those of us with brains who didn't need to bloodlet against innocent countries.

Hillary SHOULD be a scapegoat for Iraq. The senator is responsible for HER vote.

Let's not forget that Obama came out against the war when he was eyeing a candidacy for the Senate. Surely the safer tactic in the moral climate of the time would have been to support the war as FEW Democrats came out against it.

Hillary voted for the war, she voted for the continued use of cluster bombs and land mines (Obama voted against), and she voted for aggression against Iran (Obama voted against). I don't trust Hillary, I DO trust Obama's record.

[potrerohillman]

i ask, "is not hillary from the same people who caved on universal health care and who brought us "don't ask, don't tell" instead of the promised elimination of gay discrimination in the military? hillary must "triangulate" to survive. some people find this cowardly, snakelike, hypocritical.

the divide may be in part due to gender or race, but the larger break is on percieved willingness to "play ball." no one can predict what obama will be like. how much compromise will eventually blunt his rhetoric. but obama for the moment is another "children's crusade." he is associated with idealism unsullied by too much politics. his shiney city on the hill offers hope.

john mccain and hillary are more alike in that fear motivates their supporters. it is not simply that certain demographics will not vote for a black man, but these same lesser educated groups have greater fear.

the young and some white males don't see obama as a "black" candidate but rather as someone who represents their own more noble side. hillary may be resolute in her loyalty but she remains tied business as usual and betrayal of ideals.

[tish]

If Obama had such good judgment about the war (and he did) before he ran for the Senate, why has he voted to fund the war as a Senator? This inconsistency is troubling for me because it shows that HE'S LOST WHAT GOOD JUDGMENT HE ORIGINALLY HAD! It also shows that he LACKS THE COURAGE OF HIS CONVICTIONS. Wow! I guess the savior is not perfect, after all.

[Linda]

It's not about voting for Hillary instead of Obama out of "fear"--just the opposite. It's about taking time to find out if there's anything to Obama instead of surrenduring to wishful thinking. Obama has chosen to portray himself as an idealist "unsullied by too much politics," but what reason is there to believe that, other than that he tells you to??? We just barely are surviving 7 years of another man who told us to trust him, he was for clean politics and uniting, not dividing. We need to use our heads as well as our emotions, and that's not fear or being like the DLC, it's good judgment. (I'm not saying vote for Hillary--I'm saying take a good, mindful look at what Obama claims to stand for and what what he's actually done. They don't always match up.)

[Peg]

I agree with tish. He has been a timid Senator and I fear for all his great oratorical skill, he could be a timid president. If he had shown greater leadership in the Senate, perhaps I might have more confidence but he seems largely untested.

[Mary]

Not gonna happen for you Obama dreamers.

He couldn't even carry a single large Democratic state on Super Tuesday.

Gallup yesterday has Clinton winning 52% to 39%.

Guess the ultra-liberal Uncle Teddy endorsement drove people away.

Not gonna happen.

[Zee]

Not gonna happen for you Obama dreamers.

He couldn't even carry a single large Democratic state on Super Tuesday.

====

Oo, good point, Mary! You should be a TV pundit!

That's because DEMS reallize Obama is not a dem but a thug posing as one.

He already admitted he didn't know how he'd have voted on the Iraq war....anything else he claims now is flipflopping and pandering...and we all know how EASY the ho is on pandering after his elevating Reagan above ALL other great presidents when talking to the conservative paper in Nevada who recognized their own and endorsed him. And yes, he's continually voted to fund the Iraq war and he's such a namby pamby he LEADS on NOTHING, not even rejecting a Fox News debate even after they slandered him, until Edwards and EVERY OTHER dem lead the way and then he feebly and timidly followed.

That's the way it is with a POSER --- he can't lead...he's too worried about offending his TRUE BASE, and also worried about being EXPOSED as the poser he is to the young inexperienced progressives duped by his DUMBED DOWN YOUTH strategy.

[T. Barr]

Yes, Obama was against the war back then, but he didn't have a vote so who knows what he would have done if he was running for president then; and he's since voted for funding. The real issue for me, and for many Dems I know, is whether Obama can be trusted, when so little is actually known about him. I'm appalled at how easily so many people are taking him at face value just because he makes them feel good. I think we should be far, far more skeptical. Maybe after doing that we'd still choose him--but the fact that millions are NOT doing that in itself is making me resistant to "joining the movement."

Posted by: Linda |
I agree with Linda!!!

[T. Barr]

I agree with Linda!!!
Yes, Obama was against the war back then, but he didn't have a vote so who knows what he would have done if he was running for president then; and he's since voted for funding. The real issue for me, and for many Dems I know, is whether Obama can be trusted, when so little is actually known about him. I'm appalled at how easily so many people are taking him at face value just because he makes them feel good. I think we should be far, far more skeptical. Maybe after doing that we'd still choose him--but the fact that millions are NOT doing that in itself is making me resistant to "joining the movement."

Posted by: Linda |

[Stan]

I think the key here is judgment--Hillary Clinton has simply shown consistently poor judgment, not just on the Iraq war resolution, but on Kyle-Lieberman, the Health Care screw-up, the White House Travel Office, etc. For what it's worth, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James Stewart's book "Blood Sport" reports that the Clinton's were offered the opportunity to sell their shares in Whitewater back to Jim McDougal, but that Hillary refused because she was sure that McDougal was trying to screw them, that the Whitewater development was soon to turn a profit and he wanted to keep all of it.

[type 4]

i will vote for obama or clinton TODAY. it doesn't matter which one, they're both excellent nominees. black? white? woman? who cares about race or sex, besides republicans?

i would just prefer obama, because i simply cannot listen to another four years of republicans chanting their "clinton clinton clinton" non-stop nonsense. i just can't do it. i'm sick of that show. change the channel.

[serena1313]

There is little difference between Hillary's and Obama's platforms. Notwithstanding there is a fundamental difference in their characters.

For instance Hillary's decisions are more political than anything such as her vote for attacking Iraq. Obama was against it.

More importantly what defines Hillary are her votes against 3 amendments that would have curbed Bush's rush to war.

One of which was submitted by Dick Durbin (D-Il) that would have compelled Bush to demonstrate "imminent threat" prior to invading Iraq.

The second was Levin's amendment. Granted Levin's bill called for the UN's approval before force could be used, but it also reinforced America's right to defend itself even if the UN voted against it. Therein nothing in that bill was an impediment to the US in any way. Yet Hillary claimed it would have made the president "subordinate" to the UN. It wouldn't!

So basically her vote against Levin's bill meant she was against international support and the UN's consensus. Moreover that vote would be relevant only if she believed that Bush 41 was wrong to go to the UN for international support and approval before he attacked Iraq.

Although the amendments were defeated Hillary had 3 chances to slow down Bush's rush to war, but chose not to! Now what kind of judgment is that! Furthermore she will not say whether the US will maintain permanent bases in Iraq. For someone entrenched in the Washington politics translates into more of the same.

Hillary also shifted her policy on torture. At first she said she would seek "legal" exemption to saying her current position, "torture cannot be American policy."

All of which leads me to believe Hillary will be more of the same, but as a "Bush-lite."

And McCain will be like Bush, only on steroids!

Furthermore Barack Obama has been making significant in-roads with women, jews, Hispanics and white voters. The more people get to know Obama the better they like him.

Obama won the majority of jewish voters in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

Connecticut: 61% of Jewish voters

He won 4 in 10 (40%) of the Hispanic voters and made greater in-roads among Hispanic men.

Obama went from 24% on 19 January 2008 in Nevada to, without even campaigning, 27% in Florida, to 1 week later, 36%, 40%, 44% in Georgia and Alabama to winning.

Among southern whites Obama went from 24% in South Carolina to 44% in Georgia and Alabama, to winning the white vote in New Mexico and now tying or winning among southern white men in most places.

Only a week go there was a real danger that Obama would lose Super Tuesday by 100 - 200 delegates. He won more than Hillary.

Hillary Clinton has the 65 and older group and more women than Obama, but he is catching up on the latter: Georgia 64% of women voters voted for Obama.

Another interesting note is that no US President in memory has won the WH without winning Missouri in his party's primary. Obama won Missouri. He won 13 states to Hillary's 8 states. He won states in the Midwest, the south, the east and the north.

Herein is proof he appeals to people of all stripes and colours.

If interested click the link to watch an excellent video about moral courage, character, integrity and political decency:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdDzvmY1XPo

[serena1313]

I agree with both Stan and type 4.

Judgment is a biggie.

And the GOP harping on Clinton is reprehensible. I, too, am tired of the fighting and divisiveness.