Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Newsweek: The Deep Blue Divide

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 11:59 AM
Original message
Newsweek: The Deep Blue Divide
The Deep Blue Divide

For months, Democrats were just thrilled with their choices. Now they can't even stand to sit together.
Julia Baird
NEWSWEEK
Mar 15, 2008

(snip)

It's unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats. But as the weeks have ground on, the intensity between Democrats who disagree has calcified, the vitriol grown fiercer. According to exit polling in the Texas primary, 91 percent of Clinton supporters said they would be dissatisfied with Obama as the nominee; 87 percent of Obama fans said they would be dissatisfied with Clinton. Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).

For many Democrats, what started out as a glowing opportunity for a historic presidency has become a depressing display of division and anger trumping reason. Because the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are minor, the debate is not about substance; it's been mainly about character and identity in a contest between a black man and a white woman. Historians insist that intraparty bitterness is nothing new. But growing anger about perceived racism and sexism is souring what was once excitement among Democrats about an embarrassment of riches. Now many are embarrassed that the party which prides itself on diversity is battling its own prejudices. Unaffiliated Democratic strategist Donna Brazile believes it has become "a brewing internal civil war."

Even the candidates are concerned. Last Thursday, Obama pulled Clinton aside on the Senate floor. In a three-minute conversation that Obama aides, who asked for anonymity in recounting a private talk, described as cordial, Obama told Clinton that it was important for them to tamp down the more-inflammatory and controversial statements of surrogates. Last week Clinton finance-committee member Geraldine Ferraro resigned from the campaign after speaking dismissively about Obama, arguing that he could not have come this far if he were white. Earlier this month, Obama adviser Samantha Power called Clinton a "monster" and had to resign. Now, both candidates agreed, it was time to rein in such people before more harm was done.

Much of that harm, it seems, is in the tenor of the debate — in insults about age, experience, gender, race, religion. Norman Ornstein, a political scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says the attacks over race and gender have created "a level of tension inside liberal, elite ranks that is not something we've seen before." All this, of course, is made more acute by the technology enabling instant, angry political debate. "Every fight, every attack is not just a New York Times story, but it's magnified by the blogosphere and 24-hour cable news that rehashes and rehashes it over and over again," he says. "Every sore gets rubbed raw.".. In other primaries, the fight between Democrats has been just as, if not more, bitter: 1948, 1968, 1980 and 1984. Charles Kaiser, author of "1968 in America," says the parallels to 1968 are remarkable, especially in the manner in which Gene McCarthy and Bobby Kennedy attacked each other. "The left is devoting all its energy to fighting itself rather than fighting the real enemy," says Kaiser.

(snip)

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/123582

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:05 PM
Response to Original message
1. It's unclear exactly when the primaries stopped being a joyous occasion for the Democrats
Its simple.

When Hillary said her "Im happy to be in the race against Obama.." closing remarks in the Texas primary it was the high point.

Then within days she was once again the old attack dog, "Shame on you!" and mocking Obama in a campaign speech.

Her actions have become the tipping point to the nastiness we have today.

Its a shame the Clinton suckups in the MSM refuse to point that out to the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioBlue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. bingo!!! that is exactly when it turned for me.
she turned into George Bush before my eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Both sides are incredibly ugly
I'm turned off by both candidates. Not just because of their "keep the status quo" policies, but their followers are some of the most negative Democrats that I've ever encountered. I have absolutely no enthusiasm for the election this time around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
9. That "shame on you" thing was the weirdest about-face of the campaign.
It just seemed like this bizarre split-personality moment. :wtf: If there had been weeks, or even A week, between those two displays, it wouldn't have been as strange. But, coming right on the heels of the "honored" comment ... truly bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. Even weirder were the veiled offers of the VP spot in a state Hill got trounced in.
Hill seems to appeal to the chaotic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. I posted this a couple days ago and it sank like a ROCK!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Sorry, did not see it
I just got the print issue yesterday and thought it was worth sharing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
helderheid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #6
18. don't apologize! I'm glad to see your post fare better than mine! :)
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. What I love is how they don't tell us what is going on, instead they dance around what is
Edited on Wed Mar-19-08 01:00 PM by John Q. Citizen
going on.

The bad feelings are there. We've known this long before Newsweek clued us in.

But news week reduces the whole thing to 'he said she said,' and the readers only conclusion in such a vacuum of information is to assume that both children are misbehaving equally and send them both to bed without desert.

Here's the deal. Until this is over the healing can't begin. Neither side can truly reach over to the other side in general magnanimity and predict reasonably well what the response will be.

Ending this will require the super Ds (it sounds like a Dem S&M party) to publicly and finally choose sides. That's already happening in slow motion and the MO is with O.

The big problem for party unity is that there are still a handful of state contests left to be voted in and nobody wants to publicly and forcefully end it now through SDs mass migration. That would look pretty bad.

On the other hand, people who can count have pretty much come to the conclusion that Obama has an excellent chance of coming out of the public voting portion leading handily in delegates over Hillary. And if that's the case, most people believe the SD's will go to Obama pretty fast.

Nobody wants to take this to the convention with the exception of some die-hard Hillary campers and a handful of "Draft Gore/ Edwards/ Biden/ Kucinich fantasizers who hope against hope that their favorite will win the lottery, and the Republican Party or it's moral equivalents.

So the fact that Hill made the decision to go negative as she is losing fairly obviously is a problem for the party, Newsweek.


edit- spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. For me, it started with Newsweek
With its Obama coronation issue after Iowa. An issue that I was leafing through while watching the results from New Hampshire.

The only winner of an Iowa caucus who became president, from either party, ever, was Bush in 2000 (excluding sitting presidents, of course, that always win their party caucus).

So why the rush to coronate Obama?

Then came the ABC debate right before New Hampshire, when some, on DU, declared Hillary R.I.P when she showed some anger in the debate. I found that point to be her strength. She answered questions directly and concisely, while all the men: Edwards, Obama and Richardson were just evading question while trying to flirt with the audience. Yes, this was the debate when Obama dismissed Clinton "you are likable enough" and, of course, when many pundits - all men - dismissed her misty eyes. This was when many women decided to roar and have not stopped since and are not going to stop now. This was when many women realized how Hillary, like themselves, have to work over time to prove herself while men get a clear path.

This is when many realized how Obama was getting a clean ride in the media, when no one would question any aspect of his candidacy, partly not to be labeled as racist, while every part of Hillary personally and her campaign have been dissected and reviled.

And this was when many African Americans decided to put the race issue up front in voting for Obama, saying that "our time has come," while, at the same time, many white, affluent and often divorced women declared that they would not vote for Hillary because... she stayed with Bill.

Then there is also the bizarre way of awarding delegates. We are a party that lost the presidency in 2000 because electoral votes, not the popular ones, determine the outcome. And here we are doing the same thing, where delegates in Nevada and in Texas, and perhaps in other states, are awarded in a way that does not follow the popular votes. How can anyone support and endorse this system?

And this is how the campaigned turned into issues of race and gender with many followers being offended not by the candidates themselves but by their supporters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Same here.
And that nagging insinuation that, while I could be counted on to vote for Barack... his voters could not be counted on to vote for Hillary.

Noone likes to be taken for granted like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. you wanna talk coronations?
Before Iowa, it was all Hillary, all the time. The same media you criticize for "crowning" Barack Obama in fact presented her as our presumed nominee for the better part of a year (with her campaign's blessing -- the "inevitability" meme was part of their strategy), and a lot of us resented it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Disloyalty
Nationally, a quarter of those who back Clinton say they'd vote for John McCain if Obama won the nomination (while just 10 percent of Obama supporters would do the same if he lost).

This is a very telling statistic assuming that the poll was accurate. It looks like Clinton supporters are a lot more disloyal. Way too many of them will not vote for the party's nominee if it's Obama. What does this tell us about Clinton supporters?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
question everything Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. That they are angry and hurt
and that, one hopes, come November, if Obama is the winner he, and especially his supporters, will make extra effort to reach over.

You have caucuses where the way delegates are awarded trumps the popular votes.

You have exit polls showing you that Hillary is winning the votes of the Democrats, while Obama that of Republicans and Independent. Will they vote for him in November?

And, until last week, you have two candidates, one of them is being dissected and analyzed to death, while the other just sails through.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Don't you think that it's a bit immature...
to let personal anger get in the way of loyalty to the party? You know, all anyone has to do is read DU to see that there are a lot of hurtful comments coming from Clinton supporters. There are plenty of reasons for Obama supporters to be just as angry and hurt as Clinton supporters are, yet according to the poll Obama supporters are still more loyal to the party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. It has really felt unfair...
until just this past week, when "pastorgate" broke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Q. Citizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
15. One can't reach over until it's over. Bill won in 92 under the same system.
The latest exit polling shows Repos voting for Hill. (TX, OH, and MS)

When Hill releases all her tax returns and her financial info, then I'll believe she's begun to be dissected and analysed. When her strange and dark church connections are probed and analysed and on the tube for a few cycles non-stop, then i'll believe that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RiverStone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. That's very hard to believe...
Even as an Obama supporter, I can't fathom that 25 frickin percent of Hillary folks would vote for that war mongering puke bastard McCain over ANY Democrat! After 8 years of Shrub - that many Dems (if they are Dems) would support Shrub3?

I have no proof and polls are polls - but I find this stat unbelievable. Could 25% of Hil supporters be that soft????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UALRBSofL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-19-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Riverstone remember quite a bit oh Hillary Support is the elderly
And as you know the elderly whether black or white have experienced race in it's rawest form from before the civil rights movement, all the way through today. So, It's understandable in my opinion to see the divide between the elderly groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC