[Updated] Is the Democratic Party Dying?

I believe that the Democratic Party rested on the laurels of 8 years of the Clinton Administration, and didn't do enough to fight for its principles and maintain power despite the previous 12 years of Republican disaster and the concurrent 8 years of Republican mongering during the 8 years of the Clinton Administration.

In effect, the Democratic Party took a blue-skies attitude and would not see the Republican Party for the insidious machine that it is. The fact that much of the American voting public was dragged along with it was only more telling of how skillful the Republican Party is at deceiving everyone for its own ends.

Even though the Democratic Party won the popular presidential vote in 2000, they nevertheless managed to lose the election in the Electoral College because, I believe, of their own shortsightedness. The did not plan to fail, they failed to plan.

The following 6 years of the Bush II Administration showed how weak and ineffective and irrelevant the Democratic Party had become. Even though they did not have control of either house of Congress, nor the executive branch, I believe they could have done much more to at least slow destructive forces in our country.

In fact, the Democratic Party is so weak, they could not stop, nor slow, the continued destruction of our country at the hands of the Republican Party, who became the minority party in 2006 in both houses of Congress.

If the Republicans can do whatever they want in Congress as a minority party after 2006, why couldn't the Democrats have at least stopped them in 2000-2006 when they were the minority party? It's because, I believe, the Democratic Party may be nearing the end of its power, the end of its relevancy, and the end of its life.

In the 2008 election, the Republicans went through the charade of having primaries even though the party itself had probably already decided on who they wanted to be their nominee. The years 1980-2006 are a classic example of how a political machine like the Republican Party can orchestrate the national landscape to suit the personal needs of the orchestra leaders. Puppets may look alive, singing and dancing on a stage, but they're nothing by objects manipulated by a puppet master. And so the Republican Party, with all its presidents, congressmen, governors, legislators, and registered voters are to the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove (and whoever else there that we don't know about, like perhaps the owners of oil companies and pharmaceutical companies).

The Democrats however, refused to get organized and step behind the best candidate, and instead said "we'll let the voters decide." How much worse did this make the situation when one of the main candidates seemed to come from out of nowhere, with almost no national political experience. The fact that many of the party leaders are openly supporting a green, has-done-nothing-so-far, has-no-experience-or-plan candidate suggests they don't know what kind of forces they're up against. This has created a clear, near-equal division of the Democratic Party, one that they cannot possibly hope to be heal before the November election.

A terrible symptom of this problem is the Michigan and Florida primaries. The leadership of the Democratic Party has so far refused to acknowledge that, fundamentally, the date of the Florida primary was changed by the Republican-controlled legislature and Republican governor, that the minority Democrats in Tallahassee tried to have the date changed back, but were outvoted 2-to-1 by the Republicans. The fact that the date of the Florida primary broke Democratic Party rules is not the fault of the Democratic Party nor of the registered Democrat voters in Florida. Additionally, there was nothing illegitimate about the Florida primary: all the candidates were on the ballot there, and all candidates had the opportunity to campaign there (whether they chose to, or not). The reasons why Michigan changed their date is unclear, but it was Barack Obama's choice to remove his name from the ballot. He did not have to do that, and it was at great expense. Michigan and Florida's votes should count, 100%, hands down. The rule that these states couldn't have their primaries when they did is unfair since it gives unfounded influence to Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of all other states.

The fact of the matter is, Florida and Michigan account for 9.3% of the total national population. If the Democratic Party thinks they can disenfranchise more than 1 out of every 11 people, all the while divided as it is among two nearly-equal candidates, and still win the election in November, they are very mistaken. George Bush I won the popular vote in 1988 by 7.8%. Bill Clinton won the popular vote in 1992 by 5.6% and again in 1996 by 8.5%. Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 by only 0.5%. George Bush II won the popular vote in 2004 by only 2.4%. No president has been elected by more than a 9% margin since Ronald Reagan defeated Walter Mondale in 1984. I don't think the Democrats can afford to make the voters of Florida and Michigan unhappy, especially since those states carry 44 votes in the electoral college!

I believe, the Democratic Party has made so many poor decisions when it comes to national strategy, that they could be considered to have a death wish. Their bias toward one candidate over another who is clearly more qualified, electable, and resistant to the Republican Party political machine is misguided. There's no new dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Republicans could possibly dish up that we haven't already heard about. But, I don't believe for one minute that Barack Obama can withstand a campaign assault by the Republican Party who will stop at nothing to get their way (remember, they started looking for ways to impeach Bill Clinton before he was even elected!), and still be able to carry out an effective presidency.

The fact of the matter is that today we have (1) a foreign policy that is a shambles and has alienated every international ally we had and has created new foreign enemies, (2) a military that is so overextended and worn out that it is no longer effective overseas and is not available to help in natural disasters at home, (2) a Constitution that has been weakened far beyond any other time in American history (the Civil War included) including a loss of civil liberties that puts us back to the early 19th Century, (3) a domestic policy that has degraded our health and education systems and our national infrastructure and the environment to the point that we're now on par with many third-world nations with dictatorial governments, (4) no energy policy at all that has created an unprecedented instability and potential collapse of our energy supplies, which is leading to (5) the slow collapse of the world economy not seen since 1929.

I honestly believe that we're in for some serious hard times globally, where there will be a financial crisis that will cause energy and food crises that will take many years to stabilize (like they did in the 1970s). I believe that conditions will only grow worse if a Republican is elected to the presidency in November. I believe that a Democrat cannot win the presidency in November if the Democratic Party doesn't select (1) the candidate most able to defeat the Republican Party and (2) allow full delegate counts to Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party must earn as many electoral votes as possible in November, or else we will have no hope of slowing down the collapse of the United States. Our way of life is already unsustainable and has been for decades and has toppled over the tipping point, but we need political leadership who will reduce the effects of the crash by steering us in a new direction. Republican leadership will only lead to a last-minute cash grab before impact. I do not believe, however, that the Democratic Party has the will to do what it takes to survive. Unfortunately, all of us will go with it.

[Update] The DNC Rules Committee just voted to disenfranchise 100's of thousands of voters who voted in good faith, regardless of what their party leaders might have or have not done. Hillary Clinton reserved the right to take this matter to the Credentials Committee. If the DNC does not reinstate ALL of the delegate votes, the Democratic party will lose the general election.



Display:


Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (2.00 / 8)

Thanks for your CONCERN.


We have nothing to fear but fear itself. And clowns.
by haremoor on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:33:24 PM EST

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (1.60 / 5)

This person refers to it as the "Democrat" party.

Smells trollish.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

Poster's got a pretty long history here. This is probably not a troll but simply someone you disagree with.


"If we can't live together... we're going to die alone."
by VAAlex on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:45:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Call in shows..CSPAN, etc, (2.00 / 2)

It seems as if the people calling in to radio call in shows are overwhelmingly for COUNTING ALL THE VOTES.

Not the blogging elite, the real people calling in to radio shows..

They are going to be very angry if the Democratic Party does not count all those votes in Florida. (because BOTH CANDIDATES WERE ON THE BALLOT)

In Michigan, they should either count all the votes (because Obama voluntarily withdrew, or have a mail in vote in which everybody in the state gets a chance to vote again.)


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:52:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call in shows..CSPAN, etc, (2.00 / 1)

I will say that it is kind of strange how they are all using the exact same phrasing and word selection in their calls...


Congratulations Steny Hoyer! Our 2008 Chickenshit Leader Of The Year!
by RockvilleLiberal2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Call in shows..CSPAN, etc, (none / 0)

anecdotal


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

If you listened (2.00 / 1)

to C-SPAN call-in shows on a daily basis, like I do for my job, you'd come to the conclusion Bush is still popular.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:26:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (none / 0)

Indeed.  Your CONCERN over a party that has a majority in both houses that is very likely to grow, both of whose top cotenders for President top the Republican candidate in most polling (both EV and national polling) and for the first time in my memory is outraising the Republicans is noted.  


Saxby Chambliss
by bosdcla14 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

What a generic insult to a thoughtful diary.  


Young lifelong Democrat. One of over 3,000,000 voters who kicked McCain and Palin out of Pennsylvania, permanently.
by BPK80 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:41:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Democrat Party Dying? (none / 0)

It's not worthy of a serious response.

Diarist goes from this:

The Democrats however, refused to get organized and step behind the best candidate, and instead said "we'll let the voters decide." How much worse did this make the situation when one of the main candidates seemed to come from out of nowhere, with almost no national political experience.

To this:

The DNC Rules Committee just voted to disenfranchise 100's of thousands of voters who voted in good faith, regardless of what their party leaders might have or have not done. Hillary Clinton reserved the right to take this matter to the Credentials Committee. If the DNC does not reinstate ALL of the delegate votes, the Democratic party will lose the general election.

Can you find a coherent thought in that?  I mean other than "The democratic party is dying because Our Girl lost.  I'll find reasons as they become available."


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (2.00 / 5)

The Democratic Party is larger than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  Sorry to break it to you.


by rfahey22 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:33:37 PM EST

The American people are bigger than the idiots (none / 0)

in these two parties, and they ignore the people at their peril.. That means counting all the votes..
Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The American people are bigger than the idiots (none / 0)

Yes, thank you, your sig speaks volumes about the profound discourse you bring to us.


by rfahey22 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thank you.. (none / 0)

Your refusal to address my valid point speaks volumes about how true it (unfortunately) is.. For future reference, my .sig at this moment is: The 'Obama Drama Campaign': 1)Confuse Every Issue 2)Waste Our Precious Time and Votes 3)PUSH Obama on us regardless of any/all FACTS either way When will they stop?
Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, count all the votes (2.00 / 1)

even the the 250,000 people in Michigan who did NOT vote for Clinton


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you.. (none / 0)

What valid point are you talking about? Count every vote is a simplistic refrain that you've been yelling for weeks now.  Until you recognize how much more complicated the situation is, none of your "points" are valid.


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thank you.. (none / 0)

I address arguments, not slogans.


by rfahey22 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:29:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

Really?


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:33:45 PM EST

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

See above comment to another person who so "kindly" pointing out my error, which was unintentional.


by zenful6219 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

Freudian slip.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:44:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (1.25 / 4)

No, no slip. Have another sip of your latte.


by zenful6219 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:49:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (2.00 / 1)

I hear sour grape juice goes down well with Kool-Aide.


Welcome to a landslide WITH white working class, latinos, women and holding on sweeties!!!
by spacemanspiff on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (none / 0)

Yeah, that doesn't sound like a Republican talking point at all.  god, don't Hillary supporters even realize when they are mimicking things McCain says??  Or do you just not care?  I'm actually hoping you are a troll because it will make me feel better about the state of the party.


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (none / 0)

Yeah!  Anyone who likes lattes is an elistist!  Must be why there are so many coffee shops EVERYWHERE.  Someone needs to tell the supers!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (none / 0)

I'm not quite sure what an Elistist is, but I'm pretty sure I meant Elitist :)


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (none / 0)

that's cute. obama supporters are elitists.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the "Democrat" Party Dying? (none / 0)

I would say I'm an elitist, but I don't like any type of coffee. What does that make me? Unamerican?


by skaiserbrown on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:35:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Dunkin Donuts lattes (none / 0)

are for the white working class, ya know.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:46:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democrat Party Dying? (2.00 / 3)

Well, I'm not sure the party is dying, but they really shot themselves in the foot by going nuclear on Michigan and Florida.  If they simply would have taken away half the delegates, as the Republicans did, everyone would have accepted it as a fair punishment and we wouldn't be in this predicament today.


Jim Martin for Senate!
by markjay on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST

The "Democrat" Party is fine. (2.00 / 1)

I hear Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller are hosting its monthly meeting at Joe's Crab Shack.


John McCain: He flunked ECON 101.
by Shem on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:36:50 PM EST

Actually, I think the Democratic Party (2.00 / 2)

has been comatose for years and is just now waking up.  Whether it will return to full health is still a question.

If no reform comes out of this primary debacle, then I think your prediction will come true.  I'll be one of the Democrats standing in line to register as an independent.  

However, if we can get our act together and harness the energy that is out there, we should be OK.  It's a big "if."


by Radiowalla on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST

Behold the knitted brow. (2.00 / 6)

I share your deep, deep concern, and would like to subscribe to your free monthly newsletter.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM EST

It needs a purpose (1.00 / 0)

a Fighting Faith purpose.


by catfish2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:42:03 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

Record numbers of voter registrations and donors!

More people identify themselves as Dem now.

No, just because your candidate is losing, doesn't mean the party is dying, just your attitude.


by IowaMike on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:44:18 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

That's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that making Hillary Clinton the nominee would subvert the entire nomination process. Perhaps you are right about Obama not being up to the challenge. But it doesn't matter. If he isn't, the damage is done and we need to live with that. The way to preserve the party is not to tell voters and organizers that their opinions are less important than the judgment of the party elite. And it is definitely not to tell the online community that their support is not wanted or needed.


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:46:44 PM EST

Double standard.. (none / 0)

what about making Obama the nominee.. That would not be equally stupid? I think the bottom line is that all of the votes need to be counted, or revotes need to be done, by mail if necessary, in those two states. Millions of people will be very angry if they don't do that and let the people decide.
Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double standard.. (none / 0)

Well we'd better work extra hard for the dem nominee then!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Double standard.. (none / 0)

It's a result of the split in the party. Things would not be the same for each candidate if the situation was reversed. Obama's supporters would be very pissed off and probably would be threatening to desert the party, just like Hillary's are now. Even Hillary's bump in the polls came after she had already been essentially declared incapable of winning. I believe this because I know that even I started becoming more sympathetic to Clinton once Obama was emerging as the victor.

It would be an uphill battle no matter who won the primary after so many months of intense competition. Obama might have negatives and less experience, but McCain has more experience than Hillary and is perceived as more likable. He would be a very difficult adversary no matter what the polls say right now. And the Republicans would be beating the same drug of overly liberal and bringing up the fact that Bill pardoned the Weathermen.

There is no real extraordinary circumstance in this election. It is the logical conclusion of any contest like this. Until McCain started kicking everyone's ass in the GOP, it was pretty damn bitter there, too. Remember Rush saying he'd not vote for McCain? That changed pretty damn quick, didn't it?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:36:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Let's see... (2.00 / 4)

we have majorities in both the House and Senate, and look to expand both majorities today.

We have increased voter turnout in the primaries, increased registration, increased people considering themselves Democrats.  

Yup.  The "Democrat" party is dying.


New Mexico politics from the local perspective.
by fbihop on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:54:58 PM EST

Disenfranchising voters is the cardinal sin (none / 0)

Otherwise, lots of people will feel as if the Democratic Party does not represent them.. or really have any legitimacy.
Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:21:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disenfranchising voters is the cardinal sin (none / 0)

Thank you for your concern!


John McCain is surprisingly bad for this country
by minnesotaryan on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Disenfranchising voters is the cardinal sin (none / 0)

But zenful2352 thinks the cardinal sin was LISTENING to voters.

Make up your damn minds.  Or chant "Hillary" over and over again - it will spare you typing and will be just as persuasive.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:58:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Note about "Democrat" party (2.00 / 2)

I have made the offending typo myself. I got the scoop on that today. Apparently, Republicans refer to the party as the "Democrat" party as a smear. So, users on MyDD have been using that as cause to identify and label someone as a GOP troll. Here is the exchange.  


by grlpatriot on Sat May 31, 2008 at 04:57:56 PM EST

Re: Note about "Democrat" party (none / 0)

To be fair, I accidentally write "Assholes" by accident, when I mean "Republicans."


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (2.00 / 1)

It is dying. What does it stand for - I would say competence, toughness, a minimal safety net that allows individuals to reach their full potential.

But if Obama is the nominee I don't understand what it stands for, other than racial diversity.


by catfish2 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:00:42 PM EST

When you see things in black and white, (2.00 / 1)

it's hard to understand things in general.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:02:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's 'minimal' safety net.. (2.00 / 1)

Indeed..

As I understood it, the Democratic Party is tired of being made fun of for helping poor people.

So, I guess, for now that still includes a minimal safety net.. sort of like one made out of paper or something.. (looks good on TV, but don't try to actually USE it.)

Thats what Obama's healthcare plan seems to have as its goal, improving statistics, not protecting people.

Because he buys into consumer driven healthcare.. which trades COVERAGE for affordability..

That exposes people to more risk than they can afford. Its NOT insurance.


Health Care: WHY do we pay MORE and GET LESS?
http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/con tent/full/hlthaff.28.1.w1/DC1
by architek on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well (none / 0)

I don't even understand how the party doesn't stand for those things if Clinton is not the nominee?

How does the party not stand for competence and toughness with Obama?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:16:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (none / 0)

you're right. Obama doesn't believe in any of these things... oh, wait, yes he does.


"Don't let it end this way; tell them I said something." -the last words of Pancho Villa
by shef on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:02:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes. (none / 0)

But he's black.  That's the important thing.

See, Hillary Clinton stands for her platform.  Barack Obama stands for black.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:47:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Aboslutely (none / 0)


But the fundamental reason for its demise is because on fundamental, economic issues, it is almost undistinguishable from the republican.

Free trade?
Tax Cut?
Outsourcing?

It's Coke vs pepsy.

Where it differs is on socio-economically insignificant issues like gay rights, religion etc.

Apologies to my gay friends, but gay rights is getting more media attention these days than the health care crisis. And this is a symptom of what's wrong with the "progressive" movement.


by TaiChiMaster on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:11:03 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (2.00 / 1)

I do believe the party I believed in is dead. The party is changing and it is up to the individual to change with it or leave it.

I am stunned that someone with so little experience appears to be the nominee. I thought the lesson of electing Bush would steer democrats towards someone more seasoned and politically astute.

I am disappointed that the leadership of the party claimed neutrality while by their words and actions did favor a candidate. I am disturbed by the media's role and the sexism that has gone unchecked. The leadership was quick to make their voices heard in disapproval about "tone" in regards to race, but has remained silent on sexism.

Perhaps its time for those who feel they can no longer support the party as it stands today create a party that reflects the values of the Democratic party of the past. Those values were fair to the candidates and seemed to value all their members in a way that current party does not.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:12:55 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

I thought the lesson of electing Bush would steer democrats towards someone more seasoned and politically astute.

Perhaps you forgot the George W. Bush was the two-term Governor of the second largest state.

If anything it proved experience means crap.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:19:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he had experience? (none / 0)

he didn't even have two full terms before running for President. His first term was from 1995-1999, and he didn't even serve a year before his run. Even when he resigned, 12/2000, he barely had 7 years under his belt. That is inexperience. Bill Clinton was Governor of a state for 12 years, AG for 2. FDR was Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 8, than Gov of NY for 4. Harry Truman was a Senator for 10 years before he took the Presidency, Kennedy in Congress for 14. Now, if we wanna see more inexperienced Presidents, we can look at Carter and see he only served 4 years as Gov, similar to the 4 Obama will have had by Inaug day. This IS why experience matters. Don't ever equate Bush with experience. He was completely inexperienced, and we saw what 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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: he had experience? (2.00 / 2)

"he didn't even have two full terms before running for President"

sounds like a certain Senator who decided to run for President like two months after asking us for a second term as Senator.

Where's her experience? She's only been in the senate for seven years? What's her experience? Being MARRIED to a President?


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:34:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

being married to a President, (none / 0)

having an office in the West Wing YES is experience, as she has a commander in chief behind her all the time. yes that counts as experience. Also, one senate term is longer than one governor term. By the time she'd be President, she'd have 8 years of Senate alone, and 8 years in the White House totaling 16. W wasn't in the White House during his father's term like Hillary was with Bill, and he only had 7 years as governor. Compare 7 to 16, and you have a big difference. Stop comparing apples to oranges.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:48:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: being married to a President, (none / 0)

Please.  Let's stop counting the 8 years she spent being First Lady.  Unless you want to give her responsibility for all the mistakes as well as the successes.


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

so she needed her husband (none / 0)

to win is what you're saying?

Here that girls, you can be anything you want to be, so long as you marry a man who's been there already!


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Yes a two term governor of the second largest state who's foreign travel experience and global acuity was probably a week in Cancun.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (1.00 / 0)

mmm... yeah, right.

Look, basically your whole complaint seems to me to be "They didn't choose Clinton! No fair!"

You disguise it up as "the values have changed" but you don't specify what those values are supposed to be. You say Obama was favored -- and yet the superdelegate advantage at the beginning is telling us that your candidate was favored.

As for the "Democratic party of the past" -- how far past are we talking about? Clinton-era (screw your interns), Carter-era, Kennedy-era, Roosevelt-era, Civil-war era?


by Aris Katsaris on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

"Clinton-era (screw your interns)"? (none / 0)

you are no Democrat.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Plenty of Democrats (none / 0)

think Clinton serverly damaged us with that, for example, me.

I don't care who he screws, but they claim to know "middle America"

Doesn't he know that screwing an intern won't fly with those Reagan Democrats he was trying to win back into the party? Didn't he know that? Could he, maybe, resist damaging his and the party's rejuvination.

Clinton was a jerk to let that happen.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:33:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Plenty of Democrats (none / 0)

That was probably the worst aspect of the Clinton presidency.  We had to defend Bill - I certainly did - because the prospect of letting the Republicans remove him from power was too awful.  

But that was choosing the lesser of two evils - not a declaration that there was nothing wrong with what he did.  


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unlike the Kennedy bros (none / 0)

Very lucky for the Kennedys they weren't running for office in the 1990s.  

The rules were plenty clear to Bill by the time he got into office.  This wasn't rocket science, and it was a completely unforced error.

Point being, I guess, that I agree it's wrong for people on the Obama side to spread BS rumors - for example, about Vince Foster.  That stuff has no place.  But it's not illegitimate to point out that some of the things people did not like about the 1990s had a basis in reality.  And it's not just Lewinski.  It's also the Lincoln bedroom, the Marc Rich pardons, and a few other items.  


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:19:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Unlike the Kennedy bros (none / 0)

Actually, it reminds me of a conversation I had with someone the other day.

Another person who's lucky he didn't have to run in the 2000s is LBJ.  This is a guy who used to take his aides with him into the bathroom and make them take notes while he crapped, to humiliate them.  Who used to pick up his beagles by the ears to hear them yelp.  

Makes anything the candidates do today look like sunday school.

Most of the time I think we're better off today, though sometimes I have my doubts.


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:28:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

lets compare (none / 0)

1968-191 electoral votes
1972-17 electoral votes
1976*-297 electoral votes
1980-49 electoral votes
1988-112 electoral votes
average:113 electoral votes
========
2000:267 electoral votes (292 with Florida)
2004:252
average: 260 electoral votes

overall, while Monica may have hurt us in 2000 (polls in 1997 showed '00 was gonna be close anyway) but Bill Clinton still played a huge role in the marked increase in electoral votes we win in elections. 2000 and 2004 also featured two candidates with very little charisma or message in their campaigns as well. he was a net plus overall for the Dem party.

He was only blowing off steam with Monica. The relationship was going on in 1995, right after the GOP takeover of congress. Its the media and GOP's fault we found out about it in 1998, not Bill's.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:59:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: lets compare (none / 0)

"He was only blowing off steam with Monica."

Actually, I believe that was cigar smoke.


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:20:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

get out (none / 0)

and leave the party if you are going to dishonor Bill Clinton like that. Go hang out with Reagan, who was impotent and mad old.


"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 Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:52:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get out (none / 0)

Guy, it's not a cult.  Get that through your head - you'll allow all sorts of bizarro things to be said about anyone but Bill Clinton.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: get out (none / 0)

I'm not sure I'm the one responsible for his being dishonored, but whatever.

I did what I could to get him elected and re-elected, and defended him on grounds of his policies when the Republicans I knew attacked him.

But it doesn't mean I have to approve of everything he does - he was a good President, but he was fatally flawed and wasted a tremendous opportunity.  Really, really sad.

If you feel you want to support Obama on policy grounds but differ from him on some things he says or does, I think there's plenty of room.  FWIW, I've always been very clear that despite my reservations about re-living the 90s and about the Clintons specifically, I'd vote for her in a heartbeat over McCain.


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:39:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How defensive (none / 0)

almost cultish if you ask me.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Clinton-era (screw your interns)"? (none / 0)

I agree that this is a crap attack (hey it almost rhymes!).  And I support Obama.  I think we need to give Bill credit for the things he did, recognize that it was probably the best we could get at the time, and then realize that we can do a lot better now (partly because of him).  

We need to give Bill credit, and then push for much much more this time.  We may have veto-proof majorities in both houses in 4 years.


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:58:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (2.00 / 1)

"I thought the lesson of electing Bush would steer democrats towards someone more seasoned and politically astute."

Like Nixon?


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:55:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

I would not call Nixon politically acute.

You do recall Watergate don't you?


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:00:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Okay, how about.... like Dubya?

He's a two-term President - post 9/11, and Governor of the second-largest state in the US.

No one more experienced than him.  Shame he can't run for a third term.

I don't think the word you want is "experienced" - I think it's "Clintonesque".


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:51:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Well, if the burglars hadn't gotten caught, we would never have known.  He was a crap president, but he was experienced.  That was the point of my post.  Experience often means nothing, or worse.


by ProgressiveDL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 11:08:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (2.00 / 2)

News flash the Republican party is dying. Didn't you get the memo they already lost in some big Republican areas. Bob Bar will see that McCain loses. Freeper think McCain should drop out and let Bob Bar have it then there could be a real conservative.


by Hillarywillwin on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:36:05 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

In answer to your question:  No.


by TL on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:49:26 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (2.00 / 1)

it was doing just fine til obama "Mr. Divider" came along.


by nikkid on Sat May 31, 2008 at 05:57:42 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

troll alert


by authority song on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:20:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Why is it that this sort of troll can not get banned but other, less blatant, Obama supporters can? Oh, right. Jerome is a sellout hack.


by skaiserbrown on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:41:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Yeah - too bad we had an election. A coronation would have served us much better.


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

I dont think its dying, but I can understand some people's frustration with the party.

Like when I was watching 'RECOUNT' I was so pissed, because it always seems like the Republican party is willing to be manipulative and aggressive. they do what it takes and they get it done, I mean how else are we where we are? The republicans take fucking charge and run with it, while us Dems want to play super nice and talk our feelings out and compromise. Well playing nice doesn't work against the party that is willing to murder and lie.

What Dems need to do, is to stop playing so damn nice with repubs. After all the shit the American people have been through we cant afford wishy-washy democrats. We need strong leadership. We need to grow some spines and lay done the law, yeah we should be fair and honest. Yeah we should try to include repubs, but it is OUR time now. We have to stop letting pesky repubs rule and meddle in our policies.

We've had 8 yrs of Rebulican tyranny. Ive had enough of repubs all together. Im ready for a Democratic shut out.


by alyssa chaos on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:03:48 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Too bad you were offended, there is good reason to be suspicious in the misuse of the word "Democrat" to mean THE PARTY vs. A MEMBER OF THE PARTY:

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08 /07/060807ta_talk_hertzberg

And not only that, but how can one conclude that your diary is anything but sheer drivel?  I mean, I wonder, among the two remaining candidates, which one is "rest[ing] on the laurels of 8 years of the Clinton Administration": the one you endorse or the one you oppose?


by redwoodsummer on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:04:40 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Everyone thought the end of the Democratic party came in 1994, when Republicans took over the majority seats in the Congress.
But they were wrong then, you are wrong now.
The party is going through some changes and some needed navel gazing, true, but in the end, we'll come out stronger and united behind our candidate.
More and more Americans are identifying with the Democratic brand and the values we stand for. The Republicans took 12 years as a majority in Congress with the last 8 years under an enabling president, and almost destroyed our country in the process.
The people are looking to the Democrats to fix it, not the Republicans.
So no, the party isn't dying, it's changing, it's growing and injecting some new blood.
All of these can be painful processes, but we'll survive, we always do.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:33:44 PM EST

Re: Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

"The Democrats however, refused to get organized and step behind the best candidate, and instead said "we'll let the voters decide." How much worse did this make the situation when one of the main candidates seemed to come from out of nowhere"

So, we should Count ALL the Votes, but we originally shouldn't have let ANY voters decide?

Internal Consistency is not your friend!


by skaiserbrown on Sat May 31, 2008 at 06:37:09 PM EST

Yes, the tumor that was the DLC died today! (none / 0)

Now corporations will have less of a say in our daily lives with the quisling Republican Lite types out of power. This heralds a turning in the tide of American politics. The whole country decides to throw the corporatist GOP party under the bus and the democratic voters throw out the corporatist leadership of the party, all in the same election cycle.  I call that a bloodless revolution - only in the USA.


by LoneStarLefty on Sat May 31, 2008 at 07:49:15 PM EST

Re: [Updated] Is the Democratic Party Dying? (none / 0)

Allow me to synopsize this diary:

"See, the Republicans are smart - they decide on the best candidate, and then rig things to get people to vote for them.  Democrats listen to the voters - they're stupid.

[Update]The Democratic Party isn't listening to the voters!  The horror!"


I'm voting for Saxby Chambliss!
by Jess81 on Sat May 31, 2008 at 08:01:11 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.