Today, I’m glad I’m not a Democrat

Republicans aren't winning in November. I know it''s messed up the way everyone's toyed with their minds and told them 'yes, you can,' but it's not happening. The Republican nomination process this year was purely a formality to see who could handle getting crushed in the generals the most and to pick the one person they can point to out of the flock and deride as a RINO so they can say they have to return to core Republican values in 2012 after they lose this election. It's very mean-spirited the way the Democrats have talked about the general election as having the possibility of a heavily contested contest when the numbers in terms of primary voter turnout and such clearly doesn't reflect that.

I would also like this to be over, but Hillary Clinton has every right to keep running, especially if she wins both Ohio and Texas.

But it seems to me that Obama has generally done better in actual voting than the lead-up polls suggested.

Negative campaigning is constant in American politics. George Washington complained about his press coverage. Alexander Hamilton suffered from bimbo eruptions. So did Thomas Jefferson, but he had James Madison for a spin doctor.

Since you're not a Democrat, perhaps you've forgotten how quickly John Kerry got Swift-Boated.

"Today, I'm glad I'm not a Democrat"

Actually, lol, today I'm glad I AM a Democrat. Why? Because we actually have a diversity of riches- two attractive candidates who show great promise in their ability to take the party to victory in November. After years of mediocre politicians like John Kerry and Mike Dukakis, who showed an innability to connect with voters, we have two rising stars, who can take on an American hero like John McCain. Two years ago the Democrats were almost DOA-now they have an excellent chance to score in many of their national races

Furthermore, not that I'd only vote for a candidate because of their race or gender, but it is a historic first for America, and breaks the barrier that only white middle-aged Christian males can make a serious run for higher office.

I wonder if the problem in Ohio is that Senator Obama's staff has a private meeting with the Government of Canada and tried to lie about it. This is the first real gaffe of Senator Obama's campaign and he did not handle it well.

I wonder how many other private meetings his staff has had with special interest groups to alleviate their fears. Maybe the teachers unions, big labor, trial lawyers, AARP, etc?

HappySurge...you are committing the classic liberal mistake of measuring the curtains at Pennsylvania Ave. before the election. I recall Kerry doing much the same.

Remember folks...Rezko is being prosecuted by Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago. That case is a ticking time bomb for Obama. Lovely little bits: like the one that came out Friday of Rezko bribing one of Saddam's ministers with $1.5 mil to get a contract in Iraq...and then Obama voting bravely against the invasion. Hmmm....

As Fitzgerald showed with Libby...he is relentless, even with only bits to go on.

Hillary, as she says, has been vetted. Obama has more skeletons in his closet than vote in a typical Chicago election.

If Rezko turns state . . . it is all over for Obama. As a conservative, while I would enjoy the ensuing Democratic meltdown, that would do nothing for the health of the US.

Vote Hillary. She would be a stronger candidate in the long run, and a decent president.

Nothing wrong with any of this. Its all good. Our nominee will be stronger for the fight necessary to gain the nomination. For 25 years people have complained that conventions were an anachronism and nothing interesting happened at them anymore. Well, be careful about forgetting history. We will have a more typical convention this year and so what? Bobby Kennedy's last public words were "now its on to Chicago and lets win there too." He meant the convention. The nomination was not locked up by anyone at that point and Hubert Humphrey was certainly not going to withdraw just because Bobby was a candidate. Conventions used to be exciting and I guess thats whats in store for us this year.

Frankly, the fact that Obama is getting scrutinized now is a good thing. He can show us how he takes it and how he reacts to it. He can be vetted a bit better now and we can have some confidence in our choice. Finally, this is not a negative campaign. This is a tame campaign. Drawing policy distinctions is not negative. Personal attacks are, especially if flimsy. I think both Obama and Clinton have managed to fight very very hard and not take the campaign into the gutter. They deserve praise for that, not knee jerk conclusions that they have gone all negative and nasty when they havent.

Uhhmmm...Polimom...did the header of your post cut off your words?

In your text you note... "I’m not a partisan Democrat" ...but your title just says your'e "not a Democrat".

Not that your affiliation matters, of course. Your postings are invariably strong and interesting, which is all that matters here at TMV. Just wondering if your meaning was accidentally cut.

Hi Macan --

No, the post header isn't cut. I just wanted to keep the title short (a habit). I'm neither a Democrat nor a partisan Democrat. (Nor am I a Republican of either variety either)

Macan, you said, "That case is a ticking time bomb for Obama. Lovely little bits: like the one that came out Friday of Rezko bribing one of Saddam's ministers with $1.5 mil to get a contract in Iraq...and then Obama voting bravely against the invasion. Hmmm...."

There are 2 things wrong with this point, though. The big obvious one is that Obama was not in the Senate when they voted to authorize force in Iraq, so clearly he could not vote against it. The other point is that Obama is only very loosely connected to Rezko through a completely legal real estate transaction. Guilt by association is a pretty weak platform to stand on when trying to tear someone down. Rezko may or may not have been involved in shady dealings - I'm sure the courts will find out and deal with him accordingly. But by all accounts I've heard so far, the one transaction Obama had with him was completely above board.

I will take you at your word, pm, that you are not a partisan of either label. In light thereof, I can only find it amusingly ironic that you would be concerned with a matter of partisan expediency.

While Obama supporters can massage their angst with the notion that it is "not probable" the SD's will not be wedded to the popular vote outcome, their existence has been reaffirmed over multiple election cycles to render an independent judgement.

Why Senator Clinton should not allowed to proceed accordingly baffles me.

OMG...Polimom...you're an Independent?! An actual moderate.

I don't think I've ever met an Independent before...certainly never seen one in the flesh...just read about supposed sightings with some scepticism.

Most Americans I know are party-line very partisan Democrats, including my partner (yes, I sniff the coffee in the morning for traces of poison :)

I will be reading your posts with even more interest from now on. Cheers.

Polimom,

You sound more than a little depressed today. It's true, Hillary's negative campaigning is driving up Obama's negatives and damaging his prospects in the general election. However, at this point no one can say whether this will be a fatal scorpion sting, or just a painful and annoying bee sting for Obama. One can hope for the best.

Others have pointed out that Obama will have to demonstrate 'grace under pressure' with these tactics in order to win the big prize, so perhaps a test now is in order. Also, as others point out, Obama's closet has not been subjected to the same kind of kleig lights that the Clintons' closet has, so who knows what might be there? Again, perhaps best to find out now, rather than in October.

The purpose of of partisan primaries is to produce the 'best' candidate to represent the partisan 'brand' in the general election. The Democrats are blessed--or cursed--with two strong contenders for their candidate, each of whom seems to have passionate, committed supporters. While it's painful to watch, this intra-party bashing is not new. It used to be a regular feature of politics in the 60's and early 70's, and it did not prevent the Democrats from winning the White House.

Have faith, Polimom. "All things happen for the best in this, the best of all possible worlds."

:-)

Amanda said: "The other point is that Obama is only very loosely connected to Rezko through a completely legal real estate transaction. Guilt by association is a pretty weak platform to stand on when trying to tear someone down."

You make a very good point. But technical legality does not necessarily carry over in the court of public opinion.

Why was Rezko...when he was being pursued by creditors for millions...willing to divert a half-mill. (which he nor his wife ever declared as taxable income) to help Obama buy a house by purchasing the adjacent land?

Plus, we don't know the full parameters of the case yet...like that odd bit about Rezko's Iraqi dealings. The trial is expected to last 3 months. What more?

If Rezko does turn state, he could mortally wound Obama's campaign. At least Hillary has been vetted. What more can we know about Whitewater etc?

Do Democrats want to wake up with Buyer's Remorse, and a tainted candidate in a few months?

Clinton ain't inspiring...but she is smart, and even if Nixon-like in her Byzantine ways, would make a decent president, I think.

The Master makes a FANTASTIC point.

Folks, this Obama-Clinton struggle is wonderful. This IS democracy.

Where I come from, the party leader is decided by the parliamentary party, with little input from voters. Certainly no scrutiny as in the United States.

This is an amazing process, and you Americans - who bemoan your lot all the time - are one of the wonders of the world! How many times have you saved everyone's asses?!!

(The world is often bitterly consumed with envy, but who cares). Could someone of Turkish actually become leader of Germany (Hell would freeze over first!)? Yet, here is Obama...a Black man with a Muslim middle name...within shooting distance of the White House. Incredible, no?

This is democracy in action. PR geniuses go down in flames. Conventional wisdom is overturned on a weekly basis.

God, I love you Americans! I really do. This is a great campaign, and a model for the world.

I think people have been focusing on the wrong consequence of Hillary staying in. They are worried that she will hurt Obama by being negative, even though worse negative attacks will come after there is a Dem nominee.

The real problem is that McCain's positions are in complete disarray. An even cursory glance of his supposed ideas and details show that he has no idea how he wants to govern and he often contradicts himself. However, as long as Hillary and Obama are confronting each other, they won't have time to point this out.

Dragging out the primary isn't going to hurt Obama because of negatives, it'll hurt him because he won't have time to convince people of his positives, and eviscerate McCain's policy positions.

casualobserver said: "I can only find it amusingly ironic that you would be concerned with a matter of partisan expediency."

At a number of levels, co, I'm also amused at the irony. Very.

mikkel said: "[A]s long as Hillary and Obama are confronting each other, they won't have time to point this out."

Absolutely true. An early draft of this post was from the other direction altogether. i.e.: "It would be fun to be a Republican right now".

Why assume that Clinton's improved status is directly due to negative campaign ads? This is a very complex choice for Democratic voters to make,, and It's misleading to squeeze the gamut of factors involved into such a 2+2 formula.

I wonder, for example, how much of this is a backlash against the negativity that has been going on against Clinton? Turn on any news channel, and it's all about Hillary condeding the race; that's a message, not a news report. Obama suppporters on the blogoshpere have not been shy about making this an anti-Clinton race, going after her in a very personal, not issue-based way. Sticking to just discussing the issues, like compromise and co-operation, is something everyone wants the other guy to do but is not willing to make one's own guiding principle for debate or discussssion.
I happily note that this is not ture of all Obama supporters, but the loudest and most outrageous voices get the spotlight, unforutnately.

Another factor is simply the passage of time. Obama was awarded the shiny halo very early. People were inspired and surged toward the inspiration/ hope.
Now they've had time to wonder about the man who wears the halo, to get more pragmatic in their decisions.

I've favored Obama, cautiously, from the start. I've always feared, however, that the nature of his support might be his undoing.
At any rate, it's much too complicated a situation to decoct into such simplistic terms.

I take solace from the nastiness of the McCain-Romney contest.
Who even mentions it now?
I also note that the degree of negaivity here is relatively mild, when compared to many past races. I think the level of overreaction is, in itself, a measure of the lack of objectivity in observers.

My headline is: I'm glad I'm not a politician.
I couldn't deal with all this 'stuff'.

"today I'm glad I AM a Democrat"

Then will come

a) Election night;

b) Inauguration day.

Enjoy the parties.