Rothenberg Notices the Obvious
January 28th, 2008 at 05:26am Mark Noonan
He really is a smart guy who knows politics, but I’ve been waiting a long time for him to finally come ’round on this:
Could Democrats, who are unified in their dissatisfaction with George W. Bush and have been pleased with their presidential field, really become so divided that they give a surprising opening to the eventual Republican nominee? Yes.
The turn in the Democratic race probably shouldn’t be surprising, considering the stakes involved and the reputation of the Clintons for doing whatever needs to be done to win. But few seasoned political observers expected the Democratic contest to degenerate as far as it has into a nasty slugfest.
True, few seasoned political observers expected this - but anyone who understood that Hillary’s supposed inevitibleness in 2007 was bogus understood that there would be a fight for the Democratic nomination and, thus, that anyone who opposed Hillary would be on the brunt end of a nasty campaign. The Clintons are just really, really nasty people vis a vis politics. I mean, for all I know Bill and Hillary are swell people personally, but on the campaign trail they are knee-to-the-groin, knife-in-the-back nasty. They lie with wild abandon; they throw long-time associates under the bus at the drop of a hat; they will put out the most cruel whispering campaigns imaginable…and to top it all off, they’ll illegally fundraise to the point where it becomes a huge joke.
Hillary does represent the Democratic establishment - which has a strong stomach for nastiness and illegal campaign fundraising - but she doesn’t represent the kook left, and therein always lay her problem. How does she get the nomination against anyone who would challenge her for support from the kook left? All it took was someone who either had a lot of guts, or who simply didn’t understand what he was getting in to (for Obama, I lean heavily towards the latter) - the Clintons do scare people off, but if someone isn’t scared off, then in 2008 that person could draw huge numbers of disgruntled lefties…and if that person is also well-spoken and likable (like Obama), then he could also draw people from the ranks of the independents, and new voters. This is just what Obama has done - Hillary is gaining the establishment, Obama is gaining everything else. The advantage rests with Hillary, as the establishment is larger than the forces Obama can bring in. The tricky bit for the Democrats now is this - as Hillary gets nastier (and she will), does she risk gaining the nomination at the cost of a demoralised leftwing base; or does the establishment start to back Obama as the bright up-and-comer, at the risk of Clinton, Inc sabatoging him at every opportunity (did I also mention that the Clintons are petty minded and spiteful?)?
The unity of the Democrats was always chmerical - they are a party of not just disparate interests, but vastly antagonistic interests, with the only glue holding them together being a shared desire for abortion-on-demand and hatred of President Bush. There isn’t much in common between George Soros and, say, a single mother in Dallas…but they are in the same party. Do they want the same thing? Not by a long shot - and keeping them together requires a muting of the differences…but the Hillary/Obama battle is just highlighting them. Hillary is Soros’ gal, Obama is the guy for the single mother…will they forgive each other and come together in November for the sheer pleasure of beating President Bush, who isn’t on the ballot? I don’t think so - at least, not if the nomination ends up being mud-caked.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats
36 Comments
1. Christian Wright | January 28th, 2008 at 5:52 am
“Hillary does represent the Democratic establishment…”
The Clintons never represented the Democratic establishment. A real Democrat never would have allowed NAFTA.
The Clintons, by policy and philosophy, have always been Republican. This dirty campaign proves it. Obama and Edwards are the only Democrats in this race.
2. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Obama has secured the endorsements of Leahy, Kennedy and the Nevada SEIU among others, which are all represent the establishment of the Democratic Party.
And the darlings of the Democrats, the Clintons, are Republicans, according to Christian. Who knew?
It is quite indicative of the bi-polar disorder that currently afflicts the liberal movement. When the Clintons won in the 90’s with Sydney Blumenthal they were all Democrats though, right Christian? Do you know who Blumenthal is?
3. Retired Spook | January 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
The Clintons never represented the Democratic establishment.
CW, then how do you explain the fact that, at least so far in the primaries/caucuses, the majority of Hillary’s votes have come from the Democrat establishment base? Are they stupid, or does she just have them fooled? And if Edwards is a “true” Democrat, what does his showing so far say about “true” Democrats? Methinks your party is in deep poop. And I gotta say, it just couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of people.
4. plainjane | January 28th, 2008 at 7:07 am
There isn’t much in common between George Soros and, say, a single mother in Dallas…but they are in the same party. January 28th, 2008 at 05:26am Mark Noonan
Well thanks for the acknowledgement that within the Republican Party Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, Haggard, Bernard Kirk, Jack Abramoff, David Vitter, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig,”Phony Solider” Limbaugh, adulteresses Delay and Gingrich are all happily arm and arm lock step with the typical plus 65 year old Faux News viewer.
To another point, it was not President George Bush on the ballot in 2006; it was the Republican record of corruption and Katrina style incompetence.
5. Hillary Clinton » R&hellip | January 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am
[...] Real Clear Politics - News - Mid Term Elections - Elections 2008 - Opinion - Commentary - TIME wrote an interesting post today on Rothenberg Notices the ObviousHere’s a quick excerptHillary does represent the Democratic establishment - which has a … Obama as the bright up-and-comer, at the risk of Clinton, Inc sabatoging him [...]
6. Jones | January 28th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I guess Christian Wright thinks that the Clintons are Republican after John Kerry sent the recent letter to the Obama supporters. This is the letter that mentioned “Swiftboat” style attacks on Obama. Kerry went further and said “these are the same tactics the right has used again and again.”
With that in mind, I guess John Kerry and Christian Wright both think that Hillary Clinton is part of the “vast right wing conspiracy.” I wonder if she joined before or after Monica Lewinski.
So in Christian Wright’s next post where he does his normal diatribe about Huckabee being Christian Taliban, Rudy being pro-dictator, etc., he will need to add Hillary as Right Wing Republican.
7. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 7:44 am
What happens when, or if, Clinton wins the nomination? Does the kook left coalesce around her?
This fascist approach to politics by the left will be their undoing this November.
Janes disonnect with reality, and Christians hate, are indicative of the current Democratic Party. They really don’t stand a chance.
8. InDiGo | January 28th, 2008 at 9:23 am
“What happens when, or if, Clinton wins the nomination? Does the kook left coalesce around her?
This fascist approach to politics by the left will be their undoing this November.
Janes disonnect with reality, and Christians hate, are indicative of the current Democratic Party. They really don’t stand a chance.”
I hear this alot. No one on the Republican side can win the election.
Get ready to eat some crow….again.
9. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Well there you go. Here’s why the Republicans cannot win this election. They are in denail of reality.
What are you suggesting, guys? That if Hillary wins the nomination that all democrats will not vote for her? Who will they vote for? John “warhawk” McCain?
10. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Two observations on our liberal friends:
1. Diversity to them is merely race or gender, which is how they view America. You’re not just a person, or an American, you are either black, white or brown; and male or female. That represents diversity to them, clarifying who the dividers are.
2. I have not heard one liberal tell us why they support Clinton or Obama based on past experience or accomplishments. They simply support the gender or race of their choice based on how many promises have been made to them.
They truly are a pathetic bunch and it’s frightening that they actually vote.
11. Sunny | January 28th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
they will put out the most cruel whispering campaigns imaginable…
Come on - there is no one better at “cruel whispering camgaigns” than Karl Rove. The Clintions may have learned some tricks from paying attention to Rove’s tactics, but he is still the best/
12. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
neocon,
Oh come on. You’ve got to be kidding me. You actually think that this is just about voting for the black guy or the white woman?
That is very offensive that you would even consider democrat voters to be like that. It’s very untrue, childish, and ignorant to even present that as a descritption of democrats.
I like Obama, not because he is half-black, I hardly even consider or dwell on that fact. I don’t even care what his gender or race is. A presidential candidate could be of arab decent (born in the US of course since that’s the requiment for running for President) and I would vote for him or her if I like that person’s ideas and vision for this country.
If you truly think that democrats are like that then you have lost all credibility with anyone in their right mind. You are debunked, yo.
Yes, I take it personal what you claimed in those statements. I find it offensive and I am outraged by your generalizations. I am pissed off that people have such a muddy and idiotic view of what is reality. It boggles my mind.
I will vote for Obama. Not because he is black. Not because he is male. Not because of his religious beliefs. I will vote for him because I like his principles and his vision. I feel like the biggest difference between he and Hillary is his ability to be in touch with an internet age. I don’t want a President who doesn’t use the internet and doesn’t really know what it is. I want a President who is very aware of it, wants to actively use it to inform the American people of what their elected representatives are doing in their name.
He not only wants to work with the internet some. He wants to dive into it head first. He’s not some old school fart who is out of touch with the times. Not to say Hillary is nessecarily but Obama is definitely someone I feel is more in touch with the regular hard working American citizen.
So get off it, Neocon. Your statements are false and rediculous.
13. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Sunny,
Errrmmm…the Clintons showed up on the national scene in 1991…Rove showed up in 1999…how could the Clintons learn from that which wasn’t there?
14. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
SteaM,
And yet white Democrats in SC voted for Edwards and Hillary, while black Democrats in SC voted for Obama…if race didn’t matter, then this simply would not be the case.
And, also, it is entirely the Democrats false - race-baiting and hate-mongering on race and gender for the past 40 years is finally catching up with them.
15. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | January 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
McCain will destroy the GOP. Destroy it. Stop him now.
He along with Bush and Kennedy wants Open Borders to the Brown Hordes.
He wants to muzzle campaigns by finance control.
He is too old.
He hated the Bush tax cuts.
Deep down he covets media attention and thus will always do the bidding of the Liberal Media Bosses.
He is on his second marriage and thus does not represent family values.
He knows nothing of the economy, by his own admission, and will not help us out of the coming ditch we are heading into.
16. David.B.Schmidt | January 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Kind of off topic; however, this is another case that needs to be addressed again. First, and foremost, the response to Hurricane Katrina was as good, if not better, than the response to Hurricane Andrew that hit Florida. Same exact timeline—more resources.
My brother lost his house and had to live in a trailer for over 6 months (after he got one) while it was rebuilt. I dug my house out from the damage and did the work myself. I didn’t sit on my hands and expect the government to do jack for me. I did it with the help I got from my home owner’s insurance which I had been paying for the prior 20 years.
As to your other point, the Republican record of corruption is well known and regurgitated here quite often—yet you never want to mention the Democrats who are just as bad (if not worse). The Republicans that were guilty are out of office with most at the hands of their own party. The Democrats are still in office wanting to rip off the American population more and more each day.
17. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
That too is false, baseless, and just silly.
Mark,
You’re a guy who is a member of the republican party. A party that a lot of woman and blacks do not like. Because it’s a party who screws over woman and blacks. So you have a lot of room to talk about a party’s race and gender issues finally biting them in the butt.
Look in the mirror, sir.
18. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Completely false and baselss. This is an untrue statement probably based up this person’s hatred for the entire democratic party. Probably spurring from listening to too much conservative hate radio and television.
You guys are out in full force today with you generalizations. Aren’t you?
19. Retired Spook | January 28th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I will vote for Obama. Not because he is black. Not because he is male. Not because of his religious beliefs. I will vote for him because I like his principles and his vision.
Could you be a little more specific, SteaM? What principles? What vision?
20. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Spook,
Pretty much all of them…
http://www.barackobama.com/issues
21. David.B.Schmidt | January 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
UHC for all not withstanding–try Representative Richard Jefferson and his $90,000 freezer. Senate leader Harry Reid and the land deals. Representative Frank and his pimpin’ operation. Senator Clinton (as First Lady—not elected to any office) and the health care fiasco, Senator Boxer and the “sliding” of funds to that evil military industrial complex owned in part by her husband, or Speaker of the House Pelosi exempting out them below minimum wage hard working America Samoa folks from receiving minimum wage increases while working in her tuna cannery. Yep. Completely baseless. And those are just the tip of the iceberg that I can quickly remember.
But then again, I am assured you are for silencing conservative talk radio (which I don’t listen to) as is Senator Boxer but find it just dandy to annul the FISA act amendments which listen to our enemies (has to originate or terminate outside the US). Nothing like “free speech” as long as it conforms. Good going.
Then again because I make more than minimum wage–I guess it is okay to tax the daylights out of me. Evil, rich bastard that I am.
22. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
SteaM,
According to your link, one of Obamas tax fairness plan is to elminate income taxes for another 10 million people by offering an additional tax credit to working families, yet he doesn’t say where he will pick up the lost revenue. In fact he offers up quite a few more tax credits for working families but fails to address what will happen to the lost revenue.
His approach to the economy is also weak, only addressing closing Corporate tax loopholes. No mention that US corporations pay higher taxes than most industrialized countries and no mention of any incentives for business like accelerating depreciation schedules and/or lowering the overall tax burden in creative ways.
And his energy independence platform is a joke. Completely void of any substance.
I can’t wait until Romney debates him.
23. Marty13 | January 28th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I can’t wait until Romney debates him.
Neo, and you think Mitt has some intellectual heft? Com’on, Mitt could debate himself. His duality on issues is well documented. He also loves the phrase, “if you will.” Ever notice?
Best part is that he’s spending his own on this ego-driven drive to the WH. Can’t wait to see Baptist’s try to wrap their pointy lil heads around some of the tenents of the LDS. Should make for some great cable viewing!!!
24. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
marty13,
Your post proves beyond a doubt, the childish approach to issues that liberals are famous for.
Commenting on phraseology and denigrating Christians. Well done. Must have taken a lot of thought. You’re currently the poster child for the ignorant left.
25. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | January 28th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Neocon:
Do you call Mitt Romney a Christian? Do you?
26. neocon | January 28th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I will call him President. Unlike you, I overlook ones race, gender, or creed in favor of experience and accomplishments.
It’s a pity you’re naivety and indoctrination lead you to another conclusion.
27. StopJohnLiberalMcCain | January 28th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Neocon:
Mitt’s experience? Taking orders from Salt Lake City 24/7? Being for abortion and then being against it? Is that the experience that you favor?
Good luck to this nation if Mitt gets into the WH? He is just as bad as McCain.
28. Dennis | January 29th, 2008 at 1:25 am
You say “the only only glue holding [the Democrats] together” is “a shared desire for abortion-on-demand and hatred of President Bush.”
The amazing partisan small-mindedness of this statement is an echo of six years of polarizing hatefulness that people all over America really want to bury. Of course it will not be buried - there is ample evidence of that here, and in the politics we are witnessing on the campaign trail. And of course both parties are guilty.
But the glue holding both progressive Democrats and Republicans together is a longing for the well-being of all, regardless of political affiliation. It’s the determination to see the economy work as well for those on the low end as those at the top. Even more, that glue is respect for decency and fairness, and for the rule of law that was treated with such contempt by political appointees like Attorney General Gonzales and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld.
We regard individual rights and freedoms highly, and don’t wish to criminalize ever more kinds of behavior as many in the GOP do, merely to create an artificial homogeneity that reflects the prejudices of the few. That is the province of utopian ideologues, of religious bigots and partisan loyalists.
Democrats embrace diversity; it’s why we “can’t get our act together”, why we don’t act with the lock-step discipline so highly prized by the GOP. We are spirited, strident, creative and experimental - but above all we prize freedom. For all the lip service given to freedom, it is the GOP who seeks to limit personal freedom, who actively legislates to impose conformity in both behavior and personal expression.
As for desiring “abortion on demand” and “hatred of President Bush” - these are red herrings; citing them is a laughable misrepresentation of Democratic values. Nobody I know finds abortion desirable - but it is quite another thing to criminalize it. And it is the policies of Mr. Bush so many of us find loathsome, not the man himself.
Yes, there are some who hate Mr. Bush, but hatred isn’t just a Democratic trait, it is a human one. Lord knows hatred of Bill Clinton reared its ugly head first, and that isn’t dead quite yet. So many Americans want to be over this spell of bad road in the American experience.
Barack Obama may be untested in the eyes of some, but he has demonstrated great intellectual capacity, the dignity of a statesman and most importantly, the commitment to helping America out of the ditch we’re in now, and back onto solid ground.
America can regain respect in the eyes of the world, but only if only we lay aside our prejudices and divisions and pull together for once. This is the reality millions of young people are believing in now - it is something that happens only once or twice in a lifetime. Don’t minimize this opportunity - history is granting us a moment of amazing grace in a graceless, ugly time.
29. Mark Noonan | January 29th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Dennis,
And just what policies of President Bush are the loathesome ones?
The one where he’s poured money into combatting AIDs in Africa?
The one where he’s put the prestige of the United States firmly behind a two-State peace solution in Israel/Palestine?
The one where he’s backing the independence/freedom advocates of Lebanon?
The one where he’s building schools for girls to be educated in Afghanistan?
The one where he’s forging alliances with the rising powers of India and Indonesia?
The one where he’s bringing all the regional players into the North Korean nuclear issue?
The one where he’s lavished funds on education and we’re finally seeing some improvement in the sorry mess liberalism made out of our public schools?
The one where he’s kept us safe from terrorist attacks since 9/11?
The one where he’s been so gentle and concerned for the wellbeing of Gitmo detainees that we’ve released hundreds, only to find scores of them again on the battlefield against us?
The one where he praises the Nancy Pelosi who routinely insults him?
The one where he works with Ted Kennedy to the dismay of his own party?
The one were he carries out a US law signed by Bill Clinton and actually liberates the long suffering people of Iraq?
The one where he manfully takes responsbility for the failures of the Democrat-run State and local governments during Katrina?
The one where he privately meets with families of fallen soldiers and doesn’t use their tragedies as a chance to grandstand politically?
The one where he becomes the first President to ever fund stem cell research while also preserving respect for human life?
The one where he obeys the oft expressed will of the people and signs the law banning the barbaric practice of “paritial-birth” abortion?
The one where he partners with religious bodies in order to bring hope to people suffering in the United States without the heavy-handed (and expensive) hand of government bureaucrats?
Which of these things is the thing which just turns you off so much?
30. Mark Noonan | January 29th, 2008 at 1:46 am
SteaM,
Yeah, thats it - as Michael Moore said, we GOPer wake up each morning and say, “which minority can I screw over today”…you’ve got us pegged, we just hate black people, women, hispanics, gays…everyone who isn’t straight, white, male and Christian…I’ll tell Matt he’ll have to switch parties, ’cause he’s Jewish, and that means I hate him…
31. Dennis | January 29th, 2008 at 3:36 am
Mr. Bush’s loathesome policies: Since you asked, I’ll cite a few:
- Starting a war with a nation that was, in the words of national security advisor Condoleezza Rice, not even a threat to its own neighbors, let alone the United States. Preventive war has long been considered a violation of international law; and to lay an old canard to rest, taking potshots at overflights above the no-fly zone in Iraq hardly constituted a threat to the security of the United States.
Uncounted thousands of innocent lives were wasted in the initial war itself, let alone the uncounted tens of thousands in the violence unleashed in its aftermath. And shall we mention the millions of Iraqi refugees who now are homeless and hopeless? Or the billions we are spending every month prolonging this train wreck?
- Suspending habeas corpus, a basic human right tracing back to the Magna Carta, and allowing the extrordinary rendition of innocent people such as Khalid El-Masri and Maher Arar (and who knows how many others) to black prison sites in other countries to be tortured for crimes they did not commit. Yes, the CIA did this with the Bush administration’s blessing, and it has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt.
- The deliberate deception of the public and Congress on a whole panoply of issues, from WMD threats to the 2005 Medicare bill, which passed only because the actual cost of the bill was hidden from Congress. The actuary, Richard Foster, was threatened with firing if he revealed the true cost of the bill (an illegal act in itself). The list of similar deceptions is endless.
- Allowing Middle East policy to be influenced by ideologues rather than America’s own best interests, and historical considerations such as the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people, upon which the state of Israel was founded.
The Bush administration has consistently condoned Israel’s belligerent behavior, from its relentless oppression and collective punishment of the Palestinian masses to its gratuitous 2006 attack on Lebanon, which Condoleezza Rice blithely characterized as “the birth pangs of a new Middle East.” Israel always kills many times more others than are even threatened of their own people - yet according to the ideologues in the Bush administration, they can do no wrong (ref. Tom DeLay: “I don’t see occupied territory; I see Israel.”)
- Allowing torture to become permissible even in a theoretical sense - let alone having the Attorney General create memos redefining the Geneva Conventions to protect the administration and its surrogates from future prosecution, and hiding its actions in this regard from the public and from Congress. The Bush administration’s posture in this whole issue is the very epitome of moral relativism. Loathsome in the extreme.
The list is endless but my time here is not. As for your gauzy belief in No Child Left Behind - have you actually talked to teachers or parents of children in public schools about the real effect of this policy? I have. Your belief in this, and that Mr. Bush has protected America from terrorist attacks, and all these other wonderful things - you clearly live in a make-believe world; a hard connect with reality would do you good, but it must come from an epiphany that I cannot provide.
In a wacky sense I almost admire your stubborn idealism. All I can do is encourage you to connect with the real world, and to engage common sense with your professed ethical and moral sensibilities. As far as I can see, the two have not yet met.
All the best -
32. Dennis | January 29th, 2008 at 3:52 am
An addendum (if my above post responding to your question survives the night): The nation longs to do better than this. America needs to rise above these things, if we are to reclaim our honor and moral credibility in the larger world.
This is no longer a partisan matter. Americans of both parties are ready for a moral catharsis - and if we don’t take a decisive, hard turn away from the past, God help us.
33. neocon | January 29th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Dennis is just another in a long line of ignorant, indoctrinated liberals spewing debunked propaganda absent the ability to critically think through issues.
>>>Democrats embrace diversity; it’s why we “can’t get our act together”, why we don’t act with the lock-step discipline so highly prized by the GOP.<<<<
The above quote of his is more evidence of his disconnect with reality. Bush has more monorities serving in his cabinet and in positions of authority than any other President. But the Dems like to say they “embrace” diversity as long as those diverse members stay in their place right?
Dennis, tell me the differences between Obamas and Clintons platforms. Or is diversity merely skin tone and gender to you?
Diversity in the GOP is a matter of opinions not race, creed or gender. Just FYI.
Please reply back, I enjoy tearing apart liberals in the morning.
34. Dennis | January 29th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Mark, you enjoy the illusion of saying something important, while actually eluding the substance of the issues you yourself have raised.
Where I gave you specific answers to your prior questions, you shift the subject and dodge. Months ago your fellow bloggers gratuitously called me a liar when I merely recounted an experience I had, then you banned me from posting. I won’t waste my time on these games.
I am surprised you even responded here - thank you, I guess. But it seems you haven’t really learned much in watching the Bush illusion’s disintegration. While America is waking up around you - even your fellow Republicans are broadening and embracing the world as it is, you content yourself to “tear apart liberals.”
Funny thing is, much as it may puzzle you I remain quite intact.
all the best d
35. Xango Annie | January 30th, 2008 at 12:46 am
plain……..please, you are an embarrassment.
36. Dennis | January 30th, 2008 at 3:09 am
Sorry - I misread neocon’s post above as Mark’s. I’ll blame late night eyes - but my logic stands.
Now that I’ve seen who neocon is and how he/she writes (I won’t pretend to understand the thought process, except that there’s a lot of denial and obfuscation going on) I am content to let well enough alone.
Critical thinking is a higher function, my friend. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.