A Cautionary observation: Who is more important, the clintons or the party?

[Lerkfish]

It is painfully apparent that a mccain presidency is preferable to the clinton campaign than an Obama presidency.
Where that leaves her supporters, I don't know.
But certainly it leaves the democratic party, obviously not a priority or concern of the Clintons, in a less optimal state than it would have been if she'd graciously dropped out after losing eleven in a row contests.

Apparently, the clintons will not drop out, however, in spite of encouragements to do so from other party members, both (I presume) in private and now very publicly.
What this indicates to me is that politically, the clintons view themselves as more important than the party -- reminiscent of Holy Joe Lieberman's rejection of the democratic party to form his own bogus merkin party. Ultimately, even though Clinton CAN stay in the race until the convention, and even though she MAY win, albeit only through shenanigans, threats and overt cheating, even IF she were to steal the nomination, the party itself will have ONCE AGAIN, snatched defeat from the jaws of pure victory.

If this occurs, we need to evaluate what benefit, or harm, the DLC has in relation to the democratic party. Two of its largest and most poweful members, Joe Lieberman and the Clintons, have demonstrated their outright disdain for the party. They have demonstrated that they feel the party should be loyal to them, instead of vice versa. They've demonstrated they feel they are the messiahs and anyone who dares to be "disloyal" is publicly flogged LITERALLY as Judas Iscariot.

This is coming from Al From, Carville, and other DLC strategists and leaders. We need to examine whether any party can survive an infestation of any group that holds the party hostage and nominally dispensible.

[LakeSamish706]

1. Yep, good post and in my opinion the DNC (once the dust settles) should..

show the Clinton's the door. We don't need this kind of BS people in this party. Let them go join Holy Joe.

[asjr]

2. It has come to this: If we don't like you we will

push you out. We will call you names and fabricate or embellish any media story that comes our way. This is not an election. We will try to make you feel that you are a bad influence on our party. We will forget you have the right to run for president and having a convention is part of it. We have already made up our minds who we want for president and we will do or say anything bad against the other candidate to make us seem so superior, just like the pundits and sorry news anchors that bloviate every day and night. They say Hear us, we know it all. You must listen to us for your own good. I see daily here on DU Clinton bashing and Obama bashing and I wonder what country I live in. I become ashamed of all of us.

[LakeSamish706]

4. It certainly has come to this when a candidate thinks more of herself than of...

the Democratic party as a whole. The sooner the better IMO.

[asjr]

7. You just proved my point.

[Lerkfish]

9. then where is the line for you? Do you approve of what Lieberman did?

where is it no longer ok to allow personal ambition to trump the party?

I'm curious where that line is for you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Lieberman ran as a democrat and lost.

He then ran as an independent.

Lieberman is not like Clinton. Clinton is running as a democrat. That used to be good enough for most democrats.

[Lerkfish]

18. then that is where you line is.

thanks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. Lieberman had bad policy. It was reasonable to support Lamont.

Lamont won. At that point, Lamont was the democrat, Lieberman not. Lieberman was then a target worthy of destruction.

If Clinton forms a third party...

But that appears to be what the Obama folks want.

[asjr]

13. What my feeling about Lieberman

is of no consequence. He is who he is and I do not like him but I refuse to condemn him. I will vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is. I just am so sick of all the name calling. It demeans all of us. We should each back our choice without resorting to name calling. And why do you say anyone is allowing personal ambition to trump the party? This year we have the best chance of regaining the White House and the Senate and House. I back both Democratic candidates. I do not want a Republican back in charge. I don't want to hear The Emperor's Waltz ever again. They stole the last two elections and I do not want a repeat. We must guard against that, but can only do it by cooperation.
I don't know if I have answered your question or not. I am not trying to be difficult. My Mom raised me to be fair, polite and caring and I have tried to be all for most of my life. But these are times that try my soul.

[OzarkDem]

20. What is more important - Obama or the party?

[Lerkfish]

22. if you're asking ME, I'd say the party.

Obama was not my first or even second choice. But I feel winning in November is more important.
Now, what is more important to YOU?

[Lerkfish]

3. Apparently, the clintons are showing the door to the party.

it remains to be seen whether such a threatening stance is healthy, for either the party or the clintons.

[surfermaw]

48. You need to go hear Clinton Bill, speak

If you have enough brains to let him stay out there we will win the election, I heard Bill Clinton speak on Friday, on McCain he did speak well of, but then he said his policies are terrible and I don't like theme, got up Sunday morning herd FOX News telling the same story, however they forgot, I don't like his policies they are terrible, he never in the whole speech said any thing that would hurt the democrat party, I was in a room of 1,400 people they were so intrested at times you could have heard a pin drop, only time anyone spoke a word was when he critized GEORGE BUSH, which is what he mostly spent his time on, he spoke on his wife and her qualities, and this was in the most strongly held Republican district in the nation. Bill Clinton on Friday spoke to probagly 15,000 people in 7 different stops over North Carolina in places that a president seldom goes, in fact one place has had two president in over 50 years, they were Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton.

[otohara]

5. Ouch, Clinton = Lieberman

We'll see how far they will go to lose this for Obama.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. Yes. It is not at all apparent that they really want to win the general election. n/t

[suston96]

6. Which is more important? The former Democratic Party....

The one that said in its charter that ALL Democrats will participate equally and fully in its nominating process.

This present Democratic Party has forfeited any trust and support of any Democrats who expected to be involved equally and fully in the nominating process.

[Lerkfish]

8. not sure I'm tracking your post correctly

can you be more clear?

It almost appears as if you're saying the democratic party deserves to be betrayed and is not to be supported.

I hope I"m misreading you.

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. There's no misreading your OP.

Clinton supporters (to at least the same degree as Obama suppporters) support the party.

You'd think with 14,000 posts, you'd have a better perspective.

Perhaps that perspective only comes with the realization that perhaps the site is worth donating to.

[ulysses]

14. I remember a time on DU

when it was considered rude to point out someone's lack of donation status. But perhaps you know why the poster doesn't have a star and therefore feel justified in calling him out about it.

Sad.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. I don't know why he doesn't. I just know he doesn't.

The most plausible explanation is also the one which attracts Obama's supporters to the idea of "optional, universal" healthcare; why buy milk when you can milk the neighbor's cow through the fence? After 14,000 posts, it seems unlikely to be an "I'll get around to it one of these days" things.

Rude has been defined down to the point where it's kind of meaningless.

Case in point, at one time, calling Hillary Clinton a "lying bitch" would not only have been considered rude, it would have not been tolerated. It is now not only tolerated, but K&R'd.

[Lerkfish]

21. LOL! that's your post AFTER editing?

:eyes:

[lumberjack_jeff]

23. Right. Well I can see how the message :eyes: seldom requires editing. n/t

[ulysses]

26. that isn't the most plausible, it's just the one

that gets you a chance to snark at Obama supporters. Also, I wouldn't suppose you know whether Lerkfish has ever had a star. Stars do go away after a while unless you keep donating.

Case in point, at one time, calling Hillary Clinton a "lying bitch" would not only have been considered rude, it would have not been tolerated.

Ok, but I still don't see the point of determining a poster's worth based on his or her star status.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. My reaction may not be entirely fair.

But I am becoming somewhat jaded at people who post things like;
Hillary is not a real democrat, and neither are her supporters! They're all freepers who intend to destroy the party!

By people who have post counts in the thousands yet do not donate to DU.

I should perhaps not take out this frustration on the OP - but flame-bait posts like that will make reconciliation unnecessarily difficult. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that for most of them, that is the entire point. They don't want a Democratic party which includes Hillary's supporters. 51% of the tent is good enough.

[Lerkfish]

28. you're putting words in my mouth I never said.

for your own reasons, whether a donor or not, that does not automatically make you an honorable poster, as we see.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. Honorable

It is painfully apparent that a mccain presidency is preferable to the clinton campaign than an Obama presidency.
Where that leaves her supporters, I don't know.

You are no better suited to, (as GWB would say) look into my soul to quantify my honor as your are able to look into that of Clinton's or her supporters to determine their motivations. A better starting point would be to assume that Clinton's supporters disagree on matters of policy, until and unless they *actually* support someone who is not a Democrat.

I don't extrapolate your views from my appraisal of Rev Wright's views nor those of Austan Goolsbee. It is honorable to return the favor.

[Lerkfish]

33. can you NOT tell the difference between "campaign" and "supporters"?

try reading comprehension.

and while you're at it: stating my opinion from observable behavior is different from you saying I called HIllary a bitch, which I did not.

you have no honor when you lie outright like that repeatedly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

39. I didn't claim that that you said that. I can, however, see how that might be inferred.

It was said by another. I'm not going to call that person out by providing the link, but if you could search you could find the quote fairly easily.

I'm sorry to have left the incorrect impression.

Q: In what sense does a campaign "prefer"?
A: It can't. The constituent members of the campaign (e.g. supporters) can, and that is clearly what you meant.

[Lerkfish]

42. wrong again. I"m referring to Bill Clinton's and Hillary's remarks about McCain

I consider both of them part of the "campaign". I was not referring to supporters.
I consider the Mark Penn/Carville/Bill Clinton/ group to be DIFFERENT from DUers who support Clinton.
Just like I don't think Obama supporters are responsible for what his campaign does.

I think its wrong and wrongheaded to conflate people who prefer a candidate and their entourage as the same thing.

nice try, again, to lie about what I said based on your own prejudice.
but you're still wrong, sorry.

[lumberjack_jeff]

44. So you're saying that Bill and Hillary will endorse McCain?

Neither Bill nor Hillary were ever my first choices, but their Democratic creds are intact.

Since I can't infer anything from what you say, I'll just answer your explicit question for you.

Hillary's supporters are Democrats. Okay? You needn't try speculating.

For kicks, I did a google search of DU for the term "lying bitch" and Hillary. I found nearly 100 hits. Of those which the former was used as an adjective describing the latter, all of the first half-dozen authors I found had more than 500 posts, most more than 1000 and none were donors.

The problem with them is not that they're freeloaders, it's that they have nothing invested in this community. That's why it's germane.

[Lerkfish]

46. no, goddamn it! listen, you're STILL putting words in my mouth.

what I said:

"It is painfully apparent that a mccain presidency is preferable to the clinton campaign than an Obama presidency."

what you said I said:

"So you're saying that Bill and Hillary will endorse McCain?"

now, read those two sentences AGAIN. Why are they different? Words matter, and I'm done trying to talk to someone who INTENTIONALLY twists what I say.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

37. I Have Never Pulled The Republican Lever In Thirty Years Of Voting

Not even for fucking sheriff...

I'm with you... I don't need (no) stinkin lectures on what it means to be a Democrat...

[Lerkfish]

40. neither have I

I've been voting for president since Carter.

[ulysses]

29. remember that that stuff comes from both sides.

Neither camp is covering itself in glory at the present time.

There are DUers that I value highly in the Clinton camp. There are DUers that I value less in the Obama camp. Such is politics.

[lumberjack_jeff]

31. Such is not necessarily politics.

It only becomes problematic when the worst of the antisocial behavior gets rewarded.

[Lerkfish]

15. well, the OP was clearly written, I think

so I would hope there's no misreading it.

If you wish to donate on my behalf, you're welcome to do so. I've donated many times in the past.
Not sure what that has to do with anything at all, though.

[suston96]

25. The present democratic party has violated its own charter.....that's clear enough....nt

[RazBerryBeret]

16. That's something to think about....

I am beginning to feel that the DLC is it's own separate entity, outside the Democratic party. If that's the case--they SHOULD go their separate ways.

I'm also thinking we do have our third party...the bush/clinton party. It has been in power since I've been old enough to vote. McCain is a candidate -- that's why the line between the Clintons and McCain seem blurred at times....

[saltpoint]

19. It may be too late for Hillary Clinton to present a 'We' campaign instead of

the "I" campaign she's been running.

Entitlement is too heavy a load for the donkey who has to lug it up the hillside.

[dogday]

32. The Party is the most important and I think some forget that

There are many of us who cannot make a decision between the two candidates, and we have watched the battles day after day erupt on this forum.. It makes me sad to see so many members who are supposed to unite this party, use divisive tactics to detract statements contrary to the popular belief, and that is not the way of Democrats, nor do I hope it ever will be... :cry:

[readmoreoften]

34. Apparently Obama is more important than the party.

Republicans are more valuable to his campaign than progressives that's for sure.

[Lerkfish]

35. how so? let's compare and contrast. How many times have the clintons praised Mccain

at Obama's expense?

and how many times has the reverse occurred?

[Cha]

36. Another no brainer.. since the

clintons have no importance what so ever.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

38. As A Supporter I Must Be Of No "Importance What So Ever" Either

I'll remember that in November...

Senator Obama doesn't need my unimportant vote...

[Lerkfish]

41. so...you're announcing you will not vote democratic if Obama wins the nomination?

typical.

I"m going to pull the lever for Clinton if she wins. I will never vote republican, but its good to know you have no problem with it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

43. SeePost #37

But even towing to my line of never pulling the lever for a Republican leaves me with options...

[Lerkfish]

47. ok, thanks for the clarification. You'll just refuse to vote

essentially handing the presidency to McCain in a fit of pique.

[Rubiconski2009]

45. Obama should ignore Hillary from now on....

Obama is the certain nominee, and Hillary is just a distraction.

Obviously Hillary doesn’t agree that the primary objective should be to elect a Democrat in November. If her ego won’t allow her to withdraw gracefully, she should at least direct all of her fire at McCain from now on. She could perform a real service for Democrats by going highly negative on McCain, bursting McCain’s “Mr. Straight Talk” balloon and allowing Obama to stay above it all.

But if she keeps directing her fire at Obama while she praises McCain, then she deserves to be a pariah in the Democratic Party for the rest of her life.

[slinkerwink]

49. the DLC is why the Dems have been appeasing Repubs for so long

[BigDogDistrict44]

50. Not True Who are we to ask someone to give up on the American dream.

From what I have heard Clinton may not have enough delegates to win the nomination, but Obama may not as well. I know as a State Senate candidate I would would not give up on my views because my opponent to me to. I think the others quit to soon.
This is America and I will stand behind which ever wins, and both have a right to try to help America move in the right direction.

Democracy For America lives...thanks to Howard Dean a true American Hero