Some Recent History
As you may recall, several months ago it looked as if one of America’s two major political parties was going to have a serious “party unity” problem. Their nominating contest produced a winner who’d prevailed against divided opposition without ever proving himself to be a clear majority choice anywhere. What’s more, the party’s base was divided between a substantial element that strongly approved of the party’s unpopular incumbent president, and another substantial element that joined the majority of the public in disapproving of his job performance. What’s more, the winner had a long history of personal and professional tensions with key stakeholders in his party’s political movement and with leading party politicians.
And yet, these tensions were overcome! And not overcome, primarily, by endless hand-holding sessions in which the various aggrieved parties recited their complaints from one side of their mouth while talking of their admiration for each other out of the other side. And they certainly weren’t overcome by speaking in more detail about a policy agenda. Rather, though there was of course some hand-holding, unity was primarily achieved by shifting attention off the internally controversial of their nominee and his relationship to other party figures and on to the internally uncontroversial subject of how awful the other political party is.
Whether there may be any lessons in this for any other political parties is something I’ll leave to readers to judge.
57 Responses to “Some Recent History”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 26th, 2008 at 9:25 am
I wonder, if it was anyone but the Clintons, if this pantomime reconciliation show be necessary.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Matt, I think this conclusion is a bit premature. The problem was never that the leading democrats would not be able to come together to support the party’s nominee. It was that the disaffected voters would either vote for McCain or stay home in November. And most likely we will not have sufficient evidence one way or another until after the election.
I think the fact that McCain is actively trying to exploit the Obama/Hillary split is evidence that the problem still remains.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Matt, I think this conclusion is a bit premature. The problem was never that the leading democrats would not be able to come together to support the party’s nominee. It was that the disaffected voters would either vote for McCain or stay home in November. And most likely we will not have sufficient evidence one way or another until after the election.
I think the fact that McCain is actively trying to exploit the Obama/Hillary split is evidence that the problem still remains.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:38 am
You’d think they’d learn after 2004, don’t you? I was even agreeing with Carville this morning. Maybe Democrats are just too nice, and I don’t mean that in a good way. I’m hoping Rendell tears McCain a new o-ring tonight. And, of course, Clinton could do a lot in terms of turning the attention to how awful McCain and the Republicans are.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yes Yes Yes!!
I wonder, if it was anyone but the Clintons, if this pantomime reconciliation show be necessary.
Yup. I was not in the Hillary hatred brigade during the long months of March-June, but clearly the Clintons’ self-centeredness is coming home to roost. When Hillary said that line about how she and McCain were ready to be president but Obama is not, she had zero chance of winning the Democratic nomination. And where was she last night? Not on the convention floor loudly cheering for Michelle Obama.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Here’s my idea: independent expenditure ad that looks like a straightforward pitch for McCain, touting his independence from the Republican party and maverickiness. Except all the footage and quotes are from prominent Republicans attacking him for apostasy on immigration and in his actual maverick period of 2001-2004, shouting about how he’s unfit to be President.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I don’t think there’s any question about it. The Clintons were the center of the party and the Obama movement wrenched them from that position. The risk-averse Dems are afraid, plain and simple, of offending the folks they think might be in a position to rebuild the party if Obama loses in November.
As far as this business of disaffected voters, this seems like another case of the MM making a mountain out of a molehill. For every half-crazed Hillarite still refusing to vote for Obama, there are 20 reasonable people who voted for Clinton and will support their party’s nominee.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“For the Clintons, it’s always all about the Clintons.” Currently with a great assist from the media, but with backroom ginning up done by Clintonistas. At any rate, that’s one great reason HRC is not VP.
However, presuming comments aren’t bound by 501(c)4 regs, it’s time for the Dems to pin the current state of this country where it belongs: On Bush, McCain, and the Republican party.
The USA didn’t get in this current state by accident: it got there by Republicans. Make it evident, illustrate it thoroughly, and proclaim it often.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Yeah, and that other party had a field of candidates made up of 100% white dudes.
To the extent that there’s party disunity, it’s about gender. Given that, the worst possible unity argument you can make is to wave away the gender issue and say we should be more like the Republicans.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:51 am
“I wonder, if it was anyone but the Clintons, if this pantomime reconciliation show be necessary.”
If Obama hadn’t won the Democratic nomination by running to the right, and then named the Senator from MBNA as his Veep, then he wouldn’t be having defection problems.
Democrats would prefer a Democratic nominee for President, rather than a “post-partisan” who sells out the Democratic social insurance agenda to grab the support of General Electric’s TV operation.
The 2008 Democratic nomination race is the first time in the open primary era that a candidate has lost the vote among Party members and taken the nomination. You wouldn’t expect problems in such a situation?
August 26th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I think some folks miss the point that Matt seems to be making. It is not that the dems should emulate the republicans wrt gender issues or that the clintons were involved at all. Instead, if the dem leadership would frame the argument as dem vs republican and how bad four more years of republican leadership will be, the party would unify with much less hand wringing and angst.
In other words, instead of making it internal soul searching, make it us vs them. The latter type of argument wins every time.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:56 am
For years the stock in trade of the Clinton faction has been explaining that Democrats should be more like Republicans, so patching things together might be more difficult in this case.
Furthermore, Mark Penn, Lanny Davis, Dick Morris, and Mr. Mary Matalin are all mercenaries. When the Clintons lost control of the party it cost them millions and millions of dollars, and they all already have found themselves new, non-Democratic or anti-Democratic cash cows. (I’m not so sure how McAuliffe and Wolfson fit into that picture; McAuliffe is more a fund raiser than a parasite, I think).
These people all just lost the game of their life, and we shouldn’t hope for anything from them, much less trust them.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:56 am
“For every half-crazed Hillarite still refusing to vote for Obama, there are 20 reasonable people who voted for Clinton and will support their party’s nominee.”
Actually, less than half of Clinton voters are solidly behind Obama.
30% of Clinton voters are solidly behind McCain. That’s 1 in 3, not 1 in 20.
Your math isn’t half-crazed. It’s full-crazed.
August 26th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“if the dem leadership would frame the argument as dem vs republican”
Wouldn’t you need a nominee who was willing to run as a proud Democrat, rather than as a “post-partisan”, in order to execute that strategy?
August 26th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I thought this was accomplished by marginalizing anyone who isn’t backing McCain in the media and having few Republican politicians actually show up for the convention.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:18 am
petey, i don’t want to go back round and round today, but you’re really having trouble with your data points. from your cite:
“Thirty percent say they will vote for Republican John McCain, someone else or no one at all.”
That does not translate into 30% of clinton voters are solidly behind mccain.
as for matthew’s point (and the incessant rounds of clinton hatred that accompany it): it’s one helluva lot easier to unify your party if your party has had a 44-year project to convert itself an authoritarian organization that would put the apparatchiks of the soviet union to shame.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Petey, please go somewhere and work for Nader’s campaign. And go fuck yourself while you’re at it.
Thanks.
Signed,
Matt’s readers.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:31 am
“That does not translate into 30% of clinton voters are solidly behind mccain.”
Point taken.
I am having a bizarre amount of trouble getting my citations from that particular Gallup/USA Today poll right. I keep half-reading it and quickly grabbing what seemed eye popping to me.
Believe it or not, I appreciate your correction, howard. I don’t like incorrect citing. It’s more fun to make the case with the proper data.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Jake, please go somewhere and work for Bloomberg/Hagel. And go fuck yourself while you’re at it.
Thanks.
Signed,
Democrats.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
petey, i do believe it! unlike some around here, i still like you!
August 26th, 2008 at 10:41 am
And Matt’s point is that disunity was overcome by pointing out how unacceptable the opposition is. Some hardline Hillary voters seem not to understand McCain’s anti-choice record and what it will mean if gets to pick supreme court justices instead of Obama. It’s up to the Obama campaign to spell it out for them and for the swing voters how their freedom and quality of life are at risk if McCain is elected. I don’t know if the Clintons can be counted on to do the right thing.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:47 am
The Clintons are creating this controversy. You don’t see Kucinich, Edwards, etc. looking for the ego stroking that the Clinton’s require. Biden put his head down and became the VP nominee by discussing issues with Obama over the months and proving that he can be an asset to the campaign both by virtue of his experience and his demeanor.
The Clintons cannot be counted on to do the right thing. The right thing would have been to resign the campaign when it became mathematically implausible for Clinton to win. The right thing would have been to resign the campaign when Obama reached the “magic number” for real. The right thing would have been to resign the campaign at all! The right thing would have been to promote Obama at the convention rather than rallying delegates to cause some kind of upset. The only Democrat doing more to get McCain elected than the Clintons is Liebermann.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Scott, I agree with you we need to attack the re-pukes on the issues, as I have said all along that Mcwars loses on the issues and he can only win by swiftboating and stealing the election by tampering with those damn machines.Obama is attacking Mcwars in some states but not enough about the issues.I think Biden will do the issues with the old man and make him look the fool that he is.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:54 am
30% of Hillary voters are Republicans.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Petey,
Its a bit bizarre to say that the Clintons, the people who coined the term “triangulation” and helped form the DLC, are the ‘true’ democrats, while Obama is of a republican appear. Even if you think its true, its not what’s motivating the PUMA crowd.
August 26th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Petey, you have — apparently — all the time in the world to polish up, and publish at a keystroke, your observations on a variety of burning issues, yet your one trick is reveling in the kind of truculence and domineering that the Internet confers on its die-hard wimps. While it’s not possible for me to respect you as a real menace, I must protest the amount of time you spend as a transparently failed bruiser.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I am having a bizarre amount of trouble getting my citations from that particular Gallup/USA Today poll right. I keep half-reading it and quickly grabbing what seemed eye popping to me.
Wow! What an unfortunate fate! It’s like Petey keeps meaning to get the numbers right, but somehow the Cartesian devil shows up and you can’t trust anything Petey says. Why do bad things happen to good people?
August 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I think El Cid’s onto something. Romney and Huckabee have nothing on Hillary and Bill in terms of generating drama, and even news coverage anticipating possible drama. And as a party, Dems seem to love focusing on the one issue where they diverge from a candidate while Reps decide that the candidate is good enough on issues A, C, D, H, and J.
Of course, the Rs didn’t have a single not-McCain to rally around, so turning on Obama as not-McCain was easier.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Rielle Hunter happened to Petey, and Petey is lashing out.
Good thing the Dems didn’t take Petey’s advice in the primary, or Pete’s fave John Edwards would have killed any Dem prospects in November.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Its a bit bizarre to say that the Clintons, the people who coined the term “triangulation” and helped form the DLC, are the ‘true’ democrats, while Obama is of a republican appear.
I don’t have the time but throw petey dlc yglesias ezra klein, etc into google and look for older results. There was a whole different person going on. He hated Dean for the same reason he hates Obama, he’s the DFH guy that isn’t supposed to win because Petey needs to tell you who to vote for. He’ll do everything he can to make sure Obama *doesn’t* win because that makes Petey wrong.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I wonder, if it was anyone but the Clintons, if this pantomime reconciliation show be necessary.
I wonder if it was anyone but Hillary Clinton who got half the primary votes there would be any QUESTION about the need for a “reconciliation” show.
Obama won. Deal with it. Hillary Clinton got half the votes. Deal with it.
Those Hillary supporters who will not follow her into voting for Obama are only ONE group of voters he needs to win over. This is the GE, where everyone gets to vote. Get to work.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:42 am
riffle Says:
August 26th, 2008 at 11:17 am
Rielle Hunter happened to Petey, and Petey is lashing out.
Good thing the Dems didn’t take Petey’s advice in the primary, or Pete’s fave John Edwards would have killed any Dem prospects in November.
Hey, that’s really nasty of you! It’s absolutely true, but with Petey the facts are downright vicious.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am
So, now it’s up to Obama to show why disaffected voters should vote for him. That’s a pretty novel political burden. I’m not sure any candidate has ever had to do that before.
August 26th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Petey, you seem more than a little bit unclear on the distinction between partisanship and ideology.
Were you conscious during the 1990s? Did you notice the way Bill Clinton simultaneously attacked Republicans and moved his own party to the Right? Have you noticed how Ted Kennedy worked with Republicans (and sabotaged the Democratic Party in 1980, no less) while dedicating his entire life toward dragging the entire country to the Left?
And have you noticed who Kennedy endorsed?
We can argue all day which political style is more effective toward achieving liberal goals… and I don’t think we’d entirely disagree. But if you can’t recognize that Obama is running well to the Left of Bill Clinton, then there’s no point in even discussing this stuff with you, because you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
aleks wrote: “Hey, that’s really nasty of you! It’s absolutely true, but with Petey the facts are downright vicious.”
Thank you! He deserves it, imo.
I want to win the general election, not listen to the endless whining of some dolt who was just a few months ago screaming at everyone that John Edwards was the savior.
S/he should probably show a little humility about having been so catastrophically wrong rather than trying to start up a list of reasons not to vote for Obama.
McCain will be a disaster for the US — even worse than Bush in some ways. Slamming Obama now in these petty ways is just helping McCain.
August 26th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Maybe you understand now what McCain was up to when he “blew his chance to define Obama” and instead wasted the summer sucking up to his base?
Same old story, Republicans solidify their base and proceed to blow a hole in the Democratic candidates campaign. Democrats run to the right and then wonder what happened to the base when the attack machine starts up.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
It was that the disaffected voters would either vote for McCain or stay home in November. And most likely we will not have sufficient evidence one way or another until after the election.
And the way to deal with this, MS, is to go aggressively negative against John McCain and the Republican Party, and remind people every day why it is vital not to hand this wild man the keys to Oval Office. I have been very surprised by the degree to which some of the PUMA characters are in the dark about McCain and his policy outlook. Just yesterday or today, one of their members was quoted as describing him as a “pro-choice” candidate, despite the fact that the last I heard is that he had something like a 0% rating from Planned Parenthood. I know the Obama campaign wants Obama to be Mr. Sunshine, but I blame the campaign and the party in general for not yet putting the fear of God into people about John McCain.
The public is in a “throw the Republican bums out” mood all across the country. They have apparently concluded that the last seven and a half years have been some of the worst in US history. Only at the top of the ticket is there any hesitancy. Why?
Well, one reason is that McCain has presented himself to the country as a moderate, and so far that presentation has not been aggressively enough challenged. The foreign policy radicalism, in particular, has gone unchallenged. McCain is in fact an extremist, and the Democrats should be running “daisy commercials” against him. The point of such a campaign shouldn’t just be that McCain is a hawk – some middle of the road voters may like hawks – but that he is intemperate, injudicious, forgetful and impulsive man, whose knowledge does not match his “experience”, and who is committed to an even more aggressive form of the radical foreign policy agenda that characterized the first six years of the Bush administration, and which the public has now decisively rejected.
August 26th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
It’s unbelievable how bad the Democrats are at this whole campaign message thing. You don’t think Republican candidates who lost in the primary season have enormous ambitions that McCain has had to contend with? And yet, here we are, with the Republicans churning out an amazing number of attack ads on Obama, and damn little to show going the other way. I feel like Matt Yglesias is a guy who understands what needs to be done. So why don’t party operatives?
If the Democrats lose this fall, they will lose 4 years later when Hillary takes another stab at the presidency and that’s because the enormous resentment created by her current behavior will cause deep fissures in the party. We will have 16 years of uninterrupted Republican rule, without any repudiation of the Bush administration’s tactics with regard to the War on Terror, eavesdropping, and Iraq.
August 26th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
First and foremost, I am an Obama supporter. I will say this about the repub unity issue, though:
They are pragmatists.
For all the bluster of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh about their dislike of John McCain, where are they now? Supporting him. They don’t have a unity problem because they are pragmatists. They understand that when you lose a battle you can still win a war.
The Democratic party, by contrast, is the party of idealism.
And this is one of the biggest reasons why I am a Democrat, I believe that as a result of Kennedy’s “Go to the Moon” speech, we went to the moon. Nothing can be achieved without great ideas. But this is also our achilles heel: If the chips aren’t all in the right place, we risk losing some of the wide ranging and diverse groups that traditionally support us. We can either learn how to embrace these differences, or we can divide as a party. Jim Webb is very good in pointing this out.
August 26th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
We’re missing two factors. One, while the Clintons aren’t innocent in all this, it’s being massively hyped by the republicans.
Two, and more importantly, is that we’re seeing the desperate flailings of a rapidly declining empire. Obama has his own extremely successful fundraising lists and has co-opted much of the machinery of the DNC. Win or lose, he’ll be in a splendid position to rain favor on favored candidates for years to come. As John Emnerson writes, the Clintons and their courtesans courtiers are losing their power and livelihoods.
Of course, those who put party or country first wouldn’t try to undermine Obama, but it’s really just the iron law of institutions.
August 27th, 2008 at 5:40 am
I still say Clinton is going to try to screw Obama. OTOH, it’s possible that it is now obvious to both Clintons that Obama is going to lose against McCain anyway, so why bother being blamed for it in 2012. They can just sit back, do a little campaigning for Obama on the side, and wait for the inevitable Democratic disaster, then take advantage of it.
August 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
WELL
August 27th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
YALL MUTHER FER YA SUCK I THINK THIS AINT COOL IM COOL I HAT YALL YA ARE NOT PROFESSINAL AND NOT RRICH SO HOP OFF HE HE
March 1st, 2009 at 6:00 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 1st, 2009 at 7:01 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:52 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 12th, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:23 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:52 am
It is the coolest site,keep so! viagra