THE BIG CON

The Obamabloggers are in a tizzy today as a result of BO's squishy, PANDERING interview on Fox's Sunday show with Chris Wallace. KOS insists he didn't put Obama on a pedestal, so he couldn't be knocked off, but he is clearly PO'ed, particularly when Obama threw DKOS a dis during the interview.

Chris Bowers wonders whether progressive bloggers and MoveOn have lost leverage over the Democratic candidates because of their early endorsement of Obama.

aThe events of this weekend, where the Obama campaign can appear on Fox News, the campaign can lie about the purpose of the appearance, and then bloggers who call Obama out on this get attacked by Obama supporters online, to me smacks of the death knell of blogosphere influence in the 2008 presidential campaigns.

Well, duh! They certainly lost leverage over Hillary Clinton! And they lost influence with her supporters (virtually half of all Democrats) by not just preferring Obama to her, but actively savaging her AND her voters, and by actively trying to destroy the legacy of the Clinton administration, the only two-term Democratic presidency since FDR. How on earth do they think they can backpedal now?

It appears that the Blogger Boyz are reluctantly and timidly facing up to the fact that they wuz used. What did they think, that a product of Chicago machine politics that is light on details, runs from progressive priorities (such as UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE), and talks "unity" with Republicans instead of "fighting the good fight" would be a good champion for them? Obama has even said he doesn't know much about or read much on the blogs. They really bought themselves a bill of goods.

But not to worry! When their candidate is trounced by John McCain in the fall, they'll not only be able to Blame HillaryTM, they'll have a raison d'etre for continuing and expanding their operations -- McCain Bashing. They'll gain new readers, increase ad revenue, and be able to afford all the latte and arugula they want.

Oh hey ... maybe that was their underlying motive in the first place. It sure as heck wasn't to help the most experienced, progressive candidate of the two make it to the White House.

HAPPY FOURTH ANNIVERSARY TO ME

I just realized that I wrote my first post for this blog on April 18, 2004. Four years and 3,309 posts later, I am no better satisfied with the direction of this country than I was then. I am not much more confident that we will elect a Democrat to the White House this year than I was when John Kerry was challenging W. Our choices will likely be between Barack Obama and John McCain. What a relief after eight years of the Shrub! Two more arrogant, entitled men who think their "judgment" is a superior substitute to hard work, research, slogging through policy issues, and "feeling the pain" of the masses.

These past four years, I've been laboring under the delusion that Democrats were united more than ever in recent memory, in our primary pursuits: to win a majority in Congress and to take the White House; to advance a progressive agenda that includes a rational and diplomatic foreign policy; universal healthcare; fair taxation; an enlightened and forward-thinking energy policy; a reclaiming of our civil rights; re-establishing the United States as a country that does not torture, a bulwark of democracy and a supporter of democratic values throughout the world; strengthening the tools and agencies of government by eradicating the partisanship that has so weakened them; supporting scientific and medical research and combatting the climate crisis; and putting qualified judges on the bench that will balance the rightward swing of the judiciary; abolishing the electoral college in favor of the popular vote and revising ballot processes to ensure that the people's will is carried out in elections. Besides all that, I've expected our next Democratic president to rebuild our broken military, get us out of Iraq in the quickest manner while preserving the safety of our troops, and to freaking REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS.

That's a boatload of stuff for any one president to accomplish, or even to set in motion. There's only one candidate I have the slightest notion could tackle it all, competently and effectively. That's Hillary Clinton. I can't even imagine (and believe me, I've tried) a Barack Obama walking into the Oval Office on Day One with an aide reciting in his ear the limited litany of issues I've just mentioned. Every time I try, I see two scenarios only: (1) the deer-in-the-headlights look on Obama's face, then its relaxation when he realizes that if W could get through it, he could; (2) a gesture of his hands brushing off the detritus on his shoulder as he responds, "There are people for that, right?"

With Hillary, I can so clearly see her saying, "I know all that, I've got a policy and implementation plan all ready for each of them. Ask Ann to give you the schedule."

Back to the fourth anniversary. Here I've imagined for the past four years that this was going to be the Great Awakening, that the disasters of the Bush years would have proven so conclusively how risky it is to install an untried, inexperienced, gut-truster in the most powerful position in the world, that Democrats, with their wealth of worthy candidates, would offer an irresistible alternative: a grownup. Not so much.

But just as awful for my idealistic expectations, I've been witness this past year to an ugliness among the left blogosphere, a rampant sexism that I thought was a thing of the past, among the media and the blogs, a glee at the prospect of finally, FINALLY getting rid of the Clintons and all those pesky inferior mainstream Democrats, that has sickened and depressed me. What's happened to the progressive community? Have they been infiltrated by neo-Republicans? Has KOS really just been lying in wait for all these years since he ostensibly converted from ReThuglican to Dem, just to extract some kind of sick vengeance against our Party, or is he just lusting for influence?

Okay, that was a bit of hyperbole (I think, I hope). But my point is, it's not a happy anniversary for me. I'm disappointed in Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, the so-called "progressive" blogosphere, in so many folks with whom I thought I'd found a home over the past four years. I don't despise them. I don't even understand why they despise me and all the other Hillary supporters. I certainly don't understand how they could despise Hillary Clinton herself. I've put a lot of time and energy into those 3,309 posts (make this one 3,310), hoping to touch base with other like-minded people, maybe provide a little information and perspective to some, add to the civil political discourse in a small way, but mostly to feel connected to a community that offered, I thought, hope that after the eight long years of Bush/Cheney/Rove we could win one again. Now that the on-line left has adopted the same principles, rhetoric and tactics they so decried in their Republican opponents, I feel the four years were in some respects a waste of time, based on an illusion.

PLEASE HELP ME, I'M FALLING

Okay, I confess. I continue to peek at Daily KOS. And each time I do, I ask myself if I'm just sado-masochistic. This latest just knocked me off my metaphorical feet:

First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

"Uncertainty" around Michigan and Florida, two states Hillary won fairly and decisively, and which we will need to win in the general election. Yes, there's plenty of uncertainty, but it can't be laid at Hillary's doorstep. She kept her pledge not to campaign in Florida (Obama didn't, buying cable ads in Florida). Credit Howard Dean and the DNC for the "uncertainty."

Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.

Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

Hillary looks pretty darn cheerful and calm to me, not loony at all. If she's in pursuit of power, it's in order to make real change for ordinary Americans, part of her lifelong dedication to improving the lives of children and families. Where was Obama when his poor constituents were having their heat turned off by his good pal Tony Rezko? Is it not at least possible for Markos to concede that Hillary might have motives more pure than his amateurish attempts to psychoanalyze her might suggest?

If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.

It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

Oooh, again. Hillary must be shaking in her boots. "Dealt with appropriately?" That sounds like something a prison warden or high school principal would spout. And it's ridiculous to accuse Hillary of "fomenting civil war" by staying in the race. Let all the whiny little KOSsacks consider, she MIGHT just be acting as a patriot, convinced that Obama is not ready to be the leader of the free world and/or that if he is the nominee, Democrats will have to suffer another four years of Bush policy under John McCain. But KOS would never ascribe such motives to a Clinton. For heaven's sake, they're associated with the despised DLC! Never mind that Obama's entire campaign is based on exactly the "unity" schtick that the DLC has been pushing for ages.

To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.

That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party.

"Earned" his enmity? Enmity: a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism. Now I don't know any Hillary supporters who have ENMITY for Obama. We'd like more time to see what he's made of, yes, and some of us have decided that we're not ready to take a chance on him. But hatred? Hell, no! Hillary has wrecked Markos' pretty little party in which he and his buddies get to pick the candidate for the rest of us Democrats, and he pure-en-teen (as they used to say in the rural South) hates her for it. I'd like to see Kos explain why he thinks he has the right after a few short years in the Democratic Party (a converted Republican, you know) to try to destroy one of our most stalwart and effective leaders. His arrogance and conceit know no bounds.

And another oh please. KeithO's "neutrality" has been questionable for quite some time now and in recent weeks his favoritism has been so thinly veiled as to make him appear nakedly in the tank for BO. Pelosi, too, has greatly disappointed me. What, exactly, does Barack Obama bring to the table to stir up such fervent discipleship? Unity? Unity with whom, exactly? Hope? Hope for what? I never seem to hear that explored. Change? Change from what, to what? Please, someone explain to me why so many of our Democratic leaders have embraced a man they know little about, who speaks against "politics as usual" while practicing Chicago machine tactics, who has spent almost half his life under the tutelage of a hate-filled, divisive character like Jeremiah Wright. Barack has got some 'splaining to do before I'm ready to support him, but I don't even DISLIKE him, much less hate him!

You know, I used to say, often in my younger years, that if I'd been born black, I'd have been an angry activist. I never ascribed to violence or hate, but I understood anger on the part of black Americans and sympathized with it. I was also an angry young Vietnam War protester. But as we mature we learn to move forward, to seek solutions, not retaliation for past grievances; and especially as Christians we learn to forgive, seek reconciliation, and try to correct the mistakes we've made. Jeremiah Wright hasn't learned to do that, and apparently, neither has Markos.

It's the "Obama Rules" in action again. And it's not just Obama who practices them.