Clinton Destroying the Party

Crossposted at my TPM blog.

Obama supporters (like MJ, and especially AK) seem to be saying that if the Clintons succeed in defeating Obama with bareknuckle politics, it will destroy the Democratic party.

But consider for a moment what this whole Clintons-destroying-the-party meme is really saying.

It's saying Obama is the Democratic party. I must have missed that memo.

This is nothing less than Cheney-style fearmongering. This is a political version of "we don't want the smoking gun to appear in the form of a mushroom cloud." It's a crass, vicious message aimed straight at our most primal emotions. This from the campaign that is supposed to be above it all.

H.L. Mencken said,
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

Is this Obama's message of hope - that he is the only hope for the future of the Democratic party? Because that's not a message of hope, it's a message of fear. If you believe it, you're being played - by a (gasp) politician. Say it ain't so, Joe Lieberman. Say it ain't so.

I have seen plenty of Obama supporters in the comment threads who indicate they will never vote for Hillary in the general election, or that they'd rather vote for McCain, or any number of similar immature, Lieberman for Connecticut, take-my-ball-and-go-home attitudes. My six-year-old son would say these people are acting acting like babies.

Is this Obama's idea of bringing people together - against anything Clinton?

In various comment threads, I have attempted to defend Clinton, even though I think she voted stupidly for the joint resolution of force against Iraq. I'm voting for John Edwards in the primary. I think he'd make a good president. People say he's painting himself as a populist when his record isn't that of a populist. I believe that he has grown, matured, and become wiser. People do that - just look at Al Gore. The Al Gore of today would never have lost to George Bush in 2000. I am most uncomfortable with people and politicians who don't change and who can't admit to mistakes. I support Edwards BECAUSE he has become a populist. I support him because he has changed his mind about things.

Anyway, I have no illusions about his chances. It would take a miracle - a complete meltdown of either the Clinton or Obama campaign - for him to win the nomination. My second choice, as you might guess, is Clinton. But I support all three of them. My choice of Edwards is merely a matter of personal preference.

If our three Democratic candidate were steaks, they would be ribeye, t-bone, and porterhouse. Saying one cut of meat from the same cow will destroy the party is - there's no gentle way to say this - fucking nuts. "Everybody knows the porterhouse is the king of steaks and a t-bone is just a porterhouse with the best parts removed." Only profoundly shallow and silly people make these kinds of arguments.

If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him in November. Without hesitation. Gladly. I don't think he's the best Democratic candidate, but only by a matter of degrees. He is orders of magnitude better than any Republican.

If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will say the same of Clinton or Edwards?

If Obama loses the nomination, how many of his supporters will instead blow up the wells as they retreat?

The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear. - H. P. Lovecraft