Monday, July 28, 2008

They Don't Need Us? Good - Update

Joe Cannon has been assiduously documenting the ongoing viciousness, misogyny and arrogance of the Obamasphere – here, here and here. And while some commenters dismiss the vile sludge he dredges up as the kind of stuff that can be found among bottom-feeders in any political contest, the latest scuttlebutt out of the One’s campaign makes it clear that the tune they’re singing is in harmony with its Netroots choir. Namely, they believe they don’t need us:

“The arguments for picking Mrs. Clinton have always been highly pragmatic, based more on electoral politics than anything else, as Mr. McAuliffe suggested in pointing to the vote-getting power she has exhibited. (For what it’s worth, some of Mr. McCain’s advisers said they view Mrs. Clinton as the single strongest candidate Mr. Obama can pick for those same reasons.)

“These arguments have not held much sway with Mr. Obama or his inner circle. Instead, they have indicated that whatever political benefits might be gained by putting Mrs. Clinton on the ticket would be outweighed by the costs.”

Fine, they don’t like us, they really don’t like us. And the existence of the PUMA movement is evidence that the feeling is mutual. But the question I have is not about the feelings, but about the maturity and leadership of the cult now controlling the Democratic Party.

Whether or not they like us, isn’t it their obligation to learn how to work with us? Isn’t it their obligation – the responsibility of anyone with actual power – to get over themselves? Isn’t it their obligation actually to optimize the institution over which they are now the stewards?

Whether or not they like us, don’t they have to observe the bonds of marriage?

When Trent Lott “joked” that maybe lightning would strike Hillary before her first Senate term began, he was not alone in that sentiment on his side of the aisle – or, we now see, on Hillary’s own. And yet, facing that wall of hatred, what did she do? Did she marshal her ample forces of celebrity and treat these assholes like the historical and intellectual irrelevancies that they were (and are)? No. She walked across the room and brought a cup of coffee to someone who had wished her dead.

Hillary, in other words, is deeply serious. She is deeply serious about what is required to wield power in ways that matter. She is so profoundly serious and tough that she could suck it up and work with the worst bullies in the playground. She is so profoundly serious and tough that she was able to keep her eyes on the prize – actually passing laws, actually building coalitions, actually governing – despite the cost to her pride, despite the laws of the jungle.

And, of course, the result is that she had her cake and ate it. She accomplished real work, while winning the admiration and respect of her colleagues in ways absolutely no one expected.

My Precious? Not so much. Instead, he and his thuggish-yahoo chorus (if you think that adjective is unwarranted, just read through any of the links from Cannonfire above) are caught up in their own delusional, narcissistic fantasies:

"Mr. Obama’s advisers say that a central message of his campaign — that he would represent a break from the way politics are conducted in Washington — would be tarnished by the simple of act of linking himself to the family that has dominated Democratic politics since Bill Clinton won the presidency in 1992."

It's hard to know where in that sentence to direct one's outrage. Obama represents a break from the way politics are conducted in Washington? The Clintons would "tarnish" them?

They don't need us? Good. Hillary shouldn't be associated with this soulless, unprincipled charlatan or his jejune acolytes. Even if they do win this election -- which a potted plant could do if it were registered Democratic -- his administration will be a failure. And Hillary will be in much better position to pick up the pieces if she isn't part of it.

Update: Nice to have eriposte back -- even if only for a drive-by.

No comments: