Wednesday, April 02, 2008

The two faces of Kos

Before Kos descended into CDS madness (emphasis added in red sometimes in red boldface):

Who is playing to win?

Winning is important. The last thing we can afford as a country is another 4-8 years of continued Republican rule. If nothing else, Justice Stevens is not long on the bench, and losing his vote in the Supreme Court would inflict the nation with a solid conservative majority for generations. So who is doing everything possible to win?

Hillary Clinton, by far. She's not limiting her campaign's ability to raise money (nor her supporters' to give it) by accepting public financing. Obama has opted out for the primary, but has said he'd accept it for the general if the Republican did so as well. Why give Republicans veto power over what the Democrats do? Given our better ability to raise money this cycle, why would Obama willingly surrender that advantage to the Republicans? That's not playing to win. Edwards is the opposite, saying he could opt out of public financing for the general, but already opted in for the primary. That means that unless he's opposite a similarly limited Republican (i.e. McCain), he'll be at a gross disadvantage all summer as he has less than $20 million left to spend until September.

What's more, Clinton was the only top-tier candidate to refuse the ultimate Iowa and New Hampshire pander by removing her name from the Michigan ballot. That makes her essentially the de facto winner since Edwards and Obama, caving to the cry babies in Iowa and New Hampshire, took their name off Michigan's ballot. Sure, the DNC has stripped Michigan of its delegates, but that won't last through the convention. The last thing Democrats can afford is to alienate swing states like Michigan and Florida by refusing to seat their delegates.

So while Obama and Edwards kneecap their chances of winning, Clinton is single-mindedly focused on the goal.

Who is tested against the Right Wing smear machine?

Edwards earned valuable campaign experience in 2004. It makes me wonder why he'd go through it all again a second time, but still, it's something. Clinton, by far. No one has taken more shit from the VRWC, not by a long shot.Obama has never had a competitive race against a Republican. His best experiences comes from winning primaries. But he's never been in the crossfires of the GOP. Maybe that's why he can pretend that he can move beyond partisanship. Because he's never had to run a partisan race.

Who is the best defender of progressive ideals?

Edwards, by a landslide. Not the 2004 edition, but the new and improved 2008 model. From a rhetorical standpoint, no one has come close to articulating the nation's ills and why progressive solutions are the best salve. This is important -- Democrats have been poor at branding their ideology, thus ceding that ground to demonizing conservatives. Long term, our movement cannot survive another Bill Clinton -- someone more interested in making David Broder and Joe Klein happy with triangulating rhetoric that undermines rather than bolsters progressive values and policies.

Clinton isn't horrible on this front, but Obama has made a cottage industry out of attacking the dirty fucking hippies on the left, from labor unions, to Paul Krugman, to Gore and Kerry, to social security, and so on. People think I was being ticky tack with the Gore thing, and in isolation it would've been but a minor non-event. But it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, yet another in a pattern of attacks against Democrats and their constituencies. [Obama] is the return of Bill Clinton-style triangulating personified. Now I'm willing to consider that this is all a front, and that he'd govern as progressively as Bush governed conservatively after his 2000 bullshit about being a "uniter" and "compassionate". He can even pull a Bush, I suppose, and claim a "mandate" on policies he blurred or ignored on the campaign. But we've seen how a lack of true mandate has crushed Bush's presidency and made him the most unpopular and least effective president in history. I'd rather have our candidate elected promising progressive reform, especially in a year where the American people seem to crave such solutions.

Then again, I do like that Obama has frozen out Fox "News" (as has Edwards, I think). I wish Clinton would do so as well, but her weird flirtation with Rupert Murdoch apparently precludes that.

The "Story" and likability?

I actually like all the candidates, even Hillary. I don't like the people she surrounds herself with, like the union-busting Mark Penn, but I like her personally. And I like Obama and his story, and I like Edwards and his story. I like the fact that being a white male puts Edwards at a disadvantage. It shows we're progressing and that people are craving a more tangible symbol of that progress -- a woman or African American president. As a Latino, I was desperately hoping I could get behind Bill Richardson's campaign, but that one came up short in so many different areas that it wasn't to be. But I like Richardson as well. Politicians rarely get this high by being public assholes, at least on the Democratic side.

In other words, I'd have a beer with any of them. But I do love the idea of breaking a new barrier this year, whether it's by having a woman president or an African American one.

Bottom line?

Given the minor differences in policy, and the vast gap between them and the chamber of horrors the GOP has put forth, I'll be satisfied with any of these candidates as my nominee. None of them rock my world, there are no true people-powered candidates in our field (the only one is Ron Paul, on the other side). So what's the fault line? The desire to win (important) and the ability and willingness to unapologetically articulate progressive solutions to our nation's problems. Hillary wins the former, and Edwards the latter. I'd love to see a barrier broken, to provide a tangible sign of our progress as a society (even Pakistan has had a woman prime minister).

By jennies! What a reversal of fortunes. Kos has transformed into the head cheerleader of the Obamasphere overcome with Clinton Derangement Syndrome.

Today, Kos shows us how unhinged and shallow he's become in his rebuttal of a NYTimes article criticizing Howard Dean of the DNC:

Indeed, 24 hours after he made his remarks, Mrs. Clinton said she intended to keep fighting for the nomination through the summer, if necessary. It was an unmistakable rebuke to Mr. Dean, who has never had good relations with the Clintons.

Clinton's remarks may have been a rebuke to Dean, but who cares? . . .

Dean has been very clear about Michigan and Florida: the rules are the rules. That doesn't make the Clinton partisans happy, but that's not from a lack of leadership on it, but because of his leadership on fighting for the rules that the party agreed on. Let's not forget that Clinton pitbull Harold Ickes was on the committee that voted for the sanctions.

Oh, Ickes did indeed vote for sanctions but as "a DNC member and a Clinton adviser in charge of delegate counting," how would it have been perceived if he had voted against it? Not so impartial perhaps? Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. But, oh, Ickes is evil working for that Clinton woman!

Dean made the DNC's position very clear to [Hillary] before the primaries started. She ignored him while Florida Democrats openly mocked him. Now she wants him to get her out of her own mess? Hilarious. . .

No, a nitwit thinks a Democrat presidential nominee can win the general election with a 48-state strategy. Here's Dean 'splaining on CNN last night (with emphasis):

DEAN: I would very much like to have Florida and Michigan seated. Because of the circumstances under which they held their elections, essentially which were not valid elections, they aren't going to be seated the same way that everybody else is.

They can be seated in one of two ways. One, they can be seated by agreement between the two campaigns if there is no clear winner, or, two, they will be seated I suspect by whoever does win the nomination. Whoever wins the nomination will control the credentials committee, which will control the seating. And I strongly believe our nominee is going to want Florida and Michigan in the hall. Under which rules, that will depend. The nominee will set the rules.

Whoa! Stellar leadership! If one thinks that seating the FL and MI delegates after the nominee has been decided will endear those states' voters to the Democrat in November, just put down the wacky tobaccy and step away from the bong. But kookiness abounds:

You have to be a frakin' moron to pretend Dean has shown no leadership. So here it is, in bullet points for the addled and their journalist friends:

  • Florida and Michigan violated DNC rules. Their contests don't matter. The DNC rules committee can re-evaluate at the appropriate time.

  • Florida and Michigan are more than free to hold sanctioned contests if they want.

  • Dean thinks the process should play out. And once the final contest is in the books, in June, the super delegates should declare their preferences.

I didn't have to do research to jot those three bullet points down. They are self-evident and have been repeated a billion times in every interview Dean does. They are studiously non-partisan at a time when the most zealous supporters parse every utterance for evidence of bias.

The emperor of the Kossacks wears no clothes and maybe should have done more research into the full story of the Dean's part in the DNC's cock-up and GOP machinations impacting the Florida and Michigan primaries. Since Kos is so big on the rules, riddle this:

The DNC and the MSM appear to have simultaneously concluded that even Clinton's 300,000-vote win in Florida, where both candidates competed on a level playing field, shouldn't be counted in the popular vote tally, a calculation that appears nowhere in DNC rules and turns 1.7 million Democratic voters into ghosts.

More inflammatory, the DNC exempted Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina for moving their primaries up before February but Dean meted out the worst punishment to Michigan and Florida. How dumb is that? Click the link for inquiring minds. I'll ask again as I did yesterday: Does anyone recall a presidential election in the past few decades that turned on the Electoral College counts of either New Hampshire, Iowa or South Carolina?

Kos, however, has made up his Obama-partisan mind and stamped his little foot. Da rules! Da rules! Waaaah! Harumphity-waaaah! Sweetie darling, have you read the DNC rules? Or are you using them selectively for your OFB?

Riverdaughter expounds further related to another Kos psychotic episode on how "Hillary [is] ripping the Democratic party asunder," a specious piece of propaganda:

Let that sink in a sec, Kos. The RULZ as presently dictated, not only disenfranchise FL and MI but every other big state and swing state that voted for her- decisively. I would hate to piss us off if I were Barry, because that would be very divisive, in a rather huge and unpleasant way. I’d much rather piss off Wyoming and Utah. . .

...If I were Kos, this is precisely the scenario I would want if I wanted to win in the fall. The strongest candidate at the time of the convention would be the nominee. That’s not divisive, Kos. That’s saving your bacon from being the dimwitted blogger you turned out to be.

As for divisions, this can be solved rather easily: 1.) seat the delegates from FL and MI as is. That will make the voters of these states hate the Democrats less. 2.) Stop being the anti-Clinton supporters. That will make the rest of US not want to put your nuts in a vice. And 3.) Get behind Hillary because she’s the best qualified candidate, unlike Barry who has nothing going for him right now except for the fair weather friends in the media. That should be the only criteria for nomination, who is the best presidential material.

And stop trying to rush things. Your strategy is obvious and irritating and it makes you look pathetic.

Yes, in-deed-y.