The Dems Open a Vein
With so much at stake for the future of the nation and the world, one would think that the Democratic Party and its supporters would have acted with a bit more deliberation before blithely tossing away the presidential election. With George Bush and the party he represents held in such apparent low esteem by the nation, one has to wonder how the Democrats can possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; yet, if last week is any indication, that is exactly what they have been aiming to do.
That Hillary Clinton would decide that the best way to win the South Carolina primary and its majority African-American voters would be to attack Martin Luther King on his birthday is about as believable as the contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002. Yet, driven by an incessant media hype, the perception that Clinton was denigrating Dr. King by pointing out Lyndon Johnson's key role in shepherding civil rights legislation through Congress became viable political currency. One would think that the Democratic campaigns could have figured out that they were handing the media - which thrives on creating conflict where none exists - another opportunity to divert viewers attention away from discussing substantive political issues. Karl Rove must have been smiling.
While Clinton supporters, such as Rep. Charlie Rangle, excoriated the Obama campaign for manufacturing misplaced outrage, the Clinton electoral machine was criticized for its use of surrogates to remind voters once too often of Barack Obama's admission that he had engaged in substance abuse as a student. George Bush must have been smiling.
Some of the blame for this inane behavior needs to be placed with the party's national leadership. This is not a welcome conclusion considering the fact that the contest we are witnessing is all about choosing a national leader. As far as any one can tell, party chairman, Howard Dean and his subordinates have done little to provide any unified direction for the Democrats other than to strip Michigan of its delegates because the state decided to move it's primary to January 15th in violation of party rules. The Dems may discover down the road that alienating large numbers of one's own voters in a key industrial state rather than working out a compromise over rules may not be the best way to get a president elected in 2008. What seems clear is that Democrats have been foolishly acting as though victory is assured in November and no one is steering the ship.
With so much at stake for the future of the nation and the world, one would think that the Democratic Party and its supporters would have acted with a bit more deliberation before blithely tossing away the presidential election. With George Bush and the party he represents held in such apparent low esteem by the nation, one has to wonder how the Democrats can possibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; yet, if last week is any indication, that is exactly what they have been aiming to do.
That Hillary Clinton would decide that the best way to win the South Carolina primary and its majority African-American voters would be to attack Martin Luther King on his birthday is about as believable as the contention that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in 2002. Yet, driven by an incessant media hype, the perception that Clinton was denigrating Dr. King by pointing out Lyndon Johnson's key role in shepherding civil rights legislation through Congress became viable political currency. One would think that the Democratic campaigns could have figured out that they were handing the media - which thrives on creating conflict where none exists - another opportunity to divert viewers attention away from discussing substantive political issues. Karl Rove must have been smiling.
While Clinton supporters, such as Rep. Charlie Rangle, excoriated the Obama campaign for manufacturing misplaced outrage, the Clinton electoral machine was criticized for its use of surrogates to remind voters once too often of Barack Obama's admission that he had engaged in substance abuse as a student. George Bush must have been smiling.
Some of the blame for this inane behavior needs to be placed with the party's national leadership. This is not a welcome conclusion considering the fact that the contest we are witnessing is all about choosing a national leader. As far as any one can tell, party chairman, Howard Dean and his subordinates have done little to provide any unified direction for the Democrats other than to strip Michigan of its delegates because the state decided to move it's primary to January 15th in violation of party rules. The Dems may discover down the road that alienating large numbers of one's own voters in a key industrial state rather than working out a compromise over rules may not be the best way to get a president elected in 2008. What seems clear is that Democrats have been foolishly acting as though victory is assured in November and no one is steering the ship.
Comments