Saturday, June 14, 2008


The consolidation of Whole Foods Nation under The Dear Leader in Chicago has me and the spousal unit going "Hmm".

I've written before about the Obamacan demand that Democratic money be brought under the Chicago Combine's control, but subsuming the entire DNC to a single candidate's campaign is both horrifying and fascinating, kind of like watching decomposition. As there are more confirmed details, I'll be writing more, but one little gem stood out for me, which is the way the state operations, the ones that promote the downticket candidates, are being rolled up into the Obama operation.

In Mississippi, a candidate won a special congressional election this spring, but had to run at least one ad and do some talking to distance himself from Obama because of the Wright and bitter/cling comments. If Obama controls the purse strings and the operations people, he can probably enforce a demand that down ticket candidates shut their mouths and risk defeat rather than allow them to distance themselves from his questionable background and political behavior. Might he yank money and support from Democrats who backed Hillary, preferring to punish enemies than expand a majority? Will he write off down ticket campaigns, particularly for state and municipal offices, preferring to concentrate the money and the people hours on his own success?

One of the reasons to have an independent party operation, one that is not a wholly owned subsidiary of a particular candidate or faction, is its ability to deliver money and support to lower level, less sexy contests where the shift of a few seats might mean capturing a statehouse or taking over a city council of a large city. The interests of the party have to be wider than any particular candidate, and a diversity of voices prevents tunnel vision or a distorted view of the electoral landscape.

Does a downticket candidate represent the interests of her constituents, or does submission to the political ambitions of The Precious override obligations to the voters?



Unknown said...

This might be that proverbial 'step to far....' and it's going down right at the start.

I, along with many others, as is quite obvious, now, were utterly naive to think that giving the 'Democrat' Party, the party of Miss Nancy and 'SellOut' Reid, a majority would be the first step to a more Progressive Congress.

It is I still believe.


We are going to have to replace most of the current folks in place in the House. The rot is too deep. The moral bankruptcy too widely considered 'pragmatic'. The fact that our nation resembles no other so much as Germany with Hitler's invasion of Poland is...


Democratic leadership sees only the tidal wave of Benjamins that Obama promises. Not the horrific damage done in the world, and now be codified into permanence through a treaty 'with' the Iraqi people. America is not thinking straight. The nation is locked in some deranged room where Barry and McSame are going to savage each other bloody over issues the rest of the world finds...

Trivial and escapist.

A reckoning is coming. And unless we the people start kicking some politicians out of office. Some big named, do nothing types and do it this cycle the future will not be bright enough for shades to be required.

Rather, it'll be darkly Hobbesian in the extreme.

Yo! Barry, does you know what that means?


I only hope that the American exceptionalism which allows the celebration of a tool and fool like Russert as some sort of praiseworthy individual will die in that room along with the reputation of the MSM, The ReThuglicans and the so-called Democratic party.

There's an awful lot of dead wood lumbering our society with their 'vision' and 'leadership...'. And that dead wood won't, in my opinion, take much to set on fire.

Cathy said...

Funny, I was trying to post something at the Confluence but couldn't find an opening. However, your post provided the perfect segue.

The $64,000 question is what caused Dean to abandon the 50 state strategy? I actually supported him for DNC chair based on his willingness to go everywhere and organize. However, I never remember anyone saying it wouldn't take years (2020 was often tossed out).

Now all of that has been jettisoned for a candidate who can't deliver big states in contested primaries. Exacerbating the problem further, this candidate has stripped away the very people who might train and encourage future opponents. (Anyway else thinking King Herod in the New Testament?)

I see the following possible answers:

1. Dean is already out of power and been replaced by Obama supporter. (Saw posting somewhere but can't remember the guy's name.) That explained move to Chicago.

2. Dean, Markos, and certain others are simply paying everyone back for 2004. In other words, Dean would rather lose than see Clintons and Terry Mac be successful.

3. This is takeover by Libertarian party who had nowhere to go after Republicans moved hard right under Bush.

4. This is a strategy funded by Karl Rove and/or Ron Paul. (Nah; the democrats don't need that much outside help to self-destruct.)

By the way to answer your question, the downticket candidate must submit. Machine politics demands total submission in order to survive. That goes for the candidate seeking money to voter seeking to keep the heat turned on and the garbage picked up.

Of course, the ridiculousness of imposing a true machine outside of a self-contained urban area probably merits its own post.

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely correct on this. This is very worrisome to me.

I also have a feeling that this signals the move to remove all things Clinton from the party. With the party being completely handed over to Obama, and him moving swiftly to bring it totally under his control, I see no scenario in which he will put her on the ticket. It seems clear this is all about Obama and he doesn't want any big names or heavy hitters, like the Clintons, getting in his way.

The only way to prevent his complete takeover is to defeat him in November. The fate of the Democratic Party is at stake.


Anonymous said...

Obama's demands and actions to take over the Democratic party with all its functions and funds was expressed and appeared on the blogs at least a month ago.

Moving the DNC to Chicago and absorbing it into the Obama campaign is new. The symbolism and actual meaning of that move are huge. Moving the DNC from Washington to Chicago is akin to building a new capital in a dictatorship. It's an attempt to start from scratch, to destroy the past and make it disappear. It's an act democracies seldom take and if they do, it's to unify a fragmented country (e.g. Brazil).

Absorbing the DNC organization into the Obama one is a brazen destruction of the Democratic party. Not only is it a slap in the face of party unity, but it is the ascendancy of a supremacists movement (the Creative Class or the Whole Food gang) that enslaves African American to the megalomaniacal dreams of a single individual who isn't even particularly smart.

The Boyz and other elite-seeking types are clearly are not aware of Obama's real goals. That's not surprising. Every dictator with a reasonable popular song and dance has gotten the support of these naive lot.

beyond November, the Democratic party will survive. If Obama wins in November, his term will terminate in a colossal collapse which will cost the country way more than GWB has cost us. Therefore, it's urgent that Obama be stopped before a complete destruction. We already failed once with Hillary. Can we afford another lose?

HR said...

I think that you are the smartest person blogging. Indeed, there is something Soviet about Obama that I can't quite articulate. For the first time in my life I'm not going to vote for the Democrat. We've been saying for years that the Dems need to be as ruthless as the GOP and the problem is that we've got it -- but forgot that the ruthlessness will be wielded against Dems who ask questions as well as against the other party. Emerson once wrote that his friend Daniel Webster had drunk too much "of the strong drink of Party." Indeed, Obama's DNC is like a drunk father with a belt in his hand.

pm317 said...

Does a downticket candidate represent the interests of her constituents, or does submission to the political ambitions of The Precious override obligations to the voters?

This is one sure way to stifle dissent and make yourself the "Dear Leader." But how will it work? The voters can always vote these sycophants out, no? We have in our power to vote this guy out in November.

But a bigger question is who is minding the store?

The fact that good people don't want the VP latest being Mark Warner from VA -- is that a sign that they don't like what is going on?

show me said...


Glad to see you back even if temporary. Sorry for your troubles whatever they are.

What amazes me is there seems to be very little push back to this power grab. Was this part of the deal made before the DNC screwed Hillary?

Other than Gov. Strickland people at least publicly seem okay with this.I just can't imagine that the blue dogs are. Do they understand that Obama's movement is not progressive?

It is so weird to be without a party!

Shainzona said...

Has a candidate's consolidation with the DNC ever been done before - I mean, so totally? And...just for the sake of argument, since he is only the presumptive candidate and not THE candidate until the end of August...isn't this even more presumptious?

Has the DNC ever been located outside of DC? What in the world are the employees of the DNC thinking/feeling/saying?

And finally, I read that DNC employees could move to Chicago or stay in is that "efficient" and "effective"?

And (I keep thinking of quuestions!) whose paying for the move? The DNC is cash poor right now, so I can't imagine that using its funds to pay for Obama's ego move is a great way to use money that downticket cnadidates need.

Anne said...

....Might he yank money and support from Democrats who backed Hillary, preferring to punish enemies than expand a majority? Will he write off down ticket campaigns, particularly for state and municipal offices, preferring to concentrate the money and the people hours on his own success?...

And not just Hillary supporters will be targeted. But those who voted for him,but who didn't come running instantly as well. BO is not interested in dealing with the less than completely compliant and he is like a shark who needs to constantly feed. Merely voting for Obama will not save you. But it will help him gobble you and your party up. So when will the SuperDelegates wake up? I'm not asking them to give a damn about their voters or their country. But SD,s don't you give a damn about your own careers? What was done to Hillary is in the works for you. And you will be far, far less likely to return.

It seems that Obama's DNC, or rather, the ONC ( what else can you call it?) It seems the party formerly known as the Democratic Party, has been literally bought lock, stock and barrel for little under a billion dollars. This ONC party seems to be trying to force Hillary to leave or declare BO not legitimate and make the party split her fault or something with these Uncle Joe shenanigans. Also crowding the convention platform in Denver with pro BO women politicians and no Hill, not even a roll call vote, is a direct insult to Hillary, but more importantly, to her 18 million voters.
And it's just mid June! What will be happening in Aug?
Tell me again why I will fall in line? How can I when there is a new outrage every day? I cannot possible reward these people with my vote and I contend those following Obama are committing political suicide....the more jack boot enthusiasm you show, the faster the reckoning.

Thank you for your writings Anglachel!

R. S. Martin said...

It seems like Obama and Dean are trying to transform the Democratic Party into a mirror image of the Daley operation in Chicago. Dissent will not be tolerated--as can be seen by the treatment of Clinton and her supporters, as well as the party in Texas. It seems if you want to deal with Obama or the DNC, you must do so on their terms. Otherwise, you will be starved until you play ball.

Here's an interesting article about Obama and Daley from the Chicago Reader.

Here are the passages I found most unsettling. Try to imagine these tactics translated to party operations, or, worse, the federal government.

As Chicagoans all know, the reason City Hall’s so peaceable is that Daley’s got everyone there on such a tight leash. Anyone at City Hall will tell you—though generally off the record for fear of upsetting the boss—that his control over Chicago is less about civility and compro­mise than coercion. With Daley you have a choice: he’ll buy you off or beat you up. Want to make a deal? Good—here are his terms[...]

If he wants a project, he’ll shove it down our throats. If anyone doesn’t like it, he’ll throw a temper tantrum. He’ll call them names and scorn their leaders, playing the race card if that’s what it takes. So much for overcoming a toxic political environment.

But those are the high-profile cases, where someone actually dared to mount an opposition. Much more insidious is the coercion we never hear about. Most aldermen are afraid to vote against him because they fear him and need him—they can’t hold on to their seats if Daley messes with how well they serve their constituents. Several have told me that they typically don’t know what they’re voting on: if an ordinance comes from the fifth floor, that’s all they need to know [...]

Daley doesn’t encourage discussion—he stifles it. He loathes criticism and disparages debate. He takes credit for the good and shucks responsibility for the bad. Just a few weeks ago I heard an alderman in an unguarded moment tell his northwest-side constituents what happens to bills that don’t come out of the mayor’s office: If Daley doesn’t like a bill, he kills it. If he likes it, he rewrites it and claims it as his own.

You and I are on the same page with regard to the November election. I'm not voting at the top of the ballot.

Unknown said...

I'd like to see more corroboration on the funneling of money to the DNC. I believe it, but...
I'm thinking that there will be no woman nominated for VP, simply because there would be that sniggling possibility that she would *turn* for Clinton. Maybe Barbara Ehrenreich...

BBKE said...

Organized crime. It is that simple. This is how it works. Centralized power and then purges with no competition. Very thuggish and very authoritarian and will signal the end of the party. This is exactly why Fitzgerald was appointed by a Republican congress at the behest of a Republican senator who was brought down by this group. RICO anyone?

Anna Belle said...

Wow, great post, and great comments. Part of what I love about this place is Anglachel's brilliant writing and even tone, but another part is the commentary. So many thinkers here.

That said, I couldn't agree more with iamonly1. This is a fight for the heart of the Democratic party, and I'm personally committed to doing whatever I can to promote Obama's defeat in November.

I think we've come to the point where we're going to have to strategize about what to do with what is becoming something of a movement online anyway. We need channels to get this energy and, most especially, the narrative out of the blogosphere and into the mainstream. We have to get everyday voters to consider valid reasons for entertaining the notion of not voting for Obama. The ONC (love to whoever coined that) is already using and will continue to use race to try to bludgeon some voters. They're doing the same thing with women with regard to Roe v Wade, and they're trying to guilt everybody using the Iraq situation. We've got to counter these attempts and give people appealing ways to question authority and their own internalized guilt. I'm not sure how to do that, but I'm thinking about it every day.

Anonymous said...

Rangoon to Pyinmana anyone?

On another blog this morning, some one said, "You are going to have black man for president, and you are going to take it and like it!" Like the weather in Texas, I guess. Ok, it could have been an agent provocateur, but it is disturbing that one is forced to wonder.

I understand that groups inevitably expand, divide, purge, and so on. But the bolshevist way this is happening and the communist undertones kind of make me feel like a Trotskyite.

Another example: an art installation caused a stir in NY last week. Responders said things like, “This is not art – it is not projecting a positive image.” “This is horrible because the meaning has not been made clear.” This also reminded me of communist art in the USSR that had to present the heroic proletariat in glowing terms while the party ruined the country. (Oh by the way, nobody but MLK has ever been assassinated. The Obamabots own that word, didn’tcha know.)

My Name Is Earl said...

This is truly, I believe, about removing the Clintons totally from the Party organization and influence.

As far as Pelosi and Reid are concerned, I'm reminded of a scene from Blazing Saddles where Governor William J. Le Petomane (Mel Brooks) says to his cohorts something like "Gentlemen: We've got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs"

clik212 said...

There are some really interesting insights being posted here. The post that mentioned the attempt to get the Clinton's out of the way by Howard Dean makes lots of sense to me, since Bill Clinton moved the party away from the old guard and basically stole their thunder. That is why the Kennedys shamelessly supported Obama, just to get the Clintons out. They weren't thinking about the voters they were protecting their own personal interests.

I read that some people are going to sit this one out. And quite frankly I believe the vote which is always used as a tool for democracy should now be used as a strategic weapon. Not voting at all has no effect and makes a lame statement, it is a fart in a hale storm because it will not stop Obama. You really need to vote for McCain, to let the Democratic Party leaders know that they are answerable to 18 million voters. That they are not the boss of us, nor are they the puppets of the powerful. Yes, bite the bullet. Wonder why European governments are afraid of their voters? Because there they not only take to the streets they vote with their heads to force issues and parties.
Here the voters are afraid of their government. This is a democracy?

Here in Texas I was witness to the Obama precinct primary tactics. Here congressman Lloyd Dogget endorsed Obama the day before the primaries, against the will of his constituents in his own district hopefully to swing the vote. He failed but he revealed how corrupt the party has become.

We need to use our vote not as a passive tool for democracy. We need to use it as a strategic weapon. We need to tolerate McCain for four years a necessary sacrifice to cleanse the party of hacks, e.g., Pelosi, Reid, Kerry et al. It isn't about external issues it is about having the power as voters to install leaders who will represent us and protect our Constitutional rights so that eventually our needs are met.

The moving of the DNC to Chicago should have every Democrat up in arms. If McCain wins, he's not going to do much in four years with a do nothing House and Senate and most important if he wins, Obama, Dean and the rest of the hyenas will be TOAST! If you need further proof of how to vote, think about the DNC refusing to install Hillary's name at the Denver Convention. Something that has never been done before. Something bigger is at stake here it is the deterioration of a party and that's fine with me but then we need to form another one that will be representative of working people and not just the rich.

jangles said...

Yes, it is getting very scary out there in the Democratic hustings. The big issue Democrats who do not like this trend have to come to ponder is this: will it be enough to simply not vote for Obama? If one simply does not vote for him, the result may be, he wins just barely; he loses just barely. What are the results of those two possibilities? If you vote for McCain, probably you can help ensure McCain wins and Obama loses clearly and unequivocally. What are the results of that possibility? I think that despite all of Obama's negatives and baggage, he is likely to defeat McCain without significant help to McCain from Clinton Democrats.