Clinton & the Dems Should Not Cede the South

A new wave of Dixie Democrats is re-awakening and they're not the same ole bigots of the past.

They may not be the most progressive left wing of the party either, but they're not the same ole southerners as the dinosaurs of the past. Change in the South tends to be more incremental.

Some people assume Edwards supporters will go for Obama. Based on what? In the FL counties that voted for Edwards, especially those bordering Alabama and Georgia, Clinton was a very close second. I've read reports that some polling data shows Clinton was the second choice for many voters who have voted for either Edwards or Obama.

I have also heard a retired vet of the U.S. Army Airborne Division say he would vote for Hillary because of his complete disgust and disillusionment with the republicans and the fact that he, his family and from what he could tell almost EVERYONE did better economically under Bill Clinton. So he would vote for Hillary based on that.

I also listened to John Grisham, the writer from Mississippi who lives in Virginia now. He explained on Charlie Rose last night why he supports Clinton and why in 8 years (after some 'seasoning' he thinks Barack would make a great president). I think Grisham also taps into a stream of some of the educated males of the south who see the economic disparities affecting their friends, neighbors, communities and are not so selfish like the Trent Lotts and old guard of southern white republicans.

Look at the Edwards votes in Florida. The Clinton campaign has no reason to cede any of the democratic voters in the South, including adult white males. Not everyone is an angry irrational reactionary; some are just workaday regular guys that are more pragmatic than ideological and who want the best for their families and friends.

We now know for sure (30+ years of hard facts and economic data) the republicans reserve the 'best' for all their rich cronies and to hell with the rest of us.

Let us not forget: Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff and the scores of corporate lobbyists sucking like the greedy pigs they are at the public trough these past 8 years. And don't forget about the $490,195,000,000 -- Yep, that's $490 BILLION (that we know about) spent on the illegal Iraq invasion. And that's only (what they've been forced to make public) about the war in Iraq -- not the concomitant costs here, elsewhere, or any of the costs associated with the war-dead or war-wounded.

Democrats can take back (a large part of) the south, they really can. But they sure can't 'play the race card' if they're going to do it. If they go there, they can forget about it.

Especially since mainstream (broadcast) media has proved they're in the hip pocket of the republican party -- after all, they're OWNED by corporate America and Wall Street, the very ones who are pillaging your and other's 401k and pension plans, stripping the remaining jobs of benefits wherever possible (except for the upper tiers), shipping your jobs overseas every day. The ones they decide to bring back, pay a lot less and have no benefits. You really think there's not a corporate agenda at work?

Bless John Edwards for raising some critically important issues and highlighting the economic disparities which have exponentially grown under the Republicans the past 30 years (interruped only by Bill Clinton's term in office) and which have accelerated under George Bush and Dick Cheney.

Your vote counts this year more ever. Probably more than any since FDR and John F. Kennedy. It's the defining vote of a nation to either kickstart into the 21st century or come to a dead stop in the 20th. A new future or the old past, that's what this election is about. I agree with Grisham when he said Hillary is ready to be President from day one. In eight years, Obama will be ready on his first day in office.

Technorati Tags:
John Edwards, Clinton supporters, Clinton endorsements, Presidential endorsements, Charlie Rose, John Grisham, southern white males, southern voters, dixie democrats, southern democrats

Bill Clinton has actually done Obama a favor hasn't he?

The Favor. Not a pretty one. Not a nice one. But an inadvertent wake-up call type of favor.

If anyone thinks the stupid clumsiness of Bill Clinton is 'hurtful' or 'not playing fair', just what laser-guided anti-personnel bombs do you think the republicans and right-wing 527s are going to do? Ugly? Yes. Wish it wasn't like that? Darn right. Naive enough to think the repugneocons are going to play fair? No frickin way.

I love Obama. I love his philosophy and soaring rhetorical inspiration. (I don't like his pandering to the homophobes and the religious right - I hate it when any candidate does that).

I hope he can accomplish what he says he wants to accomplish. Can he do it from day one? I don't know. I have serious doubts about 'operational readiness.' How long will it take him to 'learn on the job', find out that the repugs have more dirty tricks than he has even dreamt of.

And if he can't pull a victory out of the nominating process, shouldn't there be a Plan B? Contingency planning -- the lack thereof is part of what we all know with certainty to be MAJOR FAILURES on the part of the current administration:

• the willful failure to listen to those who knew Osama Bin Laden was a serious threat and that something near September 11 was about to happen
• the debacles, lack of preparation, mismanagement of the (illegal) Iraq War and occupation
• failing to capture Bin Laden and stay focused on Afghanistan which is a complete mess reverting back to Taliban control and Islamic fascism
• the horrors and mismanagement of FEMA in response to Hurricane Katrina, to name but four major examples.

I know for certain that Hillary can hit the ground running on day one. And who has more reason/motivation to have already created a systematic plan that starts on Jan 21, 2009 to undo the horrible damage of the past 7 years (really, the past 12+ because republicans were in control of the house and senate most of the time Bill was prez).

Hillary is not Bill. Bill is one weapon in her secret armament. She is much more committed to and determined to achieve REAL social justice and she will have a much deeper impact and longer lasting progressive legacy than Bill ever could have.

To consider all this does not make one a 'traitor' to the progressive cause. I'm not Anti-Obama. I'm definitely ANTI-Republican. I'm more pro-Democrat (because realistically there is no other option -- are they flawed, yes, dreadfully -- but there's the whole lesser of two evils strong at work now). And at this point -- any of the dems will do -- whoever can win, that's who i will support.

But disturbingly, most of the supporters of Obama seem to actually be not just Pro-Obama, but even more Anti-Hillary instead of Anti-Republican. The magic of sexism lives.

Hillary is not Bill. She may use some of his strategies, tactics, tools, connections, knowledge -- but she is NOT Bill. I'm pretty sure she will be her own president once in the white house -- using the good from Bill, combined with her own 'powerful intellect' (NYT endorsement) and multiple formidable strengths. That is what the republicans fear most. That's why they're anxious for Obama to win the nomination. They know he's ripe for plucking in a hardball world. And that the dems, once again are forming a shooting squad in a circle.

What bugs me most about Obama (my way or the highway) Supporters is their "I'll take my toys and go home if I can't play and win only on my terms." Fine. but that attitude of (especially white) entitlement is part of what cost Gore the election in 2000 when the purist left voted for Nader. Those purist idealists got us 8 years of hell, war, economic devastation, dismantling 60 years of hard-fought, hard-won progress. We don't even know the extent of the damage -- it's far worse than anyone can imagine.

Clinton supporters are perfectly willing to support Obama if he wins, but the reverse apparently is not true. If that's the attitude, look forward to 16 more years of Bush-Cheney-Rove if Clinton wins the nomination and the Obama-ites pack up their purist 'principles' and go home instead of participating in the most important election of the 21st century.

Real life and real politics is not pretty. There is no such thing as perfection in a flawed human system, especially one that was rooted in corruption and hypocrisy from the beginning. Idealism must be tempered with pragmatism and actually getting things done (GTD).

We can't afford to be naive. We have a mixed economy. Capitalist Patriarchy has most of the tools and is invested in retaining their power, privilege, control, influence and economic power. The USA is not going to become a socialist utopia anytime soon. Not when there is so much at stake. We all have a lot to lose (more than ever now) -- especially by being 'purists' -- also known as being dogmatic. Isn't that what Obama preaches against?

I have a longer term view that I don't hear from many of the (mainly white) youthful Obama supporters (who are so urgent, demanding, 'entitled' to everything happening NOW.) They seem to have a total Gen Y/Gen X slacker attitude more in line with customer service/consumer entitlement than strategic pragmatism combined with knowledge of both short & long-term impacts, combined with 'the vision thing' that Obama definitely has. I hope he can pull it off.

My gut tells me the repubs, the right, the corporations and the ultra-wealthy have too much at stake to do anything close to 'playing fair'.

Should Hillary learn from Obama's wisdom, knowledge and obvious strengths? Yes, absolutely. But if anyone knows the ugly tricks of the right, and has been strategically preparing for them for 10+ years, and knows how to dismantle them, it's Hillary Clinton.

Here's what I'd like to see: a Clinton-Obama ticket winning in 08, Obama would become president in 2016 -- we'd ultimately have at least 16 years of progressive democrats in charge of the White House. Okay, maybe I am still an idealist at heart.

Just my 2 cents on a work in progress.

Addendum: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post writes something quite insightful (and a bit more reality based from my perspective than all the right wing, left-wing, media pundits and talking heads at MSNBC, Faux News, CNN, etc, all the right-wing radio hosts, chattering stenographers, I mean 'reporters' and especially the oh-so concerned-about-racism-now republicans):

If the Clintons beat Obama on the merits, then [he] has lost. If they beat him on account of race, then the rest of us have lost as well.

NYTimes 08 Primary Endorsements: Clinton, McCain

Times Endorses Clinton, McCain in Primaries

Clinton is overall favorite

The editorial board touts Senator Clinton's "powerful intellect" and her genuine, needed ability to 'hit the ground running on day one' to solve the complex problems cause by the ineptness of George Bush (and the republicans).

Unlike the in-depth analysis of Clinton's strengths, what's interesting about the paper's endorsement of McCain is that more space is spent dismantling the other Republican candidates than on McCain, who wins their endorsement in the Republican primary mainly because he "promises to end the George Bush style of governing from and on behalf of a small, angry fringe. With a record of working across the aisle to develop sound bipartisan legislation, he would offer a choice to a broader range of Americans than the rest of the Republican field."

We have strong disagreements with all the Republicans running for president. The leading candidates have no plan for getting American troops out of Iraq. They are too wedded to discredited economic theories and unwilling even now to break with the legacy of President Bush. We disagree with them strongly on what makes a good Supreme Court justice.

As to why they're not endorsing the city's 'favorite son' (Giuliani):

The real Mr. Giuliani, whom many New Yorkers came to know and mistrust, is a narrow, obsessively secretive, vindictive man who saw no need to limit police power. Racial polarization was as much a legacy of his tenure as the rebirth of Times Square.

Mr. Giuliani’s arrogance and bad judgment are breathtaking. When he claims fiscal prudence, we remember how he ran through surpluses without a thought to the inevitable downturn and bequeathed huge deficits to his successor. He fired Police Commissioner William Bratton, the architect of the drop in crime, because he couldn’t share the limelight. He later gave the job to Bernard Kerik, who has now been indicted on fraud and corruption charges.

The Rudolph Giuliani of 2008 first shamelessly turned the horror of 9/11 into a lucrative business, with a secret client list, then exploited his city’s and the country’s nightmare to promote his presidential campaign.

Here is the entire Clinton endorsement and the reasoning behind it:

January 25, 2008
NYT EDITORIAL

Primary Choices: Hillary Clinton

This generally is the stage of a campaign when Democrats have to work hard to get excited about whichever candidate seems most likely to outlast an uninspiring pack. That is not remotely the case this year.

The early primaries produced two powerful main contenders: Hillary Clinton, the brilliant if at times harsh-sounding senator from New York; and Barack Obama, the incandescent if still undefined senator from Illinois. The remaining long shot, John Edwards, has enlivened the race with his own brand of raw populism.

As Democrats look ahead to the primaries in the biggest states on Feb. 5, The Times’s editorial board strongly recommends that they select Hillary Clinton as their nominee for the 2008 presidential election.

We have enjoyed hearing Mr. Edwards’s fiery oratory, but we cannot support his candidacy. The former senator from North Carolina has repudiated so many of his earlier positions, so many of his Senate votes, that we’re not sure where he stands. We certainly don’t buy the notion that he can hold back the tide of globalization.

By choosing Mrs. Clinton, we are not denying Mr. Obama’s appeal or his gifts. The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign.

Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton would both help restore America’s global image, to which President Bush has done so much grievous harm. They are committed to changing America’s role in the world, not just its image. On the major issues, there is no real gulf separating the two. They promise an end to the war in Iraq, more equitable taxation, more effective government spending, more concern for social issues, a restoration of civil liberties and an end to the politics of division of George W. Bush and Karl Rove.

Mr. Obama has built an exciting campaign around the notion of change, but holds no monopoly on ideas that would repair the governing of America. Mrs. Clinton sometimes overstates the importance of résumé. Hearing her talk about the presidency, her policies and answers for America’s big problems, we are hugely impressed by the depth of her knowledge, by the force of her intellect and by the breadth of, yes, her experience.

It is unfair, especially after seven years of Mr. Bush’s inept leadership, but any Democrat will face tougher questioning about his or her fitness to be commander in chief. Mrs. Clinton has more than cleared that bar, using her years in the Senate well to immerse herself in national security issues, and has won the respect of world leaders and many in the American military. She would be a strong commander in chief.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton has tackled complex policy issues, sometimes failing. She has shown a willingness to learn and change. Her current proposals on health insurance reflect a clear shift from her first, famously disastrous foray into the issue. She has learned that powerful interests cannot simply be left out of the meetings. She understands that all Americans must be covered — but must be allowed to choose their coverage, including keeping their current plans. Mr. Obama may also be capable of tackling such issues, but we have not yet seen it. Voters have to judge candidates not just on the promise they hold, but also on the here and now.

The sense of possibility, of a generational shift, rouses Mr. Obama’s audiences and not just through rhetorical flourishes. He shows voters that he understands how much they hunger for a break with the Bush years, for leadership and vision and true bipartisanship. We hunger for that, too. But we need more specifics to go with his amorphous promise of a new governing majority, a clearer sense of how he would govern.

The potential upside of a great Obama presidency is enticing, but this country faces huge problems, and will no doubt be facing more that we can’t foresee. The next president needs to start immediately on challenges that will require concrete solutions, resolve, and the ability to make government work. Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.

We opposed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and we disagree with Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the resolution on the use of force. That’s not the issue now; it is how the war will be ended. Mrs. Clinton seems not only more aware than Mr. Obama of the consequences of withdrawal, but is already thinking through the diplomatic and military steps that will be required to contain Iraq’s chaos after American troops leave.

On domestic policy, both candidates would turn the government onto roughly the same course — shifting resources to help low-income and middle-class Americans, and broadening health coverage dramatically. Mrs. Clinton also has good ideas about fixing the dysfunction in Mr. Bush’s No Child Left Behind education program.

Mr. Obama talks more about the damage Mr. Bush has done to civil liberties, the rule of law and the balance of powers. Mrs. Clinton is equally dedicated to those issues, and more prepared for the Herculean task of figuring out exactly where, how and how often the government’s powers have been misused — and what must now be done to set things right.

As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)

We know that she is capable of both uniting and leading. We saw her going town by town through New York in 2000, including places where Clinton-bashing was a popular sport. She won over skeptical voters and then delivered on her promises and handily won re-election in 2006.

Mrs. Clinton must now do the same job with a broad range of America’s voters. She will have to let Americans see her power to listen and lead, but she won’t be able to do it town by town.

When we endorsed Mrs. Clinton in 2006, we were certain she would continue to be a great senator, but since her higher ambitions were evident, we wondered if she could present herself as a leader to the nation.

Her ideas, her comeback in New Hampshire and strong showing in Nevada, her new openness to explaining herself and not just her programs, and her abiding, powerful intellect show she is fully capable of doing just that. She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.

Clinton endorsement here; McCain here.

Incredible MacHeist Bundle O'Apps

ENDED/FINI/OVER:

14 Mac Apps for an insanely low Price — Hurry Ends Today!

More than $455,500 raised for charity!

The guys at MacHeist are featuring an amazing deal of great Mac apps for a ridiculously low price. Huge amounts of proceeds donated to charity. I know you love your Mac, so make sure to check this out before it ends tonight on the 23rd!

Technorati Tags:
macintosh, OS X, OSX, macheist, macs, software bundle discount, discount software

Sunday's NYTimes Editorial Columns by Rich & Dowd: Bush & Reagan Bucket List Republicans Living In the Past & In Denial

Frank Rich's Sunday Column is entitled: Ronald Reagan Is Still Dead.

Never mind that the G.O.P. is running on empty, with no ideas beyond the incessant repetition of Reagan’s name. ....the Clintons are hardly bigots, and the Democratic candidates all have a history of fighting strenuously for inclusiveness. By contrast, the Romney victory in Michigan is another reminder of how Republicans aren’t even playing in the same multiracial [or economic] American sandbox.

George W. Bush has led his party to the brink of disaster and cost it a generation of young Americans

[Romney's] retro persona exemplifies much of the present Republican dilemma. It’s not just that the old Reagan coalition of social, economic and foreign-policy conservatives has fractured. A more indelible problem for the Republicans in 2008 is that their candidates are utterly segregated from reality as it is lived by the overwhelming majority of their fellow Americans. The G.O.P. presidential field’s lack of demographic diversity by age, gender, ethnicity or even wardrobe, let alone race, is simply the leading indicator of how out of touch its brand has become.

Among [the republicans], Mike Huckabee alone made affinity for economically struggling Americans his calling card. Unfortunately, Huckanomics is more snake oil. All federal taxes would be replaced by a national sales tax that despite its Orwellian name (the Fair Tax) would shift more of the burden to middle- and low-income Americans.

Exit polls find that among voters in Republican primaries, as many as half have turned against the president. David Frum, the onetime Bush speechwriter, laments in his provocative new book “Comeback” that by 2008 his former boss “had led his party to the brink of disaster” and cost it “a generation of young Americans.”

MoDo Goes After Shrub and His Feeble Supplications to the Dictators of the Middle East in her column: Red, White and Blue Tag Sale

Hillary Clinton was right when she said it was “pathetic” that President Bush had to beg the Saudis to drop the price of oil.

In Abu Dhabi, he marveled at the royal family’s plans to build a city based entirely upon renewable energy. “Amazing, isn’t it?” W. said.

You know you’re in trouble when your Middle East oil pump is greener than you are.

One cascading rationale he offered for invading Iraq was the benign domino theory, that bringing democracy to Iraq would sway the autocrats in the region to be less repressive.

But when W. visited Saudi Arabia and Egypt last week, he did not have the whip hand. He could not demand anything of the autocrats in the way of more rights for women and dissidents, much less get the Saudis to help on oil production. He needs their help in corralling Iran, which has been puffed up by the occupation of Iraq.

Dowd also mentioned a sign I'd love to see "Hanging on the skyline of New York is a sign reading: “U.S.A. Now a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Foreign Investors.”

Anyone who thinks a businessman with a 50s sensibility can solve the complex problems of our time is still living in Reagan-world. And we know that his policies are what set in motion the rich getting richer while widening the economic gap at a pace that Shrub Bush and Dick head-guy Cheney have only accelerated.

Bob Herbert's column reminds us of the hard economic facts via a recent Economomic Policy Institute report which states:

“The distribution of wages, income and wealth in the United States has become vastly more unequal over the last 30 years. In fact, this country has a more unequal distribution of income than any other advanced country.”

David Cay Johnston, took a look at income patterns in the U.S. over the past few decades in his new book, “Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You With the Bill).”

From 1980 to 2005 the national economy, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled. (Because of population growth, the actual increase per capita was about 66 percent.) But the average income for the vast majority of Americans actually declined during that period. The standard of living for the average family has improved not because incomes have grown, but because women have gone into the workplace in droves.

90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during the sacredly touted 'economic expansion' of the Reagan-Bush Republican Eras

The peak income year for the bottom 90 percent of Americans was way back in 1973 — when the average income per taxpayer (adjusted for inflation) was $33,001. That is nearly $4,000 higher than the average in 2005.

It’s incredible but true: 90 percent of the population missed out on the income gains during that long period.

Mr. Johnston does not mince words: “The pattern here is clear. The rich are getting fabulously richer, the vast majority are somewhat worse off, and the bottom half — for all practical purposes, the poor — are being savaged by our current economic policies.”

.....

For ordinary Americans, jobs are the be-all and end-all. And an America awash in new jobs will require a political environment that respects and rewards work and aggressively pursues creative policies designed to radically expand employment.

Kevin Phillips, a former supporter of Reagan and his policies, also radically changed his mind as he has documented the rich getting far richer much faster while working families have drastically lost ground under the republicans since 1980.

As Rich and others note, the Republican candidates are looking longingly into the past -- almost 30 years past! But the economic reality of these past 30 years will likely continue to show that invoking Reagan to democrats and working Americans is rocky territory fraught with danger and filled with fairy-tales and lies.

Even our British allies are giddy with anticipation of an election change: Just one more year! Good riddance to George W Bush.

Rich's column is already available here; Dowd's is here.

Technorati Tags:
Dubai, economic justice, economic stress, economy, Jobs

The Squandered Bickering of the Democratic Front-Runners = Schadenfreude for Right Wingers

Maybe I'll have some more personal insights as this ugly thing moves forward (or actually as it drags us backwards), but for now I wanted to quickly capture my current stream of consciousness (and fragmentation) about the latest drama of Hillary, Bill, Obama:

As an ex-republican, I have little doubt that Karl Rove, the republican presidential candidates, all the current republican members of congress and party officials, the swift-boat-type 527s gearing up since 2004, and all the evil brains and strategists of the republican party are smacking their lips, gleefully applauding this sand-box behavior by the democrats -- they simply couldn't be happier.

As a white anti-racist activist/educator who was born in and raised for the first 13 years in Mississippi, and who has lived in the Southwest and on both coasts: WTF were both Bill & Hillary thinking? Clearly not thinking things through carefully. As Oprah sometimes reminds us: "Words have meaning, words have energy, words have consequences."

As a white anti-racist, social justice, women's rights feminist/activist/educator: I know very well that racism "infects" us from birth in this country. I know that participating in the struggle to 'disappear' all forms of bigotry and racism from our culture, combined with my own internal struggle for personal integrity, combined with an ever-present awareness of the myriad, unconscious ways in which the ugly virus of racism spreads its infection, means that we always have work to do. That struggle to defeat the residual molecules inside us never ends just as it is clear the struggle outside -- out in the world, the community, the schools, the churches, etc -- must continue.

And so I ask myself: what is it about being American (especially WHITE and American) that we're so arrogant (and defensive) to presume that we have to be always right (and perfect)? I know part of the answer to that for myself and my culture, but it's for another day. So, Bill, Hillary: why don't you just apologize, acknowledge you're not perfect on this issue -- who is perfect on this ugly issue? -- and move forward, promising to be more aware, more thoughtful and more sensitive. A little authentic humility could go a long way. You have fanned the flames by your stubborn refusal to take responsibility for being unconscious and careless even though you clearly weren't intentionally doing so (and probably a lot tired and fuzzy-minded in addition to being defensive).

It makes me question whether I want leaders who can't admit they're not perfect or all-knowing who can't learn from mistakes and move on to not repeat those particular mistake(s) again.

As a lesbian woman (who has been a single-mom raising a son) and who knows full well the ugly combined effects of sexism and homophobia and their stubborn resistance to innoculation and healing, I'm still hurt that Obama has pandered to the ugly homophobia of the black and intolerant religious communities. It makes me question whether I want leaders who can't admit they're not perfect or all-knowing who can't learn from mistakes and move on to not repeat those particular mistake(s) again. Because of this well-known incident, it makes me reluctant to trust Senator Obama. Which makes me understand even more why my african-american brothers and sisters may feel very reluctant to trust Hillary again.

As a white southern woman from Mississippi with working class roots and my family's middle class aspirations and who was raised on much of the 'hidden' as well as overt racism of the South, this is exactly the kind of "P.C." (politically correct) crap -- arguing over who is more 'pure', who's more of a 'victim' -- known in identity politics and academia as 'essentialism' that becomes tiresome very quickly -- even moreso for folks who really aren't that keen about working on the 'inner demons' -- they just want people to get along and move on.

As an idealist: I especially gravitated to the fact that Obama had been using a more conscious, more sophisticated (and spiritual) language of inclusion, transformation -- with great potential for moving us past the old stale model that Hillary still knows and practices very well

As a pragmatist and realist: I realize that knowing how to negotiate that old stale model may be necessary with the ugly republicans and their ugly strategies that WILL occur once the nominees are chosen.

As a developmental humanist, life-long learner and educator: I believe the democratic party began a developmental, ultimately necessary, but very painful process during the 70s (which the Republicans used, manipulated, exploited to great effect during the 80s) that drove almost all white Southerners and countless other white working class voters from the democratic party (to the republicans and distressingly against their own economic interests).

As a competitive political activist and human being who wants things to change and especially sees the need for turning away from the rich-getting-richer to hell with everyone else Republicans: A return to the ugliest aspects of that process could quickly cement into a dead-stop roadblock of what has recently become a gathering downhill steamroll for the democratic party. The candidates and their campaigns better stop it NOW if they truly care about the country, the voters, the citizens, families and working people of this nation (and beyond).

As a southern woman raised to believe in 'good manners' and whose family knew well how to fight verbally and viciously to the bitter end (but not to make up and heal things over -- much less how to 'use your words' to avoid the ugly words in the first place): I viscerally recoil from and hate the ugly conflict and the public display of bad manners and family disputes. Conflict can usually be resolved, if both parties are willing participants -- but conflict can also have real consequences, often very NEGATIVE, long-term consequences. Some people have a higher tolerance for it and are more resilient, but not everyone.

Like good southern girls are raised to do, and because it's my authentic nature, I mostly try to avoid conflict when possible, especially the dishonest indirect manipulative, passive-agressive stuff that BOTH of these campaigns and candidates have been engaging in (and yes, I think it originated in the Clinton campaign). But please, if you're going to disagree, do it respectfully, peacefully, honestly, and directly. Those are communication and assertiveness skills I've worked hard to learn and master -=- admittedly with mixed results. But then again, they're all much more privileged, far richer, more educated, well-traveled and supposedly 'experienced' than most of the rest of us. How come they're acting worse than pouty, bratty children?

As an independent-minded progressive with a strong, core focus on the woeful economics of our country for working folks and families, and who is one of the 47 million without access to health care, who sees that these 'potential presidents' are squandering precious time, resources, creativity, brain power at a critical time, and whose friends, community, family members have lost ground financially especially since the Bush-Cheney rape and pillage of our country, and who knows that if people can't feed their families, don't have decent work or a place to live that NONE OF THIS CURRENT PEDANTIC SQUABBLING WILL MATTER if the Republicans continue to turn us into another third world country of plutocrats and elites ruling over the rest of us, another has-been former empire crumbling at the seams, with leaders and the power elites continuing to grow fat, rich, richer and fiddling while our own version of Rome burns, while we the people continue fighting over the 10% of the crumbs that the indifferent-to-the-suffering/plight-of-others upper 10 percent brush off their well-enriched, overflowing, privileged, mean tables, I ask myself: WTF are they doing? And I can't help but answer: John Edwards is looking pretty good right now. How ironic is that?