The Myth Of The Democrats Being Torn Apart

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:27:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Sometimes it seems like the Media and some of the blogs have never watched a primary campaign before. The level of moaning and wailing about the "divisive" campaign among the Democrats and how Dems will never be able to come together after it is absurd. Earth to pundits, this is the way primary battle ALWAYS are. ALWAYS. These pronouncements of an unbridgeable divide are simply ridiculous. All this divisiveness in South Carolina should be reflected in the favorable ratings of the candidates right? Then let's look at the respected Mason Dixon poll:

FAV UNFAV NEUTRAL
Obama 63% 15% 22%
Clinton 57% 14% 29%
Edwards 54% 16% 28%

How about Bill Clinton? A whopping 75% favorable rating. It is interesting that the voters are not as whiny and misguided on this than the pundits and some of the blogs. They seem to know what politics is. One last note - the Media's withering criticism coupled with the GOP debate attacks on Hillary Clinton last night is a familiar refrain - and one that will lead to a familiar result, Dems rallying around the Clintons. Some folks never learn. More . . .

Consider this contrary attitude from Josh Marshall when discussing the Republican race:

Candidly, I was surprised that there wasn't more contentiousness in tonight's GOP debate in Florida. After all, probably at least two candidacies will end Tuesday night. So the stakes were extraordinarily high.

This is an accurate insight in my mind. Funny how it is not applied to the Dem race.

< South Carolina Paper Endorses Hillary for Dem. Nomination | Dionne: Obama Running Clinton's 1992 Campaign >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Myth Of The Democrats Being Torn Apart | 37 comments (37 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

yay! (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Kathy on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:54:16 AM EST

Finally, a dose of logic. It seems that most of the kids covering this primary were in high school the last time any election was this viable. They really don't know how things work, and they seem to be using DKos, HuffPo and others to get their sources for how the nation feels about these things.

And here I go pulling the sexist card again: if two men were using these tactics, it would be a sporting contest. Because it's a woman, because it's a younger, less experienced man, Hillary is being told to back off. Reminds me of when I was little and I'd hit my older sister while my mom wasn't watching, and then she'd hit me back and my mom would see THAT (or I'd tell on her, heh heh) and then my sister was the one who got in trouble.

Okay, maybe this isn't the best story about me, but it raises a point.

suggested Onion headline: NY Times Endorses Hillary, Tells Her to be More Ladylike

I don't think so. . . (none / 0) (#7)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:56:51 AM EST

if two men were using these tactics, it would be a sporting contest.

I think if it were two men, one of them would be called a righteous truth teller and the other a stinky negative sleaze ball -- and which candidate received which designation would vary depending on who you were talking to.

Kind of like now.


: Bill Clinton sees the Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#9)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST

race as a sporting contest. Likes to see them mix it up.

Like monitors in the playground (none / 0) (#32)
by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST

stoppinga girl from beating up on the monitor's boy her size for fear of making him look wimpy to all his friends.


Reality Check (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by mmc9431 on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:25:18 AM EST

The 24/7 news media exists for confrontation. They believe it brings higher ratings and is far less expensive than actual journalism. The political differences between Obama and Hilary are very small so that can't be used as a wedge to create conflict so the media has created this "personal" battle. Unfortunately too many people have followed along on this path. This likeability factor really amazes me. I'm never going to sit down and have a beer with any of them and from what I've seen, I'm not missing a thing! I want someone in there that will roll up their sleeves and shovel out this mess that has been created over the last seven years.

Normally I would gravitate to the idealist, but with the shape this country will be left in, I have reservations about that. We may very well need a hardnosed politician to get this untangled. We got in this shape because GWB steam rolled his agenda through without any hint of bipartisanship. The way out of this may require the same tactics. I think it's naive to think that suddenly the republican's are going to throw up the white flag and join "Team America".

i have been thinking about all (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:01:13 AM EST

this bruhahaha about bill clinton's campaigning for hillary. the dems wring their hands along with the media and exclaim "oh all is lost, bill has a temper." bring the smelling salts!

give me a break! the voters sat by and saw our candidates swiftboated 4 years ago. obama is not innocent here. and if cannot take the heat from a primary, then folks he isn't ready for prime time. pure and simple! of course, i think he comes from chicago politics, so that isn't true. but that is the false argument that the media and some bloggers use. a former president should be above that. i say bull! do you remember the speech that carter gave at the convention in 2004? i sure hope so. we need anger. we need plain speaking.

It is really quite simple for the Media networks: (none / 0) (#17)
by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:28:06 AM EST

Democrats made for better ratings. Just consider the debates of both parties, there are more people who watch democratic debates because they know it is going to be a spirited and exciting one, especially now that there are only three of them in contention. It is a good 2-3 day cycle.

I tried so hard to watch the republican debate yesterday, and it was boring. And then when the so-called pundits took over later, all they talked about were the attacks on Hillary.

Pro or Con, Hillary makes for a wider viewership.


Marie Antoinette (none / 0) (#20)
by Stellaaa on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:43:34 AM EST

Honestly, I think this was the Republican Marie Antoinette moment. Four mediocre, priveleged white men telling America the war was worth it and that they will do the same with the economy that Bush did even though everything was better when Clinton/Dems were in charge.


I agree. Perhaps they aren't (none / 0) (#21)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:48:24 AM EST

aware of Bush's approval ratings.


: i read these comments with a smile. (none / 0) (#25)
by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST

it all soooo true. however i don't think the repubs will find the general election a piece of cake!

I strikes me that the attitude is (4.66 / 3) (#5)
by andgarden on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:38:59 AM EST

"how dare you not let Obama pretend he's transforming politics."

Made My Day (none / 0) (#3)
by kenoshaMarge on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:24:40 AM EST

I guess I never noticed just how negative primaries can be. I didn't use the Internet like I do now during the last election cycle and so was spared a lot of the vitriol. I also did not like and so seldom watched Blitzer or the TweetyTwit.

Thank you for putting some balance back in my thinking. I am a John Edwards supporter but will vote for any Democrat over ANY Republican.

We will surely be replacing one Supreme Court Justice and probably two during the next administration. I cannot understand why more liberals are not concerned about this. Conservatives always seem to understand the importance of getting their kind of people on the Supreme Court If they get one more corporate conservative on the court we are screwed for as far as the eye can see. We aren't in good shape now, but damn it can always get worse!

oh dear me (none / 0) (#4)
by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:26:06 AM EST

this wrecks the 48hr news cycle. What will they have to make up next?

Thanks for posting this - and thanks for the reminder to check in on The Onion. Those people are fantastic -

Polling not so hot. (none / 0) (#6)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST

Is that a poll of Democrats only? 60% or less favorable is not so hot in that case -- we can only hope that "neutral" translates into "I am temporarily not favorable to this candidate because I'm planning on voting for someone else".

Umm (none / 0) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST

You do realize there is a contested primary going on right?


Just so. (none / 0) (#14)
by LarryInNYC on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:11:51 AM EST

If I understood correctly, your argument was that despite the contested primary the Democratic Party is not being pulled apart.

Is your argument not that the polls indicate that despite the heat of the primary our candidates are still favorably viewed by a majority of Democrats? Because I'm not confident that the polls really do show that. Those positive figures are less than I have seen from earlier national and other-state polls (of course, the best comparison -- still not perfect -- is earlier SC polls).

If the contested primary were not having a negative effect on party unity and were not create ill feelings about the candidates, I'd expect to see favorable ratings around 70%, or a little higher.


: I am saying THIS contested primary (none / 0) (#24)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:38:56 PM EST

is just like all the rest.

it has to do with (none / 0) (#8)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 09:58:57 AM EST

the fact that our party's former president is slamming one of the candidates. That is the part that's unprecedented.

Is that the only thing unprecedented (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:03:27 AM EST

about the Clinton campaign?

Ridiculous.


what? (none / 0) (#15)
by andreww on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:14:40 AM EST

BTD - what are you talking about? You said:

"Sometimes it seems like the Media and some of the blogs have never watched a primary campaign before. The level of moaning and wailing about the "divisive" campaign among the Democrats and how Dems will never be able to come together after it is absurd."

My post was referring to the "moaning and wailing" you mention - and that you seem to be indicating we think that the fighting is unprecedented. I'm saying it's not the fighting - it the former President's attacks on a candidate.

I wasn't referring to the obvious in both the Obama and Clinton campaigns in and of themselves


I'm saying (none / 0) (#23)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM EST

the whining about Bill Clinton campaigning for HIS WIFE is ridiculous.

Utterly ridiculous.


Did you see Gail Collins's recent (none / 0) (#26)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM EST

op ed in NYT on this issue?


Yep (none / 0) (#28)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:36:03 PM EST

I love Gsil Collins. That was a ridiculous column.


: so glad you said that (none / 0) (#35)
by Judith on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 04:58:36 PM EST

I agree.
Heck, if I could pull a President out of my pocket I sure would!

Anti Hillary Robo Calls in So Carolina (none / 0) (#19)
by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:39:16 AM EST

Robert Morrow, a Texan day trader who supports Ron Paul admits to paying for the calls that began Tuesday. Please link to this:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080124/ap_ca/on_the2008_trail_10


: thats proof that (none / 0) (#34)
by athyrio on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 03:03:45 PM EST

republicans are afraid of a clinton run because clintons will whip their butts...

well the shape we are in is (none / 0) (#13)
by hellothere on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:05:27 AM EST

unprecedented as well. the lies and distortions by the bush government and media is also. so i say let's have plain talk. and if a candidate can't take the heat from the kitchen, then we need to know now.


Never heard of (none / 0) (#30)
by DaveOinSF on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST

Never heard of Harry Truman then I see.


Bipartisan Broderism (none / 0) (#16)
by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:31:03 AM EST

I think the media's attacks on Clinton over the primary spats (and, yes, they are spats, a fight is over something important and these folks don't differ on anything important) is driven by some of the same desires that drive the media to want to see bipartisanship. And I think because of that it's only natural that they will side with Obama, not only is he not a Clinton and therefore automatically a better person, but he also is the one pushing the kumbaya stuff while she is the more partisan. They don't like partisanship any more when it's internal to a party than external (and the Reagan/Republican ideas stuff is about partisanship).

It seems the GOP candidates (none / 0) (#18)
by oculus on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:30:12 AM EST

are eating their young too:

MCCAIN AD OF MITT WINDSURFING

Even their attack ads are derivative (none / 0) (#22)
by BDB on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 11:53:42 AM EST

Do any of the Republicans have a single original thought?


: if it ain't broke, don't fix it (none / 0) (#31)
by diplomatic on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:45:59 PM EST

Actually it just might work. Better to be the Republicans who repeat winning tactics than Democrats and the circular firing squad of losing tactics.
Now the Clintons--they play to win. That might be why all the comparisons to Republican-lite though.

I wish that (none / 0) (#27)
by tnthorpe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:32:08 PM EST

the race were more contentious with issues like reducing the grotesque size of the military budget being debated in the context of demilitarization, trade and globalization issues being reconsidered from the ground up, and the plight of American workers being taken utterly seriously. I wish a candidate would channel the spirit of Eugene Debs and the IWW. I'm tired of neoliberal tinkering around the edges of a system that immiserates and disenfranchises. I could wish Obama didn't repeat repub political narratives in his attempt to garner cross-over appeal. I could wish Hillary were less deferential to megacorporations. I could wish Edwards had the solid record in the Senate in support of the issues he advances on the campaign trail.

Of course, that's why I'm not a Democrat, but as for the bickering and all the handwringing about all the bickering, I couldn't care less.

While I am frustrated with the tendency to triviality of these overlong campaigns, I have my eyes on a big blue prize come Nov. because any of the Ds will be better by far than any of the Rs.

I hate to think that (none / 0) (#33)
by felizarte on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST

the media has reduced discussion of substantive issues for their entertainment value just like they have the news programs that are now mere INFOTAINMENT segments.

Is it because the media really think of the viewing public as not-so-smart and therefore they have tailored their formats for this audience, or is that the media's policy to give the people as little education as possible on how to prioritize issues in their lives?


: political coverage is miserable (none / 0) (#37)
by tnthorpe on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 07:33:59 PM EST

the pundits are largely pinheads, I mean, Juan Williams is a joke, Russert, Matthews, farce, network news aspires to superficiality.
There are bright spots, obviously, but few and far between.

Newsflash (none / 0) (#29)
by DaveOinSF on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 02:42:34 PM EST

Obama's Unfavorables HIGHER than Clinton's

the poll is spin (none / 0) (#36)
by diogenes on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 06:16:26 PM EST

Sure, "likely Democratic voters" don't dislike Hillary or Bill. But what about INDEPENDENTS?