Why The NH Result Is Good For Dem Values

Adam Nagourney, of all people, explains:

Political theatrics aside, there were lessons from her victory on Tuesday that could prove instructive as Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama head into this new phase of the campaign, with 25 states voting in the next four weeks. (John Edwards, who finished a distant third in New Hampshire after a second-place finish in Iowa, pledged to push on though he trailed far behind them.) Mrs. Clinton solidified her position with Democrats, while Mr. Obama enjoyed, as he did in Iowa, support from independent voters. But many of the states where the Democrats are now heading allow only Democrats to vote in their party’s primary.

By stopping the Obama Unity train in New Hampshire, the results tonight will force all of our candidates to appeal to Dems and Dem values. Obama will have to do what he should have already, become a Fighting Dem. Hillary started already. Obama is sure to follow.

This is good for the Democratic Party and for Democratic values.

< How New Hampshire Voted | Clueless In The Beltway : Dowd, Proud Member Of The Loser Media >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Kos and I (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:26:16 AM EST
    have been saying that for years now.

    a secular "amen" from the congregation! (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by hhex65 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:37:18 AM EST
    no choice but to be 'fighting Dems' now

    I don't believe Obama has it in him (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:41:27 PM EST
    We can count on Hillary to go where the votes are, and for Edwards to continue his populist campaign. But Obama only has one message, and I expect him to stick to it.

    Then he will lose badly (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:46:50 PM EST
    His speech tonight didn't have (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:15 PM EST
    much fight in it, IMO... not fight to win.
    Yes, he sounded inspirational, but---correct me if I'm wrong---doesn't his stump speech use more first person? Kind of a tell, if you ask me.

    I never love those types of speeches (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:41 PM EST
    but I heard a fair amount of Dem fight myself.

    Agree (none / 0) (#52)
    by koshembos on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 06:13:41 AM EST
    Obama was feisty enough, but he started by enumerating the the traditional Democratic values and issues. That is very good. If he could only lose the garbage about change, i.e. bipartisanship + no lobbyists, which is anti-democratic and the meaningless and hopeless talk about hope, i.e. Obama's opiate for the masses, he will be a worthy candidate.

    So.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:17:52 AM EST
    are you saying to be a worthy candidate you have to sell-out like all the rest and govern for lobbyists?  

    Give me an unworthy candidate then.


    O/T (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:16 PM EST
    Lots of talk about the Wilder effect. I'm thinking that's not what happened tonight (seems it was all about the women.) Thoughts?

    what is the "wilder effect" (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:48 PM EST
    AKA (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:42 PM EST
    THat doesn't help me!! grrr (none / 0) (#15)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:55:05 PM EST
    White people lying to pollsters (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:56:50 PM EST
    saying they will vote for a black candidate and then do not.

    It causes overstatement of black candidate polling numbers.

    I think it can not be the issue here because it would be confined to white women which would be unprecedented.


    Ok, now I get it. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:21 PM EST
    and did not effect white men.

    What happened tonight could not be more obvious.

    This was a revolt of women voters against the Media misogyny.

    Obama was the victim of that.


    I think that's right. (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:56:40 PM EST
    Agreed (none / 0) (#29)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:19:58 AM EST
    the women came out for her due to the media bashing.

    That's laughable (none / 0) (#41)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:09:28 AM EST
    Edwards will stick to his populist campaign? Really? I doubt that sincerely. I doubt it for the same reason many doubt Obama, the record just doesn't bear out that he'll do what he's chastising others for not doing -- standing up for us. Hillary as well is NOT a Fighting Dem in my eyes yet. I just don't see where her rhetoric is any better than Obama's rhetoric or Edwards' rhetoric. And her record doesn't make her the Fighting Dem in the field to be sure.

    Her record should disturb Dems, IMO (none / 0) (#42)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:19:48 AM EST
    Pro-PMRC, pro-Patriot Act, consistent funding of said Iraq, border fence funding, Real ID funding, military commissions act, voting to declare Iran's army a terrorist organization, voting to confirm Tom Ridge, Michael Chertoff, John Negroponte and many others.  More earmarks than any sophomore Senator.  

    NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act under Bill have been horribly destructive.

    I just don't want more of the same.  I really don't want 32 years with two families in charge.  I think the people who started this country would be horrified.  But it seems that is what we are heading towards, regardless.  Days like this make me very sad.


    Now let me say (none / 0) (#43)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:30:21 AM EST
    Obama's not a perfect Democrat to be sure. He has made some present votes, though Illinois progressive organizations usually have him pretty highly ranked based on his record here as a state senator, and so I feel that although his national experience is quite small (though I challenge someone to give me a national election where experience won the day) his state record gives me hope.

    Hillary's legislative record does not give me hope. I think she's an improvement over ANY of the Republicans for sure, and I'll support her if she's nominated, but someone please explain to me how she became a Fighting Dem overnight.


    By that I meant (none / 0) (#44)
    by BlueLakeMichigan on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:31:39 AM EST
    That Obama's made present votes on important issues and it's something that, even I as an ardent Obama supporter cannot allow to go uncriticized and unexamined. I just give him more kudos than Clinton on progressive issues and Democratic values.

    Agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:50:47 PM EST
    Here's where we find out if he has it in him and whether he's up to leading the party.  

    And selfishly, although it may not be good for the party, I enjoy hard fought campaigns.  This promises to be good.

    Well, I'm glad Hillary had to dig deeper. (none / 0) (#6)
    by MarkL on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:51:56 PM EST
    She wasn't a good enough candidate before today--and I say that as a Hillary supporter.

    Penn is out (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:01 PM EST
    thank the Lord!

    Is that official (none / 0) (#12)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:54:28 PM EST
    or your prediction?

    She found her voice (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:55:36 PM EST
    in NH.

    Penn was doing the talking before.

    He is done and gone.

    Will he be fired? No. Will he be listened to? No.

    gone de facto.


    I'll say this (none / 0) (#21)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:58:29 PM EST
    I think she'll be more comfortable as a candidate after getting through this past weekend.  She wasn't perfect and the world didn't end.

    This could make her (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:25:48 AM EST
    Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:36 PM EST
    I for one do not want him to be the nominee if he can not do this.

    But if he can, I absolutely do.

    Consider that a conditional endorsement of Obama.


    I stopped keeping track (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:02:00 AM EST
    of the categories of your endorsements long ago.  It was too much effort.

    there were 2 (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:08:33 AM EST
    This one is a subcategory of one of them.

    Which is stronger: (1) tepid, or (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by oculus on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:47:39 AM EST
    (2) conditional?

    heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Maryb2004 on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:09:31 AM EST
    Actually, I think that it's very good (none / 0) (#46)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:12:51 AM EST
    for the party, at this particular juncture, at least, when it's a majority party that still thinks and operates like a minority party. The hypercaution, fear and conservatism (both big and little "C") is killing it, and a good hard primary fight might be just the ticket to shake it out of its doldrums and remind itself of what it's supposed to be about and stand for.

    Just as Obama's derailing of Hillary's arrogant and cautious "inevitable" campaign has been a good thing for Democratic party politics, so has Hillary's derailing of Obama's often vacuous and too-centrist "hope" campaign--along with Edwards criticizing both for not being openly and proudly progressive enough. Partisans might not like it, but this bashing is good for the party overall.

    The worst thing would have been for us to breeze through to the nomination with hardly a contest, with an untested and overconfident winner who would be unready to face the attacks of the right, and who will have won without having had to prove their progressive stripes to those whom them would and should owe something to in the general and beyond. We need to make sure that our eventual nominee can not only take on the GOP candidate, but is a real Dem, not an entitled mandarin or a self-impressed newbie.

    I'm glad that she won, just as I was glad that Obama won, and that Edwards is still in the running. It will make Obama a better candidate, which will make her a better candidate, which will give us a better candidate, whoever it ends up being.


    Would you provide an example (none / 0) (#10)
    by jes on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:53:20 PM EST
    or two on where you have seen instances of Hillary becoming a fighting Dem?

    This entire week (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jan 08, 2008 at 11:57:49 PM EST
    she turned Fighting Dem.

    I guess you didn't watch the campaign this week.


    Here's an Edwards supporter (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:00:06 AM EST
    agreeing with me - link.

    Hillary saying she is anti-corporate (none / 0) (#24)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:04:11 AM EST
    rings about as true as Bush saying he is.

    Heh (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:07:55 AM EST
    you'll be voting for McCain if Hil is the nominee I see.

    I love you folks.

    you just make crap up to support your irrational loathing of Hillary.


    Huh, strange (none / 0) (#27)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:11:19 AM EST
    I'll be voting Green.  Being a liberal and all, I won't be voting for more of the same.  Just because my party has shifted to the right does not mean I have to do the same.

    You go ahead, though.


    I see (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:20:39 AM EST
    like voting for Nader in 2000. How'd that work out?

    Well considering (none / 0) (#34)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:26:09 AM EST
    the Dems didn't get the message, I would say not well.  They continue to vote for the DLC crowd, which has been a disaster.

    Again, just because the party has shifted to the right, does not mean that I will.


    The party has clearly shifted Left. (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:26:55 AM EST
    Insane (1.00 / 1) (#37)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:28:31 AM EST
    You really know nothing (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:37:30 AM EST
    do you?

    Of course not as far LEft as you or, heck, even I, want.

    But there is not a scintilla of doubt, none,, that it has moved left.

    Only an irrational partisan or an uniinformed person would argue what you are arguing.


    Right. (none / 0) (#40)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:48:29 AM EST
    The both parties have been moving left for decades.  I forgot.  Must be why Nixon proposed universal health insurance.

    He/she called me delusional (none / 0) (#48)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:25:02 AM EST
    for arguing what just about everyone's been arguing tonight, that whoever one supports, Hillary's win tonight was a GOOD thing for the party, because it'll force a real primary fight, rather than the battle of words over "hope" and "change" and "experience" that we'd seen till Iowa, and make all of the candidates better candidates, and better Dems. Adversity is good for democracy--provided that both sides are willing to fight. In this instance, it appears that they are.

    Clearly, though, this is not good enough for the "living in my head" crowd.


    His/her cable is on a 4 year time delay (none / 0) (#49)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:28:50 AM EST
    Pre-Schiavo/Katrina. So he/she is still getting the 2004 feed, apparently.

    Yes Big Tent (none / 0) (#54)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 09:58:41 AM EST
    even I can see that.

    If there's a big lead, if my vote doesn't count, (none / 0) (#30)
    by jerry on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:20:08 AM EST
    I may join you.

    Not because I hate either Clinton or Obama, but I do think a third party would be a good thing to break up the stalemate.  Hell, I could even vote Libertarian on that basis.

    But if it's close, no way.


    You're a Green and call me delusional? (none / 0) (#47)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:18:43 AM EST
    Well now I get it. Makes perfect sense, the projection.

    Still not ready to accept the disaster that Nader 2000 was, are you?

    I guess you're quite content to have a Repub president shift SCOTUS irrevocably to the far right. So long as you're "pure", who cares?

    Living in one's own head is a luxury that most people cannot afford.

    Oh, never mind, it's just not worth it.


    Jesus (none / 0) (#50)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:18:33 AM EST
    I make one comment about your idea in another thread and you lose your mind.  First of all, thanks for bringing it to this thread.  That was a very impressive and mature move.  Congrats on that.

    Second, much like your bizarre reading abilities in the previous thread, you have totally misinterpreted what I wrote.

    Did I say I was a member of the Green Party?  No, I did not.  What I did say is that I will vote Green if Hillary is the nominee.  And I'm not alone.  I know, at this point, seven people who will be doing the same.  She is a corporate candidate.  I'm done with it.

    There are reading comprehension classes available at your local community college.


    Equivocating BS (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:02:23 AM EST
    I could care less what party you belong to. A "Dem" who votes Green this year is infinitely worse than a Green who votes Dem. If you don't think that the stakes are high enough to hold your nose and vote for a Dem whom you despise, in order to "send a message" (which I guarantee you that NO ONE will give a damn about) or because you still believe that there's no meaningful difference between Hillary and the GOP, then I stand by my delusional accusation.

    I can almost understand people who will vote Green as a meaningless "protest vote" in a state where the Dem will clearly win, since it will mean nothing. But to vote Green in a state which can go either way is effectively half a vote for the GOP. I.e. for another 2 or 3 Scalias and Thomases. If your conscience is ok with that, more power to you. But this whole "we need to first go over a cliff before things can get better" nihilism and "there is no difference between the parties" nonsense from people like you never ceases to amaze and infuriate me.

    It's amazingly selfish, naive and dangerous. Just look back at the past 7 years if you still don't get it. Nader doesn't run, 4000-7000 Americans and up to a million Iraqis are still alive, we don't have a massive budget deficit, Alito and Roberts aren't on SCOTUS, and the constitution is still more or less intact. It's as simple as that, and beyond serious dispute. No, he didn't know all this at the time, but knowing him, he'd probably have run even if he did. If you're so serious about real political change in this country, why don't you focus on local races, where Greens might actually win, than at the presidential level, where it's just egotistical showboating that causes vastly more harm than good.


    kovie (none / 0) (#55)
    by Judith on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 10:01:14 AM EST
    well done - solid position - in general about why not to play around.  Too serious a situation by far to do that.

    sadly... (none / 0) (#59)
    by subee on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    the efforts of many to put a green party on the map in this country fell apart anyway when Nader et al dropped the ball after their loss.

    No, we can't go through that again :(

    This time, however, there is a better outlook and realization of the stakes --  even in the "we won't vote at all" (to protest corruption) camps, I hear rads echoing the wisdom of pulling together behind a democrat -- even if it is the "lesser of evils"!


    Selfish and dangerous? (none / 0) (#60)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 01:28:18 PM EST
    Wow.  Anyway, I will be voting for the candidate who best represents the issues I care about.  That is not Hillary Clinton.

    I'm a liberal.  She's not.  End of story.


    There's nothing liberal at all (none / 0) (#61)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:36:13 PM EST
    about being selfish, which not voting for the Dem in '08 in a race in which the Pub candidate has a chance to win would clearly be. This is not about Hillary. It's about another Scalia. Allowing another 2-3 like him on the court is "liberal"?

    You're not a liberal. You're selfish and deluded. If you were serious about not liking centrist Dems like her, you would work at the grass roots level to help elect true liberals so that one might be in a strong position to be president in 8-16 years, and that more of them were in congress. But not voting Dem in '08 is sheer lunacy.

    End of story.


    Wow. (none / 0) (#62)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST
    You should swell with pride on your version of democracy.  I'm okay with voting for the person who best represents me.

    Democracy is about process (none / 0) (#63)
    by kovie on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 03:08:55 PM EST
    Liberalism is about goals. What liberal goal does helping to elect a Pub achieve? And how can a person "represent" you if they don't get elected? I like Lincoln but I'm not about to vote for him since he has about the same chances of winning the presidency as a Green.

    No one questions your right to vote for whomever you choose to vote for. What I do question is the alleged liberalism of your choice, which might seem symbolically liberal but in reality works AGAINST liberal goals.


    No, you don't question my right to vote (none / 0) (#64)
    by DA in LA on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 04:06:11 PM EST
    You just attempt justify your undermining my right to choose who I wish.

    Translation (none / 0) (#65)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 05:40:28 PM EST
    You better march in lockstep!

    Great news - I'd missed it (none / 0) (#32)
    by jes on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 12:23:59 AM EST
    amid all the anti-Hillary hysteria this week. I was in the process of admitting there was no hope. I'd respect Hillary even more as a fighting Dem. Thanks for the example.

    Anything that is.... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:50:14 AM EST
    good for the democratic party, or the republican party, is bad for America.

    I can't believe how partisans cheer for the exclusion of independent voters from choosing the nominee of their choice, regardless of party.  That's anti-freedom.

    Personally, I'd be embarassed to be a registered member of either of the crooked organizations that have a stranglehold on our government.

    I'm currently an Independent (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    but must say that I wasn't very impressed with the conservative Indy crowd piling onto Obama hoping that they will never have to remember they voted for Dubya and earned America this hellacious economy and social structure we are crashing into and that they supported this fiasco until it finally became TOO obvious that the country had become an inferno.  Bleh!  Kumbaya, I forgive you your many sins my sons and daughters vote for me Bleh!  I'd rather not be allowed to vote in the Dem primaries and have the Dems work to earn my vote back than watch that business happen again.