Primary colors of downright silliness: the Democrats' circular firing squad

Are the Democratic presidential primaries still about the vision thing, even if just a little? Or, having rolled out ever so briefly a proposed solution or two to what now amount to hemorrhaging crises both at home and abroad, have the candidates chucked the issues for good?

Saturday night they gathered in Des Moines to address a swarm of Democrats at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner. This would seem a prime opportunity for each major candidate to tell the crowd -- and through extensive media coverage, the nation -- why his or her remedies are better than the other guys'. Or so one might think.

But let's take a look, from The Politico's coverage of the event, at the tangle of nothing but political attitude and practical insignificance that manifested instead. I don't blame the journalism here in availing us nothing, for there wasn't anything to avail but low-soaring rhetoric, elbowing jibes, canned one-upmanship and staged sincerity.

The want of anything resembling an actual idea was striking. To wit ...

"Neither Obama nor former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) criticized Clinton by name, but both offered indictments of her judgment and capacity to bring change....

"The senator from New York, for her part, sought to turn the party's focus away from her and onto the White House and the Republican Party....

"Both Clinton and Edwards have suggested at times that Obama lacks the desire or capacity to fight, and he has tried to address that criticism by sharpening his attacks on President George W. Bush....

"But Obama also seemed to criticize Clintonism as a mirror image of divisive Republican tactics, with a cynical focus on winning at any cost....

"And [Obama] appeared to described his main rival as a figure without clear principles....

"Obama also appeared to reference the Clinton Administration when he denounced leading by polls....

And, my personal favorite, a two-fer:

"Obama's criticism of the Clinton 1990s echoed the criticism ... that Edwards has voiced for months...."

Finally:

"Speaking before Obama, and after Edwards, Clinton tried to answer her critics:

'There are some who will say they don't know where I stand ... I stand where I have stood for 35 years -- I stand with you and with your children and with every American who needs a fighter in their corner for a better life.'"

That was the only direct line from a candidate I retained from the news coverage, but, believe me, you missed nothing in my omissions. There wasn't anything of substance to miss. And the only reason I retained Hillary's quote was to ask: Did you derive any understanding whatsoever of where she stands -- on anything -- from that?

I'm well aware that events such as Jefferson-Jackson Day dinners are more rally than seminar. But, it seems to me, a trifle substance here and there would go farther in swaying undecided voters and caucus goers than this now-incessant round robin of personal carping. Its unremitting quality has gotten just plain silly.

Yes, yes, yes, we all get it -- each of you possesses a "judgment," "capacity to bring change" and a "desire to fight" like we haven't seen since Abraham Lincoln or FDR, and the other guy doesn't (which, of course, leaves them all undifferentiated). We get that, and that's the expected and necessary stuff of politics. But what, specifically, do you plan to change, and how?

A hundred million voters aren't going to access your Web sites and search for answers, assuming they might find one or two. But they might be inspired by a few specifics offered on the stump -- you know, like at events that receive national coverage.

We appreciate that your opponents have no credible ideas or desirable depth on issues that matter. What are yours?

Just a thought.

****

... to support p m carpenter's commentary -- the hardest-working little blog on the Internets -- and thank you!

Comments

[Robert]

No substance AS USUAL.

Of course Dennis Kucinich was not invited for an idiotic reason. (In a TRUE Democracy, there would be no disqualifying "rules".)
Had he been there, possibly Iowa could have heard some spot on
(T)ruths about the state of the government and how to really CHANGE direction.

You can count on the corn-eaters doing whatever the corporate media tells them to. I've NEVER understood why the midwest was considered the "pulse" of America?! Maybe it's time to change that, huh?

OBLIVION and SLEEP-WALKING are indeed safe, I suppose--but HORRIBLY DESTRUCTIVE to this country!

[Dana Hatch]

It seems like both parties are intentionally trying to lose, treating the presidency like a hot potato. Bush will have left such a mess there's no chance of a president following him being successful. Also the Democrats don't want to say anything of substance because they are fascists just like the Republicans. Of course they didn't invite Gravel or Kucinich, honest men on the podium would be dangerous to the big three phonies. Dodd and Biden trail Kucinich in the polls but were invited because they know how to play the game.

[clarence swinney]

A Democrat criticizing the 1990's is a MORON.
Here is a list of FACTS

They should be celebrating and bragging on how Democrats create good things

PRAISE CLINTON AND GORE

WITH PLEASURE

GDP--rose from 6300 to11,600
NATIONAL INCOME-5,000 to 8,000 Billion--
JOBS CREATED—237,00 per month to replace Jimmy Carter record of 218,000.
AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS--$360 to $478
AVERAGE WEEKLY HOURS WORKED--never hit 35.0--hit that mark 4 times in 80's
UNEMPLOYMENT--from 7.2% down down down to as low as 3.9%
MINIMUM WAGE--$4.25 to $5.15
MINORITIES--did exceedingly well
HOME OWNERSHIP--hit all time high (no big deal most can say this-except Reagan)
DEFICIT--290 Billion to whoopee a SURPLUS
DEBT----+28%---300% increase over prior 12 years by Conservatives.
FEDERAL SPENDING--+28%---+80% under Reagan- who is da true conservative?
DOW JONES AVERAGE—3,500 to 11,720 top in 2000. All it's history to get to 3500 and Clinton zooms it
NASDAQ--700 to 5,000 top in 2000.---All of it's history to get to 700 and Clinton zooms it
VALUES INDEXES-- almost all bad went down--good went up in zoom zoom zoom
FOREIGN AFFAIRS--Peace on Earth good will toward each other---Mark of a true Christian--what has Bush done to Peace on Earth?
POPULARITY---highest poll ratings in history during peacetime in AFRICA, ASIA AND EUROPE . Even 98.5% in Moscow--left office with Highest Gallup rating since it was started in 1920's.
STAND UP FOR JUSTICE--evil conservatives spent $110,000,000 on hearings and investigations and caught one very evil man who took a few plane rides to events.
BOW YOUR HEADS—“Thank you God for sending us a man of Bill Clinton's character, intelligence, knowledge of governance, ability to face up to crises without whimpering and a great leader of the world. Amen”.
THANK YOU GOD FOR THE GOOD TIMES THE CLINTON YEARS.
clarence swinney-political historian-Lifeaholics of America- burlington nc
[email protected]
6-28-03

things.

[clarence swinney]

Run from the 1990's is an idiot.

Look at how Conservatives boast relentlessly on Reagan record which is seen here??

I prefer Clinton record.
Comparing Democrat’s hero-CLINTON—versus Republican’s hero--REAGAN
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.JOBS—grew by 43% more under Clinton.
2.GDP---grew by 57% more under Clinton.
3.DOW—grew by 700% more under Clinton..
4.NASDAQ-grew by 18 times as much under Clinton.
4.SPENDING--grew by 28% under Clinton---80% under Reagan.
5.DEBT—grew by 43% under Clinton—187% under Reagan.
6. DEFICITS—Clinton got a large surplus--grew by 112% under Reagan.
7.NATIONAL INCOME—grew by100% more under Clinton.
8.PERSONAL INCOME—Grew by 110% more under Clinton.
SOURCES—Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.BLS.Gov)--Economic Policy Institute (EPI.org)—Global & World Almanacs from 1980 to 2003 (annual issues)
www.the-hamster.com (chart taken from NY Times)
National Archives History on Presidents. www.nara.gov
LA Times 10-11-00 on Market--www.Find articles.com

A vote for a Republican is a vote for Less Success.
A vote to reduce the Standard of Living for all Americans.

Clarence Swinney-Political Research Historian-Lifeaholics of America-President
Please submit comments to [email protected] or P.O. Box 3411-Burlington NC-27216

Are all Democrats dumb or just the ones running for office?

Gore gored Gore by not using this great great record.

Beats me. I am too dumb to comprehend it.

[clarence swinney]

Want attack information?

google search
clarence swinney + attack

The more use it means more pressure on Goops.

[clarence swinney]

FEAR BIG TIME

just when my putting is peaking

Iran-Russia
pals
Attack Iran = dumb = my last putt

200 ICBM

7 stories underground

each can carry 10 nuclear warheads

Each ICBM wil destroy a 200 mile radius.

2000 nukes-bye bye golf game

[clarence swinney]

Is Bush sane

read his actual comments and decide.

google search
clarence swinney + bush waffles

awesome stupidity or ??

[nero]

I happened to catch John Edwards entire speech at the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on CSPAN. It was chock-full of substance, as I suspect was the case with other candidates' speeches.

More than ever, mainstream media is reporting the 2008 election like a horse race. Not because it's some conspiracy, but because it's cheap and easy. Laziness and greed will be the death of our democracy.

[mark mywords]

YOU KNOW IT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN

AND WE ARE THE GLUE WHICH CAN PREVENT IT

BUT WE HAVE TO BE STRONG....

---THE REPUBLICANS PLAN TO WIN BY DIVIDING THE DEMOCRATIC VOTE... YOU HEAR PEOPLE SAY "I'D VOTE FOR XXX BUT NEVER FOR YYY" WHEN THEY ARE BOTH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES.

*******s t o p i t*********

THE PROPER RESPONSE IS... I WILL FIGHT IN THE PRIMARY FOR MY CANDIDATE... AND I WILL SUPPORT THE WINNER OF THE PRIMARY WITH ALL OF MY TIME, WORDS, MONEY, AND ENERGY

DON'T LET THE REPUBLICANS BREAK OUR RANKS... ON ANYTHING

THE WORST DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IS 100 TIMES BETTER THAN THE BEST REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE (NOW THERE IS A BUMPERSTICKER WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF)

[liberal from PA]

Two VERY GREAT comparisons between democrats vs. repugs and Clinton vs. Reagan. I would LOVE to know why the democrats don't get wise enough to start quoting these facts! If so, there wouldn't be these close elections that we've had lately. Instead, the democrats would BLOW AWAY the republicans in such a manner that there would be no possible way for the election to be stolen (but that's a whole other story in itself).

I can understand Mark Mywords comment about the democrats standing united against the republicans by not bashing any of the democrats, and perhaps at one time I may have agreed with that. However, I no longer can stand behind anyone calling themselves a democrat. Except for a VERY select few, what the heck have the DEMOCRATS done in congress and senate since taking over the reins? Not a heck of a lot. Instead of shoving back at the illegal and immoral conduct of the current administration, the majority of the democrats (Clinton and Obama included) have bent over backwards to ALLOW these games to continue! There are many of us who are REALLY angry at their betrayal and want a REAL change for this country. Sorry to say, but there Certainly won't be a real change with Hillary in the White House (boy, did I have hopes for her when she became a Senator!) and I doubt there would be one with Obama either. When he's walking around saying that we just have to nuke Iran there is something SERIOUSLY wrong!

So, Mark, forgive us old school democrats who expect our candidate to actually do something for our votes.

[liberal from PA]

I meant to say: I wouldn't stand by just anyone who calls themselves a democrat, not that I won't support ANY democrats.

[Mark Mywords]

i'm in PA myself amigo--- good to know there are at least 2 of us.

my opinion to back all democrats is this--- we know that as the dems take over, there will be wolves in sheeps clothing. we also know that politicians (even ours) will say anything to get elected. i'm counting on the hillary's of the world to WIN first.. and then to bring in her true colors WHICH i believe will be liberal. we can only hope.

[Liberal from PA]

Hillary a liberal? I think you have some wishful thinking there, my friend. Remember that her husband Bill brought us NAFTA which is one of the WORST policies this nation has ever involved themselves in. Horrible for labor, the environment, our economy, our health, not to mention what it does to the second and third world countries -keeping their citizens in poverty. It blows my mind that a DEMOCRAT actually fought for the U.S. to participate in such a outright disaster. Of course, it's great for American businesses. Unfortionately, she's cast from the same mold.

Nope, there is no way Hillary is going to move leftward once in office. She's already gone rightward since becoming a senator.

I think us voters (and PACS) need to stop voting (supporting) for "who has the best chance" and start voting/supporting the person who will do the best job. Look, for example, at the debate that the unions sponsored. Dennis Kucinich BLEW the rest of the democratic candidates away! Even the conservatives on FOX news were saying that he "won that round". However, when it came time for the unions to endorse a candidate, they went "safe" with Edwards, not Kucinich. It was their chance to actually support a TRUE defender of labor and the average-Joe and they threw their money to someone "mainstream".

In the case of Hillary, I don't see much difference between her and a repug. She has equally sold us down the drain over the past six years. It's a bummer because she IS a smart woman. She certainly CAN do the job of president, but she WON'T take this country in the direction if HAS to go. After these past six years of hell, I can't and won't suport anyone who has in anyway aided the illegal and immoral policies of the Bush rein.

Nope, Hillary won't get my vote even is she DOES become the democratic candidate. This is the year that I refuse to "settle".

[Idetrorce]

very interesting, but I don't agree with you
Idetrorce