Why is there a split? The behavior of the Clintons in the primary campaign.
How do you heal it? Say these words: President John McCain.
Easy – bitch, or any variation thereon. (Some variations appear to have been invented, this year, just for her.)
But is calling her a bitch hateful in the same way calling a black person a nigger is? I tend to think they are a little different. I have no doubt Hillary has been lambasted, but how much of that is because of her gender and how much of that is because of her behavior? I wonder…
This country has survived all manner of bad Presidents, Democrat and Republican alike. I support Obama because right now he seems like the best person for the job, but come 2012 if he hasn’t done a good job I’ll vote for somebody else.
It’s not about party, and it shouldn’t be. If I thought McCain were the best person for the job I’d be on board with him. Ultimately it may turn out that he was the best person for the job. Trying to forecast the next 4-8 years of this country’s political future based upon assertions made by the candidates now is what makes this a difficult choice.
In the meantime, I would suggest that people not take too seriously the promises of the various candidates, because through circumstance or intent they likely will not be able to follow through on most of them. It’s far better to judge them by their character. Obama has it in spades.
That’s understandable; he’s kind of a favorite son candidate for you folks in Southern California, right? 
I agree.
How is that different from any other e-year?
It’s not. Did I assert that it was?
Count me as among those who are unconvinced that the cut is that deep. Oh there is a very vocal group, and there are many more who are upset in the throes, but most will rally round when push comes to shove especially if the process to get there is played out well.
For their parts both Teams Clinton and Obama are playing it out fairly well now. We’ll see if the process continues in that direction but I think the process “playing out” is allowing for some ill will to simmer down.
Put me also in the ‘much ado about nuffin’ camp. I think the ‘split’ is only due to how hotly contested (and in the spotlight) the Democrat nomination has been (while the Republican side has been a yawn to date)…once the Dems formally bless a candidate I think much of the split will evaporate as currently disgruntled Hillary supporters rally to Obama for the good of the party (as well when the realize that Hillary and Obama aren’t really all that far apart…and that they probably actually feel closer to Obama on things like the War in Iraq and such in any case).
I doubt this great split will last even a month after Obama gets the formal nod…and the REAL contest starts.
-XT
You started this thread on how to heal the demo party, and you’re making excuses why it’s ok to call a woman a bitch.
Obama has the nomination and he has stated to speak well of her, as are many other public dems.
It’s time for Obama supporters to stop hating her (you don’t have to like her) and start getting it in your heads that Obama will need the Clintons more than any others politician in the country to help him win in Nov.
You could start by showing a little respect for Hillary.
Agreed on this. Of course, I’ve tried very hard to not use the b-word at all since well before the primaries began, and to refer to Sen. Clinton as, well, Sen. Clinton, rather than Hillary, because I don’t refer to Sen. Obama as Barack. Referring to Clinton by first name in the same circumstance is not respectful.
I don’t like her. I don’t like her husband as much as I did when he was president. I don’t like the DLC wing of the party. But as long as she’s not throwing mud, I can manage to treat her and her followers who can see the daylight of reality through the haze with some respect.
Agreed. As Obama cannot win the Presidency without a substantial chunk of Clinton’s current supporters, he is wisely speaking well of her, as she is - at least for the moment - of him. The Democratic Party is a little split at the moment, a bit torn, but I’m confident that the great majority of people on both sides of the Clinton/Obama divide will come together in November. Our differences are as nothing compared to the eventual nominee’s policy differences with John McCain. Any Dem who says he or she would back McCain before the other Dem candidate needs to take a deep breath and really think through what that would mean. In unity lies victory.
The trouble is, calling her “Clinton” invites confusion with her husband, and her campaign signs all say simply “Hillary”. I don’t think using her first name signifies any disrespect, since apparently that’s how she prefers it.
Intellectually, I know we need to reach out to the Hillary supporters. Emotionally, at this time I personally can’t do it. I have too much resentment for the way the Clintons behaved in the campaign. A lot will depend on how she behaves when she drops out.
I think it’s a function of the identity politics that are unavoidable when the first woman and the first black guy both run at the same time and the fact that more people than ever are out there on the “comments” sections of web sites actually arguing about it.
Arguing on the internet is a new sport, and the divisiveness is just the same as when people divide and argue about their favorite sports teams.
As a result, you have the fans on both sides going at each other, and because this has gone on so long, it has tended to polarize people.
Throw in the regional disparities (KY v OR or WV v VA), and you have a bad mix.
Obama will get it all put back together. I’m confident.
Hasn’t there always been a pretty big split in the Democratic party? Union workers, conservative Southerners (who have, for the most part, become Republicans), large segments of the African American voting block, classic hippie-liberal-commie-pinko-flower loving-peace- queers, urban dwelling “elites,” etc.?
I have always seen the Democratic party as the larger tent, and we’ve always managed to be a fractious bunch. The healing will start when we focus on the common threat - the Republican nominee. Nothing like the idea of 4 more years of a Republican in the White House to focus the energy.
You ever hear of a guy named John McCain?
Obama>McCain>Clinton.
While it would be good for the country to clear out the Republican dead wood from the executive branch, McCain is not Bush.
If one of the other Republican contenders was the nominee, I guess I’d have to vote for Hillary over them. Fortunately for me and the country, we don’t have to worry about Huckabee or Guiliani or Romney. And fortunately for me and the country, it looks like we won’t have to worry about Hillary either. And so while I’m planning on voting for Obama, I can’t quite work myself into a tizzy over the prospect of McCain winning.
As far as Obama’s and Clinton’s ideology and policy positions are concerned, they are pretty much the same. I’m more a supporter of Obama simply because he has it’s Clinton who’s involved with the DLC. Much has been made of this in the press but I hope people don’t reactively infer anything from that.
Agreed to in post #4.
Yeah. And in 1984 I heard of a guy named Walter Mondale and in 2004 I heard of a guy named Bob Dole. Somebody has to be the nominee, y’know.
This is what I came in here to say. Democrats barely agree on anything except that they’re Dems, and every group has its own pet cause. The reason for the perception that Dems “shoot themselves in the foot” every election cycle is the fact that we get nominees who try to be everything to everyone. We don’t rally behind one or two defining issues the way Republicans do.
The group that will decide it for us will be the moderates that are willing to put aside the pet causes, be pragmatic and go with whichever candidate will have the best chance of getting elected.