Democratic Dynamics
The dynamics of the Democratic Party have changed over the past 6 years. The most noteworthy shift has been the discrepancy over where the base lies, which factions in the Democratic camp are more vocal and better funded, and how that ends up affecting who the big time candidates are blowing kisses to.
Today the far left wing of the party are the best funded and best organized, and through the use of mass media and the internet exert an enormous amount of control over what the talking points and agenda for the party will be. Long gone are the days where Daniel Patrick Moynihan (a former Democrat Senator from New York, and a man I've always felt was truly brilliant and a credit to the political class) is electable. We now live in the days where the big Presidential candidates skip the DLCC conference, which is the largest group of grassroots political organizers in the country and have always been regularly attended by Democratic candidates, only to attend utter drivel such as YearlyKos. The reasons why are appalling - it has to do with money and which group has more of an ability to affect the campaigns negatively. What the candidates haven't realized is that they snubbed the actual base of the party, who do the dirty work to get candidates elected, only to placate the self-important, delusional people who blog therefore feel they influenced an election.
Take a quick look at our political class - we have no more people like Daniel Patrick Moynihan in Congress. Granted, Senator Moynihan would not be electable these days despite his brilliance, because as a New Yorker he supported restricting abortion, but nevertheless our current political class consists of, in comparison, people who are relative embarrassments. Its a sad time for those of us who take politics very seriously because the net effect is that we lack leadership during one of the most critically dangerous times in our country's history.
FDR is a man who did some extraordinarily controversial things to protect our nation - some of which would have gotten him impeached had he been President today - but without leaders like Churchill and FDR, would we have been better off in the fight to stamp out the Nazis? Without talismans like these two men, I think we would have lost. At this point in time, we desperately need a talisman again! The question is, who will that be? I see no viable candidates.
Hillary and the anti-war left - is the honeymoon over?
Last week, while responding to
(e:dcoffee), I suggested in his comments (and in my own journal on previous occasions) that Hillary will almost certainly throw the anti-war crowd under the bus once she gets the nomination. Lo and behold, here is your first taste of a very bitter beer -
What happens when you ask the Queen a question she isn't comfortable responding to? She accuses you of being a plant, accuses you of being ignorant about the legislation you are referring to, then quickly apologizes once she realizes that she indeed just acted bitchy and dressed down an honest voter in public. Its rare to see Hillary step out of the character her campaign has put her in, but there you have it. Towards the end, she did manage to put it back together.
Woe be to those who don't step in line. I actually feel really bad for the guy - although I doubt I agree with him on anything, I think he has a right to put Hillary in an uncomfortable position if in fact she is doing something that people who might vote for her don't like.
It is clear to me that Hillary has been using her husband's "triangulation" strategy to perfection ever since she announced her candidacy. Now that this has happened, and the press is bound to be horrendous, I am predicting a very strong anti-war, "we're getting out of Iraq ASAP once I'm elected" sort of message - which I've been warning you anti-war liberal types, is a complete and utter lie. Do not believe Hillary when she says this - I'm being honest and not Machiavellian about this. If you are anti-war and think Hillary is going to pull all of the troops out, you'll be deeply regretting your choice. Also, do not think for a second that Hillary will take military options off the table against Iran (or anyone else, for that matter), which is what the poor sod that she berated was worried about. Granted, I think literally the only people who are paranoid about us attacking Iran are the netroot kook types that she placated at YearlyKos, but these mixed messages are clearly beginning to make anti-war folks nervous... and to be honest you should be if you are so inclined.
Where the anti-war left get it utterly wrong is when they accuse Hillary of being a war monger. For God's sake, I'm not asking the world of people to be able to discern the difference between being a war monger and refusing to eliminate military options against a dangerous state. Taking part in the latter does not make you the former.
Now, the particularly entertaining part of this read is the comments in the bottom of the blog. Some people accuse the media of being sexist because of how the headlines are phrased (laughably absurd), some actually believe that the guy was a plant (paranoid clintonoid), some accused the questioner of being sexist himself (riiiiiight....), some people are just getting in shots because its easy (Republicans, or possibly Obama supporters). Reading Dem on Dem violence, I have to say, is a very weird experience.
Politics is becoming more of a sport/soap opera every day.
you know the first time i saw one of those late night commercials i thought i had turned the channel to SNL and it was a gag. it's quite sick. i'm all for not getting married. just live together and be happy.
Right on man, marriage sucks.
Just kidding Janelle!
The institution of marriage works for some people. But for so many people it is ridiculous. I mean, some people just aren't made for monogamy. Look at how we are built biologically. Men are capable of having sex several times a day, impregnating several women a day. Women, are built for relationship. Mate with a mate and have them help raise the pups.
But, society thrusts it upon us. Marriage is defined in a narrow way that doesn't allow for, say, three person relationships, open relationships, same-sex-relationships, non-sexual relationships. The list goes on.
So, I completely understand your point. Too bad the adulterers on that site have to be so sceavy.
Well, when we live in a society where 50-60% of marriages fail... yeah, I'm very skeptical. I don't think it would the best service for me to put on rose-colored glasses and pretend that marriage isn't as temporary as it ever was.
This isn't the first time, or the second even, that I've heard of websites like this. Its really sad.
I suppose I could be accused of having trust issues - so be it. That doesn't bother me a bit. It would take an act of God to get me to reconsider.
Granted though, to your point, I think its possible to beat the odds, find a good partner and never have to worry about the statistics. All of my married friends seem to be in good relationships and I think I'd be genuinely surprised if one of them got divorced. I'm happy for them but I want no part of it, and the adulterous aspect of things is only one element of my views on marriage.
Yes, and Heather Mills is getting away with $100M of Sir Paul's money. Ouch!
You reject marriage because it's in a state of disarray or because you think it's impossible to have a (self-defined)successful marriage where both partners are faithful?
I love marriage (of course we're only 2.5 years into it), but so far, I really do love it. I recommend it to my friends. Corny, I know, but I do. I know there are bad marriages out there, my parent's marriage has had its problems. And I knew I never wanted my parents marriage and I set out to not have my parents marriage but something better.
I think that you can reject all the negatives that you see in the media and even in life and have a marriage better than any you've seen.
And who knows how wide spread this website thing really is, media loves to sensationalize, right? So how representative is it of the average American household?