The Not-so-Civil War

Suddenly, the cracks in the facade are apparent to anyone with eyes. With each passing day the Democratic party grows less and less structurally sound. While Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton continue their Civil War, John McCain's predicted rise is becoming a reality. Despite assurances by all the principle actors, party chiefs, and sympathetic pundits about huge Democratic fundraising advantages, overwhelming primary voter turnout, and the nation's steady disdain for all things Bush, it doesn't take a wild imagination to envision the Dem's doomsday scenario: A house divided against itself cannot stand.

And what divisions they are! Here's a sampling. First, from the dailyKos' Markos Moulistas:

It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with--those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.

Geraldine Ferraro in an interview with The Daily Breeze:

Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?

MyDD's Jerome Armstrong on Obama's speech on race:

This is pretty ugly and unfair though of Obama, to equate statements by Ferraro with Wright. Obama goes on and on about how great a person Wright is, without a single kind word about Ferraro, just rubbing it in further. I believe the campaign has reached a new low.

Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, telling Clinton:

You are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you are the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, Senator, "that way madness lies."

Paul Krugman in The New York Times:

Let's be blunt: pundits who say what voters really want is a candidate who makes them feel good, that they want t an end to harsh partisanship, are projecting their own desires onto the public. And nothing Mr. Obama has said suggests that he appreciates the bitterness of the battles he will have to fight if he does become president, and tries to get anything done.

Frank Rich in The New York Times:

A race-tinged brawl at the convention, some nine weeks before Election Day, will not be a Hallmark moment. As Mr. Wilkins reiterated to me last week, it will be a flashback to the Democratic civil war of 1968, a suicide for the party no matter which victor ends up holding the rancid spoils.

Bill Maher interviewing Terry McAuliffee:



There is no longer any doubt that a prolonged campaign will not help the Democrats, despite how some would like to spin it. Thought it's certainly true that the bulk of the party will choose reconstruction over John McCain if their first-choice candidate comes in second place, the animosities that have developed between the warring armies of Obama and Clinton threaten to make red converts out of some of the most ardent blue foot-soldiers. And who doubts that a measurable percentage of disgruntled vets will simply sit out the final contest should option A not get the nod?

Me, I'm a throwback Democrat. I'll take either Clinton or Obama over McCain, whatever reservations I may have.