The vitriol has been flowing - and getting worse - between solid progressive Democrats who favor different solid progressive candidates. Let's take a step back and look at the forest instead fighting over which of the nearest trees is good or bad/dead or alive.
OK Dems, we need a change of attitude here. We need to change how we respond to what we’re hit with – and make sure we shoot at the right target.
First, you know as well as I do, the "Obama is Muslim" type thing isn’t going to go away. The Rs are playing it low-key right now, because Obama – while the LIKELY nominee - isn’t the actual nominee, and they may have to shift gears, and funding, back to Hillary attacks. Our response so far has been to get mad about "smears" and show evidence that he’s not Muslim, he’s really Christian. That’s playing into their hands, because it still goes with their meme of Muslims (and other "scary brown people" – oh, like black people) are bad and it would be really bad if our president was one of them. When you are faced with this issue, try this instead:
"Don’t we wish! That would shoot down bin Ladin’s recruiting slogan that Americans want to wipe out Muslims, if we had a Muslim president. Sorry, Obama’s a Christian and we’ll just have to hope his "Hussain" middle name does the trick."
It may not change their mind, but it will blunt the attack and put out the idea that having a black and/or Muslim president dealing with the "War on Terror" might be a good thing. We need to move to that kind of "off the wall/out of the box" response to whatever the Rs throw at us.
Second – let’s use our imagination here for a possibly fantasy-land scenario. Lets pretend it’s the first debate after Edwards drops out and Clinton and Obama are in the Green Room of the studio before the "show" ---------------------------------------
C: Well Barry, it’s down to us.
O: (grins) Want to bet what wins – my charisma or your wonky experience?
C: (laughs) OK, but that brings me to my concern. The media finds cooperation and "wonky" plans boring. Remember the first thing they said after Al’s first debate back in 2000 when he laid out his plans – it was an "exercise in narcolepsy"? We need to keep the media eye on us, not the Republicans and the only way we can do that is give them a "show" - We have to start fighting.
O: But that’s against my whole message.
C: I know, but we have to do it. Not only does it keep the media eye on us, but we can bring out potential issues early – not only can our teams do damage control work early on, but by the time we get to the general election, those issues will be "old stuff". My team can keep hitting you with silly stuff, that wouldn’t be silly in the hands of Karl Rove’s operatives. You know, "kindergarten" so they can’t make an issue of your presidential planning before you declared and "plagiarism" so they can’t make an issue of you hiring David Vitter’s speechwriter. That kind of thing. Heaven knows Mark Penn isn’t good for much else. Plus anything that might really be an issue, who you’ve invested with – don’t I know THAT issue can be used against you – and commander-in-chief or other executive qualifications. If we get those handled before Denver, no matter who gets the nomination, we’ll be going into the general in good shape.
O: Yes, I see what you mean. But Hillary, you know I’ll have to hit you with racism.
C: Barry, Bill and I have been working for civil rights since we were in college.
O: I know, but the Republicans have already started circulating "Driving Miss Hillary" pictures around the internet.
C: I’ve seen them. You’re right. But it’s going to hurt, personally. And it will hurt Bill’s work with the Clinton Foundation, both here and in Africa.
O: It won’t hurt him in Africa, they don’t pay any attention to our media – and they know Bill. I’m afraid you’re right that it will hurt him here, but I don’t see any way around it.
C: (sighs) Me neither. It’s also going to make it hard for either of us to serve as the other’s running mate. That’s OK for you, but I really need you to present my program to America. I can’t use Bill for that, I need him repairing international damage.
O: I’m glad you realize that. I didn’t want to bring it up, but while I’d help your ticket, you’d probably hurt mine – except in Arkansas and New York.
C: I appreciate your tact. And I know that the "Bush base" – what is it 19% now? – truly believes I killed Vince Foster. (sighs again) I guess that’s worse than racism. I REALLY wish we didn’t have to do this. OK. ("places" signal goes off) Let’s do it. (grins) You giving me odds on that bet?
O: (also grins) Sure, 2 to 1 that I go into Denver with at least 10% more delegates.
---------------------------------------------
Now I can’t prove that the above conversation occurred – but you can’t prove it didn’t. (Maybe not in the "green room" at a TV studio before a debate, but sometime and place after Edwards dropped out.) But I strongly contend that it is VERY good for us that both our candidates go all the way to Denver. They are refining their campaigns for the general election and disarming potential landmines before they get there. And the Rs can’t be totally sure who to spend their money on blasting. Meanwhile, we have a single, sitting target – John McCain – that our PACs and 527s and other allies can already blast.
So the change in attitude I’m asking all Dems for – especially the extreme supporters of both Clinton and Obama – is from toxic hatred of the other candidate, to saying, "OK – that’s an issue. How will the Rs use it and how can we defuse before they get the chance?" I’m asking for research and problem-solving to replace vitriol.
Both our candidates have really solid progressive voting records in the Senate. They both have really solid progressive records on bills sponsored and co-sponsored. They both would make excellent presidents, in different ways. They both, with the help of a solidly Dem congress, can get us out of the economic mess we are in and lead the world in getting all of us out of the environmental mess we are in. Work for the candidate you like, by showing how good s/he is, by showing the advantages of that one. I’m tired of voting for the lesser of two evils – telling me I should vote for your candidate because mine sucks is just saying yours isn’t good enough for me to vote for on merit. Let’s change the attitude – and shoot for the right target.