In an eerie echo of the “Brooks Brothers riot” depicted in the HBO movie, when shouting Bush operatives and Republican congressional staffers who had been dispatched to Florida managed to shut down the Miami-Dade County recount, CNN reported on Thursday that Clinton supporters “are planning to swarm the capital in a little over a week to pressure Democratic Party leaders as they gather to decide the fate of the Florida and Michigan delegations.” In 2000, the candidate most willing to deploy principles and trash them, according to the tactical needs of the moment, was awarded the prize. In 2008, maybe not ...
Before we get started on the "Brooks Brother Riot " of 2008, let me just say that the RBC meeting at the Marriott Wardman Park ("the one near the zoo") played on CSpan radio (XM) yesterday in the background of a work day. It only got to me when I finally had a chance to look briefly at the doings on CSpan-TV. Coverage of the RBC meeting was interrupted for a few minutes around 4 Central to show the latest lift-off of the shuttle. A camera somewhere on the fusilage showed Florida getting smaller and smaller and smaller... That was a nice reminder.
The impression left is that the Rules Committee did a painstaking job and that so many of the people on that committee were a cut or two or ten above the ordinary. Of course the "Denver! Denver" spectators looked bad. Of course Ickes (was there ever a man who deserved his name more than Harold Ickes?) came off as the nasty little hack he is. But there were people at that meeting of far greater wisdom, tolerance, and good will that one might have expected, leaving out Blanchard, Ickes and a few others.
While all that was going on in Washington -- Obama was elsewhere making two unattractive compromises. One of them was understandable if disappointing.
Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.
The other apparent compromise stirs the first serious doubts I've had about Barack Obama.
In the wake of the Father Michael Pfleger controversial sermon last Sunday at Trinity United Church of Christ, Barack Obama sent a letter yesterday resigning from his place of worship for the past 20 years.
I sort of, kind of, understand why he did it. But I’m also sort of, kind of, concerned about what this might portend for an Obama presidency.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Trinity are community building blocks that the right wing has turned into bricks to be thrown at presidential candidate Obama from now until the general election ends in November—and perhaps beyond.
So in an attempt to turn manufactured right-wing ammo into blanks, Obama has completely separated himself from his minister and his church. What worries me is this: Can we expect a President Obama to cave in to the whims and will of the right on policies and issues he knows are important, if this nation is to move forward in a progressive and compassionate manner? Can we expect him to genuflect to negative reports by an uninformed, misinformed or ill-willed media? Is the candidate of change willing to go-along in a willy-nilly get-along fashion?I hope not, but I’m not sure.
From the get-go, the Wright "controversy" seemed as contrived as any baseless Swift Boat effort in the past. We should have outgrown this stuff by now. One of the reasons so many of us want Obama as leader is because he knows the difference between this kind of crap and real issues. Or does he?
I also know that perception can become reality in our media-defined world. But reality is not always perception. And, the reality is that Obama cannot let the right-wing dictate his principles.
Should this become his practice as president, then for those who have invested so much hope in him, his victory will only be a pyrrhic one.
Maybe this the real story of what happened: maybe the Obama family's withdrawal from their congregation is an effort to get the spotlight off the church for the sake of the remaining congregation. There is some logic to that. One can hope.
As for what happened at the RBC meeting, was there a single onlooker who believes the Clinton supporters in the crowd should be congratulated? Does anyone think or hope that Hillary Clinton played no part in their behaviors? Did they hope that -- bottom line -- she would reject the resentful urge to split the party? Do they still believe she's (at least) a better politician than that?
Okay, I did. But no longer. The New York Times reports:
Mr. Ickes said the outcome for Michigan was a hijacking of voters’ intent because it assigned delegates to Mr. Obama even though he did not win them as his name was not on the ballot.
Mrs. Clinton was in touch with Mr. Ickes throughout the day, aides said, and she instructed him to conclude his remarks with that message to the party.
Not all Clinton supporters -- certainly not all at the U-shaped table in that Marriott conference room -- behaved badly. Tenacious and hopeful, they did their best to get her the fullest possible count of delegates and finally had to accept -- or at least watch -- the compromise. They had their own pressures and problems.
The scene at the hotel was a wrenching one for many committee members, who brought into the room their own candidate loyalties, even as they tried to reach for compromise.
They were frequently badgered by members of the audience, who had obtained tickets last week to witness the meeting. They represented the two candidates, and many mocked the few expressions of party unity.
As the votes on the agreements were taken, one woman, wearing a blue “Team Hillary” shirt, shoved a man in a suit and tie wearing a small Obama button on his lapel. Another woman in a white Clinton shirt hung her head in her hands.
“That was a crime!” a man shouted.
“McCain in ’08! McCain in ’08!” a woman yelled from the back of the room. “No-bama! No-bama!”
There are a lot of women in America who are doubtful about claims that Hillary Clinton was treated badly. There are plenty who think the cries of "sexism" are very, very exaggerated. But not all. There are enough left to tear the Democratic party in half.
It's true that campaigns and political movements use anger as a bargaining chip. The message is: Appease us or we will cause trouble. The Clinton campaign is hoping that such rage will strengthen its hand in the battle to seat pro-Clinton Michigan and Florida delegations at the party's national convention, even though those states held early primaries in violation of party rules.
But the conversations I had this week with prominent female politicians from around the country who support Clinton suggest that the fury and disappointment is more than short-term maneuvering.
So it's going to get worse, not better, maybe even in spite of the strength of the presence and distinction of the women politicians on the Rules and By-Laws Committee. That healthy debate at the long table may be forgotten long before images and descriptions of the spoilers fade from memory.
... The Hillary protesters are occupying an utterly alternate (and healing-free) universe: a universe in which one of the big lawn rally's speakers yells that the Democratic Party no longer is in the business of "promoting equality and fairness for all"; in which a Hillary supporter with two poodles shouts, "Howard Dean is a leftist freak!"; in which a man exhibits a sign that reads "At least slaves were counted as 3/5ths a Citizen" and shows Dean whipping handcuffed people; and in which Larry Sinclair, the Minnesota man who took to YouTube to allege that Barack Obama had oral sex with him in the back of a limousine in 1999, is one of the belles of the ball.
"They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there," the blond Sinclair--who's looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket--says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of "Obama's DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex" fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, "I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!"
He's not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. "You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs," sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair's credibility doesn't seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he's treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is "good in bed."
Well, maybe what you see isn't entirely what you get. The TNR report ends like this.
Inside the Marriott's gift shop, the sales clerk tells me that Democratic bumper stickers have been selling like crazy today. "Mostly Hillary?" I ask.
"Actually, mostly Obama," she giggles.