Blue Spot

Soon after the 2004 election, after spending so much time, energy and money supporting John Kerry's failed bid, I remember being outraged by some remarks made by the the founder and CEO of the DLC, Al From. From, who is infamous for his centrist and hawkish policies, said in March 2005, “You’ve got to reject Michael Moore and the MoveOn crowd.” From added “rank-and-file Democrats ‘are more like us than MoveOn,’ which [Al] From called a group of ‘elites, people who sit in their basements all the time and play on their computers.’” (NBC’s “First Read,” 3/1/05)

I myself was a MoveOn member, and I guess I still am, although I haven't participated in any of their events in quite a while. So at the time, I took great offense to these remarks, and it seemed he was suggesting that the party needed to move toward the right if it ever wanted to win an election again.

I can't help but think that From's remarks have come to mind several times during the current Democratic campaign. Now I'm not saying that From was correct, but the vigorous support and vitriol shown by Obama supporters and the media which seems to now be overtly gushing over the junior senator from IL, have made things a little clearer. It's quite obvious that there is a rift in the party.

Obama supporters on blogs like Daily Kos, 527's like MoveOn and his supporters throughout the media would have you believe that Clinton supporters are all dumb, white racists and/or feminists. The many Clinton supporters I've met while campaigning are far from being dumb or racist. In fact, many of her supporters admire the work she's done over the years on civil and human rights and her collaborations with African-American and Latino leaders. Many of her supporters didn't even start out this campaign against Obama. They just felt he wasn't ready for the job and that Clinton was ready and much more experienced. After all, if Obama does become president, America will have chosen somebody who's last complete term was as a state senator.

Some of Hillary's supporters didn't start out supporting her. As their preferred candidates finally left the race, they were faced with a decision. I for one started out as an Edwards supporter. One thing that stuck in my mind from the beginning was how Hillary performed during the debates. She just seemed so much more experienced, so much more in control and her answers were always very detailed. It also became very obvious that the media was in Obama's corner. When the piling on started with pundits like Keith Olbermann making it a mission to bring Hillary down, then seeing the ugly diaries and comments at sites that claim to be for all Dems, and when Edwards finally decided to leave the race, the choice became clear for me.

Clinton supporters are passionate for sure. As they began to express their support online, in forums and blogs, they were met with a ferocious wave of disdain from fellow Democrats. The Obama supporters were so furious that many Clinton supporters found it necessary to seek out other places they would be welcome.

So if there is a Clinton wing of the party, I would say they range from being liberal to more moderate, just left-of-center Dems. Clinton liberals can be those with traditional progressive values who feel she is the best person to champion causes like universal health care, the rights of labor, immigrants, gays and despite her 2002 vote, they feel she is the best person to get us out of the war in Iraq. Clinton moderates feel she would be the strongest leader and be the best person on issues like national defense, the fight on terrorism and the security of the nation.

On the other hand, although I don't agree with From's past statements, there is an element in the party that sees itself as entitled. They are ultra-partisan and don't feel the party should be tolerant of any part of the country that is even a fraction to the right of them. They realize that there will be more conservative Dems, in areas where there are a majority of Republicans and will even campaign for them, but they won't let them into their conversations or clubs; they won't let them speak for the party. If they had their way there would only be one party and everybody would be as vile, snarky and liberal as they are. Sounds like a mirror-image of right-wing republicans.

So here lies the danger. If Obama wins, this wing of the party will surely dominate. How will Obama unite the country as he says he can, when his supporters are unwilling to compromise and are not even tolerant of the more moderate views within their own party? And before you reply with comments about how divisive Hillary is and polls showing her supporters are unwilling to support Obama if he's the nominee, remember that she didn't start the attacks. She was very civil and withstood constant attacks from the other candidates early in the race. In fact, I remember one line vividly from the Las Vegas debate: “They're not attacking me because I'm a woman,” she said. “They're attacking me because I'm ahead.” This is from Politico's coverage (which hasn't always been friendly to Sen. Clinton) of that debate:

LAS VEGAS – New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton responded to weeks of increasing criticism from her rivals at a debate here Thursday night with a rhetorical show of force of her own.

She accused former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards of “throwing mud” and said Illinois Sen. Barack Obama is being too modest in his plans for health care and too aggressive in aiming to raise Social Security taxes.

Clinton was cheered — and her rivals' criticisms were, at times, booed — by an unusually raucous crowd made up of students, labor union members and Democratic activists at the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

Clinton supporters have to stay relevant. We have to show the blogs and the pundits that we do count and that bias and sexism will never be tolerated. The most obvious way to do this would be to not support Obama. Without us, he may never get his hands on the prize. However, to be able to make this statement, is it really worth the alternative outcome? I'm not sure that McCain doesn't keep us in the war and maybe start a new one. Universal health care will be out the window. So how will I vote if Obama is the nominee? I'm still not sure. For me, the choice will not be as relevant as I will be voting in NJ this year. I can't see either Dem losing here. But for many of you, a tough decision is pending. I also know for others I've spoken to, the decision will be very easy because you've already decided that there is no way you will vote for Obama, and as long as it's not based of race, I respect that decision.

There is another way we can show our unity and strength. We should start looking toward local races where we can make a difference. We should seek out candidates that share Sen. Clinton's values and show our support. For me, one candidate in particular comes to mind. His name is Steve Harrison from New York's 13th congressional district. I'm sure many of you have heard of the recent troubles of the incumbent Republican Vito Fossella, NYC's only Republican Congressperson.



This seat is clearly up for grabs. My good friend Steve Harrison ran against Fossella in 2006 and received an unprecedented 43% even though he was heavily under-funded and outspent 13:1. Despite promises from the DCCC that they would step in, they never did. This year could be different. He has already received endorsements from DFNYC, the NY Times, Progressive Democrats of America and National Peace Action.
"We found that Mr. Harrison would bring to Congress an intelligent and educated approach to the real security of this country based on international cooperation, respect for human rights, and diplomacy," said Peace Action NY State Chair, Sally Jones. "Among the positions taken by Mr. Harrison that garnered him the support of Peace Action is his opposition to the Bush war policy that is destroying the American economy and driving down living standards."

Harrison wants the country to approach our energy problems with the same vigor and national resolve as we did putting a man on the moon. He feels that in a decade we should be free from foreign and domestic fossil fuel dependance.

Steve is also for single-payer universal medical coverage for all Americans. He opposes the war in Iraq and calls for the immediate withdrawal of forces, consistent with our troops' safety. As of the 2006 election, Fossella had voted with Bush administration policies an incredible 91% of the time.

Hillary played a big part in Steve's campaign in 2006, including robocalls from her and Bill. However, the help came too late in the race. With more name recognition this year and more support from people like us, we can get Steve to DC.

I know everybody is tapped out from helping Hillary, but a nominee will be chosen soon. Whether or not it's the person we want is a different matter. However, it would be great to show we can keep this coalition together and actually make a difference. We can send a strong message to the media by supporting candidates that share Hillary's vision and values. This will also help put her in a much stronger position if she decides to run again in four years. Think how many more superdelegates she can win if we are the ones to help put them in that position (unless they become like Bill "Judas" Richardson, kidding).

So whether you can spare $5 now or later on after the convention, I urge you to my ActBlue page and show a little love.

If you can't give anything right now, I would love for you to go to Steve's site at SteveHarrisonforcongress.com and let him know that Marc from Blue Spot sent you and that Hillary supporters have his back.

Labels: Election 2008, Fossella, Hillary, Hillary-haters, NY-13, Obama, Obama supporters, Steve Harrison