General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHard Ball
I was able to catch the late re-run of MSNBCs Hardball tonight. In my opinion, Chris Matthews is doing a good job of advocating for President Obama. I think that Mr. Matthews reporting on the international agreement with Iran -- which, of course, includes the United States -- is among the best from the best journalists.
Tonight, for example, he had a panel review the worst five over-the-top republican attacks on President Obama and the proposed treaty. This included some rabid foam that came dripping out of Dick Cheneys snarl. I think that the administration should make a commercial, with a few short clips of Cheney warning us about Iraqs WMD threat, followed by a brief clip of his current crap, with the simple question: Do you believe anything this man says? It would be the flip side of the 1964 Daisy Chain.
What was equally interesting, though sadly disappointing, were Debbie Wasserman Schultzs answers to Mr. Matthews important questions. There were three significant weak answers. They included to a question about the difference between a socialist and the Democratic Party. She had similar difficulty answering if Bernie Sanders should speak in prime-time at the Democratic Party Convention, win or lose.
Yet the most troubling response, I thought, followed Mr. Matthews questioning if she would vote in favor of President Obamaa effort with Iran. She said that our country needs to do what will best insure that Iran does not acquire the bomb. She also stated that she had to find out what the people in her district think.
I do not doubt that Debbie Wasserman Schultz represents many Democrats. But, at the same time, there are also many Democrats who not only feel that she doesnt represent them in any way, but that she is actually part of the opposition. This is a problem, as she is the Chair of the Democratic National Committee.
She said that the 2016 presidential election will highlight the differences between the Democratic Party and the republican party. Indeed, it should. But that should include a discussion about the differences in socialism for the 99% and socialism for billionaires and corporations. It should not simply include Bernie Sanders at 3am, if he doesnt happen to win; we should be highlighting him. And it should damn sure endorse President Obama and negotiations, and oppose VP Dick Cheney and friends demand for war with Iran.
Yet, we wont get there
.we wont reach that point in the future
..if the Democratic Party isnt moving, perceptively, today. And that means the part of the party that believe Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaks for them, and represents their interests. This isnt to say that the growing divides within the Democratic Party will result in a victory for republicans. But it could make it a close election, since the presidential election goes by state-by-state results, not national popular vote totals.
Primary seasons always bring out differences in opinions. Thats a good thing. But the Democratic Party seems to be experiencing significant differences in values. And its not good if the traditional values we associate with the modern Democratic Party no longer hold for a large segment of party members.
Peace,
H2O Man
Stellar
(5,644 posts)Darn it, I missed Hardball again today and I intended to watch it because someone else mentioned it yesterday as well. I rarely watch because I got tired of Chris interrupting his guess when he ask them a question. That aggravates the hell out of me, LOL.
Wasserman-Shultz seems to have lost interest in the party to me, and I noticed similar behavior from her when I saw her on Bill Maher. She let some Republic0n dump all over Obama and she said not a word, Bill did, though. I thought it was just me being to critical, or she was just for Hillary Clinton and kind of upset with Obama, maybe even Bernie for that matter. IDK.
Again great post, thanks for sharing!
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)Stellar
(5,644 posts)H2O Man
(73,692 posts)annoying habit of his: ask a question, and speak over the guest, preventing them from answering.
I think it is important for Democrats to ask themselves, if she has lost interest in the Democratic Party, what is it that she's interested in now? And intent upon accomplishing these days? Because -- at least in my opinion -- it's not that she has "burned out." She remains active, and is pushing an agenda.
JustAnotherGen
(32,025 posts)I have a hard time watching Matthews because he tends to make statements - then speak over his guests as they try to "respond". I think Schultz does represent a segment of the party - I'm just not certain that segment is always right or what's best for progress and moving the country forward in this century. I'll try to catch the segment on my iPad this afternoon.
On the differences in values - I agree. However, I think it goes beyond the Democratic Party. Everyone jokes about the "Clown Car" pulling up over there - without acknowledging that each of those candidates represents something in the gut of the Right. It will be difficult for them to craft a platform in that framework.
Our advantage is the big differences are not as big as the DU bubble makes them out to be. Schultz represents that segment at DU that says we can bring our ideas to America if we hold onto those things that worked in the past. There are some tone deaf elements there - IE - when she says "the bomb" she doesn't realize the left and where the core Democratic Party voters fall within - we don't have a taste for war. I'm in that sub group of Democratic Party members that says - build, innovate, survive climate change and citizens who can contribute to that.
Keeping Iran from "the bomb" doesn't allow for infrastructure development. That's why our bridges are crumbling.
H2O Man
(73,692 posts)in danger of being rejected here, if enough Democrats in DC don't support President Obama on it. (I know that you know this, as well as I.) And that could result in our being isolated from most of those involved in the search for peaceful resolution.
In part, it's financial -- though it actually is in our best interests to have peace; in part, it is due to the narrow, quasi-literal misinterpretation of ancient myths.
I keep thinking of Iran's growing middle class. They are reportedly well-educated, and desire a working relationship -- if not friendship -- with the American people. We have an opportunity to make a bold advance. I expect the Mike Huckleberries to resist it, but not the Democrats elected to represent us.
JustAnotherGen
(32,025 posts)And I also believe at minimum they want a working relationship.
The idea that President Obama's own party would work against him is at minimum disappointing. *sigh*
Hekate
(91,003 posts)H2O Man
(73,692 posts)oldandhappy
(6,719 posts)made me like her better than I usually do. Seemed she was trying to speak clearly and he was baiting her -- in my opinion.
H2O Man
(73,692 posts)for allowing others to answer questions he asks. And that is really rude.
I used to have a much higher opinion of her than I do any more. It may be that she has changed, or that I simply know more about her now.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)I can't stand Matthews talking over his guests. And even though he leans left, which is often appreciated in these times, that's editorializing, not reporting, and his "interview" style is far too confrontational.
The sainted Rachel does the same thing, slanting, and even though I usually agree with her points, it's no more appropriate for "our side" to do it than it is for Hannity.
Having said that, I have to say that I am far more disturbed at Wasserman-Schultz and Schumer being leading Democrats. Neither of them seem to have much interest in actual progressive policy other than where particular interests (contributors?) are concerned. To them, policy is just another tool to advance their power, rather than using their organizing and political talents to promote policy.
If Bernie were the keynoter next year, could he repeat Cuomo's magnificent speech of '84? Reagan won that year, but we did OK in Congress. This year we have three great candidates and no St. Ronnie to run against, so another "Tale of two Cities" just might resound with a nation struggling to understand where it's going.
H2O Man
(73,692 posts)I can't identify much that I have in common with Wasserman-Schultz. I think that if people like her and Senator Schumer oppose President Obama on Iran, they will do serious and long-term damage to the party. I could not in good conscience donate a dime to any group that finances them.
And you are right, of course, about Bernie and the '84 Cuomo speech. I loved that, as well as Jesse Jackson's.
BeyondGeography
(39,393 posts)Pass it on to Debbie.
Infuriating. Democratic dithering and opposition to the Iran accord has zero to do with constituents.
Thank you for a well-written and exceedingly diplomatic dissection.
H2O Man
(73,692 posts)Thank you.
anniebelle
(899 posts)I have voted a democratic ticket every election ~ I'm in my 70's ~ and it pains me that we always seem to be playing defense even when we've got the ball. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is so wishy-washy and Schumer too for that matter. I wish we would develop some balls and run with them! My main and really only complaint with President Obama is handing the ball over to the other side when we were in the red zone. Right after the 2008 election we could have done some dramatic things, but no, team Pelosi and Obama acted like we lost the election. I do think we need aggressive, decisive leadership from SOMEBODY! So far, it seems like it's Bernie who's acting like he's got a burning in his belly to win this country back from the loonies who seem to have taken control of the airwaves and the messages being sent to the average working American.
MBS
(9,688 posts)Boy, did you nail it.
I'm totally frustrated with Schumer and Wasserman Schultz, too
H2O Man
(73,692 posts)Thank you for this.
It seems as if a rapidly growing number of citizens are becoming fed-up with "politics as usual." Even in their confused, often diseased minds, there are republicans expressing anger at their party's leadership. I do not confuse their support of Trump as a healthy social dynamic, but it speaks loudly to their dissatisfaction with the republican machine.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... "the traditional values we associate with the modern Democratic Party no longer hold for a large segment of party members."
In my humble opinion, there are few in the party who do not embrace those traditional values, perhaps best represented by a desire for peace in the world and a strong social safety net at home.
While those who do not hold those values dear are, again in my opinion, few, they do have very loud voices as they are backed by the same wealthy individuals who finance the Republicans. DWS and her Third Way cohorts are the epitome of that group. Our immediate task, as I see it, is to wrest control of the Party away from them and Bernie is our best (last?) chance to do that.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)H2O Man
(73,692 posts)I love it! Thank you for this!
Point well made, and well taken.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)If it doesn't reflect poorly on quarterly balance sheets, its all good. If it does, it is verboten.
The right spectrum of politics has become so unhinged over the last couple decades it is literally off the rails. The corporate left, in the name of cash, keeps chasing it to an imaginary center.
For those more concerned with being a decent human being and leaving a positive impact as a legacy than procuring easy money, the divide is turning into a chasm.
malaise
(269,278 posts)Tweety was excellent yesterday
Uncle Joe
(58,524 posts)Thanks for the thread, H2O Man.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Sometimes he latches onto a completely STUPID right wing point, though he is usually pretty scrappy against the wingers.
I enjoy the show, but I take it for what it is: entertainment.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)She is, actually, part of the opposition.