RACHEL MADDOW: That’s it? That’s it? That was-That’s the big attack on John McCain? That’s the punch?
In 1968, there was a dived democratic convention. In 1972, there was a divided Democratic National Convention. In 1980, there was a divided Democratic National Convention. Democrats lost the election in all those years.
As far as I can tell, neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton gets themselves the required number of pledged delegates in the primary contest now to lock up the nomination as a certainty before the convention. They need two thousand twenty five I don’t think either gets there before Denver. So they could fight it all the way to Denver. And if they spend that time giving John McCain a freaking pass and letting the media keep wetting themselves in delight every time Senator bomb-bomb says “my friends.” If they spend the months between now and Denver destroying each other and ignoring McCain, then you can kiss the White House goodbye for the Democrats for sure.
They can avoid this certainty if they stop campaigning like a pair of rabid minks in a gunnysack and instead start attacking McCain and Bush republicanism. Fat chance of that.
Or one of them can be pressured to bow out. Fat chance that apparently.
Or they can form a unity ticket right now. What should they do?
Let’s ask the smartest guy in the room – my dear friend and political guru, David Bender. He joins us on the line from our awesome San Francisco affiliate Green 960. Mr. Bender it’s great to have you back.
DAVID BENDER: Rabid minks in a gunnysack? (Laughter)
RACHEL MADDOW: Sorry. I’m mad. (Laughter)
DAVID BENDER: No, you are mad because last night, as I recall you wanted Barack Obama to become a “bunny with boxing gloves.”
RACHEL MADDOW: Yes. My metaphors got a little drunk.
DAVID BENDER: Your animal metaphors. Well, we won’t talk about what Brian Williams told all of us about your drinking. But we won’t go there.
RACHEL MADDOW: Wasn’t that weird?!
DAVID BENDER: It was lovely. It was a great moment. And it’s preserved on videotape. But for those who missed it, it was lovely. You know Rachel I was at those conventions in 1968, in 1972 and in 1980. I am older then John McCain
RACHEL MADDOW: No you’re not. Nobody is older then John McCain
DAVID BENDER: At the moment, when I say that aloud, I feel older then John McCain. I saw all of which you were describing there is enormous, enormous truth to the idea that if we come out of the convention, just had a huge fight, not physically but at the floor, it hasn’t been resolved before you get there. Now remember most of these nominations were resolved before. Jimmy Carter had the nomination in 1980 by the time they got there but people were still very angry at him-
RACHEL MADDOW: (Interjects/crosstalk) It was still, it was still divided. Yeah
DAVID BENDER: Still divisive. Same with George McGovern. Same and particularly with Hubert Humphrey and the anti-war people in ’68; but here’s the difference, these are people, is more like Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy. These two strong anti-war campaigns who frankly resented each other. Robert Kennedy’s campaign thought that they were entitled to run in ’68 and Eugene McCarthy’s people said we were here first. And that’s what you are seeing now, the same, these are, at least their supporters are natural allies. And that’s why; you know I always say that it’s the smallest piece of pie that people fight the most bitterly over, and this last little slice of delegates could be ugly.
I got to say I think it is going to be very tough and I’ll be really interested in hearing what people have to say when they call to talk about his idea of a unity ticket, but I got to say, I think the better part of wisdom right now is to get people to understand that if this goes forward and I don’t see how either one, I don’t see how either Barack Obama gets up in the morning or Hilary Clinton and says it’s time for me to get out for the good of the party today or tomorrow or between now and Pennsylvania and possibly even longer. That’s seven weeks away, now you got to remember, seven weeks? Turn the clock back seven weeks, where were we seven weeks ago?
RACHEL MADDOW: Seven weeks from now is seven weeks of fawning press attention for John McCain – him getting away with stuff, the way he got away with this John Hagee thing. All of the bad things about him will be ignore. And the press when they’re on default with John McCain is in love with John McCain.
DAVID BENDER: All true and they’ll go to his barbecue and they’ll take his you know whatever but here’s what I think, if I may, could and should happen. The largest block of delegates that actually could decide this thing are the 350 super delegates – your favorite people in the world: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, these people, right now can say ”look we’re not going to decide to end this campaign tomorrow because that would be anti-democratic and it would be a disaster in a different way then in the attack campaigns, but we are going to call you two to Washington and we are going to get a meeting together and when we come out of it we’re all going to pledge that we are going to be attacking John McCain and not each other. And which ever one of you significantly violates that and goes negative and tries to tear down the potential other who is the democratic nominee, we’re going to support that person who you are attacking and this nomination will be settled.”
RACHEL MADDOW: So you think that you can – the party wise men, that the elders here, can actually affect the tone of the campaign, they can make them stop attack each other?
DAVID BENDER: I believe and this is unprecedented but this whole thing is unprecedented, but I believe that it is possible, given the numbers 350 people and let’s say you got 200 of them that agree on this idea, there’s no question that they can say – they become like an electronic fence for these candidates and if anyone tries to go over it there’s, you know the potential for getting shocked when they try to bite the mailman. This is what this campaign has to have or everything you just described about the attacks for the next seven weeks, we would have, either one of those candidates will be fodder for John McCain in the fall.
RACHEL MADDOW: I have to say the only reason I am skeptical about that idea is because we’ve seen what Democratic Party agreements have become. I mean no campaigning in Michigan or Florida and we’re not going to count those primaries because those are rogue primaries.
DAVID BENDER: Those were unenforceable, this is enforceable. If you were to do something that caused the Mark Penn ad, by the way he was responsible for that 3am - another Mark Penn ad that tears down Barack Obama or conversely an Obama ad that does the same, by the way 200 votes, gone! And you lose the nomination.
RACHEL MADDOW: But the super delegates have to agree. Let’s say the attacks continue work, so it puts one candidate who violates that agreement ahead, the super delegates will then feel pressured by the candidate who is ahead to ignore their agreement.
DAVID BENDER: Yeah, not for the good of the party.
RACHEL MADDOW: No.
DAVID BENDER: That thing is enforceable pretty quickly in my view. But hey! You know me, I’m Polly Anna.
RACHEL MADDOW: (Laughter) You are Polly Anna, that’s one of the reasons I love you.
the stream is still 25 Feb.
Before I begin, I'll be up front that I'm an Obama supporter. I drank the Koolaid. I was actually lap swimming in the Koolaid the other day and I found it very refreshing.
Rachel, I am a long time fan and I've found that you bring a wisdom to a lot of the political talk that I don't see elsewhere, but I think you're off track on the competition between the Democratic campaigns. My concern is that I think your willingness to treat both campaigns as equals in the negativity knife fight is incorrect and perhaps harmful. Before I get into the details though, a little up front honesty:
Is the Obama campaign being negative towards Hillary? To a degree, yes.
Is the Hillary campaign being negative towards Obama? To a degree, yes.
It's an electoral competition and inevitably there will be some negativity going both ways. What's critical though is how negative it is and the nature of that negativity. The Obama campaign has been negative but have they been making up stories about Hillary? No. Have they been circulating bad pictures of Hillary? No. Has the Obama campaign, at any point, compared Hillary negatively against McCain? No. This last point is perhaps the most critical one.
There are, inevitably some distortions, mischaracterizations, and things taken out of context that are a fundamental if annoying part of politics. I saw Obama's health care mailer and it was distoting and negative and it made me sad to see him go there. When one of Obama's proxies was talking about analyzing Hillary's tears in New Hampshire I was deeply disappointed. But can you honestly tell me that Obama's campaign has even been in the same league of negativity as Hillary's campaign? Now maybe this is an artifact of who's in the lead and perhaps Obama would fight dirtier if he were behind, but regardless, he's not doing it now to nearly the same degree.
This all feels to me like the way political corruption is talked about between Democrats and Republicans. People will say how both parties are corrupt, and point to the one Democrat who's under investigation and say there's an equivalency even though there are dozens Republicans under investigation. The false equivalency provides cover for what is a genuine difference in behavior between the parties.
I agree with your fundamental premise, that the Democrats would benefit from ending this sooner rather than later. But in the current situation, it seems to me that Hillary is the one who has decided to take this too far. Where Obama has gone negative it was often because he had to respond to negativity initiated by Hillary's campaign. What can Obama really do if she insists on continuing to run and continuing to go more and more negative? I suppose he could offer her the VP job but it's not clear she'd take it and it's not clear that it would be a good idea for his campaign. Heck, if he offered her the job, the likely response would be to say that he was being arrogant and claiming victory too early rather than taking it as a kind of peace offering.
Calling Hillary out on what are more negative and destructive tactics will eliminate the "just politics" cover that she can maintain if you tar both camps with it. That will increase the likelyhood that she'll either chance tactics or find the party aligning against her, and reduce the long term threat this may pose to the party's chances in November. Otherwise she can continue on like this, making things worse, and handing this to McCain.
that's what I meant. :)
Hiya Rachel,
I am a little suprised to hear how agitated the continued contest is making you and lots of others. I know it is historically protracted this year, but it isn't as if wrapping it up neatly has helped in any of the past elections we lost handily and haplessly has it?
Eventually a contest like this defines the party. Of course I am HORRIFIED that any worthy news organization is lionizing that old coot McCain, and his policies of continued deadly failure. Still, if we cannot pull it off this year, we really have to wonder what sort of nation a Democrat would even HOPE to lead!
I am favoring Sen. Clinton which surprises me, but I feel she has been under the worst and harshest scrutiny for 16 years now, and knows supremely how the game is played. Calling her "ambitious", "only out for herself" and "a destroyer of the Democratic Party" is foolish. She is part of a couple that has seen THE ONLY SUCCESS in the Democratic party has had in A GENERATION. Certainly a coronation was NEVER going to take place. Having heard her on the stump many times, I am confident she is one of the brightest minds of her generation. PLUS I am afraid of any slime having to do with typical man shit that the right will bring up, even with their severely morally bankrupt candidate. Barack Obama does seem like the ultimate blank slate, and is pushing his "blank slatedness" as some sort of virture. I am afraid of that, in a way I am not about Hillary Clinton. Maybe that is my only reason for favoring Hillary?
Anyway, don't succumb to fear. The absolute horror in your voice reads like the true panic it is! Do you ever hear the half-wits on the right expressing ANYTHING other than certitude? NO! GET TOUGH and GET READY to support our eventual nominee! The thorny problems are NOT NATIONAL issues, they are DNC issues. Superdelgates have been around for 3 decades and are there to SUPPLANT POPULARITY of "The OTHER". Sad, but true. Still, the process IS the process and to fear it is to open the door for those lamebrains in the GOP to exploit us. RELAX! WE CANNOT LOSE! If we do, THIS will NOT Have been the problem!
You're the greatest,
Jim
stream
the stream is still 25 Feb.
- Email this page
By SongbookMarch 6, 2008 - 4:08pmThe Democratic Campaigns
Before I begin, I'll be up front that I'm an Obama supporter. I drank the Koolaid. I was actually lap swimming in the Koolaid the other day and I found it very refreshing.
Rachel, I am a long time fan and I've found that you bring a wisdom to a lot of the political talk that I don't see elsewhere, but I think you're off track on the competition between the Democratic campaigns. My concern is that I think your willingness to treat both campaigns as equals in the negativity knife fight is incorrect and perhaps harmful. Before I get into the details though, a little up front honesty:
Is the Obama campaign being negative towards Hillary? To a degree, yes.
Is the Hillary campaign being negative towards Obama? To a degree, yes.
It's an electoral competition and inevitably there will be some negativity going both ways. What's critical though is how negative it is and the nature of that negativity. The Obama campaign has been negative but have they been making up stories about Hillary? No. Have they been circulating bad pictures of Hillary? No. Has the Obama campaign, at any point, compared Hillary negatively against McCain? No. This last point is perhaps the most critical one.
There are, inevitably some distortions, mischaracterizations, and things taken out of context that are a fundamental if annoying part of politics. I saw Obama's health care mailer and it was distoting and negative and it made me sad to see him go there. When one of Obama's proxies was talking about analyzing Hillary's tears in New Hampshire I was deeply disappointed. But can you honestly tell me that Obama's campaign has even been in the same league of negativity as Hillary's campaign? Now maybe this is an artifact of who's in the lead and perhaps Obama would fight dirtier if he were behind, but regardless, he's not doing it now to nearly the same degree.
This all feels to me like the way political corruption is talked about between Democrats and Republicans. People will say how both parties are corrupt, and point to the one Democrat who's under investigation and say there's an equivalency even though there are dozens Republicans under investigation. The false equivalency provides cover for what is a genuine difference in behavior between the parties.
I agree with your fundamental premise, that the Democrats would benefit from ending this sooner rather than later. But in the current situation, it seems to me that Hillary is the one who has decided to take this too far. Where Obama has gone negative it was often because he had to respond to negativity initiated by Hillary's campaign. What can Obama really do if she insists on continuing to run and continuing to go more and more negative? I suppose he could offer her the VP job but it's not clear she'd take it and it's not clear that it would be a good idea for his campaign. Heck, if he offered her the job, the likely response would be to say that he was being arrogant and claiming victory too early rather than taking it as a kind of peace offering.
Calling Hillary out on what are more negative and destructive tactics will eliminate the "just politics" cover that she can maintain if you tar both camps with it. That will increase the likelyhood that she'll either chance tactics or find the party aligning against her, and reduce the long term threat this may pose to the party's chances in November. Otherwise she can continue on like this, making things worse, and handing this to McCain.
- Email this page
By sternoMarch 7, 2008 - 4:30pmYeah, Rachel,
that's what I meant. :)
- Email this page
By gloryoskiMarch 7, 2008 - 6:32pmRe: Rachel's panic about the continued Primary Contest
Hiya Rachel,
I am a little suprised to hear how agitated the continued contest is making you and lots of others. I know it is historically protracted this year, but it isn't as if wrapping it up neatly has helped in any of the past elections we lost handily and haplessly has it?
Eventually a contest like this defines the party. Of course I am HORRIFIED that any worthy news organization is lionizing that old coot McCain, and his policies of continued deadly failure. Still, if we cannot pull it off this year, we really have to wonder what sort of nation a Democrat would even HOPE to lead!
I am favoring Sen. Clinton which surprises me, but I feel she has been under the worst and harshest scrutiny for 16 years now, and knows supremely how the game is played. Calling her "ambitious", "only out for herself" and "a destroyer of the Democratic Party" is foolish. She is part of a couple that has seen THE ONLY SUCCESS in the Democratic party has had in A GENERATION. Certainly a coronation was NEVER going to take place. Having heard her on the stump many times, I am confident she is one of the brightest minds of her generation. PLUS I am afraid of any slime having to do with typical man shit that the right will bring up, even with their severely morally bankrupt candidate. Barack Obama does seem like the ultimate blank slate, and is pushing his "blank slatedness" as some sort of virture. I am afraid of that, in a way I am not about Hillary Clinton. Maybe that is my only reason for favoring Hillary?
Anyway, don't succumb to fear. The absolute horror in your voice reads like the true panic it is! Do you ever hear the half-wits on the right expressing ANYTHING other than certitude? NO! GET TOUGH and GET READY to support our eventual nominee! The thorny problems are NOT NATIONAL issues, they are DNC issues. Superdelgates have been around for 3 decades and are there to SUPPLANT POPULARITY of "The OTHER". Sad, but true. Still, the process IS the process and to fear it is to open the door for those lamebrains in the GOP to exploit us. RELAX! WE CANNOT LOSE! If we do, THIS will NOT Have been the problem!
You're the greatest,
Jim
- Email this page
By JimtodayMarch 9, 2008 - 3:51pm