I've often heard the quote attributed to LBJ, upon signing the Voting Rights Act - "With this, the Democratic Party has lost the South for a generation." National parties are vast organisms formed from coalition politics. As parties change direction, some components of their coalition fall to the wayside and new partners are brought into the fold.

I wouldn't characterize Obama as a leftist. His health care plan's emphasis on maintaining choice (including the choice not to participate) strikes me as rightward of Hillary Clinton. On free trade, he's pretty clearly center-left. His gas tax position was definitely conservative relative to both Clinton and McCain (unless conservatives stopped believing that federal spending gimmicks lack the power to heal all hurts?). His foreign policy vision doesn't map well onto a "left/right" dichotomy, but it's a relief to have a Democratic candidate who dares to advance a foreign policy that isn't some watered down version of the Republican Party's bizarre and counterproductive approach. And many of Clinton's policy gambits in the Senate (bankruptcy reform, anyone?) may be deemed "conservative," but represent substantive betrayals of the groups the Democratic Party claims to represent and protect.

In the long run, I suspect the Democratic Party will alienate some individuals who were once considered its base. Some of those constituencies will come up for grabs by the Republicans. And some will be shunted off to the margins of politics. The Democratic Party will also gain new constituencies - witness Obama's surprising strength in Colorado and the upper plains.

Though I've long been an Obama supporter, I never seriously expected him to win the nomination. And while I do hope he'll win the election as well, I think he really does lead a movement that's larger than he is, and that will be back again in 2012 and 2016 and 2020 - whoever spearheads it. In the long-run, the party out of power is transformed by its status as the repository for those who oppose the status quo. If this isn't the year, the Democratic Party will continue to grow and morph for however long it remains out of power until it does reach a winning platform.

In my own order of personal preferences, Obama is better than McCain who is better than Clinton who is better than Bush. I certainly hope Obama will win, but just as the movement that propelled Dean in 2004 has grown by 2008, it will have grown again by 2012 if he loses. And that movement, I believe, is the future of this country and will ultimately be good for it. I'm prepared to wait and work for another four years, eight years, or sixteen, if that's what's required.

So, yeah, the Democrats might lose with Obama. They might have lost with Hillary. But with both the Democratic and Republican parties nominating insurgent/reformist candidates, it's not hard for me to feel optimistic about the direction this country is turning. If your disagreement with the new Democratic Party (New American Politics?) is substantive, it may be that there's nothing to negotiate about - in which case the duty will fall upon you to advocate and work for a different kind of change.

Ellen -- You really can't expect to open a civil conversation by asking, in effect, whether the other party is still beating his wife.

This exchange has denigrated into fingerpointing because each group feels -- doubtless with some justification -- that the other has treated it with unacceptable contempt. Your opening salvo just asked for that.

I presume you are intelligent enough to know that Obama welcomes Clinton supporters. Is he willing to grovel for them? I certainly hope not.

You and I would doubtless differ on our definitions of "experience."

But I can't imagine that you really think being bribed by Keating and having your chain yanked by all the rich Arizona Republicans, or giving up all your principles and essentially giving Bush your proxy for seven years, is the sort of experience you want in the White House.

Look, I admire the fact that you're trying to figure out a percieved problem in this election, or should I say post primary phase of an election. I really do. Both sides are going to have to do some of this if we're going to try and fix this mess and keep yet another right wing repub out of the white house.

But I have to (at least inmy own case refute your initial premise. We're NOT trying to drive you from the party. We'd love it if you'd come with us.

The problem seems to be identifying common ground between each candidates supporters.

Here's one of the reasons I see.

A) Obama supporters are never going to say/think/believe/agree with you that the best candidate wasn't Obama. We thought and still think he IS the best candidate. We think the best candidate DID win, against all odds, and with a lot of our help. We're really proud of that.

Strangely, we also see Obama as slightly less liberal than HRC. A lot of people aren't necessarily in favor of mandated healthcare, it smacks of socialism to many of us.

Now, could that be at least a part of what you're seeing as arrogance in Obama supporters?

I'm sorry if it looks that way, we (well most of us anyway) certainly don't intend to upset HRC's supporters. But if any of us thought HRC was the better candidate we'd have voted for HER and we'd be on the other side of this discussion. So at this late date, with all the voting already done, we're kinda stuck with that one.

And I assume that HRC supporters feel dissappointed that the candidate they prefered and believed in and voted for didn't win. This seems to lead to a belief that because they view Obama as an inferior candidate he is doomed to lose in November.

As an Obama supporter I can empathise with that, WE spent the whole primary terrified that HRC would get the nomination. And then the republicans would drag up EVERY scandal and rumor and current piece of BS from her and Bill's many years in the public eye, and the dems would lose for sure. I mean we saw an endless parade of humiliation for both Hillary personally AND the democratic party as the repubs danced all the way from the Rose Law firm, through Monica Lewinsky, and on to the Peter Paul case she's currently involved in.

So I guess we do have SOME STUFF IN COMMON. Each sides supporters are hyper-sensitive to the negatives of the others chosen candidate. But far more importantly..we're ALL terrified of the same thing, we're all afraid

OF LOSING to Republicans..AGAIN.

But if we can somehow find enough compassion for each other, (yeah we're a little bruised too), and get calm and stay focussed on the big prize, a DEMOCRAT in the white house, WE, the democratic party, can and WILL kick McCain's butt !

And we're ALL really passionate about the Democrats taking back the White House. For a lot of reasons, most of which we probably have in common as well. The WAR and the utterly crashing economy being the most obvious ones.

When it comes to policy we probably have some differences, as all individuals do, but we must have a lot in common too since Hillary and Obama's platforms are so close that some news guy wondered out loud who was copying who. And they are BOTH democrats.

Another irritant for HRC supporters seems to be the media coverage she recieved.

I just have to say, TRUST ME, we Obama supporters are NOT in control of the media. If we were, old Teflon John wouldn't be getting away with half the crap he's doing and saying, and furthermore, the Rev. Wright scandal would have lasted exactly two hours. Preferably between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. on a Sunday.

I have said quite frequently on this board and others, the media is indeed biased.

They are biased towards sensationalism. It sells ads and fills news cycles for them.

This did not work out well for HRC, and coincidentally often did work out in Obama's favor.

Here's the real reason as far as I can see. And no, it wasn't fair.

What could possibly be a more exciting story to cover, or sell more ads than:

Big name democratic inevitable nominee deposed by rising young star from out of nowhere.

That was the media's story and they stuck to it.

And to be honest about this (which is VERY hard since I'm an Obama supporter) it may be the factor that tipped the balance and gave him the nomination. Because this primary was CLOSE, really close.

But still, at the end of the day, Obama supporters have no right to tell HRC supporters what to think or do. We really don't. But the same applies in reverse. We aren't going to feel bad about winning, ever.

very well said, vail ;)

So instead of moving on and accepting that they supported another candidate, let's just judge them and denigrate them and get our petty revenge. Maybe we should tell Clinton supporters to move to the back of the Democratic Party bus.

******************************­************************

What does that say? Do you see the arrogance and racism in that post. Of course the fact that we do not see Obama as the Savior the Obama fans do.

We have good reason to be upset with the actions of the DNC and if we choose not to participate that is our perogative.

The two party system is corrupt and obsolete,ran by a small group who decide what we can and cannot do. I choose not to belong any more.

And I remember you for the War Stories purge. You are hardly a liberal.

Not Gods. Either the Clintons or the Obama supporters who have turned their candidate into a "savior" is doomed to dissappointment. The problem with zealots of any stripe is that they have to be so rabid in their religion that they will push everyone else away. I sincerely hope Obama is smarter than his base.

So...what did you think of Bill Clinton's experience: Governor of a small, hillbilly state--spending most of his time cruising for chicks with his State Police posse? Experience enough for you?

******************************­*************************

Steve,you just proved my point. A republican talking point coming from you.

Frankly,I cared little about what Clinton did in his sex life.I did care about how well he handled the economy and the Country.

When the WTC was hit the first time.Clinton put the guilty in jail.They are still there.

Bush attacked a Country that did not bother us.

Your hate Clinton is exactly what I have mentioned many times.

I do too,Ellen. He that is without sin,etc.

Now,he comes on telling us who he supports. I cannot see Moira doing that.

You are an editor Geoff,not a poster now.

"And we're ALL really passionate about the Democrats taking back the White House. For a lot of reasons, most of which we probably have in common as well. The WAR and the utterly crashing economy being the most obvious ones."

Actually I'm beginning to think this is wrong, even though I wish it were right. I'm begining to think that the democrat label just doesn't fit everyone we are talking about. I think a lot of people weren't so much interested in core democratic party principles as they were in Hillary Clinton, they were voting for Hillary who happened to be a democrat not as a democrat who happened to support Hillary. So now we're left with this complicated venn diagramm of support. Some Hillary supporters really will never come back because their primary interest wasn't in voting democrat, maybe they just loved Hillary or maybe they were centrists who were willing to come over and vote for her. I don't know how many democratic voters fall into this camp but from just about everything I've read on here they seem pretty commited to avoiding or punishing the democratic party.

Geez, I was trying to make a point to StevieN.

I don't want this discord to continue. By treating people who disagree with us as inferiors, we are no better than those who practiced other types of segregation.

Thank you NJ gal.

This long,long time democrat has chosen to remove myself from the party, thanks to the DNC leaders.

I cannot vote for a Republican and refuse to vote for an unqualified candidate. I am one who will decide what to do,or sit on the sidelines. McCain is not Bush,but he is a Republican.

Maybe enough protest votes will wake the two parties up.I have my doubts as the money men are entrenched.

differnetEllen,

There are many things that I wanted to say to you, but I see that freditorG has already said them much more eloquently than could I. Therefore, I will address your argument rather than the larger issue of the election and the future of the Democratic Party.

Obama supporters are not responsible for engaging you as if you were a potential sales client. Supporters of any candidate in any election are more akin to lawyers advocating for their client (the candidate) than to salesmen trying to negotiate a deal.

It would be nice if we could have cerebral debates of the issues, but that's not how American politics works. People get emotionally invested in their candidate of choice. This sometimes leads to rude exchanges. This has been true for both sides in the current nominating process. It is simply easier to ignore bad behavior when it comes from your allies.

I don't believe that Obama supporters could sweet-talk you into abandoning your feeling that Hillary has been treated unfairly in this campaign -- no matter how hard they might try.

Clinton supporters will need time to accept the fact that Hillary is not the nominee. Then a new campaign will emerge. Perhaps you will choose to support John McCain. That is your choice to make. Should you choose to support Obama, I'm sure that you will be welcomed into the fold.

My back is pretty much better, so I imagine I will be long gone from here myself before all that happens.

But in the meantime it was great entertainment!

******************************­*****

No, Arts and soul,you will not be gone.You will find yourself peeking in to see what everyone is posting about. Next thing ,you will find yourself tapping the keyboard:o)

Trust me,these boards are addictive. We can argue,fuss, complain without it affecting our every day lives.You will find posters you think you might like in real life,others you detest from the moment you see their name.

When I was presented with a computer when I retired , I wondered what I would do with the dumb thing. Then I had to go on high speed so they did not have to email as the phone was tied up several hours a day.

I am now all digital,ready for next January.

MaryAnne:

So...what did you think of Bill Clinton's experience: Governor of a small, hillbilly state--spending most of his time cruising for chicks with his State Police posse? Experience enough for you?

******************************­*************************

Steve,you just proved my point. A republican talking point coming from you.

Frankly,I cared little about what Clinton did in his sex life.I did care about how well he handled the economy and the Country.

When the WTC was hit the first time.Clinton put the guilty in jail.They are still there.

Bush attacked a Country that did not bother us.

Your hate Clinton is exactly what I have mentioned many times.

Oops. Now I'm terribly confused. I was talking about PRE-presidential experience (in response to the silly comment that Obama can't be supported because, ooh, he is too inexperienced)...and you quote Bill's accomplishments POST-election....all while I was making the point that Bill did OK (post election) when in fact he had NO substantial experience with national politics before becomming elected....

Hmmm....now I'm thinking maybe you have difficulting comprehending anything outside your own head....