Politics – "The beautiful Liberal Idea of the previous half-century had grown old and hardened into a Liberal Theology which terrified millions of its old clients." That theology was dominated, in part, by what would come to be known as "identity politics."
Con't
Mr. McGovern became the Democratic standard-bearer in 1972. But the party's new approach to the nominating process helped label Democrats as catering to their component parts rather than the broad electorate. "The idea of quotas, the concept itself which McGovern supported, was to be one of the major factors in the wrecking of his campaign," Theodore H. White wrote in his book "The Making of the President 1972." Mr. White saw this change as a profound ideological reordering. "The beautiful Liberal Idea of the previous half-century," he observed, "had grown old and hardened into a Liberal Theology which terrified millions of its old clients." That theology was dominated, in part, by what would come to be known as "identity politics."
Con't
This transformation haunted the party for the next 20 years, as decisive proportions of swing voters abandoned Democrats as out of the political mainstream. That produced one lopsided loss after another, most dramatically in the landslide victories of Richard M. Nixon in 1972 and Ronald Reagan in 1984. Indeed, since 1964, Republicans have won 7 of 10 presidential contests. Pre-election polling, and television network exit polls in recent contests, have shown that no Democratic presidential candidate since Mr. Johnson has captured a majority of white support.
Speaking as a Democrat, I admit awaking at night, while the ghosts of the party fault-line howl and gibbered in my bedroom, -
alright, not really.
Actualy, while this was a factual and well-though out article, I feel smugly confident that it is totaly wrong.
We democrats are fierce about our two choices; but when the nomination is settled, we will unite; with higher numbers of new registrants than have been seen in decades.
Hillary will support Obama, and the diferent democrats will support each other.
The country wants change.
Kinda angry. Feels good.
At least there's diversity in the Democratic Party. No such dynamic takes place on the other side. Republicans got lock step behind their candidate months ago.
LOL
You forget the early primaries. Both parties are diverse. Usually after the nominee is selected the rest get behind the nominee. Republicans made it there first.
This year it seems to be that money counts less than it used to. Everybody outspent McCain and he won. In PA Obama outspent Clinton and lost.
All Americans are not rabid about change. The Democrats have been careful not to elaborate what change they propose. Until they do they will be dismissed in November, or if they do more moderate Americans will still dismiss them. This is a very important election, and Americans are savvy enough to know we are at war, we have domestic problems to consider, and we are aware that the new President will nominate at least two Supreme Court Justices.
There seems to be a problem brewing for the Democrats. If Obama wins there are a group of Clinton supporters that will be angered and say they will stay home. A lot of feminists are in that group. If Clinton wins then a lot of Obama supporters are saying the same thing. A lot of them are colored. This seems to be a "Catch 22". The problem is how much of this is real and how much is sour grapes that will go away at election time.
In the general election the issues will be much more center stage than now. Obama is to the left of liberal Clinton. At the point of the general election the differences between the Democrat and Republican party will be demonstrated.
I hope the campaign will be about issues instead of dirty tricks. But that will be too much to hope for. George Washington's campaign for a second term had people calling him a traitor. So smear tactics were alive from the beginning.
John McLame will beat whatever candidate, Obama or Clinton, the democrats nominate and it is going to be so humiliating it might just destroy the democrat party. lol
You humiliated yourself by still supporting the Bush administration and their policies of destroying our nation.
Thanks for being part of the problem.
I missed the part where Wolfie referred to Bush anywhere in his comment. Could you please show me the part I missed. Thanks
In his joy about seeing the democratic party destroyed, he is supporting a dictatorship. That is what we have been living through for the last 7 years. He is supporting that idea.
Wolfie, you would really like to see only one party running our nation? You favor less choices in government? You want only one ideology to govern the nation from now on?
That is called a dictatorship my friend. And if you really want that, go on over to Iraq. I am sure that you could drum up some support to become the next Saddam.
How wonderful that you people all seem to be putting your party politics ahead of the benefits of the country.
It is more important to you that one of your people win than it is how that person will benefit the country.
I haven't heard one of these McCain supporters tell me why things will be better for us under McCain rather than one of the democrats. I haven't heard a democrat tell me HOW things will get better with one of them in the office over a republican.
All I hear from BOTH sides is that our party is better than yours.
Pathetic.
Listen to what these people say and choose based on what will benefit ALL of us. That is what America is about.
Not which party is in control or has more power.
The Bush years have divided us so much that we don't know how to be unified anymore. Thanks George and Dick.
You end your comment with a dig at Bush and Cheney. Why is that? Dont you think both partys should share the blame for the division? The Dems running on a promise to take over congress and make massive changes none of which has happened. Both partys are to blame.
But Bush and Rove used the tacticts of dividing the nation into "them" and "us" and used that division to win two very big elections. Rovian politics has been about dividing since his first election in Texas. The Democratic party has been defending against these attacks. I don't blame someone for defending themselves.
Besides, Bush isn't running in this election. Therefore he has no bearing. I can blame him for what he did. I can't blame congress for trying to undo the damage.
Also, you make it sound like congress is all democrats. It is a very slim majority and Bush and Cheney have threatened to or vetoed any legislation that went against their policies.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
altnrg
cptnkrk
2jojoyo
getbackerzoo
mekhifranks1975
fyuuuuut
nickjones321
Monte G
BJTJ
mcarpentry
leeharris1969
alamala
HOUSEMD
vidman04
RedRiverJ
Nixie
estatearticlessite
swasuroot
_kam0_
pc25
tcnt
SonOfTheMask
iproduct
abntv
Mintyfunk
MichaelRhodente
oldgringo
Wolfie2007
Endoscopy
ZiegfeldGirl
satansatan
jomarjarmo
kibasilasa
lolip
sewrfhji
nostalgia
lawrencee
dog85302one
DiffeeOnline
obfuscator
zeomzoom55x
ind06
Helixbuilder
joeyboyshen
bugluver
purpose
joeeddie
tanglang
icono1
birddog54
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
25)
Vote
FTA:
Following the 1968 convention, a party commission produced rules changes meant to give greater voice to its ascendant constituencies. Those changes abolished the use of "winner take all" delegate selection procedures, and required state party delegations to include women, young people and minorities "in reasonable relationship" to their presence in the population.