Obama vs. The Democratic Party

The ‘net is exploding over Obama’s “mushmelon bipartisanship,” which in practice consists of attacks on his Democratic rivals “while recycling right-wing scare stories like the imaginary Social Security crisis, then offering himself as a healer.” Gene Lyons: “It’s the old Adlai Stevenson / Jimmy Carter too-pure-for-politics pose.” Ouch. Stunningly, the adjective “Broderite” is getting attached to Obama’s name because David Broder, the WaPo columnist generally despised by Democrats, is “forever cautioning Democrats about the political perils of not giving President Bush whatever he wants.” Ouch, that really hurts.

Scariest of all — because Obama is abandoning bedrock Democratic values — he’s a motivator for Mayor Mike Bloomberg to enter the presidential race. (See “Polls: Mayor’s Chances Better If Obama, Huckabee Chosen.”)

“Obama’s closing argument is more audacious than it seems; it’s an end-run around the established interests of the Democratic Party. He is angering — often deliberately — some of the party’s core constituencies; Markos “Daily Kos” Moulitsas and my Atlantic colleague, Matt Yglesias, have both (sort of) withdrawn their endorsements of Obama because of his penchant for allegedly using right-wing talking points to smear his Democratic rivals.” (Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic Monthly) [NOTE: Huffington Post headline today: "DailyKos' Markos Recants Obama Support."]

Obama is (1) attacking Al Gore and John Kerry (see Kos’s column), (2) attacking John Edwards‘ affiliation with trial attorneys, and (3) spreading lies about Edwards’ and Clinton’s health plans while embellishing the truth about his own weaker plan through a “Harry and Louise”-like radio ad. Further, Obama’s been attacking Democrats for a while:

Have you REAL Democrats ever seen this video?

Yes, the brash Obama called Sen. Ted Kennedy, a bedrock of the Democratic party, “a little old” and told him to “get some spine” on health care at a Chicago gathering in 2003.

Obama made that “audacious” statement in 2003 when he was an Illinois state senator running for the U.S. Senate.

Oh Democratic brother, where art thou?

Apparently BEDROCK Democratic brother is nowhere to be seen when Obama’s running for office, and any Democrat is fair game. (And what was the point in attacking a bedrock Democrat like Ted Kennedy when Obama was coasting to an easy victory over carpetbagger nutcase Alan Keyes?)

Here’s more from the always-alert columnist Gene Lyons, “No more Nice Guy“:

New Year’s resolutions. One: No more Mr. Bipartisan Nice Guy. Two: Less substance, more political theater. If you haven’t noticed, 2008 is an election year. Also, Democrats hold small majorities in both houses. Hence, mewling cries are being heard that ugly partisan wrangling is preventing Americans from joining together in one big joyous hootenanny and solving our problems. One Democratic presidential candidate, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, appears to be basing his campaign on this fond delusion, although his “bipartisanship” consists largely of attacking rivals’ motives while recycling right-wing scare stories like the imaginary Social Security crisis, then offering himself as a healer. It’s the old Adlai Stevenson / Jimmy Carter toopure-for-politics pose. Hearing it from a career Chicago politician may be a bit much, but there’s always an audience for sentimentality.

Oh Democratic brother, where art thou?

Check out Taylor Marsh’s “Democrats are Not Choosing Obama.”

Oh Democratic brother, where art thou?

Check out “Obama goes Harry and Louise: The audio,” by Jedreport at Daily Kos, Jan. 1, 2008.

Oh Democratic brother, where art thou?

Check out “Obama-labor relationship tense in Iowa — labor is another bedrock Democratic constituency that Obama has alienated and infuriated.

Oh Democratic brother, where art thou?

IN CLOSING, more from that story today on Mayor Bloomberg’s considerations for entering the presidential race:

… [P]olling taken less than a month ago by Rasmussen in two states in which Mr. Bloomberg and his policies are well-known — Connecticut and New Jersey — gives the best indication so far of how the mayor’s chances would improve if primary voters picked candidates outside of the mainstream.

Rasmussen found that when pitted against Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Bloomberg attracted just 12% to 15% of the vote in New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. But when he was included in a battle between Messrs. Obama and Huckabee, his support grew to between 18% and 23% in each state.

In a putative three-way contest in New Jersey, Mrs. Clinton won 46% of the votes compared to Mr. Giuliani’s 38%, with Mr. Bloomberg attracting 12%. But when the two main candidates were Messrs. Obama and Huckabee, who registered 42% and 27% respectively, Mr. Bloomberg’s support rose to 18%.

A similar result was found in Connecticut, where a race between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Giuliani gave them 45% and 36% respectively, with Mr. Bloomberg winning just 12%. However, when the contest was between Messrs. Obama (40%) and Huckabee (29%), Mr. Bloomberg took 18%. A complementary poll among New York state voters in November offered more alternatives. In a Clinton-Giuliani standoff, Mr. Bloomberg won 17% against Mrs. Clinton’s 42% and Mr. Giuliani’s 33%. But when the rival candidates were different, Mr. Bloomberg did significantly better.

Ouch. That’d really hurt.