Democratic Candidates Woo Anti-War Crowd

[Pangloss]

Over in this thread I was surprised to see so many people rejecting the suggestion that trouble would arise for Obama following his statement about Pakistan, the point seemingly being that Democrats don't really care what the anti-war crowd thinks. But yesterday every single one of the leading Democratic candidates for president showed up at the annual bloggers convention hosted by the Daily Kos liberal blog site (whose spin over Obama's statement was almost dizzing to watch).

 

Meanwhile not one candidate showed up for the meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, the leading Democratic centrist group that was so pivotal in getting Bill Clinton elected.

 

That stark contrast very much underscores the importance of the liberal blogosphere (clearly the left's answer to conservative talk radio) and the ideologically-locked left wing of the voter base. Whether they're anti-war or not is a valid question -- certainly it varies -- but I think it's clear that the Democratic candidates are well aware of the fact that this general territory is where most of their money is coming from right now.

 

ABC News article on Kos conversion:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Technology/story?id=3448086&page=1

[Sisyphus]

Maybe I'm just unfamiliar with the blogosphere (ok, not maybe) and missing some important connection here, but I'm not sure how showing up at a blog convention is equated to "wooing the anti-war crowd." Was it a convention of pacifist blogs or something?

[Pangloss]

My opinion is that an anti-war agenda (no war under any circumstances) is predominent and overwhelmingly supported by the Democratic base right now, and that this is reflected and promoted by the left side of the blogosphere. I realize that that's not the general view of Democratic-voters and Democratic-leaners on this board, but we have a much more intelligent and thoughtful demographic here. Anti-war is easy to understand, and it sells. It is to liberals what abortion is to conservatives -- a moral issue that to many is worth making an ideological stand on.

 

So building on the well-understood presumption that during primary run-ups candidates play to the base (moving back to the center again during the months leading up to the general election), what I'm saying that means is that Democratic candidates are promoting their appeal to anti-war voters, because that's where their base is (and their money is coming from) at the moment.

 

Those of you who tend to the left should consider where you're being led by the nose. It's potentially as unpleasant a place to be as the one I find myself in at the moment under Republican leadership, right-leaner that I tend to be. If you don't believe me, just look what happens whenever Senator Clinton or Senator Obama vote on an issue involving Iraq.

[foodchain]

My opinion is that an anti-war agenda (no war under any circumstances) is predominent and overwhelmingly supported by the Democratic base right now, and that this is reflected and promoted by the left side of the blogosphere. I realize that that's not the general view of Democratic-voters and Democratic-leaners on this board, nor does it even represent the mainstream liberal viewpoint IMO, but we have a much more intelligent and thoughtful demographic here.

 

So building on the well-understood presumption that during primary run-ups candidates play to the base (moving back to the center again during the months leading up to the general election), what I'm saying that means is that Democratic candidates are promoting their appeal to anti-war voters, because that's where their base is (and their money is coming from) at the moment.

 

Those of you who tend to the left should consider where you're being led by the nose. It's potentially as unpleasant a place to be as the one I find myself in at the moment under Republican leadership, right-leaner that I tend to be. If you don't believe me, just look what happens whenever Senator Clinton or Senator Obama vote on an issue involving Iraq.

 

 

The state I live in for instance does not reflect my political ideology when it comes to signing up to vote, why, probably money but then if you sign on independent you can get screwed in general, so even on such a small scale of things the combat does not seem to stop. Why that has to do with the topic, well, I lived in Washington state for example, in which I consider the state to be a bastion of conservative democrats, which might seem to be something of a paradox but its in large a large group of people. The last round of elections in that state I paid attention to actually had corruption being performed at the hands of a republican challenging the status quo, why, don’t care, its pretty normal anyway. Now the state I live in is still democratically controlled, and as a joke you can always use the states name along with a -stan suffix to point towards living in communism because dems don’t support for the most part any idea of a small government, though our current one being the largest in U.S history with vice presidents setting up there own intelligence groups(why do we have the CIA) and so on.

 

The dems are going to take whatever it is they currently plan to run and shape it on a voting base, for at the end of the day its still survival. I mean bush jr. wears his religion out in the open constantly, and gives away troves of tax dollars to religious groups, millions and so on of bucks, the kind of groups that want to ban evolution in public education, if not public education in general. Which could support charters or coupons systems for private education, aka cult centers in general where you can learn the wonders of intelligent falling. Anyway the anti war crowd can be rather emotionally driving to, and thusly prone to fallacy about situations in the world. I mean in large will I never support, nor even did support OIF, I can appreciate the constant attempts by the dems to derail or end our occupation of that nation, on that ticket though the anti war crowd is kind of dumb in that how can you forgive or forget the people that did 9-11, I think its safe to say debate is out of the question with those types, or people that like to cut the heads off of people then put the videos in circulation. SO to me what I look for first is anything that has nothing to do with bushco, and then something with a level head. Sure the anti war crowd is not going to be that, but no more is the evangelicals, or big business, or Halliburton. So in large I probably will be reduced to voting for whomever I think has the best shot at healing the massive damage bushco has brought upon us, or that’s my carrot on a stick.

[Pangloss]

Nice post. Now you know how I feel, being a somewhat conservative centrist who's been shoved around by the religious right for the last several years. This is why I keep saying that moderates need to stand up and be heard. The see-saw keeps going back and forth, and each time the metal hinge in the middle gets a little weaker.

 

Most intelligent/thoughtful/mainstream liberals I know tend to disbelieve this can happen to them. They think it's something indemic to the right. After all, the left is the side of reason and intelligence, so how can that possibly happen?

 

Well I don't mean to be negative, but I think they're going to find out just how wrong they are. Like I said, just look at how Senate votes on Iraq are criticised. Look at how upset the far left is that we're not out of Iraq even after putting Democrats in power in congress. This translates directly into lower approval ratings, because of the unity between the extreme left and the general public consensus on Iraq (and the way the questions tend to be phrased). It's a veritable perfect storm for left-wing control over the decision over which one becomes the Democratic candidate for president.