That's not an Onion headline, that's what's really going on, according to the Wall Street Journal's article today about the coming battle for the soul of the Democratic Party (to admittedly use a cliche) if Obama wins. What's interesting about this piece is not so much that there is a battle (anyone who's been reading this blog knows there has been a very intense one), but that it's so out in the open among top Democratic leaders. Check out this interchange:
"It's better to let things evolve than to revolve. Revolutions are dangerous," cautioned Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Majority Whip, who advises a pragmatic approach to governance that would begin with items that have proven bipartisan support before tackling ambitious elements such as universal health care.
"He's a national leader, Clyburn," House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York snapped back, embodying the views of liberals who want to move fast on the most ambitious version of Obamanomics possible. "I'm thinking of his constituents, and he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about." (emphasis added)
Them's fightin' words where I come from - and that fight has already spilled over into the Obama camp, with progressives pushing for a better Wall Street bailout that actually forces Wall Street to use our taxpayer cash for the economy, and Wall Streeter Bob Rubin pushing back, saying his banking industry cronies should be able to pocket America's hard-earned cash and walk away.
Democratic leaders, aides and Obama advisers say such conversations remain friendly. But some tension exists in an eclectic circle that includes Wall Streeters, labor leaders and liberal think-tank denizens. Sen. Obama's economic brain trust dialed in two weeks ago to a conference call with the candidate to discuss how the Wall Street bailout was working when a split emerged over how hard the government should lean on the banks. Some advisers said it would be politically and economically disastrous if the billions of taxpayer dollars injected into ailing financial institutions just sat in vaults. Robert Rubin, who served as President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary between stints on Wall Street, pushed back. Leaving the money in the banks would help stabilize them and prevent further turmoil in the credit markets, even if the money wasn't loaned out, the Citigroup Inc. executive said.
The Journal says there are three groups in the Democratic Congress - basically, progressives who want big changes, Blue Dogs who want to stop big changes in the name of deficit reduction, and those who haven't taken a side, and are pushing Obama to go small-bore, split the difference, and move very slowly. That latter group is led by Clyburn and (big shocker!) Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) who "says Sen. Obama remains firmly behind his full agenda -- but is flexible on timing and pacing."
Let's be really clear: We've got to get through election day first, and the fact that congressional Democrats are publicly fighting about this stuff now is really inappropriate.
That said, what that inappropriately anticipatory behavior suggests is 1) that there is going to be a battle over whether an Obama administration (if there is one) is going to be a third Bill Clinton term (with all the corresponding incrementalism) and 2) that this battle is going to have very high stakes.
UPDATE: Troll commenter jcpok writes that in discussing this huge story in one of the largest newspapers in the world, I am "stirring up and supporting the intra-party warfare meme" and am being "premature and presumptuous" because such memes "suppress turnout." I want to flag this kind of comment because it is a hackneyed attack that comes up every now and again - namely, that in talking about something in one of the largest publications in the world, we are hurting the cause, being selfish and "suppressing turnout." Of course, there's absolutely no evidence of the latter claim - none whatsoever. But what's so odd (silly?) about this line of attack is that this ire is directed at people like me or Stoller or Bowers, but not the various congressional leaders quoted in one of the largest newspapers in the world. Attributing such super powers to me (ie. I am stirring intra-party warfare) and ignoring actual officeholders in huge newspapers is flattering and all, but it's totally divorced from reality. If you have a big problem with the "intra-party warfare meme" - take it up with Charlie Rangel and Jim Clyburn who are heading to huge newspapers to talk about it - not with those of us who are reacting to it. Additionally, I just wanted to reiterate what I often say - if you are going to make a comment in a diary, please indicate through your comment that you've actually read the diary. Had this troll read the diary, he/she would have seen in big bold letters that I wrote "We've got to get through election day first, and the fact that congressional Democrats are publicly fighting about this stuff now is really inappropriate."
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment. blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
