The Clintonistas & Obamaites in Denver

Maureen Dowd is most definitely not a water carrier for the Republicans, so her account of the conflict between the Clintonistas and the Obamaites at the Democratic convention rings true.

This Democratic convention has a vibe so weird and jittery, so at odds with the early thrilling fairy-dust feel of the Obama revolution, that I had to consult with Mike Murphy, the peppery Republican strategist and former McCain guru.

“What is that feeling in the air?” I asked him.

“Submerged hate,” he promptly replied.

There were a lot of bitter Clinton associates, fundraisers and supporters wandering the halls, spewing vindictiveness, complaining of slights, scheming about Hillary’s roll call and plotting trouble, with some in the Clinton coterie dissing Obama by planning early departures, before the nominee even speaks.

She goes on, in detail. The thing is, some Clintonistas seem to want Obama to lose, which would give Mrs. Clinton a clear shot for the 2012 nomination.

But after last night, now that the Clintons have given their speeches asking their supporters to work for Obama, do you think the party will be unified?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Carl Vehse

    More “united against” then “united for.”

    And if McCain picks a pro-abortionist running mate, the GOP will have a similar problem.

  • Carl Vehse

    More “united against” then “united for.”

    And if McCain picks a pro-abortionist running mate, the GOP will have a similar problem.

  • Jonathan

    I am excited about the chance we Americans have to elect a black man as president. This is an historical year, and the rest of the world is watching us. Racial bigotry has been such a blight on this country. We’ve made progress against it, to be sure, but not enough. It will be terrific to have a man of color as our chief executive. Frankly, it would also have been terrific to have a woman president.

  • Jonathan

    I am excited about the chance we Americans have to elect a black man as president. This is an historical year, and the rest of the world is watching us. Racial bigotry has been such a blight on this country. We’ve made progress against it, to be sure, but not enough. It will be terrific to have a man of color as our chief executive. Frankly, it would also have been terrific to have a woman president.

  • T.V.

    That is actually what I look for in a candidate…gender and skin color. I don’t care if they’re socialist and don’t mind baby’s being murdered in the womb.

  • T.V.

    That is actually what I look for in a candidate…gender and skin color. I don’t care if they’re socialist and don’t mind baby’s being murdered in the womb.

  • Jonathan

    I pity you. But since we’ve elected nothing but white men for 200 years, you must admit that gender and skin color are indeed what we look for.

  • Jonathan

    I pity you. But since we’ve elected nothing but white men for 200 years, you must admit that gender and skin color are indeed what we look for.

  • Anon

    Jonathan,
    We’ve had other chances to elect a black president. Alan Keyes is running this year, and not for the first time, and since race matters to you, he is much blacker than Obama.

    Alan Keyes, however, is a Christian, and therefore doesn’t believe in the mass murder of the unborn, the just born and the elderly the way Barak Obama does.

  • Anon

    Jonathan,
    We’ve had other chances to elect a black president. Alan Keyes is running this year, and not for the first time, and since race matters to you, he is much blacker than Obama.

    Alan Keyes, however, is a Christian, and therefore doesn’t believe in the mass murder of the unborn, the just born and the elderly the way Barak Obama does.

  • Jonathan

    Yes, race matters to me, as it does to you since you’re not supporting Keyes. McCain, as you know, supports abortions under some circumstances.

  • Jonathan

    Yes, race matters to me, as it does to you since you’re not supporting Keyes. McCain, as you know, supports abortions under some circumstances.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Maureen Dowd is most definitely not a water carrier for the Republicans, so her account of the conflict between the Clintonistas and the Obamaites at the Democratic convention rings true.”

    I am reminded of the historical-critical technique for assessing sources when I read such lines, though such techniques are not usually very popular ’round here. The claim (by those who think along such lines) is that every source is, of course, biased, so one must first decide what the bias inherent in the source is. Then one can (and should) assume that statements in favor of that bias are untrustworthy, while statements contrary to it are more likely to be true. Or something like that — I’m not a proponent of such thinking, so I may not have it perfect.

    Anyhow, the implication of such a statement is that Dowd is liberally biased. I assume that this is because she’s not only a member of the media, but also the New York Times, so she is — simply is — liberally biased, just like David Brooks and Judith Miller.

    I assume that because a reading of Dowd’s columns would in no way give one the impression that she is biased towards Democrats. She — like many here — is so obviously biased against the Clintons that it is pathetic. I’m surprised she hasn’t used the word “Hitliary” in one of her columns (though, to be fair, I’m not sure she hasn’t). And it’s not just them. She has referred to Obama as “effete” and compared him to Scarlett O’Hara. She repeatedly referred to John Edwards as the “Breck Girl” (no doubt where Carl Vehse picked it up), and said of Al Gore that “he is so feminized … he’s practically lactating”. That’s just a little taste of her so-called journalism.

    And yet the assertion here is that it is contrary to her bias to say bad things about Democrats, so it must be true. Please. She’s playing to type, and right into the bias of those here who love to hear how nasty Hillary is: “See! I knew it! Hillary’s a *****! Even one of the (dare I say it, Carl?) ****** media said it!”

    I’m sure that in Dowd’s mind, her execrable columns are even-handed, in that they don’t fling dung at just one political party. But a better assessment would be that Maureen Dowd is a rather horrible columnist, no matter how much I may not like her chosen targets.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    “Maureen Dowd is most definitely not a water carrier for the Republicans, so her account of the conflict between the Clintonistas and the Obamaites at the Democratic convention rings true.”

    I am reminded of the historical-critical technique for assessing sources when I read such lines, though such techniques are not usually very popular ’round here. The claim (by those who think along such lines) is that every source is, of course, biased, so one must first decide what the bias inherent in the source is. Then one can (and should) assume that statements in favor of that bias are untrustworthy, while statements contrary to it are more likely to be true. Or something like that — I’m not a proponent of such thinking, so I may not have it perfect.

    Anyhow, the implication of such a statement is that Dowd is liberally biased. I assume that this is because she’s not only a member of the media, but also the New York Times, so she is — simply is — liberally biased, just like David Brooks and Judith Miller.

    I assume that because a reading of Dowd’s columns would in no way give one the impression that she is biased towards Democrats. She — like many here — is so obviously biased against the Clintons that it is pathetic. I’m surprised she hasn’t used the word “Hitliary” in one of her columns (though, to be fair, I’m not sure she hasn’t). And it’s not just them. She has referred to Obama as “effete” and compared him to Scarlett O’Hara. She repeatedly referred to John Edwards as the “Breck Girl” (no doubt where Carl Vehse picked it up), and said of Al Gore that “he is so feminized … he’s practically lactating”. That’s just a little taste of her so-called journalism.

    And yet the assertion here is that it is contrary to her bias to say bad things about Democrats, so it must be true. Please. She’s playing to type, and right into the bias of those here who love to hear how nasty Hillary is: “See! I knew it! Hillary’s a *****! Even one of the (dare I say it, Carl?) ****** media said it!”

    I’m sure that in Dowd’s mind, her execrable columns are even-handed, in that they don’t fling dung at just one political party. But a better assessment would be that Maureen Dowd is a rather horrible columnist, no matter how much I may not like her chosen targets.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X