I have a blog in me that will more than likely be at least a little bit offensive (and does not involve HIllary Clinton or her supporters), but I’ve decided to put it on hold for today. I just want to make sure I know exactly what I’m saying before I start ranting, which is not exactly an easy task for me.
Instead, I’d like to talk about Barack Obama taking over the Democratic party.
It’s strange at how little coverage Obama’s first act as official/unofficial top Democrat got. Just the day after proclaiming his victory in the primaries, he went on record that his campaign does not and will not take money from lobbyists…and that neither will anyone else in the Democratic party.
I have to wonder how that went over on Capitol Hill.
I also have to wonder how that’s progressing and who’s in charge of it. Maybe that’s why it’s not getting much media coverage, because it was lip service. It’s not as if we’ve heard about any changes that have occurred because of this new stance. And I’d be willing to bet there are a lot of grey areas with respect to what money comes from lobbyists and what doesn’t. But still.
I also thought it was interesting that Obama basically went out of his way to say “yes, Howard Dean is still in charge” of the DNC. There had been some question as to whether or not this would be the case, and in many ways that has to be seen as Obama’s desire to maintain the “new kind of politics” image that he’s running on. It’s actually a shame that Dean doesn’t get more coverage, aside from the “will he intervene if Clinton takes the contest to the convention” question. Howard Dean laid the groundwork for Obama’s winning strategies, yes, but he also changed the framework of the party itself. And while I’d love to see the Democrats show a bit more spine, maybe they’ve just been waiting to get their ducks in a row before making drastic moves. I’d like to think that.
Even crazier, there’s word that many of the DNC operations have been moved to Chicago to integrate with the Obama campaign. Given all the similarities between 2008 and 1968, it’s probably not surprising that the DNC would have to move to Chicago. I suppose there’s a certain appropriateness to that, although I hope the similarities end there, because the Democrats lost that election (and, really, the winner was Richard Nixon, who is obviously more Bush than McCain, at least as far as we know). Funny enough, though, the VP candidate that year was Edmund Muskie, a man who would later see his own run at being the nominee fall apart because he…wait for it…cried just before the New Hampshire primary. Creepy, isn’t it?
All in all, it’s going to be interesting to see how the DNC moves forward from here. It seems like Obama has the potential to be the kind of Democratic president that Clinton failed to be — one that actually uses his influence to insure that the rest of the party does well, too.