Conyers: 'We're Closing In On Rove'
[...]
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers tell two other people: "We're closing in on Rove. Someone's got to kick his ass."

Asked a few minutes later for a more official explanation, Conyers told us that Rove has a week to appear before his committee. If he doesn't, said Conyers, "We'll do what any self-respecting committee would do. We'd hold him in contempt. Either that or go and have him arrested."
[...]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/15/politics/politico/thecrypt/mai...

I'll believe it when I see it...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

I've posted and linked to this diary before. But as the fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party comes to a close for now, it is worth revisiting as a primer for spoon's newest diary on the subject:

Say Goodbye to Howard Dean
by thereisnospoon
Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EDT
[...]
Lost in the dialectic that oftens takes place here and throughout the progressive blogosphere between the "my candidate is the saviour of planet earth" and the "can't we all just get along?" camps, is the fact that both camps fundamentally misjudge why this Democratic primary is so important.
This primary is neither about the individual candidates nor about unifying behind a single Democrat to defeat the Republicans in November. Instead, this battle--in its own way not dissimilar to the conflict being waged in the Republican party--is a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party. It is similar to the battle that was waged in 2004 between Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt (and, to a lesser extent, John Kerry).
It is a battle over whether we will chart a new course in Democratic politics for the 21st century involving economic populism, 50-state strategies, big changes and national governing coalitions, or return to the politics of the 1990s involving incremental changes, triangulation, swing-state targeting and corporatism.
That battle was won, unfortunately, by the forces for the old guard in 2004--with far-reaching consequences for a world forced to suffer through four more years of the Bush Administration. The combined fire of Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman and the other old guard candidates in 2004--together with self-inflicted campaign problems--brought down the forces for change represented by the netroots and the Dean campaign.
[...]
Dean may have lost the battle for the presidency, but he won the battle for at least a part of the Democratic Party's soul through his election to the chairmanship of the DNC. Triangulation, small poll-tested moves and a shrinking map were out. Fifty-state strategies, bold moves, harsh talk and doing the right thing were in--much to the chagrin of the Party Establishment led by people like Rahm Emmanuel and Terry McAuliffe.

Many people take these hard-won gains from the Democratic Establishment for granted. They should not.

The truth is that the same forces that were desperate to squash Dean's presidential bid, and that tried every desperate measure to keep him from running the DNC, are still strongly at work in the Democratic Party. To be blunt, those forces are united under a Presidential campaign explicitly running on the record of the Democratic Party during the 1990s.
[...]
This primary presents us a choice between moving ahead to 2008 and beyond, and moving back to the 1990s. It presents us a stark choice between Howard Dean and Terry McAuliffe.
[...]
Whose side are you on?

There it was, the choice laid out for all of us.

It brings me great joy and pride to see that so many ended up on the side of moving forward as opposed to moving backward. But there is clearly more work to be done, as the forces who won out in 2004 only to lose in 2008 will likely try to squeeze the newfound soul of the Party right out of it.

spoon returns today with an open letter to Clinton supporters, piggybacking somewhat off of the previous diary.

An Open Letter to Hillary Clinton Supporters
by thereisnospoon
Fri May 16, 2008 at 08:34:06 AM EDT
[...]
I'd like to make a quick note to all of Hillary Clinton's supporters who are currently blaming sexism for the fact that your candidate has almost certainly lost: sexism had nothing to do with it. In fact, it was anything but.

Sure, Hillary was the victim of some sexism, just as Obama has been the victim of some racism and McCain will be the victim of some ageism.

But that's not what spiked Clinton's chances. Bill Clinton would also have lost this year.

The truth is that there is a quiet battle being waged for the soul of the Democratic Party. Your candidate was on the wrong side of that divide. It wouldn't have mattered if Hillary had been male, and Obama female. What mattered here was ideology.

In column #1, you had:

Barack Obama
Progressive
Howard Dean
ground-up campaign
rejection of lobbyists
50-state strategy
bringing in new voters
activist orientation
establishing new coalitions
downballot as important as top-of-ballot
unapologetically espousing progressive principles and taking with you the voters that will come your way
looking tough on national security by not voting with Republicans
moving beyond the social issue fights that have characterized politics lo these many years.

In column #2, you had:

Bill Clinton
DLC Democrat
Mark Penn
Terry McAuliffe
James Carville
triangulation
"lobbyists are real people"
"big/swing state strategy"
top-down campaign
keep the old coalition alive at all costs and win back the Reagan "Dems" by magic pixie dust
establishment oriented
"the White House is all that matters"
trying to look tough on national security by voting with Republicans to invade other countries to prove your bone fides
and continuing the same squares/hippies proxy fights that have been taking place since the late 60's.

And that doesn't even get into 3am phone calls and other campaign tactics.

The simple truth is that the candidate who staked themselves out in column #2 was probably going to lose--and if wouldn't have mattered if they were black, brown, white, male, female, neuter, or space alien. The time for that ideology at the head of the Democratic Party has passed.

It is deeply unfortunate that the historic candidacy of a serious female contender for President had to get swept up and moved aside because she chose the wrong side of a party realignment and ideological divide. But that's just the way it went.
[...]
Soon we will have our first woman President. But it will be a woman who is unafraid to stand in column #1 and declare herself an anti-DLC, anti-triangulation, Progressive Democrat looking to embrace change not only from Republicanism, but from the very sort of Stockholm syndrome that led so many Democrats to believe that this is an unassailably conservative country.
[...]

Amen to that.

Three cheers for the side that won!

...as that side winning will likely result in the Democratic Party winning for years to come.

That is, if the losing side doesn't ruin it...
____________________
The "Dream Ticket" is a Death Trap!
Obama / Sebelius '08

Its like a cult.

The latest argument is popular vote which she will only win by cheating and counting two states with flawed results.

But this makes no sense.

To use popular vote then each state needs primaries. But some states use caucuses. So the delegates are the only meaningful system we have.

Now the super delegate argument is another matter. I don't agree with that. But I have no problem with caucuses. It is actually an interesting way to participate in the political system.

Another thing that really needs to change is the scheduling. It is ridiculous that they spread the states out like this. There should be one day or perhaps 3-4 super days of multiple states. Its not fair to voters in the last few states. I mean look at this year. Obama is the nominee. Why bother if you are a voter in Oregon or Kentucky?

Bill O'Reilly Freak-Out Remix

Support the Troops
End the Occupation