Where Do We Go From Here?

Just a few thoughts this morning, many of which I've been reading both publically and privately.

Campaign debt: Something that isn't acknowledged often is that winning campaigns often pay off the debts of losing campaigns when the losing campaign endorses and is absorbed into the winning campaign. It's often a pre-requistite for endorsement, as well as the promise of a high level administration position or ambassadorship for the losing candidate.

For obvious reasons, these horse trades aren't talked about loudly outside the upper levels of the Washington Mafia.

As the year has unfolded, I've been reading Dr. Hunter Thompson's Fear and Lothing: On the Campaign Trail '72. I've been reading each month comparatively. Right now, 36 years ago, McGovern was finally beginning to look like he was the campaign leader. George Wallace had just been shot a week earlier. And California was a week away; the winner of which would more or less have locked down front-runner status. But no one would have the delegates to win nomination before the convention in Miami.

It's not a fair comparison, Now to Then. The Democrats badly lost in November 1972. Barring a real disaster of biblical proportions, the Democrats have an exceptional chance to win both Congress and the White House in 2008. FaL '72 is instructive on how the Democratic system 'works' - for one thing, Humphrey's campaign made it well known that their endorsement, as early as May, was up for sale to the campaign willing to pay their debts. As McGovern was the only candidate who's monetary flow was expanding, it's obvious who Humphrey thought should buy him out.

Completely missing from the conversation is the word Super-Delegate. And it's fucking wonderful.

We're at a point where it's time to Make a Deal. The press knows it, we know it, and I think both campaigns know it. Not only do the campaigns need to make a deal, but the the supporters as well. Wherein this campaign turns into uncharted territory.

Making the Deal has necessarily been a top-down driven change. But both influential camps of the candidates are exceptionally vocal and believe they are bottom-up driven movements, no matter what the reality may actually be. And both supporter groups have a very anti-deal mentality right now. Both believe they are the solely wounded party. At most, I've read vague assurances that it will take massive amounts of ego-dashing sucking up, which literally gets us nowhere, because there's no promise of betterment or in meeting the other side.

I find myself privately comparing this season to a bitter argument between a married couple. One where it wasn't violent, but the egos of both were trampled by the other. Both sides hauled out emotional weaponry that was not only unfair, but exceptionally wounding. Stuff that surprised the other - we didn't think they either carried that shit deep down inside or wouldn't dare use it on their spouse. The stuff that sometimes leads to a divorce when both sides decide not to swallow their pride and both make amends.

With a lack of clear leadership moving towards reconciliation, the animosity is being exploited by others with profit motives both political and financial. The press is loving this because of the headlines it supposedly sells; the Republicans are loving this for other obvious reasons. Making any headway against animosity will be ruthlessly annhiliated by the other side as well as the chattering classes.

So what do you do?

I know what I'd do - I'd coerce both campaigns into making a joint appearance. Both Clinton and Obama have shown they're excellent stump speakers. Have both get up in front of the press and the nation and seriously speak at length about what they've done wrong to one another, what their supporters have done, taking ownership of it, why they're sorry, and how they're going to address it before the nation. No one is going to claim victory or defeat.

If you thought Obama's "I'm not throwing Jeremiah under the bus" speech on race was historical and possibly transformative, just think of what this could accomplish in terms of both racial and sexist disagreements.

Of course it's not going to happen. Clinton would fear her image would be paled by Obama, particularly in her speaking style. The misogyny and generalized tendency of of the press and nation to dislike second place finishers would likely parse her statement far more, and probably completely undermine her. Then they'll feminize or emasculate Obama for cooperating with a weaker foe. And the Obama campaign would have to overcome a fear of elevating an opponent to equal position when the campaign isn't entirely finished. And both sides would have to trust that the other will stop trying to stab them in the back at every turn, while others will gladly be willing to stab some more for Hate's heart or sell fresh knives.

Then there's that campaign debt too. Money never seems to make this any easier.

All isn't lost, but how long can a house divided stand?

Be audacious - in both word and action.