Heidi Li's Potpourri

These days Barack Obama seems increasingly like Lyndon Johnson

Before Lyndon Baines Johnson became President he was a critic of the northeastern establishment, a son of Texas, and a devotee of bipartisanship.  Barack Obama has been in political life for a much briefer time than Lyndon Johnson was before Johnson was elected to the presidency (after he first ascended to the office upon John F. Kennedy's death). Yet the parallels to LBJ are there. Prior to winning against John McCain on November 4, President-elect Obama critiqued the Washington establishment (including Democrats who had spent more time in office there than he ever has); both during and after the general election, he has operated from Chicago, thereby emphasizing his adopted mid-western mantle; during the primaries and the general election he campaigned as critic of partisanship.  Now President-elect Obama is joining hands across the aisle in an unprecedented manner, reappointing a sitting Cabinet member of the other Party's outgoing President. Not just any member of the Bush 2 team, either. Mr. Obama has selected  Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense and Gates has agreed to the appointment.

Seems a hawkish move. Very in keeping with the Lyndon Johnson style.  LBJ represented the right wing of the Democratic Party when it came to foreign policy. During the mid-1960s, Johnson escalated the Vietnam War, a believer in the need to contain Communism by force. Ultimately, Johnson's hawkishness lost him the support of rank and file Democrats, leading him to decide against seeking the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 1968.

I am not suggesting that President-elect Obama will not attempt to get U.S. troops out of Iraq. Historical parallels aside, the Gates appointment makes clear that Senator Obama meant what he said during the general election: he does not oppose U.S. troop presence overseas or using military force to fight terrorism; nor does he oppose Republican foreign policy in a blanket way. What Senator Obama wants to do is redeploy U.S. troops, not bring them home. That is, he plans to shift troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, to beef up  Operation Enduring Freedom, George W. Bush's other post post-9/11 war. (Sweeping redeployment, removing virtually all troops from Iran, seems destined to take at least another two to three years.) Whether the U.S. has learned enough about post-conventional warfare for it to make sense to use more troops in Afghanistan remains to be seen.

Do not get me wrong. Lyndon Johnson did some admirable and amazing things as President - including making sure that the Civil Rights Act of 1965 got passed and signed into law. So being like Lyndon Johnson is not necessarily a bad thing, at least from an overall liberal point of view.  Let us note, however, that President-elect Obama has not made any bold Great Society-like moves yet. He has created a new presidential Economic Recovery Advisory Board, but this is not a New Deal or Great Society descendant. It is modeled on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, created by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. No President's Commission on Women  seems forthcoming; although, actually, now I have my sights set on a President's Advisory Board on the Status of Women in America. Really, I do.

POSTSCRIPT

Hillary Rodham Clinton is the most genuinely liberal or progressive person President-elect Obama has reportedly asked to join his Cabinet. Senator Clinton: supporter of the view that womens rights are human rights; proponent of genuinely universal healthcare, early advocate of direct relief to mortgage holders. Whether Senator Obama's offer is made official or is accepted remains to be seen.  Wherever Senator Clinton ends up come January she will be to the left of those around her. I  hope she influences whoever she can to move her way.

Given my druthers, I, along with hundreds of others I know of, would prefer to see Senator Clinton become Senate Majority Leader. So would Marie C. Wilson, head of The White House Project. But whatever Senator Clinton decides to do, given her options, I have confidence she will indeed move those around her to progressivism and liberalism.

Debunking the spin on Senator Clinton's role in 2009

Bill Clinton's foundation work will not be what prevents Senator Clinton from being offered a position in President-elect Obama's cabinet, although that may be a publicly given excuse. For all the fuss over the Obama administration's hyper-cautious, hyper-intrusive vetting, one need only look at the appointments to date to realize that if President-elect Obama wants to include somebody in his administration and he can, he does. His administration may even continue to have an Office of Political Affairs.

I assure you that David Axelrod's emails, client list, and fees raise issues that could "embarrass" the Obama administration. And President Clinton has made it clear that he would cooperate fully in conducting his affairs so as not to cause "national security" problems.

If Senator Clinton is not offered a Cabinet position it will either be because at the end of the day the President-elect does not want her to have one or because she does not want one.

As for Senator Kennedy now creating "working groups" and inviting Senator Clinton (along with Senators Harkin and Mikulski) to head one, here's my most cynical view: Senator Kennedy is providing cover for President-elect Obama should he choose not to invite Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State. The Democratic Party is realizing, rather late in the day, that in any number of ways they botched their approach to Senator Clinton and her supporters.  Now the public is souring on the Democrats even before the inauguration. With the understandable exception of those whose livelihoods may be reduced or eliminated, not too many people are keen on the Pelosi-Reid- Barney Frank plan to give billions to GM if it does not even have the cash to make it to January - if the situation is that tight, GM already IS functionally bankrupt, and should use proper legal means (e.g. submit a Chapter 11 plan to the relevant court for consideration) to handle its affairs responsibly in light of that fact. But, I digress...

My key point is that whatever Senator Clinton decides to do in the coming year, and whatever position she is or is not offered, the Democratic Party begins 2009 with a tremendous internal problem.

The trouble  began to brew when the Democratic Party  hounded Senator Clinton to get out of the primary race; and then refused to allow its own rules and procedures to determine the nominee. Even if the superdelegates had, in an unforced manner, cast their ballots and voted then-Senator Obama the nomination, Senator Clinton's supporters would not have felt shortchanged, as many of them do now. And if the superdelegates had gone the other way, I would think then-Senator Obama's supporters would not have felt shortchanged either. There is a difference between winning fair and square and being pre-selected. Furthermore, had the process been conducted impartially, it would have been natural and relatively easy for the winner to have asked the other to join the ticket in a show of genuine unity. There may have been downsides for either in assuming the vice-presidency but depending upon whether the two were savvy they could have designed a role for whichever was the vice-president that would have suited his or her strengths and showcased them.

None of the poor decisions that have brought us to this point can be undone. I have reminded readers of them because they illuminate the current difficulty. There is no public, impartial procedure left for allocating Senator Clinton the position of power many Democrats, including many who preferred Barack Obama for president, would like her to have. The closest approximation is a position that Senator Clinton may not be interested in, although I think she'd be quite good at it: Senate Majority Leader. But that would require the Democratic Senators themselves to elect her to the post, abandoning their deference to pecking order or, if they are in the pecking order, to graciously step aside.

Heading a working group under Senator Kennedy or serving as Secretary of State puts Senator Clinton in a subordinate position, in both instances to people who her supporters believe treated her and them disrespectfully. While Senator Clinton might decide to accept either post - and I fully respect her right to decide to do so, as she is ultimately the one who runs her career - I think it will be very difficult for the Democratic Party to convince those who it has alienated by its refusal to address the sexism and misogyny directed at Senator Clinton and many of her women supporters that either of these positions addresses the problem the Party seems unable to grasp. Millions of women - and men with a real appreciation for how the world is for women - will view either of these appointments as typical of the dynamic where, instead of having a woman in a power position of her own, men rely on the talents of a woman to burnish their own power - or to be the scapegoat should things go south.

I do not have a view as to whether Senator Clinton should accept a cabinet position if offered; nor whether she should accept the task of heading a working group on insurance coverage. With regard to Secretary of State, much would depend on how much autonomy President-elect Obama would give Senator Clinton, and frankly, in modern-day cabinets, Cabinet Secretaries are not autonomous. Their job is to execute the policies of the administration in which they serve. They can advise as to what those policies should be, but they cannot publicly deviate from those decided on by the President. If they cannot stomach the policies, they depart. If they free-lance, they depart.

My point is this: it is not Senator Clinton's problem that many in the electorate mistrust the Democratic Party's treatment of women, and it is not clear to me that her occupying either of the positions now being bandied about would do a thing to repair the mistrust. The Democratic Party, and its new leader, President-elect Obama face a real challenge: they need to win back those who have lost all confidence in their commitment to gender equity not only in electoral political participation but in every area.

Women in the new administration? None so far. But the Democratic Senate could be a powerful antidote...

So far, none have been announced. It appears that President-Elect Obama that Representative Rahm Emanuel will be the new President's Chief of Staff. The public face of the administration will also be a man, it appears, as Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs is the reported pick for press secretary.

Apparently, President-Elect Obama is not sensitive to the fact that announcing or leaking the names of appointments before any women are included in the top ranks - IF any women are to be included - is further alienating to Democrats who already believe him insensitive (at best) to equal political representation for women.

To my mind, this makes it all important that the Democratic Senators vote Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the position of Senate Majority Leader assuming she is willing to take the position. Senator Clinton's fellow Senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, currently second in line in to Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Senate leadership, would ordinarily be considered a natural successor to Reid. Both of these gentlemen should agree to step aside; we know that if they do not and Senator Clinton makes it known she would take the position, let alone that she might actually want it, she will be accused of overstepping. This is an annoying fact, but since it is a fact Reid and Schumer should deal with it and make way for nationally recognized Democrat to lead the Senate in 2009.

For some time now I have been urging voters and Democratic Senators to get involved in this cause. From the website dedicated to it:

Statement of Purpose

The Senate Republican and Democratic floor leaders are elected by the members of their party in the Senate at the beginning of each Congress. Depending on which party is in power, one serves as majority leader and the other as minority leader. The leaders serve as spokespersons for their parties' positions on issues. The majority leader schedules the daily legislative program and fashions the unanimous consent agreements that govern the time for debate.

….

The majority leader has the right to be called upon first if several senators are seeking recognition by the presiding officer, which enables him to offer motions or amendments before any other senator. Although party floor leadership posts carry great responsibility, they provide few specific powers. Instead, floor leaders have largely had to depend on their individual skill, intelligence, and personality. Majority leaders seek to balance the needs of senators of both parties to express their views fully on a bill with the pressures to move the bill as quickly as possible toward enactment. These conflicting demands have required majority leaders to develop skills in compromise, accommodation, and diplomacy. Lyndon Johnson, who held the post in the 1950s, once said that the greatest power of the majority leader was "the power of persuasion."

The majority leader usually works closely with the minority leader so that, as Senator Bob Dole explained, "we never surprise each other on the floor." The party leaders meet frequently with the president and with the leaders of the House of Representatives. The majority leader also greets foreign dignitaries visiting the Capitol.

From the U.S. Senate’s official website.

(Emphases added.)

The power of the Senate Majority turns largely on the talents of the Majority Leader who must be a person with great ideas and extremely political savvy.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton fits the bill perfectly. Her ideas and policy positions have won a clear mandate from the voters of America. She has demonstrated repeatedly an ability to work across the aisle to attain major legislative accomplishments; but she has also demonstrated that she will not simply cave to expediency (e.g. her vote on the FISA bill, her ongoing fight to ensure reproductive rights for all). As for meeting with foreign dignitaries, Senator Clinton is known and respected around the world. If her peers elect her as majority leader, this will send the message to all those abroad that she is just as respected here at home.

To become the Senate Majority Leader in 2009, Senator Clinton must win election to that position by being voted into it by her fellow Democratic Senators, a vote that usually occurs in early January.

You can direct others to this website by giving them this URL: www.hrcforsenatemajorityleader09.com

There are instructions at that website for how to become a signatory. I urge you to contact your own Senators if they are Democrats and urge them to get behind this effort.

The midnight hour - November 5, 2008

(source for image)

Senator Obama: Congratulations on your victory.  May you live up to the highest and best hopes of your most fervent supporters. May you make this country the better place you have said you want it to be.

Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen: heartiest congratulations upon your respective elections to the United States Senate.

A number of Democratic women with terrific policy positions who were running for House seats have, unfortunately, lost their bids. It appears that Alice Kryzan (NY), Victoria Wulsin (OH), and Lisa Stender (NJ) are among these losers. At the time of this writing, it is less clear how women running in the western states will do.

Even if all women running for the Senate yesterday were to prevail, only one additional woman in the Senate, will be added at best (source). Best case scenario for the house, 5 additional women (source). Governors, no matter what, one fewer woman holding that position (source).

This is not good news for those still hoping to see a woman President any time soon.

Nevertheless, human rights advocates of both genders will now be working to win the fight for full political and economic recognition of women, both in the U.S. and abroad. 

President-Elect Obama: What will you be doing to increase representation by women in elected office? Will you support a woman who clearly supports such increased representation to head the DNC? Will you support Senator Clinton for Senate Majority Leader? Will you support a change to the Democratic Party rules that makes for winner-take-all primaries and eliminates caucuses? Will you and Senator Biden support women to fill your Senate seats? Will you create a Presidential Commission on Women?  

Will you announce that you will send Congress the Equal Rights Amendment for passage during your first hundred days? Will you be sending Congress a new version of the Lily Ledbetter law and other legislation aimed at eliminating the wage gap between men and women? Will you go on record as opposing the creeping restrictions on women's access to abortion that the Supreme Court's post-Roe jurisprudence allows?

Will you speak out against regimes around the world that deny women the right to the ballot, that force women as a matter of law to wear required garb?

Having won the Presidency, will you, Senator Obama, prove that you are going to join us in the greatest civil rights battle of our time, the fight for full political and economic recognition of women both in the U.S. and abroad?

The women of America, Mr. Obama, are waiting. The women of the world are watching.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader

Over 325 individuals have signed this letter to Democratic Senators urging them to elect Senator Clinton as Senate Majority Leader in 2009 (assuming the Democrats retain a majority in the Senate). Senator Clinton's powers of persuasion and her commitment to the Democratic Party have been more in evidence than ever as she has done as she said she would and campaigned the length and breadth of the country for the Democratic Party presidential nominee and many, many downticket Democrats. This sort of energy and political flexibility are particularly desirable qualities in a Senate Majority Leader, a job that requires keen political sensibility and stamina to keep Democrats united and bring Republicans on board for programs such as universal health care or votes to reform the bailout bill hastily passed a few weeks ago.

You can read the letter here. To become a signatory, check the directions in the sidebar at:

Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader 2009

Once again over three hundred people sign a letter to support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as a national leader as of January 2009

At the Democratic National Convention, over three hundred Clinton delegates signed a nominating petition to ensure that Senator Clinton's name was placed in nomination for what should have been a free and fair nomination election held at the convention. While that election was short-circuited by Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Dean, and the Obama campaign, the bravery and commitment of the Clinton delegates in gathering the first 300 signatures (the minimum required for such a petition) deserves ongoing recognition.

Now, another 300 (plus) voters, including a large number of Clinton delegates, have signed a letter urging Senator Clinton's colleagues in the  Senate to respect the will of the voters and put her in the position of Senate Majority Leader. See Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate Majority Leader 2009.
Go there to add your name to the growing list.

(The letter also appears at The Democratic Party's "community website", "Party Builder", with information updated periodically so that over there the voice of Clinton Democrats is heard.)

Meanwhile, over at Democrats For Principle before Party, we are within $1300 of our immediate goal and $5000 for our overall goal. If you five dollars or know somebody who does and wants to help us make it clear to the Democratic Party powers-that-be that we expect the Democratic Party to serve all of its members better please consider a contribution. Details are at Democrats For Principle before Party. Or you can use this button to contribute now:

McCain? Obama? Pah! Ohio wants Hillary Clinton

That headline is from an October 6 AP story reprinted in Kansas City, MO.

Don't hold your breath, Ohio. Neither John McCain nor Barack Obama has made a commitment to put Senator Clinton in a prominent position in either of their administrations. Barack Obama did not even vet or seriously Senator Clinton as a potential running-mate, although I doubt Senator Clinton wanted the job, which eventually went to Joe Biden.

I know the Clintons are campaigning for Senator Obama. I respect their decision to do so, particularly because Senator Clinton said throughout the primary season that she would campaign for WHOEVER the Democratic nominee was (as far as I am aware no similar commitment was made by any of the other contenders for Democratic nomination).

Many people have asked me why I will not simply do as they Clintons are doing. Many others have asked me why I will affirmatively support John McCain. The answer is the same: because I am not a professional politician. Therefore, I enjoy an independence politicians do not. I do not have future election bids to worry about. I am not seeking political appointments that Presidents can make.

No ethical obligation calls upon me to say that one is better than the other; and no instrumental reason counsels that. If I find both the Republican and the Democratic Presidential contenders problematic, I do not have throw my lot in with either one. And neither do the people of Ohio nor does any voter anywhere who does not feel comfortable with the choice of candidates the major Party's have put forward this year.

Do not let anybody hoodwink you into thinking that you do not have a choice as to what to do with your Presidential vote this year. Do not let anybody pressure you to cast a ballot you do not feel comfortable casting. Vote for the candidates you believe in. That's a luxury every American who is not a politician can afford.

Here are some of the candidates I would vote for if I lived in their districts or states: Bruce Lunsford, Victoria Wulsin, Alice Kryzan, Kay Hagan, Jeanne Shaheen. You can learn more about them and/or donate to them here.

Senator Clinton is not running for office on November 4. If you want to support her voice in the Democratic Party post-election, you can urge Democratic Senators to make her the next Senate Majority Leader. Learn more and sign a letter urging this here.

If you want to support Senator Clinton's 2012 reelection bid, donate here.

And if you want to support a group that objects to idea that any means justify the ends of winning a election, consider a donation to Democrats for Principle Before Party.

Confidence and Cooperation: Franklin D. Roosevelt's first Fireside Chat - "The Banking Crisis"

In troubled times, it is important to remember that hardships and panics have happened in other times. As the financial chaos of our own time continues to churn, I find it helpful to return to the great words and thoughts from thinkers, activists, and politicians whose life and works I have studied. This morning's news of possible plans to use money allocated to the Treasury under the "bailout bill" to infuse capital directly into the country's banks immediately made me think of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's first "fireside chat" - the first in series of communications delivered via radio by FDR to an anxious citizenry. The topic of that first chat was "The Banking Crisis", and FDR used it to explain to the public why he had declared a national bank holiday (closed all banks for a period of weeks) while the Government took immediate steps to protect citizens' assets.  Listen here to the Fireside Chat and to read the full transcript. If you can listen, please do so - you will be hearing the voice of a true leader in a time of crisis. The voice I hope to hear come January is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's, when she is done discharging her promise to campaign for the Democratic Presidential nominee and her unmatched and voluntary assistance to the election of downticket Democrats across the country. I hope she is offered the opportunity to serve as Senate Majority Leader. I hope she is offered a cabinet position in the administration of the next President, regardless of who that President is. I have no idea if Senator Clinton will find it best for her and for the country to accept either of these posts. But it would be exceedingly foolish for any Presidential administration not to try to capitalize on her sophisticated knowledge of financial affairs by attempting to put her in a position of prominence and power, just as it would be foolish for a Democratic Senate  not try to capitalize on her excellent and proven legislative skills. (If you have not signed the letter urging Democratic Senators to affirm their support for Senator Clinton as Senate Majority leader, please go here for information on how to do so.)

Given the two Party's  nominees we may or may not not be in a position to elect a President this year with the extraordinary abilities of Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr. But we are in a position to support a major political figure whose abilities I believe are on par with his, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. (To contribute to Senator Clinton's 2012 campaign fund, please go here.)

Below appear some quotations particularly apropos for today (emphases added).

"My friends:

I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking -- to talk with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking, but more particularly with the overwhelming majority of you who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks.

I want to tell you what has been done in the last few days, and why it was done, and what the next steps are going to be. I recognize that the many proclamations from State capitols and from Washington, the legislation, the Treasury regulations, and so forth, couched for the most part in banking and legal terms, ought to be explained for the benefit of the average citizen. I owe this, in particular, because of the fortitude and the good temper with which everybody has accepted the inconvenience and hardships of the banking holiday. And I know that when you understand what we in Washington have been about, I shall continue to have your cooperation as fully as I have had your sympathy and your help during the past week."

"It needs no prophet to tell you that when the people find that they can get their money -- that they can get it when they want it for all legitimate purposes -- the phantom of fear will soon be laid. People will again be glad to have their money where it will be safely taken care of and where they can use it conveniently at any time. I can assure you, my friends, that it is safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than it is to keep it under the mattress.

The success of our whole national program depends, of course, on the cooperation of the public -- on its intelligent support and its use of a reliable system."

"We have had a bad banking situation....

I do not promise you that every bank will be reopened or that individual losses will not be suffered, but there will be no losses that possibly could be avoided; and there would have been more and greater losses had we continued to drift. I can even promise you salvation for some, at least, of the sorely presses banks. We shall be engaged not merely in reopening sound banks but in the creation of more sound banks through reorganization.

It has been wonderful to me to catch the note of confidence from all over the country. I can never be sufficiently grateful to the people for the loyal support that they have given me in their acceptance of the judgment that has dictated our course, even though all our processes may not have seemed clear to them.

After all, there is an element in the readjustment of our financial system more important than currency, more important than gold, and that is the confidence of the people themselves. Confidence and courage are the essentials of success in carrying out our plan. You people must have faith; you must not be stampeded by rumors or guesses. Let us unite in banishing fear. We have provided the machinery to restore our financial system, and it is up to you to support and make it work.

It is your problem, my friends, your problem no less than it is mine.

Together we cannot fail"

Read this and weep

Read this and weep, yes weep, over the failure of the Democrats to nominate Senator Clinton as their candidate for the general election. And ask yourself, why isn't Senator Obama indicating that he would appoint Senator Clinton as Secretary of the Treasury or even better signing the letter to support her for Senator Majority Leader? (A rhetorical question: Senator Obama does not seem prepared to acknowledge or even show respect for Senator Clinton no matter what. More reason to weep.)

See River Daughter's more extensive and excellent discussion of Senator Clinton's statement here.

Want to cheer yourself up? Consider a donation to Democrats for Principle Before Party, an initiative from The Denver Group. You can donate online using the button below. Or go here to find out how to contribute by mail.

Pursuing purpose over power: sometimes the mark of a true Democrat, often the mark of a true leader

I have received a couple of comments or emails suggesting that it is untoward of me to expect Senator Obama to disclaim immediately any effort to control the future of the DNC and urging me to retract any suggestion that he not do so. I also receive email politely but adamantly suggesting that given my objections to the way Senator Obama and the current DNC have conducted themselves I should vote for John McCain and/or register as a Republican.

Despite the legitimate points made by some of these writers, I am not going to withdraw my call for Senator Obama to state now that even if he manages to win the general election he will ensure that the DNC holds a noncoercive, authentic election for a new chair. Nor am I going to register as a Republican and work affirmatively for the election of John McCain, a candidate whose positions I do not share.

Senator Obama, with the help of Howard Dean and other DNC leaders, has - tragically - brought a civil war upon the Democratic Party. I do not use the term "civil war" lightly. A civil war differs from a revolution, althought a civil war can escalate to a revolution. What makes a civil war distinctive is that it is fought between people who share many values and objectives but who end up with irreconcilable differences. If one group decides to completely abandon the enterprise being fought over, the fight becomes a revolution and ends up with the complete dissolution of the original enterprise.

I am not prepared to give up on the great enterprise that is the modern Democratic Party. But neither am I willing to pretend that a presidential candidate and a party chair who cheated and lied to put the candidate at the head of the Democratic Party's ticket are simply conducting business as usual.

Business as usual would indeed mean that were Senator Obama elected to the Presidency in November, the DNC would not hold an election for party chair. Tradition within the Party has indeed been that a winning Presidential candidate installs the the incoming chair. But Senator Obama himself argues that business as usual is not necessarily how business should proceed.  Democrats in particular should realize that tradition for tradition's sake is a hollow argument. If the modern Democratic Party always preferred tradition, President Truman would not have brought racial integration to the armed forces,  President Johnson would not have fought for and signed into law the original Voting Rights Act of 1965, and President Carter would not have urged Israel to trade land for peace with Egypt.

Sometimes a leader must pursue purpose over power.

[I borrow this phrase from James R. Jones, chief of staff to President Johnson, who used it in an excellent opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times this past March. In his LA Times piece, Mr. Jones discusses Lyndon Johnson's decision to bow out of the 1968 Democratic nomination contest. In March of that year President Johnson publicly announced, "I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president."]

Lyndon Johnson had many motives and reasons for preferring not to run again, and nobody, not even Mr. Jones and probably not even President Johnson himself knew or understood all of them. But President Johnson's decision not to run for reelection was indeed a pursuit of purpose over personal power. Because of the America's ongoing and indeed escalated involvement in the Vietnam War during the Johnson presidency, President Johnson was deeply unpopular among many Democrats who felt that his administration's policy toward that war was both misguided and inconsistent with Democratic Party ideals. President Johnson feared that seeking nomination would further divide the Democratic Party against itself. And President Johnson, a savvy if not particularly savory politician, knew that a Democratic Party divided would be a Democratic Party hobbled.

As it turned out the nominating contest of 1968, at the Democratic Convention in Chicago that year, did reflect the civil war in the Party at that time. See this chronology for details. That convention produced as a candidate Hubert Humphrey who lost the general election to Richard Nixon, in a close contest. In 1972, the party sent out George McGovern against Nixon. George McGovern was associated with one particular wing of the Democratic Party, and McGovern's 1972 loss to Nixon was the most staggering defeat in modern U.S. presidential politics. Civil war hobbles political parties.

Quieting a civil war and ensuring it does not escalate to all out revolution is no easy task. I confess I am glad that I am not really in a position to perform this task for the Democratic Party. The person who is is Senator Barack Obama.

Despite Senator Obama's reputation for only listening to people from his inner circle and fan base, I do regard it as my duty as Democrat to continue to do whatever I can to explain publicly the reality of the situation confronting the Democratic Party and to request - and demand - as a Democrat, that the Party's presidential nominee (and the Party's current national chair) take steps to cure the divide that is endangering the very future of the Democratic Party enterprise. Yes, this would require Senator Obama to break with certain traditions - disclaiming any intention of installing the next DNC Chair, actively supporting Senator Clinton for Senate Majority Leader to name two breaks with the past I would encourage Senator Obama, the champion of change, to embrace.

Breaking from these traditions would show that Senator Obama is capable of and willing to put purpose over power. It would go a long way to earning him some respect from those of us who now have very little for him. More crucially, it would go a long way to curing the current civil war in the Democratic Party and might even avert all out revolution.

Of course, if Senator Obama loses the general election these steps become moot. So, as a Democrat heartsick over what Senator Obama and the DNC have wrought for the Democratic Party, it would be easier for me to simply skip the intermediate step of urging Senator Obama to show himself now to be the type of leader capable of pursuing purpose over power. It would be easier for me simply to swing to the Republican ticket and affirmatively support McCain/Pailin, knowing that if that ticket wins, at least there will be an election for the next DNC Chair.

But that would be, for me, a dishonorable approach. I have never supported candidates who advocate a bulk of positions I reject. For me personally, then I must take the harder route and continue to encourage, demand, and fight to have Senator Obama act as a genuine reformer, genuinely committed to important changes, in the Democratic Party as much as anywhere else.

Pursuing Purpose over Power.

If you like that sentiment, please consider a donation to Democrats for Principle Before Party. Learn more about that new initiative from The Denver Group. You can donate on line here

or learn how to donate by mail at the website.