"If Obama should win, it puts the old Clinton crowd, with all their money making in jeopardy. Obama will have to draw somewhat to that crowd, because they're the last Democratic group to hold power, but he's likely to reach out to people who were not part of that crowd, to bring people from outside and pick out some of the better people, the less corrupt crowd in the Democratic circles of Washington. He would be somewhat of a threat. The biggest threat he represents is that he would not be dependent upon their money.
She represents the old politics, the politics that sort of came of age in the 80's and the Democrats reponse to it. The Democrats reponse to the Reagan era-- was in part the DLC-- the kind of 'Let's find some way to nest. Let's take the edges off of anything we say. Let's not be too hard line or confrontational. Let's live with that reality of the Reagan era.' So there were a lot of compromises made. Triangulation became the phrase. That was a big part of what the Democrats did during that period.
"And ultimately they had to get into bed with more moneyed interests to compete... because the Republicans could raise all that money and do all those very nasty and effective things, with their newspapers and their radio and the infrastructure they'd been building. So to defend themselves, the Democrats needed more and more money. That put them more and more into the arms of the wealthy left of center types-- what you might call the limousine liberal types-- these are folks who do not want to shake up the status quo too much, but they might favor something a little left of center-- wealthy business people were the money source for democrats, as compared to the more right wing types which became the source of the Republican money.
"But the money here is the key. If Obama has any debt at all, it is to these million plus donors.
"People like James Carville, who's made a lot of money giving speeches and presenting himself as the Democratic pundit. But then you have others-- the Paul Begalas of the world, John Podesta of Center for American Progress. You have a lot of people who have built their whole financial status around the fact that they have worked for the Clintons."
I reply, "It's not just financial, it's power and influence."
Parry says, "Yes, it's power and influence, but I guess I keep coming back to the money. Because what I see here is, power and influence are fine, but what that really gets you is money."
"I think a lot of that fury that you've begun to see from some of that Clinton crowd is the old power structure for the Democrats giving way, and they don't want to give way.
"There's this reaction to what they see as a threat. And they're willing to do anything almost. Their tactics are indistinguishable from what Republicans would do to a Democrat-- indistinguishable. And in fact, that's the point they make. They say, 'If we don't do it, the Republicans will. Better for us to do it and destroy this guy now, rather than have the Republicans do it. Too late.' Well arguably, it's already too late if that's the game. Look at Hillary's negatives-- her chances of winning are getting slimmer and slimmer by the day. That hasn't stopped the Clinton people from still trying to destroy Obama. They've been escalating their tactics of destruction."-
I ask, "Now when you say Clinton people, are you referring to just to her campaign, or the whole Clinton power base?"
Parry answers, "I'm talking about the broader structure. There are journalists who are in on this, who have been close to the Clintons for many years. There are surrogates of various kinds. There's the Clinton campaign and then there's this outreach that they do-- people who have been given favors by the Clintons or who are expecting favors in the future. The Clinton structure is pretty much driven by the idea of favors. It's old-fashioned in that sense too. You get this idea that if you play ball with them you get your reward and if you don't you get your punishment."
I pursue my DLC theme, interrupting, "Now, one more time, I'm going to ask you about the DLC, people like Al Frum. Where will the DLC be if Obama beats the Clintons and takes the Whitehouse?"
Parry replies, "I don't want to pretend I know. But the DLC and the folks around them will more or less be on the outside looking in, because they really are the intellectual base for the Clinton administration and for that group of Democrats who have coalesced around the Clintons. They are the ones who came up with plans-- with concepts of triangulation on how to do some things, how to achieve some results within the Democratic framework but without being perceived as liberal. Obama is a bit of a wildcard, because he doesn't have that much of a record. He might strike deals with these people."
* * *
Christy Hardin Smith is co-founder of the progressive community blog, Firedoglake.com. I explained to her, "What I'm working on is a piece about how the contest between Clinton and Obama is not just a contest between them but about the old control of the Democratic party and something new that's going to emerge. I'm trying to get some perspectives from people on if there will be a big difference and what that will look like. Do you have any thoughts on that?"-
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
