Dems Kick Off Battle for Their Own Party

That's not an Onion headline, that's what's really going on, according to the Wall Street Journal's [1] article today about the coming battle for the soul of the Democratic Party (to admittedly use a cliche) if Obama wins. What's interesting about this piece is not so much that there is a battle (anyone who's been reading this blog knows there has been a very intense one), but that it's so out in the open among top Democratic leaders. Check out this interchange:

"It's better to let things evolve than to revolve. Revolutions are dangerous," cautioned Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House Majority Whip, who advises a pragmatic approach to governance that would begin with items that have proven bipartisan support before tackling ambitious elements such as universal health care.

"He's a national leader, Clyburn," House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York snapped back, embodying the views of liberals who want to move fast on the most ambitious version of Obamanomics possible. "I'm thinking of his constituents, and he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's talking about." (emphasis added)

Them's fightin' words where I come from - and that fight has already spilled over into the Obama camp, with progressives pushing for a better Wall Street bailout that actually forces Wall Street to use our taxpayer cash for the economy, and Wall Streeter Bob Rubin pushing back, saying his banking industry cronies should be able to pocket America's hard-earned cash and walk away.

Democratic leaders, aides and Obama advisers say such conversations remain friendly. But some tension exists in an eclectic circle that includes Wall Streeters, labor leaders and liberal think-tank denizens. Sen. Obama's economic brain trust dialed in two weeks ago to a conference call with the candidate to discuss how the Wall Street bailout was working when a split emerged over how hard the government should lean on the banks. Some advisers said it would be politically and economically disastrous if the billions of taxpayer dollars injected into ailing financial institutions just sat in vaults. Robert Rubin, who served as President Bill Clinton's Treasury secretary between stints on Wall Street, pushed back. Leaving the money in the banks would help stabilize them and prevent further turmoil in the credit markets, even if the money wasn't loaned out, the Citigroup Inc. executive said.

The Journal says there are three groups in the Democratic Congress - basically, progressives who want big changes, Blue Dogs who want to stop big changes in the name of deficit reduction, and those who haven't taken a side, and are pushing Obama to go small-bore, split the difference, and move very slowly. That latter group is led by Clyburn and (big shocker!) Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) who "says Sen. Obama remains firmly behind his full agenda -- but is flexible on timing and pacing."

Let's be really clear: We've got to get through election day first, and the fact that congressional Democrats are publicly fighting about this stuff now is really inappropriate.

That said, what that inappropriately anticipatory behavior suggests is 1) that there is going to be a battle over whether an Obama administration (if there is one) is going to be a third Bill Clinton term [2] (with all the corresponding incrementalism) and 2) that this battle is going to have very high stakes.