Obama's unity is not about triangulation. So what is it about? There are a couple of ways to look at it. The uncharitable interpretation is that it's all talk, just vague encomia to buying the world a Coke, smilin' on your brother, and so on. The more charitable interpretation is that it's an extremely deft kind of political jujitsu that attempts to advance an agenda that some people won't like, without doing what George Bush and Karl Rove did, which is to make them hate you forever in the process.
(Emphasis supplied.) Come again? "An extremely deft kind of political jujitsu that some people won't like, without . . . making them hate you forever? Ooooohhhhh. I see. Like FDR right? Republicans loved him right? Nooo, Republicans hated FDR with a passion. Or how about like Clinton? Yes, the Republicans didn't demonize Clinton did they?
Sheesh. How naive can people be? Was Waldman born yesterday?
But what really pissed me off about Waldman's piece is his Republican tactic of creating strawmen to attack. He writes:
It's completely understandable for those of us on the left to yearn for a candidate who will do to the right what they've been doing to us for the last seven years.
Who yearns for that? We want to win! And winning means not just Obama winning. Or even just Democrats winning. It means a progressive agenda winning. Of course for a progressive agenda to win, Democrats need to win. This is the whole idea behind the Netroots partisanship and calls for contrast politics. Waldman acts as if what is wanted is juvenile, petty revenge. A pathetic misstatement of our goals. Extremely weak of him.
Waldman further writes:
Let's assume, though, that your goal is to destroy conservatism and turn the GOP into a pathetic, dessicated husk of a party forever running from its failures (oh, to think of it!). It's less than obvious that a frontal assault - particularly one led by the Democratic Party's nominee for president, or by a Democratic president him/herself - is the best way to do it.
What is obvious is that the standardbearer of the Party can not be the person denouncing a contrast campaign. Has Waldman considered the political history of the United States? I think not.
And as seems to be the favorite example of folks supporting this Obama political folly, Ronald Reagan is invoked:
Think about it this way: Ronald Reagan always had a smile on his face and a kind word for his opponents.
No he freaking did not!!! He tarred and smeared Democrats at every turn. He talked of welfare queens, limousine liberal, and dastardly Dems all the time. In what reality did Paul Waldman live during the Reagan years? This is just nonsense.
Then Waldman wrote:
George W. Bush had a smirk on his face and a shiv ready to stick in his opponents. Who did more for conservatism, and more damage to the other side?
Sure he did and so did Reagan. What is different about the two? Bush is perceived to be the worst President in history because his POLICIES failed, not because his politics were mean.
Silly post from Waldman.
