Crazy Interpretation Of The Day: Obama Win Is a Defeat For Daily Kos

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:25:41 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Dan Gerstein, LieberMcCain Dem extraordinaire, has the funniest column I have seen in a long time. dangerstein claims that Obama's win in South Carolina is a defeat for daily kos and, as far as I can tell, a win for JOE LIEBERMAN. I kid you not:

[South Carolina] resolv[ed] the pre-eminent conflict of the party's present -- between the politics of hope and the politics of Kos. (That being the Daily Kos, the nation's most influential liberal blog and the left's poster child for partisan pugnacity.)

. . . The country got an initial taste of this tactical tussle in 2006 when the Lieberman-Lamont Senate campaign in Connecticut went national -- and an initial test of the relative merits in the general-election portion of that race (in which I was Joe Lieberman's communications director).

. . . The hope candidate [Joe Lieberman to dangerstein!] soundly beat the Kos candidate -- Kos actually taped a commercial for Lamont -- by 10 points. . . .

There you have it. Lieberman's 2006 run was a test of Obama's politics of hope. Never mind that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat or that he has endorsed McCain. Anyway, this is truly one of the funniest pieces I have ever read.

< Bill Clinton To Offer Mea Culpa | Did The Debate Stop Obama's Mo? >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Crazy Interpretation Of The Day: Obama Win Is a Defeat For Daily Kos | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

HAHA>. he's half right though, which (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MarkL on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST

makes it a joke on Kos.
Obama really is the son of Lieberman.

No body seems to have noticed (5.00 / 0) (#11)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:18:07 PM EST

that the Florida primary was a big loss for our media. Some of their faves did not fare well. Obama was roundly defeated. (Yes I know the votes may not count eventually, but the Florida Dems were not playing games with their votes.) And their beloved Guiliani flamed out. The only win they had was McCain.

Heh (5.00 / 3) (#26)
by Steve M on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:38:03 PM EST

Thanks for a good laugh.

I do find it strange that DKos, which seemed quite attracted to your politics of contrast concept, has embraced Obama wholeheartedly. I suppose it helps that his opponent is the Queen of All Evil. Still, he does a very impressive job of being all things to all people!

: Cults of Personality will do that (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:44:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Off topic--apologies (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by NJDem on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:39:34 PM EST

The Huff now has a story about an Obama adviser saying to the effect that '...Obama doesn't have crying fits on TV...'

Acutally the whole quote is pretty outrageous for it's falsehoods and meanspiritedness. Now the OB campaign has distanced itself from him, but the Hillary camp is never so lucky when a surrgate goes over-board.

If the issue of the race card is legitmate, how come this doens't scream mysogyny? I mean, the women didn't even cry, she got verklempt, but held back tears which is why her voice cracked. But somehow it's a "crying fit" now?

I don't want to sound vengeful, but why should the BO camp be able to get away with this, especially now?

What a jerk. (none / 0) (#37)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST

I'm glad Obama quickly disavowed the comments and made the guy apologize.

[ Parent ]

: hey, get mad (none / 0) (#41)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST

at Huffpo for quoting it. Ya think that wasnt on purpose? We already know that Obama has some very immature people on his team. Let them play in the mud all by themselves.

[ Parent ]

Huffpost (none / 0) (#51)
by mexboy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST

Huffpost is disgusting. I used to go there all the time, but now I never read their boards. It's just filled with lies and hate, and who needs that?

[ Parent ]

AMEN TO THAT (none / 0) (#52)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST

I, too, never go there anymore. The bias and irrationality are too discouraging.

[ Parent ]

: sad, aint it? (none / 0) (#54)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM EST

she hired some very good people to write columns. I was an early fan of the site.

[ Parent ]

Being the nation's most influential (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by Militarytracy on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:31:12 PM EST

liberal blog means?????????? In the world of long term human synapsis and firing neurons you're still a baby. Lots and lots of people can wish the liberal blogosphere away but I don't think it's going any place except deeper, bigger, more, better......how sad.....the media will have to go back to earning their chops again. Overly coddled wankers beware!

Or that Lamont endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#1)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:32:28 AM EST

Or that Kos himself voted for Obama.

Or that DailyKos readers are decidedly pro-Obama.

That was funny, thanks for sharing BTD.

dangerstein? (none / 0) (#3)
by squeaky on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:50:57 AM EST

What were his parents thinking?

I'm trying to picture DK a couple of years (none / 0) (#4)
by Teresa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:51:54 AM EST

into an Obama Presidency. That place is pretty hard on Democrats and if he governs by getting along with Republicans it will be interesting to see the reaction. Right now they see his unity message as good and even defend the Harry and Louise ad as a good thing. When/if he actually governs this way, will they still keep him on their pedestal?

Over the last year, they have slammed any Democrat who tried to work with Republicans (which I personally think is a waste of time) but now they believe Obama has some kind of magic to do it in a way that we will win all these battles. It just seems upside down to me.

An Obama win right now is a huge win for Daily Kos so that article makes no sense. Long-term, I'm not sure it's a winner. I think they would enjoy themselves more criticizing a Clinton Presidency.

If Obama delivers (4.00 / 0) (#5)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:59:35 AM EST

on getting youth to register and vote as Democrats, then Congress will be much more liberal too. Obama likely wouldn't veto approved legislation because it looks divisive.

At least that's my fantasy....

[ Parent ]

Slammed Democrats that worked with Republicans? (none / 0) (#16)
by standingup on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:25:05 PM EST

I think it was more of an attempt to get Democrats to work with Democrats. Greenwald's post on bipartisanship nails the problem Democrats have made for themselves in Washington:

On virtually every major controversial issue -- particularly, though not only, ones involving national security and terrorism -- the Republicans (including their vaunted mythical moderates and mavericks) vote in almost complete lockstep in favor of the President, the Democratic caucus splits, and the Republicans then get their way on every issue thanks to "bipartisan" support. That's what "bipartisanship" in Washington means.

I expected the anti-Clinton sentiment. The lack of critical examination of Obama on Dkos has been disappointing for me.

I am not sure of what will happen if Obama wins and they are faced with the reality of how he governs. I see Obama being further to the right than many kossacks. He has been put on a high pedestal and become the essence of their hope. What happens when he can't be everything they have built him up to be? I wonder if his younger supporters are in this for the long haul.

[ Parent ]

It Will Be Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by MO Blue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST

Will Kos or many of Obama's more hard core supporters critically examine how he governs if he is elected? They have invested a lot of their personal selves in his campaign. They have gotten in the habit of excusing any and all of his actions and tuning out even the most mild or rationale criticisms . Will they be willing to break these habit? Kos, maybe. Many of Obama's supporters, I'm not so sure.

There is no way IMO that anyone could live up to the expectations that Obama's younger supporters have because they are not based on reality. Some will deny he is not meeting the expectations. Some will learn by this experience but I'm afraid that some will also just become disillusioned and no longer participate.

[ Parent ]

: True (none / 0) (#45)
by standingup on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM EST

Helping to elect a candidate is only the first step in affecting change. It remains to be seen if they are willing to continue to work as hard to push for the policies and issues that will make a difference or to hold Obama accountable.

[ Parent ]

You explained that much better than I did. (none / 0) (#25)
by Teresa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST

Though, I also think they spend a lot of time bashing Democrats who compromise with Republicans not just vote with them. I think it's both.

And I agree very much with your last two paragraphs. I voted for HC last Wednesday and I feel like I know what I'm getting with my vote. I'm not sure what the Obama supporters (not all of them) think they are getting and when/if he disappoints them, I think many of the new voters will go back to being uninvolved. The political junkies that remain will explode the way they did when posted on that site a few years ago.

[ Parent ]

Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by standingup on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:46:30 PM EST

I do agree Dkos can be very harsh when it comes to criticism.

[ Parent ]

Correction (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Teresa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:52:59 PM EST

The political junkies that remain will explode the way they did when Obama posted on that site a few years ago.

[ Parent ]

: Yes...he never came back (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by Maddie In Florida on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:58:09 PM EST

Kind of dissed them.

[ Parent ]

"left's poster child for (none / 0) (#6)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:00:33 PM EST

partisan pugnacity"

You've got to admit, the guy has a way with words.

I admit no such thing (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:18:24 PM EST

Such a phrase makes for a good headline but is rather ridiculous in the body of the text.

I never cared for this Safirean nonsense in terms of speech or writing. That is headline writing.

[ Parent ]

Not your style, of course, but (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST

I enjoy a little alliteration. Although I would characterize DK at present as far beyond "partisan pugnacity."

[ Parent ]

Alliteration is for headlines (none / 0) (#34)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:46:55 PM EST

nah (none / 0) (#38)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:52:40 PM EST

their is always room in commentary for wit and word play. Satire's column about words, phrases and their sources were a blast to some of us.

[ Parent ]

: ooh (none / 0) (#48)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST

satire for safire. I need a moment to reflect on that one.

[ Parent ]

Yeah, but that should be BTD's title (none / 0) (#13)
by robrecht on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:19:09 PM EST

You're being unfair (none / 0) (#7)
by halstoon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:00:57 PM EST

BTD,

I appreciate the work you do here, but in this instance I think you're being patently unfair. Specifically, you fail to acknowledge the real thesis of Mr. Gerstein's piece, which is that Democrats are choosing a strategy of cooperation over a strategy based on divisiveness and anger.

It is undeniable that Kos and his followers have followed a strategy based on beating the GOP at their own game, which is basically demonizing the opponent. Obama chose to go the route of unity and hope that post-partisanship is possible. Mr. Edwards was campaigning on the idea that corporations and the rich Repubs that run them are inherently evil and uninterested in the plight of the poor. Mr. Obama spoke more in terms of his belief that those people could be shown the error of their ways and willingly participate in the improvement of the lives of the underclass. In the end, Obama won, and thus the strategy of Edwards and those at Kos lost.

What you call a "funny" column is actually a rather astute assessment of the reasons for BO's success and JE/Kos' failure.

Divisiveness and anger (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:14:12 PM EST

And here I thought that the big problem with both Clintons is that they keep committing the evil sin of "triangulation", which means working with opponents to come work together to find consensus.

As for the sources of divisiveness and anger, try looking to all the overt Clinton hatred coming from the mainstream media. I hope everyone saw the clip of Craig Crawford talking about this. At first I wondered what had taken him so long. Then I realized that he had been laid up with an injury so he had sat around for days watching the campaign coverage. He was clearly surprised and appalled by what he had seen from his friends and colleagues.

And don't kid yourself that Obama is so pure. That Harry and Louise mailing is plenty divisive. Not to mention misleading. And dumb.

[ Parent ]

you don't get this triangulation thing (none / 0) (#49)
by Tano on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST

Triangulation is NOT about "working with opponents to come work together to find consensus."

It has nothing whatsoever to do with a strategy for accomplishing policy goals. It is wholly a strategy for political posturing and survival. It is a defensive strategy whose only goal is to defuse incoming fire and undermine your opponents own position so that you emerge relatively unscathed, and still standing.

It is the strategy that leads, for example, to taking a potentially defining moment - the reelection of a "progressive" president, and chooses to define that moment around an issue like school uniforms.

That is why it has the reputation for being "evil" - it is a strategy that subsumes the goals of a movement for the positioning of a visionless candidate in a hostile landscape that he has no real control of.

[ Parent ]

One person's partisonship (5.00 / 2) (#55)
by BernieO on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 03:45:04 PM EST

is another's triangulation. I have been watching politics since I was a child and Kennedy ran for office and have watched extremely closely since the late 80's so I beg to differ on your definition of triangulation. I have seen the term used against Bill Clinton for compromising with the other side when he could not get everything he wanted.
The difference between triangulation and bipartisanship or a centrist approach appears to be one of imputed motive. If Obama has left out mandates from his health care program because he is trying to appease the right, even though he thinks it is wrong that is triangulating. If he did it because he truly believes that this is the best plan then he is being a centrist. If he did it because he thinks it is the only plan that will possibly pass and half a loaf is better than none he is being pragmatic. The answer depends on the person making the judgement who imputes the motive, which is generally based in bias. Left wing ideologues hate the Clintons for being purists so they disparage them as triangulators. What is odd is how many of them praise Obama for bipartisanship. There is no objectivity about this.

[ Parent ]

: smart (none / 0) (#56)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 04:10:51 PM EST

and savvy post.

[ Parent ]
: Wow - that is the first time (none / 0) (#57)
by Tano on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 05:25:21 PM EST

I have ever heard anyone claim that anyone on earth has ever viewed the Clintons as "purists".
Although this is not an endorsement of Wikipedia, I think they have a pretty good handle on the triangulation definition;
"The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election. It is often referred to as "Clintonian triangulation". Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic Party. The idea Clinton used behind some of these policies was to be "more Republican than the Republicans." These policies included welfare reform, tax cuts for the middle class and balanced budgets. One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996 State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "Era of Big Government is over."
As I said, it has nothing to do with forging consensus. It is all about political positioning with the ultimate goal being the survival of the candidate, not the advancement of any movement.
It is also fundamentally different than what Obama is trying to do - to actually win over independents and some Republicans to Democratic ideas.

[ Parent ]

But Lieberman is not about cooperation (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST

Liebrman engages in an incredibly subversive and narcissitic form of politics that has nothing to do with cooperating, taking a centrist position unnecessarily to the right just to prove his "independence" for the spotlight. His politics only were nominally labeled as cooperative because he had a D by his name, whereas if he had an R by his name, he'd be just another Republican.

As backlash developed against his style of politics, he became even more obnoxious and spiteful without any pretense of cooperation. Lieberman is the anti-Obama, the anti-Clinton, the anti-Democrat, the anti-decent-person (aka: a dick). And Gerstein characterizing Lieberman as a cooperator is a lie.

[ Parent ]

: He is cooperating with Republicans. (5.00 / 0) (#17)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:25:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: Well stated (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:26:48 PM EST

It is also a mischaracterization of the politics of contrast which Oboma practiced somewhat for the first time in the last debate.

[ Parent ]

Excuse me (none / 0) (#10)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:16:48 PM EST

It was Mr. Gerstein who decided to insert the execrable Senator Lieberman into the conversation.

As for what the politics of contrast is, may I suggest that you know not of what you speak.

You description of it is as ill informed as Mr. Gerstein's unintenionall hilarious column. Or you were being intentionally distortive and unfair.

I leave it to you to explain which it was.

[ Parent ]

I'm not defending Lieberman, sorry (none / 0) (#28)
by halstoon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:39:40 PM EST

What I meant is that the column really points out more that the style of Kos and Lamont and Edwards is not being embraced this year. Sure Barack is angry, as is Hillary, and as we all are about the state of affairs now. But campaigning as the "angry" candidate is not what has people mobilized, hence Edwards' poor showing, my admiration for his cause and belief in his ideas aside.

I do regret any appearance of a Lieberman endorsement. That is not what I meant, and I support Obama precisely because I don't think he'll pull a Lieberman/Clinton and essentially chicken out when the time comes to make a hard stand.

On the mailer issue, I don't see what is so dastardly about it. Hillary made it very clear that she believes in mandates, which is why she can make the claim that Obama "leaves people out" while she "couldn't choose" who to leave without care. Mandates means you have to buy it, regardless. If it is mandatory, as Obama pointed out in the debate, then there must be some enforcement measure. That means penalties or consequences, other than not having insurance. The mailer highlights her support of mandates and Obama's belief that if it is made available at an affordable price, people will buy it.

They really don't differ on health care. They both support subsidies, which is really all Medicaid and Medicare are now. They're just talking about giving the money to private corporations instead of putting people into a gov't plan. Semantics at the end.

The Obama/Clinton race really is one of personality. They're united on message, so it really is about who you think is the better candidate. On that measure, I choose Obama. Hillary can still have major influence in the Senate, but I really think Obama would make a better representative of the American voice around the world. As for purity, who is? We're picking a politician, not a savior.

[ Parent ]

You do not understand the politcs of contrast (none / 0) (#32)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:46:13 PM EST

Your description of it is an uniformed joke.

[ Parent ]

You're really bent on name calling aren't you? (none / 0) (#50)
by halstoon on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 02:36:59 PM EST

Call me "uniformed"...but the joke is your approach to analysis in this case

[ Parent ]

: I did not call you a name (none / 0) (#58)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:18:22 AM EST

You simply do not know what you are talking about when you discuss the politics of contrast.
Sorry if saying that offends you.

[ Parent ]

Yes, a site that is 77% pro-Obama, whose (none / 0) (#9)
by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:16:38 PM EST

proprietor voted for Obama would be heartbroken by him winning.

Just like Ned Lamont is rooting for Hillary.

A truly absurd article (none / 0) (#19)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:25:39 PM EST

Hasn't Edwards consistently (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM EST

won the straw polls on DK by a wide margin?

[ Parent ]

It was a close split mostly (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:27:49 PM EST

Obama always ran quite strongly in the poll.

as for the diaries, well Obama was the CLEAR favorite.

[ Parent ]

Edwards is no longer in the race. (none / 0) (#23)
by Geekesque on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST

When it was Obama vs. Clinton, Obama won 77-11%, with the remainder undecided or voting for Gravel/Edwards.

[ Parent ]

: Actually, I knew Edwards is no longer (none / 0) (#44)
by oculus on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:04:07 PM EST

in the race, so please don't be condescending. Thanks for the response on the straw polls.

[ Parent ]

Mainstream Blogopundits (none / 0) (#18)
by Stellaaa on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:25:29 PM EST

I now believe that we have Mainstream blogs. They picked sides. Now they have to be that side. That side is faith based. Which one of these guys will throw the first criticism or pose the first questions of Obama? The mob they fueled they will not be able to control. The style of the blogs was based in the binary:" Bush bad" " Us Good", I shared this sentiment. The blogs transferred this binary to the primary. Demonize Hillary and sanctify Obama. If elected Obama's machine will want to sustain the aura. So the blogs will become the embedded journalists. To sustain their hits, they will pander. All you had to do is look at the pictures of Hillary at Huff post, the hate letters at Salon when they have a slightly critical story, the mob that shuts out any opposition with vile language and sophistry. The old MSM, will join right in cause they do every time, except when there is a Clinton. Think Left will be a place for discussion. I think they lost their credibility. If Obama does not win, if Hillary wins, they will be able to sustain themselves through Hillary hate. But if McCain wins the mob will go back to MySpace and Facebook blogging about American Idol.

Heh (none / 0) (#24)
by TheRealFrank on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:34:11 PM EST

I think he's trying to make a point that others have been making: the lefty blogs have been advocating getting a backbone, and practicing the politics of contrast.

Now here's Obama, who has been full of talk about bipartisanship, and doesn't shy away from using GOP frames to attack other Democrats (social security, healthcare).

So yes, that's ironic.

Of course, the Lieberman comparison doesn't hold, as a comparison between Lieberman's voting record and Obama's voting record shows.

They gave up that point (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM EST

when they embraced Obama blindly.

And to drag Lieberman into the equation is just too funny.

[ Parent ]

Not blind (none / 0) (#43)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:03:46 PM EST

Speaking for me

It is a "roll of the dice" to get more people involved in the process as Democrats. Obama would not be the first politician to let me down after I voted for them.

(Yes, Ken Salazar, I'm talking to you!)

[ Parent ]

Daily Kos (not the FP) (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:13:06 PM EST

went pretty blindly.

You do know I am an Obama supporter right? Tepid, but still an Obama supporter.

[ Parent ]

: Ditto (none / 0) (#47)
by magster on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 01:16:40 PM EST

Maybe a bit more than tepid since SC for me.

[ Parent ]

my take (none / 0) (#35)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:49:32 PM EST

Daily Kos has for years been about slash and burn the outsiders and now it is slash and burn members of their own party like HRC and anyone who supports her. On this the guy is right.

I do think this whole article was a way for the WSJ to defend supporting Obama for the nomination while taking down a Democrat at the same time. You will note there is minimal comment - one line - about their hatred of HRC. That would throw off his central theme becasue they dont want to link her with Lieberman.

Some good points made to go south because he wont close the circle.

: pardon (none / 0) (#36)
by Judith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:51:34 PM EST

not the wsj supporting Obama.

[ Parent ]

Well, I donated to Lamont (none / 0) (#40)
by Maddie In Florida on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 12:54:59 PM EST

but also thought him to not be an effective candidate.

I still don't know why other Democrats with letter only don't get the same treatment as Lieberman. It was pretty vicious, as it is with Hillary.

I consider myself a longtime liberal but have problem with character assassination of any Democrat. Of course, I work in mental health and you know what we say about all that rage against another person.