home

The Battle Of Establishments

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Yglesias writes:

an Obama win would represent an alternation of elites. Important left-of-center people who haven't happened to be the most important left of center people over the past 15 years or so would rise to leadership. A Clinton win would be the return of the people who ran the show in the late 1990s and who continued to be the predominant influence in the 21st century. But in neither case are you getting a real toppling of hierarchies and massive infusion of outsiders.

This is right as far as it goes. What is interesting is where is does NOT go - to discuss the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and the Establishment blogs. One of the most important functions of the progressive blogs has been its Media criticism. But even here, discussing the issue of who the Establishment supports, a Big Media blogger like Matt ignores the elephant in the room - the Media's unvarnished hatred of Hillary Clinton and its unabashed support for Barack Obama. The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama. To me it is obvious that Obama is the candidate of the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment, the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and Establishment bloggers.

< Mukasey Asks Congress to Block Release for Non-First Time Crack Offenders | Whoopi Goldberg Switches From Obama To Hillary >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Battle Of Establishments | 197 comments (197 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Establishment blogs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    what exactly counts as such?

    Establishment media? like Dan Abrams?  Paul Bagala David Gergan and James Carville, MR MTP regular?  How about Paul Krugman, you know he writes for the under ground college paper called the New York Times.  Or hey what about Joe Klein, who bashes Obama supporters, is that the media establishment that is soo pro Obama?
     

    Joe Klein (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    liked the Clintons initially but was one of their biggest bashers when the in crowd turned on them. He is a tool.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting that you have to reach (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    for Dan Abrams and occasional Media commenters like OPENLY CLINTONISTA figures like Carville and Begala.

    Your comment is tremendous evidence that I am correct.

    [ Parent ]

    nope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    who is pro Obama?  I pointed out the egregious Clinton supporters. name the the pro Obama because i bet i can find many instances where they have bashed Obama.  you just think that if anyone utters criticism of Hillary Clinton they are anti Clinton and pro Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Who in the blogs? Or who in the Media? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    But this is all rather silly imo.

    If you are arguing there is no anti-Hillary bias in the Media and the blogs, I really do not think there is much to discuss.

    [ Parent ]

    right (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    lets get one name you have dropped as being pro Obama todd beeton at mydd, which you claim as being pro Obama, when it is pretty clear it is pro Clinton.  Anyhow Mr Beeton voted for Clinton.  Like i said if someone criticizes Clinton you are automatically going to classify it as unfair, and write them off as pro-Obama.  

    So your view of a fair world is what Taylor Marshes blog?

    [ Parent ]

    I do not recall (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    saying that about Todd.

    Singer I might have but he has sought to stay balanced I  think.

    But you know my big beef is with the epicenter of "respectable" blogging - Josh Marshall.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh Sigh -- Most Bloggers Are All Out for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:41 PM EST
    Spend anytime recently at www.dailykos.com? Some argue the same about www.talkingpoints.memo and www. firedoglake.com but I don't see it as much. There are many others as well but those are the most well known.

    It's sad really because when they started most blogs sought to distinguish themselves as the reality based community. All attacked the MSM for their endless attacks on individuals and failure to report facts. None ever shied away from being partisans but generally it was for progressive ideals.

    Ultimately its the last point that kills me. If I had seen this type of blogger attack for someone like Edwards, then I might understand it. But Obama is a DLC democrat, regardless of whether he belongs to the organization. The few opportunities that he had as a senator to lead on progressive have generally been avoided with present votes.

    No, this is a jockeying for power. Markos made it clear that he liked both candidates - at least a few weeks ago - but couldn't stand seeing Terry MaCaulife (sp?) next to Hillary. Fine. But how does he feel about Daschle and Lieberman being Obama's mentors? Clearly he doesn't care if he eliminates her campaign staff. As though that will really purge them or their type from the Party. More to the point as if Obama's people are truly any different.

    Clearly the progressives need to take back the party. But this jumping the gun for someone not fully vetted and not that strong a progressive makes a mockery of that desire. It also sets it back years. We all kiss and make up for the candidates, but we will not with each other.  

    [ Parent ]

    very good points (none / 0) (#177)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Jerome Voted For Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    so I think your claim that My DD is a Clinton site is unfounded.

    [ Parent ]
    Establishment blogs? (none / 0) (#64)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Not sure the definition, but here are the top 5 traffic wise:

    Daily Kos - clearly an Obama supporter

    Talking Points Memo - despite the rants from commenters on this site the whole TMP empire has been pretty even handed and do not push a candidate

    Democratic Underground - Neutral

    Eschaton - Neutral

    The Carpetbagger Report - Neutral

    Washington Monthly - Said he's going to vote for Obama but has been evenhanded in coverage

    Firedog Lake - has attacked and defended both candidates equally

    My DD - Clinton supporter

    [ Parent ]

    More (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    Huffington Post -- !!!!!OBAMA!!!!!

    AmericaBlog -- Obama.

    [ Parent ]

    Bloggers (none / 0) (#105)
    by piezo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    Thank Koresh for BartCop

    [ Parent ]
    Traffic rankings of each site. (none / 0) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    Here are sites with rankings per Alexa.com.  The rankings pertain to where they fall in the top 100,000 accessed sites on the net.

    Note that the ones with the relatively high rankings (and a ranking of 4500 is REALLY high when you consider that Pepsi.com is ranked at about 60,000) are all PRO-BAMA! sites.

    Daily Kos - clearly an Obama supporter
    Rank:  ~4500

    Talking Points Memo - despite the rants from commenters on this site the whole TMP empire has been pretty even handed and do not push a candidate
    I disagree about even-handedness, but
    Rank:  ~20,000

    Democratic Underground - Neutral
    ~8000-14000

    Eschaton - Neutral
    ~65000-70000

    The Carpetbagger Report - Neutral
    Neutral?
    ~70,000

    Washington Monthly - Said he's going to vote for Obama but has been evenhanded in coverage
    ~60,000

    Firedog Lake - has attacked and defended both candidates equally
    ~60,000

    My DD - Clinton supporter
    Really?  all over the place is what I'd say.
    ~60,000

    Huffington Post -- !!!Obama supporter!!!
    ~2000

    Americablog.com -- pro-Obama
    (generously ~60,000)

    And Talkleft hit ~90,000 once but is otherwise unranked.

    Just thought this was interesting.

    [ Parent ]

    Who is pro-Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    I don't get MSNBC any more, because my cable package dropped it, but I hear that Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddows, and really just about the whole MSNBC lineup swoons for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by shogun on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    I don't think a new network should be pushing a candidate - they should report the news.  Clearly MSNBC is for OBama.

    Why won't OBama debate Hillary?  She won the last one!

    [ Parent ]

    More (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    Tim Russert is pro-Obama.  Hell, even Bill Bennett is pro-Obama!

    [ Parent ]
    oh gimme a break again (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    On a day that we see the MSM taking up and running with the Obama-is-a-substanceless-cult-leader meme, you are writing that the MSM is unabashedly pro-Obama?

    The same MSM that preached to us for almost all of 2007 how Hillary was inevitable?

    "Obama is the candidate of the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment"

    Well that is artfully worded. The Clintons ARE the Democratic establishment.
    So yeah, any established Democrat who happens not to be on board - well they probably support Obama. What are the choices - its a two-person race.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Kennedy? Daschle? Kerry? They are not part of the establishment?

    You're making a mistake in assuming that there is one "establishment". There are multiple powerful groups. Bill and Hillary Clinton have a group of friends and connections, certainly, But there are also other big power brokers in DC who have always considered the Clintons as, well, intruders. There is such a group in the "serious" media. Read this article from 1998, and see what I mean.

    The picture is not as black and white as you would like it to be.


    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Has the MSM taken that up? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    I have not seen it.

    That would really challenge my theory of support for Obama as Media Darling.

    Any links?

    [ Parent ]

    You should (none / 0) (#17)
    by jes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    get out more.

    [ Parent ]
    The MSM taking it up (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    seems missing to me.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed, it is just a trickle (none / 0) (#24)
    by jes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    and overblown as of yet.

    [ Parent ]
    Any links??? Any links??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    Oh geez, I kinda forget the URL but there is this site called,,,hmmm, Talk Left or something like that. I think they provided some links to ABC and Time magazine sometime recently - geez, maybe even today!

    [ Parent ]
    It's True (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    Jake Tapper is a long time Obama hater. His coverage has been corrected by media matters. He also appears sexist in that he has a problem with HRC getting mad or emotional. My guess is that he is for McCain.

    Still, why is it bad to have the press generally be behind your guy?

    [ Parent ]

    a blog post (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    as you yourself note is not a big deal.

    [ Parent ]
    oh c'mon BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    its a blog post the links to ABC News. Time magazine.
    Do you not consider them part of the MSM?

    [ Parent ]
    An ABC news BLOG (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    Not the same thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I haven't seen it either (none / 0) (#88)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    A few people are questioning the personality cult of a lot of his supporters, but I haven't seen a change in the majority of them. Their Clinton  hatred is long-standing and deep. (Ditto for Gore but the Nobel has chastened them at least for now.)

    If, however, they do change and become more critical of Obama, that would be consistent with another game they like to play, building someone up just to tear them down. This is actually something that I have heard several journalists openly admit to in the past. I would be surprised, though, because the dislike of both Clintons runs deep. It is true that the media did not go after her at first, but that was because she consistently outperformed everyone in the early debates. Neither Obama nor Edwards were comparable. But journalists were just waiting for an excuse to pounce. When she gave a less-than-clear answer to the drivers' license question in the Philadelphia debate they acted as if she had completely blown the whole debate. Two weeks later, after knowing this was a likely question, Obama fumbled it, too. He was criticised at the time, but it quickly died down. Yet I still heard mention of Hillary's supposed terrible performance in Philly after Obama's flub. The media was just waiting for an excuse to tear her down.
    Their dislike is so blatant that a few journalists have actually admitted as much. Dana Milbank, Howard Kurtz, Craig Crawford and Dan Abrams have all commented on this. The sad thing is that people do not notice until it is their candidate that is being trashed. I do not like to see this done to anyone. We need facts, not spin. It is insulting to try to sway voters just because you think you are smarter than the average person.

    [ Parent ]

    You're party right I think (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    The media loves to take down a front-runner and push up the insurgent. That may benefit Clinton in a few weeks, we'll see.

    I think it has little to do with any Clinton biases and a lot more to do with the media's natural need for a story.

    [ Parent ]

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    There has been a well documented longstanding personal hatred of the Clintons that goes back to the 90's. The inside-the-beltway club took an instant dislike to what they perceived as rubes invading their town. Sally Quinn, wife of the Wash Post's Ben Bradlee and the center of inside DC society, wrote a famous article about this. She quoted the sainted David Broder as saying that Clinton came in and trashed the place and it wasn't his place. They think they own the town.
    Particularly funny was Quinn's outrage over the Monica affair. Ben Bradlee made it clear in his memoir that Sally had pursued him, even though he was married at the time, until they had an affair that broke up his marriage. (Hey, kettle!)

    The irrational hatred of the Clintons by the MSM has been documented in depth by people like Gene Lyons and Joe Conason in their book "The Hunting of the President".

    If you doubt that the media would behave this way, just think back to their treatment of Gore in 2000. They fawned over Bush, praising him as a straight shooter, and mocked Gore every chance they got. He was accused of lying when he hadn't (like the bogus story that he had claimed to have invented the internet). They overlooked Bush's checkered past - his bankruptcies, insider trading, nasty behavior, mediocrity as governor - and overlooked his blatant lies. This never changed throughout the election. So to assume that they will not continue to treat Hillary in this manner is to ignore their past behavior.

    This should not be aceptable no matter whom they treat this way. I have never voted for a Republican for president, but I stopped taking Newsweek after they ran a cover implying that the first president Bush was a wimp. (The Wimp Factor)
    He was a decorated fighter pilot who had been shot down during WWII and I found it incredibly offensive that they did this.

    None of us should be complacent when the media tries to spin a candidate to make them look bad or good. That is an insult to all voters and it has been highly damaging to our democracy. Had the media done it's job in 2000, there is no way Bush would have won.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree the media is crap (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    But, we run with the media we have, not the media we want. Whining about it just gives it to the Republicans in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    I DON'T WHINE (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:21:23 PM EST
    I protest whenever I see this kind of thing going on. And I do my best to get others to see what is happening and speak up, too. It really works if enough people bother to take a stand. Look at how quickly the complaints against MSNBC got them to pressure Tweety to apologize. Or how the response to Imus got him fired. That is only a beginning, but these kind of tactics works. Republicans have been doing this for years and the media is seriously intimidated by them. They have been known to boycott sponsors, too. It's time Democrats woke up and stopped taking this kind of treatment of our candidates.
    I am not willing to just give up. If you want a healthy democracy this is a fight worth having - and long overdue.

    [ Parent ]
    Probably right (none / 0) (#108)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    If that's the case then Obama is in for a rough ride. He's the frontrunner; his momentum is taking him right into the knives.

    What the timing of this will mean is unclear; if the media frenzy lasts long enough it might deliver Hillary the nomination. If it stops short then they might jump on Hillary again just in time to rescue Obama's nomination. It might not happen at all.

    Of course, this is discounting whatever reactions Obama has to being pilloried fairly/unfairly in the media. If he reacts the way he does normally to not getting his way, the press will have a FIELD DAY.

    I don't want the media to treat him unfairly. I just want them to vet him a little more than they have been. If he's going to get the nomination I'd rather all the dirt come out NOW, before October.

    [ Parent ]

    True (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    As I said downthread, no one said being the front runner was easy. It's all how you handle it. Frankly, if Obama blows it with the media in the next month, I'd say he deserves to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Media/Clinton (none / 0) (#109)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    A little  naive,  Andrew.  Media  CLEARLY  was anti-Clinton.

    But you'll  find out.  They  also    love  John McCain.   As  soon   as  it's  McCain vs. Obama,  as  you  support,  they'll throw  Obama  under  the bus.    Hide  and watch.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    It wasn't anti-Clinton from last July until October. Then they got bored writing that Clinton was the predestined one and started looking for slipups. No one said being a front-runner is easy.

    [ Parent ]
    They were always waiting for slip ups (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    But she didn't deliver. And Obama was clearly not a match for her back then so they held their tongues. Also it was not as big a topic of conversation back then. But they have always been hostile to her.
    As for Obama, who knows? They do love McCain. And the Republican slime machine will give them tons of ammunition against Obama. After all, they managed to make Kerry's war heroism a negative, so they can smear anyone. Facts are not an issue for these guys.

    [ Parent ]
    do you read your own blog? ;-) (none / 0) (#122)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    Did you notice that the title of Jerlyn's post earlier today was: "NYTimes Analysis: Obama Fervor Fell Short"?  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    do you read this blog? ;-) (none / 0) (#123)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    Did you notice that the title of Jerlyn's post earlier today was: "NYTimes Analysis: Obama Fervor Fell Short"?  ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Is that the big hit piece? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Where does Teddy Kennedy fit into (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    your scenario?

    [ Parent ]
    part of the establishment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    that is slipping away from the old to the new.

    Look, there is no doubt that if/when Obama is the nominee, he will become the new leader of the Democratic establishment. By definition.

    And we may well be seeing the transferrance of leadership happening, slowly and gradually, as more people cross over.

    But until now, the Clintons have reigned as leaders of the establishment for 15 years.

    [ Parent ]

    Kennedy and Kerry and Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    This is what we are supposed to change to in terms of establishment?  Losers?  These people who support the "new" establishment are so full crap...but more importantly...they are the losers of our party...Now aligned with the progressive blogs....for our own good?  I say that Hillary poses such a substantial threat to the establishment and the status quo that Washington punidits, the media and so called progressives and their establishment brethren, will stop at nothing to prevent her from getting the nomination...They will lie, cheat, and do whatever to distort the truth...because apparently the Hillary threat is life threatening to their power...interesting.  It's all about power. Ideology for these creeps plays no role.

    [ Parent ]
    Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    Agree  completely, Lily.  

    If   anybody  represented  the   Dem Establishment,  it  was  Teddy  Kennedy  and  John Kerry.     That  meant    Obama  DID have  the   establishment  behind  him.    

    But  it didn't  work.   Even  Massachusetts  ignored  them.    

    Clintons  were  NEVER  the  "establishment."  

    Not  like  the  Kennedy  clan.  

    [ Parent ]

    huh? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    let me get this straight.

    The co-presidents of the United States for 8 years, who have connections of loyalty and obligation to almost every Democratic politician in DC and around the country, and every Democratic policy person - all of whom, to the extent they have any experience in government - actually worked for the Clintons, and who now represent the leading elder statesman of the party, and one of its most important Senators - these people, you are claiming, are a threat to some establishment?

    C'mon, this is just ridiculous. They ARE the establisment. You cant possibly get more establishment than they are.

    And its all about power? Geez, that is what is going to be enscribed on the Clinton's tombstone.

    [ Parent ]

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    The Clintons were never part of the DC establishment.  They were outcast.  In the words of Washington Post columnist David Broder, "They came in and trashed the place, and it wasn't their place."
    They were vilified, and not part of the smart set.
    And in case you've forgotten, Bill Clinton was impeached.  Meanwhile, our current President has used the Constitution for toilet paper and will breeze out of office unscathed.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh ? (none / 0) (#115)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was not impeached.

    [ Parent ]
    Impeached and (none / 0) (#117)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    not convicted

    [ Parent ]
    correct terms (none / 0) (#125)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    impeached and charges defeated

    [ Parent ]
    Impeached is (none / 0) (#169)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    like being indicted. He was not convicted.

    [ Parent ]
    and that is the problem,,,they (none / 0) (#46)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    are kicking and screaming because some guy is trying to take their power away.  That's why it has gotten personal, ugly and racial.  I was a HUGE Bill Clinton Supporter (still am sort of) but what he and his wife did in the name of getting votes to Obama in S. Carolina will never be forgotten...the Regan thing which was totally mis characterized and the Jesse thing proves that they will say or do anything.  When they finally realized how destructive it was being (I.E.  Bill Clinton did not have any black people show up to the last 2 days of rallies in S. Carolina), they changed their strategy.  Not because it was the proper and ethical thing to do, but because it was causing them votes.    I lost quite a bit of respect for them...it will take them a while to win it back.

    [ Parent ]
    oh and obama was a choir singer during all (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:21:15 AM EST
    the early primaries? NO!

    [ Parent ]
    What? (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    Kennedy an outsider? Give me a break. Besides why do you take this analysis as negative toward Obama. It seems like a good thing for him.

    Is it that the support Obama gets from the press makes him look like he has been co-opted?

    Don't get it.

    [ Parent ]

    Reading comprehension...., (none / 0) (#25)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    it's a good skill to have.

    If you don't see there is more than one Democratic establishment then you are naive, if you do see that, then you have to be honest about it.

    One Democratic Establishment, which includes Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry, Durbin, McCaskill, Emmanuel (you can't honestly believe he is neutral do you? that would really make you naive), and a host of other major players supports Obama. Obama ain't no Ned Lamont, neither is he a Jesse Jackson. This is not necessarily a bad thing! IMHO, the "insurgency" meme is frankly just a now useless public-relations ploy, when he was coming up and IB the Obama campaign will soon drop it as a vestigial organ.

    Plus, I recall BTD has often written that the MSM is only currently in the tank for Obama and will turn on him as soon as it is a McCain/Obama matchup.

    You cannot honestly, honestly believe that the MSM favors Hillary Clinton. You cannot honestly then believe that "The Establishment" is in the tank for Clinton.

    Try spinning to the converted.


    [ Parent ]

    right (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    If you don't see there is more than one Democratic establishment then you are naive, if you do see that, then you have to be honest about it.

    what a great way to frame an argument, if you dont agree with me you are [insert insult]

    I think you point to establishment figure revolting against the Clintons.

    [ Parent ]

    I suppose it depends (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    on what your definition of "Establishment" is. If your's does not include the following: the last Democratic presidential nominee, the last Democratic senate majority leader, a large percentage of the declared current party elected officials including long-time standard bearers such as Ted Kennedy, the mainstream corporate media, mainstream progressive blogs including principally Kos and Huffpo, and mainstream progressive fund-raising outfits like Moveon, then you are right. I don't agree with you and think you are naive, or not fairly describing the world as it is.

    [ Parent ]
    did I say that? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    Why not deal with what I actually said?

    I did not say that the MSM favors Clinton. I was merely refuting the notion that the MSM is in the tank for Obama.

    The MSM is in the tank for their shareholders. They try to write stories that get them as many eyeballs as possible for their advertisers. Is this some revelation?

    If Obama is the exciting thing out in the real world, they will write about him. And writing about an exciting inspiring new force is going to sound laudatory. But if they can get another story line going, if they sense that people are gettting tired of the first meme, then they will pick up another. And if it is a negative one, who cares - as long as it sells papers.

    So no, they are not in the tank for Obama. His phenomenon is a cash cow for them - positive stories, negative stories. Doesnt make much difference

    [ Parent ]

    Distinction without a difference (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    I agree they will change the tune if it becomes McCain vs. Obama. Obama is the flavor of the month.

    Your characterization as "an exciting inspiring new force" is your characterization, it is also the one the MSM has been pushing. Nobody is all that much interested in the anti-Hillary narrative (to refute your claim, it doesn't earn them any eyeballs) but that don't mean they aren't pushing it. The narratives that are set out: Obama exciting, fresh, unifiying, change, yada yada; Hillary, old, dynastic, divisive, crying, yada yada, have very little to do with eyeballs and everything to do with the laziness of the media and entrenched ESTABLISHMENT attitudes.

    [ Parent ]

    Distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#155)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    I agree they will change the tune if it becomes McCain vs. Obama. Obama is the flavor of the month.

    Your characterization as "an exciting inspiring new force" is your characterization, it is also the one the MSM has been pushing. Nobody is all that much interested in the anti-Hillary narrative (to refute your claim, it doesn't earn them any eyeballs) but that don't mean they aren't pushing it. The narratives that are set out: Obama exciting, fresh, unifiying, change, yada yada; Hillary, old, dynastic, divisive, crying, yada yada, have very little to do with eyeballs and everything to do with the laziness of the media and entrenched ESTABLISHMENT attitudes.

    [ Parent ]

    Where? (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    Obama-is-a-substanceless-cult-leader meme,

    Where?  I haven't seen that, although is a meme that I am personally pushing really hard...

    Anyway, do you have a link?

    [ Parent ]

    read the post from earlier today (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    there are links there to ABC and Time mag.

    [ Parent ]
    Liberal Voices? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by vdeputy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    What gets me is Matt saying "important left of center people" who haven't been heard for a long time would have a voice in an Obama administration.  Who are these left of center people? Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, Z Brzenzki (sp) et al? Seems to me that many of the congresspeople and governors and other politicians who support Obama tend to be more right of center than the Clinton supporters. It is mostly the "establishment" bloggers and their readers who have inexplicably convinced themselves that Barack is the most progressive/liberal candidate.

    Most of "The Establishment" (none / 0) (#137)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    From the 1990s were the DLC'ers - McAuliffe, Carville, Penn, etc. That's one of the reasons why I support Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    His policies (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    are classic DLC, or even more conservative in the case of health care. That's what his reaching out is all about.

    [ Parent ]
    Right (none / 0) (#175)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM EST
    His policies, which are basically indistinguishable from Clinton's, are very DLC. I feel like I'm trapped in a weird logic-reversal zone.


    [ Parent ]
    Well...there ya go! (none / 0) (#188)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:25:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Good point... (none / 0) (#152)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    but probably not the one you intended to make.

    The 90s!  And while 'those people' (McAuliffe, Carville, Penn, etc.) may not be the people you would want to have over for supper, they were competent, stayed out of jail and moved the country forward on several fronts...crime, peace, prosperity, economic security.  That was the 'Clinton establishment.'

    What about the other establishment?  Well, the Dem half were AWOL when they weren't actually undermining everything the Clintons tried to do in policy and the social/media establishment were trying to impeach, jail, humiliate and send them back to Hicksville.  This is the establishment that drafted Obama to finally 'get' the Clintons.  And after they do so....then what?

    [ Parent ]

    I'll say it again... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    The Whitewater investigation was a waste of time and money. But Bill Clinton brought his impeachment upon himself when he lied under oath. Simple as that. Yes, the media and the Republicans were brutal, but he made it a whole lot easier on them.

    [ Parent ]
    I have to agree with you (none / 0) (#161)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:52:54 PM EST
    Bill was stupid.  He knew they were watching them.  He knew they wanted to take him down.  He never thought they would go after him for something that they were all doing (Gingrich, Vedder, etc) but they did.

    That being said, I will repeat my oft uttered statement from the Bush years: "Bill scr*wed one woman.  Bush scr*wed us all."

    [ Parent ]

    And the other side of the coin is... (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    Bill gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, increased sentences and a whole host of other centrist goodies (not to mention throwing Lani Guinier under the bus). The Clinton administration was certainly better than a Bush or Dole admin, but it was hardly a progressive paradise. HRC wants to bring the same people that advised WJC to do all this back into the Whitehouse.

    And which Obama advisers, in particular were in jail hmm? Or is this just random unsubstantiated slander? And which ones were undermining the Clintons? You're throwing a lot out there that I think you can't back up.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, gosh, Andrew...words have (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    meaning...don't put any in my mouth or go beyond what I actually said.  Nothing I said about the Clinton administration was meant to insinuate ANYTHING about any other candidate.  ie. "jail"

    ...although...now that you mention it, Rezko IS in jail and could be a problem when the R machine gets going on Obama.  He's not an advisor...only a friend and supporter and 'involved in a real estate deal,' (can you say Whitewater?) but the trial is this month and will be food for fools in the RW media.  God knows how that will go...probably low key until he's our nominee...then...INCOMING!

    Progressive paradise?  Heh.  Did I imply that?  Do you expect to see that in this country ever...?  The last D who was even close was FDR...hmmm?  Do we both live in the same reality?  Since then, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Clinton.  That's IT for Dems.  Arguably, the most progressive we could elect in the last 60 years is Bill Clinton.  It is what it is.

    I'm not one of the union Dems who thinks NAFTA and welfare reform were totally negative...Nafta about 50/50...needs a lot of work (and you may know that Hillary tried hard to talk Bill out of signing it...didn't vote for CAFTA herself in the Senate)...Welfare Reform needs some tweaking but it's not a failure.  You didn't mention NCLB & education...a Kennedy failure, btw, from an Obama advisor...will need major work.  Hillary will not bring all the same people into the White House that Bill did.  She's no clone and she's learned a few things since then.  Haven't we all!  But she does know who produced and who didn't...who is competent and who isn't...who wants good government and will make her look good while 'doing good' for Democrats so she can get things done and get reelected.  No?

    I don't do "random unsubstantiated slander" or any other kind of slander...you misinterpreted my statement entirely...I in no way was talking about Obama or anyone else.  It was a simple statement of fact/opinion about the Clinton admin.  If I did do slander, it sure wouldn't be smart to slander a Democrat and certainly not one who might be my party's nominee.  I'm a partisan Democrat and a Hillary supporter...not a fool or a hitperson.

    As for which ones were undermining the Clintons...if you lived through the 90s, were an activist Democrat as I was, your disappointment in the Congress and the first 2 years (93-94) before the Dems got thrown out of the majority in BOTH houses must have been as great as mine...greater than now...for we had it all.  All 3 branches.  The Dem majorities did not back up Clinton on ANYTHING except the tax package and the budget.  They bailed on singlepayer universal healthcare when then could have saved it...on gays in the military when they could have stood up to the military and the Joint Chiefs and backed Clinton up...caved/yawned on his appointments like Lani Guinier until he had to withdraw her...painful as Hell.  While they ignored all the Senate & House problems and scandals (thanks, Tom Foley) until Gingrich sent them packing.  Christ.  

    Bill Clinton's veto pen (you should look that up sometime) was all that stood between then and what we have now.  Bush signed all those wacky bills that Clinton vetoed.  Oh, well...

    Anyway, Andrew...I wasn't attacking your candidate and I never will.  In a couple of months, he might be MY candidate.  Express concerns?  Share my view?  You bet.

    And I will defend Democrats who are unfairly attacked by people with an agenda, whether they be progressives or rightwing nuts.

    [ Parent ]

    P.S. correction... (none / 0) (#187)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    Truman, JFK, LBJ...

    [ Parent ]
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    I wondered why so many Obamabots were saying yesterday that Bill Clinton being paid for speeches by companies out of the country meant that the $5mm loan to the campaign was using foreign money to finance an election.

    On ABC just now, Obama raised roughly the same concern.  "Where does the money come from?"

    It is very well known that one of the perks of being an ex-president is the speaking fees.  Considering Obama's Syria and Kenya connections, I think he should keep his mouth shut.

    (In the interst of full disclosure, let me say it right here and now: I have taken money from many foreign companies in my work.  I have invested in international stock funds and received dividends.  I used some of that income to make my donations to the campaign.  If you arrest Bill, you must arrest me, too.  Please put us in the same cell. so I have someone smart to talk to.)

    Hillary says the loan was from HER money. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:09:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    TOO TRUE (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM EST
    Why is  it that so many Democrats overlook the hatred the media had for Gore? Remember all the talk about how authentic Bush was compared to Gore? At one debate the reporters in the press room actually booed and jeered him. How unprofessional is that? They willingly passed on right wing lies about him, like the bogus "inventing the internet" story, while overlooking Bush's lies and obvious flaws. They weren't much better about Kerry. They criticised all kinds of trivial things about him, like his windsurfing.  
    To think this is limited to the big bad Clintons who got what they deserved is to ignore the facts. Check out the archives at dailyhowler.com to get an in depth picture of what was done to Gore and Kerry by the media.

    Obama and the 50-state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ctrenta on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    Here's some good diaries that explain what an Obama loss will mean to Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

    A vote for Clinton = a vote to end Dean's 50 State Strategy?

    Say Goodbye to Howard Dean.

    That says it all (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    Those who support the Establishment in this primary must know that they are, in effect, firing Howard Dean and his supporters in the DNC...Look for DLC chair Harold Ford to step in as head of the DNC, and to bring all of his DLC underlings with him.


    [ Parent ]
    A rough read. I agree, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    wouldn't Iglesia be justified in saying, please address MY post?  

    I did (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Why do you say I did not?

    [ Parent ]
    Because, after reading his piece and (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    finding out who from past Dem. admins. is helping Obama campaign and who is helping HRC's campaign, I expected you to critique his characterizations of who was an "insider" vs. who was just in the Bill Clinton administrations.  Of course, you are free to expand beyond what Iglesia sd.  That's blogging.  

    [ Parent ]
    I think his essential point is correct (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    The junior Clintonistas are for Obama. The senior Clintonistas are for Clinton.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh (none / 0) (#3)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    I think you have a pretty outsized opinion of how much bloggers influence the vote or people in Washington.

    Generalizing the fact that bloggers are generally for or against a particular candidate means anything about how the Establishment lines up is silly.

    I missed that part, because it isn't there. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Is there some other way to read this? (none / 0) (#15)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama.

    Generalizing how power is shifting behind the scenes inside Washington based on what some guy in front of a computer in Massachusetts or California say is a little ridiculous I think.

    Blogs are good for a lot of things, but as barometers of establishment, they are not.

    [ Parent ]

    Here is what my comment was about: (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    I think you have a pretty outsized opinion of how much bloggers influence the vote or people in Washington.


    [ Parent ]
    That was probably a bit of hyperbole (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    So I probably over-claimed on that. My general point is that anyone making claims about the establishment based on the post of one blogger, or that blogs have any kind of relationship to what is going on in the establishment in Washington is being silly.

    [ Parent ]
    No It's Valid Not Hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    The blogs' influence have moved beyond the computer screen. Just take a look at the Tester and Webb victories. Or the attacks on Thurmond, FISA, and Social Security.

    They do matter as well in regards to raising money and (I would argue) bringing in new voters.

    So yeah, they matter despite what Washington likes to say. That's why I could have wished they would have acted a bit more responsibly. I actually don't care that they hate Hillary. What I dislike is them repeating every Republican hate point, driving away every non-Obama supporter, and stating the most outrageous things as though they were gospel.

    [ Parent ]

    Since no one did what you describe (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    I can not imagine what your point might be.

    [ Parent ]
    Could you quote me on my views (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    of the influence of bloggers on opinions?

    [ Parent ]
    Well, what did you mean by this? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama.

    Apologies if I've misread, but it appears that you're taking Yglesias' statement and saying that it supports your opinion that bloggers are a barometer of how the establishment is lining up.

    [ Parent ]

    Reading Comprehension....., (none / 0) (#29)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    it's a good skill.

    Quote BTD:
    "This is right as far as it goes. What is interesting is where is does NOT go - to discuss the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and the Establishment blogs. One of the most important functions of the progressive blogs has been its Media criticism. But even here, discussing the issue of who the Establishment supports, a Big Media blogger like Matt"

    Establishment blogs. Establishment. Establishment blogs, various Establishments.......

    Yikes.

    [ Parent ]

    My opinion? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    Can you quote where I said the opinion you ascribe to me?

    [ Parent ]
    I was trying to basically rephrase your sentence (none / 0) (#67)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    And see if you agreed with the rephrasing. You make a statement saying that Yglesias' post is evidence that establishment blogs, media, and the DC elites back Clinton.

    All I see is words some random guy from Massachusetts wrote on his computer.

    [ Parent ]

    Yglesias is an establishment blogger (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    But I must concede your point that my followon sentence might give the impression that it was also proof of my larger point.

    I did not intend it as such. Just the point about Establishment bloggers.
     

    [ Parent ]

    No problem (none / 0) (#87)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    I get your meaning now - was just unclear at first.

    [ Parent ]
    With All That Is At Stake In This Election (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    it is a poor time to have a battle over political hierarchies within the Democratic Party.

    No matter who wins the battle it splits the votes down the middle and jeopardizes the chances of electing a Democratic President.

    The party's need to self-destruct is legendary.

    Should Read Splits The Voters n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    you cannot remove the politics from politics.  For some of us, elections are about peace, jobs, and health care, but for others, elections are about patronage and access.  The people on the outside want to be on the inside, and you're not going to make them stop by pointing out the homeless veterans sleeping under a bridge.  That's the system for you.

    [ Parent ]
    You're Right Of Course (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    Yet, all that I can see is the end result. A very good chance that we will have a Republican president in 09, an endless occupation, and  at minimum a 7-2 conservative SPOTUS for the next three decades.

    [ Parent ]
    Eh - It's An Election (none / 0) (#91)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    Every election is like this one. Digby had a great post a few weeks ago about Kerry and Gephardt did to Dean. It makes the current situation look like a picnic in the park.

    At this point, it's only a few of the candidate supporters who are making noises about staying home rather than the candidates. Even that will likely stop when McCain takes the likely step of selecting Huckabee as his candidate.

    (Besides do we want to be the Republicans where their top guy is established after only winning a third of the vote? It's prettier but not Democratic.)

    [ Parent ]

    It Is Different This Time Because Neither Of (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    the candidates are white males. Just look at the discussions in a previous post The Next Primary and Caucus Battle about what would happen if this goes to the convention and was decided by the Super Delegates.

    I'm talking about raw racial politics here, and a fracturing of the Democratic coalition.  People -- African Americans, but white people too -- will never forget something like that happening.

    It's okay to disenfranchise the popular vote, which consists of Latinos, Asians and white women, but it's not okay to disenfranchise the aa's because they might riot?

    And yet again, women take a back seat so that men can get ahead and we can keep the peace.

    The Democratic Party is on very dangerous ground.

    [ Parent ]

    It could have been worse... (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    Hard to imagine, I know, but just think what the battle could have done to race relations in this country if Richardson and not Hillary had been up against Obama and the Dem/DC establishment.

    I shudder to think.

    Most women, it is thought, will stick with the Party after the Clintons are eliminated as a threat to the DC establishment...even if Obama loses the general.  I'm not so sure, this time.  We're pretty angry that they went so far as to draft Obama and prop him up as the preferred Democrat.  Amazing to me that the Edwards people haven't tipped to this.

    Imagine, tho, if Richarson had surpassed Hillary and the Hispanics/Richardson were getting the treatment Hillary is getting from Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and the MSM.

    Women don't have homegirl gangs on the streets of LA...but blacks and Latinos do.  The divisions are hard enough to overcome as it is without Democrats attacking and undermining 'their own' just because they are the Clintons.

    Their sin?  Many...but like Jimmy Carter, the worst sin was they got elected.  Hicks from the sticks.  Not our sort.  Social pariahs who didn't care a lick about which cocktail party they didn't get an invitation to or whose son was marrying whose daughter.

    Not only the battle of the establishments...it is also class warfare.  Within the Democratic Party.

    Just great.  Thanks, Teddy.

    [ Parent ]

    I Think This Has The Potential To Lose The (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    election for the Democratic Party in 08.

    Not all of Clinton's supporters (women, Latinos, Asians, working class whites) are die hard members of the Democratic party.

    Think about this for a minute. Let's say you are a woman who is an independent voter. You are voting