home

Reveling In The Demise of Their Relevance

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:33:54 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Susie Madrak on Matt Stoller:

Obama’s now vacuumed up the majority of the grassroots donors, is discouraging his donors from giving to anyone else, and there’s no point whatsoever to placating the netroots. I can’t believe Stoller doesn’t get that. They don’t need us, and we will have no influence whatsoever in an Obama administration. Those of you who dream of a new progressive netroots Utopia will have a rather rude awakening, I think. (Not that this makes some huge difference in my own life - I’ve never thought bloggers were anywhere near as influential as they like to think.)

Yep. It's not that the Netroots sold out. It's that they got nothing on issues, or anything else, in exchange for their unstinting support of Barack Obama. The whole thing has been extremely strange.

Yep, again I just speak for me.

< Krugman A Must Read Today: What Obama Must Do | Bush Judicial Nominee Gus Puryear: Just Say No >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Reveling In The Demise of Their Relevance | 148 comments (148 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Well, BTD (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    they did get to become

    Legends in Their Own Minds!

    Don't they know? (none / 0) (#71)
    by myiq2xu on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:22:26 PM EST
    It's all about the "O"

    [ Parent ]
    What they got. (5.00 / 8) (#2)
    by lentinel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:37:10 PM EST
    You want to know what they got?

    Here are the unbelievable words written by Chris Bowers today in OpenLeft:

    "Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy".

    That's what they got.

    He said that? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:12 PM EST
    Gawd how patronizing. No wonder Obama doesn't like them. <smirk>

    [ Parent ]
    Is he playing the race card? (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The race card (none / 0) (#48)
    by themomcat on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:05:14 PM EST
    They have been playing it all along.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    And now when Hannity tells them (none / 0) (#61)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:12:52 PM EST
    that we've 'moved beyond race' they will probably to agree.

    LOL

    [ Parent ]

    I'm sure (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:49:20 PM EST
    there will be many articles about what a horrible divisive thing he said.

    Or not.

    [ Parent ]

    This says it all. (5.00 / 13) (#33)
    by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:57:52 PM EST
    I don't know what offends me more: the casually racist condescension, the delusion over their own influence, or the admission that winning the presidency is just the ultimate expression of their own vanity rather than the route to meaningful socioeconomic change and uplift for those who most desperately need it.  What did Bill Clinton say about these people supporting Obama not being the ones that really needed a president?

    [ Parent ]
    Divisions (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:05 PM EST
    It's like the saying I've heard - "I'm not rich enough to afford Obama."

    [ Parent ]
    davnee (none / 0) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:52:17 PM EST
    A magnificent comment.

    Ending with Big Dawg's assessment was a great wrap-up.

    In many ways the story of this campaign and the struggle for the soul of the Democratic Party.

    I wish I could have given you twenty 5s.

    [ Parent ]

    "Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy". (none / 0) (#149)
    by Donna Darko on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:11:17 PM EST
    Not even "A Black Guy"? "The Black Guy."

    That's what drove the whole thing. Their racism and white guilt. Ironically, POC will suffer the most.

    Big business and rich white men coopted Obama. They think he's a nice guy they can use.

    [ Parent ]

    Race-baiting (none / 0) (#150)
    by Donna Darko on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:14:30 PM EST
    Race-baiting or bringing in race is the central strategy of Obama's cmapaign. Esp. calling everyone racist and manipulating white guilt.

    You're racist if you criticize him/don't vote for him/say his campaign is sexist/if the DNC and Democratic Party don't endorse him.

    [ Parent ]

    This is what they call a King (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by lisadawn82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:39:07 PM EST
    From Matt Stoeller

    We have a leader, and he's not a partisan and he can now end fractious intraparty fights with a word and/or a nod. His opinion really matters in a way that even Nancy Pelosi's just did not. He has control of the party apparatus, the grassroots, the money, and the messaging environment.
    Brain death does not inhibit (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:40:08 PM EST
    all verbal functions, evidently.

    [ Parent ]
    Not so fast. This is pretty amusing: (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:42:51 PM EST
    LA TIMES

    [ Parent ]
    Funny Article (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:52:47 PM EST
    Great closing line.

    Maybe it's Obama's age. He's getting up there in his forties, you know.



    [ Parent ]
    Get Him A Map (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Athena on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:20:32 PM EST
    Even more amazing - the 57 states don't include MI and FL.

    [ Parent ]
    And Also Not (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by The Maven on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    either Alaska or Hawaii, so perhaps he thinks there are 59 states in the Union.  It's good to see that he has an accurate grasp of numbers: 100 thousand, 100 million -- no biggie.

    [ Parent ]
    State of relaxation, nervous state, state of the (none / 0) (#91)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:51:41 PM EST
    union, State of the Black Union (wait, he didn't go to that one), state of excitation...it's a pretty long list of states.

    [ Parent ]
    Loved the writers tone (none / 0) (#22)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Do you mean me? (none / 0) (#9)
    by lisadawn82 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:39 PM EST
    Are you calling me brain dead?  

    [ Parent ]
    Oh no. Stoller. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    He's not even (5.00 / 11) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
    mixing it with water anymore.  He's just putting the koolaid powder directly in his nose!

    Wow, honestly, McCain isn't more dangerous than THIS if it catches fire.

    [ Parent ]

    Soon we will know the Obama fanboys (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:12 PM EST
    ...by the purple stains rimming their nostrils. Of course the smarter ones will snort the lemon flavor.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me. That comment could be (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:55 PM EST
    interpreted as referring to Obama's admitted use of cocaine.  Not permitted.  Sorry.

    [ Parent ]
    Cocaine come in colors now? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:55:56 PM EST
    What will they think of next.  

    [ Parent ]
    How the heck would I know? (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:56:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    get with the times, girl (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by angie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:39 PM EST
    they mix it with flavored kool aid these days -- strawberry cocaine is all the rage with the kidz in the club.

    [ Parent ]
    that's just gross... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:11 PM EST
    my brain hurts just thinking about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh Maria (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:25 PM EST
    I love you!

    (anyone who makes me laugh gets my worship!)

    [ Parent ]

    It will be their (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:07:07 PM EST
    version of the purple finger.

    [ Parent ]
    The purple nostril (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by lookoverthere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:42 PM EST
    I can see the TV footage right now.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, snap! (none / 0) (#113)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:40:54 PM EST
    Second good laugh I've had today!

    [ Parent ]
    Don't they realize how scary they are? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Each day, the declarations (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by seeker on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:53:30 PM EST
    of victory become more parody-like.  What happens when the only-to-be-declared-after-the-GE policy bites them?  Say, an adverse stance on net neutrality.  They certainly have no committment on the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Sounds More Like Don Corleone (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by santarita on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:14:25 PM EST
    Master Stoller seems to be describing an all-powerful Godfather instead of a leader of a political party in a democracy.  No more intrafamily quarrels, the Godfather will nod and say a few words to the Consigliere and all well be well.  And the Party will march in lock step to the right.  

    [ Parent ]
    He has control of the party apparatus? (none / 0) (#40)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:15 PM EST
    mmmm'k!

    Oy. I could go there, but I won't, lol!~ But I will ask, do they actually read what they've written?!

    [ Parent ]

    Yup (none / 0) (#46)
    by ineedalife on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:55 PM EST
    Hence the emphasis on "noble" qualities by Kennedy. Scary stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Alors (none / 0) (#106)
    by daria g on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    That's delusional.  Should I be afraid?

    [ Parent ]
    I think that... (none / 0) (#112)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:39:33 PM EST
    ... "a word and/or a nod" is especially rich.

    Especially when "a wink and nod" is the cliche Chris is reaching for.

    I'm glad that I'm not the only one who thinks is this totally round the twist. On the other hand, that means it's likely that this will work out very well for him. Perhaps the recent round of fluffing is really just a job application?

    [ Parent ]

    ooops, if there is no democratic party (none / 0) (#128)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:48:29 PM EST
    left to control, then king for a day seems right to me.

    [ Parent ]
    They weren't even given an opportunity (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:42:06 PM EST
    to sell out. They and we were ignored. Some of us saw this in the first place, others liked to pretend that they were in the kool klub.

    Any way to figure out how much (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    cash DK generated for Obama campaign coffers?

    [ Parent ]
    I'm sure there must be some way (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:57:35 PM EST
    Though I haven't given it much though. I'm sure it's enough that he's familiar with Daily Kos, though probably not anymore than maybe with one of his bundlers.

    Kos's readership is buying him some influence--potentially. But not the actual donors themselves.

    [ Parent ]

    and vice versa (none / 0) (#144)
    by bigbay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:59:54 AM EST
    let's not kid ourselves...

    A Bay Area mortgage is expensive, as is raising a family.

    [ Parent ]

    They will get to say (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:43:18 PM EST
    "We took down the Clintons!"

    But now I have a suspicion.

    They might have just made the Clintons even stronger.  Whoever woke up one day and thought "the party won't miss them" must have been so arrogantly stupid, so much so as to be beyond belief.  But it's either that or one really must fall back on a less simple more paranoid set of summations.

    I mean.  Arriana and Markos ARE ex-republicans.

    I think it's because they still (none / 0) (#67)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:18:56 PM EST
    obsess over the Clenis - and they assume that everyone else cared as much as they did.

    [ Parent ]
    Huffington hates the Clinton's (none / 0) (#145)
    by bigbay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:03:06 AM EST
    because they helped defeat her ex, and elect Di Fi out in California.

    [ Parent ]
    Anyone who thinks Obama is THE leader (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Foxx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:44:12 PM EST
    is a fool. Those who bought him a long time ago are the leaders.

    And Hillary has not been bought (none / 0) (#11)
    by Foxx on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    by anyone.

    [ Parent ]
    He used them like he used AA community (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:46:59 PM EST
    and Wright.  

    Use them? He didn't even need them. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:51:39 PM EST
    They were irrelevant, always. They think he's their friend, but he doesn't even know them.

    Do you think if you cornered Barack Obama on the street, he would have any idea what OpenLeft is?

    [ Parent ]

    Or care? (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:54:46 PM EST
    Naomi Klein said it early on, don't be cheerleaders.  Keep pushing and demanding a progressive agenda.  

    Stockholm syndrome.  The collapse of the netroots.  What I love is that KO et. al. just take their posts for free and do their program.  These networks don't need to pay people to do research or find stories.  They do it for them.  

    [ Parent ]

    They wanted so desparately to believe that... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:55 PM EST
    ...they mattered, that they had made a massive difference. Well they have mattered. They have managed to alienate a lot of voters away from Obama. I still think that before this is all over Obama will sista soulja them. He almost has to.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheerleaders are useless (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
    one thing I love about BTD is that, in my experience, he doesn't cheerlead. I think he's said that he may have done so some years ago for Wes Clark, but that was before my time.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL, I'm sure no pompoms were involved. (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think you're correct (none / 0) (#72)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    And it shows why they don't understand what pissing away the 'old coalition' would mean.

    Keep fighting, Hillary!

    [ Parent ]

    ok, maybe it is a good thing for them to (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:50:41 PM EST
    be irrelevant. i know they'll never think that unless and until obama snubs them.

    [ Parent ]
    He might think Open Left was one of the 57 states (none / 0) (#62)
    by kempis on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:13:19 PM EST
    What's up with Obama's head these day? 57 states? Thinking last week that May is March? I mean, I know he's tired, and that's understandable....But we've already got a chucklehead in the Oval Office, and if Obama is CiC, I don't think Mr. Cheney will be sticking around to answer the phone at 3 a.m. Obama had better pick someone with a bit more mental fortitude to be his VP.

    (If you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about, see the LATimes story linked up thread.)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is more Bush-like every day (5.00 / 7) (#74)
    by davnee on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:23:58 PM EST
    Thin resume.  Check.
    Empty unity campaign.  Check.
    Stuttering.  Check.
    Occasional outbursts of preening arrogance.  Check.
    Goofy misspeaking.  Check.

    [ Parent ]
    Not 57 A.M.? (none / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:20:01 PM EST
    Now that would be bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Using the grassroot progressives (none / 0) (#135)
    by stefystef on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:23:33 PM EST
    and the netrooters through this entire election.  Using anyone who would put him on top without him looking arrogance.

    Obama tried to get rid of the progressive left delegates in CA last month and they made such a stink, he had to back off.

    For now.

    Obama is not going to bring those delusional grassroot people with him to the mountain top.  And they are so brainwashed that when Obama disses them, they will blame it on Hillary.

    I know Adrianna and Markos THINK Obama owes them, but Obama doesn't care about anyone except himself.  It's been pretty obvious to anyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not certain who was using whom (none / 0) (#38)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
    as to Obama and the Rev. Wright.

    [ Parent ]
    You speak for me as well, BTD (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:47:21 PM EST
    The outcomes of this primary process seem surreal. I'm struggling to stop myself from using the phrase "I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me".

    As for the "netroots", I quit blogging regularly last fall after feeling exhausted by the self-importance of bloggers big and small, national and local. I think Susie M. is right -- the blogs are not nearly as influential as they think they are. The MSM does pay more attention to them because they often ferret out stories the CNNs and ABCs are ignoring. But political influence? Considering how little we have to show for our efforts at getting the Congressional Democrats to stop the continual assualts on our Consititution, it seems the power of the blogs and even the most active consitutents is but a pipe dream.

    The bloggers could have been more influential (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:06:45 PM EST
    ...if instead of investing everything in internecine combat over the nomination, we had directed most of our energies toward defining and defeating McCain.  This fight is ridiculous, and nobody wins, and shame on the bloggers who are relentlessly flogging it.  

    [ Parent ]
    That part comes after (none / 0) (#79)
    by Iris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:31:29 PM EST
    we make internal preliminary decisions, like what our platform will be and who our nominee is.  I think part of what happened is people jumped too far into the tank for Obama too quickly.  Due to everything that's happened Hillary was forced to emphasize her progressive credentials and start making more commitments to earn our vote.  Obama has simply received his devotees without promising them anything.  What's sad is that I think a lot of them support Obama because they think others won't vote for Hillary, which is just a projection of their own immature and acinine disdain for her.

    Anyways, having that support to hold over their head and threaten to walk is an important tool, and it's the way that the religious right gets John McCain to promise to appoint conservative judges.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo (none / 0) (#121)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:21:31 PM EST
    Leverage however we can.


    [ Parent ]
    Or What I Had Been Holding Out Hope For (none / 0) (#90)
    by The Maven on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:48:05 PM EST
    which would have been to develop and hone a genuinely progressive position on a handful of issues where we might really have been able to exert some influence (e.g., net neutrality) and pushing the candidates hard to get their commitment.  Instead, everything quickly devolved into a purely personality-driven campaign that was far too often more interested in dividing us from each other in return for . . . what?  Nothing at all from the likely nominee, and severely diminished credibility in the eyes of those among us who remain in the reality-based community.

    It didn't have to happen; it shouldn't have happened; and yet, here we are.

    [ Parent ]

    Netroots were manipulated (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:58:53 PM EST
    Based on my own limited experience with Obama's type of community organizing, I think the whole point is to agitate and polarize or, if necessary, inflame and demonize so that masses of people march on City Hall and demand change.  Obama, Axelrod, et al. seem to have successfully translated this to a national level and the Netroots were an important part of the equation.

    From this perspective, the irrationality of the Obama movement makes some sense.  The people being "organized" are often fairly far down the food chain with regard to who directly benefits from their support.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:02:17 PM EST
    The "organizers" gain the political power and the people they organize maybe get some donuts and some talk about power.  Bravo.  Look at his disconnection with his district?

    [ Parent ]
    Which reminds me. (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    Whatever happened to jgarza?

    [ Parent ]
    My fan? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    And Obama's volunteer on (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:10:49 PM EST
    the ground.

    [ Parent ]
    He actually posted in an earlier thread (none / 0) (#85)
    by Shawn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:00 PM EST
    I can't remember which. But he sort of insulted BTD, so his comment may not be there anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    funny you asked. i saw jgaraza commenting (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:52:53 PM EST
    just today. there you go!

    [ Parent ]
    Yes we can ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by dwmorris on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:37:22 PM EST
    have a donut!!

    [ Parent ]
    It should come (5.00 / 6) (#56)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:09:55 PM EST
    as no surprise to anyone who was on Dkos back in the day when Obama posted there. Obama is about Obama and nothing else.

    "Obama is about Obama and nothing else" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:59:41 PM EST
    Just to refute this, Obama was organizing 15 years before he was a candidate for president. When the nominee was one Bill Clinton:

    In the final, climactic buildup to November's general election, with George Bush gaining ground on Bill Clinton in Illinois and the once-unstoppable campaign of senatorial candidate Carol Moseley Braun embroiled in allegations about her mother's Medicare liability, one of the most important local stories managed to go virtually unreported: The number of new voter registrations before the election hit an all-time high. And the majority of those new voters were black. More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls. In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

    [...]

    For the first time in ten years, more than half a million blacks went to the polls in Chicago. And with gubernatorial and mayoral elections coming up in the next two years, it served notice to every¬one from Jim Edgar to Richard M. Daley that an African-American voting bloc would be a force to be reckoned with in those races.

    [...]

    At the head of this effort was a little-known 31-year-old African-American lawyer, community organizer, and writer: Barack Obama.

    Source

    I don't know how much any replies are going to try to play up the fact that he organized blacks and not working class whites here, so I'll just note that in Chicago that was the demographic that he was presented with organizing in his community. And so he did. In record numbers. For Bill Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    that's a good article... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by white n az on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:13:17 PM EST
    thanks

    [ Parent ]
    I should (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:28:27 PM EST
    qualify that since he started politics it's been obvious that he's all about Obama.

    That being said, his community organizing doesn't impress me as qualifications to be President.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't know a lot about that either. (none / 0) (#132)
    by hellothere on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:54:25 PM EST
    from what i've seen, there wasn't much there.

    [ Parent ]
    Bowers is amazing (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by honora on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    He notes that they put Obama where he is now and then says" I hope he's a vibrant progressive when he gets into office, and we should begin figuring our how to put ourselves in a position to help him take the country in a progressive direction."  There are so many things wrong with this, but don't you think that he would have wanted to know if Obama was a vibrant progressive before Bowers gave Obama the keys to the castle.  The tone is also crazy to me, it sounds like the people are to devote themselves to serve Obama.  I thought the President works for us.  Sure people can support the President and his agenda, but this is much more a King and his supjects.

    Obama sounded like too much work (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by nycstray on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:24:24 PM EST
    for me. I already have a full time life. I don't need to add figuring out his agenda and then executing it to my day . . .  ;)

    I like Hillary. She'll work on my behalf and has already laid out her plans.

    [ Parent ]

    And she's (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:35:32 PM EST
    more competent. You aren't going have to spend tons of energy defending her. Of course, it seems most Obama supporters are outrage junkies so they probably get off on that kind of stuff imo.

    [ Parent ]
    You should know that (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by lentinel on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:58:15 PM EST
    Bowers wrote this amazingly stupid bit of prose in March:

    "Obama is more about placating High Broderism, Tim Russert and the Washington Post editorial board than he is about transformative progressive change. I'll work hard to help elect him, but I also don't intend to delude myself about what to expect when he becomes President."

    Now - today he has written the following bit of crap:
    "Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy".

    It's pretty easy to figure out that Chris is heavily excited about "his" nominating what he calls "the black guy". The fact that this particular "black guy" does not have a progressive agenda is but a fly on the plate for Chris. Like Harry Reid saying that Joe Lieberman is OK except for the pesky little war in Iraq.

    [ Parent ]

    Wow, We Nominated The Black Guy. (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Donna Darko on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:37:46 PM EST
    Wow, We Nominated The Black (I have so much white guilt) Guy (A woman President terrifies me).

    [ Parent ]
    Crazy talk, indeed (none / 0) (#68)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:19:35 PM EST
    like Obama has ever paid attention
    to one word Bowers has ever written.

    [ Parent ]
    Sad or weird? (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:16:58 PM EST
    Stoller:

    "(Obama)is attempting to completely rewrite the rules of politics, and we should try to figure out what that means for where we take our meager work."  

    or creepy?

    Is a Sad, Weird, Creepy combo platter on the menu? (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Ellie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:44:37 PM EST
    Obama is now the party leader.  And he has ensured and we have given him the mandate that when he speaks, he speaks for all of us. Obama's Consolidation of the Party by: Matt Stoller, OpenLeft, Wed May 07, 2008 at 19:08

    linked in BTD's commentary and in the Madrak piece, (Vision of the Future, by Susie Madrak, Suburban Guerilla, May 9th, 2008) quoted upstairs.

    Here's how I know I didn't sign on for Obama as party leader or having a blank cheque of a mandate: I generally tend to run away from that sort of thing holding my head in my hands and emitting a long, full scream.

    [ Parent ]

    Someone Should Point Out (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by The Maven on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM EST
    that Obama has less of a mandate among Democrats than George W. Bush had nationally following the 2004 elections.  We all mocked and ridiculed Bush's statements for their arrogance in flying in the face of reality, and now there are bloggers supposedly on our side of the fence who are embracing this same fantasy of 50% plus one?  Incredible, and very sad.

    [ Parent ]
    And the other bass-ackwards thing about mandates (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Ellie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:56 PM EST
    I like mandates to be fairly focused (and transparent) BEFORE I join up, and usually am not all in with broadly worded ones except when they offer membership frequent opportunities to have a say in the group's policies.

    When it's entirely personality based, NO, no, a thousand times no.*

    *That's a big HELL no.  

    [ Parent ]

    lord help me, what mandate? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:23:36 PM EST
    So far he is winning a 48 state nomination by about 4%.

    Furthermore he is arguably proposing less progressive change than his opponent.

    It is apparent now that I was not imagining it this spring when there seemed to be a mass Kool-aid party when they all at once went all out for Obama.  It was apparently an attempt to get the attention of their hero and make themselves relevant - "give him a mandate" and the license to speak for them.

     What sheer idiocy.  They are so starved for a charismatic leader that cannot even think straight anymore.

    [ Parent ]

    What does that even *mean*? (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by daria g on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:33:33 PM EST
    Rewrite the rules of politics?  Far as I can tell, it requires not believing in democracy, insulting and abusing the people who don't agree with you or simply pretending they don't exist, because everyone who matters is on board with Hope, Change and Unity.  

    And.. good lord..  He wants to elect this man as President of the United States and he thinks that only afterward is it time to "figure out what that means"?

    These guys can't tolerate politics and don't care about democracy.. what do they want?  Real ultimate  power!!!111?  is that it?

    [ Parent ]

    Honestly insane (none / 0) (#115)
    by RalphB on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:54:04 PM EST
    this crap sounds like he's the Dear Leader and the US is North Korea.  Think they've ordered their new brown shirts yet?


    [ Parent ]
    Well, possibly (none / 0) (#143)
    by daria g on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:50:22 AM EST
    At least, I expect they'll be entirely dedicating their time to find suitable objects of hatred, if they won't have Hillary to bash 24-7, because they aren't willing to demand any answers as to what is this "new politics."  Have to occupy their time somehow, and since the "new politics" requires excusing Obama for everything (WORM = What Obama Really Meant) and defending him at all costs.. I expect they'll be pretty busy.

    [ Parent ]
    amen to that (none / 0) (#148)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:37:40 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    sorry (none / 0) (#66)
    by DFLer on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:18:27 PM EST
    I thought it was Stoller...perhaps Bowers? I cut and pasted from same article refered to above

    [ Parent ]
    Stowers? or Bowler? (none / 0) (#122)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:24:58 PM EST
    Feel free to delete if this is a personal....

    [ Parent ]
    Lambert (none / 0) (#147)
    by DFLer on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:30:41 AM EST
    don't understand "if this is personal" part.

    Also...is there a delete function?

    thanks

    [ Parent ]

    Um... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:40:59 PM EST
    I don't even understand what that sentence means! Is he drunk or does he always write like that? (Sorry, I don't read his blog.)

    [ Parent ]
    He does write like that (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    I don't read him much anymore.  For a long time I thought I was just not that smart about political science.  Then I realized he was just full of it.

    [ Parent ]
    the nutroots (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by pluege on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:22:07 PM EST
    stoller proved himself a willing stupe...but he's also convinced himself that he is creative class - hilarious really. The "top librul A-list bloggers" turned out to be simpletons easily taken.  

    And strangely masochistic as well (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Jim J on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:39:50 PM EST
    I'm reminded of MoveOn's hero worship for the guy who stabbed them in the back. Maybe it's true what they say, liberals really don't want to win and prefer being dominated by alpha conservatives.

    [ Parent ]
    yep (none / 0) (#146)
    by bigbay on Sat May 10, 2008 at 03:11:31 AM EST
    seems so

    [ Parent ]
    Bloggers didn't learn from other fauxgressives (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ellie on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:28:47 PM EST
    ... that were the blogs' "people powered politics" BFFs only till the checks cleared. (Hi, Mary "94% voting with Bush" Landrieu! I missed her diary at the Cheetoh Colored Blog explaining how the darned two-way channel of communication got shut down so fast.)

    A lot of the bloggers seem to think they'll be pulling levers, and see that as a position of power rather than what it is: being a GOTV/ GOT$$$ / STFU cog or commanding Marshallow Peeps who aspire to being teh awesome bloggers.

    As for a VIP seat at the trough, er, there are way bigger pigs in politics and media (and I mean no disrespect to pigs.)

    Stoller's post almost reads like parody (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by Jim J on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:33:54 PM EST
    I recall conservative bloggers/writers doing similar mental contortions to justify the ever-quickening decrepitude of the Bush years. At least they waited until after their guy was in office awhile before losing their minds.

    LOL (none / 0) (#87)
    by kmblue on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:42:04 PM EST
    I must say, we got us some high-quality comments here in the Bubba Party! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    really now...what does any candidate owe... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by white n az on Fri May 09, 2008 at 08:07:58 PM EST
    to any netroots/blogger?

    I get the fact that some of the blogs have been extremely partisan even to the point of extreme and the comments are often quite vicious. Who would really want to associate with that?

    But I think that there is so much effort to claim credit and relevance that these people have let it go to their heads.

    I also get that when you start to seriously spend time blogging, you make a personal investment in your assessments and of course your candidates and you are straining to make it relevant.

    I found Stoller's commentary entirely out of scale and beyond rational justification but that is his prerogative. It is the type of uncritical acceptance, uncritical thinking that Obama seems to attract and I am somewhat awed that what appears to be intelligent people should go all in like he did.

    But again, it's Obama's interest to keep his distance from the netroots because in many respects, they represent as much danger to his candidacy as does Reverend Wright.

    Stoller: 'When you disagree with Obama, ...' (5.00 / 3) (#136)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:25:30 PM EST
    "... you are saying to these people 'your favorite band sucks'."

    Well, yeah, if that's what the "new rules" do to the level of discourse.
    P.U.M.A.

    Like TV/the Internet has become a marketing tool.. (4.42 / 7) (#45)
    by Elijah Trotsky on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:27 PM EST
    IMO Obama is the lefts George W. Bush...I saw it in the debates..he has a speech and a basic idea and after that nothing. We on the D side (I'm independent) deserve this kind of vacous (and misogynistic) candidate, he simpy assuages the guilt we have for our cheap slave made goods and products...I can't believe I am going to vote for McCain...but I cannot in good heart allow the arrogant left choose my nominee in some phony stacked caucus..any movement that can be terminated by not paying the electric bill for a month can't last

    "We have to destroy the village in order to save it...."..ugh, maybe true

    Susi Madrak seems pretty astute. (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:45:50 PM EST
    Who is she?  (Block from here.)

    Susie's from Philly (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:29:32 PM EST
    Old school Philly.

    http://susiemadrak.com/

    She's got a great blog and a terrible troll infestation. Go over there and stomp some of 'em. Tell her the guy under the stair sent you.

    [ Parent ]

    I take it for more of an analysis (none / 0) (#18)
    by jcsf on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:48:16 PM EST
    Rather than simply "unstinting praise".  That, and the follow-up by Chris, rather the various ways that Obama is building a large coalition, especially as how that coalition will be supplanting a lot of the structure of Dems built up during Clinton times.

    Now, clearly that structure isn't the "netroots" that arose in opposition to Bush, Fox news, etc. And it isn't particularly progressive.   And, I don't think it will replace Netroots - for the power that the netroots has (which is more around framing of issues, and effecting the margins).  

    What are these exactly? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 09, 2008 at 06:56:29 PM EST
    the structure of Dems built up during Clinton times.

    What are these structures? How did the Clintons build them up without the support of the Democratic establishment that is clearly now supporting Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    affecting the margins not (none / 0) (#138)
    by santarita on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:29:57 PM EST
    effecting the margins.  Or maybe that was a typo?

    [ Parent ]
    Credit where due (none / 0) (#43)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:04:08 PM EST
    Look, I have reservations about Obama's control of the apparatus, and doubts about whether it will evolve into a more enduring structure that the party can rely on.  At the same time--50-state voter registration efforts?  Training organizers?  I know people here don't like Obama, but surely those are good things--right?

    In and of themselves? Not necessarily. (5.00 / 7) (#50)
    by MarkL on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:05:41 PM EST
    The movement is all about Obama. Why is his campaign discouraging contributions to progressive causes? I find that quite disturbing.

    [ Parent ]
    I dispute that there is a "movement..." (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Addison on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:47:22 PM EST
    ...there was, perhaps, right around Iowa. But there's no movement anymore. It's all about Obama now because he's a national candidate, and virtually the only races to organize around have been the primaries. So, naturally, the people his campaign has registered are going to be "all about Obama" because it is, in fact all about Obama at the moment. Same with Clinton's new registrants.

    However, they are now registered to vote. They have minds. They have opinions. They haven't been banned from contributing or supporting anything at all, if they want. They have felt the rush of participation. That's a good thing.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a big fan of voter registration (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by shoephone on Fri May 09, 2008 at 10:05:05 PM EST
    no matter who. I've taken part in voter registration drives and it's a great feeling to get graduating high school seniors and low-income women registered. They always seem the most excited to be able to excercise their rights.

    [ Parent ]
    I think the ginned up WVWV "scandal" (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by lambert on Fri May 09, 2008 at 09:34:21 PM EST
    ... in the wankfest before NC/IN was a two-fer: First, it could be used to delegitimize Hillary; second, it was a shot across the bow of an independent voter registration organization, focused on women at a time when Obana was going to roll out its own organization, focused -- as is perhaps needless to say -- on Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I find that the most troubling. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Fabian on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:09:07 AM EST
    Or ludicrous.  That's an example of near conspiracy theory mongering.  And why?  What's the difference between having an Obama themed voter registration and WVWV?

    If one is good, shouldn't the other be as well?  Logic and Obama Supporters rarely mixes well.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, I did say I had reservations (none / 0) (#64)
    by Tom Hilton on Fri May 09, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    But yeah, I think the voter registration is certainly a good thing in itself; the leadership training and community-level networks are potentially an enormous good.  I've written before about the need for a permanent party structure that actually has a tangible existence for most people.  This is a move in that direction.  
    Why is his campaign discouraging contributions to progressive causes? I find that quite disturbing.

    That's Susie Madrak's reading; I don't find Stoller saying that as such.  I could be missing something.  


    [ Parent ]
    I don't k