home

The "New" Politics

M.J. Rosenberg writes:

[I]t is silly to get bent out of shape when [Obama] says something he may or may not believe in order to win . . . That is precisely what I want him to do . . .

I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying:

Proving once again that [Hillary Clinton] will say and do anything to win . . .

All the "outrage" Rosenberg expressed about the Clinton campaign was just a big lie apparently. Now my own view is that ALL pols will say and do anything to win - the trick for us as citizens is to make the politically wise thing to do be the things we want the pols to do. That is why we hold their feet to the fire:

As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the times. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for President. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

I keep repeating this statement because the more I read, the more I realize that most folks seem to either not agree or not understand the point.

Speaking for me only

< A Question Of Character | GAO Analyzes The Surge >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    People understand it selectively (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:52:28 AM EST
    If they've joined the cult of one candidate or another, it's an insult. Otherwise, it's obvious.

    personally (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    I think it goes without saying.

    This reminds me of fights I have with sabremetricians.

    I say "what?  You read 8 baseball abstracts and just then finally came to the profiund conclusion that you can't score runs if you don't get on base??!!"

    I realize there's a lot of noise out there and we now live in a world where staring the obvious is required.

    At the same time, i also believe there are no hard and fast rules that account for everything.

    Pols are pols is true but it also oversimplifies.

    Parent

    The cult of the candidate (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lahdee on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    is the bane of democracy. All we ever seem to get from the cult approach is major disappointment and a lack of anything beyond reinforcing the cult status. Pathetic.

    Parent
    Gawd (5.00 / 10) (#2)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:54:00 AM EST
    How can any student of politics insist that the only time when voters have leverage over a politician is precisely the time at which they must give him a free pass to do as he pleases?

    Never mind that election season is the time when candidates actually care what voters want.  Keep quiet, we wouldn't want to mess anything up!  We can always leave a sternly-worded message with the White House switchboard later.

    No activist who is not up for a patronage job has any excuse for thinking like this.

    I think there are two things going on (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    First, as I think you imply, some of these stooges really do want some kind of important job (I'm thinking in particular of a certain Daily Kos diarist who freaked out about the Nevada Caucus).

    For others, it's the desire not to feel like they've been sold a bill of goods. Cognitive dissonance?

    Parent

    Cognitive dissonance? (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:58:06 AM EST
    if thats correct we can expect this to get way way worse.

    Parent
    with his penchant for (none / 0) (#163)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:28 AM EST
    introducing people to the underside of buses, what makes anyone think Barack will give anyone ANYTHING -- let alone a blogger -- should he win in November.

    One thing I've come to realize in reading Obama's history is that it really is All About Barack and if people get hurt because they believe -- in giving themselves, their time or their money to assist him -- that they'll be repaid in kind, they're in for shock when he says "thanks" and walks away, leaving them empty handed.

    I've known, befriended and quickly disassociated myself from people like this.  They never change and there always seems to be a fresh supply of starry-eyed fools willing to suspend common sense, go all out and then be b*tch-slapped by Reality in the end.

    Parent

    I remember reading a bio peice on him (none / 0) (#184)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST
    Early in his community organizing days Obama's first principle was to purge the do-gooders from a community. He operated on identifying a person's needs and then ensuring them that their needs would be met if his goals were met as well. He didn't get the do-gooders. His epiphany was realizing that their intrinsic need was the work itself, not necessarily whatever goal they were working towards. He realized that just pointing zealots in the right direction for him  was very powerful. There are a lot of people that are going to wake up next Jan. 21 wiping powder burns off their skin, realizing what it feels like to be cannon fodder.

    Parent
    On the grounds that Jeralyn. . . (none / 0) (#25)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:47 AM EST
    does not allow rude comments about other bloggers at Talk Left, I'm withholding my opinion of Mr. Rosenberg's ability to reason logically.

    Parent
    One Doesn't Need (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:35:16 AM EST
    to be rude towards another blogger to point out the cognitive dissonance and double standards behind his or her remarks.

    The excuse-making I'm seeing all around from folks who were all-too quick to jump on the slightest perceived transgression from the Clinton camp has left me convinced that these same people cannot be trusted to remain true to any principle, rather that they have loyalty only toward their chosen candidate and the movement he leads.  We've suffered through enough years of this already; it is imperative that those who want our support agree to work on our -- and by extension, the nation's -- behalf.

    Saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for most politicians, only those who claim to be different and to hold themselves to higher standards.  If that's their claim, we must hold them to it.  To give them a pass does no one any favors.

    Parent

    There's a logical fallacy here. . . (none / 0) (#155)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:01:02 AM EST
    Saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for most politicians, only those who claim to be different and to hold themselves to higher standards.

    If saying whatever it takes to win is not a sin for politicians, then surely saying "I'm different from the people who say whatever it takes to win" fits into that category, doesn't it?  Because it's pretty standard political fare.

    While it's galling to listen to someone be no different from other politicians by claiming to be different from other politicians when you think about it it's actually better than a lot of what we hear from some politicians.  Notwithstanding the fact that they may well believe what they're saying.

    I don't believe the folks who are blind to the illogic of their "it's ok for Obama to say anything necessary to get elected in order to defeat Clinton because she's the kind of person who would say anything to get elected" are necessarily so because of any particular dedication to Obama or his "movement".  Frankly, when he's in, and he's the establishment, they'll be just as illogical in opposing him.

    Parent

    Larry... (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:45:59 AM EST
    Rogers and Hammerstein could have done something with this...or at the very least, Rogers and Hart.

    There's definitely a Broadway musical in this material somewhere...

    Let's see now...oh, yes:

    "Wintergreen for President!
    la la la la la la la...
    He's the man the people choose...
    Loves the Irish and the Jews..."

    Parent

    Hart. . . (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:50:02 AM EST
    another LarryInNYC.

    My favorite lyrics:

    I'll go to hell for ya'
    Or Philadelphia
    Any old place will do.

    (my wife's from Phila)

    Parent

    Priceless. (none / 0) (#162)
    by oculus on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:03 AM EST
    My Head Hurts (none / 0) (#200)
    by The Maven on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:55:27 AM EST
    from trying to follow the twists and turns here, though I think I generally agree.

    But I'm just not at all confident that those to whom you refer in your last paragraph will indeed oppose him in any way, establishment or no.  If they were unwilling to acknowledge their illogic during the primary season, it speaks to their emigration from the reality-based community of which I have tried to remain a citizen.

    Parent

    Well I Won't (none / 0) (#91)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26:35 AM EST
    Corrections should be made when facts are wrong. This is not rude - it is just fact.

    When Armando put up two quotes attributed to Rosenberg and said the following he was wrong:

    "I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying::

    If you follow the link from the quote above provided by Armando it does not lead to what Rosenberg said. It leads to 'The Page' written by Mark Halperin. Not only that it isn't written by Mark Halperin, it is a communication he received from the Obama campaign and Rosenberg's name is no where on it.

    So I guess apologies are in order to Mr. Rosenberg for misrepresenting that he said and wrote something he didn't.

    Someone correct me if I am wrong.

    Parent

    Uh (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31:10 AM EST
    BTD doesn't claim that Rosenberg said "Hillary Clinton will say and do anything in order to win."

    BTD claims that Rosenberg had no problem the Obama campaign making that statement.  The link is to the statement by the Obama campaign.  Frankly, the link wasn't even necessary, everyone knows that was an Obama campaign theme.

    You're just misunderstanding.

    Parent

    Oh OK, I read that wrong (none / 0) (#131)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:33 AM EST
    That said, where is Rosenberg's statement that he has no problem with what the Obama campaign said in that particular instance? Is one necessary?

    Is Rosenberg obligated to respond to everything Obama says? And if so by who is he obligated by to respond to everything he says? Armando? And where should he do that at if obligated? TPM? HuffPost?

    See how ridiculous it gets? If someone says something at TPM and then Obama releases a statement then that person at TPM MUST respond or they are being hypocritical? Nonsense isn't it?

    By those rules every time that Armando writes about someone he must then follow that persons every word from now until eternity and respond to every syllable uttered.

    And WTF is Rosenberg anyway that what he said and didn't say makes a hill of beans?

    Parent

    Where I got confused (none / 0) (#150)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    was in how the following was written:

    "I suppose that is why Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying:"

    Supported? How does a link to an Obama press release show that Rosenberg supported anything?

    Parent

    It doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:53 AM EST
    You are the only one, apparently, who believes that point needs to be established.  If you want to treat it as unproven and completely unknowable because you have never heard of M.J. Rosenberg, okay.

    Parent
    Sorry but I am not (none / 0) (#174)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:20:07 AM EST
    the one who tried to establish that "Rosenberg supported the Obama campaign's saying..."

    If you want to treat it as 'proven' and completely 'knowable' because you have heard of M.J. Rosenberg, then okay too. But it seems a silly position to treat something as provable and knowable when you can offer no proof doesn't it?

    Fact is Steve is that these silly gotcha blogger wars add nothing to what is going on in our country nor do they address solutions to the problems we face. They are rather unimportant in the big scheme of things but I comment on them because that is all that is being offered up for discussion.

    Parent

    Shrug (3.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:44:12 AM EST
    This falls into the category of people not wanting to do your homework for you.

    To me, at least, it's blindingly obvious that a hardcore Obama supporter like Rosenberg was also a supporter of his major campaign themes.

    If what gets you off is hunting through posts you don't even find that interesting for background assertions that a visitor from Mars might consider to be insufficiently documented, that's fine, but don't expect everyone to go scurrying on a link-hunting expedition just because you're bored.

    Parent

    Let me get this straight (none / 0) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:04 AM EST
    You are arguing that M.J. Rosenberg did not support Obama's attacks on Clinton, and in particular the one where Obama said Clinton would say or do anything to win?

    Do you know anything at all about M.J. Rosenberg? Or what he wrote during the primary?

    I will not do your research for you and I KNOW I need not apologize to him for saying he supported Obama's attacks on Clinton, and in particular, the one I identify.

     

    Parent

    I might have read Rosenberg in passing (none / 0) (#144)
    by talex on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    a few times. I imagine that is the case for most people here at TalkLeft. I certainly don't know what his agenda was during the primaries as one can't read every person who writes online nor can they read everything a particular person writes.

    As for you question in your first paragraph please refer to this post above

    Parent

    You might have read? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:39:21 AM EST
    Friendly word of advice for the sake of your blood pressure.  Before you get yourself into a tizzy about some post unfairly characterizing something, get familiar with the subject.

    FYI, Rosenberg has been a relentless, strident, shrieking Hillary hater from the beginning, and a worshipful glassy-eyed Obama booster.  His posts at TPM have been absolutely over the top, one after the other after the other.

    Parent

    Here here. (none / 0) (#193)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    the fact is (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:55:54 AM EST
    if Hillary had in fact been willing to "say or do anything to win", she would have won.
    it would not have been hard.

    I'm not so sure (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    Indiana and North Carolina were really what killed her, and I'm not sure what else she could there to get more of the white vote than she did (the black vote was obviously lost). The gas tax holiday was pretty close to "saying anything" IMO. I suppose in NC she could have gay baited, but that wouldn't have seemed credible.

    Parent
    well then (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:00:56 AM EST
    you should just wait and see what the republicans do.


    Parent
    She could have used the Wright tapes (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:01:25 AM EST
    pre-Iowa -- you know she had them. She choose not to use them because she didn't want to do that to a fellow Democrat. If she had, though, Obama wouldn't have made it no NH.

    Parent
    Actually I don't know that (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:51 AM EST
    If she had them, she frankly would have been stupid not to leak them to the press--unless she's a much worse politician than I think she is.

    She did use the SF comments, remember.

    Parent

    The SF comments were outed by (5.00 / 9) (#24)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:41 AM EST
    an Obama supporter -- NOT Clinton. Furthermore, imo, those comments were fair game -- he was specifically talking about voters -- in a way that the Wright tapes are not.
    And EVERYBODY had the Wright tapes -- to think they didn't is just naive.

    Parent
    To clarify (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    the SF comments were comments made BY OBAMA -- do you actually think she should NOT have commented on them? Personally I can't believe anyone in the right mind would still vote for that moron after those comments -- one of the many, many reasons I am not.

    Parent
    Can you prove that "everybody" (2.00 / 1) (#29)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:16 AM EST
    had the tapes?

    Parent
    Up until recently the Wright tapes (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by tree on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:30 AM EST
    were available for sale through TUCC's website. Anyone who wanted to buy them could. That's how Fox News got hold of them.

    Parent
    I will if you can prove that (4.00 / 7) (#37)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:44 AM EST
    you are capable of understanding the difference between the Wright tapes and the SF comments -- since you obviously don't, however, you aren't worth arguing with.

    Parent
    they are BOTH legitimate issue (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:41 AM EST
    the SF comments because Obama said them

    The Wright issue is legit because he CHOSE to attend that church for 20 years.  And, his explanations for this from the beginning have evolved so much over time it's apparent he has never told the whole truth about why he joined, why he stayed and what he heard when at that church.

    As far as I'm concerned, quitting the church now, doesn't absolve him from needing to explaing why he was a member for 20 yaers.

    Parent

    jeremiah wright (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by kelsweet on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    sean hannity showed them on Fox a year ago.

    Parent
    Ach, whatever (2.25 / 4) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:11:09 AM EST
    I have no tolerance for cultists of any stripe.

    Parent
    whatever (5.00 / 7) (#52)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    you have no tolerance for anyone who disagrees with you or calls you out on your illogical and flawed analysis. Words Obama actually says v. words his pastor said -- same diff, according to andgarden.

    Parent
    Nonsense (2.00 / 1) (#60)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    I have never said that there was no difference.

    Parent
    Yes, you did (none / 0) (#156)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    that is exactly what you have been arguing -- you brought up the SF comments in rebuttal to my post that she could have used the Wright tapes earlier and said "she did use those." Read what you write.

    Parent
    That is not the same (none / 0) (#164)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    as saying that there was no difference. Since I do not believe, not have I ever, that there is no difference, there is no reason for me to have said so.

    Parent
    Your logic skills are totally lacking n/t (1.00 / 0) (#180)
    by angie on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:31:19 AM EST
    The press had the tapes. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    What happened is that no one in the field made an issue of them.  

    I'm still stunned to find out that Richardson Dodd or Biden were not infact her deep cover surrogates. I'd have bank rolled a no hope candidate to act a transmitter of my negative ads.

    Parent

    Yep, so Clinton had the Wright tapes (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
    since the press did.  I would put money on it.

    Obama would not have won Iowa or Wisconsin, two primaries at crucial early points.  Why Clinton didn't use them, I have two theories (at least) -- but they don't matter now in terms of this topic.

    In terms of this topic, though, see also Brooks' column today on the two sides of Obama. . . .

    Parent

    Obama had the lock (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    on gay-baiting.  I don't think people would have believed Hillary even if she had wanted to try it.

    Parent
    however (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:40 AM EST
    I will admit she was constrained to a point by common decency and the fact that the average democratic primary voter is less receptive to this stuff than the average general election voter.
    still.
    there was a helluvalot she could have done that she did not do.

    Parent
    Please, do tell. (2.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    What was this off limits stuff that she could have done?

    Parent
    Ill let no quarter answer you (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:09:59 AM EST
    Btw.... I don't think the Pubs need to scare off white people by bringing in race. I think all they need to do is play a few Farrakhan speeches and show this photo around a little. When you add those with Wright and Pfleger Sermon... People will start to question Barack and who he's been hanging around with for the last 20 years and start asking what kind of person is he. All without bringing up the elephant in the room...his skin color.

    Parent
    Ah, so she could have race baited? (1.00 / 2) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:51 AM EST
    I would submit to you that she already got every vote from people uncomfortable with the fact that Obama was black.

    Now, it's possible that some measure of extreme racism could have gotten white indys in NC to show up and vote for her, but the problem was that she was already Hillary Clinton. And such voters were never going to vote for her, even against the black guy.

    Parent

    so (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    to you, pointing out his and his churchs cozy relationship with Farrakhan is "race baiting".
    thats interesting but I doubt that a majority of voters will agree with you.

    Parent
    Well, I think that issue came up (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:28:15 AM EST
    in the April debate in Philly. who knows why she chose not to run with it? We don't have her internal polling of NC and IN.

    Parent
    "the issue came up" (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    thats truly funny.  it will come up again.

    Parent
    You almost seem excited about that (1.00 / 2) (#112)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:37:44 AM EST
    thats pathetic (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:45:21 AM EST
    but not surprising.

    Parent
    You're deeply disappointing (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    me, Andgarden.  Just sayin'.

    Parent
    I don't know if it was off limits, but she could (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
    have/should have pointed out that Obama intended to govern in the same hands off "I'll pay someone to think about it" strategy that Bush has. She could have pointed out that he wanted to support an anti-choice judge. She could have pointed out that he wanted to put the Defense and State Department in the hands of conservative Republicans. She absolutely should have pointed out what a ridiculous fraud and hypocrite he was on the subject of lobbyists.

    Parent
    Ayers, Wright, Pfleger, Meeks Rezko etc (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by LatinoVoter on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:17 AM EST
    where all issue that she could have raised early on but didn't. I, as just an average voter knew of them from just living in Chicago surely the people in the campaign knew of them.

    Parent
    Of course, Chicago newspaper readers knew (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:39 AM EST
    of all these topics.  I expect that Clinton expected the national media to do what it usually does and pick up these stories.  That they did not do so and failed in their responsibility -- well, that's another topic we've discussed here. . . .

    Parent
    I'll Play (5.00 / 6) (#113)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:38:09 AM EST
    She could've run negative tv ads on Rezko.  

    She could've run negative tv ads that more explicitly called Obama inexperienced.  The RNC had one with his "resume" that seems particularly effective to me.

    She could've hit him harder in her tv ad on bitter-cling.  She ran a rather lame ad that focused on god and guns when she could've focused on the clinging to racism and xenophobia.  She could've used the laughter from the video and showed the millionaire's row where the comments were made.

    In short, she could've done really hard hitting tv ads that did more than focus on an issue.

    Of couse, she would've been hit very hard for doing all of this, but if she'd wanted to take Obama down, really take him down, she could've.  Whether it would've hurt her more than him, I don't know, but she pulled her punches, IMO.    

    Parent

    Good points (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:59 AM EST
    I think the bottom line for me is that she did what she could get away with. That's not an insult of her, as some here seem to read it.

    Parent
    Being close to the bone economically, I agreed (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    with Hillary's gas tax holiday for a  discrete period of time, along with an excess profits tax to pay for it.

    I'm not so close to the bone I right now have to decide between a gallon of gas OR a gallon of milk, but there are many people who do have to make that painful decision. For anyone on a fixed income, there's only so many cuts to make before the cutting is very, very painful.  

    Ah, I do recall my salad days...and no financial worries. Now, I've got some, mostly due to medical costs.

    But to tell people that a few dollars a month don't count? That takes a certain cavalier attitu7de toward their economic straits. Beware, Dems, of ignoring real needs and real pain of others. Just because you don't feel it does not mean it doesn't hurt others.

    Parent

    the point of the objection to the gas (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:32:32 AM EST
    tax holiday was not that $30 over the course of the summer was totally inconsequential, it was that this money would never materialize for the people, since the gas companies could simply pocket the money.

    Gas prices are set by supply and demand. If the S/D environment supports a $4/gal price, then that is what it will sell for. If you suspend the federal tax portion of that 4$, that doesnt change the fact that they can still get 4$ at the pump. So there is no, or very little, reason for them to lower thier price, and the tax forgiveness just goes into their pocket.

    A gimmick, that sounds good on the surface, but ends up benefitting oil companies. No surprise that the GOP candidate supported it. Quite a surprise that one of ours did.

    Parent

    Typical Ivory Tower arguement (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:51:29 AM EST
    In the real world things are different. In my county gas is more expensive than the neighboring county because of tax differential. Same gas companies, same distribution network. But gas prices drop 5 cents a gallon within 5 miles. If your arguement was true then why are gas prices lower in the low tax county? Why don't the gas companies pocket the difference? Because of competition.

    An even larger difference exists if I go to the neighboring state. They even require full service at all pumps in the state. And gas is still cheaper because of lower taxes. I make sure I fill up my tank before going back through the tunnel. Same gas companies, same distribution network. But competition still happens. In all three markets the profit margin is the same for the companies but the pump price differs. The companies just pass on the tax difference but competition holds down their profit margins.

    Parent

    federal gas taxes (none / 0) (#199)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    apply to everyone in the US who sells gas. There is no competitive advantage, as in the examples you discuss.


    Parent
    So prices will drop (none / 0) (#219)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    Two gas stations across the street from on another. One keeps prices up and the other drops them. Who sells more gas? I see it every day. Prices go up together and drop together. They are rarely a penny different. If people know the tax has dropped 16 cents per gallon and the prices don't drop, there will be hell to pay.

    In NY we have successful sales tax holidays routinely. Stores do not just pocket the difference. In fact they compete vigorously for the market activity during those times.

    Parent

    Are gas prices set by... (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    supply and demand?

    Aren't there Congressional hearings on that very subject right now?

    Parent

    If you've only got (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by tree on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:15:09 PM EST
    a freshman course in Economics it really doesn't behoove you to try to lecture others in economic theory. You fail to take into account the inelasticity of demand and also fail to note that there are actual case studies, in Illinois for example, in which a gas tax holiday did in fact result in a positive benefit for consumers.
     
    In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

    The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

    This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.



    Parent
    That's such BS (5.00 / 3) (#217)
    by Inky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:17:35 PM EST
    Barack Obama's own gas tax holiday -- the one he voted for and which passed in Illinois -- demonstrated that such holidays do produce actual savings for actual consumers, despite Obama's new-found belief that the gas companies would pocket all the profits. As pointed out in Salon magazine:

    But Obama is wrong. He did not learn this lesson. In fact, the only scientific study done on the pass-through of the tax holiday savings to Illinois consumers (and those in Indiana, as well, whose citizens enjoyed a similar holiday) found that it actually worked to a large extent.

    The study is titled "$2.00 Gas! Studying the Effects of a Gas Tax Moratorium," by Joseph J. Doyle Jr. and Krislert Samphantharak. Download the PDF here. The authors concluded that "the suspension of the 5% sales tax led to decreases in retail prices of 3% compared to neighboring states. And when the tax was reinstated, retail prices rose by roughly 4%."

    This suggests that the tax holiday delivered at least 60 percent of the tax savings to motorists.

    http://www.salon.com/src/pass/sitepass/spon/sitepass_website.html

    What also irks me is this misunderstanding of the what "average" consumer is. Yes, the average consumer drives 12,000 miles a year, but truckers and farmers are disproportionately and painfully impacted by gas price hikes. Prices always go up in he summer -- the old supply and demand business -- and they may not drop much in the fall, because the world may indeed be experiencing peak oil shocks. But providing a little bit of temporary summertime relief, paid for by windfall profits taxes on oil companies, is a perfectly reasonable, and even progressive, step to take

    Parent

    Yes but then (none / 0) (#204)
    by vicndabx on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    either Wall Street or the Oil Companies would look bad, not us the dem candidate for appearing like another in the pocket of big business, out of touch candidate.

    Parent
    the media didn't help (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:06:56 AM EST
    all the talk about the gas tax holiday being a pander.  And then they allowed Obama to get away with his explanation that he voted for the same thing in ILL  and it didn't work, so now he was doing the RIGHT thing.

    Clinton NEVER said the gas tax holiday was the long term solution.  But, the media always portrayed it as either /or.  Like you couldn't do the tax holiday and also be FOR the long-term solutions that she always proposed at the same time.

    And, I never understood the claim that an 18 cent reduction in price would lead to people buying MORE gas when what they would actually do is use the savings to help pay for rising food prices.

    Then a couple of days AFTER the IN primary comes the news report that the gas tax holiday in ILL that Obama voted for actually DID WORK.  The majority ofthe savings did go to the people and the gas companies DID NOT raise their prices to take back the savings.

    Parent

    Hard to hold a pol's feet to the fire when the MCM (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:06 AM EST
    keeps putting the fire out with it's misleading analyses, lies, fluffing, fog machinery, more lies, etc.

    The MCM selects our leaders--for some reason, they decided to go easy on Bill Clinton prior to his actual election. Then, they seemed to turn almost overnight from almost adulatory (Clinton was brilliant at the business round table, inviting supporters and critics of his proposals; he seemed to know more about his critics' points than they did! Such a pleasure to have an intelligent politician going into the WH. etc.) to hypercritical--and remained than way his entire 8 years.

    What will happen with an Obama presidency? We know that MCN enabling is very bad with pols who have a tendency toward authoritarianism. What will they do? What kind of president will Obama actually be? What in his record shows us how he will govern????

    It's not too late to know your candidate and the candidate's stands, even post primary--plus, it's still pre-nomination vote.

    (Is it true Dean has said their will be not vote? Hillary's name will not be put to a vote? Can he do that?)

    Parent

    The Bimbo eruptions (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:31 AM EST
    were designed to destroy Clinton.  I 'm not sure they went easy on him. Bill was there at the twelfth year of a waning republican starnglehold on the executive.  If the press had their way Tsongas would have been the nominee.  yes TSONGAS.

    Parent
    They clearly adopted his talking points (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:10 AM EST
    as early as the first two or three debates.

    the entire campaign was covered in a way that was clearly very compatable with Obama's case againt Edwards and Clinton.

    Parent

    Hillary was the only candidate (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    saying the future's market was to blame for high gas prices.
    Now Obama is mimicing that same line.
    And Congress finally holding a hearing today about it. Supposedly, if the hedgefunds weren't involved in oil, the price would be $70 a barrel lower.

    Parent
    Once the real estate game collapsed (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:29:23 AM EST
    speculators went into commodities.

    It's quite obvious for those with eye's in their heads that this is what is happening.

    Parent

    but Obama wouldn't admit it (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    until after he became the presumptuous nominee.


    Parent
    Likewise with windfall profit tax (none / 0) (#149)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    right?

    Parent
    i dont think you understand how this works (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    Gas prices are not set by the government. As should  be obvious when you see them change day by day, and vary station by station.

    If the government suspends collection of the federal tax, there is no mechanism to force gas stations to lower their prices by that amount. They can set the price anywhere they want. They might lower it a bit - maybe even the full amount to start, given that people might expect to see the decrease. Or they might not. Or they might lower, then raise the price the next day, or next week. If you are willing to pay $4/gal., then they will get that out of you. Not paying the tax benefits them, much more than you.

    Parent

    Ok, the gas tax holiday (2.66 / 3) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:11 AM EST
    wasn't a pander. Whatever.

    Parent
    it may have been a pander (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by TimNCGuy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:04 AM EST
    but why did the media let Obama get away with his FALSE claim that it didn't work when he voted for it in ILL?  Why did the analysis that the ILL version actuall did put savings in people's pockets not come out until AFTER the Indiana primary?

    It seems anything that couls actually hurt Obama always comes out TOO late to have a major effect.

    The Wright tapes would have done him in if they had come out eariler.  But, they didn't come out until AFTER his 11 wins in a row in Feb

    Parent

    That's just one of (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by mikeyleigh on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    the things she could have said had she been willing to do anything to win.  She could have continually attacked him as a mendacious flip-flopper.

    Parent
    rofl (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:26 AM EST
    Heh, so if the outer boundary of "saying anything" would be something like leaking the Rev. Wright videos before Iowa, you think Clinton's gas tax proposal goes like 90 or 95% of the way towards that?  Come on.

    I happen to think Clinton's proposal was actually an excellent political gambit that Democrats were stupid to ignore.  And it's hardly her fault that the media applied a standard to that proposal that they never, ever apply to proposals by other politicians.

    Parent

    I don't know what the "other boundary" (2.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    of saying anything is. But my sense is that if Hillary had something else effective to say, she would have done so.

    Parent
    You're just being ridiculous (5.00 / 7) (#54)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:02 AM EST
    You think the gas tax holiday is even in the same galaxy as a campaign tactic like leaking the Rev. Wright tapes before Iowa?

    Clinton's gas tax proposal was nothing more than a run of the mill attempt to neutralize a pander by the GOP candidate.  It's no different than Obama's $1000 middle-class tax cut or any of a host of similar proposals made by 99.9% of every politician who runs for office.  Suggesting that it comes anywhere close to the outer boundary of "saying anything" just shows an astonishing lack of perspective.

    Parent

    No, they're not the same (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM EST
    I don't know where people got this idea that I think that ever pander is the same and every form of negative campaigning is the same.

    Parent
    Your own words (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:08 AM EST
    The gas tax holiday was pretty close to "saying anything" IMO.

    Just ridiculous to employ that kind of hyperbole about a garden-variety political position.

    Parent

    Ok, fine, I should have just said (2.00 / 1) (#105)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:51 AM EST
    that it was a pander and obvious so.

    Parent
    And One The Dems Should Embrace (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:16 AM EST
    The brilliance of Clinton's gas tax holiday was it tied together two incredibly popular ideas - a tax cut for customers and the windfall profit tax.  It was important symbolically not only to show that the Democrats would choose the little guy over the corporation, but also to fight off the GOP attacks (which we're now seeing) that the Democrats don't have any plan to help Americans right now with gas prices.  That's going to be the GOP's argument for offshore drilling and ANWR drilling and everything else (yes, I know that wouldn't really reduce gas prices immediately, but we're talking about the GOP here).  

    In response to this, the Democrats talk about a lot of long term plans and tell Americans to eat their vegetables.  Which is fine and good policy, but it doesn't give Americans any reason to believe Democrats feel their pain, so to speak.  

    And, of course, despite the wailing from economists the Salon article showed the gas tax holiday worked in Illinois, passing along most of the savings to consumers.  But, as lambert said, just because it worked in practice, how do we know it will work in theory?

    Regardless, it's good politics.  Which is why Nancy Pelosi pronounced it DOA on the Hill.  Had to save room for issues like funding Iraq and caving on FISA where Democrats could cave to the GOP instead of leading a fight against them on a very popular gas bill (one that made it hard for the GOP to oppose the windfall taxes because it was tied to the tax rebate).

    Parent

    Its a brilliantly dishonest proposal (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by tben on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:43:04 AM EST
    The money goes to the corporations, who can pocket the savings. It does not go to the consumer.

    This isn't hard to figure out. If you can sell a product for $4, and part of that price is a tax you pass on to the gov't, and then one day the gov't tells you not to bother passing on the tax - but the market is such that you can still get $4 for the product, then what would you, as a businessperson out to maximize your profits, do?

    Parent

    Competition does work (none / 0) (#203)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:59:29 AM EST
    The gas prices in my county are higher than the neighboring one due solely to the tax differential. The gas companies in the low tax county do not raise their prices to pocket the difference. And it isn't a poorer market. The per capita income in the neighboring county is higher.

    Parent
    So you (none / 0) (#188)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:38:57 AM EST
    don't think the oil companies will pass on the windfall profits tax to the consumers?

    Parent
    She could have had a stalking horse (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:58 AM EST
    who did an ad about Wright.

    Parent
    If she knew about the tapes, sure (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:20:32 AM EST
    It's hard for me to imagine that she wouldn't have somehow used them if she'd had them. That frankly goes for almost every other candidate.

    Parent
    Hannity was playing them. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:25:52 AM EST
    Or am I mistaken about that?

    I think they were hoping to have Obama as their Veep.

    Parent

    Yes, Hannity was -- and there was (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM EST
    much more in Chicago media for quite some time now that she could have used.  Clearly, the reaction to some of Clinton's early, typical, politics-as-usual points must have suggested that she tread warily.

    The expectation would have been that national media read Chicago media and do their typical job.  They didn't, Clinton couldn't, and there 'tis -- we got the nominee the media wanted, and we will see why.

    Parent

    Hmm, I don't watch him so I don't know (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:32:05 AM EST
    But it seems to me that they would have become an issue sooner.

    I think your VP point is a good one, but Hillary's back was really against the wall in March.

    Parent

    She knew about Rezko (none / 0) (#207)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:02:02 PM EST
    She only brought up Rezko when Obama criticized her Walmart board service. And she did not follow up on it either.

    Parent
    Loving A Pol (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    Is a dangerous thing. It is best to keep ones eyes open and on the ball at all times, because even the best of them need to be kept in check.

    With all the criticism lately (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:40 AM EST
    of what Obama said vs what he's done or hasn't done, he's not listening to anyone but himself. One can campaign on issues, while still courting voters. He's not courting dem voters, he is assuming he'll get their vote. Who's really watching? All his new, (some)young voters? The more seasoned ones (who at least talk about trying to hold his feet to the fire)simply, obviously cannot!

    Parent
    Well You Can't Have It Both Ways (3.00 / 2) (#166)
    by squeaky on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    On one hand you criticize him for his allegedly wanting to vote for Roberts but then voting against Roberts because his feet were held to the fire on it.

    But now all of a sudden he listens to no one?

    You capacity for paying attention is severely limited by the grinding sound of your axe.

    Parent

    Change of position (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:37:30 AM EST
    not in response to his constituents.. only to his peers.  If your constituents say... don't vote for FISA, fight it and you don't.... if you know it's going to pass and your peers (providing political coverage) are voting for it, and you wait until the last moment to come out and vote against, there is no leadership.

    Roberts is not a good example for Obama IMO.  He didn't vote because of political advice, and then excused those that voted for Roberts.

    Parent

    That's a good point (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:01:01 PM EST
    I wasn't sure whether he changed his vote based on constituents holding his feet to the fire or something else. But this is a good example if it's the former.

    IMO, more people would listen to this kind of thing without the insulting last sentence.

    Parent

    Small point of difference... (none / 0) (#158)
    by santarita on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    I don't think Obama is listening only to himself.  I think he is listening to his advisors, which is troubling to me because of who his advisors are.

    Once Obama got past the Dem primaries, his (and his advisors') reasoning is probably that he doesn't need to worry about offending any particular segment of likely Dem voters because they won't vote for McCain.  Hence, he'll give lip service and put on a good show regarding FISA and other issues important to progessives but he doesn't need to "pander".

    I'm more convinced than ever that BTD's point is correct - issues deserve support.

    Parent

    Whaa? (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Mike H on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    I'm really unclear on why this makes it a good idea to give Obama a free pass.

    It also seems to me to be a really bad long-term strategy for the voter.  As politicians learn more and more that they will never be held accountable for broken promises or bad policies or bad governance, there's no leverage at all to "hold their feet to the fire".

    Regarding the election, we've gone from optimism to cynicism in just 8-10 months.

    See the light and drink the Koo-Aid, then you'll (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:27 AM EST
    have no problems giving him a pass.

    It will come upon you like an epiphany and you will know you must support every change and Change.

    As the fundraiser young person told me, Obama is the one who will bring change. (So did Bush, I told him--that I wanted to know what change he had in mind....)

    Parent

    I assume you are not responding to my post (none / 0) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:01 AM EST
    but rather to Rosenberg's.

    Parent
    I agree with the comment (5.00 / 16) (#9)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:48 AM EST
    But as far as I can see, the only way for me to hold a politician's feet to the fire is to withhold my support, i.e. my money and my vote.  However, I'm repeatedly told I'm not allowed to exercise the option of withholding my vote from Sen. Obama.

    The philosophy of "any dem will do" inherently undermines "hold their feet to the fire".

    indeed (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#23)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:28 AM EST
    That is the cognitive dissonance of BTDs position, I have to say.

    BTD is halfway there, but without the willingness to at least consider withholding his vote in the GE as well, his attempts to exert leverage ultimately become moot.

    Parent

    I just replied to the original comment on this (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:13:08 AM EST
    My own view is that many of you do not know the meaning of the phrase cognitive dissonance.

    Parent
    Nope (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
    Because he's always said that the time to hold feet to the fire was during the primary.

    Parent
    Yup, because (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:07:48 AM EST
    I am pointing out the flaw in BTDs position, not calling him a hypocrite.

    Parent
    A distinction that isn't even relevant (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    clearly (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM EST
    that is your position.

    Parent
    Of course it's relevant. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:30 AM EST
    Your curt disagreement with us was based on pointing out that BTDs position is that you can only really hold politicans' feet to the fire in the primaries.  We disagree with that.  More specifically, we agree that you should hold politicians' feet to the fire in primaries, but that you should also do so in general elections, and sometimes by the same method, i.e. withholding your vote.

    I understand you disagree, but, as is so often the case with you, you disagree by insult.  Calling an argument I make irrelevant is a poor show, sport.

    Parent

    Whether or not you were calling him a hypocrite (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    is not a relevant distinction.

    Parent
    I never called him a hypocrite. (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:10 AM EST
    I never thought he was a hypocrite.  You implied that I did to discredit my argument.  I was correcting you.

    Parent
    Nope, I never said that and never implied it (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:18:12 AM EST
    You grow tiresome. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:20:49 AM EST
    I think people can read the string above and understand what you did.

    Parent
    I don't know where you got that idea (none / 0) (#79)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    I pointed out a major facet of the partisan pressure strategy that I think you missed. I don't understand how that's calling you a hypocrite.

    Parent
    The thing that is lost on a lot of people (none / 0) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    though is that the strategy of withholding a vote isn't necessarily an effective strategy for advancing your objectives.  In this case in particular - the GE 200 presidential election - withholding your vote from Obama empowers McCain and ultimately also hurts Clinton.

    Obama is now "as good as it gets" from the Dem party, but that does not mean that he is by any stretch of the imagination as bad as it could get with McCain.  Now the question is can we make Obama a better candidate?

    Politicians are not immutable.  Some are, but those are generally House memebers who have a very small constituency to please.  A state-wide or national politician has to be much more adaptable and responsive.  I think Obama needs to be more responsive and I think he can be trained.  Start training him with the promise of your vote because if you're always saying that he'll get nothing from you, he will simply ignore you.  Then everybody loses.  He loses because he could have had more comprehensive support and you lose because nothing on your political agenda will get addresses unless a more clever negotiator steps in as your advocate.

    Clinton is going to campaign with Obama because she understands that if she took her red wagon and went home, Obama could ignore her most important issues.  If she stays in the mix, her goals still have a chance at being realized.

    Parent

    That's more persuasive (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    But I see little evidence that Obama is doing anything other than saying "they'll all come home in November".  To me, it doesn't seem like he recognizes that he needs to be more responsive to what the base is telling him on everything from public financing, to FISA, to the sexism of the primary campaign.

    I understand about Clinton, and insofar as my agreement or disagreement matters (not much, IMO) I agree with her strategy for her and for the Dem party.  But I'm not Clinton.  I'm just a voter.  And I see no evidence that Clinton's strategy should, or even could, be my strategy b/c I see no evidence that Obama is or will be responsive to any pressure from me or any other voters.

    If Obama's not being responsive the message has to be that he's not going to get elected.  Not that he's going to get elected whether he's responsive or not and we're going to hope for the best b/c he's better than McCain.

    I really admire and respect Hillary.  I'm just not convinced of her argument that we should vote for Obama because he's a Dem.

    Parent

    It's not just Obama, either (5.00 / 3) (#201)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    It's the whole party power structure.  I'm more interested in defeating that than anything else.  I don't see any way of doing that if Obama is elected.

    I won't make up my mind until I go to vote, most likely, but I'm taken by the argument that McCain with an enlarged Dem. majority in Congress is less dangerous than Obama with the same.

    Parent

    For Obama to be a better (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:49:13 AM EST
    candidate, is up to Obama.   If a grown ass man who is running for the POTUS needs that much guidance and propping up, we are in deep, deep trouble.

    and if he's as good as it's going to get, well then this country is for sure in the sh1tter.

    Parent

    All candidates and elected officials (none / 0) (#154)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    need to be trained.  Very few are magically wonderful right out of the box.  This is where experience helps - problem is experience was a metric that was rejected by a majority of primary participants.  In any case, I'm resolved to work with it because that is my only choice given the selection on this years menu.

    Parent
    "need to be trained"... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Aqua Blue on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:28:46 AM EST
    exactly why the country needed the experience of Hillary AND BILL in the White House.   Bill's brilliance could have turned the country around.  

    Obama would have been the VP (President-in-training.)

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 8) (#145)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:49:47 AM EST
    withholding your vote from Obama empowers McCain and ultimately also hurts Clinton.

    This is not about Hillary Clinton.  I'm not in this to make sure that Hillary isn't hurt, either now or in the future.  Yes, it would pain me to see Hillary hurt or her career damaged or cut short because I think she's a good politician and I've become emotionally tied to her as a woman, as a candidate, as a champion for causes I believe in.

    But nothing I do in November is going to be decided on the "is it good for Hillary" metric.  Just like nothing I do is going to be decided on the "is it good for the Dem Party" metric.  It's going to be decided on the metric of "can I vote for this candidate and still stay true to the issues that matter to me".  If the answer is no, that's not my fault.  I'm not somehow deficient as a voter or as a Dem or as a critical thinker because I find Obama lacking as a Dem candidate.  Even if the McCain bogeyman is the alternative.  

    If the Dems want to defeat McCain, they need to give me someone I want to vote for.  That somebody, thus far, is not Obama.  And that's not. my. fault.

    Parent

    That was short-hand for Clinton's (none / 0) (#148)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:53:57 AM EST
    policies.  I should have been more clear.

    Parent
    Oh (none / 0) (#153)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:57:51 AM EST
    Thanks for the clarification.  I retract my comment, then.

    Parent
    I believe the flaw is in your own reasoning (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    You are not actually understanding my reasoning.

    Parent
    With all due respect, (none / 0) (#66)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:02 AM EST
    I disagree.  I agree with your reasoning, but do not think you are taking your own reasoning far enough.

    Parent
    you agree with my structure but think I misunderstand the best way to forward my views.

    That is to say, you think that my approach is NOt the most effective way to forward my views.

    That means you disagree with my calculus, not that I am engaged in cognitive dissonance, which is a very different thing.

    Parent

    Well, perhaps we have (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    different views of what cognitive dissonance means, and perhaps I am wrong (or perhaps you are wrong).

    My proposition was that you consciously have adopted a platform/philosophy that you eloquently stated in your post.  But then, in the case of Obama, you are now taking actions (i.e. flatly stating you will vote for him in the GE no matter what) that undermine that conscious philosophy.  That's what I was calling cognitive dissonance (consciously developing a strategy but then taking actions that undermine your own strategy).  If you want to call it something else, that's fine with me.  

    Parent

    And... (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:13:54 AM EST
    now we just stop?  Now we're stuck with him so end of story?  I don't buy it.  It leads to what we've seen year after year after year:  pandering to the left/base during the primaries and pandering to the center/right during the GE and once elected.

    Indeed, it seems clear that Obama is following that exact same pattern.  But since he's the Dem nominee, I have to vote for him?  No.  The time to apply pressure is always.  "Any Dem will do" has done its part to create the dysfunctional system we have now.  It's time to say, no, any Dem will not do.  We need better Dems.  And we won't get them until we say we're willing to vote for them and only them.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:11:57 AM EST
    You can speak out as well.

    How much you are willing to do should be, imo, guided by what you feel will best forward the issues you believe in.

    I make no bones about the fact that I will support Obama in the election. The alternative is unacceptable to me.

    I also make clear that I will not hold my fire on Obama when he acts in ways that are counter to what I want to see be the governing policy of this nation.

    I am comfortable with the way I ma doing this. I think, at this time, it is the most effective way to forward the issues I care about.

    that is my North star, You may come to a different conclusion on how to forward you views.

    There is nothing cognitively dissonant in my position.

    You can disagree with my calculus, but there are no contradictions in my calculus.  

    Parent

    For what it's worth, (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by dk on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:14:51 AM EST
    I didn't see any contradictions in your calculus.  I just don't think it's effective this time around in the case of Obama.  I respect that people can disagree on that, though.

    Parent
    I don't see (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Emma on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    how speaking out accomplishes the goal of applying pressure unless it's backed by a threat to do concrete action.

    I speak out on issues all the time.  I support doing it.  I think it's a good idea and a great way to be involved.  

    But saying "I disagree with what you're doing but I'll vote for you anyway b/c the other guy is worse" leads to exactly the kind of politics everybody here bemoans, that is a campaign about how the other guy is bad, vote for me instead.  It gives politicians a roadmap to getting elected without ever having to stand up for anything, any core principles, any fundamental policies, anything.  

    We get the politicians and the politics we vote for.  And "any Dem will do" gets us a Congress that won't bother to stand up to a lame duck president with a 23% approval rating because they know we'll never hold them to anything by voting them out of office.

    Parent

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by badger on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    The result of "any Dem will do" is a kind of Gresham's Law ("bad money drives out good") with respect to candidates. All the GOP has to do is keep moving farther and farther right, and the Dems will follow just a few steps behind. Anybody think that isn't what's happening?

    Just because you slap a "Democrat" label on someone doesn't mean he/she gets my vote. I'm a Democrat only in the sense that more often Democratic candidates are acceptably close to what I believe in politically. That doesn't mean that any position the Dems take is one I'll support.

    But it's what I believe in politically that determines my vote. If the choice is, for example, between a Democrat who will vote to gut the 4th Amendment and a Republican who'll do the same, what's the point of voting at all?

    And between the actions the Congressional Dems are taking and the rhetoric (and advisors) of the Obama campaign, I'm inclined to the Nader position (but never a Nader supporter) that there isn't a nickel's worth of difference between Obama and McCain - not in terms of the things that concern me. Whatever differences there are that make Obama more attractive are completely swamped out by his lack of experience and the continual hypocrisy expressed by his campaign and supporters. The topic of this post by BTD is just one instance of that.

    <expletive> 'em all.


    Parent

    Spoken like a true Badger (none / 0) (#182)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:34:18 AM EST
    -- that is, a Wisconsinite, where we're all Indies, in a way . . . as I recall, you're from Wisconsin?  The state that sends Republican La Follettes -- as well as McCarthy -- but then Democrats Proxmire, Nelson, and Feingold to Washington. . . .

    I do wonder, though, whether this campaign will be an interesting test in this state with traditionally high participation at the polls vs. your "what's the point of voting at all."  We will see.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#221)
    by badger on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    The last three (Prox, Nelson and Russ) all got my vote when I lived in WI.

    And I think it's important to note that I never completely agreed with any of them, they're all politicians, but they all stood for things and you knew what those things were.


    Parent

    BTD (5.00 / 4) (#87)
    by DJ on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    When has Sen Obama shown he will listen to you or others?  I see no evidence that you or anyone "holding his feet to the fire"  makes one bit of difference.  It makes no sense to me.

    Parent
    I understand your position. (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:28:59 AM EST
    But if Obama knows he has your vote, how do you hold his feet to the fire? As long as you never see him being a worse choice than McCain, why should he pay any attention to what you say?  He's going to do what he's going to as long as he knows he can get away with it because as you say, "Pols are pols". When he doesn't do anything more than pay lip service to working against FISA or anything else you want him to do, all that will remain will be collective hand wringing. Until he crosses your line in the sand, he's got a free ride. And you've told him that there's no line.

    Parent
    It is an interesting subiect (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:03 AM EST
    And I wrote thousands and thousands of words on the subject while I was a FPer at Daily Kos, my theory of the Big Tent and Primaries.

    Perhaps I will pull all of that together so that folks not familiar with it can read it.

    Warning, it literally is tens of thousands of words on the subject.

    Parent

    I hope you will (3.00 / 2) (#125)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:45 AM EST
    I feel like some of that's been missing in this discussion.

    Parent
    I think collective voices of dissent make it (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    to the news media at some point, if they are loud enough.  Everyone knows what PUMA is now, for example. One way to get through to Obama at this point is to get the press to make his life miserable asking about FISA, or whatever the issue of the day happens to be.  That's why I was glad to see Feingold come out vocally. It does take a media lightning rod to get the press's attention.

    I know I make it sound easier than it is.

    Parent

    Just think about what you do carefully. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:12:50 AM EST
    That's all. Exercise your conscience.

    Parent
    Read a comment joke that we need to take over (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    the Repub Party and, since it's losing so many supporters, we'd have the numbers to make it into the party which represents lib/progressive issues and principles. That was "joke," in that the commenter was sorta serious.  Just another leftie who feels unrepresented in the Hope and Change Obama Party.

    Truly, I have no idea how we could do that--but I sure do have a strong desire to belong to a party which represents my interests, ideals, principles--and will listen to me.

    So, my major question: How do lib/progs get Obama to listen to them????

    I get the feeling he's just using us and we will be ignored, just as the Repubs used to ignore the Fundies once they had their votes.

    Plus, I still have no idea how Obama will actually govern. Do you, BTD???

    (Actually, I used to have some ideas, then he began changing positions so much I have lost faith in the few areas I did have faith in his stands.  Heeeeelp!)

    You get Obama to listen to you (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:17:35 AM EST
    by voting against him and all who support him.  When they start losing elections, it's a clear sign that they need to listen from now on.

    Wonder why John Kerry is being primaried?!?!?!

    Parent

    John Kerry lost an election... (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by oldpro on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:07:33 PM EST
    ...did he start listening to 'us' at last?

    Nope.

    He enabled Obama as a frontman...

    Parent

    Reading the comments over there (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by eric on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    I see the quality of the discourse over there has not improved.  When someone made the exact point that is made here, that Rosenberg seems hypocritical for suggesting that Obama should say, "whatever it takes", they attack the commenter.

    It didn't used to be like that over there.  Obama has already brought his CHANGE to TPM.

    Months ago` (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    It's been like that over there for a long time now.

    I hope Josh is proud of himself.

    Parent

    Too harsh. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    Now my own view is that ALL pols will say and do anything to win

    I'm not naive but it's going a bit too far to suggest that politicians will say and do anything to win.

    Certainly they'll engage in politics and that includes adapting and targeting their message and positions to what they believe a majority of voters want to hear.  In a sense that's what democracy is.

    But (and I realize I'm running against the common wisdom here a bit) if either Obama or Clinton had been willing to say anything to get elected I think we would have seen a much, much, much dirtier primary than the relatively clean one we saw.  Both candidates are to be credited, but especially Clinton who went out of her way not to praise (genuinely, I believe) her opponent.

    You are wrong (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    Running a dirtier campaign would have been counterproducitve - to wit, politically unwise. Especially for Clinton.

    They acted in ways to maximize their chances of winning - the balance was, of course, keeping an eye on the GE.

    Parent

    I dunno, BTD (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:02:17 PM EST
    It certainly didn't hurt Obama to play as dirty as it gets and smear the Clintons and all those other Dems., not to mention the voters, as racists.  I don't know that it gets any lower than that in Dem. Party politics.

    Parent
    She wasn't very macceavellian. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM EST
    She didn't have a stalking horse who was ready to dump negative ads on the closest competitors and her surrogates were too quick and gleeful to see Edwards drop out.

    Parent
    Well, if you're going to define. . . (none / 0) (#93)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:27:37 AM EST
    "say anything to win" as "say anything to win, except for those things that might benefit one in the future" it's hard to argue.

    Obviously, she wasn't willing to say "anything" to win, unless you believe it was actually impossible to win the primary.

    Parent

    that seems like a (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:37:10 AM EST
    "duh" to me, personally.

    Parent
    Now you get to the point I was making (2.00 / 1) (#115)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:38:53 AM EST
    How much further could she really have gone? She made the political calculation and went as far as she thought she reasonably could. Any politician in her position would have.

    Parent
    wrong (5.00 / 6) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:42:42 AM EST
    completely dead wrong.
    "most politicians" would have taken him out before the republicans have a chance to.
    Hillary didnt because of the many many years of work she and her husband have done in and for the AA community.
    it was not worth it to her.
    but dont start going on about "any politician" please.


    Parent
    I don't see how you're disagreeing with me (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:44:45 AM EST
    She made a calculation and didn't do those things. That's all.

    Parent
    I thought it was pretty clear (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    you said she did what any politician would do.
    I think thats bull.
    I am not agreeing with you.


    Parent
    I guess that depends (none / 0) (#146)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:51:04 AM EST
    on how strictly you're defining "any." I suppose there are some politicians who would not have done so, but I suspect that few of them ever rise to the Presidential level. To a degree, this is all unknowable.

    Parent
    um, whatever (none / 0) (#151)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:55:12 AM EST
    You see, Obama is so pure and wonderful (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:03:59 AM EST
    that it's okay for him to lie and switch his positions and ideals on a dime.

    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Josey on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:50 AM EST
    the big difference between Hillary and Obama is -
    Obama is a bamboozler and has been allowed by the Washington establishment, Left blogs, and media to hoodwink his way to the nomination.

    >>>>Kos on TV saying - there is not much choice, we'd still vote for Obama, but we were expecting him not to be another spineless democrat.
    http://tinyurl.com/5bsvmr

    ha! as if Korporate Kos didn't know.

    Parent

    Tp quote! (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
    "Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

    I still am convinced I was doing that with my support for Hillary.  She had the issues down pat--and from previous knowledge of her, I am willing to say I think she would have fought valiantly for the issues.  THAT is why her supporters are so angry or disappointed or any other adjective you want to apply to us.

    We had a dream candidate--a fighter who believed in all our big issues.  And we got skunked.

    Personally, I think of all elected officials (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST
    as "temps".  

    The President in particular is only a temporary.  

    His or her legacy is ultimately defined by issues and policies.  

    Whether or not people wanted to have a drink with a dry drunk in a bar is irrelevant when you see the legacy of bad and often dangerous policy that he will leave.

    My personal attachments in politics are to issues and policies that I believe would be good for the citizens of this country.  My personal attachments to politicians are developed based on their policy decisions.

    Presidents are temps who can do a amazing amount (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:26:33 AM EST
    of damage while in their temp position....

    Parent
    Yep, but the office and the government (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:34:26 AM EST
    live on - not them.  That's why their policies are more important than they are.

    Parent
    touche' (none / 0) (#167)
    by kelsweet on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    What does Obama believe? (5.00 / 6) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    I have absolutely no idea what he truly believes other than he wants to be president.

    What power do voters really have to hold politicians feet to the fire if they continually vote for a candidate or a party that votes against the voters own principles because they are the lesser of two evils. Politicians want two things from voters. Money and votes. The money is flowing freely from Big Business and the high rollers and my withholding funds will have no effect on this election. Once they are assured that they will get my vote regardless of what they do or fail to do, they could care less and vote to promote their own interest as clearly illustrated by the FISA vote this week. The Dems firmly believe that they can do anything they want because as they have told us repeatedly  "We have no where else to go." Unfortunately, they are probably right. People will continue to buy into that frame. The lesser of two evils PR campaign that both parties have promoted has achieved its purpose.

    Yep (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    And we're enablers. They could care less what we think or say.  The only thing they understand is our vote.

    Parent
    Blue (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by DJ on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    I agree with your statement.  There is no accountability if we continue to vote for the D no matter what.  

    If the Democratic Congress and the Bush years have taught us anything it is that they do not listen to the voters.  Once they are in office (or even the presumed nominee) they act in their own best interests...after all..how many times have we heard it..get ready...where are we going to go?

    This system is broken and there is no accountability anywhere.  The  media is to blame, the pollsters are to blame, and we the lazy masses are to blame for not using our vote wisely.  We get the president we deserve and this country is destroying itself.

    Parent

    This whole (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:33:35 AM EST
    "Obama has to do this to win" reminds me of the Bush supporters. First it was "he can't do that because he has to win the general election." Next, it was "he can't do that because he has to win reelection." I imagine it will be the same pattern if Obama gets into office. I think the apologia would reach a crescendo just like it did for Bush.

    give the man a cigar (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    you have found the nub.  its ok for him to openly court the biggest homophobe in the democratic party.
    its ok for him to renege on any number of pledges and promises.
    you are exactly correct.  the question becomes the very same one I have had about Bush for the last 7 years.
    what EXACTLY would he need to do for it to NOT be ok?


    Parent
    have an "R" after his name? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:42:41 AM EST
    I think an R is just a D (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    with a tail.

    Parent
    it's seeming more and more true (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    Grammatical errors (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by DJ on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:34:44 AM EST
    are frequently made during heated discussion.  If any exist,  Not a good argument.

    Someone will have to explain to me (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:39:38 AM EST
    how this so-called fire we are supposed to be holding these candidates' feet to can ever be much more than the flickering light and faint heat from a few damp matches, when votes and money have already given them the freedom to do as they please - not as we wish.

    To me, this seems like the consequence of allowing an obsession with "beating the b!tch" to obscure how the candidate would act - and has acted - on real issues, and with checks and votes in hand, accountability is off the table, and issues will be addressed without much regard for what the little people think.

    Look no further than the very public response to voter dissatisfaction, which is some coded version of, "what are you gonna do about it - whine?" or "where else are you gonna go?" - not generally a good sign that the candidate, or the people who advise him, is particularly interested in fighting for the issues and causes that the voters want him to.

    It is an interesting question (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    I do not think I can do it justice in a comment.

    As  I just responded to a commenter, I have really thought and written about these issues a lot for many years.

    I may try to pull together all my writings in to something coherent for your consideration in a subsequent post.

    Parent

    definitions (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:40:31 AM EST
    are sometimes counter intuitive to how something is used.

    For instance, we see that when obama does something we disagree with, we remark "pols are pols" and we must redouble efforts to influence him accordingly.

    In contrast, when a different politician has done something we disagree with, we remark that his or her character is deficient, that he or she has been corrupted.

    So there is clearly much more to the story.

    This is a blatant distortion (none / 0) (#138)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    of my previous post. I was rebutting the assertion that McCain was a man ofd integrity and character, not arguing that Obama should be excused for anything.

    I am really resenting your constant disingenuousness about my posts.

    Parent

    I wasn't saying you excused obama of anything (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:20:06 AM EST
    I'm saying we avoid questions about his character and integrity.

    Both have been held up by their supporters and the media as being above politics.

    In order to provide a sanity check with respect to both, we say one is merely a pol and pols are pols.

    but The other lacks integrity and character.

    The obvious question is does obama lack integrity and character?

    Parent

    Sexism & Misogyny (5.00 / 11) (#126)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:42:00 AM EST
    I'm going out of town for awhile, but when I get back I'm going to try to put a timeline together to show how the negative tropes about Clinton were rolled out by the Obama campaign and its supporters starting in October 2007 and how those tropes deliberately played into sexist stereotypes of women.

    "Say and do anything to win" is one of those accusations that had a sexist undercurrent for me because it plays into the stereotype of a lying, scheming woman.  Whereas when it's applied to a man, it's a good thing.

    I think that's part of it.  When men do anything to win, they're tough fighters.  If women do it, they're lying scheming b!tches.  

    Of course, the fact that it wasn't true about Clinton, didn't matter.  She's a powerful woman, of course she's also a scheming manipulative b!tch.  The two are one and the same.

    I really want to see this (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:55:52 AM EST
    timeline -- wish I had time to do it -- and will hang in here to look for a link to it from you.  I will put it to good use with hundreds of students, if that encourages you to do this upon your return.  I also think that a chronological record might begin to reconstruct at least a hint of the impact of the continuing sexist and misogynistic attacks.

    Bon voyage, BDB.  Thanks in advance for this.

    Parent

    It Will Be At Least A Couple of Weeks (5.00 / 6) (#161)
    by BDB on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    Real life calls, but when I post it, it will be at Corrente.  I'm definitely going to do it.  It's important to document the atrocities and while the media certainly played an enormous role, I don't believe in letting Obama and his supporters off the hook.  A lot of the misogyny was encouraged by Democrats and that needs to be documented or else we'll never have any accountability.

    Parent
    No prob; worth the wait (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:36:00 AM EST
    and more reason to keep checking in at Corrente.:-)

    Parent
    OT but try to review (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:12:28 AM EST
    the media meme of 'Obama needs the white male vote in this state' and match it up to the statements he was making.  You might find the 'kitchen sink' comments coincide with specific primaries.

    Parent
    BDB, great plan! (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:10:20 PM EST
    One thing that would be really useful, I think, is to note which part of the Obama/media apparatus these things came from, to the extent that you can.  I think there's really quite a little pyramid to be teased out from Obama personally to his official campaign spokespeople to "surrogates" like JJJr. to more distant supporters.

    It would make a pretty fascinating study to look at both Obama's and Clinton's campaigns someday for exactly those distinctions and see how close to the center the dirt was being thrown from.

    Parent

    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by lilburro on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:14:43 AM EST
    I wonder if Obama's biography tour is still on schedule (I think it's supposed to come after the current "economy tour"?)  Will it successfully distract from this centrist slide and first wave of supporter dissatisfaction?

    You can't hold feet to the fire on issues if your candidate won't talk about them (for a time)...

    So is he filibustering yet?

    It's really hard discussing things here (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    when you, andgarden, have to dominate the thread....29 comments in the last hour and 15 min.

    It gets tiresome.

    I agree, but let me just add (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by daryl herbert on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 01:55:09 PM EST
    Now my own view is that ALL pols will say and do anything to win - the trick for us as citizens is to make the politically wise thing to do be the things we want the pols to do. That is why we hold their feet to the fire

    We also need to elect politicians who feel, in their hearts, like doing the right thing.  They don't have to be 100% principled about it.  It's better to elect a pol who is in favor of keeping abortion legal than one who wants to ban it, even if both pols could be convinced to swing the other way if it meant enough votes.

    One reason I am extremely suspicious of Sen. Obama is that I don't know what he really believes, where he really stands, or what he will do when he has a free hand.

    I'd say Hillary was right on (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by mkevinf on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 04:47:15 PM EST
    when she described "Change you can Xerox".  She was booed by some at that debate and roundly criticized for being "mean".
    The deck was always stacked that way.

    Has anyone ever heard of Pierre Elliot Trudeau? (1.00 / 0) (#175)
    by samsguy18 on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
    I just returned from Ottawa Ontario and while there I came across an article Called the Trudeau Swing.The article commented on Obama's erie resemblance to Trudeau.  In the 70's there was Trudeaumania very similar to Obamamania.
    Trudeau was Youth favored
    Hip and Harvard educated
    Similar resume'To Obama's
    He made Vague promises lacking details
    When he won the national election the headline in the NYT stated his campaign was cloaked
    "In Just Society Goals"
    The Liberals believed in High Taxes and BIG government. They restricted trade/free markets imposed confiscatory taxes,destroyed the once powerful Canadian armed forces leaving the nation helpless
    The trudeau socialism undermined and crippled the Canadian economy.    
    It took over 20 years for the economy to recover.
    He destroyed the healthcare system using it as a political pawn.The average Canadian never in their wildest dreams believed they would be paying close to a 60% income tax rate.THe middle class over a short period of time got hit very hard with job loss and high taxes This too can happen here in the USA!!!

    Not by Obama (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:11:58 PM EST
    If I thought he was actually anything close to a socialist, I'd vote for him in a hearbeat.

    Parent
    Wow, are intelligent people on this list actually (1.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Newt on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    saying Hillary's gas tax holiday was a good idea?  We can't stop FISA's retroactive immunity and you think the Senate would agree to her plan of a windfall profits tax to make up for the little guys getting out of paying for road repairs?

    All the major economists agreed it was a bad idea.  Oil companies would not be required in any way to increase prices and pocket the difference.  Environmentalists should be concerned because it would encourage even more gas guzzling this summer.  And there are plenty more reasons to not take that path.  It was pandering, not a serious solution.

    How about a windfall profits tax on oil companies that doesn't encourage more wasteful use of gas by the public?  Oh, sorry, that was one of Obama's ideas.


    Do pundits and strategists... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    ...think the voting public will not notice these contradictions?  Do they think Bush happened because the public don't care, or because maybe the public saw Democratic commentators say the same sort of contradictory things? I'm not asking a rhetorical question here.

    btw I do think a leader needs to be an effective liar.  I put Blair, FDR and Harold wilson in that category on the left. Reagan Eisenhower and TR on the right.

    Bush also contradicted himself (none / 0) (#42)
    by Salo on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:10:28 AM EST
    on very significant issues. He came into 2000 as the international Humblist.  And in a few months he was an American exceptionalist.

    Parent
    He stuck with humble pie until he was in office-- (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:25:18 AM EST
    He even continued, seemed to flounder, but was, actually, behind the scenes and in secret setting up the extra-legal (well, illegal) telecom spying apparatus. Among other things.

    We got a pig in a poke.

    And we have suffered greatly for it.

    Parent

    Sorry Angie (none / 0) (#114)
    by blogtopus on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    I downrated your comment for the name calling. No hard feelings, just find a better way to express yourself.

    Ways to hold their feet to the fire (none / 0) (#123)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
    The obvious one is to not vote for them.  With Obama, I don't like this method because I don't want McCain to win.  So the next level is...

    Withhold money and make sure they know why. Also do whatever you can to give him bad press on the issue in question. Post to his web site, or blogs that might get some attention. Write letters to the editor. Sign petitions. Make phone calls to his office.

    Write emails to journalists.  A lot of them have email addresses on their blogs. Put the issue in the subject line in case they don't read the whole message.

    Eventutally if enough people do these things the press will wake up and take notice and start asking him about it. If he is nagged enough he might at least do better the next time similar issues come around.  

    If he doesn't, there is another nomination contest right around the corner.

    Getting back to the topic (none / 0) (#198)
    by A little night musing on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 11:52:02 AM EST
    Or, what I think is the topic of BTD's post, and pardon if this has been linked already and I've missed it:

    Sometimes holding their feet to the fire does work.

    The linked story makes me feel a little bit better about the prospect of voting for Obama, BTW. Obviously I'd rather he just always did what I think is right without having to be told, but (as BTD is always reminding us) he's a pol. At least he did the right thing when pressed.

    More like this please, and don't make it have to be a fellow pol who's pressing. I'm still feeling a little under the weather - errrr, I mean under the bus!


    Mixed message once again (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:22:43 PM EST
    or More Room Under The Bus
    As Senator Barack Obama courted voters in Iowa last December, Representative Keith Ellison, the country's first Muslim congressman, stepped forward eagerly to help.

    Mr. Ellison believed that Mr. Obama's message of unity resonated deeply with American Muslims. He volunteered to speak on Mr. Obama's behalf at a mosque in Cedar Rapids, one of the nation's oldest Muslim enclaves. But before the rally could take place, aides to Mr. Obama asked Mr. Ellison to cancel the trip because it might stir controversy. Another aide appeared at Mr. Ellison's Washington office to explain.

    "I will never forget the quote," Mr. Ellison said, leaning forward in his chair as he recalled the aide's words. "He said, `We have a very tightly wrapped message.' "
    ...
    In an interview with "60 Minutes," Mr. Obama said the rumors were offensive to American Muslims because they played into "fearmongering." But on a new section of his Web site, he classifies the claim that he is Muslim as a "smear."

    "A lot of us are waiting for him to say that there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim, by the way," Mr. Ellison said. NY Times



    Parent
    Riiiiiiight (none / 0) (#208)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    It wouldn't have anything at all to do with cocky, condescending, insulting, know-it-all comments.