Given that history, it is somewhat surprising to see Booman's "Obama's Dem Party, love it or leave it" admonition. It's not as unreasonable a view as it might appear at first blush. It is reasonable to think that criticism should be measured and the push against Dems muted. But in my view, that is the wrong approach for the Left blogs. I believe, as I have for some time, that the Left blogs can and should be a voice for the Left Flank of the Democratic Party. I believe that Left blogs should fight for policies they believe in, not the pols or the political parties:
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.
Booman now holds a view that a certain level, or type, of criticism of specific policies and actions by Democrats is the same thing as criticism of the idea of government. That it makes you "not a Democrat." How that squares with his willingness to vilify the Clintons and other "unworthy" Dems is not clear to me. More importantly, I do not see how he believes he can judge what constitutes "constructive [progressive] criticism" from what is "not being a Democrat." The obligatory nod to Glenn Greenwald does not suffice. If all anyone did was blockquote Greenwald, I feel confident that there would be carping.
To provide some meaning to his judgments, he needs to go beyond "Greenwald good," "Hamsher bad." What does he think is "acceptable" criticism? What is "unacceptable" criticism that requires being labelled "not a Democrat" in Booman's mind?
In any event, what's do you think about all this?
Update: Booman on the Clintons and the DLC:
On Clinton: [a few] things.
I was a vociferous supporter of the president while he was in office, but worked hard for the Bradley campaign because I opposed their vision for the party, which downplayed labor and constituencies in favor of corporate funding. Plus, I just thought they surrounded themselves with scoundrels[. . ..] When given an option, I chose Bradley and then Obama. If Hillary were president, I'd be supporting her much more than criticizing her.
One of the keys to Obama is the new constituency he created, which is the opposite of the cynical DLC model [. . .] So, I oppose Clintonism much more for [. . .] what kind of party that [they] built or wanted to build, than I do over economic or social policy. I think the band of the possible is really quite narrow on economic and social policy and there isn't a whole lot of difference between any potential leaders in the micro sense. But the DLC model leads over time to an atrophying of the party base and a reliance on corporate money which exacerbates the narrow band problem.
Booman's makes some good points that echo some of the reasons why I supported Obama over Clinton during the primaries. I also think there is an implicit acknowledgment that in fact Obama will not change politics due to his personal characteristics but more because of his political appeal. Of course, it also overlooks things like Rahmbo as CoS, Summers and Geithner in Treasury, triangulation, the betrayal of labor with the excise tax, etc. I'll have more on this later.
Speaking for me only
