home

The Disappeared Left Flank

The Left Flank of American politics is always destined to "lose" in the conventional sense. The Left does not "win" elections. But to view the role of a Left Flank through that prism is to misunderstand the role the Left Flank can and should play -- which is to tug "the middle" closer to the views of the Left Flank. In some situations, the Left Flank has a more conducive climate to work in. Such was the case, in my view, in the 2005-2009 period.

Chris Bowers writes:

I spent much of 2008 exasperated by a progressive Internet space that had seemingly reversed itself overnight on things like the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC, and much more. It seemed as though numerous policies and strategies that had held near-consensus stature within the progressive online ecosystem had been either scrapped or reversed simply because Barack Obama said it was a good idea to scrap or reverse them.

[MORE . . .]

Back then, the urge to call people who reversed their positions lobotomized "sheeple" was almost impossible to resist--and I frequently did not resist it.

However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in "veal pens," but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.

Um, what? How exactly did Obama "persuade" people that their beliefs about "the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC[?]" were wrong? (BTW, I happen to see merit in the correct circumstances for triangulation, faking bipartisanship, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan and other issues like expanding free trade, creating a preventive detention regime and other issues where I was clearly out of step with progressives.)

If Chris could explain to me how precisely Obama went about "persuading" people that they were wrong about these issues, I am all ears. What Chris describes however sounds like lame excuse making for progressive groups to explain away their renouncing of views they proclaimed they strongly held. Bowers' explanation:

The progressive Internet space didn't change because it is filled with lobotomized sheeple, or veal pen online leaders craving access to power. It changed because President Obama persuaded it to change. Starting from virtually nothing online, President Obama quickly built the largest online progressive, political organization in existence. In late 2008, his email list had 13 million members, all of whom joined voluntarily. In two years (2007-2008), he nearly tripled what MoveOn.org did in a decade. He accomplished much of that long before he was the Democratic nominee, or even before he won Iowa.

The progressive Internet space changed because President Obama was more persuasive to the audience of the progressive blogosphere than even the most prominent progressive bloggers. It changed because his message was more persuasive to the membership of large progressive email organizations than the leaders of those organizations. President Obama took his message--and message is more than just policy, it includes all the cultural signification coming from a campaign--to the same online channels that are available to all of us, hired a bunch of smart online organizers, and ended up convincing many millions more people to voluntarily join him than any other online progressive organizational leader had ever done in the past.

Bowers' argument seems to be 'everybody loves a winner," even progressive activists, willing to jettison their views on issues to join up with the winner. Well, if that is the case, there is no Left Flank, and indeed these progressive groups were in fact poseurs all the time. Fundamentally, I see now that I have a different idea of what makes for successful progressive activism than does Chris. Chris writes:

Now, just because President Obama persuaded more people so far does not necessarily mean he is right in every case, that he will win in every case, or that his persuasive power is total. And it certainly doesn't mean that, if you disagree with him from the left, you shouldn't try to fight back However, it is important to recognize that President Obama has in fact won the argument among the base so far, and not because of veal pens or sheeple. He convinced 13 million people to voluntarily join his online operation. In order for a more left-wing force to displace, or at least shift, Obama, they have to do something comparable.

I tip my hat to President Obama's incredible political organization, but does Chris seriously believe that any other Democratic President or Presidential candidate would not have similarly outstripped progressive groups? My gawd, just look at the inept John Kerry. Is there any doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would not have dominated Democratic and progressive politics? Or a President Biden? Or a President Warner? Or any other name you want to supply? That is the nature of the beast.

What I think would have been different, and in this perhaps I am wrong, is that progressive groups would not have been shy about fighting for their views on the issues, irrespective of what these political figures said and did. It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

As always, I look to a more effective group as a North Star - Labor. Labor came along for the ride on health care. But what did they get in exchange? The excise tax was gutted. And, significantly, the President made a recess appointment to the National Labor Relations Board. Progressives groups have gotten, well, nothing. Chris writes:

Something will displace President Obama's power among the progressive base eventually, as the ground is always shifting online, and always shifting in politics. However, longing for the good old days when a more left-wing viewpoint held a stronger position online is not going to put anyone in a position to take advantage of that shifting ground. While the landscape will change again, it simply won't just change back to a pre-Obama Eden. We have to start to formulate what new, workable strategies there are for left-wing messaging and organizing in the future.

The first step in "formulating new workable strategies" is recognizing that what you have done has failed. Chris has spilled a lot of pixels trying to argue that progressives actually won a lot in the health care reform bargaining. I will not rehash why I believe those assertions are nonsensical. But I will note that if Chris really believes what he wrote, then he should be pleased with the manner in which progressive activism is functioning.

Since I believe progressive activism has failed on almost every issue faced during the Obama Administration, I am displeased with the way progressive activism is functioning. The heart of the problem is the inability of progressives to understand that their interests and views do not coincide with those of President Obama. They need to understand that a victory for Obama is not by definition a victory for progressives. My old refrain:

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.

Speaking for me only

< Happy Passover and Open Thread | Guttmacher: Mixed Bag For Womens' Reproductive Health Care In ObamaCare >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Poseurs mainly. (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:40:15 AM EST
    The public for many blogs also likes to follow a poseur. It's like that MGMT song...Time To Pretend.

    The subtext of Dkos for example is a peculiar type of conformity. Witness the hammering of Kucinich (who I personally don't find appealing, and perhaps he was always playing Kabuki.) or the accusations against Hamsher. It's hard to put a finger on it precisely.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:47:21 AM EST
    during the primaries A list bloggers did salivate over his email list as some sort of means to a future.  Of course, OFA is now in complete decay.

    Bowers forgets that bloggers like himself helped create Obama, but in return for that they received nothing but extra traffic.  Obama took his message and had bloggers repeat it easy as 1 2 3.


    It is a tough existence (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:48:49 AM EST
    As you say, the left flank never wins elections.  As lefties we are forever doomed to live lives to some extent of quiet desperation.  We are all too smart for our own good.  It is our job to make the arguments that need to be made, but that doesn't come with any long standing roaring crowds of applauding boneheads.  I suppose it is hard to not want to roll around in some kind of available cool kids group and lose our way because the path can't be defined as one of comfort and warmth.

    All I can say is that if everybody (5.00 / 13) (#6)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    loves a winner, we should have all loved George Bush.

    I think that Obama has very carefully positioned himself as unthreatening in the eyes of most Americans - Tea Partiers excepted - and actually that is exactly why Dick Armey and the GOP needed to start the Tea Party movement - Obama's greatest political strength is is ability to be unthreatening.

    The Obama people have worked very hard to make every White House and Democratic issue about him.  They count on the fact that he is "likable" and reason that if they keep the focus on liking Obama, the policies with which some will vehemently disagree will be defended by people who really like him.  And for the most part, that has worked pretty well for them.

    In any case, I don't think that they won any argument.  I don't think they convinced people to change their minds.  I think they have successfully changed the debate from policy to personality every time they've taken heat from the left.  They cannonize Obama; villify his critics; craft cleverly appealing middle-of-the-road messages; and so far that's been a winning formula for them.

    This White House is not grounded in policy - they are all about politics.  Ideally, one would like a bit of skill and passion for both, but that's not what we have here.

    There is a lengthy article on HuffPo today by Dan Froomkin discussing Greg Craig's exit as White House counsel and how Bauer and others are approaching detainee policy now that Craig is gone.  If his account is accurate, this White House has decided that it is politically expedient to avoid the political battles over the Constitutional issues surrounding detainees and Gitmo.  And the reality is that as long as the majority of people in this country trust Obama, most people aren't going to force him to restore the integrity of our justice system.  Most people don't worry about that stuff until they start to have misgivings about the people running the show.

    And I would applaud that approach (5.00 / 11) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:00:06 AM EST
    if Obama would fight for policies I want.

    The old joke is "you want a pony." and I say yes, if by pony, you mean policies I espouse.

    It seems ridiculous to not want policies I espouse. But apparently, arguing for policies you espouse is being a dead ender/PUMA. Weird.

    Parent

    The bottom line is that in this (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:17:41 AM EST
    political re-awakening, there are a lot of people who have come into the arena of politics who either didn't really have any particular policy position other than not liking the Bush/Cheney Administration; and/or don't really understand government and policy.

    There's a lot of wiggle room for a politician in a room full of neophytes.

    I would hold this Administration in higher esteem if they were enacting policies that they really seemed to believe in even if I didn't entirely agree with the policies.  For instance, I never believed and probably never will believe that regulating the health insurers will be an effective model for making the critical changes in the system that we need, but I can understand that people might want to try that.  The thing about this new law ended up though was that it was poor work product on the reform front - they are weak and watered down, etc.  I could have gotten behind a real regulation program, but they didn't even do that.  The politics of passing "something" took precedent over the policy.  The obsession with politics and what they call political pragmatism trumped all and we ended up with something that is subpar.  Oh well.

    Their after sale sell job is going well.  Everybody does love a winner and that works as long as people are distracted from thinking about whether or not that win really is a win for them too.

    Parent

    I think there is a lot of truth to this. (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:03:27 AM EST
    The thing is:  Obama IS very likeable, funny, great personality, IMO. And that seems to cover for a heck of a lot.

    I don't understand it. On a personal level, it is easy for me to like him, but that doesn't mean I don't have contempt for what is happening on policy.

    Parent

    I always love your take on what is up with (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:18:46 AM EST
    the administration.  You are always so coherent from the space I take up. I am somewhat confused lately about who would qualify for our detention policies now.  I know that in the Afghan theater we make every attempt now to acknowledge Afghan sovereignty.  For instance, whenever troops head out for a specific task that involves taking on the Taliban, a member of the FBI is always with them to gather forensic evidence.  We can hold prisoners for a certain length of time, but after that they are supposed to be turned over and enter into the Afghan justice system.  Our forces must make the case for the arrested person's guilt and the person is tried in the Afghan system.  Findings of guilt are not guaranteed and some people have been arrested several times before being incarcerated by the existing government.  Would such a system be able to be functional and operational without the current ISAF presence.  Likely not, but I don't understand who if captured in Afghanistan we can hold.....or does it only apply to terror suspects captured in other areas of the world now?

    Parent
    I honestly don't get it. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    Seems like they change the rules fairly frequently.  The had a rule about three days detention - changing the longer period the Bushies had - and now they've gone back and extended that time and I can't keep up.  But the one thing I can say is that in that HuffPo article Froomkin claims that some White House people who deal with terrorism and national security claim that the politicos in the White House have taken over driving those policy decisions ince Craig left which would basically account for the ping pong effect we are seeing in policy changes - at least that's what I'd bet is the root cause.  But we'll see.

    Parent
    Kucinich over at dkos (none / 0) (#9)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:04:02 AM EST
    Indicates that his personal friendship with Obama is the primary reason he changed his vote.

    Parent
    Ouch. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:06:13 AM EST
    Double Ouch. (none / 0) (#118)
    by bridget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    Either he's a fool or he thinks we are (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    ---Kucinich, that is.

    Parent
    I believe it, though. (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:18:23 AM EST
    I've come away from observing the HCR catastrophe with a healthy respect for Obama's charisma and his ability to muscle through the policies he wants.
    When it comes to people like Bowers and MJ Rosenfeld, Obama doesn't even have to snap his fingers---they do all the work fooling themselves into believing Obama is something he is not. It's quite an amazing phenomenon.

    Parent
    I haven't looked over there (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:15:40 AM EST
    but everything I've read suggests that he changed his vote because he didn't want to be responsible for brining down the Obama Presidency.

    Parent
    If he had so much power, he should have (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    bargained for something.

    Parent
    He tried, and then decided (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:26:49 AM EST
    that he couldn't.

    Parent
    Sure he could have. (none / 0) (#25)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:29:25 AM EST
    Still, it was impressive how the HCR bill was pumped up to the point where it was "too big to fail" in the minds of Congressional Dems.
    Well played by the WH.

    Parent
    He was in the room, and you weren't (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    I personally don't think he could have conducted any such negotiation on his own. He would have needed the support of several more members and from the grassroots.

    That was not forthcoming. So his choice was to vote no and potentially sink the Presidency (nobody knew the vote totals at the time) or to vote yes with clearly expressed reservations.

    Parent

    It seems to me it must have been (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:16:50 AM EST
    abundantly clear that there was going to be no more bargaining on the left side of the spectrum that final weekend. All of the PO talks were over in the fall.  By the time Kucinich and (and Grayson) agreed to vote yes the decision was over Dem face-saving, not the bill.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:40:32 AM EST
    Kucinich made the calculation that holding out at that point would only make things (generally speaking) worse. It's hard for me to disagree.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    Not to say he couldn't have done better fighting in the real battle. Maybe he could have. But the more I read the more I believe that nobody in power was ever going to let a PO, much less single payer, see the light of day.

    Parent
    "Faking bipartisanship" (none / 0) (#74)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:51:49 PM EST
    Good way to put it....

    There is a difference between being out of power and in power.  When Bush was President, it was easy to have a common view--Bush was terrible.  And to demand a whole list of liberal changes--but that was secondary.  The focus was anti-Bush more than a progressive agenda.

    In power, compromises are inevitable....and the ideal never happens....

    Witness the Republicans now--all in sync on too much spending and government.  The social issues brushed asided.....Pro choicers like Scott Brown and Meg Whitman and Tom Campbell in California will do well....That would never have happened with Republicans in power....

    The Democrats re-took the House and the Senate by electing moderate Democrats from Red State districts.  That is not a mandate for progressive change.

    I frankly think liberals are more effective changing overall public perceptions than actual policies....Change the society's view and the policy will change.  So, yes, liberal bloggers need to advocate for progressive views.....The problem is that they often just talk to other liberals.....Liberal bloggers will have more clout as they change public perception....

    Sure, pressuring Democratic elected officials on their views, or instilling discipline on certain issues, would be helpful.  But liberals, unlike conservatives, tend to be by nature diffuse and fractured, so delivering a credible threat to Democratic officials can be hard to do.

    And, of course, if the idea is to push issues, then the discourse needs to be about issues.....The critics of Obama on the left have often mixed in too much personal antagonism.  Those who do not, such as BTD and Jeralyn, frankly have much more credibility.....

    Parent

    The audacity of hope? (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by szielinski on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:11:31 AM EST
    The Left Flank of American politics is always destined to "lose" in the conventional sense. The Left does not "win" elections.

    The claim quoted above is probably true. It surely accurately depicts the recent past. And why alter this assertion when no part of the present moment suggests that the future we will likely have will differ from the past in a way that would favor the left?

    Yet this claim is destructive when considered as a prediction of the future. Why? Believing it true provides a stage for realizing a self-fulfilling prophecy. The left fails to win elections because it and everyone else expects the left to fail in this regard.

    It's truth may thus depend on the pervasive belief that Democratizing forces cannot conquer City Hall.

    That said, we must also remember that those conditions which would enable the left flank of American politics to modify Democratic Party political positions and actions would also enable the left to form a third party meant to challenge the Democratic Party at the polls. The crucial issue in this matter: Can most American citizens jettison a belief in the American Creed and embrace a stronger variant of Social Democracy than the kind of Social Democracy found in, say, The Great Society programs of the 1960s? This issue would affect the "inside the Democratic Party" and "outside the Democratic Party" paths to power. If this claim is true, as I believe it to be, then the left in the United States need not bloody its hands by participating in a party which affirms America's empire and the militarism which defines imperial governance.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:16:31 AM EST
    Good piece, BTD (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by david mizner on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:20:51 AM EST
    Specially this:

    I tip my hat to President Obama's incredible political organization, but does Chris seriously believe that any other Democratic President or Presidential candidate would not have similarly outstripped progressive groups? My gawd, just look at the inept John Kerry. Is there any doubt that a President Hillary Clinton would not have dominated Democratic and progressive politics? Or a President Biden? Or a President Warner? Or any other name you want to supply? That is the nature of the beast.

    What I think would have been different, and in this perhaps I am wrong, is that progressive groups would not have been shy about fighting for their views on the issues, irrespective of what these political figures said and did. It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

    Chris's piece was very confused. He must be tired. He conflates Obama's general winning over of the party--which happened two years ago--with his winning over progressive institutions and individuals, which is ongoing. The first led to the second, of course, which is to say that the cause is power, not "messaging."

    And he does something very annoying that the Obama hardcore does, accusing critics of calling the bandwagoners sheep or some such. But you needn't be a sheep to run with the pack. It's very human to want to attach yourself to a winner: there are rewards, emotional and in some cases tangible, for doing so.

    He's very sensitve to criticism (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    So am I.

    I read that thread and find it ironic that some folks get upset when it is said that their work, noble and admirable though it is, has failed.

    So they excuse me and others of rabble rousing for traffic, "whining" and of a PUMA like mindset.

    I try to avoid discussing people's motivations. Never have I accused anyone of being bought off. And Indeed, I doubt money has much to do with it. First of all, there is not much of it on offer.

    I am cognizant though that I have more freedom to write what I want to than most.

    Parent

    PUMA like mindset? (5.00 / 4) (#59)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:48:21 AM EST
    With all due respect BTD, if the word is going to be verboten for those of us that actually ARE PUMAs then I don't think it should be allowed to be utilized at all by those who don't seem to understand what the term actually means. Unless of course you are arguing that the idea of believing in CORE PRINCIPLES as some sort of personal defect.

    At the end of the day the PUMAs were right to believe that Obama was NOT a feminist and that he would sell women out. They were right that Barack Obama had no intention on keeping his word on a universal health care system or the conscience clause. They were right about DOMA. They were right on the fact that the rules were manipulated and that half the party was hosed over to drag Obama over the finish line. Quite frankly I don't understand how anyone would take being called a PUMA as an insult. They've so far been the freaking Cassandras on just about everything Obama and the Democrats stand for nowadays(which is pretty close to nil).

    Parent

    Freedom (none / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:23:08 PM EST
    I keep going back to the decision, apparently taken in mid-2008, where the high-traffic Dem blogs (in which category I don't place TL) took the decision to deny single payer oxygen, and never to give it front page coverage, or even a fair hearing, in favor of the so-called "public option" -- an editorial policy they have collectively maintained, with remarkable unanimity, to this very day.

    From the outside, where I am, since there's no principled policy reason for that editorial decision, and so far as I can tell no threatened loss of readership (which controversy builds) from airing different views, and the Democratic Party is, after all, a "big tent," the only model I can build for their astonishingly illiberal behavior is the desire to preserve access, a la classic access journalism.

    That's not money like "walking around money" in Philly,  but access does translate directly into money for going on the teebee, from advertising, from consulting, and for whip campaigns. And the money doesn't have to be a lot to affect behavior.

    Sorry, but there it is.

    Parent

    I don't get it (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    What on earth was in those magical emails that X million people got that "persuaded" them?  Or is it that somehow just getting Obama emails, any emails about anything, is magically transformative?

    I didn't sign up for them so I didn't see them.  Were they full of cogent policy argument, unlike every other politician's emails, which are mostly appeals for money?

    I appreciate, and even sympathize with, the fact that Bowers is struggling.  But it seems to me an awful lot of what he's struggling with is great clouds of fog his own brain has thrown up around itself.


    Why do people tend to face the same direction (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:43:21 AM EST
    in an elevator?

    Parent
    So they don't have to look at each other. (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Faust on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:45:57 AM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    Candid Camera (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:10:10 PM EST
    Because being confined in a box (none / 0) (#87)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:27:25 PM EST
    with others is already an invasion of most people's "space," and making eye contact would make that invasion much worse.

    I worked in a building about 10 years ago where the interior elevator doors were mirrored, making elevator rides even more uncomfortable: do you look at yourself, at your feet/the floor, close your eyes, what?  

    Parent

    Because the door they will exit through (none / 0) (#92)
    by Inspector Gadget on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:45:52 PM EST
    is straight ahead...as is the light indicator to tell you what floor it stopped on :) People like to be prepared.

    Parent
    I think it is shear force of personality (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:38:42 AM EST
    It either works on you or it doesn't.

    I firmly believe that if just about any other Dem (Kerry, Gore, Clinton) had been elected and then carried out these same policies, Bowers and most of the rest of the 'progressives' would count themselves among the loyal opposition. They would come back and vote for re-election over a Republican, but until then they would not act like lovelorn teenagers wondering why the dreamboat only calls when he needs something, and then sigh and say they just can't fight the feeling anymore.

    Parent

    Big difference IMO (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:59:00 AM EST
    Kerry, Gore, Clinton were long time established politicians. Obama was the so called outsider. Some of the blogs felt that they were the reason for Obama winning the primary and the GE. They have a sense of ownership that they would not have had with the long term politicians.

    Parent
    Obama is all about process, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:44:20 PM EST
    and he picks and chooses his way through policy until he finds the winning formula; that's why there are "victories" that have not been policy wins.  

    We here, and to some extent, on other blogs, have been hashing out policy: what's good, what's bad, what we want, what we need, etc.  But in the media, in Rahm's arena, in Congress, it's been all about how to win, not how to advance the best agenda.  These two things ought to be connected, but they aren't with this president and by extension, this Congress.

    How does that get changed?  Well, it's possible that as people - the non-blogging variety - begin to see the reality of the policies the process got them, and what that means in their day-to-day lives, they will begin to wake up.  Will they be allowed to disturb the beauty of this efficient and focused process presidency?  Depends, I guess, on how the media choose to frame not just the upcoming mid-terms, but the next presidential election.  How much will the rewards heaped upon Corporate America affect media coverage?

    As long as there is a disconnect between process and policy, and until we can get policy on top, driving the processI don't see much changing anytime soon; pains me to say that, but that's what I see.


    Parent

    My thoughts too. Maybe if we (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:32:16 AM EST
    all got the e mails (are policy arguing e mails emitting from Obama's political organization now) we would all be persuaded re HCR, EO, privacy rights, etc.  Inquiring minds want to know.

    Parent
    My questions were largely sarcastic (none / 0) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    The gigantic email list was/is a result of the Obama allure/power, not the source of it, as Bowers appears to be saying.

    Actually, I'm not sure I really understand what he's trying to argue.

    Reading Bowers's agonized, deeply thoughtful posts always makes me extremely grateful for BTD's clear-headed and fact-based argument.  I don't agree with him on everything, but his reasoning is straightforward and consistent, and he's not trying to manipulate either me or himself, which makes him one of the very, very few on the Intertubes.

    Parent

    I really am curious about the content (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:51:57 PM EST
    of any e mails from Obama campaign or on his behalf now that address substantive policy issues. I'm not on the list.  I did get an e mail form McCaskill and Shaheen asking me to contribute to Boxer's reelection campaign.  Kind of surprising to see McCaskill in my in box.

    Parent
    The only "cogent policy argument"... (none / 0) (#54)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:04:25 AM EST
    ... was "check the website."

    Parent
    as opposed (none / 0) (#121)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:15:40 AM EST
    to comparing Obama to Hitler, but then again perhaps you weren't using you're website as a counterpoint.

    Parent
    Short Bowers: (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Faust on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:33:04 AM EST
    Previously had thought all these fools were sheeple, herd animals in veal pens, braying out whatever fool talking points they were given by their Animal Farm masters. But then one day I woke up inside the veal pen, and I realized it wasn't a veal pen after all. In fact it was quite a bit roomier than I anticipated, in fact I had 2 extra square feet to move about than I had previously thought. Additionally, I realized that all our braying had gotten us .5 inches of additional straw strewn about the barn floor for maximal comfort. So my hat is off to Obama, as this farm is likely to produce some of the best darn veal this side of the Mississipi. Ooooo that axe looks sharp, I bet it won't even be painful!

    Whew! (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:51:51 PM EST
    I'm not sure I'd be quite so harsh, but that is one heck of a powerful evisceration by metaphor.

    Parent
    Higher The Education, Harder "Veal Pen" (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by seabos84 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:33:59 AM EST
    is to grok.

    The more the credentials, the more the flashy jobs, the biggerer and complicateder and fancier the excuses gotta be for being veal pen inhabitants.

    There are those who argue that, if the question is framed the right way, well over 1/2 of Americans hold 'progressive' views on most issues. I happen to agree that most Americans think it is o.k. for google inventors to get rich, it is NOT o.k. for big company managers to steal the ideas and work and rewards of google type inventors, it is NOT o.k. for YOUR guru, rabbi, minister, priest, padre, bishop, ... to be in their kid's school, their bedroom, or their doctor's office.

    I would NOT care 1 bit about obama's strategies and tactics, IF he were significantly implementing policies that are going to benefit the opportunities for the bottom 95% of us, even the flat earthers who salivate over raygun-esque lies.

    HOWEVER, his policies are consistently sell outs to the powerful - they ain't policies which were desired by the tens of thousands of people who stood out in the hot and in the cold in 2008 - whether 1 thinks they were all chumps or not.

    Barack is selling the majority of Americans out for the powerful of the medical industry, the military industrial complex, the finance industry ...

    and the relatively affluent "progressive" leaders are most concerned about their access to white house pow wows with important people, and have turned into good little veal pen toadies.

    the following quote is a bit out of context - the person complaining about the liars and manipulators at court is Richard III - but, court access to the king is court access.

    rmm.

    GLOUCESTER:
    They do me wrong, and I will not endure it:
    Who are they that complain unto the king,
    That I, forsooth, am stern, and love them not?
    By holy Paul, they love his grace but lightly
    That fill his ears with such dissentious rumours.
    Because I cannot flatter and speak fair,
    Smile in men's faces, smooth, deceive and cog,
    Duck with French nods and apish courtesy,
    I must be held a rancorous enemy.
    Cannot a plain man live and think no harm,
    But thus his simple truth must be abused
    By silken, sly, insinuating Jacks?

    It occurs to me that (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:41:47 AM EST
    1.  We didn't even get a damn triggered public option, for goodness' sake.

    2.  How can we say Obama was "more persuasive" after the health care debate?  He basically had no position on anything.  What exactly did he persuade people to do?


    He persuaded enough members of (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:53:16 AM EST
    the House of Representatives to vote for the Senate bill to get it to his desk for signature.

    Parent
    I mean in the context (none / 0) (#71)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    of his influence over the progressive blogosphere.  The only thing he persuaded (fair portions of) the blogosphere to do was trust him.  Viola!  11th dimensional chess.

    Parent
    Don't you think the President and (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:48:52 PM EST
    his WH team persuaded some bloggers to advocatae for passage of the Senate HCR?

    Parent
    To quote Chris (none / 0) (#94)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in "veal pens," but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.

    The reasons for supporting the HCR bill that came from former "PO or No Go" people (ed: wow, should've come up with that about 7 months ago) mostly had to do with the # of uninsured.  The President wasn't really credited, although you could say that many bloggers felt like they were in a Kucinich-like position ("I don't want to tank the Presidency").  Of course, bloggers weren't really in the position to tank the Presidency despite what they think about themselves.

    So I would say that it wasn't the WH per se that made bloggers advocate for the Senate HCR bill.  Unless...are you suggesting the WH reached out to certain bloggers to get them to advocate for the passage of the bill?

    I guess you could argue the President won the procedural argument though (no reconciliation).  People arguing from the Left with the President about what is politically possible are not winning.  

    Parent

    The only blogs I read every day are (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    Talk Left, Digby, and Greenwald.  So what I know about what other bloggers have posted comes from these sources.  What I read from these sources doesn't seem to include bloggers saying the House of Representatives should pass the Senate HCR bill becuase of the numbor of people who were uninsured who will now be insure.

    Parent
    We may be talking about (none / 0) (#109)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:27:54 PM EST
    the same thing.  The "improvement over the status quo" and "if we don't do this, we won't have another chance for years" are all arguments Obama himself took up.  It's hard to say whether they were arguments embraced because they would enhance Obama's interest or not.  Maybe it doesn't matter.

    Parent
    Ensure BHIP profitability and extended viability- (none / 0) (#119)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:06:03 PM EST
    The Big Health Insurance Parasites (BHIPs) were on a path to self-destruction by pricing themselves out of the affordability range of the vast number of potential customers.

    Obama "reformed" health insurance to take away a few very egregious and disliked aspects, but at the price of forcing people under mandate to purchase their bad versions, their junk insurance. Taxpayers will pay directly to the BHIPs and also indirectly pay for subsidies so the less well off can pay to the BHIPs. Along with the rest of the Big Health Industry Players.... And there are precious few cost controls, so people will pay and pay and pay.

    Untl the wholoe structure comes crashing down.

    So, here we are: Some good aspects, some quite bad, and at the price of losing the opportunity to enact single payer universal comprehensive care, including vision and dental. All while saving $450B a year.

    But, Obama's objective was to stand between the people and the corporations, which he has done qutie effectively.

    Parent

    I don't know what's wrong with (5.00 / 11) (#34)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    Chris Bowers, but he doesn't seem to be able to stop writing posts like that one, does he?  This one just makes my teeth ache it's so over-the-top.  It's almost like he's saying that Obama is like a drug  - maybe the best drug ever - that allows you to still be aware that something is wrong, but you feel so good you just don't care anymore.  Anything that threatens the supply must be beaten back, with all the lame excuses and justifications that addicts always come up with.  They're not the ones with the problem - we are - right?  He has no idea how ridiculous he sounds, does he?

    Ugh.

    Whatever there was in the way of a left flank, it has been seriously depleted, and I'm not sure that's so much the result of having been absorbed into the herd, but because many have just dropped away out of frustration with a party that isn't responding to them at all, which has brought an uncertainty over whether this is the party they want to be associated with - if there is any party they want to be associated with.

    Lots of people mulling over the party's you-have-nowhere-else-to-go attitude, and the party not considering that "nowhere" is looking better to people than the "here" they have created over the last couple of years.


    Yeh, stoopd post (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    Bowers has this way of writing lots of words that don't withstand even basic critical thinking.

    He needs a personal journal (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:42:09 AM EST
    for about half his public posts.

    Parent
    Problem is, I think writing this stuff (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    is his job. . .

    Parent
    You're telling me he got paid for that post? (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:51:20 AM EST
    I'm going to lunch...and it's going to be a long one.

    Parent
    OL has always struck me (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:56:42 PM EST
    as a blog version of those endless, endless late-night college dorm room discussions.  I can't decide whether that's a laudable thing or not.  But for me personally, been there, done that, graduated, grew up.

    Parent
    I liked this: (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    Chris has spilled a lot of pixels


    Parent
    Early Warning Sign (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:31:02 PM EST
    Spilling ones pixels is an early symptom of pixelation, a nasty disease..

    Longfellow Deeds: He talks about women as if they were cattle.
    Walter: Every man to his taste, sir.  


    Parent

    The "progressives" have always had (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by tigercourse on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:57:03 AM EST
    a problem reconciling the dichotomy between their goals (whatever those are) and the candidates they choose to support. The "progressive" candidates of 2006 were Tester, Warner and McCaskill and a bunch of moderate to conservative House members. This led to no end of "they've betrayed us!" comments. Progressives were all hot and bothered a year ago to primary Greg Meeks with some common violent thug. Their favorite presidential candidate was someone who ran on a platform of moderation. It was his entire philosophy. Their second favorite Presidential candidate was moderate conservative Democrat John Edward.

    They by and large support a large number of moderates and conservatives and then are shocked SHOCKED! when they act in moderate or conservative ways. It's silly.

    How could you have left out one of the (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    biggest "progressive" candidates, Jim Webb?

    Some were even pushing hard for Harold Ford, Jr., IIRC. A real true progressive if there ever was one. :-)

    Parent

    Compared to George Allen (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    Webb is a progressive. It would have been nice if the other option I was given wasn't a corporate lobbyist.

    Parent
    Compared to George Allen (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    Obama is a progressive. By the same token,  
    Webb and Obama will result in conservative, Republican, corporate legislation.

    Parent
    Meh (none / 0) (#100)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    Webb will be for the military industrial complex. He does have decent labor cred. He didn't endorse anyone in the primaries. Overall, I'd say he was better than the alternative offered. Is he my ideal? No. However, I don't think there has been a liberal offered up here thus far for me to support. I still haven't decided whether I will be forgiving him for voting for the HCR yet. I'm still mulling my options and exploring third parties.

    Parent
    Really how so? (none / 0) (#101)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    I can't think of a single thing that would have been done differently had George Allen had the Presidency instead of Barack Obama. Right on down the line from DOMA to tearing down women's rights.

    Parent
    I think that was my point (none / 0) (#111)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:51:32 PM EST
    Wow the ODS (none / 0) (#122)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    is at this point kind of hilarious.

    Parent
    cult (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Turkana on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    of personality.

    Definitely SOME kind of cult (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:40:56 PM EST
    Bowers sounds like a guy who was kidnapped by Scientologists and is writing news releases from inside the compound.

    Parent
    C'mon, this is so easy.... (5.00 / 8) (#46)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:45:33 AM EST
    They see what they want to be in Obama.  He's like cool.  They want him to win, win over the press, win over the public, win the debate, win the election, win the legislation, no matter the substance, because then they feel like winners.  They pinned a lot of hopes on this guy and they are not about to walk back from that.  

    It's even harder to walk back (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:01:49 PM EST
    from it when the Other Side has become totally bats**t insane.  When the opposition is flat-out evil, everything else, no matter what it is, is the lesser evil.  To hear/see John Boehner railing and screeching on the House floor to the wild cheers of the thugs filling the galleries is to race crying for the safety of the arms of mummy and daddy, whatever their character, I swear to God.

    Parent
    The only real "argument" was money (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:02:35 AM EST
    Obama funded the "creative class" types like Bowers.

    And here we are!

    Whats "creative" about them? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Im still waiting for some clarification on that..

    Parent
    The 'truth' is pretty creative about them. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#77)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:52:33 PM EST
    they've managed to create a huge mess and help promote the resurgence of the GOP. I mean it couldn't have been easy to manage to make the Republicans look like the sensible ones. I'd say that part was pretty darn "creative" on their parts.

    Parent
    Democrat Leadership (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Sporty on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:03:12 PM EST
    It looks as if Emanuel and other centrists have taken the democratic party to the right of center.

    Emanuel looks to be destroying the left or progressive base...

    Emanuel , Obama , centrists and the news media is saying that Obama's policies are to the left... But I did not see a public or single payer item in the health care bill..

    I have not seen Obama withdrawing troops from Iraq ,, but in fact is escalation the war in the middle east and still building army bases in Iraq on the border of Iran... Wonder why???

    I did not see Obama renegotiating the free trade bill which has sent over 9 Million American jobs overseas..   Have the loop holes been closed for the corporations which have been avoiding to pay taxes..

    Has Obama put a tax on the companies which have taken their manufacturing businesses overseas along with the jobs..

    Why has the independent party move to the republican party in the elections since 2008 if it is just the left that Obama has not keep his promises to..

    Emanuel said to forget about the left tune them OUT..

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/18/rahm-emanuel-dont-worry-about-the-left/
    Americans are  in a class war and we are losing our a.......

    http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/17/phrma-to-spend-6-million-on-final-push-for-health-care-r eform/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUNCpnRBf9o
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/25/1977753.aspx
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/14/us-approves-209m-for-afgh_n_321018.html

    According to the U.S. State Department's website, a contract has been awarded for $209,392,452 to build housing and what sounds like a shopping center and facilities for the U.S. embassy in Afghanistan.

    "Taken it" (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    implies that it was some distance from right-of-center already..

    Where's the evidence for that?

    Parent

    change that "already" (none / 0) (#68)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    to "before"..

    Parent
    Simple (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    If Chris could explain to me how precisely Obama went about "persuading" people that they were wrong about these issues, I am all ears.

    obamafans are sheeple. They have no ideas; don't understanding the meaning of what they root for at the moment; and can't or won't rationally analyze anything. They attach themselves to a hero du jour, project whatever values they want onto their hero despite any facts or reality to the contrary; and go with whatever the hero is selling at the moment.

    The obamafan is one of only three possibilities:

     1) an empty headed sycophant
     2) a closet corporatist
     3) some of both.

    Thus Spake Zarathustra (none / 0) (#89)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:34:06 PM EST
    Or, it could be that they really saw the lesser of two evils as the lesser of two evils and sometimes went overboard with their fan-like gushes of enthusiasm in an attempt to galvanize support for their candidate.

    Parent
    The lesser of half a dozen evils. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:49:27 PM EST
    Look at the speech at Bagram...rah bloody rah rah. He's turned himself into Trajan.

    Parent
    Amen (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:19:45 PM EST
    They [self-described progressives] need to understand that a victory for Obama is not by definition a victory for progressives.

    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by pluege on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

    progressives self-destructed on their own and undermined progressivity without any finesse from obamadmin. Obama didn't out fox anybody and didn't use skill: he simply flipped progressives the bird and stonewalled them after sprinkling them with enough lies to let think he is and is for things he is not.  

    "Cultural signification," I love that (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:24:38 PM EST
    Like:

    1. False charges of racism

    2. Misogyny

    3. Clinton hate (as devised by the Rs and leveraged by the OFB)

    4. Caucus theft

    5. And the "creative class" throwing the Dem base under the bus.

    All hail the mighty signifier of Chris Bowers!


    Fresh, original stuff (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:36:33 PM EST
    again Lambert.

    How do you do it?

    Parent

    I'd imagine it's fairly simple (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    since the party has supplied so much material to work with. The only upside from where I'm sitting is watching the "progressives" get their comeuppance and the kick in the teeth they so roundly deserve.

    My message to Chris would be What comes around goes around Chris sweetie! Enjoy your share of marginalization!

    Parent

    Aww (none / 0) (#124)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:24:21 AM EST
    don't worry I think they got used to it during the Clinton administration.

    Parent
    Bill had nothing (none / 0) (#129)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:01:15 AM EST
    whatsoever to do with any of that (the Clintons are caring people and fighters). It was all that Republican Congress.

    Parent
    You do realize that your snarky comments ... (none / 0) (#136)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:13:17 AM EST
    ... are closer to reality than your other comments, right?

    So strange ...

    Parent

    You realize of course (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:35:26 AM EST
    that all a commentator needs to do to pass muster with you is to perform a rhetorical Monica every time the subject of Clinton comes up, right?

    Actually, you weren't really missing anything; afterwards, she said it really wasnt all it was cracked up to be.

    Parent

    You two are close? (none / 0) (#142)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    Like I said, ...

    ... more believable than any of your other claims.

    Parent

    ROTFLOL (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:18:26 PM EST
    ..a rhetorical Monica..

    good one..    

    I think you have created a new shorthand for the kool aid crowd.

    Parent

    Of course you would like that (none / 0) (#144)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:41:03 PM EST
    You also think "Hilltards" is funny, too.  Guess that shows the baseline you're operating from.

    BTW - Did anyone ever explain to you what the "tards" stands for?

    Parent

    Leotards? (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    Not exactly (none / 0) (#146)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:27:09 PM EST
    But good to see the kind of humor you relate to.

    Very revealing.

    Parent

    Critque doesn't require originality (none / 0) (#96)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:50:49 PM EST
    Just a list.

    Parent
    How many more times (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:28:42 PM EST
    do we need to hear that Lambert was thrown under the bus by a race-baiting, misogynistic, member of the creative class before it becomes an already-beaten-to-death invitation to yet another post-primary venting session?  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#106)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:57:23 PM EST
    Poor me..  

    Parent
    I'm thinking we could just agree on (none / 0) (#107)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    a code for each comment and response by now.  Kind of like the inmates who all had heard each others jokes and just called out a number to get a laugh.

    Parent
    Not Likely to Work (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:17:20 PM EST
    Because in the joke there was one prison, here there are many..

    Parent
    I've got the answer you're looking for! (none / 0) (#113)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:57:53 PM EST
    When Obama's remaining fans and apologists admit that Obama ran campaign that employed:

    1. False charges of racism
    2. Misogyny
    3. Clinton hate (as devised by the Rs and leveraged by the OFB)
    4. Caucus theft
    5. And the "creative class" throwing the Dem base under the bus.

    'Cause ya know, STFU because I'm b-o-o-r-e-d doesn't really cut it....

    Parent
    Gosh (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    What delicate sensibilities for such a tough guy...

    But I guess you are doing it all for the ladies, or is it just Hillary?

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#125)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:25:41 AM EST
    after the Clintonistas admit that they ran the exact same campaign only less successfully (just swap racism for misogyny).

    Parent
    Since you can't hear it from me (none / 0) (#131)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:22:45 AM EST
    Try Kevin Drum (or Avedon at "hesitate").

    But hey? What would I know? I'm a racist!

    http://www.correntewire.com/sean_wilentz_is_not_on_the_obandwagon

    Parent

    Why would they admit THAT? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:59:57 AM EST
    It's not true.

    Parent
    I was completely (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:46:59 AM EST
    a lesser-of-two-evils (and the other evil Im talking about wasnt Hillary) guy. Im much too cynical to ever be a fan or "apologist".

    Btw, Your "access" comment was completely on target, imo. It's a HUGE prob for journalists (or whatever these people are) and the pols themselves; most of whom are in the game for a access of a slightly different order of magnitude, themselves.

    Parent

    OK... (none / 0) (#132)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:23:54 AM EST
    Leaving those without access also missing a funding model, but it would seem that the collapse of our famously free press would offer an opportunity....

    Parent
    Define "the Dem base" (none / 0) (#127)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:52:51 AM EST
    Are you refering to the people with NAFTA tracks down their backs? That bus started moving sometime in the nineties.

    Or is that too hateful a thing to say?

    Im starting to think all this talk about "hate" is hateful.

    Parent

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#133)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:28:52 AM EST
    (though two wrongs don't make a right, I've learned a lot since the primariez, and sure, I'd place the Clinton administration firmly in the neo-liberal consensus that's run the country since the mid-70s -- though on the left side, in that they offered concrete material benefits that the right, who just want to kill the weak, don't offer).

    As far as the hate... No comparison between the two camps in the primaries. I mean, Jeebus, the Obama camp was digging up TravelGate on the threads, for pity's sake. Every smear the Republicans invented in the 1990s got dug up and hurled all over again -- by putative Democrats. Well, now they control the party, and good luck to them.

    Parent

    Call me a conspiracy theorist (none / 0) (#139)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:26:37 AM EST
    but, knowing the 'thugs mo, I have to wonder how much of that stuff - particularly on the web - wasnt  coming from wedge creating rw provocateurs..The right certainly wasted no time in the determining the demograph most alienated by the Clinton hate and running out and trying to find a 'Hillary match' to lure voters over to their side.

    Also, there's no question that theres a certain mentality in this country - probably mostly male, but which also includes more women than we'd like to think - that reacts with utter horror on a visceral level to the presence of an assertive, intelligent woman in general and what HRC represents (to them) in particular..I dont know what we can do about that..it's almost a separate emotional complex in itself, afflicting not a few otherwise intelligent, sensitive people..probably the result of being bossed around by mommy and big sister combined with a lethal admixture of judeo-christian "a woman's place.." etc  

    Parent

    Well, to take that to the obvious conclusion... (none / 0) (#147)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:58:18 PM EST
    ... that would make Kos a Republican mole. Just kidding.

    Sorry, I got the same thing on the ground from Obama supporters -- screamed at, excluded -- that happened online. And in RL I'm not a pugnacious guy.

    Parent

    Except, of course .... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    ..., that being "thrown under the bus" indicates a betrayal.  Clinton was up-front about his support for NAFTA (a position supported by many Democrats), while Obama only opposed NAFTA when he needed votes in the midwest.

    Parent
    What can I say? (none / 0) (#138)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    I still hate it, and it seems as though a lot of others who thought it was a good idea at the time - probably without thinking too much about all the ramifications - now feel the same way.

    Parent
    Not a big surprise (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:45:12 AM EST
    Although I have no idea why you think so many others have reversed their position, particularly since the most comprehensive analysis of the major studies concludes that NAFTA had little or no impact on aggregate employment (jobs gained-jobs lost) and that it did not cause the U.S.-Mexico trade deficit.

    Parent
    It takes hard work, jondee (none / 0) (#112)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:54:27 PM EST
    Repeat, repeat, repeat is unfortunately necessary. Fortunately, readers are always completely free to take what they like, and leave the rest!

    But thanks for the kind words!

    Parent

    They should never have (none / 0) (#128)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:56:04 AM EST
    taken the very best..

    I meant it in a kind way.

    Parent

    Awesome let's try the reverse and see (none / 0) (#123)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    if its easily possible
    1) False Charges of Sexism\
    2)Racism
    3)Obama Hate
    4)Locking People out in Nevada
    5)Clintonistas telling the single most loyal constituency of the party to go to the back of Bus.

    Parent
    Nothing remotely like that (none / 0) (#130)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:04:38 AM EST
    ever happened. Apologist.

    Parent
    Link, please (none / 0) (#134)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    on NV. And not from some comment at The Obama 527 Formerly Known as Daily Kos, either.

    Parent
    A Different View (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by kaleidescope on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    The heart of the problem is the inability of progressives to understand that their interests and views do not coincide with those of President Obama.

    Part of the change that Chris Bowers writes about stems from the precipitous decline in the polling strength and electoral prospects of Democrats.  It seems like only yesterday that the common meme over at dKos and elsewhere was the irrelevance and electoral lameness of the Republican Party.  As it began to look like Democrats might get slaughtered in November -- perhaps even lose their majorities in either or both houses of Congress -- people began to fear anything that might make that prospect more likely.  

    When it became clear that we would not be able to move Congress or the President to adopt policies that we believed would make them more politically popular, the next instinct was to try to prevent in-power Democrats from looking even lamer than they actually were.  And that meant helping them not be defeated by the Republicans.

    There were some exceptions, FDL is one example and Jane and company have been catching hell for not falling in line.  But for the most part everybody fell got with the plan when it looked like we might wind up with a Senate that would refuse to confirm any replacement for Justice Stevens if the nominee was to the left of Samuel Alito.

    It is possible that Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are playing 11 dimensional chess and actually sought to threaten Democratic majorities in Congress just to buffalo progressives into going along with their Gray Davis-esque politics.  If so, this would be a demonstration of great political skill  But I don't think so.

    Like the Night of the Living Gray Davises the Obama Administration is, the Obama-ites stumbled into deep political trouble and we -- for our own selfish reasons -- felt the need to protect them from themselves. Part of that meant shutting up about how lame they are.

    We spent a lot of time and pixels over the past six years convincing ourselves (for good reason) how crazy Republicans are.  When it looked like they were on the brink of actually regaining power, most of us got scared and backed away from hammering Obama, Reid and Pelosi for fear of helping the Republicans.

    It's the same old game, really, and it sucks.

    Why are they under such a spell? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dr Molly on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:52:50 AM EST
    It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

    Why have they been coopted?

    Multitude (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by waldenpond on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:14:09 AM EST
    Who knows.  Not just part of being kewl....

    Survival-they will not get power and attention unless they conform.  Safety in numbers-less likely to be shunned or disappeared.  Perverse pleasure in bullying-see Jane Hamsher.  Stockholm syndrome-love their villain as long as they can justify that their abuse isn't as severe as it could be.  Burn out-too much effort to keep trying to drive traffic, passion is for the young and unjaded.

    There is no debate with the floundering personality.  They lack the ability to move people or opinion.  Who cares what they think today .. they'll change their beliefs tomorrow.

    Parent

    Human nature (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:55:41 AM EST
    Everybody wants to "win."

    Parent
    It would have been very hard to lose (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:24:00 AM EST
    As damaged as the Republican brand was in 2008, there was no reason to run away from Democratic principles. Over 70% of the country were dissatified with the Republican leadership. We could have been a winner and actually achieved some of the party goals.

    Democratic leaders chose to give up before the battle even began. They were convinced that if the played the middle, they'd all be winners. It doesn't seem to be working out that way.

    Parent

    Obama is a benignant Emperor (none / 0) (#10)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:06:08 AM EST
    You deal with the Emperor you have.

    Parent
    Now days your either (none / 0) (#29)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:38:23 AM EST
    on the right fighting for WalMart, or on the left fighting for the Financial Services arm of General Electric.

    Full disclosure (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:40:43 AM EST
    I still represent Wal-Mart. but not GE though.

    Parent
    Walmort (none / 0) (#56)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:32:48 AM EST
    they call it in France.

    So much for the possibility of any in-depth examinations here of the linkages between the resurgence of populist thunder and the fall-out from Free Trade.  

    Parent

    Explore away (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:31:50 PM EST
    She's such a stalinist (none / 0) (#93)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    It's as if O would do anything to harm Walmart to hear her speak.

    Parent
    There's too much confusion (none / 0) (#37)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:50:30 AM EST
    about what the term "Progressive" means.
    Maybe the interleft should be divided into separate issues. For example, I think we can agree that Jane Hamsher and FDL had some influence on the HCR debate because of their laser focus on the issue.
    Similarly, there should be environmental and global warming interest groups, etc.
    On top of this it would be easy to create a structure for coordinating efforts, where desired.
    "Progressive" just means that you belong to a (coffee) drinking club, anymore.

    Progressives have always been (none / 0) (#39)
    by SOS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 10:00:40 AM EST
    seen as affluent types. Obsessed with success and all the symbols that go with it. BMW's, designer clothing, fine wines, mobility, expensive 10 speed bikes, etc, etc.  

    They can't relate to a guy chewing a straw who drives a pickup in Nebraska.  

    Parent

    "Seen" (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:23:40 PM EST
    or been spun that way? We all remember the onslaught of columns from the the Coulters' and Brooks' about NASCAR-hating, latte-drinking types..

    Where are we going this: that it's now bad to be educated because Coulter and Limbaugh will tell the great-outsourced-and-downsized that you look down on them?

    Parent

    That worked on Kerry because (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Salo on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    He was something of an aristocrat. I'd add that the Dems pointed out that Bush was an aristocrat many times...however they confused the public by also pointing out that he spoke with a common as muck vernacular. Always keep the attacks on social status consistent. Obama confounds the attacks by being both Black and highly culivated. He's impossible to hit. He's what the GOP have urged African Americans aspire toward and they have been sent mad by it.  

    Parent
    Quite the revisionist history (none / 0) (#58)
    by abdiel on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:42:25 AM EST
    Obama became famous before he was a good politician. His two autobiographies ensured he would get a huge following far more than any policy that he backed or legislation that he wrote. He didn't build a coalition or a brilliant persuasive case, he built an undeniable popularity for himself and let everyone tag along.

    You can go a long way (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jondee on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:58:09 AM EST
    on "popularity" and the right kind of backing. I give you the two-term Reagan and the two-term Bush II..

    A Face in the Crowd, fifty years ago, pretty much gave us the heads up on this triumph-of-production-values over substance..I dont know why all this seems to suddenly come as such a shock to people now.

    And if the too-big-to-fail dosnt like you, you'll be buried before you get out of the gate.

    Parent

    Why Does (none / 0) (#67)
    by Sporty on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    The democrats not even try to attack the republicans for their lies and deceit..

    Obama show his true policies when the first then he did was to said they would be no investigation or prosecution of the Bush/Cheney administration.. And he and Emanuel stated they were moving away from the left (never knew they were there) and to the center.. (which meant to the right of center because the democrats were already to the center right)

    That should have been a marker for Emanuel's influence in this administration..

    Emanuel is looking to pick up votes from his health bill and making illegal immigrants legal...

    This is what he did for Clinton reelection bid...

    See what Emanuel does to democrats that do not do as he says...  Dean is out as chairperson of the DNC so Emanuel had full control of who they sponsored as a democratic candidate...

    http://www.truthout.org/article/special-report-democratic-house-officials-recruited-wealthy-conserva tives

    Parent

    Lies and deceit (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 12:54:39 PM EST
    I would offer up that they don't attack for lies and deceit because the hypocrisy would be astounding. This IS the party that supposedly stands for women's choice but threw women under the bus after all. Deceit is hardly party particular.

    Parent
    That shouldn't be a factor (none / 0) (#110)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    When was hypocrisy ever a problem for a politician?

    Parent
    It appears Markos and BTD disagree (none / 0) (#80)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    on this point.....

    Markos argues that electing Democrats rather than being narrowly focused on a specific issue or two is more effective at actually getting progressive policies enacted.

    Markos blasted certain groups--single issue groups--for being too narrowly focused--and endorsing Republicans who agreed with them on one specific issues, such as choice or the environment.  He had some pretty good evidence that a conservative Democrat was far better to have than a liberal Republican who might agree on one or two liberal issues--even with respect to those liberal issues....

    BTD says that the focus should be back on the issues.....

    Could be both are right.  It depends on whether your party is in or out of power.  If out of power, the Markos route makes sense.  If in power, then the issues become the pressure point....

    This is exactly why I thought Hillary would be a (none / 0) (#114)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:18:01 PM EST
    better president than Obama - that the left would hold his feet to the fire.

    What I think would have been different, and in this perhaps I am wrong, is that progressive groups would not have been shy about fighting for their views on the issues, irrespective of what these political figures said and did. It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

    You are not wrong, imho, and, no, it's not to Obama's credit, imho.

    My opinion may not be that strategically apt.

    This is exactly why I thought Hillary would be a (none / 0) (#115)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:19:27 PM EST
    better president than Obama - that the left would hold her feet to the fire. But not his, at all.

    What I think would have been different, and in this perhaps I am wrong, is that progressive groups would not have been shy about fighting for their views on the issues, irrespective of what these political figures said and did. It is to the credit of Obama's great political skill that he has coopted progressive groups with virtually no issue concessions.

    You are not wrong, imho, and, no, it's not to Obama's credit, imho.

    My opinion may not be that strategically apt.

    Sorry about the double post... (none / 0) (#116)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:27:35 PM EST