home

A Primer On New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation"

Courtesy of Steve Benen:

If the president has already effectively given Republicans what they wanted on energy, what will he get in return? A Hill staffer I know emails with an alternative look at the same dynamic, suggesting President Obama is playing a game we've seen before.:

Obama preempts the other side's most resonant arguments, which forces them to come up with more and more extreme claims in order to differentiate themselves. In the end, he occupies the reasonable middle ground and his opponents are Palinized. [. . . T]he policy is a tailored, measured version of what the Republicans have urged [. . .] Republicans are sort of forced to twist and parse, and even to oppose things they have long supported, just because the Administration hasn't gone far enough.

[MORE . . .]

[B]y announcing the drilling policy without seeking to extract concessions, the Administration makes clear that it is their policy and they are the centrist/flexible/pragmatic ones -- making it harder for Republicans to argue that they accomplished this or that they forced Obama to do it. [...]

(Emphasis supplied.) All kidding aside, you can agree or disagree with the policy or the politics on this, but you can not honestly say that this is not, to a freaking T, the triangulation Third Way approach long derided by progressives when Bill Clinton did it. It is a carbon copy -- change "off shore drilling" for "welfare reform" and it is 1995 all over again.

Speaking for me only

< Jesse James Enters AZ Treatment Facility: Too Little, Too Late? | What New "Progressive" "Non-Triangulation" Looks Like >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's getting painful to watch these contortions (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by david mizner on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:05:11 PM EST
    Now that triangulation has become cool, a lot of "New Progressives should send a collective apology letter to Bill Clinton (who at least had to deal with a GOP Congress.)

    Winning is everything. (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by dkmich on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:11:10 PM EST
    Governance?  Screw it.  He's got his.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#7)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    Although I think that Clinton has not only gotten the memo, but he takes satisfaction in that his advisors are the same ones who are now advising Obama.

    That is where the irony is so rich for me, considering that some here imagine a chasm between anything Clinton and anything Obama.

    Parent

    The difference of course (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    being that he ran as the "non Clinton" candidate who was gonna herald in HopenChange. How's that working out for you?


    Parent
    Working For Me? (none / 0) (#21)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:44:54 PM EST
    I never swallowed. Sorry, wrong customer.

    And Obama was running more a Clinton campaign, than Hillary. But they had to differentiate themselves somehow.

    Parent

    The heck he did (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    He ran a Reagan campaign. Complete with all the love and reverance for Republican ideals that he could fit in right down to Harry and Louise. I find it amusing that you'd argue that he ran the same kind of campaign as a purported racist who wasn't nearly transformational enough to actually mention. Snort

    Barack Obama may wish he was Bill Clinton, he's no Bill Clinton and hiring the people who worked for Bill doesn't make it so.

    Parent

    Got It (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:02:23 PM EST
    Obama is just like Clinton, but only because he is faking it. Your contortions, in order to deify anything Clinton, are worthy of a circus act.

    Parent
    The part that's really (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:22:25 PM EST
    laughable is this forever-in-primary-mode of assuming that if you aren't revising to pristine, utopian, perfection all-things-Clinton (from Bill - Hill to Socks the cat..) than you MUST be one of those who swallowed "hopey changy" "the One" etc etc

    There's no other possible third of fourth position.
    It's one or the other. Cuz there's still a chance we could pick up some more delegates..or something.

    Parent

    Pottery Barn (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    You break it, you own it.

    It doesn't really matter to me why you voted for the guy, the end result is the same regardless.

    I'd like to congratulate the "new Democrats" on their great new victories. Yesterday health care and womens right to choose, today drill baby drill. It's amazing what can happen when you vote for someone who reveres Reagan. But hey at least you aren't a closet Repub- like those who abstained from voting for the One.

    Parent

    The only One (none / 0) (#47)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    is the One you're part of right now..

    (Bill Murray voice) So..you've got that goin' for ya..Which is nice.

    Parent

    No one is "deifying" Clinton, ... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:53:12 PM EST
    ... but what's particularly funny is when you True Progs try to distort anything critical of Obama or complimentary of Clinton into some type of "Clinton cult" charge, equating those statements to the actual attempts at (semi)deification on the part of some who fell for Obama.  What's even funnier is when you try to prove it, whereupon you reveal that - based on your own "methodology" and "research", ...

    ... you're the biggest Hillary-cult worshiper of all.

    Good stuff.

    Parent

    Nice how much research (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:03:17 PM EST
    you devote to me, Y-Chrome.

    It makes me feel..almost loved.

    Good stuff. Ya know, I do kinda like Hillary. The woman definitely has potential..if only we could get her away from serial-harassing slob..

    Parent

    Pssssst, ..... look again (none / 0) (#60)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:14:05 PM EST
    It was a response to Squeaky's comment.

    "Serial-harassing slob"?  Haven't heard those charges or seen the evidence, but in all honesty ...

    ... that's the least of Obama's issues, right now.

    Parent

    Unless, of course .... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:17:06 PM EST
    ... that wasn't another error on your part.

    Oooooooh, look at that!

    You gave yourself a "5"!

    Congrats!

    Parent

    Dont be a jackass (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:24:25 PM EST
    I havnt rated a comment by anyone since I started posting here.

    I find it a tawdry exercise in vulgarity -- like perusing the STD section of the Clinton Library.

    Parent

    Testy, testy ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:31:13 PM EST
    You did say claim I was responding to you, after all.

    BTW - "a tawdry exercise in vulgarity"?  

    Niiiiiice ........

    .... spoken just like a "creative" class True Prog.

    Parent

    I was more kidding (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:37:56 PM EST
    around than being testy..Though there's an obvious prob with a lot of this stuff being lost in translation.

    You liked that, eh Doc?

    Parent

    I was thinking of that (none / 0) (#79)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:41:42 PM EST
    John Goodman character in Oh Brother.."I generally refrain from speech during gustation.."

    Parent
    LOL, that's rich. (none / 0) (#77)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:32:22 PM EST
    I find it a tawdry exercise in vulgarity


    Parent
    My favorite (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:22:23 PM EST
    is because Obama has people employed by Clinton on his staff that must mean he's just doing what Clinton(and let's face it to the Obama apologist crowd they ARE interchangable)would have done. Leadership apparently doesn't matter. Who knew?

    Personally, I don't think either Clinton would have started from the Republican view as a starting point. Would they have been pragmatic and allowed some of their ideas in in exchange for concessions? Probably. At the end of the day though we know that they wouldn't have excepted the health care reform offered though since it was the actual alternative plan and it didn't pass muster. The cherry on the top was they got their policy plan alternative AND managed to move the debate right on abortion. I swear Obama could not argue a liberal policy to save his life.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:30:38 PM EST
    It is bigger than that, it is the Democratic party, and those whose votes they are pandering to.

    You seem to think that great liberal/progressive aka "the one" got chaeted out of POTUS, either that or you are right of center, hard to tell.

    Parent

    Your contortions (none / 0) (#34)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    are the pathetic ones.

    These are your words

     "considering that some here imagine a chasm between anything Clinton and anything Obama."

    There is no imagining a chasm. There is a huge chasm between Reagan Jr(Obama) and Clinton. That chasm relates to how they lead or in the case of Obama fail to lead the people they employ. I daresay there was a single person left in 2008 that thought they'd be getting moderate Republican ideas when they elected the Democrat, other than a select few of us that noticed his penchant for Harry and Louise and love of "transformational" Reagan. Most people were ripe for opening their minds a little bit after the failure of a Republican Congress and a Republican President. Instead they are getting Republican ideas sold as NEW and IMPROVED Democratic ideas. It's absurd to suggest that Clinton did any such thing.

    Parent

    A "huge chasm" (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:36:18 PM EST
    Now you're in full-blown hallucinatory mode.

    NAFTA and the WTO treaties, Welfare Reform, capital punishment, the Crime Bill..those were what, in keeping with the traditional ideals of what we like to think of as Democrats in this country?

    Huge chasm..lol

    Parent

    Absurd? (none / 0) (#40)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:27:32 PM EST
    Both the Clintons and Obama are about as mainstream as you can get. No policy differences between them, and same operating procedure.

    These are the Democrats of today, you have not been paying attention.

    The most hilarious thing is that you can easily spot the symptoms of kool aid OD in obots, while imagining that your cult is symptom free.

    It is true that the eye cannot see itself, but you'd think that with such obvious mirroring you would at least consider that you too may be a victim of kool aid poisioning .

    Parent

    No policy differences? (none / 0) (#44)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:34:02 PM EST
    Geez, if you believe Bill Clinton would have signed an executive order with a conscience clause eliminating abortion I don't know what to tell you except lay off the kool aid.

    Parent
    Please (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:54:39 PM EST
    an executive order with a conscience clause eliminating abortion

    Nice retooling to enhance your creds as a cultist. And yes I do believe that Clinton, would have done whatever her advisors told her to do in order to get HCR passed. And no doubt they would all be the same people who were in the Clinton WH, iow Obama's current WH advisors.

    Safe and Rare

    Clinton is about as eager to step forward and lead the pro-choice fight as he is to invite Rush Limbaugh to the White House. He didn't lobby the House of Representatives last July when it took up the Hyde Amendment banning government-financed abortions. He made no effort to broker the dispute that derailed the Freedom of Choice Act over the summer. Why not? He wasn't asked to, explains Clinton aide George Stephanopoulos. And he certainly didn't offer. Nor is Clinton insistent that abortion be kept a guaranteed benefit in his health plan. It's in his proposal announced on September 22, but whether it stays or not is "negotiable," says a senior White House official. He also has declined to impose a pro-choice litmus test on nominees for federal district court judgeships.....

    ....Part of Clinton's problem is that he has two positions on abortion, and they don't always mesh. Before a straw poll at a Democratic gathering in Florida in 1991, Clinton adopted a moderate position (he won the poll). Abortion, he said, should be "safe, legal, but rare...

    ....Clinton doesn't say the right to free speech or assembly should be exercised rarely....

    ....Clinton senses the problem, hence his reluctance to talk about abortion in public or private. When confronted with the issue, he's usually conciliatory toward pro-lifers. At a town meeting in Chillicothe, Ohio, last February he praised a high school senior for voicing his objections to abortion. He downplays abortion coverage in his health plan. He's only for what's "traditionally covered in private health insurance policies," Clinton told mtv in May. (Actually, many policies don't cover abortion.)....

    ...On September 20, five women Democratic senators visited him in the Oval Office and raised the abortion issue. He promised them he'd fight to kill the Hyde Amendment and preserve abortion coverage. But fight hard? Don't count on it.

    Fred Barnes

    Parent

    You seem to be confusing ... (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:09:49 PM EST
    ... Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.  They're actually two separate, autonomous people.  It's okay, though ....... a lot of people seem to have that issue.  And what kind of POTUS does "whatever" their advisors tell them to do?

    Oh, wait .......

    ... never mind.

    BTW - I do appreciate the link to a Fred Barnes opinion piece on Bill Clinton as evidence of what Hillary would do.

    Seriously funny stuff.

    Parent

    No Confusion Here (none / 0) (#59)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:13:45 PM EST
    You are the one that confuses Hillary (and/or Bill) for a progressive/liberal. They are all, Obama included, in the same boat, same policies, and have extremely similar approaches to leadership.

    Just because the GOP said it, doesn't make it so.

    Parent

    Good to hear (none / 0) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:24:52 PM EST
    Progress, I guess.

    OTOH - Claiming that Hillary would have signed an EO on abortion based on a piece citing a Fred Barnes critique of Bill Clinton would indicate otherwise.  Or, at the very least, ...

    ... a serious lapse of logic.

    BTW - "Similar approaches to leadership"???

    Now you're just trying to be funny ...

    Parent

    Mainstream? (none / 0) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:44:26 PM EST
    You're joking right? The mainstream position on health care was a public option. Obama's one policy claim to fame was the OPPOSITE of what mainstream was. Hey, though keep TRYING to revise history. It's going swimmingly.

    Parent
    When Obama repeals the Bush (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by observed on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:17:59 PM EST
    tax cuts you can say he's like Clinton, if you like---but not before.

    Parent
    I'll give you that Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:30:15 PM EST
    may have been better Presidential material.. though it's still rather early to finalize that judgment, dontcha think? And Clinton was certainly, on the whole, dealt a better hand.

    Just spare me the malarky that keeps wanting to turn Clinton into this great, progressive, revisionist fantasy-figure. That's at best, equal parts wishful thinking and reality-based.

    Parent

    Dealt a better hand? (none / 0) (#46)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:37:47 PM EST
    You've got to be kidding. After Bush the whole entire country was willing to go for a public option. Guess what? We didn't get one. Why? Because Obama couldn't lead his way out of a wet paper bag or he's in the pocket of corporate America. Take your pick.

    Clinton was unafraid to at least put liberal policy out there. He tried for a universal health care system. He tried to get gays the opportunity to serve. What exactly of progressive policies has Obama even TRIED to sell?

    Parent

    Jesus (3.00 / 2) (#48)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    talk about "when I think about Bill, I touch myself"

    A two-friggin-front-war..the worst economic disaster in eighty years?! Ring any bells?

    Parent

    Jesus here..... (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by ks on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    Yeah and overwhelming majorities in both houses and a mandate to do something about those issues and what did we get so far?  

    A total bailout of the people who created the worst economic disaster in eighty years!!, a weak stimulus for the rest of us, continuntion of 99.9% of Shrub era "police state" policies and overall tactics regarding the two-friggin-front-war, an industry friendly health "care" bill with a slap at womens reproductive rights thrown in and now offshore drilling.

    Anyway, I don't think anybody is saying Bill Clinton was some great "progressive" hero but, the attempt to link him to Obama as a tactic to downplay Obama's, at best, lackluster performance so far is transparent as it is ridiculous.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    but, the attempt to link him to Obama as a tactic to downplay Obama's,

    That may be the tactic elsewhere in the blogoshpere, but not here.
    The point is that Obama is just as bad as Clinton was, not about apologizing for Obama.

    It is a wholesale critique of the Democratic party, Clinton was criticized for selling out liberals, and Obama is following in his footsteps.

    Parent

    No, the point is hypocrisy (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ks on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:18:03 PM EST
    I think the point the BTD is making is that the same "type" of folks who were aghast and sneered at Clinton's triangulation are falling all over themsleves to either pretend that Obama's not triangulating or rationalizing his triangulation or sometimes both.

    Parent
    And how that hurts progressive issues (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:22:33 PM EST
    you are really something (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    As bad as Clinton?

    My gawd. Are you really not getting my point?

    This is just ridiculous.

    Parent

    Got It Long Ago (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:53:24 PM EST
    I do realize that Clinton had a GOP congress, and that Obama not only has a Dem congress, but had most of America behind him, yet failed to exploit it.

    GOt that point long ago.

    My point is that regarding policy, Clinton was right of center, from my point of view, and Obama is following in his footsteps.

    And evidentially that puts my vote in the category of bound to fail. And yes, I also get the point that the bound to fail group, ideally has leverage to move the center to the left...

    Parent

    You really think that's (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    ALL it is, "an attempt to downplay Obama's at best.."

    Thanks for the benefit of a doubt.

    Actually, speaking for myself, what I'VE been trying to get at is, that I honestly believe we've allowed the Right and "neo-liberalism" to hi-jack the national agenda more and more since the seventies and that certain phenomena apparent in BOTH Clinton and Obama's ternure are indicative of that..hence my "attacks" on those who SEEM to doing a bit of over-idealizing of the Clinton years..

    Parent

    Maybe you should just say that then. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:58:03 PM EST
    And leave off the attacks and insults and Hillary crap. It would be a lot more convincing. Unlike some others, you clearly have a big brain. You don't need attacks.

    Parent
    The spirit is willing (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:07:32 PM EST
    but the flesh is weak.

    As the wife constantly reminds me..

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Are you saying that you have a little brain? Considering all the attacks, not to mention potty language, you have been displaying lately.

    Parent
    The worst (none / 0) (#50)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:47:54 PM EST
    economic disaster and they couldn't even bother to ask questions? LOL You're right though the world would have come to an end if we didn't give AIG the money to give financial bonuses to the banking community.

    Parent
    Did I say I thought (none / 0) (#53)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:56:29 PM EST
    every bail-out was a good move?

    Im not in everything-my-hero-does-is-wonderful mode. That seems to be your schtick.

    All I said, was that it was a very rough situation to come into office with.

    Parent

    You know what's funny? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    Someone complaining about words being put in their mouth, ...

    I'm not in everything-my-hero-does-is-wonderful mode. That seems to be your schtick.

    ... as they put words in someone else's mouth.

    Parent

    Thank you (none / 0) (#64)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:27:57 PM EST
    My favorite part is where I got accused of imagining Bill Clinton while I masturbate though. It was a masterful attempt at bullying. Why it almost made me spout "Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were siamese twins separated at birth."

    I actually am laughing at some of the hyperbole.

    Parent

    I meant it mostly (none / 0) (#66)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:35:16 PM EST
    hyperbolically (if thats a word). Lets just agree to disagree for now, as they say..Before you say something that I regret. :)

    Parent
    I'm just trying to get the facts right. (none / 0) (#69)
    by observed on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:02:55 PM EST
    And politically, there is no question Obama was dealt a far better hand than Clinton. That you can even think of denying this shows serious problems with reality.

    Parent
    Of course he was (none / 0) (#72)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:25:54 PM EST
    Because he's Obama (aka Beelzebub) and Clinton's Clinton.

    You'd rather inherit two wars and that kind of economic crisis over having to deal with an opposition majority? Really.

    Parent

    Um, your thinking is seriously backwards. (none / 0) (#87)
    by observed on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    A bad situation inherited from the last President gives Obama a MUCH freer hand. This isn't subject to debate.

    Parent
    Yes m'am (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    can I eat from the dog food bowl now, mistress?

    Seriously, the context in which that "freer hand" is, or, was, supposed to be operating isnt exactly close to the essence of freedom..

    I think we're going to have to agree to dream our own little dreams on this one..

    Parent

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (none / 0) (#39)
    by cymro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:23:59 PM EST
    Obama fans can sing along:  Won't Get Fooled Again

    We'll be fighting in the streets
    With our children at our feet
    And the morals that they worship will be gone
    And the men who spurred us on
    Sit in judgment of all wrong
    They decide and the shotgun sings the song

    I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    And I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again
    Don't get fooled again

    Change it had to come
    We knew it all along
    We were liberated from the fall that's all
    But the world looks just the same
    And history ain't changed
    'Cause the banners, they all flown in the last war

    I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    And I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again
    Don't get fooled again
    No, no!

    I'll move myself and my family aside
    If we happen to be left half alive
    I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
    For I know that the hypnotized never lie

    Do ya?

    There's nothing in the street
    Looks any different to me
    And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
    And the parting on the left
    Is now the parting on the right
    And the beards have all grown longer overnight

    I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
    Take a bow for the new revolution
    Smile and grin at the change all around me
    Pick up my guitar and play
    Just like yesterday
    Then I'll get on my knees and pray
    We don't get fooled again
    Don't get fooled again
    No, no!

    YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

    Parent

    the only point (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Makarov on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    I disagree with is
    It is a carbon copy -- change "off shore drilling" for "welfare reform" and it is 1995 all over again.

    The difference is Clinton employed Triangulation after he faced Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

    Obama has been doing it virtually since day one. Obama has fully embraced the Republican agenda of 2008 - tax cuts for economic recovery, no rights for accused terrorists, tax employer health care plans (albeit in 2018), and now 'drill, baby, drill'.

    Where Clinton triangulated, Obama has adopted.

    A different point (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:09:01 PM EST
    WHEN is triangulation a good political tactic? I agree with you and wrote about this ad nauseum during the 2008 campaign.

    Parent
    I would say (none / 0) (#6)
    by Makarov on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:15:18 PM EST
    it's good when you:

    a) have exhausted other methods for pursuing your own agenda, and can't do anything else

    and

    b) when you're getting something for it in return

    Did Clinton get anything for signing Welfare Reform? I don't know.

    Parent

    Offshore drilling is part of Obama's (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by observed on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:18:49 PM EST
    agenda. There's no compromise involved.


    Parent
    PPPT? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:19:36 PM EST
    Pathetic Pointless Preemptive Triangulation?

    Parent
    Oh man (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:09:02 PM EST
    you missed another great killer quote from that email:

    But even there, the Administration has had reasonable success pushing back on the Miranda nonsense and, because they effectively occupy the tough, pragmatic middle ground, they routinely get cover from non-crazy Republican national security voices, which has helped blunt the force of these issues. (I understand that the term "middle ground" is very slippery and dangerous here, but I basically use it to mean policies that, before the great crazy of 2009 had broad consensus support from large portions of both parties and the Broder/Friedman/Brooks axis.) [strong]

    Bwah!

    It's exactly the same tactic... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    but what on earth is the rationale?  Bill Clinton had to deal with a Republican Congress and a country that still had some faith in the GOP.  What's Obama's excuse?  He almost pathologically keeps kicking his base in the teeth to curry the support of right leaning voters even though it's clear they will not support him no matter how far to the Right he moves.  

    Habit? (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:17:36 PM EST
    Dem habits are hard to break.

    Parent
    I dont think it's clear (none / 0) (#11)
    by Makarov on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    to Obama and his administration. They honestly believe shifting to the right is the best way to preserve his Presidency.

    Now, whether they're actively hoping for a 1994 repeat in 2010 because they believe that's how Clinton held on in '96 is another matter entirely.

    Parent

    Preventing a Republican landslide in the fall, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Realleft on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:23:10 PM EST
     and just what the quote says about forcing the R leadership to get ever more complicated and extreme in their claims.  The fall elections are more likely to be about base votes than swing votes - you don't try to win opposing voters over, you try to give them fewer reasons to turn up in the first place.  Also, to potentially lessen corporate spending against Democrats by these industries. On the policy side, preparing for more likely success on a more comprehensive energy policy (that will be already watered-down, etc.).  The approach is to gain an inch when possible.  All guesses of course.

    Parent
    Also Marc Ambinder (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:17:34 PM EST
    via Tapped:

    For a Democratic president, this is a pretty gutsy move to open the public debate about an energy bill. Or, well, maybe it's not: it's high-reward, low-risk; environmentalists will complain, but then again, environmentalists complain.  Aside from the substance, which is beyond our ken, the politics of this move is easy: with one fell swoop, Obama deprives Republicans of the major talking point they'd use to object to more expansive government-based climate remediation and energy prospecting policy.

    Substitute welfare reform in there, and what do you get?

    As policy I find this argument simply absurd on its face, as I did regarding welfare reform also, and it certainly is the exact same kind of triangulation that moved the whole window to the right in the 90's. Same as it ever was.

    Same questionn for Ambinder (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:21:00 PM EST
    Did he support Bush and McCain on their "Drill baby, drill" position?

    Parent
    Maybe he abstained on that issue (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:27:12 PM EST
    Aside from the substance, which is beyond our ken,

    I think the politics are beyond his ken too. Anyone thing Republicans are going to shut up about either energy policy or 'rampant environmentalism'  this fall?

    Parent

    Those annoying treehuggers. (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:25:56 PM EST
    environmentalists will complain, but then again, environmentalists complain.

    I mean, really, why won't they stop complaining about destroying the environment for all of humanity and whining about sustainability so that a precious few can reap better profits?

    Parent

    I mean why do we need trees anyway? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:43:44 PM EST
    Or clean water for that matter......It isn't as if these type of things are life sustaining and destroying ecosystems could have huge consequences.....oh wait.

    Parent
    Let me get this straight (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Democratic Cat on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:36:19 PM EST
    Pres. Obama adopts a Republican policy, thereby making the Republicans go even further to the right and this is supposed to be good? Is the goal to make Republicans look bad or to adopt good policy? Whatever it is the Republicans say at the extremes, if the policies being adopted are Republican policies, then that seems pretty bad to me. Occupying the middle ground that others define is not the same thing as defining it yourself.

    If he had to do it because of political circumstances, I'd be more sympathetic, but I think he's giving away the candy store for no good reason. Oh, except we get to make fun of the Republicans when they sputter about this. Is this what the "progressive" movement now counts as a victory and a legitimate reason to triangulate--making the Republicans look bad?


    The goal is for him to be re elected (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:44:55 PM EST
    he really doesn't care about anything else.

    Parent
    True of Obama & every other pol (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by BobTinKY on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:50:01 PM EST
    which is why progressives need to demonstrate to Obama that adopting GOP policies is NOT the road to re-election.  The only way to do that is to finance a credible primary opponent.

    Parent
    Good Luck with that (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    First, you have to convince them some things are worth fighting for. Most of them seem to be content to declare victory, no matter how hollow that victory is.

    Parent
    one thing (none / 0) (#31)
    by lilburro on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:57:06 PM EST
    other than that that could be useful is to withhold involvement in OFA and Obama's online community.  OFA is anemic now anyway but if progressives make clear they're not going to play ball (immediately) when OFA rumbles back to life for the 2012 election maybe the Obama admin will get the message.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:47:20 PM EST
    Unlike your favorite politicians.    

    Parent
    My favorite politician (none / 0) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    wasn't afraid to fight for Democratic ideals(even if she lost in the process). I daresay yours will even have one to boast about after his 4 years are up. He's too busy recycling Republican ideas.

    All Hail St Ronnie's reincarnated spirit!

    Parent

    This is the healthcare bill all over again!!! (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Bornagaindem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:13:14 PM EST
    I like debcoop saying Obama is a pre-compromiser.

    He is doing it again- give the oil companies/repugs  everything they want even before you sit down at the table and then when they bargain with you you have nothing else they want so they get a bill that (see healthcare bill) .

    Preempt the freaking middle ground my a$$. And you think the american people think Obama represents the middle ground and looks reasonable. You obviously haven't been talking to anyone outside of the the beltway!


    Question? (none / 0) (#8)
    by MO Blue on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    Did Steve Benen support or offer up rationalization for offshore drilling during any Republican administration?

    Since you brought it up...... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:43:08 PM EST
    There is no doubt that welfare reform was a political maneuver.  But it did address a system that everyone agreed needed to be changed. Rarely is it mentioned that Al Gore, when he probably won the 2000 election, defended the changes because the system was fundamentally broken. Even Clinton's perhaps most famous critic at the time on that issue, Peter Edelman (husband of longtime Hillary friend Marian Wright Edelman), agreed that it was not a good system (link):

    I HATE welfare. To be more precise, I hate the welfare system we had until last August, when Bill Clinton signed a historic bill ending "welfare as we know it." It was a system that contributed to chronic dependency among large numbers of people who would be the first to say they would rather have a job than collect a welfare check every month -- and its benefits were never enough to lift people out of poverty.

    Many of those who are Obama sycophants now point to welfare reform as the worst of the Clinton triangulation maneuvers but absolutely refuse to acknowledge this could have been more than a simple political maneuver by Clinton.

    A couple more things need to be mentioned about welfare reform.  One of Edelman's main criticisms of the welfare system before reform was that welfare did not lift people out of poverty.  A scant two years after Edelman resigned in protest, a government study showed that Clinton's other policies, mostly the Earned Income Tax Credit, had helped lift 27 million people out of poverty. (link)  Where is the acknowledgement that whatever evils were inherent in Welfare Reform were balanced by other more positive Clinton actions?  Crickets on that one.

    Oddly enough, even after 8 years of Bush and almost a whole year of an Obama presidency, Edelman is still willing to talk about the negatives of welfare reform in light of the recent "Great Recession." (link)  Missing in this discussion of the evils of welfare reform is the blame that should have been hurled at GWB, especially his abysmal record at jobs creation.  CDS much?

    Earned Income was actually Reagans (none / 0) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    It was one of the very few things the man did that I actually approved of.

    Parent
    OK I should have worded it differently. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:51:40 PM EST
    Clinton basically doubled it, which made it much more helpful.

    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by cawaltz on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    at that point they actually had studies that showed that the EITC did more to lift people from poverty than the traditional stuff employed. So it actually made sense for him to expand something that worked.

    Parent
    And I should have quoted Clinton himself. (none / 0) (#29)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    link

    The success of welfare reform was bolstered by other anti-poverty initiatives, including the doubling of the earned-income tax credit in 1993 for lower-income workers; the 1997 Balanced Budget Act, which included $3 billion to move long-term welfare recipients and low-income, noncustodial fathers into jobs; the Access to Jobs initiative, which helped communities create innovative transportation services to enable former welfare recipients and other low-income workers to get to their new jobs; and the welfare-to-work tax credit, which provided tax incentives to encourage businesses to hire long-term welfare recipients.


    Parent
    Nope. (none / 0) (#38)
    by masslib on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:22:33 PM EST
    Nixon.  1975.

    Parent
    Always a learning (none / 0) (#68)
    by Mike Pridmore on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    experience when you talk to a group of smart people.

    Parent
    Nixon (none / 0) (#42)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:31:53 PM EST
    was a lot more liberal than Obama is.

    Re Clinton signing onto welfare deform (none / 0) (#80)
    by debcoop on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 04:53:46 PM EST
    Bill Clinton only signed onto welfare deform after the Republicans controlled Congress.  It was their program.  He didn't sign up for it when he had the majority.

    Barack Obama has a majority, nearly a supermajority.

    Bill Clinton compromised.  Barack Obama precompromised.  

    I think that Barack Obama is going to go down as bigger triangulator than Bill Clinton.

    Too bad Clinton and Obama can not switch terms. (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by AX10 on Thu Apr 01, 2010 at 12:10:04 AM EST
    Clinton is much more liberal than Obama.
    Clinton had to deal with a country that was tired of liberalism, felt the down effects of conservative government, but did not understand that conservative policies were the reasons for the troubles in the late 80's and early 90's.

    Parent