Obama Cuts Ad For Blanche Lincoln

Not surprising:

In a personally-narrated radio spot, Obama paints Lincoln as a populist crusader who is "leading the fight to hold Wall Street accountable and make sure that Arkansas taxpayers are never again asked to bail out Wall Street bankers."

"On health care," Obama adds, "Blanche took on big insurance companies by voting to end discrimination against Arkansans with preexisting conditions and fought for tax credits that will help thousands of local small businesses provide insurance to their employees."

Heh. Anyway, this goes to my argument that fealty to President Obama from progressives is a bad bargain. Obama is not the progressive champion we have been waiting for. He is a pol. And they do what they do.

Speaking for me only

< Holder and Cops Talking Out of School | Lieberman's Goal: Pushing All Terror Trials To Military Commissions? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The good news is that if Lincoln.... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by magster on Wed May 05, 2010 at 09:49:05 AM EST
    ... needs Obama in an ad in a primary race, Lincoln is in trouble.

    Also, with Obama being so unpopular in Arkansas, you of all people should know Obama cut this ad to HURT Lincoln as part of his grand progressive scheme.

    Ha. (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed May 05, 2010 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    Your last line gave me my laff of the day.  Thanks.

    Ha! I heard he offered to cut an ad (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by ruffian on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:28:47 AM EST
    for Charlie Crist too.

    A new type of (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:17:14 AM EST
    "populist crusader" to fit the "New Democratic Party."

    Lincoln definitely is a good fit.

    Obama's no progressive, (2.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:42:17 PM EST
    but he's still a populist. In spite of his corporatist tendencies, public pressure could force him to do what's right by the majority of Americans. But we'd have to quit fighting over some of the basic problems we face. If we did that, we could create a reasonably united force to demand real change.

    Immigration reform is a good example. If we need to increase immigration to support an aging US population, or if we want to be compassionate to those who already have lives and families in this country, we should do so without encouraging more illegal immigration. Amnesty prioritizes those who entered illegally over others who are trying to abide by the law. It's a bad policy direction because it reinforces the problem instead of preventing future abuses. However, putting some teeth into the US code preventing unlawful employment of aliens would go a long way toward supporting workers who are legal citizens. If we jailed and/or took property away from developers who hire illegal aliens, our US carpenters, electricians and other builders would be able to demand reasonable union-based pay for their skills. Immigrants would be part of the pool of those who benefit from restricting illegal immigration and the tolerating of a perpetual underclass of low wage workers.

    Yes, he's a populist, in the sense (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Anne on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:48:19 PM EST
    that he might be the ringleader of that group our mothers always warned us about: you know, "if all your friends were jumping off a bridge, would you want to do that, too?"

    I guess I was never that affected by peer pressure, and after two kids and the peer pressure at their level and the parental version, which might be worse, I may just be immune.


    Rage rage against the dying of the left :) (none / 0) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:05:19 AM EST

    TomP has this diary up (none / 0) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:40:40 AM EST
    The Cedwyn crew is off someplace planning the Orange Backlash from Hell :)

    Not this diary (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 05, 2010 at 10:55:54 AM EST
    I saw TomP's diary though, and disagree with it.

    The problem was in expecting something different.

    TomP is actually a reflection of the problem I try to identify - the false notion that Obama is a progressive champion. He is not and it is ridiculous to continue to act as if he is one.

    Really, my post here is critical of people like TomP, who expect something different.


    The pressure to see things (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    unclearly at Orange is palpable.  I always thought that TomP fought the good fight.  You couldn't survive at Orange right now just showing up everyday to declare that Obama is no progressive and never was.  Well YOU could survive it, but then the serenity is utterly destroyed :)  TomP is going to take a beating shortly for putting this up.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:39:26 AM EST
    I really would not even care to. Sure I could get in to the silly fights but to what end?

    I am always surprised to see who still comments at daily kos. Seems pointless now.

    There is great stuff on the FP at sometimes in an occasional diary, but the community? That has been a wasteland for years now.It was when I was still there.


    In the MSM opine though (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:47:58 AM EST
    It is still considered the major liberal online rag.  It seems like HuffPo gets kudos too.  I don't know what the current readership numbers are of either site. There are many "activists" getting attention via Dkos though, along with fighting off CedwynCo.  What is the alternative out there at this time if you seek many eyes?  You get read a lot, but where did you start?  I think you do better here, and I think a lot of your stuff inspires others who fight to redefine the middle.  You're a snob now about mucking in the muck trying muck for some middle :)

    A perfect example (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:45:10 PM EST
    of what I call -- having to come up with a term when I teach this -- "media lag."  I once did a paper in grad school on this, a case study that carefully measured how long it took for media to adapt to changes in reputations of, for example, institutions, organizations, etc.

    Conclusion:  It takes about ten years for media to catch up on realities.


    There's a book in them thar hills ... (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ellie on Wed May 05, 2010 at 01:49:22 PM EST
    You should write one directly on this subject.

    Oh, I know -- (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Wed May 05, 2010 at 02:51:01 PM EST
    it's on the long to-do list.

    But ahead of it are my third book, which I'm working on now -- and the other book I really want to write that occurred to me while the first one already was underway. . . . :-)

    This is why profs look forward to retirement!  Of course, now that the economy has pushed back retirement by many years, well, at least fewer trees will have to die for all the books that I'm dying to do.


    This one would be textbook level re: the Aughts (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Ellie on Wed May 05, 2010 at 03:18:38 PM EST
    ... and your retirement would be schweeeeeeeeet!

    You should also ask Jeralyn/ BTD / web keeper to zip and send you a compilation of your posts here; hey, you do a lot of homework.


    Ha. Yes, a textbook (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Cream City on Wed May 05, 2010 at 04:38:21 PM EST
    -- which is the second on the to-do list -- might actually make me some money, for a change.  Scholarly authorship generally only gets us 5 percent for royalties, and for all of a few thousand copies.  Hardly worth it to have to do that line on tax forms.  (So I just donated my second book's royalties to my historical society.)

    As for pulling together all the posts here, sadly, they were done without footnotes and full citations, so I'd have to research and rewrite it all, anyway.  Sigh.

    Ah well, back to grading, my pre-retirement career!


    Obama Not Progressive? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Doc Rock on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:35:53 PM EST
    Wow, how much convincing do you need? Continuing two wars? Drilling offshore of the Chesapeake? Keep "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? Military commissions? No Public Option? Let all the Bush DOJ criminals off? Wake up!!!!

    It will never happen (none / 0) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Wed May 05, 2010 at 12:52:17 PM EST
    In order for the cultists to admit that Obama isn't the progressive that they imagined him to be, they would first have to admit that they aren't smart as they think they are. I don't see that happening.

    Instead they will continue to make up lame excuses or blame the Republicans. We're told we have to wait for Obama's second term to see the real progressive Obama came to the front.

    out of curiousity (none / 0) (#22)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed May 05, 2010 at 07:56:06 PM EST
    Has a sitting president endorsed a challenger in recent memory- I mean I remember the right wing losing it on Bush when he backed Specter over Toomey, so I guess I'm curious if its ever happened (not counting cases where the incumbent was corrupt ala Duke Cunningham or Bill Jefferson)?

    No (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed May 05, 2010 at 08:25:31 PM EST
    They also rarely cut ads for candidates in primaries.

    Obama Puts Immigration on Back Burner (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:26:00 PM EST
    At least two Democratic senators -- Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas -- have privately told the Senate leadership they would prefer to see the issue put off until 2011, according to a Democratic aide.