home

Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Aug 06, 2005 at 11:18:22 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Eleanor Clift profiles Markos of Daily Kos and the Hackett race in Newsweek... an inspiring article, go read. [Via Skippy]

One of Markos' great points:

“It’s not about ideology, pro-war, antiwar, it makes no difference,” he insisted. “In the online world, we need Democrats to stand up, not be afraid of Republicans, not be afraid of the right-wing noise machine … We don’t care about ideology. We care that you stand up for the party and don’t run scared.” He pointed out that bloggers backed Democrat Stephanie Herseth in South Dakota, who, he says, ran a Republican Lite campaign. “We’re pragmatic,” he says. If candidates aren’t 100 percent on the environment or they’re kind of iffy on choice, progressives should overlook these differences for what Moulitsas terms “the greater good,” which is restoring the Democrats to a governing majority.

[Thread hijacked, comments closed]

< Narco-Terror Provision Added to House Patriot Act Bill | A Question For the President >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race | 21 comments (21 topical)
    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Here is Markos' take: Yet in a world were "leaders" are usually easy to identify, the netroots becomes much harder to grasp. So they look to the obvious sources -- "markos has the biggest political blog, hence he's the 'leader'". The FEC wants to regulate blogs distinguishing them from the independence that Media Journalism enjoys. I think Markos is quit right that the corporate media and the FEC not only terrified of blogs but do not have a clue as to what they actually are. Artios, who's site also made a fundraising plea with a direct link for Hackett donations eliptically points out about his site's role in the Hackett race and what the real potential of blogs can be. "I don't write this to criticize people who haven't donated, or to lament the fact that it's "only" 486. I just write it to point out that in the scheme of things it really is a fairly small number of people who have made a difference. Just something to think about." Do you have any idea how many like minded people check in to his site every day....a lot more than 486.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    Perhaps off topic but very related. California invests it pension fund by first having the Corp meet a stringent standard from being green to investments they make. Because of the size of the fund, they have been able to have real influence over big corps. Much has been done lately to try to destroy the power, by removing people who control the pension fund, but it is still strong. We also saw how pressure from shareholders could force divestment in SA. The NYT posts an article at the very, very, and very bottom (no surprise there), of their online mid-east section which reports on how churches are using the same tactic in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Here is to 'Power to the People' and its current exponential potential in the netroots community.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    How can you call this an inspiring article?! This is a completely disgracing retreat from any moral stand, all in the name of "standing up for the party" and winning an election (or actually, once again, almost winning an election). Clift's article, by the way, is not even factually correct - Hackett is not "anti-war", as he made quite clear in his interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. Clift would be more informed if she read Left I on the News more often.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:00 PM EST
    As much as I rarely find myself agreeing with Kos, I think he has it right. Not all Republicans are Bible thumping zealots or guys dressed like the Monopoly Man chomping on big cigars. The same can be said of Democrats. They are not all old hippies and tree-huggers or whatever the stereotype the Right congers up but pretty much average, fairly centrist types that live pretty average lives. These are the folks both sides have to court in order to win national elections. Right now the Republicans are courting them just fine because the Dems have been trying to play to the outside fringes of thier party. Whether you personally agree with the Democrats moderating or not it is necessary to win elections and implement a more Leftist agenda. Pragmatism rules the day.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#5)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Agreed. The Republicans have people who froth at the mouth about totaliarianism when you try to take their Stinger missiles away, and then they have those who think 20-to-life is an acceptable punishment for possessing a harmless plant. And these are often the same person!

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "This is a completely disgracing retreat from any moral stand," No, as pointed out, it is pragmatic. It is not disgraceful to be pragmatic -- politics is pragmatic per se. There is no substitute for politics currently available. "all in the name of "standing up for the party" and winning an election (or actually, once again, almost winning an election)." No, we won the election -- we're in the middle of a massive conspiracy of VOTE-FRAUD, in case you didn't notice. "Clift's article, by the way, is not even factually correct - Hackett is not "anti-war", as he made quite clear in his interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now." As was clear from any of his interviews. It is not necessary to be 'antiwar' in order to protest (and prosecute felons for) the illegal Iraq invasion. That's the value of law. Our problem is a lack of justice, not merely a prevalence of war. "Clift would be more informed if she read Left I on the News more often." Only if the intent was to implicitly believe Leftist ideas. While I applaud Eli for his rigorous reporting, as I do Amy Goodman, don't miss the fact that it is propagandistic, and there is spin. The Leftist perspective is certainly not the perspective of people like me who are liberal Democrats. Markos has some serious problems in his thought-- for instance he supports removing the barrier against immigrant Presidents, which is an acute danger to our Republic, and ignores the born assimilation of the children of immigrants that is not present in the immigrant.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    "Clift would be more informed if she read Left I on the News more often." I wrote: "Only if the intent was to implicitly believe Leftist ideas. While I applaud Eli..." The 'only' makes my comment too condemning of Eli. Sorry, Eli. The Leftist bias is substantial in the reporting, but certainly Eli does a great job collating useful news and doing interesting commentary. H would be more informed if he read Eli's site; but the bias is still a bias based on Leftist philosophy.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:01 PM EST
    Jimcee, I agree that the left isn't all hippies, and the right isn't all robber-barons, but do you really think the left has been concentrating on the fringe (tone is hard to convey via the internet; this isn't an accusatory question)?. If anything I think we've been concentrating on the center. Think about it. Any time a candidate decides they want to become really viable, on a large scale, they tack right (Hillary comes to mind). Kerry was always called the most "electable;" code for centrist enough for at least a few republicans. The whole message of the dem party has lately been "Hey we're not socialists, we just don't think that we should lie about reasons for going to war, maybe." You're right that it hasn't been going all that well (although I think, because of Bush more than anything else, things are turning around) but I'm with Paul on the question of voter fraud. You're also right pragmatism: it does, and always will, rule the day.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    It is not disgraceful to be pragmatic -- politics is pragmatic per se. There is no substitute for politics currently available.
    Pragmatic is a tactic that attains some desirable goal. What desirable goals has the Democratic policy of abandoning every moral position attained?
    No, we won the election -- we're in the middle of a massive conspiracy of VOTE-FRAUD, in case you didn't notice.
    First, there is little doubt that Kerry did get fewer votes in 2004 than Bush did. (How could a Bush clone beat the original anyway?) Second, and more important, how pragmatic is the policy (that you seem to exercise) of losing elections (or allowing them to be stolen, whatever you may call it)? What does crying "VOTE FRAUD" get you?
    "Clift's article, by the way, is not even factually correct - Hackett is not "anti-war", as he made quite clear in his interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now." As was clear from any of his interviews.
    Apparently not clear to Clift. She called Hackett "an antiwar Democrat". Why should we read a writer who can't get even a simple fact like this right?
    While I applaud Eli [Stephens] for his rigorous reporting, as I do Amy Goodman, don't miss the fact that it is propagandistic, and there is spin.
    Somehow I did miss the "spin". Care to give me any specifics? Do you think Eleanor "anti-war Hackett" Clift would compare favorably?

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    We seem to have another contender for '06: ex navy, ex republican Eric Massa.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Greg: Your views are remarkably exclusive and seemingly intolerant of other political views on the "left." I recognize your right to claim to march under he banner of the left, but don't demand, however, everyone follow you and those who don't are "selling out." Indeed, under almost any standard definition of "left" it is hard to "get to the left" of me, but, far from the "monotheistic," PC left as a Naderite you seem to demand, I am member of the libertarian left, and have devoted most of my professional life fighting for those beliefs. With that said, I voted for half-loafs like Gore, Kerry, and Clinton my entire adult life -- happily -- knowing that they are better than the alternative, and in the world where I work, I am a "poverty law" lawyer, those differences matter. How dare you try speak for everyone on the left. If need for ideological purity means need to be a party of one, feel free, but don't bring the rest of us down with you. Your way, unlike those espoused by political realist like markos, guarantee that the small steps we need to get to our shared dreams are never taken and only guarantees that the radical right will win time and time again. Let's look at YOUR record and where it has brought us. You voted Nader and encouraged others to do the same. You and your ilk are in large part responsible for this mess we are in now as I can't imagine a President Gore taking us into Iraq. I can't imagine a President Gore cutting funding for stem cells. I can't imagine a President Gore naming judges that are daily eroding basic rights and creating new rights for the powerful. Somehow you are still demanding we march lock-step to the tune of the looney-left lute. If you want to remain ideologically pure, fine, but don't take down everyone else with your need for moral purity. I'll march behind TL & Kos, feel free to march, though, wherever you want.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    How dare you try speak for everyone on the left.
    I guess I missed the moment that I did that. Could you point out to me exactly when that happened? What I did write is that trumpeting Hackett and Hackett-like positions as a way to win elections is self-defeating and morally bankrupt. Some people who support these tactics are indeed sell-outs, but most of them are just misguided (maybe by the likes of Clift).
    You voted Nader and encouraged others to do the same. You and your ilk are in large part responsible for this mess we are in now as I can't imagine a President Gore taking us into Iraq...
    Instead of clutching at straws like blaming the handful of lefties who voted Nader, have you ever tried to consider why Gore, who seems to you so obviously better than Bush, could not manage to win a majority of the votes? Why is it that people are so misinformed as to not understand that Gore (or Kerry) is so much better than Bush?

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Greg: I think you answered your own question, transposing your first two paragraphs
    What I did write is that trumpeting Hackett and Hackett-like positions as a way to win elections is self-defeating and morally bankrupt. Some people who support these tactics are indeed sell-outs, but most of them are just misguided (maybe by the likes of Clift). I guess I missed the moment that I did that. Could you point out to me exactly when that happened?
    Not sure where in your bashing of Hackett and lefties who believe in winning elections, versus remaining ideologically pure like yourself, you didn't clearly imply your position. Hackett is a winnable dem. He is a dream of a winnable dem who is better than the alternative. Politics is the art of the doable. As to your second position, it isn't clutching at straws to note that those lefties who bolted from Gore are now the same crowd who are demanding we take untenable position on people like Hackett and elsewhere. Your rants and position almost seem as if you want to perpetually remain out of power so you can complain about how unjust the system is. Being angry and demanding on being an "ideologically pure" rebel was kewl at 19, at your age, however, it is just plain naive.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Gore did win a majority of the votes. This from a site that has Gore LOSING Florida. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html Presidential Election of 2000, Electoral and Popular Vote Summary

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Posted by Read Greg: "It is not disgraceful to be pragmatic -- politics is pragmatic per se. There is no substitute for politics currently available." "Pragmatic is a tactic that attains some desirable goal." Not what my dictionary says. A practical approach to problems. In context, not a moral failure, but rather an attempt to respond to conditions. Those conditions are a coup, and there is no given pragmatic method for dealing with that. The impeachment is the method available, but in the case of massive vote-fraud giving the rightwing control of the entire government, little is possible. That doesn't make the actions less pragmatic. "What desirable goals has the Democratic policy of abandoning every moral position attained?" You beg your own fake question. "First, there is little doubt that Kerry did get fewer votes in 2004 than Bush did. (How could a Bush clone beat the original anyway?)" That's nonsense, based on nothing. It's quite clear that Bush LOST Ohio, and with that, the race. They also stole votes in 29 other states, so the Kerry landslide was not recorded. We do have the evidence of the Ohio vote-fraud, and a series of illegal actions by Diebold and other e-voting companies, which goes a long way to prove the point. What does crying "VOTE FRAUD" get you?" A state by state redress of our voting rights. The same as any cry of injustice 'gets' you. Attention to the problem, which has to be solved by a pragmatic effort, well underway. "Apparently not clear to Clift. She called Hackett "an antiwar Democrat". Why should we read a writer who can't get even a simple fact like this right?" Why you read it is your own question. To expect EC to get her reporting right is asking a lot in the current climate. "Somehow I did miss the "spin". Care to give me any specifics?" Eli did not report Kerry's outing of the USPNAC airbases scheme in the first debate. It was widely ignored by the left-oriented media, primarily because of the same nonsense about Kerry being another kind of Bush. That's despicable slander for a man who: 1) volunteered and fought, twice. 2) fostered the Winter Soldiers testimony. 3) outed BCCI. 4) outed Iran-Contra. 5) outed the USPNAC Airbases scheme to 60 million Americans.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Gore did win a majority of the votes.
    No - as your link shows, he won a plurality of the votes, but not a majority.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Hackett is a winnable dem.
    Maybe - still remains to be seen. Also remains to be seen is what happens if the Democrats actually manage to present a candidate who is a clear alternative to Bush. Anyway, is not clear that getting Hackett (or Hackett-like candidates) elected anything of goal of great importance would be achieved. "Better management" of the Iraq war? To make a more general point: I cannot, for example, say what goals of lasting value Clinton achieved. Should we be satisfied with the fact that he was better than Bush?
    Being angry and demanding on being an "ideologically pure" rebel was kewl at 19, at your age, however, it is just plain naive.
    Actually, when I was 19, I was very much like you. It seemed sophisticated at the time. Now I recognize it for a sign of confusion.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    A practical approach to problems.
    Fine - I have no problem with this definition (I don't see how it is different than mine.) What are the problems that your approach is solving?
    [T]he Kerry landslide was not recorded.
    Somehow the same landslide was not recorded in any of the polls. It is clear that Bush stole votes, but to talk about a Kerry win, much less a landslide, it delusional.
    Why you read [Clift] is your own question.
    I don't usually read her. I read her because TalkLeft said her article was "inspiring". I pointed out flaws in her argument - I am glad you agree she can't even get a simple fact correctly.
    Eli did not report Kerry's outing of the USPNAC airbases scheme in the first debate.
    So Kerry has a slightly different plan on Iraq. He also has a slightly different asset allocation in his stock portfolio and a slightly different haircut. Why is that such an important piece of news?
    [Kerry] 1) volunteered and fought, twice. 2) fostered the Winter Soldiers testimony.
    Actually, Eli discussed these points quite extensively (only the second one approvingly).

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Greg, when you're right you're right. All that clutching at straws nonsense got me playing fast and loose with my language. What I meant was Gore won the popular vote and sans Nader's illegal jump onto the Virginia and Oregon ballots (and god knows where else) I think Kerry would have had a majority. So it's not really clutching at straws is it? More like clutching at the person who most Americans wanted to be President.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Maybe - still remains to be seen. Also remains to be seen is what happens if the Democrats actually manage to present a candidate who is a clear alternative to Bush.
    There was a clear alternative to Bush in 2000, you decided, however, to remain politically pure and vote Nader. Having made your choice then it is hard to give any credibility to your positions now that we well over four years in to the regime you were warned would happen if you voted Nader.
    To make a more general point: I cannot, for example, say what goals of lasting value Clinton achieved. Should we be satisfied with the fact that he was better than Bush?
    Other than such things as good federal judges, the longest peacetime expansion in history, balancing the budget and giving us an America where the most serious problem was Clinton getting blown by an overweight intern, I am not sure what you are looking for. Should we satisfied that he was better than Bush? no. Unlike you, however, I don't insist on taking my marbles home when the candidate I support doesn't win the primaries. Let me ask it this way, is Bush better than Gore? Put another way, did your Nader vote cleanse your soul to justify 1800+ dead Americans in Iraq? Is your dem bashing now worth 1800+ dead in Iraq, or Iran, or Syria, to make your soul feel ideologically pure enough.

    Re: Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    Posted by Read Greg: 'A practical approach to problems.' "Fine - I have no problem with this definition (I don't see how it is different than mine.)" Different in the way that RESULTS are not the necessary component of pragmatism. And pragmatism is not a moral failure in a democracy, however immoral the effects of the corruption in the democracy. "What are the problems that your approach is solving?" Results are not the issue. The issue is whether it is correct to consider POLITICAL efforts to be moral failures just because they fail to stop war. No protest has EVER stopped a war in itself. It doesn't have that reasonable goal, because in a democracy, the people cannot produce their goals without compromise. So accusing protesters or politicians of moral failure, when 'failure' is A NORM of democracy, is demonstrably wrong. "Somehow the same landslide was not recorded in any of the polls." That's not surprising. Small-sample polls are NEVER going to capture shifts of the electorate like have occured as a DIRECT result of Bush's bad policies. He has lost quite of bit of the R vote, and nearly all of the D vote. Most of his 'support' is a media myth. "It is clear that Bush stole votes, but to talk about a Kerry win, much less a landslide, it delusional." 180 wrong, as the evidence attests. "I pointed out flaws in her argument - I am glad you agree she can't even get a simple fact correctly." Hackett is not 'antiwar.' I doubt if you can find an active duty Marine who is. "So Kerry has a slightly different plan on Iraq." It's a lot more than that. The policy itself was based on lies and conspiracy. Kerry supports none of that. "[Kerry] 1) volunteered and fought, twice. 2) fostered the Winter Soldiers testimony." "Actually, Eli discussed these points quite extensively (only the second one approvingly)." The first debate gave direct evidence that he does not support the invasion. He supports the TROOPS, which is something else entirely.

    Clift Profiles Markos and the Hackett Race | 21 comments (21 topical)