home

2008 Is Not 1992

It seems to me that progressives are making a mistake in the way they are arguing for a progressive agenda for the Obama Administration. Specifically, the thesis seems to be that Bill Clinton made a mistake in projecting a moderate image after the 1994 electoral debacle. That his failure was in not delivering a progressive agenda. This seems like denial to me. Denial of what the American People wanted in that period. In short, America was not a progressive nation then. In denying that America is a Center Right nation NOW, it is not necessary to deny that America was a Center Right nation then. There are two important points to be made about this. First is a demographic one - the electorate is clearly and indisputably more progressive now. Why? Pretty simple, there are less white people in the electorate. In 1992, 88% of the electorate was white. In 2008, 74% of the electorate is white. People like to dance around the basic fact that non-whites are generally more progressive than whites (some important exceptions have been discussed at this site.) More . .

In addition, it is important to understand that Democrats depended more on conservative Southern Democrats to form their majority in 1992. In 1994, the cleansing of the Dixiecrats changed all that. The Democratic Party is indeed a national party, but it surely is not the dominant party in the conservative white South. In contrast, the Republican Party is largely a Southern Party with enclaves in Utah, Wyoming, Idaho and the like.

Politics is the art of the possible. Bill Clinton was the politician he had to be in the 1990s. Back in 2007, I wrote:

Clinton's approach was to essentially blur the Dem identity, while allowing the Republican identity unscathed. The fear of the branding imposed on the Democratic Party over the years by Republicans may have made that approach understandable.

Ironically, the policy successes of the Clinton Administration make concerns regarding the Democratic brand on domestic issues unnecessary. These successes, coupled with the utter disaster that is the Bush Administration, permit Democrats to argue the issues on their own terms, advocating core Democratic values and yes, allow the Democrats to brand the Republicans as the extremist incompetent unprincipled party that it is. Now that won't win many conservative votes I grant you, but we ain't getting them anyway. So called moderates? Well I think it will win their votes.

In short, political climate allows the Democrats to define what the middle is.

D-Day is right when he states:

In fact, the entire notion of "what kind of a country is America" becomes quickly tautological. This is a centrist country in the sense that the center would be the median ideology of everyone in it. The question becomes where is that center. And it's completely clear that the public agrees with Obama's agenda, which includes investments in public health, education, energy and infrastructure, an end to the war in Iraq, increased diplomacy, reproductive choice, and a more progressive tax code.

That wasn't the center in 1992. It is now. 2008 is NOT 1992. I hope Obama realizes that.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Bipartisanship and the Well Functioning Democracy – Part One | How to Apply for a Job with Obama-Biden >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    ...some important exceptions... (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:27:43 AM EST
    Yes, very much so.  So outside of the socially conservative groups, I think we can say there is a leftward shift.

    The SoCons concern me greatly.  There's a possibility that the GOP may be able to exploit them.  There's a possibility that the SoCons may be able to come together as a political force within the Democratic party.  

    If demographics are destiny, then....?

    Oh, I think that's possible (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:34:35 AM EST
    but not as easy as it looks. Are blacks going to defect from the Democratic party? Not under Obama's watch, they aren't. In fact, my deepest hope is that he can change some minds in the community.

    Hispanics I expect to more-or-less follow the path of other white ethnic immigrant groups. Think Italians or Irish.

    Parent

    What'as different about LAtinos is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:37:21 AM EST
    wall or not, the influx of younger Latinos will continue. Not the case for Italians and the  Irish.

    And do not forget Asians.

    Parent

    Good point (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:41:10 AM EST
    In the long run (none / 0) (#139)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:53:08 PM EST
    immigration rates, birth rates, etc. change.

    In my community Latinos have been around for a few generations, they are mainstream and as apt to be Republican as Democratic.

    Irish immigration lasted for decades as did Italian as did German. What can you offer that is any different in the case of Latinos?

    Parent

    NPR reported recently immigration in (none / 0) (#152)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    CA is down, probably due to the economy.

    Parent
    Do you see any evidence that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:43:47 AM EST
    interested in changing minds in the community? Since the election, has he said anything about Prop 8? There's no political risk now. I'd say if he's even vaguely interested in changing minds, he'd speak out against it's passage.

    Parent
    Make him do it (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    That is what a Left flank is for.

    Parent
    Aren't there little things his admin (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:35 AM EST
    could do?  Help the legal challenges in CA and anywhere else, repeal DOMA?

    An administration has a LOT of influence and not just through the bully pulpit.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:01:36 AM EST
    An administration holds many cards.  How to play them?  How do we face down homophobia without alienating the fearful?

    Parent
    I think we take baby steps. (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:16:42 AM EST
    All based on fairness. Newsom tried the fast approach and it did not work.

    We should (in order)

    1. change civil unions to include all the rights of marriage

    2. allow straight couples the option of marriage

    3. have liberal churches sue for the right to marry gays.


    Parent
    Learn to speak to mninority groups (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by samtaylor2 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:03:28 AM EST
    About this issue.  I am not in  Ca now, but I wonder if those upposed to Prop 8 targeted African Americans and Latinos directly.  When I talk to many of my black friends who I find are generally more religious then their white counter parts (even more then the so called born again White christian group), they are FOR marriage between a man and a women, not as much against two men getting married.  There is a difference in terms of how you approach the issue.  Thus everytime I discuss gay marriage as a civil rights issue many black friends (at least for the moment) change their perspective, and see what they are voting for/ against.

    Parent
    yes. targetted PR (none / 0) (#96)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    is a good plan.

    Organize Organize Organize

    Parent

    One addition (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by SM on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:14:06 PM EST
    I'd add after 2 - Remove marriage as something the state regulates. With civil unions including all the same rights as marriage, the legal concerns will be moot.

    Parent
    Excellent goals! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    typo (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    #2 should be

    allow straight couples the rights of civil unions.

    Parent

    As a straight girl I knew what you meant :) (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:25:13 AM EST
    I'm sort of sad that I won't be in the generation of women who can respond when someone asks to marry them by saying, "No, but I'll enter a Civil Union with you".  It has a very feminist feel to it.

    Parent
    It does!!! (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:29:44 AM EST
    And it's also a way to stand with the GLBT movement against unfairness.

    Right now, my marriage with my husband is a symbol of unfairness.

    If more straight people choose civil unions due to the inequality, then the inequality itself threatens marriage.

    Parent

    oops (none / 0) (#74)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:55 AM EST
    #2) allow straight couples the right of civil unions

    Parent
    I am married (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:24:41 AM EST
    and straight, but given the choice, I am sure we would have chosen a civil union.  Heck, it practically is, anyway, we got married by the judge at the courthouse.

    Parent
    I was surprised to learn (none / 0) (#81)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:30:19 AM EST
    that it was reserved for gays.

    Parent
    How? Isn't marriage already mixed up (none / 0) (#98)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:20:02 AM EST
    with religion?  I think we should promote what much of Europe does, i.e., a civil union spelling out rights of property and finacial responsibilites to each other, period.  Then if you want a marriage by your church get that a few days later or whatever.  Remember when Grace Kelly did that and the country was so intrigued?

    Parent
    I don't understand you comment (none / 0) (#100)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:22:58 AM EST
    in response to my comment.

    Currently, straights anr not allowed civil unions, and civil unions have fewer rights than marriage.

    Parent

    I would like to see one standard (none / 0) (#118)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    legal document for a union, between any two people.  That would spell out financial issues like our "marriage license" does today.  It should also include all of the state confered rights like family rights to care for the partner and ability to benefit from social security etc.  But in order to get past this trauma I would like the word "marriage" to simply refer to a ceremony in a religious setting. I know some gays think that marriage is the magic word. It is now because of its symbolism.  But it needn't be.  My gay friends are devastated by what they feel is a rejection of them by the general public who went crazy for Obama. I feel their pain.  I want to solve this so that we can start respecting unions.  But maybe I don't know all of the rules about civil unions.

    Parent
    I pretty much outlined (none / 0) (#143)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:01:57 PM EST
    a path to that outcome in my comment.

    Parent
    Item number 2 (none / 0) (#140)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    means what exactly?

    Parent
    right now (none / 0) (#144)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    only gay couple can be in civil unions in CA, not straight ones.

    Parent
    Alienating the fearful? (3.50 / 4) (#93)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:09:05 AM EST
    They have alienated themselves on this issue.  The bully pulpit should be used.  LBJ faced a society wildly more divided on the civil rithts issue than Clinton ever faced on gays in the military.  And he did the right thing.  Clinton, as so often was the case, was a whimp.  All he had to do was say, that's it, I'm commander and chief, gay people defend our nation and will not be asked to lie about who they are, and they will serve openly, period, end of issue.  And that would've been that, and life would've gone on.  In other words, he needed to act like an evolved human being, and make an evolved case, but he did not even really try.

    Gays in the military is a fine example of a complete and inexcusable failure of Bill Clinton's presidency.

    Parent

    en pointe. (none / 0) (#60)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    repealing DOMA would be a good thing (none / 0) (#46)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    I doubt we'll have the votes for (none / 0) (#57)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    that. I don't see Tester, McCaskill etc. going the right way on that.

    Parent
    Well. Hopefully Obama (none / 0) (#64)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    will at least try to feel out the extent of political will on the issue, but after this election I doubt if it's there.

    It is really a constitutional issue in the traditional sense of the word.

    The current SCOTUS (or some of them) likes to look for signs that the population is ready for social change. The more signs we can provide for them that this is so, the better.

    Protests are good. Legislation is better. We need strategy. Make it look like Jim Crow as much as possible in terms of civil unions, so that the comparison cannot help but be made by them.

    Parent

    As supportive as I am for rights for (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:32:29 AM EST
    gays, whatever we call them, I don't think the public is there yet.  My daughter tried to get her rock solid Democratic friend to vote no on 8 but was unable to convince her.

    Parent
    As I've argued before, the ability of activists (none / 0) (#27)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:48:56 AM EST
    to influence a politician post election is pretty minimal.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:51:46 AM EST
    You're wrong.  There is always another election.

    Parent
    4 years is a long time. And gays are one (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:53:54 AM EST
    of those groups that have no where else to go.

    Parent
    There is an election in 2 years (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:54:45 AM EST
    Not for Obama. Let me put it this way, (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:59:56 AM EST
    women make up a much larger percentage of the population then gays. 52%. And yet it doesn't particularly look like Obama is going to make much of an effort to court them (Summers at Treasury, only a few women in the cabinet). If he doesn't seem too interested in going after 52% of the population, why does anyone think he going to do much for less than 10%?

    Parent
    Fortunately women are smarter than... (1.00 / 1) (#142)
    by LogopolisMike on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:57:36 PM EST
    being able to be courted just by putting a woman in the cabinet.  Thank God.

    Parent
    Yeah, who needs equal representation. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:14:26 PM EST
    Two words: Condi Rice. Two more: No thanks (none / 0) (#184)
    by LogopolisMike on Wed Nov 12, 2008 at 08:21:00 PM EST
    I don't think this is going to be a top down issue (none / 0) (#43)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:59:03 AM EST
    EXCEPT if SCOTUS gets involved.

    Parent
    Yah, Civil Rights as a (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:42:40 AM EST
    top down issue.  Why bother?  I mean, if Lincoln hadn't signed the Emancipation Proclamation, Harry Truman hadn't integrated the military, and Congress and Lyndon Johnson hadn't signed the Civil Rights Act, I'm sure everything would have been fine anyway.

    Parent
    BTD is arguing for context here. I would be (5.00 / 0) (#101)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:30:10 AM EST
    sorry if Obama did what you suggest.  A big backlash could be expected, especially from the black community who voted overwhelmingly for the marriage ban in CA. Clinton, was advised to act quickly as he came into office, and he did.  The consequences were bad for him in getting other important pieces of legislation started up. He was branded as a liberal in an increasingly conservative congress. They of course, were gleeful to have an issue to whack him with. And Clinton acted to forstall a more severe action at the time.  It is all context, context, context. Read up!

    Parent
    Those things did not happen (none / 0) (#148)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    in a vacuum of community action, dk.

    Parent
    Of course not, (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:26:38 PM EST
    but you are the one who are consistently saying that you absolve our leaders from any responsibility over this.

    I have no problem with the idea that community involvement is necessary for any such struggle.  But when you consistently seem to absolve our political leaders, particularly our President-Elect, of any responsibility for this outcome, when he by all accounts gay-baited several times actively gay-baited in his quest for the Presidency, you are robbing yourself of credibility.

    Would it kill you just to admit that?

    Parent

    I am not admitting it (5.00 / 0) (#156)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:35:10 PM EST
    because I don't believe it.

    I don't think that any single person can came down and change culture with a simgle campaign.

    I think that if Obama did it, he may not be president right now.

    I also think that if there is a good time to do it, he will.

    Parent

    Well, then my point above (none / 0) (#157)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST
    about Lincoln, Truman and Johnson stands.  I'm sure there were people like you all around them, and I'm glad they didn't listen.

    Parent
    They did listen to people like me (5.00 / 0) (#161)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    without people like me (many of us, all speaking with one voice) none of those things would have happened.

    There certainly is a role for government, but government does not take the lead...circumstances do. And the people create the circumstances.

    Strategy is important, and timing is critical:

    Lincoln's Tactics
    Lincoln did not dare to challenge slavery's existence--it was after all left to the states by the Constitition. Most Americans accepted or supported it. And most of those that opposed it had profoundly racist attitudes toward blacks. The famed Lincoln-Douglas debates framed for the entire country the issue of slavery.

    http://histclo.com/essay/war/acr/sla/sd-ldd.html

    More:

    Lincon replied [to Douglass, during the Lincoln Douglass debates]that while blacks may not be equal that they are entiled to the income that they earn from their labor

    Sound like civil unions?

    Only after the country was at war, did Lincoln free the slaves. The timing was right, and it was a political advantage to do so.

    When Johnson passed the civil rights legislation, the southern strategy was born. We are getting out of that AS OF TUESDAY NOV 4....Just 3 days ago..how many decades later?

    So what you are asking is not a small thing at all, and IF the country is not ready, it may be decades before true equality is reached.

    Parent

    How about some facts: (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:28:52 PM EST
    from  "lesbian life.com
    http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm

    Obama in Illinois:

     - sponsored legislation in Illinois that would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

    Obama in Washington:

     - co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity

    • supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

    • believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell

    • believes gays and lesbians should have the same rights to adopt children

    • Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

    • leaves the marriage question up to the states


    Parent
    Reporting only the facts (2.00 / 0) (#166)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    that are advantageous to your case also does not lend you much credibility.  You can stamp your feet as much as you want, but you can't change reality and you can't absolve someone of their failure of moral leadership.  

    Parent
    What about my other point? (5.00 / 0) (#167)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    About Lincoln?

    If you don't consider the whole picture (as I do, and yes, the gay bashing preacher stuff disturbs me) you are living in a fantasy.

    Parent

    how? (none / 0) (#151)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    No political risk? (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    Of course there is one. I'd like him to take it though, slowly.

    Obama is in a position to change minds in the African American community like just about no one else.

    Parent

    Do you really think if Obama were to (none / 0) (#25)
    by tigercourse on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:47:36 AM EST
    say, "I disagree with the passage of the discriminatory Prop 8" It would hurt him in the 2012 election?

    Parent
    Well, he already kinda did that (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:13 AM EST
    but that's not really what I'm looking for.

    It has to be more substantive. He knows what to do. It's just a question of whether he will.

    Parent

    Campaign promises (none / 0) (#109)
    by cenobite on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    On the campaign trail, he promised to work to repeal DOMA. Should he not be held to that promise? What other promises should he not be held to because they would hurt him in the 2012 election?

    Parent
    Here's one I recall: wipe out (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:27:47 PM EST
    homelessness w/i 10 years.  Or was it poverty?  

    Parent
    It depends how friendly (none / 0) (#17)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    the GOP can become.  A few strategic changes in the public face of the party and the GOP could appear very welcoming.  The trick would be how to do that without losing their less tolerant base.  That would take another Reagan, but it could be done.

    I don't think most minorities feel completely comfortable or welcome in either party.  Obama's campaign might have changed that - temporarily.

    Parent

    They'll find it difficult to thread the needle (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:44:18 AM EST
    I dunno. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:46:37 AM EST
    There are those like Huckabee that have the talent - just a few more like him and they could pull it off.  

    Parent
    Jindal nt (none / 0) (#40)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:57:15 AM EST
    Sure (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:58:49 AM EST
    but the anti-immigration nuts are loud. . .

    Parent
    I guess it just depends on whether (none / 0) (#54)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:06:34 AM EST
    the GOP actually learned from this year's election.

    Parent
    Interesting point (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:57:26 AM EST
    on the Italians and Irish.  These two groups disliked each other intensely.  No surprise there....it happens with a lot of immigrant groups....placing their anger and frustration on fellow immigrants.

    In my parents' day (both Italian immigrants...or in my father's case, his parents), there was no love lost between the two groups.  The Irish dominated the democratic party in the Northeast.   The Italians drifted to the suburbs and the republicans.


    Parent

    Today I read that 70% of the AA's (none / 0) (#94)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:13:07 AM EST
    voted for Proposition 8, the measure that bans gay marriage here in California.  If there is an issue that the social conservatives will run on and divide on it will be this one.

    Parent
    be sure to read (none / 0) (#99)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:20:44 AM EST
    It was an absurd diary imo (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:33:14 PM EST
    Look, all she needed to write was "I do not believe the exit polls" and left it at that.

    I believe them myself.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#115)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:46:38 PM EST
    You'd have to believe that black turnout went from 6% in 2004 to 10% in 2008, when her figures pretty well establish that you can't even find that number of black voters in the state.

    Nationally, the exit polls claim that black turnout went from 11% in 2004 to 13% this year, a far more plausible result, and I believe even that is shaded by the fact that black voters were presumably more eager to talk to exit pollsters this year.  I guess we could look at some of the VRA states that keep statistically rigorous numbers.

    The even more salient point was that it's ridiculous to scapegoat the black community when they comprise such a tiny share of the electorate in general.  I mean, it's one thing for a black person to criticize homophobia within the black community, or for a Latino person to criticize the Latino community.  But I feel a little weird watching white people say "it's all the blacks' fault" when, guess what, there are a heck of a lot more anti-gay whites than blacks.

    Parent

    Scapegoat? (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:56:34 PM EST
    Excuse me , As a Latino I do not find calling my people out scapegoating. I call it demanding more.

    What a crock of sh*t.

    Parent

    Like I said (5.00 / 0) (#123)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:03:49 PM EST
    I think a member of the community has greater standing.  I, personally, felt responsible earlier in the campaign when my fellow Jews were believing all kinds of weird crap about Barack Obama.  I felt we were better than that.  But if someone on the outside said "Obama is losing and it's all because of the Jews!" I'd be like hey, wait a minute, there are lots of other people you could be pointing the finger at.

    Parent
    I think gay folks have a right to ask (5.00 / 4) (#125)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    the question have we overcome?

    Parent
    Agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by LogopolisMike on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    A bigot is a bigot, no matter the shade.  Folks are pointing out bigotry from non-whites because they find it ironic -- which may or may not be interesting.  Personally, I only think it's worth pointing out because it I believe that because of that supposed irony, those groups may be minds than can be changed with proper leadership.  I'm 100% behind Obama, but I'm not going to hold my breath looking for the executive branch of the federal government to help people change their bigoted minds -- black, brown, white, or other.  That's up to all of us -- like it or not.

    Parent
    Two points (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST
    Her numbers establish what? That there are not enough registered black voters in California to have constituted 10% of the electorate? That statements is on it face ludicrous. And you must know this. 6% of 100 is 6. 10% of 60 is 6.Of course the number did not remain 6. It probably became 8. So turnout could have been 8% or 9% if you like.

    But of course that is a red herring.  The issue is not 10% - the issue is 70%.

    Do you believe that finding? She does not. Because she does not want to. I sympathize.

    But suppose I wanted to make a point on my emerged Dem majority thesis. Suppose I wanted to argue there really WAS a Bradley Effect and that in fact Obama got less than 40% of the white vote. I could pretend to disbelieve the essence of the exit polls and just assert it and make up silly arguments to support my view.

    But I do not play that kind of crap.  

    Parent

    I do not question (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:00:50 PM EST
    the 70% number, myself.  I didn't really think that was the overarching point.

    But even if we take it as settled that the black community has more homophobia, is it really reasonable to blame them for the whole gay marriage ban when they were a tiny percentage of the voters, as some have done?  I'm upset about Prop 8, it was a real downer on an otherwise great night.  But some of the rhetoric and recriminations have been way over the top.

    Of course, this is just a subset of the overall problem of liberals who think the way to win an issue is to call everyone on the other side bigoted.  If the vote of the black community is so critical, there's probably a way to make inroads with that community, but it doesn't start with declaring war on them.

    Parent

    I blame them for the bigoted views (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    as I blame MY people, the Latinos.

    If A-As and Latinos are unwilling to confront the dirty truths about their own people, then WTF?

    Parent

    And with turnout down near 20% in CA (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:03:39 PM EST
    And with Obama on the ballot, hell 10% seems damn believable.

    6% of 12.5 million = 750,000.

    10% of 10.2 million = 1.02 million.

    Is it really difficult to believe that Obama drove uop A-A participation in California by 250,000 votes or 33%. Hell, I counted on it.

    The national figures showed a 20% increase.

    Her arguments are absurd

    Parent

    I have to agree. The issue is 70% (none / 0) (#150)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    It feels like a slap in the face.

    Parent
    Easy to check the numbers. (none / 0) (#126)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    What you want is total # of voters - not percents.

    Assuming a depressed GOP turnout and an enhanced Democratic turnout, it may be there was a lower turnout of white voters.  As the # of white voters drop, the relative percent of black voters increases without an increasing # of black voters.  

    Plus if voter registration and GOTV efforts of minorities were effective, those statistics are believable.

    Real number crunching requires actual # of votes and voters.

    Parent

    Wow. Checked the CNN (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:45:46 PM EST
    exit polls for FL.  43% of Obama voters voted for Issue 2.

    If you want to defeat anti-gay ballot issues, your best bet is rich, well educated, white, anti war, Jewish or non religious, Democrats.  If you want to pass an anti gay initiative, go for church going Christians of any type.

    It appears that the anti gay groups have a slight advantage.

    Parent

    She write a lot (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:10:29 PM EST
    but somehow missed that the California EP has a phone poll component.

    The 70% figure is not suspect.

    Parent

    OF course it does (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:12:01 PM EST
    Look, she wrote from emotion, not knowledge or even common sense.

    It was a bad diary.

    Parent

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:16:36 PM EST
    I understand what she was reacting to, and empathize, but she responded in a nonsensical way.

    Parent
    Well. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:11:59 PM EST
    I am completely conflicted because I don't want to insult AAs to the effect of entrenching them in their stance on the issue; but I agree it needs to be THOUGHTFULLY addressed.

    Parent
    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:29:47 PM EST
    But if telling the truth insults people, well sometimes they wuill have to be insulted.

    Parent
    I agree, but you know the community over at dK (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:40:15 PM EST
    people are hurling insults that will hit you in the gut whatever side you are on.

    I think it's too painful for shannikka to admit the truth, and too painful for the gay community (after by all accounts supporting Obama) to be left out of the equality party.

    For me, it's a natural line from civil rights of blacks , women, immigrants, to those of gays. But for some reason (religion, culture) it isn't for the AA community. In fact many AA leaders decry the association. I'd like to know why and change that.

    Parent

    It's been that way (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:50:57 PM EST
    since I was first aware of it.

    Any mention of MLKJr and gay rights in a print publication will get a reply from someone in the black community who is offended by that association.

    I've given understanding this mentality.  I don't know how to change it.  It has to come from within that community.  

    Parent

    It's not going to come (none / 0) (#162)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:54:06 PM EST
    from within the community. There has to be outreach.

    Parent
    The outreach issue (none / 0) (#163)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:18:35 PM EST
    is an important one.

    IIRC, Prop 8 looked like it was going to fail earlier this year, by a large margin.  Then the supporters of the proposition kicked into overdrive, with efforts so outrageous they amounted to McCarthyism.  Why couldn't we maintain our lead?

    Blaming Barack Obama is just not going to solve the problem.  And the problem is a big one.  Again, I simply cannot get over the discriminatory adoption ban in Arkansas.  These things aren't supported by just one ethnic group.  
     

    Parent

    That one is even more mean spirited (none / 0) (#164)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 03:20:12 PM EST
    than this one.

    And it's worth wondering what eithnic group the FUNDING for these measures came from.

    Parent

    As you pointed out above (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:00:38 PM EST
    Obama is in favor of gay adoption.  So I do want him to take a stance against the ban on that in Arkansas.


    Parent
    The Right (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:07:26 PM EST
    is an expert when it comes to using scare tactics to drum up support and raise money.  The most monolithic group in the FL exit polls was voters who thought that terrorists were their top concern.  Over 80% of them voted for Issue 2.

    All certain groups has to do is whip up fear about anything happening to children and they've got money and voters in hand.  Adoption = kids.  Prop 8 used education as a scare tactic.

    It's not logic.  It's emotion.  And the time to fight these measures isn't when they spring up one election season.  You can't defuse the fear unless you have the organization and money to do rapid responses.  My recommendation?  An expert organization whose sole job is to defeat these measures.  The money and organization to create these measures often comes from outside the states.  The defense usually comes from local groups and their money.  They are just outmatched, out organized and out spent.

    A little of that Obama expertise, money and ground game really could be useful for this...

    Parent

    OMG (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:10:13 PM EST
    I have been thinking the very same thing! We need those org skills and a gayPAC.

    Parent
    If you look at the Right (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    They had a lot of money coming in from Mormons.  How many Mormons are in CA?  So the Right organizes, raises money nationally and targets a few states.  Then those state's gay and and gay friendly communities then have to face down an organization with built in allies (church going Christians) when they don't have the same advantage.  They have to face down a well funded campaign while playing defense, without the money, organization or expertise.

    Is it any wonder that gays keep losing out?  It would be different if just the state Dems would commit to the battle.

    Yes, the No On 8 could have done a better job - but all by their lonesome?  Not likely.

    Parent

    The biggest Mormon allies are the Catholics (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:36:06 PM EST
    on this isuue, it turns out. It also turns out that they have been organized on this issue for a long time, waiting for their moment.

    The Supreme Court decision was only the "start" button to get theier machine rolling.

    So. We need to do the same thing, and be ready when the time comes.

    Parent

    OK. I just reread (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM EST
    your point about outside assistance is key.

    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by lilburro on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:29:15 PM EST
    asking for better grassroots, getting together and working for it, is a lot better than blaming Barack Obama for instance.

    And I think we need to ask more of the general liberal grassroots.  Stop supporting Dem candidates that hate gays.  Travis Childers should not be in Congress.

    Parent

    Alright then (none / 0) (#171)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    Fabian, Coigue and others, can you take apart my post for a solution for Dems and Obama so I can refine it before presenting it to da man?

    Will it work to push for federal structure for the states who offer civil unions, and let the rest of the states discriminate but only in not performing their own civil unions?


    Parent

    It's so loooong. (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:26:22 PM EST
    but I'll try ;-)

    Parent
    I think her sampling data was (none / 0) (#105)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    well put together and she has provided evidence that the AA community did not cause proposition 8 to pass. That wasn't what I said and I don't believe they provided the margin for it to pass either.   I said that 70% of the AA's said that they had voted for the ban and that of course would be from exit data. That also is a shaky value according to her and I don't know if we will get a better handle on that now.  I do know that Black churches have been anti-gay marriage and have been preaching it.  I live in Alameda County so I am aware of that.

    Parent
    That diary presented one premise. (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    Prop 8's failure or success.

    However, those exit polls support the conventional wisdom that's been around for a long time - that blacks are more homophobic than whites.  Suddenly blacks go from celebrating their political significance to downplaying it.  Yay us, Obama won!  Prop 8?  Who us?

    Donnie McClurkin doesn't seem like an outlier now.  

    Parent

    It's pretty clear (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:26:38 PM EST
    that blacks voted overwhelmingly for gay marriage bans just about everywhere. The Florida EP comports.


    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:35:26 PM EST
    but scapegoating blacks, in a state where they comprise a mere 6% of the voting population, is pretty harsh.  An awful lot of people voted for that ban and the vast majority of them weren't black.

    Generally progressives disapprove of scapegoating blacks in other contexts.  I understand why people are upset about Prop 8, obviously, but I'm pretty shocked at how out of control it's gotten.

    Parent

    I didn't scapegoat. (5.00 / 4) (#116)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:48:25 PM EST
    My POV is that the black community has been involuntarily "outed".  That family secret that nobody talked about and that everybody pretended was no big thing is suddenly national news.

    Of course they are upset.  Of course they are angry. That thing that you aren't supposed to talk about is now what everyone is talking about.  Just when they were ready to celebrate overcoming prejudice, their own prejudice ended up in the headlines.

    It's got to be painful.  

    Parent

    I don't agree that Blacks are more (none / 0) (#114)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    homophobic than others.  The fact that their churches preach against gay marriage as all the evangelical churches do simply means that for many religious people marriage between a man and a woman is more important.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by Fabian on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    I've never heard anyone claim the black community was no better or worse than the white community when it came to accepting GLBTs.  Every time anyone I knew volunteered an opinion, it was that the black community was less accepting, less tolerant.

    Just what I heard.  Maybe others have heard differently.

    Parent

    Overall though (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    in spite of the huge losses to gay civil rights, even conservative  states rejected stricter abortion  restrictions.

    Parent
    Only in the deep south are a majority of people (none / 0) (#41)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:57:55 AM EST
    anti-choice.

    Parent
    When our family faced a teen pregnancy (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    last year our daughter told me that many of her friends wanted to know why she had a baby since her family could obviously afford an abortion.  It seems to be the abortion that is self paid for and can be covered up and discreet that the South seeks.  It is odd living here as a choice family when your child chooses motherhood at a young age.  Many people just don't seem to understand this choice thing.  Babies for the unwed are badges of dishonor and if you have enough money and help I guess you don't have to wear it.  Sad way to look at life.

    Parent
    In the old days (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:15:13 AM EST
    the social compact on abortion was very much "don't ask, don't tell."  It was technically illegal in a lot of places, but really everyone looked the other way so long as you were discreet about it.

    It was liberals, naturally, who were chiefly responsible for breaking the social compact by saying let's bring it out of the closet, make it legal, and maybe save some women's lives along the way.  Some conservatives recoil because they don't believe in abortion.  But for others the real problem is that women aren't acting sufficiently ashamed.

    Parent

    I blame the British (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:24:17 AM EST
    for forcing the Puritans on us. They live with us still, wishing they could place scarlet letters on the sweaters of loose women.

    Parent
    Careful (none / 0) (#138)
    by cal1942 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    Puritans were also a source of what today we would call progressivism beginning with the first public schools and the spark that founded the United States. It was their descendents who were the core of abolitionists who agitated to end slavery.

    Professor Fischer would tell you that there is today a Greater New England that encompasses a northern tier of states that are quite consistently politically progressive.  These are the areas of the nation that were originally settled by the descendents of New England Puritans moving west.

    It ain't all black and white, good or evil.

    Parent

    It was a bit tongue in cheek (none / 0) (#146)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:09:51 PM EST
    but I appreciate the historical correction!!!

    Parent
    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    by contrast, up here it is a little different, at least in my experience.  In a similar circumstance, if you didn't get the abortion, it is because you must have some conservative religious view that kept you from getting the abortion.

    Parent
    And here's our daughter (none / 0) (#183)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Nov 09, 2008 at 10:19:49 PM EST
    a dark brooding teenager who often questioned the existence of god at all and wondered if there really was one why was he such a loser on the job :) All I could do was shrug and tell her it is something we all must struggle to define for ourselves.....and she chose young motherhood for herself and for nobody else :)

    Parent
    Doesn't seem to be confined to the (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:14:01 AM EST
    south.  Lots of advice for Sarah Palin's pregnant, unwed daughter here. Starting with:  stay home.  

    Parent
    Income is more important than region (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by esmense on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    Pro-choice attitudes rise with income. What is a "choice" for higher income individuals is more likely to be experienced as economic coercion to those lower on the economic ladder.

    Affluent progressives need to be more sensitive to this. Low income women and families are more interested in political policy aimed at allowing them to have and raise their children and keep their families intact -- it's important to make abortion "accessible" but putting too much  emphasis on making it "acceptable" frankly, for the poor, makes arguing for their right to have children, and for a shared social responsibility for those children, more difficult. Social disapproval of abortion on moral grounds is, for them, a bulwark against the increasingly popular notion -- expressed by people on Left and Right -- that people shouldn't have children "they can't afford" and the rejection of the notion that we owe a shared social responsibility toward "other people's" children.

    Parent

    Yes. (none / 0) (#59)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:08:54 AM EST
    It is a sad way to look at life.

    Parent
    now. but I think that is a (none / 0) (#44)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:59:49 AM EST
    change over the 80s and 90s.

    Just what I remember, I don't have data to back it up

    Parent

    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:03:50 AM EST
    I think it's been stable since at least the Reagan administration. Most people don't really change their minds on the issue.

    Parent
    Well. You could be right (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:08:02 AM EST
    it's just my impression.

    I don't exactly live in a bellweather, but my city has become much more socially liberal (of course that includes gay rights)

    Parent

    So Obama needs a moderate agenda... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kmonster on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:36:40 AM EST
    ...which will in effect be a center-left agenda now that the country has shifted away from the radical right.

    But I don't want Obama or the Dems going super-liberal like people on the right continuously go off about.  They won't so my point is sort moot.

    I like your first line (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:38:10 AM EST
    That is it in a nutshell.

    Parent
    Center-Left (none / 0) (#48)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:02:14 AM EST
    is about all that would be allowed by the Right anyway, and even then they would only accept that in limited scope. That being the case the progressive majority as you are trying to say the country is now is not going to get what they expect. Center-left is just not going to deliver for them. That is not a good thing. Moderate approaches will embody GOP some ideas so as I keep saying we will end up with watered down policies that are mere breadcrumbs tossed at people real problems which don't fix the problem at all. Then in a blink of an eye it will be 2010 and midterms and not much will have been done.

    Short of a stimulus package, which in the past have not really done much for people and are very forgettable, there will be little for Obama to point to as an example of what he did for the little guy. Stimulus packages are a very short term cosmetic cover up at best yet that seems to be the extent of Democratic creative thought. When jobs are being siphoned off to Free Trade, union influence disappearing, and education becoming unaffordable cosmetic cover ups are like a slap in the face.

    Parent

    It's not about (none / 0) (#62)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    what the right will "allow" anymore.  As BTD so adroitly points out, this isn't 1992.

    Parent
    You expect them (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:17 AM EST
    to become shrinking violets? If you do then you are not living in reality. I think this win has people living in a fantasy world of possibilities. Key word: Fantasy.

    Right now the GOP has their sights on winning back one of the Hoses in 2010. They can't do that by rolling over and empowering the Dems. Don't expect them to roll over.

    Parent

    And your suggestion is... (none / 0) (#84)
    by Melchizedek on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:45:53 AM EST
    assume the fetal position? Get WAY more progressive because somehow...that will draw less conservative opposition...but we're deluded if we think the GOP will let us do that...

    In other words, after their crushing defeat the GOP can stop us from achieving anything real. Gotcha. Thanks for the insight.

    Did the GOP roll over after 2006? No-- but they got crushed.

    THIS ISN'T 1992. Were you asleep over the past two months? Do you know how badly people want financial security and health care? Do you know how badly the GOP will be crushed if they try to do what Dole did to Clinton in 1993?

    You know who was living in a fantasy world? The person that looked at his campaign and thought it was about pretty words, when on the ground-- in the real world-- it was ruthlessly well-organized and crushed its opposition. And these folks read history books.

    Oh, and Rahm Emmanuel-- a real fantasy-man-- says hello.

    Parent

    Did you respond to the wrong post? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:55:31 AM EST
    Because you certainly did not address what I said. Not even close.

    Parent
    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    One good example is the health care issue.  In 1992, many of us, Clinton included, saw the beginning of the problem and tried to change it.  But the country was clearly not ready.  He had greater success with other, more moderate programs, like FMLA.

    It is also telling that the progressive things that Clinton did push are those things that caused the biggest backlash - gays in the military and health care reform.

    Today, health care coverage is in a crisis stage and Obama has a greater license to promote changes.  People are ready for lots of changes that they weren't ready for in 1992.

    Obama dosen't have (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    any real major heath care reform on his agenda though. None. People are ready for change but so far leadership in that area is nil.

    Parent
    The poster Thanin (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:59:50 AM EST
    is a child who has nothing to say. A rating button is his only form of relevance, if you can call the relevant.

    Parent
    Add Sher (none / 0) (#182)
    by Pepe on Sat Nov 08, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    to the list of children who abuse the rules of down rating peoples opinions without having the class or wherewithal to add their own comments. Nope Sher has nothing to say. All she has is a rating button. There really should be a minimum age limit on blogs.

    Parent
    BINGO (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:04:29 AM EST
    In the 1990s most people were ignorant when it came to health care concerns.  Boomers like me were just getting into our forties.  Health care was not on our frontburners, unless like me, you had lived with  chronic disease (IBD) your entire life. I saw the costs going up and up and up because I was affected.  The majority of my friends were not.  Because of my disease I had to get a colonoscopy every years since I was in my twenties.  My co pay went from $50 to $250.  Not until my peers started reaching their fifties did they squawk about the cost of preventive care.  Finally our insurance group (from our school district where we taught) lowered the co pay of that test when so many of their staff became 50.

    Sadly, most people don't pay attention until they are personally affected.  Hillary was way ahead of the curve and was bashed for her precautionary actions.

    Parent

    The point in a nutshell (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:39:21 AM EST
    I think (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM EST
    that the country is much more ready for a progressive agenda, but the tricky part right now is the issue of priorities.  Right now virtually everyone wants the Democrats to focus on fixing the economy - and there's no reason we shouldn't take a progressive approach to doing so, beginning with the stimulus package that Congress intends to take up in a lame-duck session.  Right now the Dems seem to think it will be filibustered.  Fine, don't water it down, just come back in January with improved majorities and a Democratic President and get it done then.  The public will be steamed at the GOP's ideological stubbornness and rightly so.

    But the issue of priorities makes it harder to deal right now with other items on the progressive wish list.  Imagine if, instead of the economy, President Obama's first order of business was card-check or the Freedom of Choice Act.  Salutary goals, but I'm confident it's the precise opposite of the tone he wants to set.  Recall that the result of Clinton's gays-in-the-military debacle was that he got savaged by the right for bringing it up and by the left for not getting it done.  No one wants to make that mistake again.

    I'm honestly very curious to see what Obama's strategy might be for bringing up the hot-button issues without letting them soak up all the oxygen.  That's the real test.  When it comes to progressive economic measures, the GOP will whine, but I think the public support will be there for pretty much anything the Democrats might seek to do on the economy.

    Card check as Obama's gays in the military (5.00 / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:40:58 AM EST
    That is a great analogy.

    As we discussed the other day, Obama's actions on card check will be the most intersting from a political perspective.

    Parent

    Card check worries me (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:55 AM EST
    because it was a major issue that came from out of nowhere this campaign season here in Minnesota.  Lots of ads were run against Al Franken on this, with the major theme being the "loss of a secret ballot" at work.

    It is curious because while Minnesota is a union state, we aren't particularly unionized or industrial.  The ads were sort of odd because union stuff usually doesn't get any play here.

    The point is, the Republicans are geared up and ready on this issue.  They are ready to attack.  They will use this issue to expand beyond the issue itself.  It might be used as some sort of proof of how radical or liberal Obama and the Democrats are.

    Parent

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:10:54 AM EST
    and they are eager for the opportunity to go back to the days of painting the Democrats as people who only care about the interests of union bosses, the same way we portray the GOP as in the pocket of the religious right.  The trick is to accomplish enough other stuff so that card-check ends up looking like just one more item on the agenda, not the overriding priority.  We'll see how they go about it.

    This much I know, the unions went all-in for Obama, and there is no way it will not come up for a vote at some point in the next two years.  This is a chit they are entitled to cash in.

    Parent

    This makes sense, except for one thing. (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM EST
    When you say Clinton was savaged on the right, that didn't just include the Republican.  Clinton was savaged by bigots in his own party (e.g. Sam Nunn, who may play an important advisory role, if not a formal role, in Obama's administration).

    It is very important not to whitewash the very big problems in our own party.  Closing our eyes to that will not make things better.

    Parent

    If a stimulus package (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Pepe on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    is just another series of $500 checks and other cosmetic bandaids then it will be worthless. If it entails real money that will help stimulate jobs in broad sectors of the country then it would be a good and worthwhile idea. the stimulus packages of the past did nothing for people and are very forgettable.

    Also coming back in January with larger majorities is not necessarily a panacea. We still have a lot of very conservative members of our caucus who have stifled other economic ideas in the past.

    Parent

    Yeah (none / 0) (#67)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    the December stimulus package is only a first step.  We're definitely going to need job-creation programs on a much wider scale once the new administration is fully up and running.

    Parent
    What we need (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:29 AM EST
    is a bold initiative to build and repair our infrastructure.  Instead of just giving $500B away, we should spend it to create jobs.  It is sort of a page out of the FDR playbook, but I think it is a good one.

    Parent
    If you read Robert Reich's funny (none / 0) (#130)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    book titled "Locked in the Cabinet" about his days in the Clinton cabinet you will see what happened about infrastructure.  With a 7% unemployment rate in 1993, Clinton focused on rebuilding America's infrastructure as a way to jump start the economy through job creation.  The GOP would have none of it. They screamed "big government, big spending liberal." And with the House firmly in their hands they set about gutting every attempt to do so.  That was the context BTD was talking about.  So when bridges collapse and roads crumble we know who defered the maintenance for political reasons. I hope that the first Obama effort will be 1) alternative energy infrastructure followed quickly by repairing our electricity grids, bridges and levees.

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by eric on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    it is bizarre because it seems like Republicans would actually rather give money away then spend it.  Send people $600 checks?  That's fine.  Spend $600 per person fixing bridges?  You're a liberal big spender.

    Parent
    Politically the gays in the military (none / 0) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    issue turned out badly for Clinton but he did change the dynamics of being gay and having gays in the military.  The military now owns the fact that some soldiers are serving and are gay.  It is a start, now we can finish what Clinton started with much less flackola.  Now is the time while we have gay Iraq war heros please!  Do it now Obama!

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:24:55 AM EST
    I have always given Clinton full credit for being courageous enough to raise that issue, and I 100% understand that he ended up taking the best deal he could get.  Most gay people I know feel the same way, and certainly Hillary got the majority of the GLBT vote in the primary.  But there is a vocal minority on the left that absolutely despises Clinton for "caving."

    I think Obama will learn from the experience and know that you have to get a buy-in from the top military brass before you can raise the issue.  Supposedly we have civilian control of the military in this country, but in practice the generals always win the public opinion war.

    Parent

    I'm not sure how much of a buy in (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:29:17 AM EST
    you have to have with top military brass when you are the CIC.  If there was some sort of unspoken/unwritten rule about that before Bush, he broke that to smithereens.  Obama has a huge buy in already with Wes Clark who has always supported having gays in the military.  Remember Steve, the military is not a democracy.  I have had to remember that every single day for the past seven years.  Perhaps it was time I had a moment where I could feel good about it :)

    Parent
    Depends on how much "progress" (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by iceblinkjm on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    we are talking about. 1 in 6 democrats who voted for Obama also voted for Prop 8 here in California.

    I like what Mike Lux wrote (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    I read what Digby linked to that Mike Lux wrote at Open Left and I agree with Mike Lux.  I was a single working mom from 1992 to 1999 and it was extremely hard difficult work.  Healthcare coverage gaps made things even more difficult when your kids got sick.  If you worked 40 hrs plus per week you often dealt with sick children after work and that would always lead me to the emergency room because that was the only thing open.  What a horrible bill that always turned into for strep throat.  Things for the lower middle class would have improved with a Gore presidency but the portion of the Democratic base that turns out the votes for the party was not energized in 2000.....we were tired, really exhausted.  For the lower middle class the eight Clinton years were mediocre and George Bush didn't seem to be Satan, he almost seemed like a Republican version of Clinton until he took over the office.  Clinton had unfortunately smudged Gore and the benefits that the lower middle class had received from a Clinton presidency had left us too tired to get excited.  It would serve Obama better and the Democratic party better if he took off on a more progressive foot right now and helped the lower middle class today, right now.  Energize them and make their lives productive alongside some time and energy to enjoy some of it and that will make dealing with our national money woes much easier and obviously more doable. Our people will be healthier and happier thanks to the Democratic party.  We need this!

    Who do you see (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Makarov on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:56:49 AM EST
    as a "progressive" leader in the Democratic Party now?

    In the Senate, Russ Feingold comes to mind. Hillary Clinton is a maybe (but has been a much stronger maybe than Obama over the last 2 years). Ted Kennedy will probably not see another term.

    I had some hopes for the House when Pelosi initially became Speaker, but was disheartened when Steny Hoyer assumed his leadership spot. The last 2 years show Nancy isn't in the progressive/liberal wing of the party. Conyers, in my opinion is definitely one, and possibly Charlie Rangel. I would've put Henry Waxman in the group years past, but any more I just don't know.

    The Democratic Party doesn't seem to represent Liberal/Progressive interests. today. What happens in 2010 and 2012 if they don't rise to the occasion and deliver something progressives want?

    Depends on the issue (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:21:13 AM EST
    On economic issues, Byron Dorgan and Sherrod Brown.  On environmental issues, Barbara Boxer.  On constitutional issues, Russ Feingold.  On women's issues, Patty Murray and Hillary Clinton.  And so forth.

    It's true, we may not have a one-size-fits-all champion on every issue once Ted Kennedy is gone, but there is always someone to pull the caucus to the left.  Some of the newer Dems like Jim Webb and Bob Casey fit the mold of being awful on certain issues but very assertive on others.  And of course we have some promising new faces in the class of '08 as well.

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    because it occurs to me now: did you notice that Obama won every Lincoln 1860 state on Tuesday? ;-)

    And then some (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:36:23 AM EST
    I did not expect him to win Indiana and North Carolina. I kinda expected him to win Missouri though.

    Parent
    Gun sales are up a lot in Missouri (none / 0) (#14)
    by Cream City on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:40:49 AM EST
    per a newspaper story a relative there sent me a couple of weeks ago.

    I figured that meant Missouri would not be blue.  For whatever else it means, I shudder to think of a return to Missouri's infamous Border Ruffians. . . .

    Parent

    MO was trending the wrong way at the finish line (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:42:07 AM EST
    So was Ohio BTW.

    Parent
    By making the technocratic issue (none / 0) (#3)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:32:57 AM EST
    of energy policy the most important priority for his new administration, do you think Obama is trying to blunt attempts to portray his as this or that, politically?

    That's not my thesis. (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM EST
    Specifically, the thesis seems to be that Bill Clinton made a mistake in projecting a moderate image after the 1994 electoral debacle. That his failure was in not delivering a progressive agenda.

    My thesis is that Clinton erred by making his initial act in 1992 a signature "progressive" move -- lifting the ban on gays in the military -- and this allowed a rising Republican right to define him, at least among a sufficient number of voters to poison the rest of his Presidency.

    Clinton's return to middle-roader (his position during the primary, but not immediately after election) grew out of his experience in trying to be a "progressive" in 1993.

    Obama seems to have learned from that -- he does not depart from the orthodoxy of the electorate on any unpopular matter (religion, gay marriage, Palestine).

    Clinton was a whimp on this issue (3.50 / 2) (#97)
    by Dadler on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:19:55 AM EST
    A complete and inexcusable whimp.  And a wholly unimaginative one at that.  Had he simply acted like the CIC, laid down the law, our military would be much more evolved now.  If anything, based on how black and latino voters trend on gay issues, 1992 was a BETTER time to get it through.  

    Can you imagine another issue where we force people to lie and hide and be afraid while serving our nation?  And can you imagine ignoring it and perpetuating the egregious hate it represents?  The issue was vital, was morally clear, and Clinton payed coward.  He let his ass get kicked.  He LET others define him on that issue.  Whimp.  Failure.  Coward.

    On many issues I like Bill, on others, like this, he was as cowardly as you get.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:35:38 AM EST
    I weas not discussing your thesis.

    BTW, you free tonight. I am gonna be in Manhattan tonight.

    Parent

    Hey, I'm in the city! (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:48:23 AM EST
    Shoot me an email if you guys are doing something, yeah?

    Parent
    Cool (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    I'll shoot you an e-mail. How come I thought you were in DC?

    Parent
    because I was in DC (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 09:51:35 AM EST
    until the summer.

    Parent
    Too cool. (none / 0) (#53)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:05:34 AM EST
    You guys can get together and beat me up in person!

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:06:49 AM EST
    Yes, but. . . (none / 0) (#51)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:04:18 AM EST
    later.  Unless you're all crazy to see the premiere of Madagascar 2.  (Actually, I might be able to put that off on my wife).

    When-ish and where-ish?

    Parent

    Midtownish? From 7 on (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:30:34 AM EST
    depending on your schedule. Shoot me an e-mail.

    Parent
    Will do. (none / 0) (#104)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:34:14 AM EST
    And we criticize Palin's manner of (none / 0) (#136)
    by oculus on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    speaking!  

    P.S.  I'll be in Manhattan in a week but am fully-booked with play and opera tickets.  Anyone for breakfast?

    Parent

    This is why (none / 0) (#49)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 10:02:38 AM EST
    he is not tackling prop 8 just yet

    Parent
    I think it is a mistake to interpret (none / 0) (#88)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:02:31 AM EST
    the election results as a progressive mandate.  I don't think that is what drove Obama's landslide at all.  IMO, it was the economy; two wars with McCain at the helm and his choice of Sarah Pain as VP.  

    Many moderates, and even conservatives, voted for Obama.  While I do think Obama is progressive on some fronts, he has no progressive mandate.  I would be weary of even using the term. The label actually does not play well with many, and may lead to needless opposition and criticism.  

    Just don't label.    

    Actually Obama is the only one who (none / 0) (#91)
    by ThatOneVoter on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    can declare that he has a mandate, and of what sort.
    He certainly is entitled to that much.

    Parent
    An ap story I read today said (none / 0) (#133)
    by hairspray on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:26:49 PM EST
    that it isn't yet clear if Obama really redrew the electoral map. Too little time to see if the vote was simply "not Bush."  I know a number of independents who voted for Obama but swing to the right for different parties.

    Parent
    As Digby pointed out a while back.. (none / 0) (#92)
    by Exeter on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:08:08 AM EST
    ...the main achievement of the Bill Clinton was to keep the progressive house standing during GOP firestorm of 1994.

    "Centrist with progressive tendencies" (none / 0) (#106)
    by mike in dc on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 11:42:40 AM EST
    ...is my hope for the Obama administration.  I'd hope that a Democratic successor would be able to govern as a "Progressive with centrist tendencies" (Difference in emphasis/proportion).

    Kinda like the difference between Center-left (centrist with left tendencies) and Left-center (Left with centrist tendencies).

    So about the draft... (none / 0) (#131)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:17:00 PM EST
    I see where Obama wants to force my daughter to do community service:


    Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year.

    TL was convinced that Bush was going to start the draft back in 2004; now I see it's all quiet on the liberal front, presumably because the "community service" aspect makes it "for a good cause"

    Forced service is still wrong, and I hope TL retains the courage of its conviction about this.


    Hm (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    I'm sure there could be a good discussion about this, but if you really think an hour a week of community service is comparable to being sent overseas to fight in a war, we probably won't get very far.

    The idea that anyone who opposes the draft should automatically oppose any effort to make kids spend an hour a week doing community service is not, I think, an argument that everyone will accept.  Yes, yes, the principle is the same.

    Parent

    It's not the time (none / 0) (#135)
    by jarober on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:30:28 PM EST
    It's the fact that it's required.  Forced service is the problem, not the amount of it.

    Right (none / 0) (#137)
    by Steve M on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 01:34:19 PM EST
    Like I said, I understand your argument is that the principle is the same.  I'm just saying that not everyone will agree that being sent to fight in a war is the same principle as being forced to rake leaves for an hour.

    Recall that Obama ran on a prominent community service plan and won handily.  If he had run on a plan to reinstate the draft, he surely would have lost in a landslide.  The logical conclusion is that most people agree that, as I said, the principle is not really the same.

    Parent

    The way to win on the gay rights issue (none / 0) (#155)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 02:32:36 PM EST
    Stop blaming minorities for the passage of CA's Prop 8 and other mean-spirited initiatives.  The real issue is that churches and the right wing push an anti-gay agenda in order to fundraise and consolidate their base.  

    The way to win on the gay rights issue is for our newly elected Congress to propose legislation that repeals DOMA and DADT, and changes IRS code and other applicable laws to support states' use of civil unions.  These changes should based on the need to accommodate contract structures in states that allow gay marriage or civil unions.  

    As part of the process, Congress can set clear federal direction to support states that provide equal structures for gays and straights, from gay marriage to heterosexual civil unions (granted, these are not in existence yet, but they would help enormously to pull the rug from under the anti-gay marriage proponents).  This allows for a variety of state responses, appeases conservative demands for states' rights, and provides the framework for destabilizing our opponents anti-gay political actions.  Although different states can create different solutions, including the mean-spirited gay marriage bans, the federal government should reestablish our "full faith and credit" clause so all states would have to accept marriages/civil unions from other states that allow gays to marry/civil unionize.  Then let it sit for a while until it's clear that the states allowing gay marriage aren't falling apart, and in the meantime anyone married in the states that allow it have 100% of the rights and benefits afforded to married couples.  

    Obama doesn't need to stick his neck out and make gay rights his issue, but the Democratic party absolutely does have to take a stand. Why?  Because if we don't, our opponents will continue to hammer us on this for the next hundred years while it's in limbo.  Gay Americans are not going to quit demanding equality, and the right wing will continue to take advantage of wedge issues like this.  The solution is for Congress to take it on because of the need to mitigate problems created by states regulating marriage in different ways, and with a clear goal of reaffirming the U.S. constitutionally guaranteed equality for all citizens.

    Unlike Pres Clinton, Obama shouldn't be the point man on this.  Bill Clinton had to stand alone on the gays in the military issue.  He got kneecapped for it.  But Obama has surrogates, including strong congressional leaders.  And he has us, the wind as his back, millions of progressives who believe in the Constitution and in fairness to others.  We need to have a core group from both sides of Congress whose political careers can't be damaged by promoting equal rights.  Sen. Ted Kennedy is in an excellent position to take the lead (what a lasting tribute for him this could be by continuing in the Kennedy tradition of sponsoring key civil rights legislation) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi in the House (already maligned as a wild-eyed liberal by the right wing but frequently attacked by the left for not being progressive enough).  (Please add more suggestions in the comments below of leaders who could politically survive if they take a stand on this issue.)

    Obama should reiterate his support for these sweeping changes based on what he's already stated, and the following:

    1. Numerous states prevented interracial marriage at the time of his birth.  Traditional marriage, as it was for most of our country's history, negatively impacted people of different races.  Our country correctly made changes to "traditional marriage" to fix that inequality.  
    2. Desegregation of the military had a huge positive effect on race relations, in spite of the naysayers claiming it would destroy morale and destabilize troop cohesion and readiness.  Repealing DADT will do the same.  Gays exist, they are in the military, many of them are heroes, DADT is dysfunctional, so change is needed.  CIC lays down the law, generals who refuse to implement it get fired.  Period.  
    3. Today's marriage is not at all "traditional."  Marriage throughout history has meant no divorce, no interracial unions, arranged weddings between children and adult men, and polygamy.  The "protect traditional marriage" argument is baseless, and they're just being mean spirited and anti-American passing laws that take rights away from a minority.
    4. Obama is all about finding solutions that represent shared values.  This solution allows states to define traditional marriage, but doesn't allow them to discriminate against a group of citizens.  Gays can always go to one of those liberal states to get married, and their home state will simply have to abide by traditional federal law requiring full faith and credit between states.  

    Obama can stay above the fray, but provide his support throughout the process.  He won't be as easy to criticize, because he's symbolic of the Yes We Can movement.  Criticizing him will be like criticizing millions of us.  People will respond with anger if they perceive pundits trying to tear down our first black president.  Most importantly, what Obama says will be repeated and parroted throughout the nation.  He's got the bully pulpit, and he's the first Democratic president in our lifetimes who has a wildly supportive following.  Imagine how hard it will be for church leaders in predominantly black and Hispanic communities to contradict our new leader.  For these reasons, Obama can come out in support of solutions on this issue on the basis that it's a civil rights issue that divides our country.  His words will be repeated throughout the country.

    Finally, anti-gay political action by the right wing and by churches is a huge fundraiser and a Get Out The Vote strategy.  The problem isn't that people of color tend to vote conservatively on social issues, the problem is that so many churches and religious leaders tell all their followers to vote against gay rights.  That's where we need to focus our energies, mitigating the anti-gay communication flow from powerful, political religious organizations to the electorate.  For that reason, Obama should make it clear that his Faith Based Initiative funding will not be granted to religious institutions that promote hatred, division and political changes resulting in loss of civil rights for any group of citizens.  

    Until mainstream Democrats stand up for the equality our Constitution provides, the right wing will use this issue as a wedge issue against progressives.  This is the chance in a lifetime to implement Change We Need and forward the cause of equality for generations to come.  Let's encourage our leaders in Congress step up the plate, and make sure they know we've got their backs.


    I agree with this: (none / 0) (#174)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:33:29 PM EST
    Because if we don't, our opponents will continue to hammer us on this for the next hundred years while it's in limbo.  Gay Americans are not going to quit demanding equality, and the right wing will continue to take advantage of wedge issues like this.

    But the rest of it, I think this isn't the time to be so open. We need a shadow campaign from the Dems, with their behind-the-scenes organizers involved, but with fresh new charismatic faces from within the community. All working in one state (presumably CA or another lib state) to build a organizational machine.

    Shhhhh... (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    It's 2008.  Wouldn't want the President of the United States to be too vocal in his opposition to separate-but-equal.  It might upset the neighbors.

    Parent
    If you would like to seriously join (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:03:20 PM EST
    the discussion, quit with the snarky answers and address my Lincoln comment and my Southern strategy comment.

    And please do so with the assumption that I also want results.

    Parent

    Lincoln was facing a civil war (none / 0) (#179)
    by dk on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 05:21:02 PM EST
    that was killing countless people, and a real threat of the destruction of this country, and still managed to exert moral authority.  Obama was dealing with the choice of whether to try to encourage a few percent of his supporters not to be bigots with no down side (he was about 20 points ahead in California, and in the last few weeks of the campaign his election was foreordained), and he said that he believed that civil marriage should only be between a man and a woman because Jesus said so.  There's my answer to your Lincoln comment.

    Now, I seem to be the one saying that the fight for equal rights should be fought on all fronts, from the streets to the White House.  You, however, say that the Democratic party should stay in the shadows, and Obama should stay out of it entirely until some magic time when it would cause no political risk for him to do so (as if that time will ever come).  It seems that you are the one who limits your possibilities.  Maybe it's because I'm gay; but I think more creatively than you do.

    As BTD states in the title of this post, this is 2008, not 1992.  It's a shame that you are too short-sighted to realize that, even if your heart is in the right place.

    Parent

    See now, why do you have to insult? (none / 0) (#180)
    by coigue on Fri Nov 07, 2008 at 07:49:21 PM EST
    Historians agree that freeing the slaves was both desired and politically expedient for Lincoln during the civil war, but not before. Notice that Lincoln did not say he would free the slaves in the Lincoln-Douglass debates, when he was running for office. He hedged just like Kerry, Obama and Clinton did on gay marriage. I guess you would have called him a racist, had you been alive then.

    Obama said he would leave it to the states. I think that is an unfortunate and unsatisfactory answer. But to argue that he would have zero political consequences from supporting gay marriage in this election is, I think, naiive. I think that a) Obama may have lost the election had he done so, and b) may lose the house and Senate if we move aggressively on it now at the federal level.

    Why do I think this? Because we have now tried 2X to jump ahead and marry Californians, and TWICE we have been shot down hard. Also because of the experience during his first two years.

    I am exactly not short-sighted. In fact, it is you who are impatient.

    Parent