home

The Battle Of Establishments

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:54:49 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Yglesias writes:

an Obama win would represent an alternation of elites. Important left-of-center people who haven't happened to be the most important left of center people over the past 15 years or so would rise to leadership. A Clinton win would be the return of the people who ran the show in the late 1990s and who continued to be the predominant influence in the 21st century. But in neither case are you getting a real toppling of hierarchies and massive infusion of outsiders.

This is right as far as it goes. What is interesting is where is does NOT go - to discuss the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and the Establishment blogs. One of the most important functions of the progressive blogs has been its Media criticism. But even here, discussing the issue of who the Establishment supports, a Big Media blogger like Matt ignores the elephant in the room - the Media's unvarnished hatred of Hillary Clinton and its unabashed support for Barack Obama. The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama. To me it is obvious that Obama is the candidate of the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment, the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and Establishment bloggers.

< Mukasey Asks Congress to Block Release for Non-First Time Crack Offenders | Whoopi Goldberg Switches From Obama To Hillary >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Battle Of Establishments | 197 comments (197 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Establishment blogs (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:05:06 PM EST
    what exactly counts as such?

    Establishment media? like Dan Abrams?  Paul Bagala David Gergan and James Carville, MR MTP regular?  How about Paul Krugman, you know he writes for the under ground college paper called the New York Times.  Or hey what about Joe Klein, who bashes Obama supporters, is that the media establishment that is soo pro Obama?
     

    Joe Klein (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    liked the Clintons initially but was one of their biggest bashers when the in crowd turned on them. He is a tool.

    Parent
    Interesting that you have to reach (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:12 PM EST
    for Dan Abrams and occasional Media commenters like OPENLY CLINTONISTA figures like Carville and Begala.

    Your comment is tremendous evidence that I am correct.

    Parent

    nope (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:40 PM EST
    who is pro Obama?  I pointed out the egregious Clinton supporters. name the the pro Obama because i bet i can find many instances where they have bashed Obama.  you just think that if anyone utters criticism of Hillary Clinton they are anti Clinton and pro Obama.

    Parent
    Who in the blogs? Or who in the Media? (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:43:21 PM EST
    But this is all rather silly imo.

    If you are arguing there is no anti-Hillary bias in the Media and the blogs, I really do not think there is much to discuss.

    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:54:12 PM EST
    lets get one name you have dropped as being pro Obama todd beeton at mydd, which you claim as being pro Obama, when it is pretty clear it is pro Clinton.  Anyhow Mr Beeton voted for Clinton.  Like i said if someone criticizes Clinton you are automatically going to classify it as unfair, and write them off as pro-Obama.  

    So your view of a fair world is what Taylor Marshes blog?

    Parent

    I do not recall (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    saying that about Todd.

    Singer I might have but he has sought to stay balanced I  think.

    But you know my big beef is with the epicenter of "respectable" blogging - Josh Marshall.

    Parent

    Oh Sigh -- Most Bloggers Are All Out for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:41 PM EST
    Spend anytime recently at www.dailykos.com? Some argue the same about www.talkingpoints.memo and www. firedoglake.com but I don't see it as much. There are many others as well but those are the most well known.

    It's sad really because when they started most blogs sought to distinguish themselves as the reality based community. All attacked the MSM for their endless attacks on individuals and failure to report facts. None ever shied away from being partisans but generally it was for progressive ideals.

    Ultimately its the last point that kills me. If I had seen this type of blogger attack for someone like Edwards, then I might understand it. But Obama is a DLC democrat, regardless of whether he belongs to the organization. The few opportunities that he had as a senator to lead on progressive have generally been avoided with present votes.

    No, this is a jockeying for power. Markos made it clear that he liked both candidates - at least a few weeks ago - but couldn't stand seeing Terry MaCaulife (sp?) next to Hillary. Fine. But how does he feel about Daschle and Lieberman being Obama's mentors? Clearly he doesn't care if he eliminates her campaign staff. As though that will really purge them or their type from the Party. More to the point as if Obama's people are truly any different.

    Clearly the progressives need to take back the party. But this jumping the gun for someone not fully vetted and not that strong a progressive makes a mockery of that desire. It also sets it back years. We all kiss and make up for the candidates, but we will not with each other.  

    Parent

    very good points (none / 0) (#177)
    by Josey on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:27:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Jerome Voted For Obama (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:05:19 PM EST
    so I think your claim that My DD is a Clinton site is unfounded.

    Parent
    Establishment blogs? (none / 0) (#64)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    Not sure the definition, but here are the top 5 traffic wise:

    Daily Kos - clearly an Obama supporter

    Talking Points Memo - despite the rants from commenters on this site the whole TMP empire has been pretty even handed and do not push a candidate

    Democratic Underground - Neutral

    Eschaton - Neutral

    The Carpetbagger Report - Neutral

    Washington Monthly - Said he's going to vote for Obama but has been evenhanded in coverage

    Firedog Lake - has attacked and defended both candidates equally

    My DD - Clinton supporter

    Parent

    More (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:17:38 PM EST
    Huffington Post -- !!!!!OBAMA!!!!!

    AmericaBlog -- Obama.

    Parent

    Bloggers (none / 0) (#105)
    by piezo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:38:46 PM EST
    Thank Koresh for BartCop

    Parent
    Traffic rankings of each site. (none / 0) (#159)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:33:03 PM EST
    Here are sites with rankings per Alexa.com.  The rankings pertain to where they fall in the top 100,000 accessed sites on the net.

    Note that the ones with the relatively high rankings (and a ranking of 4500 is REALLY high when you consider that Pepsi.com is ranked at about 60,000) are all PRO-BAMA! sites.

    Daily Kos - clearly an Obama supporter
    Rank:  ~4500

    Talking Points Memo - despite the rants from commenters on this site the whole TMP empire has been pretty even handed and do not push a candidate
    I disagree about even-handedness, but
    Rank:  ~20,000

    Democratic Underground - Neutral
    ~8000-14000

    Eschaton - Neutral
    ~65000-70000

    The Carpetbagger Report - Neutral
    Neutral?
    ~70,000

    Washington Monthly - Said he's going to vote for Obama but has been evenhanded in coverage
    ~60,000

    Firedog Lake - has attacked and defended both candidates equally
    ~60,000

    My DD - Clinton supporter
    Really?  all over the place is what I'd say.
    ~60,000

    Huffington Post -- !!!Obama supporter!!!
    ~2000

    Americablog.com -- pro-Obama
    (generously ~60,000)

    And Talkleft hit ~90,000 once but is otherwise unranked.

    Just thought this was interesting.

    Parent

    Who is pro-Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:28:45 PM EST
    I don't get MSNBC any more, because my cable package dropped it, but I hear that Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddows, and really just about the whole MSNBC lineup swoons for Obama.

    Parent
    MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by shogun on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:08:01 PM EST
    I don't think a new network should be pushing a candidate - they should report the news.  Clearly MSNBC is for OBama.

    Why won't OBama debate Hillary?  She won the last one!

    Parent

    More (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by zyx on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:32:30 PM EST
    Tim Russert is pro-Obama.  Hell, even Bill Bennett is pro-Obama!

    Parent
    oh gimme a break again (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:08:36 PM EST
    On a day that we see the MSM taking up and running with the Obama-is-a-substanceless-cult-leader meme, you are writing that the MSM is unabashedly pro-Obama?

    The same MSM that preached to us for almost all of 2007 how Hillary was inevitable?

    "Obama is the candidate of the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment"

    Well that is artfully worded. The Clintons ARE the Democratic establishment.
    So yeah, any established Democrat who happens not to be on board - well they probably support Obama. What are the choices - its a two-person race.

    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    Kennedy? Daschle? Kerry? They are not part of the establishment?

    You're making a mistake in assuming that there is one "establishment". There are multiple powerful groups. Bill and Hillary Clinton have a group of friends and connections, certainly, But there are also other big power brokers in DC who have always considered the Clintons as, well, intruders. There is such a group in the "serious" media. Read this article from 1998, and see what I mean.

    The picture is not as black and white as you would like it to be.


    Parent

    Thanks for the link. (none / 0) (#135)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Has the MSM taken that up? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:42 PM EST
    I have not seen it.

    That would really challenge my theory of support for Obama as Media Darling.

    Any links?

    Parent

    You should (none / 0) (#17)
    by jes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:21:18 PM EST
    get out more.

    Parent
    The MSM taking it up (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:28:11 PM EST
    seems missing to me.

    Parent
    agreed, it is just a trickle (none / 0) (#24)
    by jes on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:30:53 PM EST
    and overblown as of yet.

    Parent
    Any links??? Any links??? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:27:21 PM EST
    Oh geez, I kinda forget the URL but there is this site called,,,hmmm, Talk Left or something like that. I think they provided some links to ABC and Time magazine sometime recently - geez, maybe even today!

    Parent
    It's True (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:33:28 PM EST
    Jake Tapper is a long time Obama hater. His coverage has been corrected by media matters. He also appears sexist in that he has a problem with HRC getting mad or emotional. My guess is that he is for McCain.

    Still, why is it bad to have the press generally be behind your guy?

    Parent

    a blog post (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:20 PM EST
    as you yourself note is not a big deal.

    Parent
    oh c'mon BTD (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    its a blog post the links to ABC News. Time magazine.
    Do you not consider them part of the MSM?

    Parent
    An ABC news BLOG (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:28 PM EST
    Not the same thing.

    Parent
    I haven't seen it either (none / 0) (#88)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    A few people are questioning the personality cult of a lot of his supporters, but I haven't seen a change in the majority of them. Their Clinton  hatred is long-standing and deep. (Ditto for Gore but the Nobel has chastened them at least for now.)

    If, however, they do change and become more critical of Obama, that would be consistent with another game they like to play, building someone up just to tear them down. This is actually something that I have heard several journalists openly admit to in the past. I would be surprised, though, because the dislike of both Clintons runs deep. It is true that the media did not go after her at first, but that was because she consistently outperformed everyone in the early debates. Neither Obama nor Edwards were comparable. But journalists were just waiting for an excuse to pounce. When she gave a less-than-clear answer to the drivers' license question in the Philadelphia debate they acted as if she had completely blown the whole debate. Two weeks later, after knowing this was a likely question, Obama fumbled it, too. He was criticised at the time, but it quickly died down. Yet I still heard mention of Hillary's supposed terrible performance in Philly after Obama's flub. The media was just waiting for an excuse to tear her down.
    Their dislike is so blatant that a few journalists have actually admitted as much. Dana Milbank, Howard Kurtz, Craig Crawford and Dan Abrams have all commented on this. The sad thing is that people do not notice until it is their candidate that is being trashed. I do not like to see this done to anyone. We need facts, not spin. It is insulting to try to sway voters just because you think you are smarter than the average person.

    Parent

    You're party right I think (none / 0) (#95)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:35 PM EST
    The media loves to take down a front-runner and push up the insurgent. That may benefit Clinton in a few weeks, we'll see.

    I think it has little to do with any Clinton biases and a lot more to do with the media's natural need for a story.

    Parent

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:01 PM EST
    There has been a well documented longstanding personal hatred of the Clintons that goes back to the 90's. The inside-the-beltway club took an instant dislike to what they perceived as rubes invading their town. Sally Quinn, wife of the Wash Post's Ben Bradlee and the center of inside DC society, wrote a famous article about this. She quoted the sainted David Broder as saying that Clinton came in and trashed the place and it wasn't his place. They think they own the town.
    Particularly funny was Quinn's outrage over the Monica affair. Ben Bradlee made it clear in his memoir that Sally had pursued him, even though he was married at the time, until they had an affair that broke up his marriage. (Hey, kettle!)

    The irrational hatred of the Clintons by the MSM has been documented in depth by people like Gene Lyons and Joe Conason in their book "The Hunting of the President".

    If you doubt that the media would behave this way, just think back to their treatment of Gore in 2000. They fawned over Bush, praising him as a straight shooter, and mocked Gore every chance they got. He was accused of lying when he hadn't (like the bogus story that he had claimed to have invented the internet). They overlooked Bush's checkered past - his bankruptcies, insider trading, nasty behavior, mediocrity as governor - and overlooked his blatant lies. This never changed throughout the election. So to assume that they will not continue to treat Hillary in this manner is to ignore their past behavior.

    This should not be aceptable no matter whom they treat this way. I have never voted for a Republican for president, but I stopped taking Newsweek after they ran a cover implying that the first president Bush was a wimp. (The Wimp Factor)
    He was a decorated fighter pilot who had been shot down during WWII and I found it incredibly offensive that they did this.

    None of us should be complacent when the media tries to spin a candidate to make them look bad or good. That is an insult to all voters and it has been highly damaging to our democracy. Had the media done it's job in 2000, there is no way Bush would have won.

    Parent

    I agree the media is crap (none / 0) (#121)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    But, we run with the media we have, not the media we want. Whining about it just gives it to the Republicans in the fall.

    Parent
    I DON'T WHINE (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:21:23 PM EST
    I protest whenever I see this kind of thing going on. And I do my best to get others to see what is happening and speak up, too. It really works if enough people bother to take a stand. Look at how quickly the complaints against MSNBC got them to pressure Tweety to apologize. Or how the response to Imus got him fired. That is only a beginning, but these kind of tactics works. Republicans have been doing this for years and the media is seriously intimidated by them. They have been known to boycott sponsors, too. It's time Democrats woke up and stopped taking this kind of treatment of our candidates.
    I am not willing to just give up. If you want a healthy democracy this is a fight worth having - and long overdue.

    Parent
    Probably right (none / 0) (#108)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    If that's the case then Obama is in for a rough ride. He's the frontrunner; his momentum is taking him right into the knives.

    What the timing of this will mean is unclear; if the media frenzy lasts long enough it might deliver Hillary the nomination. If it stops short then they might jump on Hillary again just in time to rescue Obama's nomination. It might not happen at all.

    Of course, this is discounting whatever reactions Obama has to being pilloried fairly/unfairly in the media. If he reacts the way he does normally to not getting his way, the press will have a FIELD DAY.

    I don't want the media to treat him unfairly. I just want them to vet him a little more than they have been. If he's going to get the nomination I'd rather all the dirt come out NOW, before October.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#124)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:00 PM EST
    As I said downthread, no one said being the front runner was easy. It's all how you handle it. Frankly, if Obama blows it with the media in the next month, I'd say he deserves to lose.

    Parent
    Media/Clinton (none / 0) (#109)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:44:37 PM EST
    A little  naive,  Andrew.  Media  CLEARLY  was anti-Clinton.

    But you'll  find out.  They  also    love  John McCain.   As  soon   as  it's  McCain vs. Obama,  as  you  support,  they'll throw  Obama  under  the bus.    Hide  and watch.

    Parent

    I don't think so (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:49 PM EST
    It wasn't anti-Clinton from last July until October. Then they got bored writing that Clinton was the predestined one and started looking for slipups. No one said being a front-runner is easy.

    Parent
    They were always waiting for slip ups (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    But she didn't deliver. And Obama was clearly not a match for her back then so they held their tongues. Also it was not as big a topic of conversation back then. But they have always been hostile to her.
    As for Obama, who knows? They do love McCain. And the Republican slime machine will give them tons of ammunition against Obama. After all, they managed to make Kerry's war heroism a negative, so they can smear anyone. Facts are not an issue for these guys.

    Parent
    do you read your own blog? ;-) (none / 0) (#122)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:07 PM EST
    Did you notice that the title of Jerlyn's post earlier today was: "NYTimes Analysis: Obama Fervor Fell Short"?  ;-)

    Parent
    do you read this blog? ;-) (none / 0) (#123)
    by A DC Wonk on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:56:45 PM EST
    Did you notice that the title of Jerlyn's post earlier today was: "NYTimes Analysis: Obama Fervor Fell Short"?  ;-)

    Parent
    Is that the big hit piece? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:34 PM EST


    Parent
    Where does Teddy Kennedy fit into (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    your scenario?

    Parent
    part of the establishment (none / 0) (#26)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:33:12 PM EST
    that is slipping away from the old to the new.

    Look, there is no doubt that if/when Obama is the nominee, he will become the new leader of the Democratic establishment. By definition.

    And we may well be seeing the transferrance of leadership happening, slowly and gradually, as more people cross over.

    But until now, the Clintons have reigned as leaders of the establishment for 15 years.

    Parent

    Kennedy and Kerry and Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by lily15 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:49 PM EST
    This is what we are supposed to change to in terms of establishment?  Losers?  These people who support the "new" establishment are so full crap...but more importantly...they are the losers of our party...Now aligned with the progressive blogs....for our own good?  I say that Hillary poses such a substantial threat to the establishment and the status quo that Washington punidits, the media and so called progressives and their establishment brethren, will stop at nothing to prevent her from getting the nomination...They will lie, cheat, and do whatever to distort the truth...because apparently the Hillary threat is life threatening to their power...interesting.  It's all about power. Ideology for these creeps plays no role.

    Parent
    Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by auntmo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:48:10 PM EST
    Agree  completely, Lily.  

    If   anybody  represented  the   Dem Establishment,  it  was  Teddy  Kennedy  and  John Kerry.     That  meant    Obama  DID have  the   establishment  behind  him.    

    But  it didn't  work.   Even  Massachusetts  ignored  them.    

    Clintons  were  NEVER  the  "establishment."  

    Not  like  the  Kennedy  clan.  

    Parent

    huh? (none / 0) (#82)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:11 PM EST
    let me get this straight.

    The co-presidents of the United States for 8 years, who have connections of loyalty and obligation to almost every Democratic politician in DC and around the country, and every Democratic policy person - all of whom, to the extent they have any experience in government - actually worked for the Clintons, and who now represent the leading elder statesman of the party, and one of its most important Senators - these people, you are claiming, are a threat to some establishment?

    C'mon, this is just ridiculous. They ARE the establisment. You cant possibly get more establishment than they are.

    And its all about power? Geez, that is what is going to be enscribed on the Clinton's tombstone.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:46:18 PM EST
    The Clintons were never part of the DC establishment.  They were outcast.  In the words of Washington Post columnist David Broder, "They came in and trashed the place, and it wasn't their place."
    They were vilified, and not part of the smart set.
    And in case you've forgotten, Bill Clinton was impeached.  Meanwhile, our current President has used the Constitution for toilet paper and will breeze out of office unscathed.

    Parent
    Huh ? (none / 0) (#115)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:52:26 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was not impeached.

    Parent
    Impeached and (none / 0) (#117)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:34 PM EST
    not convicted

    Parent
    correct terms (none / 0) (#125)
    by kmblue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    impeached and charges defeated

    Parent
    Impeached is (none / 0) (#169)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:50:22 PM EST
    like being indicted. He was not convicted.

    Parent
    and that is the problem,,,they (none / 0) (#46)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    are kicking and screaming because some guy is trying to take their power away.  That's why it has gotten personal, ugly and racial.  I was a HUGE Bill Clinton Supporter (still am sort of) but what he and his wife did in the name of getting votes to Obama in S. Carolina will never be forgotten...the Regan thing which was totally mis characterized and the Jesse thing proves that they will say or do anything.  When they finally realized how destructive it was being (I.E.  Bill Clinton did not have any black people show up to the last 2 days of rallies in S. Carolina), they changed their strategy.  Not because it was the proper and ethical thing to do, but because it was causing them votes.    I lost quite a bit of respect for them...it will take them a while to win it back.

    Parent
    oh and obama was a choir singer during all (none / 0) (#193)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:21:15 AM EST
    the early primaries? NO!

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:17:19 PM EST
    Kennedy an outsider? Give me a break. Besides why do you take this analysis as negative toward Obama. It seems like a good thing for him.

    Is it that the support Obama gets from the press makes him look like he has been co-opted?

    Don't get it.

    Parent

    Reading comprehension...., (none / 0) (#25)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:30:56 PM EST
    it's a good skill to have.

    If you don't see there is more than one Democratic establishment then you are naive, if you do see that, then you have to be honest about it.

    One Democratic Establishment, which includes Kennedy, Daschle, Kerry, Durbin, McCaskill, Emmanuel (you can't honestly believe he is neutral do you? that would really make you naive), and a host of other major players supports Obama. Obama ain't no Ned Lamont, neither is he a Jesse Jackson. This is not necessarily a bad thing! IMHO, the "insurgency" meme is frankly just a now useless public-relations ploy, when he was coming up and IB the Obama campaign will soon drop it as a vestigial organ.

    Plus, I recall BTD has often written that the MSM is only currently in the tank for Obama and will turn on him as soon as it is a McCain/Obama matchup.

    You cannot honestly, honestly believe that the MSM favors Hillary Clinton. You cannot honestly then believe that "The Establishment" is in the tank for Clinton.

    Try spinning to the converted.


    Parent

    right (none / 0) (#30)
    by Jgarza on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:39 PM EST
    If you don't see there is more than one Democratic establishment then you are naive, if you do see that, then you have to be honest about it.

    what a great way to frame an argument, if you dont agree with me you are [insert insult]

    I think you point to establishment figure revolting against the Clintons.

    Parent

    I suppose it depends (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:31:36 PM EST
    on what your definition of "Establishment" is. If your's does not include the following: the last Democratic presidential nominee, the last Democratic senate majority leader, a large percentage of the declared current party elected officials including long-time standard bearers such as Ted Kennedy, the mainstream corporate media, mainstream progressive blogs including principally Kos and Huffpo, and mainstream progressive fund-raising outfits like Moveon, then you are right. I don't agree with you and think you are naive, or not fairly describing the world as it is.

    Parent
    did I say that? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:39:24 PM EST
    Why not deal with what I actually said?

    I did not say that the MSM favors Clinton. I was merely refuting the notion that the MSM is in the tank for Obama.

    The MSM is in the tank for their shareholders. They try to write stories that get them as many eyeballs as possible for their advertisers. Is this some revelation?

    If Obama is the exciting thing out in the real world, they will write about him. And writing about an exciting inspiring new force is going to sound laudatory. But if they can get another story line going, if they sense that people are gettting tired of the first meme, then they will pick up another. And if it is a negative one, who cares - as long as it sells papers.

    So no, they are not in the tank for Obama. His phenomenon is a cash cow for them - positive stories, negative stories. Doesnt make much difference

    Parent

    Distinction without a difference (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST
    I agree they will change the tune if it becomes McCain vs. Obama. Obama is the flavor of the month.

    Your characterization as "an exciting inspiring new force" is your characterization, it is also the one the MSM has been pushing. Nobody is all that much interested in the anti-Hillary narrative (to refute your claim, it doesn't earn them any eyeballs) but that don't mean they aren't pushing it. The narratives that are set out: Obama exciting, fresh, unifiying, change, yada yada; Hillary, old, dynastic, divisive, crying, yada yada, have very little to do with eyeballs and everything to do with the laziness of the media and entrenched ESTABLISHMENT attitudes.

    Parent

    Distinction without a difference (none / 0) (#155)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:12:20 PM EST
    I agree they will change the tune if it becomes McCain vs. Obama. Obama is the flavor of the month.

    Your characterization as "an exciting inspiring new force" is your characterization, it is also the one the MSM has been pushing. Nobody is all that much interested in the anti-Hillary narrative (to refute your claim, it doesn't earn them any eyeballs) but that don't mean they aren't pushing it. The narratives that are set out: Obama exciting, fresh, unifiying, change, yada yada; Hillary, old, dynastic, divisive, crying, yada yada, have very little to do with eyeballs and everything to do with the laziness of the media and entrenched ESTABLISHMENT attitudes.

    Parent

    Where? (none / 0) (#41)
    by eric on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:51:57 PM EST
    Obama-is-a-substanceless-cult-leader meme,

    Where?  I haven't seen that, although is a meme that I am personally pushing really hard...

    Anyway, do you have a link?

    Parent

    read the post from earlier today (none / 0) (#45)
    by Tano on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    there are links there to ABC and Time mag.

    Parent
    Liberal Voices? (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by vdeputy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:08:21 PM EST
    What gets me is Matt saying "important left of center people" who haven't been heard for a long time would have a voice in an Obama administration.  Who are these left of center people? Claire McCaskill, Janet Napolitano, Z Brzenzki (sp) et al? Seems to me that many of the congresspeople and governors and other politicians who support Obama tend to be more right of center than the Clinton supporters. It is mostly the "establishment" bloggers and their readers who have inexplicably convinced themselves that Barack is the most progressive/liberal candidate.

    Most of "The Establishment" (none / 0) (#137)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:12:39 PM EST
    From the 1990s were the DLC'ers - McAuliffe, Carville, Penn, etc. That's one of the reasons why I support Obama.

    Parent
    His policies (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
    are classic DLC, or even more conservative in the case of health care. That's what his reaching out is all about.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#175)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:11:41 PM EST
    His policies, which are basically indistinguishable from Clinton's, are very DLC. I feel like I'm trapped in a weird logic-reversal zone.


    Parent
    Well...there ya go! (none / 0) (#188)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:25:38 PM EST


    Parent
    Good point... (none / 0) (#152)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:02:02 PM EST
    but probably not the one you intended to make.

    The 90s!  And while 'those people' (McAuliffe, Carville, Penn, etc.) may not be the people you would want to have over for supper, they were competent, stayed out of jail and moved the country forward on several fronts...crime, peace, prosperity, economic security.  That was the 'Clinton establishment.'

    What about the other establishment?  Well, the Dem half were AWOL when they weren't actually undermining everything the Clintons tried to do in policy and the social/media establishment were trying to impeach, jail, humiliate and send them back to Hicksville.  This is the establishment that drafted Obama to finally 'get' the Clintons.  And after they do so....then what?

    Parent

    I'll say it again... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
    The Whitewater investigation was a waste of time and money. But Bill Clinton brought his impeachment upon himself when he lied under oath. Simple as that. Yes, the media and the Republicans were brutal, but he made it a whole lot easier on them.

    Parent
    I have to agree with you (none / 0) (#161)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:52:54 PM EST
    Bill was stupid.  He knew they were watching them.  He knew they wanted to take him down.  He never thought they would go after him for something that they were all doing (Gingrich, Vedder, etc) but they did.

    That being said, I will repeat my oft uttered statement from the Bush years: "Bill scr*wed one woman.  Bush scr*wed us all."

    Parent

    And the other side of the coin is... (none / 0) (#160)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:49:04 PM EST
    Bill gave us NAFTA, welfare reform, increased sentences and a whole host of other centrist goodies (not to mention throwing Lani Guinier under the bus). The Clinton administration was certainly better than a Bush or Dole admin, but it was hardly a progressive paradise. HRC wants to bring the same people that advised WJC to do all this back into the Whitehouse.

    And which Obama advisers, in particular were in jail hmm? Or is this just random unsubstantiated slander? And which ones were undermining the Clintons? You're throwing a lot out there that I think you can't back up.

    Parent

    Oh, gosh, Andrew...words have (none / 0) (#186)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:21:58 PM EST
    meaning...don't put any in my mouth or go beyond what I actually said.  Nothing I said about the Clinton administration was meant to insinuate ANYTHING about any other candidate.  ie. "jail"

    ...although...now that you mention it, Rezko IS in jail and could be a problem when the R machine gets going on Obama.  He's not an advisor...only a friend and supporter and 'involved in a real estate deal,' (can you say Whitewater?) but the trial is this month and will be food for fools in the RW media.  God knows how that will go...probably low key until he's our nominee...then...INCOMING!

    Progressive paradise?  Heh.  Did I imply that?  Do you expect to see that in this country ever...?  The last D who was even close was FDR...hmmm?  Do we both live in the same reality?  Since then, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Clinton.  That's IT for Dems.  Arguably, the most progressive we could elect in the last 60 years is Bill Clinton.  It is what it is.

    I'm not one of the union Dems who thinks NAFTA and welfare reform were totally negative...Nafta about 50/50...needs a lot of work (and you may know that Hillary tried hard to talk Bill out of signing it...didn't vote for CAFTA herself in the Senate)...Welfare Reform needs some tweaking but it's not a failure.  You didn't mention NCLB & education...a Kennedy failure, btw, from an Obama advisor...will need major work.  Hillary will not bring all the same people into the White House that Bill did.  She's no clone and she's learned a few things since then.  Haven't we all!  But she does know who produced and who didn't...who is competent and who isn't...who wants good government and will make her look good while 'doing good' for Democrats so she can get things done and get reelected.  No?

    I don't do "random unsubstantiated slander" or any other kind of slander...you misinterpreted my statement entirely...I in no way was talking about Obama or anyone else.  It was a simple statement of fact/opinion about the Clinton admin.  If I did do slander, it sure wouldn't be smart to slander a Democrat and certainly not one who might be my party's nominee.  I'm a partisan Democrat and a Hillary supporter...not a fool or a hitperson.

    As for which ones were undermining the Clintons...if you lived through the 90s, were an activist Democrat as I was, your disappointment in the Congress and the first 2 years (93-94) before the Dems got thrown out of the majority in BOTH houses must have been as great as mine...greater than now...for we had it all.  All 3 branches.  The Dem majorities did not back up Clinton on ANYTHING except the tax package and the budget.  They bailed on singlepayer universal healthcare when then could have saved it...on gays in the military when they could have stood up to the military and the Joint Chiefs and backed Clinton up...caved/yawned on his appointments like Lani Guinier until he had to withdraw her...painful as Hell.  While they ignored all the Senate & House problems and scandals (thanks, Tom Foley) until Gingrich sent them packing.  Christ.  

    Bill Clinton's veto pen (you should look that up sometime) was all that stood between then and what we have now.  Bush signed all those wacky bills that Clinton vetoed.  Oh, well...

    Anyway, Andrew...I wasn't attacking your candidate and I never will.  In a couple of months, he might be MY candidate.  Express concerns?  Share my view?  You bet.

    And I will defend Democrats who are unfairly attacked by people with an agenda, whether they be progressives or rightwing nuts.

    Parent

    P.S. correction... (none / 0) (#187)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 09:24:01 PM EST
    Truman, JFK, LBJ...

    Parent
    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by Kathy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:57:46 PM EST
    I wondered why so many Obamabots were saying yesterday that Bill Clinton being paid for speeches by companies out of the country meant that the $5mm loan to the campaign was using foreign money to finance an election.

    On ABC just now, Obama raised roughly the same concern.  "Where does the money come from?"

    It is very well known that one of the perks of being an ex-president is the speaking fees.  Considering Obama's Syria and Kenya connections, I think he should keep his mouth shut.

    (In the interst of full disclosure, let me say it right here and now: I have taken money from many foreign companies in my work.  I have invested in international stock funds and received dividends.  I used some of that income to make my donations to the campaign.  If you arrest Bill, you must arrest me, too.  Please put us in the same cell. so I have someone smart to talk to.)

    Hillary says the loan was from HER money. (none / 0) (#164)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:09:43 PM EST


    Parent
    TOO TRUE (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:49:03 PM EST
    Why is  it that so many Democrats overlook the hatred the media had for Gore? Remember all the talk about how authentic Bush was compared to Gore? At one debate the reporters in the press room actually booed and jeered him. How unprofessional is that? They willingly passed on right wing lies about him, like the bogus "inventing the internet" story, while overlooking Bush's lies and obvious flaws. They weren't much better about Kerry. They criticised all kinds of trivial things about him, like his windsurfing.  
    To think this is limited to the big bad Clintons who got what they deserved is to ignore the facts. Check out the archives at dailyhowler.com to get an in depth picture of what was done to Gore and Kerry by the media.

    Obama and the 50-state strategy (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ctrenta on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:16:41 PM EST
    Here's some good diaries that explain what an Obama loss will mean to Howard Dean's 50-state strategy.

    A vote for Clinton = a vote to end Dean's 50 State Strategy?

    Say Goodbye to Howard Dean.

    That says it all (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:36:19 PM EST
    Those who support the Establishment in this primary must know that they are, in effect, firing Howard Dean and his supporters in the DNC...Look for DLC chair Harold Ford to step in as head of the DNC, and to bring all of his DLC underlings with him.


    Parent
    A rough read. I agree, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:05:11 PM EST
    wouldn't Iglesia be justified in saying, please address MY post?  

    I did (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:25 PM EST
    Why do you say I did not?

    Parent
    Because, after reading his piece and (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    finding out who from past Dem. admins. is helping Obama campaign and who is helping HRC's campaign, I expected you to critique his characterizations of who was an "insider" vs. who was just in the Bill Clinton administrations.  Of course, you are free to expand beyond what Iglesia sd.  That's blogging.  

    Parent
    I think his essential point is correct (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:15:11 PM EST
    The junior Clintonistas are for Obama. The senior Clintonistas are for Clinton.

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#3)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:06:14 PM EST
    I think you have a pretty outsized opinion of how much bloggers influence the vote or people in Washington.

    Generalizing the fact that bloggers are generally for or against a particular candidate means anything about how the Establishment lines up is silly.

    I missed that part, because it isn't there. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Is there some other way to read this? (none / 0) (#15)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama.

    Generalizing how power is shifting behind the scenes inside Washington based on what some guy in front of a computer in Massachusetts or California say is a little ridiculous I think.

    Blogs are good for a lot of things, but as barometers of establishment, they are not.

    Parent

    Here is what my comment was about: (none / 0) (#19)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:38 PM EST
    I think you have a pretty outsized opinion of how much bloggers influence the vote or people in Washington.


    Parent
    That was probably a bit of hyperbole (none / 0) (#58)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    So I probably over-claimed on that. My general point is that anyone making claims about the establishment based on the post of one blogger, or that blogs have any kind of relationship to what is going on in the establishment in Washington is being silly.

    Parent
    No It's Valid Not Hyperbole (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:15:01 PM EST
    The blogs' influence have moved beyond the computer screen. Just take a look at the Tester and Webb victories. Or the attacks on Thurmond, FISA, and Social Security.

    They do matter as well in regards to raising money and (I would argue) bringing in new voters.

    So yeah, they matter despite what Washington likes to say. That's why I could have wished they would have acted a bit more responsibly. I actually don't care that they hate Hillary. What I dislike is them repeating every Republican hate point, driving away every non-Obama supporter, and stating the most outrageous things as though they were gospel.

    Parent

    Since no one did what you describe (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:02 PM EST
    I can not imagine what your point might be.

    Parent
    Could you quote me on my views (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    of the influence of bloggers on opinions?

    Parent
    Well, what did you mean by this? (none / 0) (#16)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:19:57 PM EST
    The utter silence on this from Establishment bloggers like Yglesias is further proof of my claim that the various establishments not part of the Clinton Establishment are for Obama.

    Apologies if I've misread, but it appears that you're taking Yglesias' statement and saying that it supports your opinion that bloggers are a barometer of how the establishment is lining up.

    Parent

    Reading Comprehension....., (none / 0) (#29)
    by herb the verb on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    it's a good skill.

    Quote BTD:
    "This is right as far as it goes. What is interesting is where is does NOT go - to discuss the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and the Establishment blogs. One of the most important functions of the progressive blogs has been its Media criticism. But even here, discussing the issue of who the Establishment supports, a Big Media blogger like Matt"

    Establishment blogs. Establishment. Establishment blogs, various Establishments.......

    Yikes.

    Parent

    My opinion? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    Can you quote where I said the opinion you ascribe to me?

    Parent
    I was trying to basically rephrase your sentence (none / 0) (#67)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    And see if you agreed with the rephrasing. You make a statement saying that Yglesias' post is evidence that establishment blogs, media, and the DC elites back Clinton.

    All I see is words some random guy from Massachusetts wrote on his computer.

    Parent

    Yglesias is an establishment blogger (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    But I must concede your point that my followon sentence might give the impression that it was also proof of my larger point.

    I did not intend it as such. Just the point about Establishment bloggers.
     

    Parent

    No problem (none / 0) (#87)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:20:14 PM EST
    I get your meaning now - was just unclear at first.

    Parent
    With All That Is At Stake In This Election (none / 0) (#18)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    it is a poor time to have a battle over political hierarchies within the Democratic Party.

    No matter who wins the battle it splits the votes down the middle and jeopardizes the chances of electing a Democratic President.

    The party's need to self-destruct is legendary.

    Should Read Splits The Voters n/t (none / 0) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM EST


    Parent
    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:38:25 PM EST
    you cannot remove the politics from politics.  For some of us, elections are about peace, jobs, and health care, but for others, elections are about patronage and access.  The people on the outside want to be on the inside, and you're not going to make them stop by pointing out the homeless veterans sleeping under a bridge.  That's the system for you.

    Parent
    You're Right Of Course (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:55:55 PM EST
    Yet, all that I can see is the end result. A very good chance that we will have a Republican president in 09, an endless occupation, and  at minimum a 7-2 conservative SPOTUS for the next three decades.

    Parent
    Eh - It's An Election (none / 0) (#91)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    Every election is like this one. Digby had a great post a few weeks ago about Kerry and Gephardt did to Dean. It makes the current situation look like a picnic in the park.

    At this point, it's only a few of the candidate supporters who are making noises about staying home rather than the candidates. Even that will likely stop when McCain takes the likely step of selecting Huckabee as his candidate.

    (Besides do we want to be the Republicans where their top guy is established after only winning a third of the vote? It's prettier but not Democratic.)

    Parent

    It Is Different This Time Because Neither Of (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:54:06 PM EST
    the candidates are white males. Just look at the discussions in a previous post The Next Primary and Caucus Battle about what would happen if this goes to the convention and was decided by the Super Delegates.

    I'm talking about raw racial politics here, and a fracturing of the Democratic coalition.  People -- African Americans, but white people too -- will never forget something like that happening.

    It's okay to disenfranchise the popular vote, which consists of Latinos, Asians and white women, but it's not okay to disenfranchise the aa's because they might riot?

    And yet again, women take a back seat so that men can get ahead and we can keep the peace.

    The Democratic Party is on very dangerous ground.

    Parent

    It could have been worse... (none / 0) (#144)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:25 PM EST
    Hard to imagine, I know, but just think what the battle could have done to race relations in this country if Richardson and not Hillary had been up against Obama and the Dem/DC establishment.

    I shudder to think.

    Most women, it is thought, will stick with the Party after the Clintons are eliminated as a threat to the DC establishment...even if Obama loses the general.  I'm not so sure, this time.  We're pretty angry that they went so far as to draft Obama and prop him up as the preferred Democrat.  Amazing to me that the Edwards people haven't tipped to this.

    Imagine, tho, if Richarson had surpassed Hillary and the Hispanics/Richardson were getting the treatment Hillary is getting from Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle and the MSM.

    Women don't have homegirl gangs on the streets of LA...but blacks and Latinos do.  The divisions are hard enough to overcome as it is without Democrats attacking and undermining 'their own' just because they are the Clintons.

    Their sin?  Many...but like Jimmy Carter, the worst sin was they got elected.  Hicks from the sticks.  Not our sort.  Social pariahs who didn't care a lick about which cocktail party they didn't get an invitation to or whose son was marrying whose daughter.

    Not only the battle of the establishments...it is also class warfare.  Within the Democratic Party.

    Just great.  Thanks, Teddy.

    Parent

    I Think This Has The Potential To Lose The (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:54:22 PM EST
    election for the Democratic Party in 08.

    Not all of Clinton's supporters (women, Latinos, Asians, working class whites) are die hard members of the Democratic party.

    Think about this for a minute. Let's say you are a woman who is an independent voter. You are voting for Hillary because you would like to see a smart, talented woman become president and you have no loyalty to the Democratic Party. You pay attention to what is going on. Where do you go with your anger then?

    Turning this into a racial, gender and class warfare battle to play my hierarchy is better than your hierarchy was just plain stupid. No one wins if the country elects a Republican president. I am getting more than tired of supporting the STUPID party. If the SCOTUS become a 7-2 Republican majority for the next three decades, I have a lot less reason to continue to do so.

    Parent

    I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#184)
    by oldpro on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    This could be disaster...

    Parent
    It's the nature of Democracy (none / 0) (#120)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:55:58 PM EST
    We are all so passionate about our own pet causes that we have a hard time unifying.

    Look at it this way:

    Progressives / Liberals want to move forward. There are a million different directions to move forward IN. Some are straight ahead, some divert to the sides a bit, but none of them go backwards.

    Conservatives want to stay where they are or move backwards; there's only ONE way to move backwards, down the path we just came from.

    With so little choice in how to move backwards, conservatives have an easy time agreeing on how to take the nation to the 50's, 20's or 1800's.

    Parent

    This is a NOMINATING process (none / 0) (#132)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:06:52 PM EST
    Voters naturally support the candidate they like WITHIN their party.  In this case the Democratic Party.  After a nominee is chosen, I think that Democrats will coalesce behind their nominee.

    I don't think it is right for Obama supporters to suggest that those who support Hillary are somehow 'SPLITTING THE PARTY.'

    Someone posted that there are many 'establishments' or factions within the Democratic party, as it is with the Republicans.  It has been pointed out also, that the faction represented by Sen. Kennedy and John Kerry may have felt as outsiders in the Clinton Adm. which might account for their support of Obama.  And they know that with Obama's relative inexperience, he has no choice but to rely on those who are 'experienced' among his supporters like Sen. Kennedy and former Majority Leader Tom Daschle.  It is only natural for them to want to be part of Obama's inner circle, which will not happen for them in the Clinton administration.

    Considering how much positive press Obama has been getting, I am surprised at some Obama supporters' defensiveness when it comes to an almost obscure article commenting on the seeming cultish nature of many of the Obama supporters.  If in fact this breaks out into the open, there is no one to blame except the Obama campaign.

    With the Kennedy's,  Kerry and other old guards of the Democratic Party, why even bother to dispute having your own 'establishment' credentials?

    Parent

    It seems pretty obvious (none / 0) (#34)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:44:08 PM EST

    It seems pretty obvious that the establishment candidate is the one with the big lead in super delegates.  The super delegates are as establishment as you can get.

    More than one establishment (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:58:52 PM EST
    Plus Obama is courting the establishment you reference. If he succeeds, does he become the establishment candidate to you?

    Parent
    The non-DC establishment (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ben Masel on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:47:00 PM EST
    Governors, but, interestingly, not so much Mayors. Daley excepted.

    isn't this this best case for Obama? (none / 0) (#38)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:47:28 PM EST
    Listen we can all agree that both Obama and Clinton are not that different. The main difference seems to be the media likes Obama better. We can argue about how unfair that is etc. and it is. That said, it is not likely to change, so why not nominate Obama and avoid having to fight this up hill battle? Listen I am not saying that we should not stand up and fight them for their inconstancies, but we also have to be pragmatic. We are being given a gift. Lets take it!

    This seems to be the principal reason (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    almost all my friends voted for Obama.  

    Parent
    It is largely my rationale (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:26 PM EST


    Parent
    But It Won't Last Beyond the Primaries (none / 0) (#92)
    by cdalygo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    Then what do you do? There is no guarantee that he can handle the criticism.

    Plus many of us see real differences.

    Parent

    On the lasting (none / 0) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:27:06 PM EST
    I am thinking about that a bit now.

    I am gonna write an analysis.  

    Parent

    Better include Rezko and NYT (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    on nuclear spills/leaks and mandatory reporting bill.

    Parent
    Obama is (none / 0) (#44)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:56:37 PM EST
    not qualified to be President of the United States. It doesn't matter how much the MSM adores him.

    Parent
    If George W was qualified enough.... (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by kdog on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    then Obama certainly is....heck, any of us knuckleheads are.

    Parent
    Where have you been (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:52 PM EST
    the past 7 years? Bush is most certainly NOT qualified to be president of the United States.

    You damn Obama with faint praise if you think Bush's election proves Obama is qualified.

    Parent

    Bush proved that he really was NOT QUALified (none / 0) (#141)
    by felizarte on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    AND the last seven years proved that.  He was elected because he was "fath-based, a born again Christian, 'would not use the military for nation-building . . . etc. etc.'  Look what happened?

    I can understand republicans for not ever mentionuing that, but for democrats to fall under the spell of 'nice talk' or soaring oratory--that I do not understand.

    Parent

    but, but george wasn't qualified. that is a fact (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:08:41 AM EST
    we all know.

    Parent
    Do you really believe that? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    I am in no way an Obama partizan, but he is with out a question qualified to be president. One could make a case that he is even more qualified then Hillary because he has also served not only as a US senator but also as a state rep. Come on. your entitled to your onion but you got to be kidding me.

    Parent
    This seems fair to me (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:06:02 PM EST
    What does "qualified" mean anyway?

    Parent
    Apologies (none / 0) (#66)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM EST
    I was posting as BTD asked the same question in a much calmer manner.

    Parent
    Qualified? (none / 0) (#63)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:07:43 PM EST
    Look, I've seen this again and again, and I have yet to see any evidence that Clinton is anymore qualified than Obama. She has held an elected office for LESS time than Obama, and she was the wife of a President. How does that make her more qualified? For God's sake, that would make Barbra Bush DOUBLY qualified; after all, she has been the wife AND mother of a president.
    There is a difference between working behind the scenes on something (like healthcare, which ended in a fiasco, in part because of the approach that was taken, as well as Republican obstruction), and having to work with a coalition of different perspectives to get things done. BOTH candidates have shown that ability in their legislative positions, and in that case, BOTH are equally qualified.
    Despite what some might wish, Clinton and Obama BOTH are going to have to work with and compromise with Republicans to get things passed. BOTH are equally capable in that regard.

    Parent
    of course! (none / 0) (#77)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM EST
    You exactly right. Come on, come on, come on. We got to be serious. All of the candidates running for president bring there own set of qualifications to the table. There is no check list.

    Saying Obama is not qualified to be president would by the same logic say that Lincoln was not qualified for that office.

    We can make different arguments for our favorite candidates. But we can't be so blinded that we start saying that the other one is not qualified. Because if you make your self believe that what are you going to do when one of them is the nominee? Vote for a Republican?

    Come on, come on, come on...

    Parent

    Well said (none / 0) (#85)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:19:42 PM EST
    Good point about Lincoln. NOT THAT I AM SAYING OBAMA IS LINCOLN! :)

    Parent
    You don't really have to say it. Obama does. (none / 0) (#89)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:00 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Yet... (none / 0) (#99)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:30:16 PM EST
    Of corse Obama is no Lincoln as of now. But Lincoln wasn't Lincoln until he took office. The point is he could be, in other words he's qualified and Clinton as well.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Steve M on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:14:06 PM EST
    Clinton wears the Lincoln mantle in this election.

    Parent
    I am really (none / 0) (#103)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM EST
    disappointed at the continuous dismissal of Hillary's years of public service, including her accomplishments while First Lady. Although I am not surprised when ppl are dismissive of everything a women does.

    I listened to NPR every morning and they had a husband (Obama campaign insider formally worked in Clinton White House ) and his wife (Clinton campaign insider) as guests. The Obama campaign employee admitted that Hillary had done a tremendous amount of work while first lady. She worked tirelessly and even he was dismayed that Obama's supporters would be so dismissive of her efforts. (I would think a transcript of this interview would be available, I am sorry I don't have the names).  

    A junior two term senator from Ill who, from what I have read, has accomplished almost nothing over those 2 terms is not qualified to be President. A person is not qualified to be president just because they held public office. It takes a lot more.

    Parent

    As first lady of Arkansas (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:11:40 PM EST
    Hillary personally spearheaded a major overhaul of the education system, which was one of the worst and most underfunded in the nation. She brought parties together, getting corporate leaders like Sam Walton to agree to a CORPORATE TAX to support the reform. She also got the teachers' union to agree to testing of teachers because they also got a raise of their pathetically low salaries. She then worked with the legislation and ushered the bill through successfully. I lived in Texas at the time and this was covered by the media because Texas was looking for a model to reform its own system. It was viewed as a major accomplishment and it was Hillary's baby. Arkansas was a very backward, poor state, so she performed quite a feat to get this done. Obama has done nothing comparable. That is not a slam at him, it is just that she has done a lot more in her 35 years.
    She has also done a lot as a Senator for her state. As a member of the Armed Services Committee she has earned the respect of her colleagues, both Democrat and Republican as well as the Pentagon brass. By all accounts she has in depth knowledge of the issues and is an excellent person to work with.
    In addition, she has first hand knowledge of the serious difficulties that face each new president in setting up their administration. This is a incredibly difficult task which trips up a lot of rookies.
    She also has a personal relationship with many foreign leaders.

    Obama had a golden opportunity to develop these kinds of relationships when he was given the privilege of chairing the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations. This is the position Biden held that helped him become an expert in this field. In contrast, Obama did not bother to hold one meeting of substance or do any travelling to meet with NATO leaders. During the same time period, the same committee in the House has held many meetings because they take seriously their responsibility to help repair our strained relationships with this important allies. He seems to think he can rely on his personal charm to see him through the challenges of the presidency.  

    Considering all the extremely serious problems our country is currently facing, I think her experience counts for a lot.

    Parent

    Great points BernieO (none / 0) (#179)
    by standingup on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:47:57 PM EST
    I will concede that Obama has the qualifications for the job.  I have serious reservations with his readiness for the position.  Hillary's experience and knowledge give me more confidence that she is the better of two choices.  


    Parent
    Think a little deeper (none / 0) (#110)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:44:56 PM EST
    Yes a person is not qualified to be president just because they held public office. That's right. But a person is also not qualified to be president just because they where first lady. That is not to say that Clinton is not qualified, she is. The point is that there is no qualifications check list. Both Clinton and Obama bring different qualifications to the table. I think we can all agree. If you think that one set of qualifications is more relevant then another, great! Now where having a conversation.

    Also no one hear is dismissing Clintons years of public service. We are just saying if you are going to say that Obama is not qualified then the same charges can be said about Clinton. That is all.

    Can we now agree that both candidates are once and for all qualified?

    Parent

    Well, after writing (none / 0) (#128)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:01:19 PM EST
    and re-writing my response several times, I will concede and admit I was wrong. Obama is qualified.

    Parent
    Now we can all hold hands (none / 0) (#130)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    I think if we keep it this way we will be a lot stronger in the general.

    Parent
    i keep hearing what a great campaigner obama is. (none / 0) (#191)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:13:36 AM EST
    well, really? he won the senate seat because the repubs imploded. he didn't win the major big states like new york, california. the democratic base is voting for hillary. the independents will go in large part for mccain in the ge. so you say obama gives a great speech. yes, he does. but so did edwards. remember the two americas. it was a thing of beauty. he didn't win.

    obama has a follwing. there is no doubt about that. my question is just what are they following. that is why i want more debates. let's see how obama acts under pressure.

    Parent

    That's my view (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:33 PM EST


    Parent
    Doesn't work for me (none / 0) (#83)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    I am pragmatic, but I don't like this rationale for choosing Obama over Clinton because I think there is a real likelihood that the media's treatment will change. Having built him up, the media may like to tear him down. It will be the Greek tragedy of the Fall campaign, once they figure out what his fatal flaw is. Or once they make one up.

    Parent
    You Could be right. (none / 0) (#100)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:32:29 PM EST
    Your logic is sound and I am sure this will happen to some extent. But there is one thing we have already established. They Hate Clinton and will stop at nothing to take her down. As of now that is not true for Obama.

    Parent
    Aah, but... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:43:47 PM EST
    they have tried to take her down for many years and have so far been unable. She's rather like a weeble.

    But I take your point, and it must be given serious consideration since Democrats need to win in November.

    Parent

    agreed (none / 0) (#119)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:55:08 PM EST
    right I can agree to that. But I will say that the media has poisoned so many peoples minds that I think it will make the right wing attacks more salient this time around. Let me explain.

    So many Americans are predisposed to not like her because of the irresponsibility of the media over the years. Now many people have put that aside as she has run a great campaign. But, as soon as she is the nominee the attacks are going to fly and they will not becoming at McCain. Many Many people will say to themselves I don't want to go through all this bitterness again. McCain seems sensible enough and nobody hates him (well I do) so lets go with him.

    I hope I am wrong, but can't you see it coming?

    Parent

    Wrong (none / 0) (#131)
    by IndependantThinker on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:06:36 PM EST
    This is a horrible reason to select someone to be President of the United States. This is Obama BS, - that we have to pick him because Hillary will be attacked by the MSM in the GE. She can take it, and Obama supporters can help. Obama will be crucified in the GE and he has already shown that he can't take it. He can't even handle Hillary being civil, how is he supposed to manage the repubs. LOL.

    Parent
    Wrong (none / 0) (#140)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:18:28 PM EST
    Can she take it personally? Yes, Yes, Yes. I think she is strong enough emotionally. But that is not the question. The question is if the public can take it? Do you really think that the public wants more of this BS.? More of these old fights? More personal hatred of the president even if it is for no good reason?  I think you know the answer. And it can't be, that no matter how much you like Clinton personally that you don't already understand that at some level. Let me be clear. NONE OF THIS IS HER FAULT! NONE OF IT! But we have a pragmatic choice to make not a personal one. For whatever reasons, for better or worse Obama engenders less hatred. The right may hate his policies but they just don't seem to hate him personally. Now that could change, but that is where we stand. Weather we like it or not. Their policies are identical for the most part, so why not Obama given the rest. That is all I am saying.

    Parent
    Sadly, (none / 0) (#145)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:42 PM EST
    you may be right.  I have friends who love the Clintons but don't want to go through it all again.  It doesn't bother me, but I am not necessarily representative.

    Parent
    I hope I am wrong (none / 0) (#148)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:40:36 PM EST
    I live in NYC a very progressive town. And I can feel it here. There is a level of hatred that defies any reason. And like I said it's not just hatred others just don't want to deal with the old crap anymore. Many people are afraid to even openly say they like her in front of strangers (by they way I think that is way she doesn't do so well in caucuses).

    Some people have said that this is bad logic to use when selecting a candidate for president, but is it? Doesn't the candidate have to get elected. And I think that this election is really about Americans wanting to idealize their president again. They want to be proud of him or her even if they don't agree with them. On this score Obama simply does the best. However McCain does second best and sadly Clinton is last.


    Parent

    I think it was Ghandi who said (none / 0) (#150)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:53:22 PM EST
    "Be the change you want to see in the world." I tell people all the time how much I like and admire Hillary. Maybe I'll bring some of them out of the closet.

    Parent
    excuse me, but i won't vote for a candidate (none / 0) (#192)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:16:39 AM EST
    because the media doesn't like the other one. i am wondering does anyone know how the media treated thacher in england. i remember the nickname "iron lady".

    Parent
    A piece of cheese is a gift (none / 0) (#126)
    by blogtopus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    until the mousetrap breaks your neck.

    "Beware of Greeks bearing Gifts."

    Parent

    The trap is set for the. (none / 0) (#129)
    by evan108108 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:02:48 PM EST
    The trap is set all right but it's not set for Obama. They don't know what kind of trap to use for him. They already know how to Catch a Clinton and there ready. You better believe it. The want that fight. That's not to say Obama will not get caught and Clinton will but if I was going to bet.

    Parent
    Except they never did catch a Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:07:28 PM EST
    Oh yeah they harassed them and slimed them and too many people believe those idiotic slanders including as we see people on our side who should know better but and it's a big one.  The Clintons have driven the other side to distraction.  Everytime they thought they had them the polls would go higher and the Clintons would carry on.  One of the reasons the right wingers froth at the mention of the Clintons is the fact that for all they did and they spent 70 million of our money and who knows how many more millions of their own trying to take them down.  They never got them.  The worst they could do was catch Bill in an infidelity.  The impeachment has turned into more of an embarrassment to them than to the Clintons as more time passes.  

    Now Obama on the other hand is fresh ground for them.  While they have thrown everything at the Clintons and will again who's going to believe them as they rush to attack. But Obama he's an unknown.  They can define him any way they want.  He's also shown in this primary season he doesn't take a punch well.  He tends to take it personally.  That's something the Clintons never did.  I see Obama as more of a risk for this than Clinton.  She has a proven record of being able to take whatever the right wing throws.  Obama who's had an easy primary has shown me little sign he can take it.  If we end up with him I'll hold my nose and vote but then I'll cross my fingers and hope he can learn faster than he's shown this primary.  

    Parent

    But they did (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:13:43 PM EST
    manage to sink both Gore and Kerry. It's not just the Clintons that the right wing goes after. It is any Democrat who threatens their power. Unfortunately our media usually goes right along with them.

    Parent
    Which is exactly why I'm worried about Obama (none / 0) (#178)
    by rebecca on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    Hillary and Bill have weathered the worst they right wing could throw at them.  I find it amazing they are willing to walk right back into that maelstrom again.  But I've always marveled at their ability to face the people who've attacked them with grace and courtesy.  

    Obama has had a walk in the park this primary compared to what the GE is going to be like let alone the next 4 years in the White House.  

    With a choice between someone who's proven they can handle it and someone who has actually said he's faced Clinton so he can handle the GE I'm going to take the one who is walking into this election with their eyes wide open and not living in fantasy land.  He may or not be tough enough to handle it.  I'm not willing to take that chance.  I'll support the one I know is tough enough.

    Parent

    unfortunately both gore and kerry (none / 0) (#194)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:29:47 AM EST
    did not run the best campaigns. clinton had the war room. gore ran away from clinton and acted wooden so often. yet when he is himself, he is articulate, funny, forceful and very impressive. kerry disappointed me in the election and has disappointed me again in this election. kerry just sat there while being swiftboated. now here comes obama with this bull about being buddies with repubs. it isn't going to happen!

    Parent
    Hmm (none / 0) (#40)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:51:40 PM EST
    To me it is obvious that Obama is the candidate of the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment, the DC Establishment, the Media Establishment and Establishment bloggers.

    • the non-Clinton Democratic Establishment - OK
    • the DC Establishment - no way
    • the Media Establishment - they really only love McCain, Obama's just a flirtation
    • Establishment bloggers - What the heck is an Establishment blog?

    Surely the highly referenced and trafficked blog TL is an "Establishment" blog if any blog is. And if they favor Obama why would they bother complaining when the media unfairly or not knocks the candidate they want brought down? Their candidate partisanship temporarily overwhelms their larger media-criticism goals during the primary campaign, but so what? Expecting politics to bring out people's higher nature?

    You think we are? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:00:35 PM EST
    I am confident I am not. Maybe Jeralyn. Definitely not me. I used to be but not for a while.

    Parent
    I do (none / 0) (#57)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:05:36 PM EST
    Much more so than dk for instance. Jeralyn is a bit of a TV pundit isn't she, and writes a regular Old Media column? This blog tends to be referenced in a way that's more respectable than eg dk. More like TPM. No, not you specifically, but the blog, yes.

    Parent
    TalkLeft, the politics of crime. (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:06 PM EST
    "This blog."  There is no "this" in "this blog."  You've got your criminal defense lawyers following J's posts.  You've got your Pres. primary junkies following BTD's every word.  You've got a mix following J's political posts.  You've got people who used to be active at DK who are disgusted and have come over here.  You've got Obama supporters who like to argue with BTD.  What a mix.

    Parent
    You left out (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Warren Terrer on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:19:44 PM EST
    the trolls. Won't someone please think of the trolls?

    Parent
    That's fair (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:07:08 PM EST
    Jeralyn definitely has a real respectability quotient that I lack.

    Fair point.

    Parent

    Not touching that one. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh, sorry (none / 0) (#84)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST
    not what I meant. It's just that "the blog" is usually referenced without distinguishing the different writers at it, particularly when it's being referenced in the non-blog world. Like O'Reilly taking a comment off dk and attributing it to Markos. Though it's surprising sometimes how even bloggers don't make the distinction. Overall TL is a very respectable blog  (aside from its recent Hillary mania, that is. :) )

    Parent
    Ha (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    You must mean then, Jeralyn is establishment and you are not.

    Sorry, couldn't help myself....

    Parent

    He's respectable enough... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Alien Abductee on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:15:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Establishment blogs get included on (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:06:23 PM EST
    conference calls w/Pelosi, Reid, and the campaigns of Dem. Presidential primary candidates.  

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:09:51 PM EST
    I have not in a long time so there - NOT an Establishment blogger!

    Parent
    Isn't that like a badge of shame (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:16:56 PM EST
    to be called an establishment blogger?  Just kidding...in the short time that I have actually been participating, you have been pretty fair...sort of...:)

    Parent
    I think that's what BTD calls (none / 0) (#94)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:26:30 PM EST
    "cooptation."  

    Parent
    We just don't get the freshest dish. Too bad. (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Not missing much (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:57 PM EST
    I think.

    Parent
    I'm still frosted about that one with, (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    who was it, Reid, on defunding.  You should have been the first invitee.

    Parent
    Oh, not to mention"Netroots Nation" (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:12:18 PM EST
    panelist invites.  Although I suppose J will garner one or two.

    Parent
    She did (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:25:44 PM EST


    Parent
    The establishment blogs (none / 0) (#48)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 02:59:27 PM EST
    according to my definition, are those like DailyKOS, HuffingtonPost, TPM, the "very serious" ones that go on TV and/or get hired (KOS) to write the "librul" side for Newsweek.

    You know, the blogs in the top 2000 web ratings that everyone mentions on TV.  More and more, they overlap with TV.  Sometimes KO is just a rehash of what appeared on DailyKOS that day.

    YES, they influence the debate substantially, because if you watch CNN or MSNBC, you'd think they're about the only liberal blogs out there.

    And they're all crazed Obama supporters....

    Opposition is not hate (none / 0) (#60)
    by koshembos on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:06:14 PM EST
    I believe that Obama is scary and dangerous to the country. I don't hate him and why would I?

    As for Matt Yglesias: he is just not that smart. He has all the drawbacks of an MSM guy and very little added value. I just stopped reading him; I don't read the WaPo either; why waste time?

    Not Smart? (none / 0) (#76)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:14:32 PM EST
    Perhaps so. Though we should recognize, then, that Obama supporters may feel the same way about Clinton. Not hate, just opposition because they view her as scary and dangerous. It seems that in many cases, though not necessarily yours, that many folks attribute Obama support as a consequence of Clinton Derangement Syndrome; not everyone is Andy Sullivan, however.

    As to your other point, I can see where you might disagree with Yglesias, but how exactly is he 'not smart'?

    Parent

    the nature of the obama supporters's comments (none / 0) (#195)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:32:49 AM EST
    about hillary showed hate. it drove me in the opposite direction. a number of others have commented on it also.

    Parent
    McCain is dangerous to this country (none / 0) (#90)
    by andrewwm on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:24:14 PM EST
    I think it's pretty safe to say that we're mostly debating which candidate would be more advantageous from the Democratic perspective.

    People that think Obama is scary and dangerous for the country (and same applies to anyone that thinks Clinton is scary and dangerous for that matter) need to step away from the blogosphere for a while and get some perspective.

    Parent

    Digby's question: let's hear (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:28:22 PM EST
    Obama and HRC tell us their concrete plans for getting things done w/o the Republicans in Congress.  Excellent.

    Parent
    How is he scary and dangerous.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by georgeg1011 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    sounds like you are talking about the republican that just got out of the race....please explain?

    Parent
    have you heard mccain sing his little (none / 0) (#196)
    by hellothere on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:34:24 AM EST
    song about "BOMB, BOMB IRAN"? do you want to be in iraq 100 years? mccain has turned on everything he said he stood for back in 2000. yeah, there is a lot to be afraid of with him.

    Parent
    I think everyone should avoid (none / 0) (#104)
    by my opinion on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:37:27 PM EST
    using ambiguous labels to describe groups of people. I personally don't think I fall into one specific group label.

    That said, I also feel that one should never base their vote on anything they hear in any form of media. To do so would be to retire ones own thoughts, for those of another, which will always have a disastrous result for a Democracy.

    Is your point that "establishment" (none / 0) (#107)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:43:51 PM EST
    is subjective?  Or that they're both establishment but he's more so?  Is there a point?

    It is subjective (none / 0) (#114)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:51:05 PM EST
    but my point is there are many establishments and Yglesias ignored the other ones.

    Parent
    "Establishment" is a feel good word. (none / 0) (#127)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:00:33 PM EST
    Like "progressive", people just use it to attempt to define who's cool and who isn't.

    Yeah, there really are several (none / 0) (#133)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:07:13 PM EST
    establishment groups, not an Almighty Establishment.  It's not an issue with me for either candidate over the other, I think they both have strong backers sitting in postions of power.

    They may not have come in... (none / 0) (#139)
    by Reader on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:16:41 PM EST
    ...as 'The Establishment,' but they certainly BECAME the establishment. You don't have a net worth close to 50 million bucks by remaining outside the establishment!
    The reason the Clintons took so much heat is because Bill lied under oath about something stupid and the Republicans took it and ran with it. THERE WAS NOTHING TO IMPEACH HIM FOR IF HE HAD JUST TOLD THE TRUTH. Yes, the Republicans looked for any excuse; the Clintons gave them one. It was stupid, and I say that as someone who is still proud of voting for Bill with the first two times I could vote in a presidential election. And, by the way, it was Gore who first brought up the furlough system in Massachusetts as a legitimate talking point against Dukakis. Again, the Democrats hurt themselves.
    And, by the way, Hillary and Obama were BOTH present in DC today for the vote. McCain wasn't. In fact, he was the only senator not there! (Something we can use in the fall, I think!)

    THE HEAT STARTED (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by BernieO on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:41:23 PM EST
    long before Monica. The Clintons had been under constant and vicious attack since they first came to DC. Monica didn't even become public until '97, long after all the other accusations were out there. A special prosecutor, Republican Robert Fiske, had investigated all the charges and cleared Clinton of any wrongdoing, but the media, particularly the NY Times and the WashPost kept pressuring Clinton until he agreed to an independent counsel. The media played a big role in all of this mess. It never would have been an issue if the NY Times had not allowed Jeff Gerth free rain to print accusations from the crackpot con man, David Hale, who started the whole Whitewater crap. Judith Miller was not the first "journalist" at the Times who was allowed to print right wing spin with no oversight. Because it was in the Times the rest of the media jumped on board with out fact checking, just like they did with the WMD information Judith Miller was printing. (Only McClatchy did their job.)


    Parent
    I don't care about McCain at this time (none / 0) (#149)
    by Grandmother on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:47:26 PM EST
    I just want to know why Obama hasn't taken a lead in getting legislation passed that is introduced and supported by the Democrats?  My understanding from the 2006 election is that the Democrats were put into office to end the war and supposedly because they were perceived as better able to "run" the country.  I also know that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democratically "controlled" Congress is taking a lot of heat for not accomplishing anything and that the general electorate is not happy with that.  My position is that Obama, if he truly is able to "bring everyone together" should be making more of an effort to achieve that end goal. I don't see it happening.

    It's more than just a vote for a particular bill (this is just the most recent one) it's about a pattern.  I just don't see him fighting the fight for legislation that is supported by Democrats.

    Parent

    Establishment vs Past (none / 0) (#142)
    by dwightkschrute on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    A lot of this is semantics, and depending on definition they can both be "establishment" candidates. But it does seem to me that if Clinton is going to keep talking about "experience" as a differentiator and uses applause lines like "It did take a Clinton to clean (up) after the first Bush, and I think it might take a second one to clean up after the second Bush" that makes it kind of hard to call someone else "the establishment" candidate.

    If you consider cable news and the press "the establishment" then yeah they've shown a preference to Obama. But despite the public Kerry, Kennedy, etc. endorsements Clinton has just as many, if not more, "establishment" Dems on her side. And when you look at her upper level campaign staff it's decidedly "establishment". So again, it's all how you define it but I don't think either camp can use the term with a straight face.

    Facebook Voting!! (none / 0) (#146)
    by LetMeDoIt90 on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 04:29:58 PM EST
    Know matter what it comes down to the votes and if they keep their promises. I just came across "The Leagues" FaceBook page. They ask you to vote for your favorite presidential candidate and your three top issues. After you vote they give you the result of your city. The result surprised me. I thought that my city were complete democrats. Check this out heres the link Apps.facebook.com/theleague

    Living in the WH for 8 years (none / 0) (#171)
    by Ramar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 06:53:22 PM EST
    You cannot be any more established than that. Any HRC team's attempt to flip into an "Obama is the establishment guy" narrative is transparently spinning. If "experience" is your mantra against your opponent (and using your WH years as part of the argument), you can't then claim that your opponent is suddenly the establishment candidate. It only serves to make you seem FOS.

    Secondly, regarding the MSM treatment of the candidates, has it occurred to you that maybe Obama has run a better media campaign than Hillary? The media attitude toward Clinton is in part a crusted residue from her years in the DC establishment. Has she developed a superior strategy for dealing with that reality? IMO Obama has factored this into his campaign masterfully. I like the idea of nominating a dem who knows how to work the media to their advantage.

    Obama attack on Superdelegates (none / 0) (#185)
    by kenosharick on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 08:52:28 PM EST
    There is a coordinated attack being launched on many blogs and in the MSM (esp. MSNBC) that the Democrats superdelgate system is "unfair" and "undemocratic." This is an effort to make any Hillary win look tainted. Matthews on "Hardball" is claiming Obama is dramatically ahead of Mccain in polls- 2 points (inside the margin of error) is dramatic?

    "Establishment Blog" (none / 0) (#189)
    by Oliver Willis on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 10:46:53 PM EST
    A ludicrous term simply invented to go after blogs that aren't wild about Sen. Clinton. Those same blogs that championed Howard Dean, attacked Fox News, and brought back the spine to the Democratic party are now the "establishment" when they don't reflexively support the candidate who has to date defined her candidacy as an establishment one.

    Give. Me. A. Break. I don't know what it is about this primary process that has caused people to go nutty, but it has.

    "Not MY Brand of Hope" (none / 0) (#197)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 09:36:37 AM EST
    Read this article, for me it settles it. I find the masquarade cruel to the followers.
    From the beginning of his presidential campaign, which unofficially began with the release of his second book The Audacity of Hope, Senator Barack Obama has been positioned as an underdog against the Clinton machine. Now, with polls showing him in a virtual dead heat with Sen. Hillary Clinton, the media has constructed his early success as a David-over-Goliath narrative that proves that ordinary people have the power to slay the beast that is Washington through a radical politics of hope. Unfortunately, the Obama campaign has perverted the concept of hope by wedding it to a dangerous politics of compromise, concession and cunning.
    MarcLamontHill

    But do you notice (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alien Abductee on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:04:51 PM EST
    that the main reason the author of that article denounces Obama is because he's too much of a "Clinton centrist"?

    The alternative he wants instead of Obama isn't Hillary but organized resistance to corporate-sponsored control in order to "disrupt the fundamental structure of society," including cutting off military funding, instituting publicly funded universal single-payer health care, reversing NAFTA, and denouncing "the Zionist occupation of Palestine". I don't think Hillary is up for that any more than Obama is. Do you?

    Parent

    The Battle Of Establishments | 197 comments (197 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment