home

Fighting For Obama?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:42:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Matt Stoller writes:

Obama is not a part of any progressive fights, so there's no independent organizing going on on his behalf from people who actually understand the right-wing media and how it operates. He's decided he's a post-partisan politician, and when a politician makes that choice, it's not just a disincentive for partisans to fight for that person. It becomes structurally impossible to fight for him because the incentives get all out of whack.

I wonder if that will be true? I have my doubts. It is an untested thesis to be sure since Obama is a Media Darling with his very own cable network to support him, not to mention 99% of the progressive blogosphere. There has been no need to defend him. Heck, Obama has had no need to go really negative, as the Media and the Left blogs have done it for him when it comes to Clinton.

But if Obama is the nominee, do we believe Obama won't be defended by the Left blogs? I find that hard to believe. Heck, I know I will.

< Saturday Reading and Open Thread (Mostly) | Predicting Pennsylvania >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Fighting For Obama? | 162 comments (162 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Exactly How Much More Could He Be Defended? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM EST
    I guess we could send anyone with any doubts to some kind of reeducation class, but beyond that, what more could be done?

    Obama re-education classes! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cymro on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    Shades of Mao's Cultural Revolution.

    Parent
    Older white women (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:32:01 PM EST
    we have no chance. It's like in Cambodia, where people with glasses were automatically intellectuals set for re-education.

    Parent
    I wondered (none / 0) (#33)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    about that very notion. How do we deprogram those people? The language they use is so similiar to Messanic movements.

    Parent
    Wonder if Ted Patrick is still alive. (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:17:35 PM EST
    A cult de-programmer/kidnapper who hales from San Diego.  

    Parent
    Oprah (none / 0) (#86)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:32:56 PM EST
    Will have to do wholesale Dr. Phill sessions for the heartbroken.

    Parent
    Not buying it... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    ...what is clear is that, despite Obama portraying himself as "post-partisan", he has worked hard to establish 'empty vessel' status and supporters seem to endow him with any of a number of their pet virtues.

    Unfortunately I think it works.  When you stand for nothing but vague platitudes ('hope' and 'change' and a 'new politics'), supporters will fill in the blanks for you.

    Very well said (none / 0) (#55)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM EST
    DudeE.

    If his supporters looked more closely and listened carefully they'd be appalled.

    Well, some of them anyway.

    Parent

    i see it begining to slip away. (none / 0) (#126)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:06:47 PM EST
    the truth shall set up free. that empty vessel is not quite so empty.

    Parent
    the real question (5.00 / 8) (#3)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    is whether the left blogs would defend clinton, should she be nominated. my desire to find out may cause me to vote for her.

    I don't see any way the leftie blogs (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:12:10 PM EST
    I'm thinking of could ever support her if she gets the nomination.

    Parent
    they would be... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:19:39 PM EST
    ...too busy mourning Obama and secretly hoping she goes down in the general ('told ya so!')

    Parent
    I can't think of any Major (none / 0) (#17)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:28:47 PM EST
    Progressive blogs that have even suggested they would do otherwise than support the democratic nominee.

    Parent
    You're kidding I hope (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:34:11 PM EST


    Parent
    A-List (none / 0) (#62)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:43:32 PM EST
    progressive blogs like Dailykos have painted themselves into a corner. Buzzflash, the news link site has done the same and talkingpointsmemo is not far behind.

    They've demonized Hillary Clinton in a fashion reminiscent of the mainstraem media.

    In 2004 there seemed to be disappointment in John Kerry but no demonization as we've seen regarding Clinton.

    I also disagree that Obama hasn't gone negative on Clinton.  He, his spokespeople and surrogates have done plenty.

    Parent

    I will say... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:50:51 PM EST
    ...the mainstream media was pretty damn passive in rebutting the Swift Boat nonsense.  They treated it as some kind of credible 'he said/he said/you decide' deal when in reality it was a blatant smear.

    Contrast that with the kind of stuff I saw on NBC last night... Ann Curry's lead was not the revelation of comments by he-who-won't-be-named but rather her lead was Obama's denouncement of it.  The follow-up was a touching puff piece of Obama's childhood in Indonesia and a thesis of how this could 'repair America's battered image in this part of the world'

    He's like their adopted kid who's been picked on.  I've never seen this kind of defense from the MSM of any candidate - even Bush.

    Parent

    Maybe I'm not that widely read (none / 0) (#98)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:49:24 PM EST
    or maybe our definitions of "major" differ.

    I'm sure I've read a post from Kos saying that he will support the nominee whatever happens.

    Parent

    And will you find his (none / 0) (#118)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:27:19 PM EST
    support for Clinton (if nominated) plausible, given how he has treated her on the front page? A lot of people will not.

    Parent
    Well, kos has said he would (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:21:48 PM EST
    but I think that just means he won't endorse McCain.  Given how he has acquiesced to the virtual destruction of his site over the HRC/BO struggle, I can't see him leading the charge in support of Clinton's post-nomination candidacy.

    Ironic, given the purported purpose of his site: electing Democrats to office.  How many relatively moderate/centrist Democrats did he support a couple of years ago for Congress/Senate? Tester and Webb are just the two most prominent examples.  And yet he's allowed a major candidate for the nomination to be trashed, someone whose support will be critical to the election of Barack Obama if he ends up as the nominee -- he's tolerated myriad comments and now diaries that threaten NOT to support the Democratic nominee for president if that nominee's name is Clinton instead of Obama.

    So I'm not holding my breath for a vigorous pro-Clinton effort by kos.  I hope I'm wrong about that, though.

    Parent

    I would say... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Oje on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    John Kerry's campaign will be a good example. After Dean collapsed, the defense of Kerry at times seemed tepid at best.

    Parent
    I could see a scenario where (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:30:59 PM EST
    either could fall victim to the blogs.

    Obama will run hard right once he gets the nomination and while some people have tried to prepare the blogosphere for that eventuality, they nearly had a meltdown considering it.

    That's where this "new voter" metric sets sail into uncharted waters.  The question is when Obama takes a distasteful position to his core supporters whether or not they will stick with him; and whether or not those who never liked him or simply felt lukewarm will end up quietly enjoying his failures rather than seeing the big picture.

    I think his achilles heel in a scenario where he fumbles badly will be this "post partisan" concept.  Democrats won't feel that "Democratic Party call to action" and the post partisans may turn out to be easily discouraged.

    Clinton has her own mine fields to negotiate, but they are much more traditional and familiar I think so I'm not going to go into them now aside from saying that it would be more like the Kerry problem - dinner is going to burn if I do.

    Parent

    How does Obama run hard right? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by blcc on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:42:53 PM EST
    Can you elaborate on that hypothesis, because I just don't see it.  What right policies would he promote and/or espouse, and how would he be convincing?  And which voters would he be pursuing, given that it's the core Democratic base which he hasn't fully succeeded in persuading.

    Parent
    Well, first of all - all candidates (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by inclusiveheart on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:43:39 PM EST
    run to the middle in the general election - to their respective supporters that always comes off as a jolt hard right or left depending on which party you're dealing with.  So that is the first round with less experienced political watchers who support Obama.  Will they be able to handle it?  It will be a surprise to some in that group and it is such an intense and passionate group one has to ask if they will turn on him as visciously as they have on Clinton and other Democrats.  

    Obama has said that he is going for both Republicans and Independents which means that he is more likely to overtly run right after the primary than some candidates.  The question is will there be a subgroup in his following that will lose it?  They have shown a capacity for losing it on numerous occasions now so it is hardly a stretch to think they will again .

    The other problem as I see it with the intensity of his following is that he is not being disciplined by them to hold to some core principles - whatever those principles may be - there seems to be a free pass mentality amongst his 2000 percenters which is advantageous in the short run, but I believe is dangerous in the long run.  We know that it is impossible to be all things to all people, but that is the long run view.  It is entirely possible to be all things to all people in a short term run and that is what Obama is doing for now.  In a primary campaign, that is mostly easy.  In August of last year he was for coal and because people were still interested in holding his feet to the fire he was disciplined and shifted his position on the matter.  The question is whether or not he will stick to that change if he has a following that is unwilling to challenge him and keep just trusting him - a bad idea imo with any politician.  Anyhow, the situation could get out of control quickly for him because in a general election - and in the White House - decisions are made that don't cater exclusively to an adoring few - the decisions and statements are crafted to appeal to a broad audience and always tailored to the more conservative audience if you are a Dem.

    The irony is that Bill Clinton's "Third Way" strikes me as exactly the same thing as Obama's "post partisan" deal.  It took about six months after he was elected for me to be really pissed at Bill Clinton and by the end of his two terms I was glad to be rid of him.  I had a head start because I knew a key player in his campaign who told me point blank during the primaries that caring about poverty was passe among other things.  But after Reagan twice and Bush the first I was desperate like most Democrats so I sold out the poor - I regret that - but at the time I thought he really would come around if he was elected - I made the mistake of projecting and not holding him accountable when I had the chance.  Anyhow, people talked about a third term as we neared the end of the second and I was like, "Oh god please no."  Of course, I was never insane enough to think that Bush/Cheney would be better than that, but I really felt that another Democrat - any Democrat - would be better after those two terms.

    So Obama has made a whole host of rather conservative statements that I have big problems with, but his supporters insist that it is all okay.  The question is whether or not they'll really be okay when he really does something like back eliminating the capital gains tax for start up companies as he mentioned he would consider to Jack Welch on MSNBC a month or so ago.  He was running very right that day.  The question is when push comes to shove, will his supporters stick with him?  I don't know.

    Parent

    Is Stoller talking about Lefty Blogs? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:00:32 PM EST
    Doesn't sound that way to me.

    He specifically references:

    independent organizing going on on his behalf from people who actually understand the right-wing media

    Maybe I have a deaf ear, but if this refers to Lefty blogs, then they've developed a whole new range of skills since the last time I checked.

    Moveon? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Key on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    Do I misunderstand?  I'd say Moveon is a fairly large independent organization that's been doing a lot of independent organizing....

    And they have endorsed Obama for (none / 0) (#18)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:29:36 PM EST
    the Primary only based on their memberships vote.  However they have gone out of their way to confirm that they will enthusiastically support the democratic nominee.

    Parent
    Must have missed it... (none / 0) (#27)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:39:32 PM EST
    ...regardless, I ran across a fairly telling poll from 2006 which validates the blogosphere's general aversion to Clinton:

    Hillary Clinton and the Netroots Survey

    "The more frequently a netroots activist readers blogs, the less likely s/he is to have a favorable opinion of Hillary Clinton. While netroots activists who never read blogs have an opinion of Hillary Clinton roughly comparable to all Democrats, netroots activists who regularly read political blogs actually have an overall negative opinion of Hillary Clinton, at 45% favorable and 54% unfavorable."

    Parent

    Strawpolls on Dailykos going back (none / 0) (#91)
    by JoeA on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:44:04 PM EST
    since forever (if my memory serves me correctly,  as I'm too lazy for research) have generally shown Hillary running dead last from Edwards, Obama, and Clinton.

    It's no great surprise that the community has migrated towards Obama.

    Parent

    What's a... (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:44:16 PM EST
    "netroots activist who never reads blogs"?  Sound like an oxymoron.  Seriously, how do you have a netroots activist without blogs?  I don't know what this means.

    Parent
    My understanding... (none / 0) (#150)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:22:20 PM EST
    ...is that it was a survey of MoveOn.org members which presumably makes them 'netroots'

    I really don't even know what netroots means.  Maybe I'm one - maybe I'm not.  I don't even know if I'm technically Gen X or Y or whatnot.  I defy marketing terminology.

    Parent

    My mantra (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:02:26 PM EST
    ..... this is not entirely a problem of his making. Some of these battles that he is going through right now are the result of some pretty unfair attacks on Obama. But this history exists, and so, yes, I believe he will not be able to bring the country together in the way that he says he can.

    Everyone gets to decide for themselves.

    But no.  Obama's support isn't issue based.  That is except if your issue getting to say "I told you so" about something that happened in 2002.

    Obama's support isn't issue based. (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    What really bothers me about what is going on in relationship with Obama and his supporters is that when he does take positions that would normally have people up in arms in opposition, all of a sudden there are all these reasons why it is now a good idea. Scary.

    Parent
    It's convenient though isn't it? (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:21:45 PM EST
    ...because no matter what position he takes, there's no real accountability or fallout.

    The real tip-off is when I started to hear his supporters try to argue that mandating healthcare is somehow a bad thing.  Not unless you're a Republican.

    Parent

    It's this fact ... (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:30:18 PM EST
    even more than their behavior that bothers me about Obama supporters.

    They seem willing to defend any issue if Obama supports it.

    And, even stranger, they often seem to think an Obama position is progressive simply because it's an Obama position.

    I've been told (at separate times) by Obama supporters that being against nuclear power, supporting universal healthcare, affirmative action, gay rights and so on weren't part of the "progressive agenda."

    I even found one Obama supporter who defended usury.

    Of course, this is on those rare occasions when they'll talk issues.  

    Parent

    hello president mccain! (none / 0) (#130)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:13:54 PM EST
    do we really think the right wing won't go after obama? do we think that obama won't try to swing right and thus try and appeal to republicans. they won't support him. i can assure you of that. take a look at the numbers. the cards that have been played in the past are coming home to roost.

    Parent
    Hello McCain? (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:57:28 PM EST
    If you really cared about defeating McCain, you would vote the Democratic party in 2008 even if Obama was the nominee.

    Start local go global.

    Parent

    well i understand your concerns. (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:11:37 PM EST
    the problem is, and i have no answer, is that i don't seem the dems are supporting us. furthermore, i have very serious doubts about obama. will i vote for mccain, no. will i support obama? the question is does he support us.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:17:38 PM EST
    does he support us.
    I have no doubt.

    And if I can find a miniscule and healthy doubt, it is less than trivial compared to the prospect of having McBush running the country.

    Parent

    well put! (none / 0) (#174)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:41:12 AM EST


    Parent
    Mandating healthcare (none / 0) (#24)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:34:37 PM EST
    Exactlies!

    People I know say that and I know they ONLY say it because they have a huge man-crush on Obama.

    Parent

    it's absurd (none / 0) (#32)
    by Nasarius on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:49:29 PM EST
    Clinton's plan is not perfect or complete, but the lock-step opposition to mandates (ie, covering everyone) is absurd.

    For example:

    At the same time, however, no-one will be allowed to get a free ride on the health insurance system by enrolling only when the health emergency has already occurred. Consequently, from now on, everyone will be required to take out insurance protection.

    The introduction of mandatory insurance means that everyone will contribute towards financial protection against personal illness. It also prevents people from deliberately refusing to insure themselves on the assumption that, when it comes to the crunch, the general public will have to pay their medical bills, after all.

    In the future, nobody can have their insurance protection fully withdrawn - for instance as a result of contribution arrears. On the other hand, those who insure themselves too late, for example when illness has already struck, will have to pay unpaid contributions retroactively.

    Forcing people to buy insurance! Garnishing their wages! Are these quotes from the Clinton campaign?  Paul Krugman? No, they're from the German ministry of health.

    Parent

    We had the same issues (none / 0) (#113)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:59:42 PM EST
    - in other countries. Do you think such systems came in to these countries without a lot of struggle?

    I remember in Australia in 1983, bringing in Medicare health insurance with mandated "You will all pay into it", mantra was not popular. The 1.5% hike in income tax to pay for it wasn't popular either.

    Here's a link to an old public education TV message: ie. All pay in, All covered from cradle to grave, from "newborn babe to Prime Minister":

    Introducing Medicare health insurance:1983

    Just like Americans, there was a lot of resistance in many countries, dragged kicking, screaming, whining loudly into it -
    but one or two years down the track? Funny how people change their minds :)

    Parent

    I was with a group of Obamabots (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by jerry on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:23:23 PM EST
    telling me how important it was to reform Social Security.

    Parent
    Yup ... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:32:04 PM EST
    very strange, isn't it?

    Who are these people?

    Parent

    They're people in their twenties (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:54:05 PM EST
    who have been working for less than five years and think they are invincable and impervious to disease and injury. They blame all us old folks (I'm 48) for "garnishing their wages", not realizing that we have been paying in for our entire working lives -- and not minding much for having done so.

    Parent
    they haven't experienced (none / 0) (#175)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:48:21 AM EST
    the second class status that many older women in the workplace have either. all these things they take for granted can be taken away inch by inch. and they are! those who don't know history are condemned to repeat it.

    Parent
    I Guess The Rest Of The Democratic Party Lied (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:34:02 PM EST
    to us when they spent months convincing the American public that there was no crisis in Social Security. Obama's remarks may yet come back to haunt the party the next time they try to defend that program from a Republican attack.

    Parent
    SS (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by mm on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:33:48 PM EST
    What exactly is Obama's position regarding Social Security anyway?

    Oh, that's right.  His position is that Hillary is not being straight with the American people about this "crisis".

    BACON (10/27/07): Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

    At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

    He's basically calling her a liar with no core convictions about this issue.

    Actually, I think she has taken a very firm and forthright position and has shown that she will not be bulldozed by the likes of Tim Russert no matter how fat his head blows up and turns purple when he talks about "the social security crisis".

    Senator Obama.  Not so much.  

    Parent

    Obama and Social Security (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:07:39 PM EST
    Obama's Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team member Jeffrey Liebman favors a form of Social Security privatization. Obama's tip jar overfloweth with Wall Street money.

    I was furious when he unnecessarily introduced Social Security into the debate after a right-wing assault had been successfully beaten back in 2005.

    In 2005 I worked with a group that gave presentations about Social Security around the county and was stunned that Obama had given the right-wing another shot at destroying it by making it an "issue."

    After learning about his free market, free trade economics team I wasn't surprized.

    The need to raise the income level subject to FICA is actually many years off.

    His supporters truly don't know what they're supporting.

    Parent

    just maybe the so called leadership (none / 0) (#176)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:50:15 AM EST
    in the democratic party intends to keep giving in so to speak and wants someone in the wh that will lead us right down the path the corporations want. think about that!

    Parent
    The question is not will we fight for him. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    The question is will he fight for us?  His conciliatory tendencies worry me.  I have not seen him take a lead on any strong partisan issue including Iraq.

    Us...is is a misnomer (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:45:24 PM EST
    Obama has made it very clear that what he offers is compromise and conciliation. He has stated that he is not "angry or confrontational enough" but he is about change through bipartisanship.

    So it depends on what "us" wants and is passionate about. I take it there is not an issue that will be described as left or right, Democrat or Republican. Appears that he wants to be somewhere in the middle.

    Of course as John Edwards said: "Why on earth would we expect the corporate powers and their lobbyists -- who make billions by selling out the middle-class -- to just give up just because we ask nicely?"

     

    Parent

    hh? (none / 0) (#104)
    by charlie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:11:12 PM EST
    I might be misunderstanding you--but are you implying that Obama is a shill for corprotate poser?  Because he just flat isn't . His campaign is entirely funded by small donors.

    Parent
    You Might Want To Check Out Your Facts (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:10:26 PM EST
    His campaign is NOT entirely funded by small donors. While he does do a great job of getting small donations, he does have his share of large dollar donors. Go check it out.

    Parent
    Here's a gift for you (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:04:17 PM EST
    Obama's top 2008 contributors for his presidential race

    Parent
    And these for his entire political career (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:08:31 PM EST
    which spans from 1989-2008

    (Notice the fourth largest, Exelon Corporation, the nuclear energy giant, rings in at just under $300,000)

     

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:10:30 PM EST
    I got in an argument the other day with someone claiming that "Hillary will just do the bidding of Goldman Sachs" when, ironically, they are #1 on that list you linked!

    I work on Wall Street and Clinton and Obama seem to have roughly equal support from the sort of people progressives don't want them to have support from.  The only candidates Wall Street truly hated were Edwards and Huckabee.

    Parent

    That's very true about Edwards (none / 0) (#145)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:49:19 PM EST
    When he was still in the race I checked Open Secrets.org frequently to compare all three candidates' funding. At the time, Clinton and Obama had each received between $800,000 - $900,000 from the health care companies, while Edwards had received only about $150,000. Obviously, those companies liked the fact that Clinton & Obama had said they would keep the insurance companies and big pharma at the negotiating table, and Edwards had refused to do that.

    Funny how that stuff works!

    Parent

    the Crowns and Pritzkers (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:55:32 PM EST
    are small donors?

    Parent
    I fail to (none / 0) (#182)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:27:44 AM EST
    see how his rhetoric is much different than Pelosi. And yet liberal blogs have eviscerated her. Maybe it's just some more of that old time misogyny?

    Parent
    This comment (none / 0) (#184)
    by Warren Terrer on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:06:56 AM EST
    really offends me.

    In case you haven't been paying attention, there is plenty to criticize Pelosi for, e.g. caving in to Bush on funding Iraq, impeachment off the table, etc.

    Now it's fair to point out that the blogosphere doesn't hold Obama to the standards that they argued for over the past few years. But that hardly makes criticism of Pelosi misogyny. Not even close.

    Provide some evidence of 'misogyny' before you trash the entire blogosphere with this label. It's every bit as offensive as people who claim that supporting Clinton over Obama is racist.

    Parent

    A few points (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lou Grinzo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:17:28 PM EST
    Assuming Obama is the nominee...

    The blogs will be behind him to a level Dean could only have dreamt about.

    Ditto MSNBC.

    Neither will much matter--look at MSNBC's dismal ratings in a prior story on this site, and look at the tiny number of people on the blogs.  The political geeks don't count for diddly.

    The real test will come on the campaign trail and in the debates.  How hard will Obama take the fight to McCain?  Will he try to run a "clean campaign" and therefore wind up constantly on the defensive as the Republican party and their "friends" in 527's and 501(c)4's go after Obama 24/7?

    I don't know the answer to those questions, which is one of the main reasons that, while I will vote for Obama in the GE without hesitation, I'm very apprehensive about what happens between the nomination and election day.

    Must disagree on Few Points (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM EST
    One, MSNBC's love affair stops the minute he gets the nomination. Then it's wall to wall McCain along with the other MSM.

    As for so-called "lefty-blogs," I'm not sure it will matter that much. Already the Big Orange is suffering a drop in ad and viewers. I also have my suspicions as to some of their most current and vehement posters. Many may trot back over to the Right after their work is done.

    Not to mention something that's a very real issue. Given the way the Obama campaign - especially it's surrogates - have conducted the campaign it's an open question as to what the blogosphere as a whole is going to do.

    But I'm off to the sunshine so I can't post further right now. (Doubtless that saves me from a banning today :>)

    Parent

    Supporting a tepid centrist like Obama makes me (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:29:52 PM EST
    feel pretty durn tepid.  Yep, it does.

    I'll vote for him.  But I fear if he's nominated he will go down in flames against McCain -- who will also of a sudden look experienced rather than elderly.  

    tepid! well that tells me that obama won't be (none / 0) (#133)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:22:18 PM EST
    bringing out the democratic base in records numbers ready to send him to the wh. i don't see the media continuing to support him. the swing away from him has begun. we may not see it right now but the indicators are there.

    Parent
    One (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by tek on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:39:04 PM EST
    thing I would like to know is why does anyone think Hillary should have to confirm or deny the stories that get circulated about Obama?  (Is he a Muslim?  Did her get this far because he's black?)  All that nonsense.  If I were her, I would just say, No Comment.  I want to talk about my plans for the country.

    While I'm sure the left blogs will be behind (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:43:04 PM EST
    Obama big time (unlike they would be with Clinton), I don't think they understand the media (right wing or otherwise) at all.

    In Full Agreement With You There n/t (none / 0) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:45:09 PM EST


    Parent
    In fact, they often ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:56:45 PM EST
    discount it entirely.

    "Well, 'out voters' don't listen to them anyway."

    Parent

    It Never Fails To Amaze Me How So Many People On (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:04:51 PM EST
    the blogs fail to realize that they are only a very minute fraction of the population and that there are actually people out there that think and react differently then they do. Of course, to be honest, there are times when I error in assuming that other people think the same way I do.  

    Parent
    There's even a name (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    for what you describe: the false consensus effect.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Step Beyond on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:23:45 PM EST
    I did not know that it had a name, but I've seen it a lot lately.

    Parent
    Some Real Truth In That Description (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:22:15 PM EST
    As an extension, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that the others who do not agree with them are defective in some way.


    Parent
    a legend in their own minds! hehe! (none / 0) (#177)
    by hellothere on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 01:51:49 AM EST


    Parent
    the degree of willfull blindness in (none / 0) (#134)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:24:17 PM EST
    this campaign has left me amazed.

    Parent
    Beautiful... (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:45:32 PM EST
    ...and, true to form, not a single fact in the whole piece.  

    He's a uniter but not a compromiser, he's progressive but Republicans still like him.  As I've said all along, he's a blank slate and therefore anything you want him to be.

    Sure you read it all? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:02:30 PM EST
    What facts are you looking for from CS? I think this is called a personal endorsement.  I understand partisans of either candidates will be skeptical of any personal endorsement which does not comport with their own opinions.

    There was a discussion of legal ability- which admittedly you have to take CS's word for- but we are talking about a former Harvard Law Review Editor, after all.

    There was also a brief discussion of policy issues. Maybe you should read it again. I don't think the point was to write a 100 page brief outlining Obama's platform. I kind of doubt that would get published by the Trib.

    Parent

    I did read it all... (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:30:32 PM EST
    ...and it's no more or less compelling than every other emotional appeal for Obama.  There's a formula at work:

    1. Rest assured I've read all of Obama's policy positions and they're sufficiently vague.  He will make healthcare more affordable by cutting costs.  Not sure why nobody thought of that one before.  In short, none of his policy positions are notable or significant so generally the discussion boils down to Iraq since it's the one card he can play against Clinton.

    2. Praising someone for things that are simply expected in a President.  "He did not want to take a public position until he had listened to, and explored, what might be said on the other side."  Is there a politician alive who does not have advisers wargaming every policy proposal?  But somehow this is laudable and noteworthy for Obama.

    3. Ascribing him transformative qualities which have heretofore not been witnessed.  He's been in public office for 11 years now and we're still waiting for change.  Not one endorsement can point out a signature issue of his or a landmark piece of legislation which he engineered.  I tend to judge people on what they've done rather than what they say they'll do.

    Nothing personal, and maybe I'm a bit harsh.  But I just find her rhetoric to be more of the same and wholly unpersuasive.

    Parent
    She is a he (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:35:13 PM EST
    And I do think the same points could be raised about any of the pro Hillary pieces out there. The news media is not exactly known for publishing in depth analysis pieces any more. If they were, George Bush would not have gotten close enough to steal an election in 2000.  

    Parent
    Anytime you hash out (none / 0) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    the difference on the issues between Hillary and Obama, you are left with not much difference.  I think that's part of what fuels the narratives - if you can't argue substance, you end up arguing style instead.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:25:02 PM EST
    Unless you are Paul Krugman. He can make a substantive critique in a few paragraphs. Most can't.

    Parent
    Perhaps I'm more wonkish than most... (5.00 / 3) (#82)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:30:05 PM EST
    ...but I can point out a half dozen substantive differences in their health care plans.  That's the real shame that I see.  And it's not that these issues haven't been fleshed out, it's that there is so much inertia to simply revert back to elements of style over substance.

    It's been this way for at least the last 3 Presidential elections.  Who cares about Gore's policies, he sighs a lot and makes up stories about inventing the internet.

    Parent

    Sure. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    But when you think(I do) the gold standard is Universal Health CARE, then they both fall short although Hillary's plan gets closer.

    Of course, I think they both fall waaaaay short on any number of policies but you win by being careful, cautious and vague and not by taking bold, risky stands.  In the general, the GOP will doing their best to make you look like a total raving nutter.  It's best not to give them any ammunition.

    Parent

    Well the big irony... (none / 0) (#155)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:34:34 PM EST
    ...is that Mr. "Change" has intentionally watered down his health care proposal to be less "changey" and, presumably, more palatable to Republicans.

    To paraphrase, 'yes we can, if Republicans want it too'

    Parent

    I won't (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:57:35 PM EST
    support Obama in the general. I'll advocate for Nader or the Socialist candidates because Obama is a recognition that the system is indeed broken. I read Taylor Marsh's blog last night, and there seems to be hardening of Clintonistas on their view of Obama. He's unacceptable, perhaps they'll come around but more likely they'll go elsewhere or sit it out. Chicagodyke on CorrenteWire seemed to indicate that she will sit this one out. Obama has lost the a large portion of the left. It's not insignificant. Still, I am hopeful that he will not win the nomination.

    I'm second (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:55:35 PM EST
    to no one here in my dislike of what I see as the Obama fraud.  But I would crawl over the bodies of my parents to get to the polls in November to vote for him if he's the nominee.

    A LOT of us out here CANNOT AFFORD, literally, to pout and be purists about this.  Stay home only if you value your personal purity over other peoples' lives.

    Parent

    Obama too far to the right.... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:31:51 PM EST
    Obama has lost the a large portion of the left. It's not insignificant.

    But his faction is gambling on winning enough of the right-wing to balance the losses.

    If you look at your Party voter support base as a normal Bell Curve population distribution, Hillary is closer to the center bulge, with Obama further out to the right. His bipartisanship image and unity schtick is uniting with those even further right still, evidenced by his Friedmann style economic policy advisors.

    His anti-war stance and I feel for the poor and oppressed (along with the speeches, his rip-off of Hollywood versions of Malcolm X etc) is just a rhetorical device of blah, blah lip-service for the Hollywood image, painting him with a cosmetic lefty liberal gloss.

    Laissez-faire capitalism without any controls is never good for people, especially low or middle-class, at home or abroad. The capitalist trickle-down theory doesn't work, has never worked in the past, and will not work in the future. Thats what he stands for, thats what interests he'll promote. I know plenty do argue as 'liberal' free-traders, but I have never agreed with it, and will never support it, because ALL other social policies become victims of it, and are the first to be thrown under the bus. They do not reconcile easily with corporate greed, so must always be compromised and negotiated away.  

    Like you facta non verba I can't support him either, a fake, granted a very good Hollywood fake, and sucked me in for awhile, until he played the race card and my alarm bells went off. He is not a Democrat, and if he leads the Party into that sort of policy framework and mind-set, then I'm no longer a Democrat either.

    Doubled with Dean's games with FL and MI. Those two states were never intended to be in this year's primaries. The nominee was supposed to have been crowned by now, and then Dean could magnanimously and generously, have seated those delegates.

    In that scenario, those delegates would still be officially "invalid" by Party rules, but few would have argued that as a problem, if it had happened the way it was supposed to.

    They are only arguing about their "validity" being a problem, now that it hasn't gone according to plan.

    As my FL family said " Not invited to the prom, but still expected to decorate the hall", which just about covers what Obama faction's attitude is to ALL the centrist and leftish factions of the Party.

    Parent

    Don't forget Roe v. Wade. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST


    Parent
    Well Bush came, he conquered congress, (none / 0) (#44)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:07:23 PM EST
    foreign policy, education, GDP - We still have Roe vs Wade.

    Maybe it's time Representatives did their jobs.

    Parent

    Stevens and Ginsberg (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:15:53 PM EST
    are the next two to retire / die in office.

    Bush placed Alito and Roberts on the court.All it takes now is one justice. Its now 4-4 -1 and the one, is not exactly pro choice.

    If  you could count noses, you might see that your flippant comment is off base. Maybe Roe isn't important to you, but there are plenty of other will be affected by the next justice.  Unless you are a Chicago School economist, you won't like it.

    Parent

    I wouldn't count on Obama to protect Roe (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:24:00 PM EST
    He did, after all, say that if he were president, he wouldn't want his SC nominees rejected on "idealogical grounds."

    He wanted to vote for Roberts because he was impressed by his "intellect." His chief of staff talked him out of it by reminding him that every conservative ruling Roberts handed down would come back to haunt him if he ran for president. So he voted against.

    Not because he was concerned with preserving Roe V Wade. Just to preserve his record in case he ever ran for president.

    So at 44, he had no thought of Roe v Wade when he was ready to vote for a young, anti-choice, anti-women's rights, conservative SC justice. Who, BTW, does not even support equal pay for women. And who was being loudly opposed by feminists at the time. Obama was oblivious.

    Doesn't say much for his judgment OR his awareness of or willingness to work for women's issues.

    The article is still on his campaign website.

    Parent

    This is fear mongering (none / 0) (#114)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:07:10 PM EST
    All of these appointments MUST be voted on . Get a grip, KNOW your own Government. Quit giving reps passes.

    If your Representatives do their jobs, then this country wouldn't be in the mess it is today.

    FIGHT for something.

    How are you all so certain that Obama, Mr UNITE, would submit people who were supportive of Roe vs Wade.

    Still going on FAITH?


    Parent

    after seeing that what tries to (none / 0) (#136)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:29:11 PM EST
    appear to be then what he does, i'd say i have zero trust that he would support democratic goals.

    Parent
    Know your own government yourself (none / 0) (#187)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:11:10 AM EST
    Reps don't vote on SC nominees. Senators do. For the sake of argument, I'll spot you "we don't know for certain" Obama will protect Roe or any other area of constitutional jurisprudence of interest.

    What do we know about McCain?  I, know, I will not like any of his nominees. Trust the Reps (sic)? I would trust a few Senators (e,g, Feingold), but not enough to stop the train wreck. I've seen this movie before.

    Talk about going on faith!

    Parent

    I think this means he is very weak on Roe. (none / 0) (#188)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:18:26 AM EST
    Very weak.

    Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on the 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

    "Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it's never been more important to protect a woman's right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women's health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women's fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

    "Throughout my career, I've been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

    "When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.

    "Moreover, I believe in and have supported common-sense solutions like increasing access to affordable birth control to help prevent unintended pregnancies. In the Illinois state Senate, when Congress failed to require insurance plans to cover FDA-approved contraceptives, I made sure those contraceptives were covered for women in Illinois. In the U.S. Senate, I've worked with Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) on a bill that would make birth control more affordable for low-income and college women, and introduced the Senate version of Representative Hilda Solis' bill to reduce unintended pregnancies in communities of color. As President, I will improve access to affordable health care and work to ensure that our teens are getting the information and services they need to stay safe and healthy.

    "But we also know that Roe v. Wade is about more than a woman's right to choose; it's about equality. It's about whether our daughters are going to have the same opportunities as our sons. And so to truly honor that decision, we need to update the social contract so that women can free themselves, and their children, from violent relationships; so that a mom can stay home with a sick child without getting a pink slip; so that she can go to work knowing that there's affordable, quality childcare for her children; and so that the American dream is within reach for every family in this country. This anniversary reminds us that it's not enough to protect the gains of the past â€" we have to build a future that's filled with hope and possibility for all Americans."



    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#50)
    by RalphB on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:18:09 PM EST


    Parent
    I haven't (none / 0) (#67)
    by facta non verba on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    but the Senate seems to have forgotten its advise and constent mandate in the Consititution. If the Democrats in the Senate can't defend Roe v Wade then they are not worth having. Don't blame me for their lack of a spine. Any McCain nominee is still will have to get past the Senate. I presume that the Democratic nominee will likely lose the race for the Presidency. I don't presume that the Democrats will surrender the Senate. Boxer isn't even up for re-election until 2010. If you want to protect the SCOTUS then vote for Democratic progressives in your Senate races.

    Parent
    Protect SCOTUS? (none / 0) (#107)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:59 PM EST
    why would anyone want to protect SCOTUS? 5 of the justices need to be impeached; particularly 'torture's-just-dandy' Fat Tony and his dummy Clarence the bobblehead.

    Parent
    "Clarence the Bobblehead"! (none / 0) (#132)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:18:16 PM EST
    That probably ranks as ultra-perjorative here, but it really made me laugh.

    Parent
    Coming from Cass Sunstein (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    I am not heartened.

    Sunstein is terrible on privacy issues and the Supreme Court.

    I would rather not hear from Sunstein, make mes nervous.

    Well then its a good thing I brought it to your (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    attention then!

    I didn't post it to persuade. I posted it as adding to the conversation. More information is better. I am not a partisan of either candidate. I have criticized and defended both.

    I've never been completely happy with CS myself. Though I did find his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR'S Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever to be worthwhile.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:00:58 PM EST
    the first part where he talks about what a reasonable guy Obama is sounds pretty nice.

    The second part where he tells us how the Unity Schtick WILL ACTUALLY HAPPEN is a little scary.  Get out of that ivory tower, prof.  The GOP is not going to say "wow, this guy is such a good listener, let's become liberals!"

    Parent

    The Sunstein piece on Obama at Huff Post (none / 0) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:19:32 PM EST
    included info about Obama being against telecomm immunity, Sunstein urging him to talk to specific people about the reasons for it, and Obama, kind of like the Roberts nomination vote, seeing the light.  Scary.

    Parent
    If you could/would post a link (none / 0) (#60)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:36:24 PM EST
    I have to go now, but  I will read it later.

    Thanks.

    Parent

    "The Obama I Know" (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:41:06 PM EST
    SUNSTEIN

    Parent
    Same piece (none / 0) (#81)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:25:48 PM EST
    Well there you go.

    Parent
    Is it plagiarism if he submitted the (none / 0) (#111)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    same piece to Huff Poast and, later, to the Chicago Trib.?

    Parent
    Not but a fraud upon those who paid (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:47:22 PM EST
    twice for the same piece... Oh wait it was for free!

    Parent
    But he was never attacked for his (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:02:27 PM EST
    Opposition to the war.

    He had this wonderful position in history to be able to say he opposed the war without ever taking any flack for it back when people were getting flack for it.  I'll pause to reflect on that for a second.

    This is important and I think speaks to his skill as a politician, that he would know that being attacked as other's were (Dean, Gore, Anti-war activists) back then would have made him a polarizing figure in American politics.

    He has come close at times.  He was attacked for his "wasted lives" comment, and he apologized for that, rather than risk allowing himself to be polarized on the issue.  Even though any anti-iraq war activist worth their salt knows full well that the lives were indeed wasted, and will be quick to blame Clinton for those wasted lives.

    Anyone with a strong position on something on the Iraq war was going to be attacked at some point.  Either at the beginning or at the end.

    So I conclude his position was maleable.

    He triangulated it well.

    I hear descriptions like that and I picture Obama as a jedi knight walking through congress waving his hand in front of republicans saying "You will pass universal healthcare," and then republicans all nodding to themselves, "Yes, we will pass universal healthcare."

    Obviously I don't buy it.  I just don't believe anyone who says a progressive agenda can be implemented in Washington D.C. without compromise.
     

    This is not the 'droid you are looking for (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    Love the Obi-wan metaphor. It would certainly take "Jedi mind tricks" to find bipartisan solutions with most of the Republicans currently in House and Senate.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans elected to Congress in the last 20 years were elected for the express purpose of being rigid and partisan. These people will not be capitulators in the face of a Democratic president and congressional majority, as the Dems still are even though they hold majorities in both houses.  It will take several more elections to get rid of enough of them so that "bipartisan solutions" are really possible.

    Parent

    universal health care? (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:42:14 PM EST
    when did he come out for universal health care?

    oh you mean the plan that allows him to state that he's against mandates except when there's mandates and then still allows people to opt out if they don't have children?

    Parent

    I apolygize to any Obama (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by talkingpoint on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    supporters, but we made the mistake when went for the unknown instead of the sure bet, and now I feel we will pay the price. I truly hope i'm wrong, but this is truly my gut feeling. If anyone is from Iowa i'm sorry to say this, but it all started with you.

    But will the blogosphere matter? (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by Pacific John on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:10:59 PM EST
    At least for now, it looks like the impact of left-blogostan is negligible. This is in large part due to the self-marginalization that came from ejecting representatives of over half of the Democratic party from "99%" of our websites.

    Six months ago, I would have argued that we had the credibility that came from intellectual consistency and reason. At the moment Obama posted his famous dKos lecture on blog civility, our response made it seem like we still had our principles and integrity intact. The left could have kept its core organizational concept of the politics of moral contrast. Oh, well.

    Will the blogosphere and the likes of Josh Marshall recover its reputation as a honest partisan broker? Who knows? I don't.

    the left wing blogs don't matter though (none / 0) (#140)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:35:03 PM EST
    they think they do.

    Parent
    Didn't you read (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:38:26 PM EST
    BTD's piece on Obama and the DLC?

    Obama is the new DLC star.  Hillary is considered too liberal.

    and Obama is more progressive? (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:39:38 PM EST
    Give me a break...there's not a single position that he's taken that gives evidence that he is more progressive than HRC. Certainly not the voting record either.

    The primary pointer he uses is the vote for authorization to use Military Force in Iraq and he wasn't in the US Senate and thus was able to take a free shot at it without consequence.

    That's not to say that HRC's vote was wrong. She did speak out as she was making her vote but in the end, the fact that she voted in the affirmative and he took his non-consequential shot against the AUMF has become the basis of his campaign against HRC. He calls it judgment.

    Why not his judgment to buy a adjoining/common property with Rezko?

    Why not his judgment to put a controversial pastor on his campaign team?

    Why not his judgment in announcing plans to step in and 'fix' Social Security?

    Why not his judgment in announcing a medical plan that arbitrarily allows exclusion of some citizens?

    Progressive? Where?

    Since you made such an effort (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:45:58 PM EST
    I'll leave this comment up.

    I will remind you of a few rules here.

    No insulting other commenters.

    No insulting candidates.

    No falsehoods.

    In the future a comment such as the one you posted will be deleted.

    mine or skex's comment? (none / 0) (#100)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:55:57 PM EST
    I'm confused...I think you're referring to Skex's comment.

    Parent
    Skex's (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:14:02 PM EST


    Parent
    it's a good thing that you are objective (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:27:24 PM EST
    NOT

    Belief in the rule of law and opposition to the ends justify the means thinking of the Republicans---but HRC wants to change the rules to suit herself after the game is in play and her suporters go along with it.

    Did you have some point to make here or is this just outright character assassination without facts?

    Oppositon to the war--but given  choice between HRC who voted for it annd Obama who was against it (both have vote or the funding) the so-called anti-war folks somehow rationalze voting for the candidate who shares responisbility for startin the war.

    Ignoring that Obama didn't have to actually vote on this issue in 2002 and that he muddied the waters in 2004/2005/2006 on his opinion on this, I suppose you would have a vote if his voting wasn't entirely the same SINCE he's been in the Senate.

    Many, many bloggers understood and supported Dean and the fifty state strategy--but yet support HRC who is determined to stick to the strategy employed in 2004 and 2000.

    Ignoring that this has nothing to do with Presidential campaigns which the Democrats have been been myopically focused on but rather to populate the local state/county posts with Democrats to improve their prospects in the House and Senate as well and increase the pool of party candidates, you might have a point...but you don't.

    Many, many bloggers see themselves as progrssive and yet support HRC who is the least progressive of the three we had to choose from this year.

    you are making a perceptual argument but it would be hard to call any of the candidates besides Kucinich progressive with any accuracy.

    Most HRC supporters were offended by and outraged at karl Rove's tactics, until HRC began to use those tactics on her fellow Democrats.

    character assassination...which actually doesn't include any basis in fact and clearly doesn't match my perceptions.

    Most HRC suporters are in favor of building annd expanding the Democrtic party, but it is somehow ok with them when HRC's campaign disparages half the party as "cultists" or "latte drinkin volvo driver" who live in unimportant states.

    more character assassination without a single basis of fact.

    I will pass on the last two but to your conclusion...

    Now there are some contradctions for you!

    Not a single fact at all. Every one about character assassination. You have added absolutely nothing to the fabric here except to raise the argument level.

    PS - forgive me for not correcting your spelling errors in my block quotes...

    Just disagreeing doesn't (none / 0) (#148)
    by charlie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:19:18 PM EST
    constitute a rebuttal.

    To do a rebuttal you would either have to give fct tha show that i characterized the HRC actions improerly or that I characterized the values and positions of her supporters improperly. You did neither.

    I am a lousy typist and i have a vision problem (legally blnd in one eye, can't wear glasses.)  

    Parent

    Firefox (none / 0) (#170)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:34:18 AM EST
    has spell checking and it's free and it's not Microsoft.

    As for rebutting your assertions that had no facts, why on earth would it be incumbent on me to provide facts? I note that now your original post has been deleted anyway.

    It was outright character assassination, which is why I suppose TLD deleted it.

    Parent

    I guess some of us have the patience... (none / 0) (#151)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:26:23 PM EST
    ...to read and rebut something that long... I scanned it, saw the words "Rove" and "anti-war" and "rule of law" and just kept right on going.  Been there, done that.


    Parent
    If Molly were alive today (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:40:06 PM EST
    She'd be writing a column every week about what a fraud Obama is.

    I know she said she wouldn't support Hillary. She didn't know who was going to be running against her.

    Molly would be for Hillary.

    I'll just take a couple (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:43:49 PM EST
    1. The Obama campaign is the one using the Rovian playbooks both in strategy (uniter, no concrete positions) and tactics (mailers with straight republican copy ads, distortions). So that one is pretty much backwards.

    2. There is no changing the rules. The rules allow for CHANGES in the process. See the difference?

    3. Are you saying they can't criticize Sen Obama for anything without disrespecting AA community? Wow.

    4. I got news for you, by the time the Repubs are done almost 1/2 the population will hate the democratic nominee, whoever he or she is. You don't have much experience with previous elections, do you?


    obama is slowly angering many people (none / 0) (#131)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:17:52 PM EST
    in the democratic party. they may be slow to anger but they don't forget. that includes women, the older voters, and those disgusted with playing the different cards and dog whistles used in this campaign.

    the right wing, the independent voter, the religeous voters won't vote for obama in the general election.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#154)
    by charlie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM EST
    The polls show that he has good appeal to independents, mush better than HRC who has very little support outside the Dem base.

    Parent
    charlie, i have a bridge in brooklyn you (none / 0) (#163)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:09:00 PM EST
    might like!

    Parent
    it has been said on here already. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:34:03 PM EST
    the left wing blogs don't have that large of a base. we pay attention but does joe sixpack? no he doesn't. msnbc? take a loot at their dismal numbers. so who is obama's base? those who are turned off by his campaign tactics? no, you can't count on them. joe six pack? the average voter who likes hillary? no! the latino vote? no! the aa vote? yes! so what does he have? a fawning media? not for long.

    You and many others are overlaying... (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by dianem on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:44:28 PM EST
    ...your own hopes and fears on what Ferraro said. If you look at what she actually said, it isn't at all like what you and other have spun it as. She simply said that Obama has benefited in this race from being black. She never said that he was a "quota", a "token", or "not serious". She never said he wasn't intelligent or that he had done nothing to elevate himself. That was overlaid by others who chose to interpret her words for her, adding layers of innuendo to a simple statement.

    This whole election is that way. People are taking simple statements and turning them into racist attacks. I don't know how much of this is coming from the media and how much from Obama's campaign and how much from his supporters, but it started about the time he lost his first primary and has renewed itself every time he dropped back a bit. The right wing is carefully conducting studies about how to attack Obama without crossing the line and being attacked as racists. I'm not sure they can. The specter of racism hangs above the head of any white person who mentions a black person in a negative light. Of course, it won't matter too much, since the right wing is not made up of people who are terribly worried about racial tensions. They don't care much about race wars, as long as they are winning. Meanwhile, progressives tear themselves apart fighting irrelevant battles about things that weren't said.

    Charlie (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:18:47 PM EST
    you are chattering and shilling for Obama. Please limit yourself to four comments a day. It's too repetitive.

    Yes, chattering and shilling for Obama (none / 0) (#186)
    by Deconstructionist on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 09:02:37 AM EST
    must be limited so we have room for all the chattering and shilling for Clinton. That concern aside, can we move to a discussion of electability?

      Essentially, you can take any numbers you want and apply any interpretation you want and the only solid conclusion that can be reached is that late in the game, support among those who have participated in Democratic nominating events  is very closely divided nationally betweeen those who support Clinton and those who support Obama.

      That raises a lot of questions re electability. Neither can win the GE without accomplishing some or all of a few things.

    1. Persuading Democrats who did not support them for the nomination to vote for them in the General.

    2. Persuading some people who did not participate in the democratic nominating process to vote for them in the General.

    3. Not causing people who otherwise might not vote for McCain in the general to go to the polls and cast that vote.

    4. Win majorities in a sufficient combination of the swing states necessary to amass a majority in the electoral college.

      We don't need to chatter or shill for either to offer opinions and the bases for those opinions to those questions.

    Parent
    Sounds like a fine example of an extension (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by tree on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 11:28:16 PM EST
    of false consensus effect.

    "... when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that the others who do not agree with them are defective in some way.

    not in a progressive fight? (1.00 / 2) (#93)
    by charlie on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:45:36 PM EST
    Seems to me that when a liberal Democratic candidate puts together a campaign based entirely on small donors, then the campaign itself could be seen as an example of a progressive fight.

    On the other hand if a candidate resorts to blackmail by having her rich donors demand their money back for the DNC...

    And again (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    we see the narrative of Hillary as puppet master, responsible for all the evil in the world.  It's not even possible that her supporters might have independent volition.

    Parent
    Bwahahaha (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:13:34 PM EST
    Do you folks really believe the nonsense you write?

    For the record, your comment violates the site rules.

    But your cultlike nature gave me a belly laugh so I have to leave it up.

    Parent

    First You Just Might Want To Check Out The Last (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:09:25 PM EST
    debate where Obama strongly denied he was a liberal.

    Second, please do yourself a favor and quit repeating that his campaign is based entirely on small donors. That statement is inaccurate and continuing to repeat it just make you look ill informed.

    OTOH, how about Obama's supporters blackmailing the party by threating to leave the party or lead a march on the DNC?  

    Parent

    And if they threaten (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:31:13 PM EST
    to bolt the party they will end up hurting not only the party, but themselves and the entire  country in the process.

    Selfishness + political immaturity = self-fulfilling prophecy.

    Parent

    If... (4.75 / 4) (#153)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:31:56 PM EST
    ..."small donors" was somehow the litmus test for a great candidate, it would be President Kucinich.

    That said, I always get a good laugh when I hear the 'small donors' argument for Obama... yeah... the guy who has raised more campaign contributions than any candidate in the history of Presidential politics... and it all comes from little old ladies and college kids busting open their piggie banks...

    Parent

    "Based" entirely on small donors (none / 0) (#135)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:26:57 PM EST
    is not the same as comprised entirely of small donors. In any event, neither is true in Obama's case.  Please look again at the link I provided above regarding Obama's top contributors.

    Parent
    Hmm. You left some things out (none / 0) (#34)
    by Manuel on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:53:37 PM EST

    I do not deny that skeptics are raising legitimate questions. After all, Obama has served in the U.S. Senate for a short period (less than four years) and he has little managerial experience. Is he really equipped to lead the most powerful nation in the world?

    Obama speaks of "change," but will he be able to produce large-scale changes in a short time? What if he fails? An independent issue is that all the enthusiasm might serve to insulate him from criticisms and challenges on the part of his advisers -- and, in view of his relative youth, criticisms and challenges are exactly what he requires.

    and


    A new tone

    These are points about policies and substance. As president, Obama would set a new tone in U.S. politics. He refuses to demonize his political opponents; deep in his heart, I believe, he doesn't think of them as opponents. It would not be surprising to find Republicans and independents prominent in his administration.
    please! puff pieces like that leave (none / 0) (#143)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:46:07 PM EST
    where i can go barf!

    Parent
    Is the piece that was on Huff Post? (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 04:58:51 PM EST
    That one included a discussion about telecomm immunity.  

    I think Obama's attack plan versus McCain (none / 0) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:32:48 PM EST
    involves Iraq and McCain's pro Iraq war record. I could be wrong...

    I agree that some of BO supporters have cried racism when none was there. And that could bite them. Ferraro's statement, however, was racially insensitive. Which is a fancy way of saying it was racist. That does not mean Ferraro is a racist. It does mean she made a racist remark. There is a difference.

    However, just listening to the usual GOP water carriers, I think there will be racist attacks on BO. And I don't think it will go down well.  

    The thing is (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:11:11 PM EST
    you can complain about Willie Horton.  You can complain about Ferraro.  You cannot manufacture a controversy every 5 minutes about how bringing up drug use is racist, or how Obama's photo is being subtly darkened.  People will get sick of this stuff.

    Parent
    Who even... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:16:12 PM EST
    ...brought up that skin darkened accusation?

    And what point do Obama supporters wake up and realize that kind of garbage actually benefits their candidate?  You can say a lot of things about Clinton, but she's not so dumb as to think retouching a photo is an effective campaign strategy.

    Parent

    Think Orange n/t (none / 0) (#79)
    by MO Blue on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:24:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Want to make that "racist" charge again? (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 07:03:27 PM EST
    From a Chicago Tribune article on Obama's own Web site:

    "Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.

    "If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?"

    http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/

    Do you even have the faintest clue about who Gerry Ferraro is?

    I didn't think so.

    Parent

    duh (none / 0) (#171)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 12:38:16 AM EST
    this whole false indignation about Geraldine Ferraro's statement is so completely bogus...she merely stated what she believed to be true. That Obama on his own Senate page says...

    The complexity of his biography--a black father from Africa, a white mother from Kansas, adolescence in the white world, adulthood in the black--has added to his allure as a public figure.

    Thanks for that link

    Parent

    I've happened to hear... (none / 0) (#65)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:55:21 PM EST
    ...other people make the same remark as Ferraro but they were not associated with the Clinton campaign.  Matt Dowd on Bill Maher's show, "it's easier for an African-American, than a woman... racism is far less tolerated than misogyny...

    I think you could make that case credibly without it being a racist commentary.  

    Parent

    The exact exchange: (none / 0) (#66)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
    DOWD: It's actually - it's actually easier for an African American to get elected in this country than a woman, president, actually.

    MAHER: [overlapping] Yeah, I think that's probably true.

    DOWD: [overlapping]--there's more sexism in this country than there is racism in this country. [applause]

    Maher Transcript

    Parent

    Simple reply from McCain (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:05:32 PM EST
    "Let's talk about issues that affect all of us.".

    He can pretend to be all about the issues - well, some of the issues anyway - and let the dog whistle attacks via O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.  (Anyone have a link to Beck's classic claim that political correctness will cause bigots of all flavors to explode into violence?)

    Hey, thanks (none / 0) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 06:47:58 PM EST
    for the stenography!

    Take cover, everyone... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Camorrista on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:28:33 PM EST
    I don't get you people

    What the Hilary supporters seem unable to understand...

    Ultimately, of course, it's phrases like this that are more infuriating than the slipperiness with facts about Senator Clinton, or the malevolent distortions of her record, or even the self-righteous attacks on her character by those who (so far as I can tell) don't seem at all eager to to exhibit their own characters for scrutiny.

    Ultimately, it's the endless condescension, the automatic bullying, the portrayal of anyone who doesn't admire (and adore) Obama as either a fool or a knave that frightens us life-long Democrats.  Clinton, they tell us--or to be more precise, hector us--is the enemy, not the Republicans.  And if we demur, if we mention that we don't see her as the enemy, we are dissed, or dismissed.

    Who are these people who believe that it's okay to insult us repeatedly and then expect that when the dust settles, if Obama is nominated, we'll swallow our bile, grin bravely and go out and work for him?

    After all, many of these people announce regularly, and noisily, that they would rather stay home (or vote for McCain or Nader) than vote for Clinton.  

    If this is their position, what is my incentive to work for Obama?  Not to vote for him--voting for him rather than McCain is easy; hell, I'd vote for William Jefferson rather than McCain.  But work for him, defend him, treat him as my champion?

    Not yet.

    Excerpt from an Obama speech (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 08:48:29 PM EST
    Saturday:

    "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again. And I'm not here to cast blame or point fingers because everybody, you know, senses that there's been this shift," Obama said.


    Parent
    Vague... (4.50 / 2) (#157)
    by DudeE on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 10:37:34 PM EST
    The amorphous, unidentifiable 'forces of division' are raising their 'ugly heads'?

    Is this a Harry Potter movie or a campaign?

    Parent

    Plus ca change... (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Camorrista on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:20:07 AM EST
    Whether you trust Obama or not you have to trust the ground level grassroots folks that supported him and put him in this position. If you don't then you really aren't a progressive you're just the liberal elitist that the GOP always accuses us of being

    Thank you for making my point.

    Parent

    Thank you for misunderstanding (none / 0) (#195)
    by Camorrista on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    The expression, a common one, is French....

    "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose"

    And it means....

    "The more things change, the more they stay the same."

    Next time, I'll  remember that serious progressives--especially those whose style of argument is to insult Senator Clinton, to lecture her supporters, and to claim to speak for millions of African-Americans--don't parlez Francais.

    Because as every good, decent populist knows, it's only those "liberal elitists" who speak French.  Progressive populists stick to plain old (American) English. (Just like those Minutemen guarding the Arizona border--they're populists, too.)

    Parent

    Thought That All The Liberal Elitists (none / 0) (#185)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 08:42:05 AM EST
    were in Obama's camp. His supporters are the one's talking about how all the Creative Class and highly educated folks are going for Obama.

     

    Parent

    That Is What Obama's Supporters Are Saying (none / 0) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 10:42:18 AM EST
    That his voters are better and more able to make decisions than the masses.

    Parent
    well the so called lefties backing obama (none / 0) (#144)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 15, 2008 at 09:48:20 PM EST
    because he isn't clinton aren't lefties in my humble opinion. if they were committied and genuine, they ask more questions and wouldn't shallow such much of the gilt edged speeches that really say nothing.

    You (none / 0) (#183)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sun Mar 16, 2008 at 07:51:01 AM EST
    lost me when you said...
    The real progressives are backing Obama at this point because he's not Clinton.

    Because once you say that the rest of us, those that don't agree with you, are not real progressives, then you have nothing more to say worth my time.

    Fighting For Obama? | 162 comments (162 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment