home

Whose Job Is It To Let Voters Know There Is A Clear Choice In This Election?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:31:15 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In a strange article, Robert Borosage and Katrina Vanden Heuvel "advise" progressives not on how to forward progressivism, but on how to forward Obama's victory in November. The whole article is just strange, but this part REALLY is bizarre:

Progressives generally--and independent media and the blogosphere specifically--can contribute by reminding voters there's a clear choice in this election . . .

Ummm, isn't that Obama's job? There is a whole "poor Obama can't stand up to the Beltway Establishment and we need to prop him up" quality to the article that is just surreal. Let me put it this way, I found this article pretty demeaning to Obama as well as progressives.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Are You Coming to Invesco for Obama's Speech? Here's The Rules | Friday Line on the Veepstakes >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Whose Job Is It To Let Voters Know There Is A Clear Choice In This Election? | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    If Obama wants my help (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    He needs to get Clinton on board as VP. I figure if energy companies can use quid pro quo why can't I?

    Country first, ego second. If he can't get the order right he has no right to expect my help.

    Well I don't read (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:42:36 PM EST
    people like VanDenH(sp) anymore, but maybe it's her job to help people see the "clear differences".  Personally, when the candidate is talking about having a faith based cabinet position (something that I abhored in Bush to my very soul), I am having trouble seeing "the clear choice".

    Of course, it doesn't matter, because, as of June, 2008, I don't vote anymore.  As far as I'm concerned, if we're going to have two candidates mirroring each other to win brownie points with the right, I don't see any reason to bother.  They're nearly the same.  It's a wash with either one.

    OMG - Obama said he wants (none / 0) (#15)
    by Xanthe on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:52:58 PM EST
    a faith-based cabinet member?  When?  Should we have 4 or 5 - one for each of the major religions?  Plus shouldn't the atheists have one as well in that case?

    Parent
    I assure you (none / 0) (#19)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
    Only God fearing folk will be allowed as cabinet members and those that marriage be between a man and a woman sa God and the Bible say it should be. Atheists need not apply./snark

    Parent
    some of the commenters at tlc (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Turkana on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:44:45 PM EST
    seem to think that criticizing obama means helping mccain. we all need to just jump on the bandwagon, and offer blind support, because if we'll never get obama's transformational leadership if we keep pointing out that obama doesn't offer transformational leadership. if obama doesn't win, it will be the fault of we progressives who dare criticize him. i'm sure that's what borosage and vanden heuvel mean.

    Arrogance is contagious (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by BrianJ on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:11:55 PM EST
    You see it at the Orange Satan, Digby's commenters (but not Digby herself, mostly), and anywhere else the soi-disant netroots gather.

    Ignore those last six state polls showing McCain's improvement-  they're not a trend.  Forget that McCain looks Presidential when discussing Georgia while Obama's been MIA, because he can do no wrong.  Concentrate on all the money Obama's raising, and ignore that the RNC can match him at least dollar for dollar.

    Whistling past the graveyard, to a tombstone next to Mondale's, Dukakis', Gore's, and Kerry's.

    Parent

    Jesus Christ Turkana (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    I am not looking for transformaional....at this point I'd take "not evil" and competent.

    I disagree that it is all Obama's job. McCain would be a disaster. He is beholden to the oil companies and to the GOP war mongers.

    I have a stake in this, and I think it's my job to point out the differences.

    Once Obama is elected, it's also my job to puch him progressive.

    Parent

    It most certainly IS Obama's job to convince me, (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by allimom99 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:48:20 PM EST
    as a progrssive, that I should vote for him. Whose job do YOU think it is? I've seen precious little of late that would encourage this progressive to vote for him. I;m in CA, so I have the luxury, but as of now I'm voting McKinney. It's up to Obama to change my mind (not holding my breath).

    Parent
    The GOP convinced me already (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:55:55 PM EST
    Global warming convinced me
    The politicization of science convinced me
    The Iraq war convinced me
    Abortion rights convinced me
    Scalia convinced me
    McCain continues to convince me

    I have a horse in this race, this is a participatory democracy. I have an obligation, and so does the rest of America.

    Now I recognize that not everyone takes that seriously and that Obama needs to campaign, but that is different from absolving each and every voter from their duty to find out.

    Every election candidates move to the center to get elected. We are a pretty conservative country. That doesn't mean there isn't a clear difference.

    Parent

    It's neither a liberal (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:05:18 PM EST
    nor conseravtive country.  But there also has been no clear difference in the way the two parties present themselve sin the past eight years or now.

    This was the year that the dems didn't need to move to the center.  We needed a strong candidate.

    We got nuthin'.

    Parent

    You are wrong (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:21:49 PM EST
    You are very very wrong. This is the same argument against Al Gore in 2000.

    He was the same man he is today, but he was on the campaign trail and that means moving right.

    This country is conservative when it comes to electing presidents.

    To show you this, please go to real clear politics and look at the electoral maps of the last 10 elections for president.

    Parent

    Bless you (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by sj on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:16:02 PM EST
    And I really mean that.  You are saying everything I believed with my whole heart until six months ago.

    I'm coming to the conclusion, though, that a participatory democracy doesn't necessarily mean what I thought it meant last year.  I haven't refined my new definition, but I know that it no longer includes just "better than the other guy".  

    I've been a party activist for years so this hurts me to my core.  But I've always said that I'm a Democrat because -- flawed as all human institutions are -- they were the Party of fairness to all.

    I find myself understanding the feelings of all those moderate Republicans as they look upon what the Right Wing has wrought.  Our parties have left us behind.

    But bless you.  Try to keep your Party honest.  It's an awful lot of work

    Parent

    I like Katrina Vanden Heuvel's writing (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Edger on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
    and thinking for the most part, but this is not only over the top, it's very nearly the equal of any right wing pro Bush or pro McCain propaganda we've ever seen.

    Progressive it isn't.

    She also goes on, in the same paragrah as the "clear choice" comment, to say that...

    The antiwar movement should be challenging McCain's saber-rattling on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, helping to strengthen US support for a change in course.

    ...seemingly without any thought that the antiwar movement could very well help Obama more sharply define himself as "progressive" by continually challenging Obama's saber-rattling on Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, and helping to strengthen US support for a change in course, rather than let themselves be co-opted.

    Parent

    Oh, BTD ... Better late than never ... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by JimWash08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:14:28 PM EST
    There is a whole "poor Obama can't stand up to the Beltway Establishment and we need to prop him up" quality to ...

    At the risk of embarrassing you BTD, which I assure is NOT my intention, you have clearly not been reading many of the liberal newspapers (i.e. NYT, WaPo) and watching the liberal news nets (esp. CNN) closely.

    They've had articles and 'news segments' that are clear, blatant advisories for Obama and his handlers on how to win the election.

    What really gets under my skin are those so-called 'Analysis' pieces. There is nothing newsy about them. They are blatant prop-ups of Obama, feeding him and his mindless followers lies and talking points about everyone who isn't Obama or an Obama-sympathizer.

    The New York Times* and Politico love those!

    I've also recently begun reading The Hill and CQ Politics and I see they're latching on to this trend of counseling and advising Obama under the guise of news journalism.

    (*I'm a voracious NYT reader; I'd like to think I know that paper and most of its writers' styles inside-out. Jeff Zeleny, Katherine Seelye and Patrick Healy are examples of what's wrong with journalism today, but I digress)

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:19:37 PM EST
    i have to live with the consequences, I think it is my job to get the word out.

    And I am not looking for a saviour, just some competence. Just, specifically someone who will not mess things up as bad as Mccain will.

    hmmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Jeannie on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:38:04 PM EST
    That does leave you between a rock and a hard place....

    Parent
    I am confident in my position (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:40:55 PM EST
    actually.

    But thanks for your concern.

    Parent

    McCain takes us a smidge to the left (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:29:08 PM EST
    An Obama administration moves the national conversation a mile to the right, immunizes a generation against hope and change, and leaves progressives politically homeless.

    There's consequences for you.

    Parent

    McCain takes us a smidge to the left?! (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:50:24 PM EST
    In baseball, a batter with an average below the Mendoza line is never due a hit.

    In politics, a politician with a lifetime rating of  82.3 from the ACU is never going to move a smidgen to the left.

    Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?

    Parent

    What are you smoking??? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST
    Relative to Bush and his administration, McCain is definitively left. Couple that with substantial Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress (and a chastened Republican Party) and the McCain years would clearly be to the left of the status quo.

    Parent
    are you paying attention to the (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    Georgia Russia conflict? How about the oil drilling argument?

    I used to think as you do, but now it is apparent that McCain has joined the Bush way.

    Parent

    There are enough elements to the character (2.00 / 1) (#37)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 12:00:01 AM EST
    of Obama that I find so troublesome that I don't even care where he stands on half the issues he shows a lack of good judgment on.

    His close and long-standing associations, the route and vehicle he has used to get where he is, the misguided association he has with power are just the beginning of why I can't contribute to putting him in the oval office.

    The DNC cannot be rewarded for forcing this candidate on us. He hasn't won anything.


    Parent

    you are blinded by resentment (none / 0) (#38)
    by coigue on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:17:12 AM EST
    I get that.

    Too bad you can't see through that to the country's welfare.

    Parent

    Relative to Bush and his administration?! (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    That is a standard wide enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.

    Relative to the Bush Administration, Joe McCarthy was to the left. Relative to the Bush Administration, George Corley Wallace was to the left.

    Parent

    you are out of touch with reality (none / 0) (#29)
    by coigue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:23:48 PM EST
    with this comment

    Parent
    It's a brutal reality that most dare not face ... (5.00 / 0) (#32)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:01:30 PM EST
    ... but it's as real as reality gets.

    Parent
    If you name is Alice (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:19:46 PM EST
    and your chasing hookah  smoking caterpillars. Otherwise not much reality there.

    Parent
    This is mere abuse, not argument. (none / 0) (#39)
    by RonK Seattle on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:51:29 PM EST


    Parent
    I gave up on the Nation.... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by rise hillary rise on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:26:33 PM EST
    when they drank the Obama KoolAid. I canceled my subscription after more than 25 years.

    ever since the mighty O juggernaut started losing steam, their editorials and columns have been of the "clap louder" variety-oh, and a mention that O has to remember who helped get him this far.

    for the Nation, and the rest of the "anybody but HRC" crowd, it is starting to sink in that they have backed the wrong horse-esp since the Edwards flame out.

    as my dad used to say, you can't polish a t-rd. no matter how hard you rub.

    Impossible.. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lentinel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:29:54 PM EST
    I think it is impossible to demean people who are currently calling themselves progressives.

    We have Chris Bowers who months ago announced that he would work hard for Obama while "not deluding" himself about the fact that Obama was not about forwarding a progressive agenda. Then he pats himself on the back, a few months later, with a headline on his blog, "We nominated the Black guy".

    Kos's blog was totally slanted when it came to Clinton, and totally starstruck when it came to Obama.

    And let's not forget Huffington who turned her blog into a daily Obama fluff machine, coupled with a daily Hillary is a b-tch column.

    Issues mattered little to these folks. They still matter little, if at all.

    Vanden Heuvel had my respect at one time because she made the rounds of the talk shows talking of the folly of the impending war in Iraq. She was one of the few to do so. But the Nation also went South.

    The only people out there who have the slightest ring of what was once a progressive movement are Nader, Kucinich and Feingold. Nader isn't a democrat - although he sounds the way I wish they would sound. Kucinich and Feingold mean nothing to the democratic party.

    So - yeah. Obama had better start doing some selling.
    He is afraid of the wrong people. He is pandering to the right.
    He wants their votes. He should be pandering to the progressives. He ain't gonna get them. Not being McCain is not going to be enough.

    I reject (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:39:03 PM EST
    The premise that we have a "clear choice".  What the hell does that mean?  We must choose between dumb and dumber, scary and scarier.  No Thanks!  Not this time.  We somehow mangaged to survive 8 long, horrifying years of Bush because American wanted to go to his damn barbeque.  We can survive 4 more horrifying years of McCrazy if we have to.  That doesn't scare me any more than 4 horrifying years of Obama and his kool-aid drinkers.  We just have to make sure we have big majorities of Democrats in Congress and work very hard to shape them up, give them back their spines and make them work for us.  And clean up our Party.

    It *is* a strange article (4.83 / 6) (#17)
    by kempis on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:59:26 PM EST
    It reads like a comic book, with Obama the beleaguered hero who's rescued by the pure vision of a merry band of progressive activists. He's winking at them all the while his hands are being tied by the establishment forces. Once in power, emboldened by the likes of Katrina and other progressive activists, he snaps his bonds and rolls up his sleeves and institutes a new Golden Age of Progressivism in America. Yay, The Nation!

    Sheesh.

    And does this strike anyone else as revoltingly condescending, elitist, and perhaps a prime reason why Democrats have such a friggin' hard time winning elections:

    One central task is winning support among wary white blue-collar workers, the core target of the Rovian poison. This will require persuasion as well as mobilization; the work of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win, Working America, religious groups and others with a base in these communities in swing states will be of critical importance.

    Translation: Those stupid, racist, gullible  working-class voters. Someone who speaks their language, please slap some sense in them. Now. God, why are we progressives cursed with these ignorant, blue-collar types....

    To me, the core of progressivism IS improving the economic and educational opportunities of the working-class and poor. It's ABOUT them. If you have a movement that's ABOUT people you can't relate to, there's a problem, one that seriously impedes the effectiveness of your movement.

    But what do I know. I was born and raised in Alabama in a working-class family.

    Obama doing his job? Now wouldn't (2.00 / 0) (#2)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:39:13 PM EST
    that be something.  I really think Katrina Vandan
    Heuvel's car has gone off the tracks.  

    Isnt The Nation (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    the rag that was just recently plaintively begging Obama to be a progressive?

    Parent
    Abandon all pretense of objectivity and ethics (none / 0) (#5)
    by myiq2xu on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    and be a cheerleader for Obama!

    Well, it's patently obvious that there (none / 0) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:48:46 PM EST
    is a clear choice. But I agree, let Obama sell the case for it. At the very least, he needs to help me help him.

    He's not making it easy.

    Most everything he has done since June (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM EST
    has blurred the differences.  I can't blame Katrina VH for thinking progressives need to step in and help.

    Parent
    "No one has done less for the grassroots (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:17:44 PM EST
    than I have"

    Vanden Heuvel may think it is our responsibility to get the word out, but I'm not sure how she thinks that is going to be done.  For god's sakes, Obama has said no to every PAC effort to support him.  And I can't remember him in recent memory rallying his small donor troops as he has done before (maybe he just hasn't had that post-primary victory opportunity to call for donations).  

    I hope Obama gets a great attack dog for VP.  This Georgia-Russia conflict has led me to the decision to work for Obama, not just vote for him.  But they really need to show people the light on this type of thing, especially when the media is so eager to take the worst perspective.

    Parent

    Whose Job Is It To Let Voters Know There Is A Clear Choice In This Election? | 38 comments (38 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment