home

Defending The "Left Flank?"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:02:32 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Chris Bowers provides a strange defense to "the Left" against Glenn Greenwald's charge that it allowed itself to be coopted by then-candidate Obama's Presidential campaign:

In this passage, [Greenwald] is explicitly accusing a large number of unnamed progressive organizations of cynically exploiting support for Obama--support which the leaders of these organizations apparently did not share--into increased traffic, membership and revenue. This argument is in unfair. It accuses the leadership of many progressive organizations of actually being on Greenwald's side in desiring more left-wing pressure on Obama, but being trapped because they engaged in bad faith support for Obama during the campaign, thus tricking their gullible new members into believing those organizations were actually cheerleading squads for President Obama.

(Emphasis supplied.) The defense is strange to me for 2 reasons. First, as I recall, Glenn cited to his own experiences regarding his Accountability Now project. Second, because Chris seems to accept that in fact these groups did not "desire[] more left wing pressure" on Obama. Bowers does not explain why these groups "did not desire," much less exert, "left wing pressure" on Obama. I would love to hear his explanation for that phenomenon.

Speaking for me only

< What Happened To The Buy American Provisons Of The Stimulus Bill? | SC Police: Phelps Off The Hook >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Defending The "Left Flank?" | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What Bowers objects so much to (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:10:57 PM EST
    in Greenwald's piece is EXACTLY what happened.

    Good Lord - how many more dimensions (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:28:29 PM EST
    are going to be added to this ridiculous chess game?

    It's starting to sound like, "but they don't know that we know that they don't know that we know what they know."

    Argh.

    Good Question (1.00 / 3) (#5)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:32:38 PM EST
    Considering that you are one of the players adding extra dimensions to a ridiculous game, you may want to ask yourself why.

    Parent
    Totally unfair (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sj on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:16:07 PM EST
    Anne never was one of those who was in the "lovestruck trance" you so accurately describe here.  In fact, she had strong reservations.  Is she now supposed to muzzle herself?  Is one only permitted to criticize BO if he or she was an active and/or enthusiastic supporter?

    It seems to me that she is among those who are well positioned to apply some left-wing pressure.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:22:23 PM EST
    From everything I have read, and no doubt Ann writes very well, there is nothing to indicate that if Hillary had prevailed and become POTUS, she would be one of the people who Greenwald is describing.

    I see no difference between her and a obot, save that her writing is a cut above the rabble. The other side of the coin.

    Parent

    And what on earth ... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sj on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:32:38 PM EST
    ...does Hillary have to do with what she said?  HRC is not the President any more than McCain is.  Because the election is over and BO won.

    Parent
    Clearly (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:51:20 PM EST
    The subject of Greenwald's post and the implicit question about Bowers missing the point is all about cultism.

    Or even broader, what causes people to behave in ways that counter their beliefs. The obama cult phenomenon is no different that what we saw with Hillary or the conservatives that stuck with Bush, despite the fact that he was not representing their core beliefs.

    Parent

    Um, I disagree with this. (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by dk on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:00:22 PM EST
    I would argue that Glenn is less worried about a philosophical discussion of cultism than he is about how to address actual issues in the current, real world where Barack Obama (not Hillary, not McCain) is president.  And in that world, the problem to be addressed is Obama cultism.  Of course, I could be wrong, but Glenn seems like an issue-based blogger, and prefers to look at the real world, not any hypothetical ones.

    This isn't to say that Hillary cultism wouldn't have had to be addressed were Hillary president, but the reality is that she isn't.  

    Parent

    I have this mental picture (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:51:05 PM EST
    of a chart consisting of the user id of each commenter on TL and two classifications:  (1)Obama supporter or (2) unreasonably tenacious Clinton supporter.

    Parent
    Huh? How am I "one of the players?" (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:59:52 PM EST
    I don't even know what that means, but I see from comments below that you think this has something to do with Hillary.  That I am somehow the equivalent of an obot.  

    Well, squeaky, wishing doesn't make it so.

    Yes, I supported and voted for Hillary in my state's primary - so what?  What does that even have to do with the subject of pushing Obama to the left?  It might shock you, but I don't measure Obama against what I believe Hillary would have done; he's on his own now, and I measure him by what he says and what he does because he's the one sitting in the WH.

    The Bowers passage quoted in BTD's post seemed like one more example of contortionist logic - and that's what I was responding to.  I'm tired of reading posts that say the equivalent of, "well, of course I would like Obama to move more to the left, but clearly he doesn't need to because his disapproval ratings are in the single digits - everyone else thinks he's juuuuust right, so he must be!"

    The answer to everything is not, as you seem to believe, "uh, uh, HILLARY!!!"  All it does is distract you from reality; reality kind of sucks right now, so I guess you have to do what you have to do.


    Parent

    I think there is another piece of the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:29:46 PM EST
    puzzle not discussed here.  When it came down to Clinton vs Obama, many allowed their CDS to completely overwhelm their progressive journalistic integrity, or whatever was masquerading as progressive journalistic integrity.  Once that supposed integrity, and the standards that go with it, was tossed out the window, there were no standards to use as a basis for a challenge to candidate or President Obama.

    Ah well (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:33:35 PM EST
    The Hate That Dare Speak Its Name is of course, at the bottom of it all.

    I am curious if Bowers will acknowledge that.

    I seriously doubt it.

    Consider my friend Sirota's own contortions.

    Parent

    Contortions (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by daria g on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 01:26:05 AM EST
    I've been noticing a tendency among certain 'progressive' bloggers to blame the changes in the stimulus bill that they don't like.. on interference by Rahm Emanuel.  Rahm is just screwing everything up and undermining Pelosi, clearly. And no one mentions who Rahm works for!!!  Like he's operating as a completely independent agent. It's bonkers.

    Parent
    I'm not holding (none / 0) (#9)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:39:31 PM EST
    by breath waiting for that acknowledgement.  I'm guessing that an allegedly extremely hot place for non-contrite dead sinners will freeze over like the polar ice cap used to do before certain "left-wing" bloggers acknowledge that CDS is a root cause of the phenomena identified by Greenwald.

    Parent
    BTD...... (none / 0) (#79)
    by NYShooter on Tue Feb 17, 2009 at 03:20:29 AM EST
    Please tell me to mind my own business, but.......

    I have friends who, in mixed company, I would be ashamed of, but, well, they're just friends and I can't really explain it. In my opinion the eleventh commandment should be, "Thou shall not be judgmental vis-à-vis others, lest ye be perfect yourself."   

    I guess my question is, why do you always refer to Sirota as your "friend?" It's like you now he's a jerk, but even so, he's a friend. We all got'm.

    I dunno, to me, he's the epitome of a sexist, cognitively challenged, hysterical, mediocrity, absolutely perfect for the brain dead moonbeams he whips up on HuffPo.

    I question myself about some of the people I've hung out with too, so I was just wondering.  


    Parent

    About the CDS, You're Right But... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    I think that the so-called progressives decided that support of Obama was the same thing as support of progressive issues.  So once they made that leap of faith, there was no room for further argument.  When Obama said or wrote things that weren't terribly progressive, these supporters believed (or said they believed) that he was just saying or doing things to get elected.  Once elected he'd be the progressive that everyone hoped.  They didn't abandon progressive journalistic integrity.  They suspended the part of the brain responsible for critical thinking.

    Parent
    Sure, CDS is terrible... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:48:40 PM EST
    .... but what are you going to replace it with?

    [rimshot, laughter]

    Meaning, hell will freeze over before the role of CDS is addressed, so there's no point expecting it, eh? File it away for future use.

    But if the lesson learned here is that hate fuels tribalism, and tribalism wins votes -- just a theory -- what's the next object of hate, now that the Clintons aren't useful for that purpose anymore?

    One thing CDS had going for it was that it had been highly evolved over at least a decade by the Conservatives; the hate was so pervasive it seems like conventional wisdom, or even humor.

    What's likely to replace it?

    One reason the left should focus on, and start delivering on, bread and butter issues, so resentment doesn't start breeding hate...

    It was there for the exploiting (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:49:26 PM EST
    One thing CDS had going for it was that it had been highly evolved over at least a decade by the Conservatives; the hate was so pervasive it seems like conventional wisdom, or even humor.

    I do not doubt for a moment that it was something Obama was counting on when he got into the race.

    So, what will take its place? I'm afraid it will be Social Security - at this point it is the only thing the right wing has been hating on longer than the Clintons.  As with Clinton, we will see how strongly does the Left really supports it when Obama starts taking it apart.

    Parent

    Yeah, I saw a good deal of ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:46:48 PM EST
    ... hate for the old in the picador work done on McCain. Some of it was pretty frightening.

    Parent
    Reading an earlier thread I was (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:27:48 PM EST
    reminded of another option: unions.

    Parent
    Well in your case (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:46:03 PM EST
    ODS seems to have filled the void quite well.

    Parent
    One theory :) (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    You called so many of the bloggers out during the worst of their CDS fertilized Obama orgies.  These are leftwing bloggers with giant ivy league living in self induced poverty egos, and now they have to figure out how to get sober under your gaze :)  Cuz it is so easy to be wrong around you, and after all this sacrifice and that one college. You know what you are going to do when they have to finally sober up too?  You will write up a nice piece about how they are finally sober and you welcome them into the reality fold :)

    There was never any ... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    pressure to push Obama to the Left from his supporters.

    Why does anyone expect it now?

    Fans are fans.  

    Example of Bowers at his worst (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:34:59 PM EST
    It accuses...,but being trapped..., thus tricking....

    I'm sorry, that is as close to an incomprehensible sentence as anything I have ever read, apart from being factually questionable. I have a feeling I would really like Bowers if I met him - seems like a smart, well meaning guy, although I don't always agree with him even when I understand him. But I just cannot digest his writing to save my soul.

    Gradstudentitis (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:41:53 PM EST


    Parent
    I know I say the same thing (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:51:52 PM EST
    every time BTD quotes him. I feel bad for not being more substantive. But I think his writing style may be an indication of his muddled thinking, so maybe it is on topic to point it out.

    Parent
    In this case, if you read closely, (none / 0) (#37)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:54:48 PM EST
    it looks like he's trying to say at least two things at once--and that's just in one sentence!

    But I won't try to parse, because life is too short.

    Parent

    It's a tough and painful issue to grapple with (none / 0) (#51)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:55:17 PM EST
    so it's not surprising the writing is a bit labored.

    I want to find that upthread commenter on college boys and smack them. I've chewed Bowers ankles plenty of times (on policy) and he'd always come back with a response to the analysis. He worked the issue, not the person.* That's a characteristic that's a little more rare in the left blogosphere than some might think. I wish I could emulate it more often.

    Parent

    Bowers writes (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:00:55 PM EST
    We didn't get a large enough stimulus, but that wasn't because of a total lack of left-wing pressure of the sort that we supposedly had back in the old days. There was left-wing pressure and, rather than generalized problems with Obama cheerleading squads and the bad faith leaders of these squads, there were specific reasons why we didn't get a larger stimulus: ongoing Republicans media dominance, bad Democratic negotiating tactics, center-right Obama administration appointees drafting the stimulus, and the timing of this fight so recently after the election.

    So he thinks that these two factors contributed ...yet are unrelated to the issue of a left-wing that pretty much ate up every word Obama spoke?  

    Obama's selection of center-right appointees VERY much has to do with a weak left.  And the left should've been ready to fight right after the election - with Obama at his most powerful, with Bush still looming in the background.

    Edger and others have been working to rally support for Obama appointing a Special Prosecutor for Bushco.  But around the left, there's a sort of fatalistic, "well Obama probably won't do this" reaction to the effort.  Obama sets the tone.  We react.  He determines what's "realistic."  We do not.  I think liberal Democrats should apply the same energy to Obama's presidency that they did to President Clinton - IIRC, there were protests and organizing by the left when BC was in office.

    Long time lurker... (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by atdleft on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    First time commenter. Anyway, here's what I think about this whole situation...

    http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=151012

    http://www.openleft.com/showComment.do?commentId=151019

    Greenwald is right. The netroots got pwned. Much of the progressive blogosphere now has to decide how much it wants to be the "Obamasphere" and how much it actually wants progressive change. Get over the persona and determine how much we really want good policy.

    Hi! (none / 0) (#69)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:30:04 PM EST
    Hope you will continue participating. :)

    Parent
    I'm not sure Bowers Understands What... (none / 0) (#2)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    Greeenwald was saying, so how could he pose a good defense?  I believe that Greenwald is arguing that during the primaries the so-called left wing websites attracted a lot of newbies whose support of Obama could brook no criticism.  Now they are in the predicament of having attracted star gazers, that to turn to the issues and become an effective prod to the left for Obama, might risk losing the newbies.  Bowers just makes a mess of this by suggesting that Greenwaald thought the blog owners were not acting in good faith and that they are trying to trick the newbies into thinking that their sites are cheerleaders for President Obama.  

    Liberal blogs trying to find identity (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by magster on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:19:43 PM EST
    since the election now that the commonality of fighting Bush is gone.  I do not see Obama getting a free pass all the time in the blogs (excepting Booman, who loves Obama).  I've seen plenty of Obama criticism since he was elected, especially since Rick Warren.  

    But, I do think some of the pressure from the left is missing, especially on Geithner and Summers, because it's so weird having a Democratic president whose fault lies in not being good enough rather than the embodiement of evil (Bush-Cheney).  

    Parent

    there was a lot (none / 0) (#47)
    by lilburro on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:49:18 PM EST
    of hot air in the blogs about opposing Rick Warren esp. IIRC at Open Left - what sort of protest are we going to make when he speaks, etc.  AFAIK there was no protest at all - and if there was one, it sucked so bad that nobody noticed and it went unrreported.

    Parent
    Which reminds me. Was there (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:18:41 PM EST
    any discussion here of Warren's tacking The Lord's Prayer onto the end of his invocation?  

    Parent
    Perhaps people... (none / 0) (#58)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:19:45 PM EST
    are not making a deal about Geithner and Summers because they don't know enough to have a dog in the fight.  

    Parent
    I do not know (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    that Bowers does not understand it and I am not at all sure Glenn is right frankly.

    I think Mike Pridmore is closer to the truth on this.

    Parent

    Two things going on (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:36:32 PM EST
    at the same time: Clinton hate and Obama cultism. That was the popular front for Obama.

    Parent
    There definitely was (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    and is a cult of Obama.  No question there.  Greenwald gets that part mostly right I think.  But he misses the CDS part, which I think is a very important piece of the puzzle.

    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:46:36 PM EST


    Parent
    I Agree... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by santarita on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:58:51 PM EST
    at times it was difficult to tell which was stronger, Obama love or CDS.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:07:49 PM EST
    It is no longer relevant, and Greenwald is not just reminiscing  but trying to figure out how wake up current love struck folks on the left to get out of the Obama cult box.

    I would think that there is some overlap of true CDSers with those in the Obama cult, but many who hated Clinton never became Obama cultists even though they supported him in the primaries.

    So I think the bulk of the group Greenwald is talking about were not fueled by CDS.

    Parent

    I think that is largely wrong (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:11:38 PM EST
    You write "many who hated Clinton never became Obama cultists even though they supported him in the primaries."

    I think that even misses Greenwald's point. It is true that Glenn does not ascribe CDS as a motive here, and indeed, I think your real point is it does not matter why it happened - but Obama became the favorite irrespective of issue positions and actions.

    Obama was given a free pass and now, continues to receive a free pass from many quarters who should not be given him a free pass.

    Parent

    Fits me. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:36:04 PM EST


    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:26:46 PM EST
    I do not have statistics, but do believe that the bulk of the love struck are younger people who just did not relate to Clinton. I could be wrong but I always thought most the large majority of CDSers have held the hate since Bill and are at least 40.

    And I do not think it is unimportant to think about how the free pass zone came to be, but that should be in service figure out how to wake those up who,  because of their political beliefs, should be screaming bloody murder.

    Do you think that if Bowers et al, came out of denial about their rabid CDS they would be able to help break the Obama blind love syndrome?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:31:17 PM EST
    But I would like him to deal with the phenomena Glenn describes.

    Parent
    I think that the only time they will (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:34:55 PM EST
    be able to deal with that phenomenon is when Obama isn't so popular anymore. Right now, left wing pressure is meaningless. He doesn't need the left wing. Perhaps when he's got 20 points knocked off his approval numbers, he'll start caring about the base. But I don't think that's a certainty.

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:53:21 PM EST
    The only reason he does not need the left wing is because they are in a lovestruck trance. If Obama believes in anything it is that his constituents have to do the work to get his attention. That is not going to happen, as Greenwald points out, unless the love sickness stops shutting down brain function.

    I was with relatives this weekend who supported Obama big time. One cousin who is an academic, intellectual and left wing activist, told me to basically shut up when I mentioned Mohammed et al v. Jeppesen. She was clearly upset about Obama caving into BushCo state secrets, but could not bring herself to even talk about it.

    I think that is the problem Greenwald is pointing out.

    Parent

    Agree, Bowers is Unreasonably Defensive (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:42:47 PM EST
    Anyway Greenwald's piece is not news to anyone who has been reading TL for the last year, which is a nice hat tip to you.

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#50)
    by dk on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    Do you think that if Bowers et al, came out of denial about their rabid CDS they would be able to help break the Obama blind love syndrome?

    Well, admitting their CDS would at least have the effect of making them more "reality based" bloggers.  That, I would think, would at least lend hope that they would be more reality-based in other areas as well.  As it stands now, IMHO, the CDS robs them of all credibility and makes any actual influence they have based more in demagoguery than truth.

    Parent

    lol (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:26:57 PM EST
    good one.

    Parent
    Thanks :) (none / 0) (#73)
    by dk on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:48:01 PM EST


    Parent
    How very true. (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by atdleft on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    After the primaries ended and I started supporting Obama, I joined a number of "MyBO" (my.barackobama.com) groups. I was shocked by the level of CDS openly displayed in most of those groups! While I do think Greenwald is right in pointing out how some in The Left were drawn into the emotional high of "Obama" the brand, I also think there's still negative motivation by the continued demonization of everything "Clinton".

    Parent
    This is one of the places (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    that I continued to post at all the way through.

    Parent
    Unfortunately for us (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:00:52 PM EST
    So did Talex.

    Parent
    LOL. Not my fault. (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 04:02:42 PM EST


    Parent
    There was no purge here (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:08:45 PM EST
    for crying out loud.

    The only thing that happened was that after Clinton conceded, Jeralyn decided the blog was going to whole-heartedly support Obama over McCain (duh!) and restricted the number of excessively anti-Obama posts.  I wasn't crazy about that, but I understand why she did it.

    It was, however, too much for some folks, who went elsewhere.  A few who persisted in railing against Obama despite Jeralyn's rules may have been cut off.  But they weren't cut off for being Clinton supporters, just for overdoing the anti-Obama stuff.

    Reasonable criticism was always allowed, and even railing was allowed up to, I think, something like five furious posts a day.

    It was certainly an unhappy time for a lot of folks, but there was no purge.

    Kos literally purged Clinton supporters during the primaries.  Josh Marshall and many others allowed their commenters to pile on Clinton supporters during the primaries that they, in effect, let their commenters do the purging for them.

    Nothing like that ever happened here.

    Parent

    Mostly True (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:17:49 PM EST
    Save for this:

    Josh Marshall and many others allowed their commenters to pile on Clinton supporters during the primaries that they, in effect, let their commenters do the purging for them.

    Nothing like that ever happened here.

    For a long time many who came to TL because it was a refuge piled on anyone who said anything even mildly favorable about Obama. No one ever got 1 ratings at TL, or should I say it was a extreme rarity, until the flock of refugees came here.


    Parent

    That's true (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    But we also got tired of all the false anti-Obama stuff after the primaries were over.

    Look, J and I are not promising a complete free speech zone here - there is stuff we will allow and stuff we will not.

    That is especially true in my threads.

    And yeah,the 1s are funny, especially since they have no effect.

    We have a meta autocracy here. We are openly our way or the highway here.

    And what I mean by that is we want discussions to be done in a certain way - not that folks have to agree with us on the issues.

    I do take the view that old timers (you, SUO, JLivingston, jim, etc.) get more leeway. you were here first.

    Parent

    To Be Clear (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:45:18 PM EST
    As much as I got outraged and went over the top in response to certain comments here, I never took the view that Jeralyn, you, or TChris encouraged the pile or supported it as gyrfalcon suggests other sites did.  

    Although I most vocally did not like waldenpond as moderator. From my point of view his or her bias was clear and did not have the neutrality one would hope for in a moderator. But I certainly understood the need to have someone do the job considering the venom and volume of comments at that time.

    Parent

    +1000 (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by lambert on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 05:51:05 PM EST
    We have a meta autocracy here. We are openly our way or the highway here.

    And what I mean by that is we want discussions to be done in a certain way - not that folks have to agree with us on the issues.

    Exactly. I cite this not as advertisement but as an instance of, oh, the parallelism of great minds ;-)

    Funny all this meta stuff is happening now; maybe it's Mercury moving out of retrograde.

    NOTE If it hasn't been said, much praise for TL in the primaries. I disagreed vehemently with some posts -- well, a LOT of posts -- but I never felt that TL was anything other than "a square house."

    Parent

    The opposite was true for many people (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:49:09 PM EST
    Clinton cultism, and ODS became the refuge for a lot of people.

    Parent
    Can someone please tell me (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:55:38 PM EST
    how so many people sensitive to CDS, easily able to see it an point it out, are blind to ODS- they can't see that many in their midst have a similar blind hate for Obama (look at people who belioeved delusional things like "Obama flipped someone off" or "Obama played 99 problems" stuff that was clearly insane but some otherwise politically savvy people ate it up because it tore down Obama).

    Parent
    He played the race (4.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Mike Pridmore on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 10:56:44 PM EST
    card and collaborated with others to create faux rage about the "racist" Clintons.  Why would one need a derangement syndrome to be upset about that?

    Parent
    I dunno (3.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    The Obama "progressive" movement REALLY took off when clinton was the only viable alternative. Before that, there was, at the least, critical non-commitment to Obama.

    After it came down to Obama/Clinton, Obama support was mindless and automatic.

    It was quite ugly I thought.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 03:44:04 PM EST
    Obama was a phenomenon out of nowhere well before it was clear that it was going to be either him or Clinton. I guess you could argue that it was clear in the summer of '07 that Edwards had no chance, but I think the Obama cult started even before that. It was just smaller.

    Parent
    Two sides to the coin (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:04:38 PM EST
    The Hillary supporters and the Obama supporters both acted cultish.  For many on both sides, we lost track of the fact that these two people are both politicians first.  Clinton supporters were no better in their "objectivity" or lack of nastiness then Obama supporters.  Unfortunately what we have now is two progressive blogging groups: 1) defenders of anything Obama, and 2)those that criticize without merit.   There is a middle ground that needs to be captured.  If pushing Obama to the left becomes associated with the second group, we all suffer.  As there will be backlash from his supporters, as they will associae critism as just plain ODS, and we will lose the numbers we need to push for change.

    Parent
    I'm o.k. but not sure about you. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:09:53 PM EST


    Parent
    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#56)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:11:20 PM EST
    That added what to the discussion?  Ignorance.

    Parent
    Attempted humor. You may be (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:28:34 PM EST
    too young to appreciate it though:

    I'm OK, You're OK

    Parent

    I missed that (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 06:52:57 PM EST
    Funny

    Parent
    Work around Obama? (none / 0) (#65)
    by good grief on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    Magster said:

    I've seen plenty of Obama criticism since he was elected, especially since Rick Warren.

    Yeah, Warren was bad -- and so was Obama's FISA cave.

    And Robert Porter said:

    There was never any pressure to push Obama to the Left from his supporters. Why does anyone expect it now? Fans are fans.
     

    IIRC there were several thousand strong, well-argued comments on Obama's own campaign website urging him not to cave on the FISA amendments and teleco immunity. After he had promised to vote no on FISA, it was stunning to watch him after the vote (said to have been influenced by Cass Sunstein) blithely condescend to say words to effect of, "You won't always agree with me." How could we argue with that?

    First-time commenter "atdleft" hits it succinctly: "Get over the persona and determine how much we really want good policy."

    And not just want good policy but argue for it persuasively in the public sphere so that it becomes irresistably attractive and we can work around Obama and go straight to the voters. That's where the pressure needs to be applied: the voters. Obama is too political to be affected by the left whom he will triangulate and toss aside to appeal to moderates and the right. Meanwhile there are reasonable voters out there waiting for leadership from the left if we go around Obama and straight to them. How we accomplish this I dunno but this strikes me as the most fruitful avenue. It might involve formulating and communicating packages of policy options, appealing to key Congressional allies and think tanks.

    It's a tricky problem because we really don't want to denigrate Obama or have his power  diminish but do we want him to use his power to champion more progressive values. We need to turn his head. The Left can't do it alone; he won't pay attention to us, but The People might turn his head. If a swarm of voters can be marshaled, he might respond, being the hyper-political person he has turned out to me. We have a lot of work to do.

    Par above: "do we" should read (none / 0) (#66)
    by good grief on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 08:13:22 PM EST
    we do want him to use his power."

    CDS + the cost of denying the kids, the new $$$... (none / 0) (#71)
    by exlibris on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:46:39 PM EST
    ...was all much more than the cost of giving it to them and dealing with the bad feelings but loyal votes of the rest of the left. The Obama kids/$$$ were not loyal to the party but him - they would have bailed. The rest of us are loyal D voters no where else to go...Plus a little bit of no one strong enough to step up and demand loyalty in return? But, cost benefit - it  was cheaper for the DNC to let the party grow with Obama than to stay on course.

    CDS + the cost of denying the kids, the new $$$... (none / 0) (#72)
    by exlibris on Mon Feb 16, 2009 at 09:47:06 PM EST
    ...was all much more than the cost of giving it to them and dealing with the bad feelings but loyal votes of the rest of the left. The Obama kids/$$$ were not loyal to the party but him - they would have bailed. The rest of us are loyal D voters no where else to go...Plus a little bit of no one strong enough to step up and demand loyalty in return? But, cost benefit - it  was cheaper for the DNC to let the party grow with Obama than to stay on course.

    Defending The "Left Flank?" | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment