home

The New "Progressives"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:22:01 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
A wise president works with what he's got and doesn't add more burden than the beast can bear. That's different from triangulation. Triangulation is passing your opponent's agenda on your terms and then taking credit for it. Obama is passing his agenda on the terms the system will bear. - New Progressives

Meanwhile, back at the White House:

When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas - President Obama on the health bills

The New Progressives, our modern day New Democrats -- incorporating GOP ideas and loving it.

Speaking for me only

< The New Progressivism: What Do Issues Have To Do With It? | Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The New "Progressives" | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Congrats (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:35:21 PM EST
    Your choices are vanilla and french vanilla. It isn't like some of us didn't try to warn you all back before this trajectory came to pass BTD.(and yes I realize that Clinton was far from perfect)

    Frankly, I'm done with a party that thinks passing other people's ideas off as your own and sloughing off what you state are your core principles is what pragmatic means.

    Pragmatism is supposed to mean knowing what and when to compromise while pushing for the optimal. Some things are not meant to be compromised pragmatic or not.

    Pragmatic from a policy standpoint (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:47:55 PM EST
    as opposed to a political standpoint are very different.  The scales are tilted way over to one side favoring political calculations.  To the point where inane policy is acceptable just because some nut from the opposition suggested it.

    Ideally, they would try to achieve some sort of more equitable balance where good policy could at least be discussed even if they would not eventually get exactly what they want in the end.  As it stands now, they tend to eliminate the very best solutions from the start.

    Parent

    Obama's use of a xerox machine (none / 0) (#13)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    comes to mind. . .

    Parent
    I wonder sometimes if the majority (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    of people inside the White House simply have no clue what Democrats used to stand for - like they think that these Republican ideas are Democratic ideas.

    It is possible that conventional wisdom in this country has moved that far right, I guess.

    The Greeks knew that the world was round and then all of a sudden hundreds of years went by during which everyone thought the world was flat.

    No it is fear, they still fear the GOP right more (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:38:47 PM EST
    than those of us on the left.  They beleive they have more to lose by catering to the left than to the right.

    That perception has to change.

    Parent

    I agree with that, but I do think that (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:09:01 PM EST
    there are people in the generations behind mine who just have no concept of the value of liberal government policies.  It is like the spectrum of what it is to be a Democrat in these people's minds has been squeezed to the right leaving those of us who used to be considered fairly mainstream Democrats in some no man's land that they call "the far left".

    I always go back to a conversation that I had with a Clinton op back in 1991 before anyone really knew who Clinton was.  The guy was telling me about Clinton and I asked, "Does he care about poor people?"  Mind you, I was being somewhat sarcastic - trying to provoke a contrast to GHW Bush - and the guy responded, "Oh, no!  That's old Democratic politics.  Clinton is a new Democrat.  Besides, poor people don't vote, anyway."  I was completely stunned.  There was a lot more to the conversations we had over several months.  I was a Harkin girl.  So, the debate was on.

    He and I spent a lot of time bantering back and forth about politics after hours when I was managing a restaurant club.  What I didn't understand then was that he was on the cutting edge of where the party was going and I was soon to be left behind.  I never really believed that any Democrat would seriously touch Welfare...  The rest is history.

    But that was a long, long time ago now.  Ezra Klein was like six at that point.  I just wonder if it has been so long since there was a liberal government that people just don't even have the slightest clue what value it offered.  I don't think Ezra was even born when I worked for the GOP Senator who whole-heartedly supported Welfare, Social Security, Medicare, Choice and the EPA.

    Parent

    Well, I wonder who (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:40:28 PM EST
    such a "Clinton op" could be to say something quite as stupid as that.

    Fact is, for all his centrism, welfare reformism and triangulation, Bill Clinton and his economic policies brought more people out of poverty and on the road towards middle class status than any president had done since the anti-poverty programs began in the 60s.

    If he had been just a little sharper in his political thinking and thought more down the road in chess master terms rather than a good checkers player, he would have handled the HCR situation differently, along with Whitewater and that pseudoscandal nonsense, and he'd have had no Repub congress in 94, etc.  

    Oh well, 20/20 and all that.

    But I object that the guy didn't have the country's -- and poor people's -- interests almost always at heart.

    Parent

    Trends (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    I think the GOP was going to be ascendant in 1994 no matter how Bill played his cards.....The Southern Democrats, the Reagan Democrats, were going to officially become Republicans at some point.

    The idea that the government can help people really became solidified as a result of WWII and the Great Depression.  You had 90% income tax rates, rationing, and wage and price controls--people believing that acting for the common good was paramount.  That tide lasted until the early 1970s.

    Reagan then got the religious conservatives involved in politics--that is why you had Republican domination.  Without the religious conservatives, you have a bunch of Bill Buckley types in tweed jackets and pipes trading Ayn Rand quotes--and losing elections.....

    Now, people have had enough of religious nutballs and that is why the Democrats can do well over the long term....

    Here is the March 21, 2010 article by Robert Reich:

       

    The significance of Obama's health legislation is more political than substantive. For the first time since Ronald Reagan told America government is the problem, Obama's health bill reasserts that government can provide a major solution. In political terms, that's a very big deal.

    Most Americans continue to be suspicious of government. That distrust is deeply etched in our culture and traditions. Our system of government was devised by people who distrusted government and intentionally created checks and balances, three separate branches, and almost insuperable odds against getting big things done. The period extending from 1933 to 1965 -- the New Deal and the Great Society -- was an historical aberration from that long tradition, animated by the unique crises of the Great Depression and World War II, and the social cohesion that flowed from them for another generation. Ronald Reagan merely picked up where Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover left off.



    Parent
    Thanks for the Robert Reich excerpt (none / 0) (#55)
    by christinep on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:53:19 PM EST
    His notation of the long view in American history is worth pondering. Personally, I think his comments above are more accurate than not. (I do believe that the "big deal"--to semiquote VP Biden--is the statement of powerful change in direction that the passage of the health bill represents. I go further than R. Reich, tho, in my belief that the act of passage and the message it sends about movement away from the Reagan conservative era may well be transformative in itself. That is, the strength gained from doing what CW conveyed couldn't be done actually imports a substantive life now and in the months ahead.)

    Parent
    I'm sorry (none / 0) (#58)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:57:57 PM EST
    but Welfare Reform was a bigger sellout to the right than Obama's HCR even comes close to being it was a direct rollback of the Governments role in helping the disadvantaged- this on the other hand is a mitigated expansion of that role- its smaller than we like but a step in the right direction Welfare Reform by contrast was a step back.

    Parent
    You've (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:07:42 PM EST
    got to be kidding. Welfare did little to help the majority of the disadvantaged. The program was hugely flawed and this HCR effects way more people than Welfare reform ever did and is a monstrous "sell out". Obama apologists will never see this though.

    Parent
    Honest Question (none / 0) (#102)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:39:55 PM EST
    Which helps more disadvantaged people- cutting off welfare payments due to "reform" or helping them get healthcare by massive expanding Medicaid?  

    Parent
    The (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:49:32 AM EST
    welfare payments were not "cut off" as you said. People were weaned off of it and helped get jobs. Many were able to keep medicaid benefits.

    So you obvioulsy don't care that this bill hurts the vast middle class? You only care that it helps the "disadvantaged" somewhat?

    Expanding Medicaid is going to help almost no one here in Ga. You are forgetting that Medicaid is managed by the states and varies from state to state.

    Parent

    Speaking of "elitist" (none / 0) (#118)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:53:38 AM EST
    "creative class" bullsh*t..Tell that to the family that had no food and was in danger of being put out on the street and was able to get food stamps and help paying their rent..

    If you're really that ignorant, you should sit this one out.

    Parent

    You (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:52:38 AM EST
    obviously didnt read what I said.

    the "elitist" creative class are the ones that agree with what you are saying. The problem with welfare was that it was rife with abuse. Did everyone abuse it? No, but that didn't keep the majority of Americans from hating it. It's the ultimate wedge issue of politics.

    Parent

    The poor are the easiest (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:58:33 AM EST
    to beat up on, because they're in the least position to defend themselves. They're a convenient, relatively defenseless target for grandstanding pols - most of whom make welfare cheats look like ripe amateurs - that's 90% of the reason the obedience trained citizenry "hates it".

    Why dont they hate the massive fraud at the Pentagon  and the revolving door at least as much? Because they're conditioned for the kick-down-kiss-up response by people out to deflect attention from themselves.

    Parent

    let (none / 0) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:54:54 AM EST
    me tell you about a friend of mine who actually worked with welfare. She said that it was set up so that the people who really needed it never could get help while the cheats who knew how to work the system would get it. That is why it was a hugely flawed system. And frankly, that's what's going to happen with this healthcare bill. The cheats are still going to be able to work it while everyone else gets stuck holding the bag.

    Parent
    Funny, I worked (none / 0) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:14:12 PM EST
    in the system myself, and your Zell Miller level anecdote-soundbite dosnt encompass the entirety of the on-the-ground reality. Believe it or not.

    What you seem to be doing - in a backhanded (or underhanded) fashion - is attempting to perpetuate the Reaganesqe 'thug myth that most people who receive public assistance are 'cheats', ie, criminals. I could do a more thorough analysis of whats REALLY at the bottom of that line of thought..but I'll leave THAT to your loyal (and thunderously silent) teammates at the tepidly liberal, not-in-my-neighborhood society.

     

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#142)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:33:28 PM EST
    you are indulging in fantasy and name calling. I had an ex sister in law that was on Welfare. She used it the right way as a temporary exit but for others they don't use it that way. They abuse it.

    You are implying that you never saw one case of abuse when my friend saw many?

    The NIMBY's are the Obama apologists not me. Quit confusing me with them. Another friend of mine went to get help and she got nothing and it wasn't because of "welfare reform". That system was broken and needed to be overhauled.

    Parent

    The "abuse" is absolutely (none / 0) (#143)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:48:11 PM EST
    miniscule compared to the outrages perpetrated on a daily basis on the national and state level by the Machievellis that so many here spend so much time carrying water for. Next you'll be telling me the "cheats" are putting ALL that welfare money in non-taxable off-shore accounts (like some other people we never hear about)

    "Apologize" for this (this is where you're required to strain your somewhat infertile imagination)

    Parent

    Okay (none / 0) (#144)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:44:00 PM EST
    So you admit there was abuse. You apparently think the system was fine and should have been kept like it was but I didnt. Whatever. Name calling is just so silly but it seems to be your stock in trade.

    Apologia seems to be your stock in trade not mine.

    Parent

    Hypocrisy Much? (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    Name calling is just so silly but it seems to be your stock in trade.
    Apologia seems to be your stock in trade not mine.

    Aren't you engaging in what you claim to abhor?

    lol

    Parent

    Of corse it wasnt "fine" (none / 0) (#146)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    but it was and is still ludicrously better than that K-Street mockery that nobody's in a big hurry to fix..

    Easier to make the (relatively defenseless) low-hanging fruit squirm so the righteous can feel better about themselves.

    Parent

    Bigger sellout to the right? (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:15:38 PM EST
    Strange, since it was actually the fulfillment of a campaign promise Clinton made during the campaign, a promise that Democrats were well aware of when they elected him.  I mean, it's not like he promised Democrats a public HCR option, while simultaneously promising the insurance companies there would be no public option.

    Now that would be a "sellout".

    BTW - Looks like the right didn't agree with your premise that Welfare reform was a "bigger sellout".

    ''We ought to finish welfare reform by passing this law,'' Mr. Gingrich said, ''a welfare reform implementation bill, because the Clinton Administration, working with the unions and the bureaucrats, is trying to undermine and destroy welfare reform.''

    The 1996 welfare law gives the states control of most of the welfare system, requires recipients to go to work within two years and limits payments to families to five years. When he signed the bill last year, Mr. Clinton called it imperfect and vowed to fight for changes, many of which he won in the balanced-budget bill he signed last month, including restoring benefits for some immigrants.



    Parent
    Fair point (none / 0) (#103)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:42:47 PM EST
    of course according to the right this Healthcare Bill is a massive socialist takeover and the largest expansion in Abortion in American History, so I guess we should be happy to have a president so beholden to the radical left. Well, that or using a president's harshest critics to asses a program is a highly flawed metric.   (Seriously, do you really want me to quote Republicans on the "radical" and/or "socialist" nature of this Healthcare Bill? How it "massively expands government coverage" )

    Parent
    All of which ignores the fact that ... (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    ... public support for welfare reform was extremely high, in excess of 90% in a Times/Mirror poll.   There was bipartisan support for welfare reform (half of the Dem Senators and Congressman supported it).  More importantly, Clinton promised to reform welfare when he was campaigning, and people knew this when they elected him.

    Interesting that you think fulfilling a campaign promise that has massive public support among Democrats and Republicans is a bigger sellout to the right than publicly promising HCR with a public option, while making backroom deals with the pharmaceutical and insurance companies promising no public option (among other things).

    Parent

    The politics-of-contrast (none / 0) (#117)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:46:48 AM EST
    troglodyte Gingrich opposed everything Clinton did, from the odor of his flatulence on up. Just as the Gingrichs' of today are screaming about the Marxist-Leninism of the current healthcare bill.

    That's no measure of whether or not Welfare Reform hurt people or not.

    But, at least Clinton promised to kow-tow to the Right right from the begining..that's all that matters. His legacy is intact.  

    Parent

    When over 90% of the public .... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 10:05:04 AM EST
    ... wants welfare reform, it's not "kow-towing to the right" ...

    ... it's being responsive to the desires of the American public.  Of course, that's the real advantage of being a True Prog, ...

    ... you can whine in an ivory tower, instead of dealing with reality.

    Parent

    And I'll have you know (none / 0) (#141)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:20:59 PM EST
    I obtained all that ivory by completely above-board means, Mr Carville.

    I wonder what "the public" would've said if they'd been polled as equally and skillfully about corporate welfare reform; sending jobs to China and Mexico; the revolving door etc?

     

    Parent

    "Brought more people out of poverty.." (none / 0) (#123)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:53:11 AM EST
    That assertion is based on what concrete evidence that you can provide?

    Parent
    Love the rest of the post, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:31:36 PM EST
    the "Clinton operative" was just wrong.  If that's what he believed, he'd fooled himself into working for somebody who wasn't who he thought he was.

    Oddly enough, I happened to have a conversation with the then very enthusiastic Robert Reich around the same time while standing in the buffet line at a fancy Cambridge party, and he said the exact opposite of what your acquaintance said.

    Parent

    Well, as I lived in DC from about the (none / 0) (#70)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:47:07 PM EST
    time Clinton was first elected, I found out that he was by no means a minority in that operation.  Sorry to burst your bubble, but the people my age at the time and those in their 30's were very much like him. I have many more stories along these lines.  These were DLC people and I didn't understand what that meant until they got into business.  The repeal of Glass-Steagall was just the final one of many moves.  These were not people who thought about people first.  They thought about "the economy stupid".  They were people who had a more compassionate vision of how trickle down economics might serve everyone.  It wasn't a successful experiment ultimately.

    Parent
    I have no bubble to burst (none / 0) (#84)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:50:35 PM EST
    so no need to apologize.  Reich's (and my) understanding of Clinton's concern for the poor is based on his actions as gov. of a dirt-poor state, as president, and since then.

    Parent
    I think Bill and Hill had a better sense (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:03:55 PM EST
    of the issue of poverty than their handlers ever did - and better than Obama does.  But they couldn't be everywhere - even if he was running the country.

    Parent
    They couldnt be everywhere (none / 0) (#121)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:17:07 AM EST
    Im going to send that one to Obama's people, for him to use when people aren't giving him enough slack.

    Parent
    Have at it. (none / 0) (#133)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:52:04 AM EST
    He may need it with this off shore drilling plan that he has proposed.

    Parent
    Reagan was poor at one time (none / 0) (#124)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 03:00:42 AM EST
    I'll see your (non-specified) actions, and raise you Welfare Reform, NAFTA, the WTO and wage stagnation.

    Parent
    Reagan was poor? When? (none / 0) (#132)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 08:29:00 AM EST
    I'd like an example and a citation, please.

    Parent
    His father was on New Deal relief (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    for one example I recall from Reagan's boyhood in Illinois in the Depression, so he was raised a Democrat and didn't switch parties until the '60s.

    I'm sure it's not hard to google for a bio of Reagan.

    Parent

    My parents knew him during his Des Moines days (none / 0) (#138)
    by Farmboy on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 11:01:49 AM EST
    and I used to be married to one of his cousin's nieces (making her 3rd cousins?). His family told us lots of stories about his childhood that don't jibe with the "official" stories Dutch told later in life.

    As for hard times during the Depression, Reagan was in college before the crash of '29, went into broadcasting in Iowa after graduation, then on to Hollywood in '37. He was quite the local celebrity in Des Moines, making the speakeasy rounds every weekend with a young lady on each arm (according to local historians).

    Parent

    Correct re dates (none / 0) (#147)
    by Cream City on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:09:12 PM EST
    as I muddled in using the term "boyhood."

    But several good historians have verified that his family did go on "charity" (pre-New Deal welfare) in the '20s, as his father was an alcoholic who often lost jobs, causing the family to move a lot, too.  And they have verified that -- albeit Reagan was in college nearby and then off to his first jobs -- his father did lose his store and then did get New Deal work.  And that the son was appreciative of it, as one can imagine, as he was said to be quite devoted to his mother who would not need his financial support, even from afar, with his father employed in the New Deal.  

    Parent

    Before it became verbotten (none / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:36:33 AM EST
    to discuss in public, the politics and dynamics      of mutual class interest was one model many people used to use to understand why it was that the Repubs micturate down and the Dems cant remember what they're supposed to stand for..

    Parent
    Ah, I just love the smell (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by mentaldebris on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:08:46 PM EST
    of rationalizations in the morning. The tortured spin that is the hallmark of denial.

    DLC conservative strategy is going to be DLC conservative strategy no matter how many different names they want to attach to it, no matter who is heading it, and no matter how desperately they try to spin it.

    Conservatives aren't the only ones attempting to bend reality to fit their world view. What will the "new" progressives really be if they decide to keep justifying the rightward push of the establishment? Moderate Republicans? Z-Reagan Democrats? Progressives have gone from crashing the gates to, "Here, let me patch that gate up for you so we can keep out those gangs of marauding liberals.". Oy.


    Aren't Tester and Webb a couple (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:13:40 PM EST
    of the gate-crashers?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:26:06 PM EST
    And that is why 2006 and 2008 were not the huge progressive mandate that many assumed.  

    Parent
    Living on the Montana Wyoming border (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    for as long as did, I expected nothing less of Tester.  Webb I thought would be something different.  Now I realize I married a weird soldier, not your average jarhead.

    Parent
    At one point, Webb (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:35:18 PM EST
    was talking about income inequality being more pronounced now that at any time since the Robber-Barons.....

    Parent
    As someone (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:01:08 PM EST
    whose pretty familar with Tester I believed then and believe now just the opposite- Tester is a breakthrough- the guys a socially Libertarian congressman who backs some expansion of the governments role- Webb on the other hand was always a bit odd, and was really just an improvement over Allen (good on the War though).

    Parent
    (Good on the War though) :) (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:03:19 PM EST
    What is that among liberals :)?  I thought that was when we stayed home.

    Parent
    No, that's crap (none / 0) (#104)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:44:23 PM EST
    frankly that wing of the party has no more relevance on World Affairs than the Pat Buchannon wing does on the GOP.

    Parent
    Oh btw (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:39:40 PM EST
    I'm sorry but I cannot help but draw attention to Booman's previous predictions.

    The original plan assumed that the Senate would fail to pass any bill, and was based on making sure all the blame for that fell on obstructionist Republicans. Then they would go to the budget reconciliation process. However, with 60 senators it's impossible to put all the blame on Republicans if the bill stalls in the Senate. Now it is worthwhile to cut a deal. But it has to be a deal that gets the president what he said he wanted all along. He never cared about the details so long as he could get what he wants in the Conference Committee. So why do we have to freak out everytime someone leaks something that sounds an off note?

    The call with the President Booman was referring to:

    I am less interested in making sure there's a litmus test of perfection on every committee than I am in going ahead and getting a bill off the floor of the House and off the floor of the Senate. Eighty percent of those two bills will overlap. There's going to be 20 percent that will be different in terms of how it will be funded, its approach to the public plan, its pay-or-play provisions. We shouldn't automatically assume that if any of the bills coming out of the committees don't meet our test, that there is a betrayal or failure. I think it's an honest process of trying to reconcile a lot of different interests in a very big bill.

    Conference is where these differences will get ironed out. [emphasis mine]And that's where my bottom lines will remain: Does this bill cover all Americans? Does it drive down costs both in the public sector and the private sector over the long-term. Does it improve quality? Does it emphasize prevention and wellness? Does it have a serious package of insurance reforms so people aren't losing health care over a preexisting condition? Does it have a serious public option in place? [emphasis Booman]Those are the kind of benchmarks I'll be using. But I'm not assuming either the House and Senate bills will match up perfectly with where I want to end up. But I am going to be insisting we get something done.

    How did that work out exactly again?

    I think that the legislation (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:55:41 PM EST
    got the president exactly what he wanted all along.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:03:15 PM EST
    certainly if he had any dreams of expanding the government run social net he is really good at concealing his disappointment.  I'm sure it hurts to have tried to be FDR and LBJ and only end up Bob Dole <snark>

    Parent
    From his remarks on the video I gathered (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:11:29 PM EST
    he was pleased he accomplished something Bill Clinton was unable to accomplish.

    Parent
    oy (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:17:52 PM EST
    What a benchmark.

    Parent
    well, it is (none / 0) (#45)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:34:28 PM EST
    an accomplishment.  But I'm frustrated as someone who was strung along for a bit that we would get a public option.  I think to get one it would have required a President committed to a certain view of the Democratic Party.  And as Obama says, "let's be clear":  he is not that guy.  Get over it blogs.

    That said what I take out of that video is that Matt Lauer is a f*cking moron.  Is he wearing his Beck glasses?

    Parent

    I thought the interviewer did a good job (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:38:16 PM EST
    considering he is sitting in the President's temporary house interviewing the President.  

    Parent
    I don't think that part should be overlooked (none / 0) (#62)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    though- not just Clinton, but Carter, Kennedy (and Nixon), even LBJ and Truman failed to get universal care- only LBJ came close and that was by getting the insurance industry on his side (they backed Medicare to an extent because past attempts to serve that sector failed to be profitable)-- to view it now that its actually happened as something of a fait accompli is to engage in fantasy.

    Parent
    Stop it please (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:27:43 PM EST
    "failed to get universal care- only LBJ came close and that was by getting the insurance industry on his side (they backed Medicare to an extent because past attempts to serve that sector failed to be profitable)-- to view it now that its actually happened as something of a fait accompli is to engage in fantasy."

    It has not happened and it makes you foolish by acting as if it has.

    Parent

    No, (none / 0) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:47:07 PM EST
    there is some serious academic literature that argues that LBJ was aided by the fact that the Insurance industry tried and failed to develop coverage of the elderly into a profitable sector- See "Golden 60" and other such programs in the late 50s and early 60s.

    Parent
    Please (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:43:39 PM EST
    this legislation does not even provide universal health insurance let alone universal health care.

    Parent
    That whole idea that something new and (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:42:44 PM EST
    wonderful was going to be added in conference was just the silliest thing.

    Parent
    This comment (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    same vein from the Today video you posted:

    "What I've tried to say throughout is, I will continually reach out to Republicans.  I will continue to incorporate their ideas even when they don't vote for the ideas that I've presented.  But what I'm not going to be dissuaded from is us going ahead and taking on these big challenges that are critical in terms of America's long-term economic health.  [emphasis mine]"

    So yeah, is that not triangulation?

    Same idea, different issue, is the (none / 0) (#51)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:39:16 PM EST
    15 interim appointments.  Now maybe they will play nice and confirm the rest.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:44:31 PM EST
    I thought the purpose of triangulation was to acquire some actual Republican votes.

    This is just R ideas incorporated because ... why?  

    Parent

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Emma on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:57:43 PM EST
    Obama's the guy who can see all sides, pick the best ideas, rise above ideology, leave partisanship in the dust of history, and bring everybody to the table, and be the smartest guy in the room all the time because of it.

    Parent
    It just so happens that Obama (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by MO Blue on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:48:03 PM EST
    thinks that the best ideas are Republican ideas.

    Parent
    1/2 the table (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:33:51 PM EST
    settings are unused.

    Parent
    If its framed right (none / 0) (#72)
    by Raskolnikov on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:48:34 PM EST
    I think its a pretty good move by Obama politically.  If they point out that Republicans voted against their own ideas while simultaneously highlighting the liberal part of the legislation (the subsidies), you can paint yourself as the pragmatic party that realizes the value of a multi-faceted approach (through both market and government means) of addressing challenges.  

    I'm a younger guy, and thats at least what I'm getting from the younger crowd I'm around.  I don't think its as simple as people being mere Obamabots, I think it has to do with the fact that growing up in the 80s and 90s we didn't have any "liberal" presidents, just right and centrist, so market based approaches seem like an appropriate mechanism to achieve liberal ends in some circumstances.

    Parent

    I'm not sure that highlighting the (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by Anne on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:08:25 PM EST
    fact that we got Republican ideas paid for with government dollars will be the smartest thing to do.

    That's like your boss announcing that after considering all the excellent ideas that have been submitted for a new management initiative, he or she has decided to go mostly with ideas submitted by people you think just might have the worst ideas ever.

    But, as if that isn't bad enough - thinking about a new regime predicated on ideas you think just basically suck - the boss announces that while the company will be paying for part of the cost of this new thing, the rest of the money to fund it will be coming...out of your paycheck.

    How swell is that?  You get a program you don't like AND you get to help pay for it!

    Perhaps a brilliant move for Obama - he gets all that really matters to him - the big "W" - but after the glow wears off, we're left with a Republican-style bill that we're all going to be paying for.  And very little evidence that access to health care will be improved by the bill.

    Oh, yay.

    Parent

    And those subsidies are (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:35:34 PM EST
    essentially subsidies to the insurance cos. so a larger customer base can afford their private policies.  And this is "liberal" how?

    Parent
    2007 (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:08:36 PM EST
    MADISON, Wis. -- Barack Obama said Monday the nation has had enough of ``triangulation and poll-driven politics,'' a reference to the presidency of Bill Clinton, the husband of his chief Democratic rival.

    Addressing a convention center rally dominated by students, Obama said that he had spoken out against going to war in Iraq in 2002, even as advisers told him it would be a mistake to challenge a popular president, George W. Bush.

    Then an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama said he did so because he did not want to ``enter the United States Senate already having compromised on core principles.''

    ``We've had enough of ... triangulation and poll-driven politics,'' he said. ``That's not what we need right now.''

    Chicago Sun Times

    or

    Obama and the Death of Clintonism - John Dickerson

    Obama:

    Look, I think it's easier to be cynical and just say, "You know what, it can't be done because Washington's designed to resist change." But in fact there have been periods of time in our history where a president inspired the American people to do better, and I think we're in one of those moments right now. I think the American people are hungry for something different and can be mobilized around big changes -- not incremental changes, not small changes.

    I actually give Bill Clinton enormous credit for having balanced those budgets during those years. It did take political courage for him to do that. But we never built the majority and coalesced the American people around being able to get the other stuff done.

    If you read Booman seriously it's just depressing.  Is this Obama's agenda we are seeing?  Is triangulation the highest order of politics?  There are plenty of examples of Obama triangulation by now.

    Channeling Rumseld? (5.00 / 5) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:14:35 PM EST
    This:

    A wise president works with what he's got and doesn't add more burden than the beast can bear.

    Sounds a lot like this famous Rumsfeld quote:

    You go to war with the army you have---not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.

    And must we note (again!) that for more than a decade a majority of the public favored a much more progressive version of HCR than was ever on the table.

    But I guess that the will of the majority is "more burden than the beast can bear."  However, the will of the insurance industry and big pharma was a feather-like load that any and all could bear with ease.

    Whoa! Neoliberals being joined by Neoprogressives? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jawbone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:19:32 PM EST
    The name game is getting pretty difficult to follow.

    New Dems? New Labour (yech)? New Libs? New Progs?

    Gonna be hard to tell the players without a score card.

    Feature...or bug?

    And will continue to do so in (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    the future, whether GOP in Congress vote for it or not.

    Haven't you heard? (5.00 / 10) (#12)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:49:54 PM EST
    The GOP is crazy I tell you---CRAZY. Just their ideas and policies aren't. Bush was bad I tell you! He lead this country into total RUIN! But his policies are now being continued with only slight modification and are now touted as saving us from world economic calamity.
      Just remember, come November, you must vote Democratic, 'cause they're not as bad as the Republicans! Why are they not as bad? Must be 'cause the Dems implement policies that the Repubs had the good sense not to do, and they are the party that will protect women's right to choose, except when they don't, or something. . .

    Parent
    Um they are though (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:05:34 PM EST
    the GOP has shifted dramatically to the right since 1993- there's no real doubt about it.

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by cawaltz on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:44:28 PM EST
    Apparently so have the Democrats. So what was your point again?

    Parent
    Um, (none / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:48:56 PM EST
    The Democratic Party has been shifting to the right since 1972- Seriously, is it even possible to argue that Obama and/or Clinton are to the left of Carter or that Carter is to the left of LBJ?

    Parent
    Unless challenged (none / 0) (#3)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:36:48 PM EST
    we need a credible challenger to announce in December and the progressive net roots need to support that candidate with $$.  Would such a challenger steal the nomination from Obama?  Probably not.  Would Obama steer more leftward for the next two years.  Absolutely.

    Parent
    Probably not steer left (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Emma on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:37:41 PM EST
    Obama would just continue to use "the left" as a foil for his rightward movement.

    Parent
    We on the left know what he is doing, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:40:40 PM EST
    we don't like it.  I for one would be happy to vote for and contribute $ to another more leftist Dem in the primaries.

    I don't like constantly being made the foil as you put it.  Neither, I suspect, do millions of others.

    Parent

    The real problem is (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Emma on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:02:08 PM EST
    IMO, the problem with the left opposing Obama is his ability to make anybody who opposes him from the left look absolutely loony because he's completely unafraid to use "welfare queen" and "dirty hippie" stereotypes and code words against that pressure -- which AFAICT has been vanishingly small anyway.

    Based on that, I see no hope for a challenge from the left peeling off significant support for Obama.  I think there's  no way for the left to hurt Obama in the way you've proposed.

    Parent

    next 16 months anyway (none / 0) (#5)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:37:28 PM EST


    Parent
    How much do you think this has to do (none / 0) (#9)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:41:57 PM EST
    with Obama, and how much with the general political situation and progressives' lack of spine?
     I think it's mostly on Obama, and a testament to his charisma and personal appeal.
    Our last two Presidents  have had just incredible chemistry with their base---a chemistry which is totally detached  from  the issues. It's like watching a force of nature.
    I can't imagine the base would have been this forgiving of Edwards, for example.. or Biden, to make a really obvious case.

    The other question is how much  the bloggers have been literally been bought off.
    I know you don't get into that question, but it begs to be asked---especially if you read Greenwald.

    More a general lack of spine (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by BobTinKY on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:48:17 PM EST
    since the 70s Dems have been put on the defensive by the Atwater Rove dickheads.   Even when the Dems are clearly right that strength is attacked.  They don;t know how to go after the GOP the way Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ went after them.  They have forgotten and been beaten up for so long.

    Pols are like electrons, they take the path of least resistance.  Electrons seek ground, pols seek re-election.  Until the path of upsetting the Left is made more difficult than that of upsetting the Right then we can expect more CLintonian triangulation, DLC, and Obama adopting GOP policies.

    What is particularly upsetting is never since Hoover has the GOP been so discredited yet OBama is not taking advantage.  He still insists the idiots and nutjobs have valuable contributions to make.  He is helping re-establish their credibility, in fact he's likely already succeeded in that.

    Parent

    I'm not thrilled (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    as a lib hearing Obama recite the Repub elements in his HCR bill, yet I see also there's some political advantage, at the moment, in noting this fact.  It establishes the reasonableness and moderation of the bill, while, looking to the midterms, it begins to highlight how the cong'l Repubs have been utterly unreasonable in lining up in lockstep against it.

    Obama the reasonable fair-minded centrist vs the unreasonable Party of No.

    As for your historical look-back, BT, it's always worth noting that two of those presidents you cite had much larger Dem majorities to work with that in the 1933-7 and 1964-6 periods, plus a number of mod-lib Rs to vote Aye.  Also, FDR came to office following 3 solid years of deepening Depression; Obama, one year or so of economic decline.  Roosevelt almost had a blank check from the public, and possibly Congress early on, to go even more leftward than he did in policy making.  Obama had a solid electoral victory behind him, but not nearly the overwhelming public and cong'l backing that FDR enjoyed.

    FDR, Truman, Johnson all had major moments of having to deal with the Repubs and the Right, and the latter two especially caved in major ways at times.  Rbt Parry in fact marks the beginning of modern Dem wimpery to Johnson's failure to expose the Nixon campaign's illegal thwarting of the Paris Peace talks in 1968.  

    It wasn't always so great back in the old days, even for Dems.

    Parent

    No Republicans voted for this bill (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:38:22 PM EST
    The Dem own it.

    Why try and deny that fact? I see no political upside for Dems.

    For Obama in 2012? Yes, I do see it.

    Parent

    Of course Dems own it, (none / 0) (#31)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    but it needs to be established first that this Dem bill has Repub fingerprints all over it.  That begins the Reasonable Dems vs Unreasonable Obstructionist Repubs comparison.

    Then at some point, along with maybe a legislative or administrative tweak on controlling rate increases, and similar improvements, Dems and Obama will need to go out there and sell the heck out of this bill.

    But already we see the public has shifted in fair numbers to favoring the bill.  Dems will need to do more and not let up of course.   Plus do more on jobs.

    But this is hardly looking like the Repub blowout for the midterms that it seemed a month ago.  Maybe a 1982 less dire than expected type of year.

    Parent

    It's a good point (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:35:57 PM EST
    and undoubtedly why he's doing it.  But the long-lasting cost is that the definition of "reasonable" becomes "using Republican ideas."  There are some short-term political tactics that can be come self-fulfilling, and this is one of the biggies.

    Parent
    and is that not (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:38:45 PM EST
    more or less the meaning of triangulation?

    Parent
    I would say no (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:56:57 PM EST
    because at least Clinton-style "triangulation" involved coopting Republican issues, addressing them by more liberal means and taking credit for them without acknowledging that they were GOP inspirations.

    What Obama is doing is sort of the opposite-- taking Dem. issues, addressing them with Republican means, and giving the GOP credit for it.  So if Obama were a Republican, then what he's doing would be classic triangulation.  Since he's ostensibly a Democrat, I don't know what the heck you call it (that wouldn't violate site rules, that is...)

    Parent

    And it must be in part because he (none / 0) (#75)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:05:39 PM EST
    holds these ideas himself.
    It would be quite easy to make minor concessions to Republican ideas, but trumpet them as an important part of the HCR bill.
    This was the Bush style.
    The general public is not going to get past the sound bite that Obama used Republican ideas.
    I think that may help Dems, but he didn't have to pay such a high price, policy-wise.

    Parent
    Wellll (none / 0) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:09:23 PM EST
    The general public is not going to get past the sound bite that Obama used Republican ideas.

    Well, that's only true if the public finds out about it.  I've been waiting for the headline to pop up on my newspaper.  Hasn't yet.  

    Parent

    You're not reading (none / 0) (#97)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:26:39 PM EST
    the same polls I am.  

    Parent
    So republican ideas and policies (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:58:12 PM EST
     are reasonable in Obama's "fair mindedness". And that makes the Democratic party's platform and policies. . .? And why should one not vote for the Republicans "reasonable" ideas and policies and the party that actually came up with the ideas through the Heritage Foundation? The Progressive Democrats apparently have no "reasonable" ideas of their own other than a love tryst with Obama.
       If the "reasonable" republican policies work, it will undercut the credibility of any "progressive" critique of Republican ideas. Obama is enshrining Bushian policies as mainstream and invalidating any major differences between the parties.
       Right now "Progressives" are sounding like crackpots, and shills,imo.

    Parent
    The bill has both (none / 0) (#37)
    by brodie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:11:34 PM EST
    D and R characteristics.

    Second, Obama and the Dems now have the opportunity to show how Repubs aren't really serious about real HCR:  they talked about wanting a bipartisan bill, they had a few ideas they offered, but in the end, after months of Dems trying to work with them by incorporating some ideas, the Rs all voted against their own proposals.  

    Conclusion:  Dems get results for people, while Rs are just playing politics with health care reform.

    Parent

    That's your conclusion? (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    I see.

    Parent
    I assume (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:22:27 PM EST
    you didn't see Obama's video from today.  

    Parent
    This bill (none / 0) (#101)
    by hookfan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:51:17 PM EST
    does not develope a real health CARE change, it's really a health INSURANCE change, and the Dems voted against THEIR proposals (no public option, no single payer). Your points seem merely attempts to deflect accountability from the Dems for what they have actually done.

       

    Parent

    It's so sad, because Obama clearly (none / 0) (#14)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:53:50 PM EST
    has the chops to take on the GOP philosophy.
    He does that, to some extent, but it's too much around the edges for me.

    Parent
    Seriously? You think so? (5.00 / 9) (#15)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 02:56:22 PM EST
    Our last two Presidents  have had just incredible chemistry with their base

    I always thought I was the base:  pro-Union, pro-Labor, pro-Women, pro-Equality of all stripes, pro-corporate regulation, pro-separation of church and state, pro-safety net (which means pro-taxes), pro-investment in infrastructure, pro-environmentalism.  And those are just domestic issues.

    I never, ever thought I was going to get all my stuff from anybody, but I usually got some of my stuff from the Democratic Party.  Now?

    If Obama has chemistry with his base, it's clearly not me.  Which once again leaves me asking the question:  where do I belong, anyway.

    Very unsettling.

    Parent

    Go over to Daily Kos (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:08:39 PM EST
    You'll see what his base looks like.  

    Parent
    just so (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:15:49 PM EST


    Parent
    What would be the reaction (none / 0) (#34)
    by KeysDan on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:59:14 PM EST
    of the "base" if Evan Bayh is nominated for the Supreme Court?   A brilliant political move, the Republicans will love him and he will be easily confirmed?  That's my guess.

    Parent
    Or, if it is someone like Diane Wood (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:46:02 PM EST
    would you applaud that choice?

    The next nominee will come up this Summer by all accounts....

    Parent

    They are not the base. (none / 0) (#73)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:01:06 PM EST
    They may be Obama's base but they are not the base of the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    The question I answered (none / 0) (#74)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:02:35 PM EST
    was, "who is Obama's base?"  

    Parent
    Sure, but don't you think there are a (none / 0) (#16)
    by observed on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:01:26 PM EST
    lot of people with similar political values to you who very much approve of Obama?

    Parent
    Maybe, but I don't know them (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by sj on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:13:50 PM EST
    The people I know who very much approve of Obama aren't really policy driven.  Nor are they the sort to put in the years that I did as a Democratic activist.  

    Some that I know that are supportive of Obama (one step down from "very much approve") are shaking their heads and still saying we need to give him time.  He's a good man and and he wants to do the right thing... it's a start... etc. etc.

    I only know a few flat-out liberals like me and we've stopped talking politics when we get together.  

    Frankly, I find it hard to believe that anyone who shares my values would be in the "very much approve" camp.  Not if they hold those views with any sort of passion, anyway.

    Parent

    Embarrassment ... (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:30:07 PM EST
    is what I see in the faces of my friends who were strong Obama supporters in the primaries.  They were duped and they know it.

    And they should be embarrassed.  They were tricked by some of the oldest marketing gimmicks in the book.

    Parent

    Obama = Worst. iPod app. Ever. (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Ellie on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    Or, the political version of WholeFoods Arugula (apparently developed from two strains of Heritage Arugula that love each other very, very much, and that everyone must have.)

    Here's how I pinpoint the phenomenon. I wasn't a fan, and not because I was such a lover of You Know Who. (I was "Meh" on both until I began to dislike Team O's tactics and slipperiness, and reasonably assured that the other "side" was more qualified, trustworthy, and would fight, rather than suck up to, the wayyyy right.)

    The marketing of Obama to sell sell sell him superceded any content; he was the culmination of the Dem "framing envy" that festered throughout the Smirk/Sneer admins. They hated being punk'd by it. They were too craven to fight it. They stupidly thought that if only they could drive such a machine themselves, all the lil'dogies (sheeple, herd, whatev) would just blindly follow on along.

    Whoever still does has the toy they want. It's like the iPod music ads that drive toy owners towards content, like this tune by Quantic and Nikodemus (Mi Swing es Tropical) that an older nephew totally had to have when he "heard" it on the iPod commercial -- but was nonresponsive when hearing it a brazillion times at Casa d'Ellie.  

    Parent

    Nice analogy ... (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 07:49:26 PM EST
    Steve Jobs worship and Obama worship are quite similar.  And I'm sure there's quite a bit of overlap between these camps.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:28:32 PM EST
    Does that mean that Hillary worship was associated with another device..

    My guess would have been blackberry, but Obama has that covered. I hope that he did not steal that, as well from Hillary, did he?

    Parent

    You're kidding, right? (none / 0) (#95)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:58:28 PM EST
    You're going to have to elaborate on that one. I know there used to be a whole Apple=Catholics, Windows = protestant thing, but I never heard it applied to politicians.

    Parent
    Ruff, you have to have had ... (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:06:21 AM EST
    the misfortune of working in the Tech Sector to really see this.  It's all very swoony and Tiger Beatish.

    I used to work in that area.  Now I work in the movie business where everyone hates each other.  But, somehow, that feels more sane.

    ;)

    Parent

    Not Kidding (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:09:40 PM EST
    My guess is that Robot Porter is a windows guy, and many of them think that those who use apple are essentially cultists.

    So the logic would be Obots=Cultists

    JobBots (apple fans)= Cultists

    therefore

    Obots=JobBots

    Parent

    $100 Winner! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Spamlet on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 08:52:58 PM EST
    Secret word uttered in comment #93!

    (h/t Groucho Marx)

    Parent

    Had a salad tonight: arugala, goat (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:49:33 AM EST
    cheese, and beets.  Mostly arugila.  Too bitter.  We all agreed.

    Parent
    Duped? (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:31:48 PM EST
    And you weren't?

    Parent
    Nope. (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:41:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Robot Porter, you never seemed duped (5.00 / 6) (#83)
    by shoephone on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    by any of it, as I recall. (Some people are simply addicted to starting blog fights.)

    Parent
    No (2.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:51:12 PM EST
    Robot's pretty much been an ODS type since early 2008.

    Parent
    How DO you folks keep track of all this? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:47:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Some make it up as they go along... (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:23:27 AM EST


    Parent
    And some have nothing better to do (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:28:57 AM EST
    with their time than try and stir up fights so that they get at least a little human interaction each day -- even if it's based solely on animosity.

    Thanks God I have a life outside this blog.

    Parent

    Another Dupe Steps In? (1.00 / 2) (#85)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:52:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Now you're sounding pathetic, squeaker (3.00 / 2) (#109)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:27:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Pathetic? (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 12:56:47 AM EST
    What are you kidding me? I was around when you and Robot Porter were as duped as any Obabot. The Kool aid was flowing.

    Hillary was as saintly to you as any of those who worshiped Obama. That is a fact.

    And considering that both candidates were virtually identical in policy (mainstream Democratic Party) anyone who would get duped by either of them, as some kind of progressive or liberal savior, were dupes, imo.

    Parent

    LOL! You've exposed your own b.s. (3.66 / 3) (#113)
    by shoephone on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:21:41 AM EST
    Unlike you, many will remember that I caucused for John Edwards, and then voted (with eyes wide open) for Obama in the general election. I even commented here about how much I liked his acceptance speech at the culmination of the Democratic convention.

    Tough break, squeakers. Guess you weren't paying as close attention as you thought.

    Yup. Pathetic indeed.

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#119)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 02:05:16 AM EST
    The spokesperson for the Obama campaign spent a full minute attacking Clinton (because, ya know, she's evil and all that). By contrast, the Clinton spokesperson spent their minute talking only about Clinton and her health care plan.

    #1

    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.

    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?

    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.

    Hooray for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by shoephone on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST
    She trounced him! Of course, Axelrod, Plouffe and the pundits will be clamoring for her to drop out of the race because she didn't win by an obliterating 50 percentage points, merely a decisive ten.
    Awaiting the onslaught...

    Well you may have once been for Edwards but you were in the tank for Hillary, regularly hooting it up with the cultists, and dissing Obama and his cult every chance you got.

    Parent

    Site Violator (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by observed on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 07:01:00 AM EST
    Sorry, I think this nonsense has to stop.
    Dredging through (and misreading) comments 18 months ago to be able to hurl insults?
    Calling someone a "Hillary cultist" because they rooted for Hillary in a debate?


    Parent
    THAT'S supposed to be some kind ... (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Yman on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 09:29:43 AM EST
    ... of evidence that shoephone was ...

    as duped as any Obabot. The Kool aid was flowing...
    Hillary was as saintly to you as any of those who worshiped Obama    . That is a fact.

    Mild criticism of Obama supporters and discussing his/her experience in his/her precinct, along with a "Hurray" comment because Hillary won a primary?

    Toooooo funny ...

    Parent

    Really? (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:45:53 PM EST
    You seemed pretty sold, to me.

    Parent
    No he's right (none / 0) (#66)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:09:02 PM EST
    Obama has the base strongly now and Clinton did in the 90s despite things that would generally alienate said base (see for example NAFTA- Unions not only hated it, it was the single biggest point of contention for Unions in the last 20 years- did they turn on Clinton in 1996 in response, not a chance).

    Parent
    Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 05:20:59 PM EST
    had something that Obama isn't going to have: a good economy. People are willing to forgive all kinds of sins in a good economy but every one of Obama's flaws are magnified because of the failure of his domestic policy.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 11:53:43 PM EST
    you sure of that- because I'm betting by early 2012 the economy will look much better than it did when Obama took office, frankly I don't have much doubt he's re-elected at this point. You're very quick to write the guy off given the status of Clinton and Reagan at a similar point in their Administrations- maybe your opinion of Obama would be improved if he lost congress for the first time in more than half a century as that seems to signal political success to you.

    Parent
    Most (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:43:30 AM EST
    of the predictions are that it's not going to be significantly better--still hovering about 10% until 2014.

    Obama does not have what Clinton and Reagan had---experience as a Governor and experience crafting legislation. I lived through double digit unemployment in the 80's and the problems back then are very different from now. Reagan was able to jack up defense spending to make up for the problems. That is not going to work for Obama because we already are figthting two wars and it's doing exactly nothing for the economy.

    I don't define losing congress as political success or political failure. Only people like you think that is failure. I've had this discussion with people like you many times and using that standard you would have to say Jimmy Carter was a success because he didnt lose congress. Right? You guys are so silly with the apologia.

    Parent

    Oh yeah? (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    I don't think so.  He's got the self-proclaimed creative class and african americans.  Clinton was never the favorite of the "creative class"(LOL).  

    Parent
    A poll over at (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by BackFromOhio on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 09:31:38 PM EST
    realclearpolitics indicates only 35% of Dems enthusiastic about Nov. elections.  So 1/3 of the base....

    Parent
    Once and for all (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 01:28:38 AM EST
    precisely who the eff is "the creative class"?

    The husbands of the women who were pulling for Hillary?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 05:45:16 AM EST
    the Chris Bowers of the world. The latte sippers who look down on people who use their hands to work for a living. They were Obama supporters from the getgo. They hate Hillary and Bill and like Rush LImbaugh don't see them as good enough for the Presidency because they didn't come form the right place or the right families.

    Parent
    That's just TOOOO funny (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by observed on Wed Mar 31, 2010 at 06:58:18 AM EST
    Whatever the creative class was--I think it was Bowers who came up with the term---they were all in the tank for Obama.  I think the term was yet another way to make Obama appear that he was bringing in new groups of voters.
    This had NOTHING to do with Hillary.

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:25:51 PM EST
    When you actually look at the bill itself, it incorporates all sorts of Republican ideas - President Obama on the health bills

    So I'm wondering what the strategy is here.  Is it to "punk" the Republicans or the Democrats?

    Booman link without warning? Not fair (none / 0) (#25)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:35:33 PM EST
    Now he calls them "self-styled progressives".  At least that is an admission that they are progressives the likes of which we have never seen.

    They didn't like 'liberal' - people made fun of them, and there were ideas they didn't like, eg, higher taxes. Waaaaaa.

    Democrat? Naaaaa...Clenis issues.

    Progressive? they liked that for a while, but it is not a new word, and  even they are having to admit they are signing on to some ideas that do not fit the established progressive paradigm.

    If we are trying to name them, I think 'Obama Democrats' is the most descriptive name.

    oops, hit enter too soon (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ruffian on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 03:40:07 PM EST
    ...because, 'Democrat' is a club affiliation, not an adjective. They will be in the club as long as Obama is the front man, and after that they will drift off to the next charismatic leader with vague beliefs about policy. Could be a Republican.

    So I think Obama Democrats is the right term.

    Parent

    O, like nearly all others, wants to BE, not DO. (none / 0) (#52)
    by Yes2Truth on Tue Mar 30, 2010 at 04:39:36 PM EST

    Leading the country and the Congress to DO what will
    make life more than merely marginally better, is hard work and very serious business.

    Capitalism and democracy are incompatible, and trying to pretend otherwise has led us to where we are today.

    O is someone who wants to BE POTUS.  Nothing unusual about that.  Most people are driven to BE something, not necessarily to DO anything - other than what they believe will help them achieve that goal.

    To BE POTUS in a capitalist society, O is naturally gonna cater to the interests of those
    who can help him BE what he wants to be.

    The needs of democracy will always get short shrift.

    The New "Progressives" | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment