Can Progressives Unite, or Will It Be the Same Old Bit-Politics Story?
Michael Kinsley has an incisive opinion piece at TIME/CNN called "Divided They Fall" -- and I urge everyone to read it. Kinsley points out that Republicans are setting aside their gripes about McCain and uniting to do battle, but progressives and Democrats are up to the same old internal sniping: single issue people bashing Obama for moving to the middle or voting a certain way on FISA, when his vote made no difference at all to the outcome; Clintonites using media sexism in the primary as an excuse to threaten to stay home or vote for McCain; fat cats who backed Clinton complaining to the New York Times, along with the blustering egotists like Carville; Jesse Jackson sniping about the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government.
This leaves one very sad. The social and redistributive stakes in this election are enormous. McCain can easily win if this summer is wasted, if Democrats do not unite and go on the offensive, if funders withold their efforts, if gripers undermine. But that seems to be what we are all doing.
I look back over an adult lifetime of this, of identity-oriented and single-issue groups undermining any chance for a convincing message relevant to all working middle class people. This lack of discipline and inability to sort out the fundamental from the partial is what has made it so hard for Democrats to win -- and has cost the country terribly in terms of the undermining of middle class wellbeing. Why are we doing it again? Why are we playing along with all the diversions and distractions the media wants to pursue, rather than speaking loudly with one voice for Obama and in drumbeat criticism of McCain? The summer weeks are precious, as we should have learned in 2004 -- mistakes now cannot be fixed later. At a moment when a core, long-term econmic advisor to McCain, Phil Gramm, has revealed the true heartlessness and stupidity behind conservative economic doctrines, we progressives are still talking about Jackson and FISA and Clinton's debts and overwrought claims of sexism. We are not hitting McCain/Gramm/Bush again and again in ways that would force some of the media, at least, to give the Gramm revelations -- they WERE revelations, not a "gaff" -- half the attention and staying power of the Wright ravings!
About ten days ago, I was finishing breakfast at my favorite diner, when I was joined by a well-known 60s-something feminist friend. I won't name her, but people would recognize and respect her if I did. We got to talking about the election, and she left me utterly depressed some 45 minutes later (during which I kept my patience and my cool while arguing, but felt devastated). She probably won't vote for Obama, she says, because she has to "punish" the Democratic party for its sexist treatment of Clinton. "We cannot wait" any longer for a woman president, she says, and she won't accept an "unqualified" man who "cannot win." She barely listened when I told her I could hardly believe what she was saying, that women above all suffer from the terrible economic policies that have been followed the past two decades. It makes a big difference for most working women, most families, who wins this fall -- because, as the research of Larry Bartels and others shows, Democrats follow very different social and tax policies. This is not just about abortion law. It is about the wellbeing of the middle and working strata in this country, and when they suffer, women and children suffer the most.
My friend was so tied up in her identity-politics bitterness she could not see the larger issues. Generations of women in American public life would be aghast at the navel-gazing nature of this sort of feminism, I realized. The women I wrote about in PROTECTING SOLDIERS AND MOTHERS, who always thought about the more vulnerable and families, would never understand an early-twenty-first-century kind of feminism that privileges bitterness and revenge about Hillary Clinton (who entered public life as a political spouse) over the wellbeing of the working nation's families. Jane Addams would not believe this.
I have been kind of depressed ever since that morning at the diner, especially because the supposedly progressive blogs are full of similar kinds of diversions -- and Obama's campaign is clearly being hurt by the lack of unity and discipline, as well as by its own tentativeness. I am not so sure progressives are going to do what is necessary to win -- even in this year when all the stars should be aligned. Unity and practical realism are the order of the day, and the fire must be directed outward, not inward. Can we do It?
You hold a coalition together by giving the members of the coalition the confidence that you are going to deliver the goods. When Obama gets all mushy on issues that coalition members feel passionate about be it women's rights or FISA or war or whatever he causes you to wonder if any goods are going to be delivered. You talk about larger issues. What larger issues? If you are a woman who has devoted her life to women's issues there are no larger issues. If you are an anti-war Democrat there are no larger issues. If you are passionate about civil liberties there are no larger issues.
Democrats are no longer able to tell large issues from small issues and they have bought into the Republican frame on "identity" politics. It's not about identity, it's about representation. Representation is one of those larger, fundamental issues. If the candidate isn't representing you, what's the point?
July 11, 2008 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point is, the candidate who is supposed to represent you (individually) is your House of Representatives candidate. Your vote for President is not really important, it's your vote for house (and local races) that matters.
July 11, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huh. That must explain why so few Americans vote for president.
July 14, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your representative will be a much more effective representative if there's a Dem President and a working Dem majority in Congress.
Unless of course you're really a Republican. In which case, continue to counsel Dems that it's their local representative that really matters.
July 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if that's the only race that really matters, then we're really screwed, because blatant gerrymandering means that the vast majority of House districts have been drawn so that they are not competitive.
July 14, 2008 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine. Don't vote for him. But don't bore the shit out of everyone with your complaining. Adults make choices and live with those choices. Adults don't piss and moan and say it isn't fair.
July 13, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah like "don't whine will you, step right into the oven". What you call whining is what vigilant citizens do as a duty to their nation. What you do is shamelessly kiss ass. Who needs it!
This is a discussion board for free, critical and sophisticated adults not childish groupies like yourself. You would be better off at Election Central where you belong herbendorf.
July 13, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're not doing anything for your nation, you big, fat baby. You're whining. If you want to do something for your nation, quit working against the Democratic candidate, quit WHINING, and do something productive.
July 14, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, quit whining yourself. "Ooooh, people are boring me with icky talk about the constitution. I just want a Democrat, even if he's a DINO."
If something is important to me, I pay more attention to it. If you disagree with my priorities, say so, but don't whine about the fact that my priorities differ from yours. Some people, like me, think Obama is a sell-out. If you don't like hearing that, go cheer with the hallelujah chorus on the Obama site. You won't be bothered with conflicting thoughts there.
July 14, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amen.
AND, contrary to Theda on FISA, Obama didn't just have "one vote." He's the putative leader of the Democratic Party.
He had a PLATFORM.
And he deliberately chose not to use it in a progressive way.
July 13, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's the party nominee. He's not the Dictator of the Party, or even a congressional leader. He can't force his fellow Senators, or especially the leadership, to do anything.
Those leaders (Pelosi, Reid, Hoyer, Rockefeller et al) were briefed on, and tacitly or explicitly approved, all of Bush's domestic spying. They had and have as much to lose as Bush if that spying is further exposed. The disposition of the FISA bill was largely about covering their asses. Obama was in no position to materially affect that. His choice was noble dissent or calculated acquiescence.
July 14, 2008 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
And so you will vote for McCain because he will further your progressive positions more than Obama? Or not vote at all?
So if you don't get your way you will cut your own nose off - and take everyone in America down with you?
Idiocy. Stupidity. The actions of a fool. Shut up and think.
This election matters, if only to get us out of Iraq and get universal health care. Nothing else matters right now except removing and destroying the Republican Party this Fall. Certainly not your petty little concerns. If sacrificing your "progressive" issues (and mine) this Fall is what it takes, then the cost is pretty hight but it's worth it. The alternative is to continue and deepen the disaster for America that is the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
July 14, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Telling people with whom you disagree to shut up isn't likely to win them to your side, is it?
July 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dave. I'm trying to spread the old Foghorn/Bugs response a little wider - "Shut up shuttin' up." It confuses them. Worth considering.
July 14, 2008 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
on what basis do you imagine obama will be able to get us out of iraq or deliver anything approaching universal health care???
he didn't have the stones to stand up to bush or the blue dogs on FISA's warrantless wiretapping or retroactive immunity for telecom giants. two things that are less popular than the war in iraq. two things that enjoy less support than universal health care.
how is he gonna deliver on iraq?
how is he gonna deliver on health care?
does he even really support either one? if your confidence isn't shaken by his broken promise and lack of commitment to the bill of rights, you are either a party loyalist or a personality cultist.
July 14, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Idiocy. Stupidity. The actions of a fool. Shut up and think.
This election matters, if only to get us out of Iraq and get universal health care. Nothing else matters right now except removing and destroying the Republican Party this Fall."
Okay, lets be just a little more intelligent than that.
1) If the candidate can not be trusted to vote the way he has stated due to a change in political situations (Something he lambasted Hillary for in the primary), how can he be trusted to "get us out of Iraq and get universal health care?" Those are far bigger and tougher issues.
2) There is something worse than a John McCain presidency. A failed Obama presidency. If John McCain comes into office I have no doubt he will fail and it will be bad. If Obama comes into office I trust there is potential for a good outcome. The problem is a bad Obama presidency, i.e. one that shies away from a fight which is what Obama is doing is a possibility. We need someone who will stand up, tax the rich and their capital gains, lower the middle class taxes, get us out of Iraq, lower our spending and provide incentives for more jobs and alternative fuels. Those are FIGHTS. Now today, does he have the stomach for it? I certainly can't say yes. Can you?
But that is only the beginning, if Obama fails we will have 12 years of Republican presidents after it. Just ask Jimmy Carter. If McCain fails we may well have 12 years of Democrat presidents.
I have blind faith in gravity, but having blind faith in a person is stupid--just look at the constitution.
July 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kudos for klarity.
July 14, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Meaning bluebell and the comment about what it means to create and keep a coalition.
July 14, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not everyone gets the Chief Executive that fully supports all of their positions. But for those stupid Nadarites who vote to punish Barack Obama for not agreeing with them, how the Hell many senior political appointees who support their positions do you really think John McCain is going to appoint?
It is simply stupid to make a single personality the key to your Presidential vote. Very few people ever get to have a President who agrees with them. The key is that you put the Party which is most likely to provide more support for your positions into control of the White House.
This single-issue politics at the Presidential level is narcissistic idiocy conducted by self-centered fools.
July 14, 2008 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this says it all. Kudos to Theda as well. Gail Collins also said the same thing last week in the NYT.
Only one guy can be president and he holds a lot of cards. Which one is MOST likely to play those cards to your benefit? You only get to choose one . . . All the rest is whimpering over your own relative lack of importance and influence.
July 14, 2008 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Given the track records of the two parties in the past two years, neither of them seem likely to support the positions I would like. Given this, what do you suggest? I mean this as a serious question.
July 14, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, vote for the one who's closest to your positions and against the one who's most likely to pull the government further from them?
July 14, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Question:
Given the track record of any possible employers I might be able to get a job with, none of them seems likely to give me a job that meets all my needs. Given this, what do you suggest?
Answer:
I suggest selling your home, moving to a wilderness area and abandoning all aspects of your social existence.
WTF do you THINK the answer is?
How is it that people make trade offs in every aspect of their lives, probably including their choice of spouse and job but think it strange that presidential politics doesn't dovetail exactly with their ideals?
July 14, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I.e. those of us engaging in the kind of divisive single-issue behavior she's talking about here are blameless and it is the candidate's fault for failing to cater to each and every one of us, even when our single-issue demands are contradictory or politically suicidal.
We are blameless, free of fault and absolutely entitled, yea, obligated to continue to carp, and cavil, and shriek, and threaten, and backbite. Anyone who so much as suggests that our behavior undermines the candidate is trying to undermine our sacred right of free speech which automatically makes us stronger however and whenever exercised by any of us (except for those with whom we disagree).
Indeed, we take exception to this very notion that any of our ideas are politically suicidal. If only they would nominate candidates who were acceptable to each and every one of of us, and especially to those of us who believe our dogma isn't just for identifying problems, but rather, also provides the one and only acceptable solution for each of those problems, people would respect and love our candidates no matter how much they hated their policy prescriptions.
No, we are absolutely blameless. We reject and denounce this post for the vile attempt to suppress us and our just demands for a perfect candidate that it so clearly is.
July 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think that people expressing ideas you don't like are whining, screaming, back biting, etc.? I haven't heard any of that. We don't all have to line up in lock step agreement, do we? Obama's recent behaviors have been alarmingly appalling. Should we keep quiet and be "good Germans" about this?
July 14, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Godwin's law. You lose.
July 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all lose when people are condescending assholes. Answer the fucking question. When both candidates act the same, how do you differentiate? "Oh, this one is really expecting you to realize he's not like this, notice he's winking his left eye"?
July 14, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is truly worth a laugh.
Can I hear from ReadyToBlow to culminate the irony?
Or are you just trying to pretend your high horse is better than someone else's high horse?
It seems to me that the main complaint was "at least I already know how bad Hillary is" vs Obama is relatively unknown. Sounds like you already know how bad it can get, but you would rather hope that HRC could bring back the dot com boom and suffer through the parts you will rail against, rather than take the future face on.
July 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
BRAVO BRAVO BRAVO
July 15, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point?
The POINT is that the OTHER candidate is going to advocate policies that will grind down your constituency!
Abortion, childcare, health...
WAKE UP!
July 11, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You wake up
There is nothing wrong with giving our opinions about the votes of a senator that wants to be our president.
It isn't as if we are taking out ads against Obama for christsake. You guys are too much.
We all said we will support Obama in November.
You guys want absolute fealty to the guy and that's NOT a Progressive Sentiment, but the seeds of a cult
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. There's nothing wrong with writing Senator Obama a letter to express your concerns, even your outrage. That's productive and possibly helpful. But publicly crabbing about what's wrong with Obama is unproductive.
July 13, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Publicly crabbing" rather than writing a letter, eh? Maybe all further criticism of the Democratic nominee should be sent care of H.R.H Queen Victoria.
The Kinsley article upon which Skocpol's argument depends is nothing more than shallow conjecture masquerading as real news. "If you listen to a lot of talk radio (as I do)," the gritty gumshoe vet avers, "you can hear the troops being rallied."
Without a further shred of evidence beyond his putative AM listening habits, Kinsley's article is irresponsible as journalism and surely nothing that can be marshaled as data to support a serious argument about voter interest.
July 14, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not your call as to what others might think is productive. Why should someone be able to address Obama in a letter but not publicly? Why do you advocate public censorship of opinions different from yours? If someone doesn't like something Obama says and does, they should and must speak up publicly, whether you are pleased or not.
July 14, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, grow up.
July 14, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unbelievable.
July 14, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you mean before or after the candidate is elected?
July 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto Andrew
We presumably live in a representative Democracy. If our only job is to get behind our candidate and quietly show our support, well, that's a pretty pitiful view of the citizen's role.
I, like many, many others, am pretty pissed off about the FISA thing. But Theda is flat out wrong to refer to those of us that are angry about FISA as "single issue voters." It's not as if I am going to vote for McCain - that's not even thinkable. I will keep sending financial help to Obama as well. The sign in the yard will remain. I am still onboard, but don't ever ask me to stop fighting for what is right. And don't accuse me of being a single issue voter just because I happen to be passionate about protecting The Constitution!
Finally, on a more general note, you can almost always say that a single vote didn't matter. Choosing to do the right thing is a question of character - not practicality. Convince me that the FISA vote demonstrated Obama's character and I'll come around - but everyone knows damn well that ain't gonna happen. It ain't gonna happen because it was a vote that was cast out of fear. And until Democrats stop acting like fearful little bed-wetters every time a Republican says "Boo!," we are going to keep losing elections.
July 13, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
[applause]
July 14, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I kind of second the applause for this comment. Good points throughout. Though, I wonder if the author was even referring to you in the 1st place. Clearly, if you're still sending money and supporting Obama, you're not a "single issue voter." Her example was a certain someone who had decided NOT to support our nominee based on a single issue - not simply offer constructive criticism which we should all take part in.
I also think the first few responses here have missed the larger point she was making as well. As said before, it's always a good idea to hold your leaders accountable and offer constructive criticism. But at what point do we redirect at least some of that passion and energy toward defeating the old guy standing opposite our nominee? Have we gotten to the point where we feel so defeated by republicans or the media or uninformed voters or whatever, that the only time we feel heard or that our opinion matters is when we're screaming within our own circles? That is what we have to break free of. We gotta think bigger.
July 14, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, before we do that, why don't you actually read the law and tell me which provisions--aside from the telecom immunity which everyone, including Obama, agreed was bad--are so awful. Don't tell me what someone else told you you should think. Read the bill and either quote the text that you think is the end of liberty as we know it or give me a cite.
I keep asking people to do this, and yet, somehow no one does.
July 14, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Moving post Theda.
There are a bunch of unhappy people on the left. I know there are women who support Hillary that fervently believe she was the target of sexist attacks...and they have a point.
As an Obama supporter I was attracted to his candidacy mainly because of his stances on the Iraq War (immediate withdrawal) and FISA (a vow he would filibuster any bill with telecom immunity). Well to be quite blunt after Senator Obama's vote on FISA I am questioning my judgement about choosing Senator Obama. To say I am VERY unhappy about the FISA developments is the mother of all understatements.
Will we all come together? I hope so. There are many different constituencies with many different 'most important' issues on the left. While Obama has opted to change his position on FISA we will have more of an opportunity to change his mind than we would change the mind of a President McSame. Who will promote the causes important to feminists? A President Obama or a President McSame? There is only one choice for any of us on the left and that is Barack Obama. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail by the time the convention rolls around. That is when I am really hoping to see some 'rallying around our candidate' happen.
July 11, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Convention will be way too late -- especially since the media will play up all Clinton versus Obama tensions during it.
July 11, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think the convention is too late. In fact I think the convention will be too early.
Don't forget that here we are all naval-gazers of the body politic.
Joe and Joann Public are not even paying attention right now... Unless its on Access Hollywood... And what they will pay attention to in August is the Olympics. The D and R conventions will be an after thought that they might pick up on the nightly news or Daily Show.
When we all ramp up in late Sept. and Oct... about the time the four-digit heating bills start to arrive....I think the D's will unite against a common enemy.
July 12, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I dunno. Joe and Joann Public happen to be my parents, and they've been getting e-mail forwards about McCain and Obama for nearly a year now.
July 12, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for buttressing my point, Joe Public Jr.
I bet your folks trash those e-mails without a glance.
July 12, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find the posting condescending and counterproductive. If it "made no difference at all to the outcome", why did Obama vote for FISA and immunity? And why no explanation of the broken promise?
I feel the same way about my Senator, the wonderful Mary Landrieu. After supporting her twice against Gothic nightmare Republicans, the one request I made was for a vote against Alito. She wrote back that she strongly appreciated and agreed with my opinion, and had voted against him. But on the vote that counted, cloture, she voted *for* him. She lied, but more insultingly, assumed I'm too dumb to know she was lying.
If the Democrats can't produce candidates who're up to minimal standards of integrity, why bother?
July 11, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's bizarre. Did you write her back? I might have contacted my regional city newspaper about that freaky turn of events.
July 12, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
@ all
After reading the responses to Theda's article I must say I've misunderestimated you. I couldn't have asked for a better opposition.
July 11, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was Will Rogers I believe who said "I belong to no organized political party, I am a democrat". This was in 1936. Today's problem is nothing new. We just have to work harder to sustain unity -- the republicans attain unity more easily given their authoritarian personalities.
July 11, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post.
Some of the responses illustrate exactly the type of single-issue, identity oriented politics that both this post and Michael Kinsley's article criticize.
At a minimum, electing Barack Obama as President with a working Democratic majority in the U.S. House and Senate will enable, although not guarantee, the country to follow progressive policies on health care, economic security, foreign policy and Supreme Court appointments. That alone is more than enough to justify supporting his candidacy. Many Republicans are less than enthusuastic about John McCain, but they are well aware that a McCain Presidency would look very different from an Obama one in all these areas.
Unfortunately some Democrats seem unable to distinguish the essential from the inessential. Anyone who sits out this election or wastes a vote on a third party - much less supports John McCain - deserves the government they will have.
July 11, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Americans put McCain in the White House, with his increasing mental disconnects, his stable of ignorant and corrupt advisers, his backward looking mental persona of permanent Vietnam POW, his card carrying membership in the millionaire Republican club of 'we don't give a shit about the middle class' and his general ignorance and confusion about almost everything except copying the Rove/Bush campaign plan, then Americans will without a doubt deserve the government they will have.
And Americans can go on blaming the oil speculators, the Congress, the Democratic Party, the media, liberals or people on the other side of the planet, but they themselves will be responsible for accelerating the decline of this nation.
July 11, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thrasymachus is famous for trying to argue (against Socrates) that justice is what is in the best interest of the strong. Needless to say Socrates demolished that view.
July 12, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not that FISA is "inessential" it is that the debate is being framed by the wrong people. That is what those who are so unhappy about FISA don't get -- in order to change the framing you HAVE TO CHANGE the person doing the framing. Right now, with regard to FISA and probably some other issues, Obama and the Democrats are in "reactive" mode. If Obama and Democrats were in "framing" mode FISA wouldn't even be on the table. I am disappointed that FISA passed, and I am eagerly looking to join any "String Hoyer Up" movement that materializes, but the essential problem is who gets to decide which issues matter. And for that, you need a different president.
July 14, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think this is fair. Obama did write a response to people concerned about FISA, explaining his decision on the final bill.
As to a point made earlier, I appreciate that this particular issue is highly important to many, but it seems obvious that Obama as President, working with a Democratic Congress, will be able to make changes in legislation or implementation that speak to the underlying concerns.
I really do have a problem with people who see politics as an expression of any single issue passion. In a democracy, with many points of view, politics cannot be that, especially not in a single-past-the-post-system such as ours. This kind of perspective siphoned votes to Nader in 2000 and brought a nightmare upon us.
Also, I am not being condescending in saying that the losers in single issue left politics are the majority of ordinary people whose concerns are more bread and butter (encompassing a range of rather mundane but crucial social programs and economic and tax outcomes). I never see any passion about those issues on the left blogs, and that leads me to believe that there is something fundamental missing.
July 11, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Brains.
July 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nader annoys me too but don't even pretend that he "brought a nightmare upon us" in 2000. The nightmare was brought upon us by none other than Al Gore who ran a tepid, safe campaign where he tried to capture the center by running away from the record of a popular two term president. Gore tried to court the right and lost some of the left as a result. Blame Gore for that, not Nader.
July 12, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nader is responsible and I know you don't want to hold him accountable but neither he nor you can talk your way through it and if you voted for Bush, then that was a really dumb move, too, as was obvious at the time.
July 14, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course Nader is to blame.
If just one percent of the Nader vote in Florida had gone to Gore, that would have made the difference.
July 14, 2008 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I still support Obama despite the fact that I am furious over the FISA vote. I have made a kind of peace with it because, really, what choice do I have? But this bizarre fantasy that Obama is going to work to fix the bill later on is one of the more annoying memes of the last couple of weeks or so. Obama has stated repeatedly that he essentially approves of the powers granted in this bill. He likes it. If he is President than they are powers he is going to be happy to keep. He has not done or said a single thing to suggest otherwise.
It disturbs me tremendously but that is the reality. Everything else is pretend. The only time my rage on this issue returns is when people try to defend Obama's move here by pretending that he has some super secret plan to walk it all back later. It is either an insult to my intelligence or a deliberate self delusion. Either way it is intensely bothersome.
July 13, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. If there's one thing I know, it's that those in power never want to give it up, no matter how questionably the power was gained. Obama may or may not sincerely believe that he will give back the powers given by this FISA bill once he's in power, but the fact is that he WON'T. I'm not as pissed off about it as a lot of other people because I expected that he'd do something like this when I voted for him in the primaries. I think that people who are need to learn something about both human nature and the US political system.
July 14, 2008 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
clevomon, you said, "those in power never want to give it up"
Fortunately for the sake of our country, this nation was borne out of a contrary impulse. George Washington could have been Napoleon Bonaparte in America. But he wasn't, thank god.
Regarding Obama and FISA, for the sake of the Democratic party and what is left of the progressive movement in America, I hope that Obama understands how critical it is that he eschews the spying power that he has granting the present administration, because it is a political trap. Given the politicization of the Justice Department, is there really any doubt that sleeper cells of conservative ideologues are planted throughout the intel beaurocracy. Career people who would take Cheney's secrets to the grave will start leaking like a sieve and the cries for an independent counsel from the villagers will be deafening.
The charges may by relatively mild, but with the new spying powers looming in the background, something like Clinton's "Filegate" scandal could look like that watergate breakin. The Broderites who willfully ignored the Bush/Cheney power grab will be screaming about the tyranny of the executive. The cable talking heads who complained that this FISA stuff is byzantine inside baseball that nobody cares about will meticulously explain every detail of the Obama administration's culpability to the viewers. Republican authoritarians around the country will rediscover their libertarian streak and put stickers on their cars to sentimentalize loving ones country while simultaneously fearing ones government. The subsequent Sturm und Drang will leave average American with the energy sapping misapprehension that "they are all the same."
Bank it.
July 14, 2008 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Washington was, as they say, the exception that proves the rule. Show me 4 or 5 more Washingtons and I might begin to believe you that he represents an archetype and not a singularity. (But even Washington was not above amassing power when he felt it was power he needed to have.)
Sad day when we have to depend on the selective partisan outrage of the Republican Party to defend the Constitution. :-(
July 14, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
an explanation for his vote which was wholly insufficient. Obama's subsequent rationale for his vote on FISA didn't go anywhere near offering a compelling alternative to the only real reason to vote Yea on this bill, which was the appeasement of Republican framing of "national security" cred, despite the consequence of such framing being a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. this isn't just an area where progressives have the moral high ground; we have the entire field.
Obama's single vote on a single subject does not anger progressives, Obama's total lack of leadership against a patent abuse of core American principles does. few people will abstain from voting for him in November over this single vote, but it has in my view seriously dampened the progressive enthusiasm so vital to his ground game and outreach programs, which WILL cost him votes. and he has no-one to blame for these lost votes but himself.
July 13, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
My immediate previous post was directed to Roger Bigod, not Thrasymachus, with whom I agree. Sorry for the confusion.
July 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How much of this comes from certain Democrats being political stupid, myopic, etc. and how much comes from having an excessively individualistic relation to reality. Some Democrats really do seem to place themselves at the foundation of whatever values structure they have. In this regard, they are difficult to differentiate from the greediest people that the business world can produce. I guess the one difference is that greedy business people often end up with lots of money, and Democrats usually end up just whining because nothing else can quite live up to the high regard they have of themselves.
July 11, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe
Some Democrats really do seem to place themselves at the foundation of whatever values structure they have
The foundation of who I am is my progressive value system. I don’t think I invented it no more than I think I invented the truth that 2+2=4. The Progressive value system is at the foundation of what is right in the world period.
You want to be a post modern relativist, go to the Conservative side. They put little faith in rational thought there
Value "systems" are not up for grabs like flavors of ice cream. They are not preferences held by solitary individuals. They are at the foundation of civilized society.
Let me see if I get this straight
Because I believe that the right to privacy is fundamental, and because I believe that sexism is immoral and because I believe that lying is wrong, and because I believe that there should be an equitable distribution of social goods and because I believe that aggressive imperialism is wrong, I’m selfish?
And Because I share those beliefs with my fellow progressives I'm not better than Ivan Boskey?
Pettit you have certainly NOT taken a course in ethics or if you did you must have been asleep.
Progressives do not think everything revolves around them; just the opposite. They believe that EVERYONE should get a fair shake. It is the direct opposite of an Egoist. Progressives are Altruists.
There might be some progressive egoists out there I grant you that, but the Progressive Value System (PVS) is anything BUT egotistic and for you to say it is no better than greed is absurd Joe
July 12, 2008 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well, accurately and eloquently stated Andrew.
July 12, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew:
Whew! Since my house is running wild with kids from a sleepover and my wife just finished an unusual 17 hour shift in the ER and so needs sleep, I will simply limit myself to expressing regret that my words were not better chosen so as to prevent your erruption, and second to call your attention to the qualifier, "some."
July 12, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
sorry Joe. I'm known around these parts as a hardass.
I've penned hasty posts while not in the best of moods. So I fully understand
July 13, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell does that even mean? And how does it translate to some sort of obscene level of greed? And how does making such an accusation against one's fellow Democrats advance the goal of party unity? Because I think this unity thing needs to work as a two-way street, but the expectation seems to be that conciliation should all flow from one direction.
July 14, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda
Relax, we are Progressives. It is not in our DNA to follow anyone lockstep like the Republicans are wont to do.
Your Feminist friend was absolutely RIGHT in her diagnosis but wrong in her remedy. There is no question that Hillary bashing was going on everywhere including right here at TPM. Obama was the early anointed one. The fix was definitely in asnd you have had to be blind not to witness it as it unfolded.
Since we are people of principle we do not forget injustices. To forget injustices committed is a sin.
The quickest way towards tyranny is to keep forgetting injustices. The mantra "get over it" is poison to the righteous person.
The issue is what to do about it.
I will vote for Obama despite the fact that he ran a dirty campaign against Hillary. Politics is a dirty business.
But I will NOT lay off when it comes to substantive issues (i.e. non political matters).
We are NOT going to lose the election in November. Trust me. You are panicking. a forteriori he is not going to lose in November because we are holding him accountable now.
As I've been repeating ad nauseum, our job as voters is to make sure that our candidate will do what we want him to do when elected.
This is not a popularity contest. Frankly, Obama personally is way too slippery for me as a person but that's what makes him such an effective politician. A JFK he is not.
But I'm not into the cult of personalities so it does not matter.
I'm sorry to hear that you had such a bad experience with your feminist friend, but this election cycle has NOT been marred by undue identity politics at all. At least not yet.
I'm a man and I'm astounded to hear you say that the charge of Hillary Bashing by the media is overblown. But let's leave it at that.
You are suffering from the Progressive Jitters. What will Middle America say about our self examination (navel gazing as you call it)? They should look at it with gratitude that here we have a movement that is NOT all process and no content. So we are not robotic lockstep zombies like the Republicans. Thank God we are not!!!
To demand that we squelch our voices of disapproval when our candidate derails his own agenda --the agenda that attracted us to him to begin with—is demanding too much from us. He has nobody but himself to blame. It is HE that is confused not US.
WE demand to be an integral part of the Ruling Process. It is in the Constitution, look it up.
It will be HIM that will have to bend.
That is our form of government: Rule by the people through representation.
Obama has to represent US, not just factions of the powerful elite.
Again I leave open the possibility that perhaps Obama needed to vote that way for some undisclosed but valid reason. I doubt it, but it is possible.
That's why we the electorate need to be as well informed as possible. That's why we need to penetrate that inside-the-beltway information barrier as much as possible. That's why we rely on relatively free media such as TPM to keep us informed.
Jonathan Turley should get special thanks for keeping us abreast over at MSNBC as to what is happening to our constitutional rights. You should take that seriously.
Holding Obama accountable for his sharp shift to the right--not just in rhetoric but in actual official votes--is our duty as freedom loving progressives.
July 11, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go apply for your genius grant! Will you vote for McCain's Veep in 2016?!
July 14, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Andrew,
No. Because you believe these things you must do all in your power to ensure that John McCain is not the 44th President of the United States. If you think JFK was not "slippery", I suggest you go read a little history, or at least Google the words "missle gap". JFK was a politician, and a damn good one. So is Obama. Deal with it. Bullshit. The Democrats are fully capable of losing this election. They've screwed up before, and now they're running a young black man in an historically racist country against a white war hero with the full backing of the moneyed interests and the press corps. Americans have voted against their own best interests many times before and they still might do it this year. And that will spell the end of the American experiment.
What exactly do you think you are "holding Obama accountable" for? For one political calculation you didn't like on a vote that in practical terms hardly matters? For using the word "refine"? For Chris Matthews' divining some "tack to the right"?
I'm sorry, but FISA in the end makes little difference. No number of civil lawsuits will bring GWB and the national security state to heel. The death-by-a-thousand-cuts of the Constitution will continue apace until January, and if we as a nation fuck up this election McCain will only accelerate it.
Likewise, this perceived positioning during the campaign matters little. It tells us almost nothing about the government that will follow. The fundamentals are all that matter: One candidate seeks a U-turn on war, economic policy and Earthicide; the other wants to further accelerate along the present disastrous path. Those are the only choices.
Modern American elections are zero-sum binary affairs. They needn't be, but this one will be. The choice America will make over the next 4 months is stark and existential. The "holding accountable" phase starts in earnest November 5th. Until then we all need to row in the same direction lest the boat go over the falls.
July 14, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Granted, McCain is not an option. But what makes you think Obama is not also in line with the security state agenda? Is it hope, faith, a prayer, what is it that makes you reluctant to have an honest dialogue with Obama BEFORE the election? It seems to me you are much more of a risk taker than wisdom would allow. Nobody that I know in this neck of the woods is going to change his/her vote from Obama to McCain because we are expressing our disappointment on some of the positions he has taken.
Think for a second. McCain voted for FISA bill. So how is someone who is angry at Obama for voting for the FISA bill going to find solace in the McCain camp? You are not telling me how we here at TPM Cafe who are vocally expressing disapproval of OUR candidate Obama, are changing any votes in the hinterland. Something does not jive in your perception of the situation.
Mindless abject fealty is unhealthy.
I think many sophisticated people that I know who are independents and otherwise undecided are PUT OFF by what they perceive as the Obama camp’s whiff of cultism which it actively promotes.
It is quite possible that these Obamanoid posters that have appeared here at TPM might (just might) be Republican operatives trying to sow DIS-unity among Democrats. Just a thought. Very sophisticated techniques are being used by Republicans and you cannot discount the possibility.
They don’t seem to be people that are on the level since ALLTHEY EVER POST ABOUT IS HOW WONDERFUL OBAMA IS AND HOW DISLOYAL ANYONE WHO QUESTIONS ANY OF HIS ACTIONS IS. That’s not the behavior of a normal disputant. It smacks of organized disruption to me.
July 14, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Mindless fealty"..."Obamanoid"..."hope, prayer" blah blah blah.
I'm getting a bit tired of all the Jim Jones analogies. Whenever anyone makes an argument that may place them closer to Obama than you, you (and many others) spew out this internalized right-wing/Clintonite noise and pretend it bears some kind of resemblance to a counter-argument.
Oh, and apparently I'm a right-wing troll as well as a koolaid drinker. Touchee!
You may have noticed I referred to Obama as a politician, and to some of his decisions as calculated. I also pointed out that this places him squarely in the tradition of Saint JFK and every other president or serious candidate in our history.
I thought the Obama's FISA vote was a mistake, possibly even politically. I also happen to think that both the bill's practical import and Obama's ability to materially affect the outcome have been overstated.
Do I know exactly how Obama would handle the security state? No. I do know that he is less vested in the the status quo of that system than any candidate in a while, and certainly less so than, say, Sen. McCain (or Sen. Reid or Sen. Rockefeller). I also know that he has prominently and repeatedly pledged to restore respect for the Constitution, reduce secrecy, end torture, close Guantanomo, and, er, what was that other thing, oh yeah, end the war. Those pledges won't be worth much more a year from now than a losing vote on FISA, except that they provide potentially crucial political leverage for citizens paying the price of eternal vigilance. At present that's the best we can hope for. Of course electing Obama is a risk. I think it's a worthwhile one, or at least the worthiest one left. Strangely, you seem to agree with me on that.
Again I ask what "accountability" you seek? What political price do you seek to exact? The only real price that can be exacted from him at the moment is to decrease his chance of becoming President (and to correspondingly increase McCain's). You won't withhold your vote, so I assume you mean to deny him your money and/or time, or just to feed the latest Anti-Obama narrative.
And simultaneously you seek to deny your own power to exact any real price, asserting that his election is somehow a God-given inevitability. It isn't. "This neck of the woods" won't be enough to elect a President. People in this neck of the woods will need to work in whatever way they can to help Obama win enough votes in the "hinterlands." It ain't going to be easy. Just click on any of the news links here and read the comments there.
I am neither a cultist nor some right wing superspy. I do not think Obama is the Messiah. Actually, I'm glad he isn't, because the Messiah could never be elected President of the United States. I do quite sincerely believe, however, that for the future of our Republic and of our planet it is imperative that Obama is elected President. Whether he's elected by cultists, nose-holders, or coin-flippers I don't much care; but I'm going to try and help make it happen. I hope you will too.
July 15, 2008 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
"black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government"
Could you BE any more racist?
July 11, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She wasn't trying to be racist, but it certainly reads that way. I don't think there are a whole lot of white people who would disagree with her through. Racism is so infused in our thinking that it often comes out without the slightest racist intention on the prt of the person asserting the racist sentiment.
On the other hand, what her feminist friend said was blatantly, intentionally and obviously racist when she refered to Obama as unqualified and that he couldn't win. Kinda proves what many said during the nomination process and reveals a very ugly side of a slice of the feminist world. It is very galling to see the sense of entitlement some white women have about who is owed things like the Presidency. It is always hard for a some of us to really accept the notion that highly educated, professional, priveleged, often quite wealthy, white women who claim the title of feminist are much of an agrieved class of person in this society given the other categories of unquestionably agrieved people we have on hand. It often seems they are focused on themselves as opposed to the average or poverty stricken woman who really is living in an oppressive environment.
July 13, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, I disagree. I don't know what right wing radio Kinsley is listening to, but what I have listened to, I don't hear much "rallying the troops" for McCain. Sure, they attack Obama, they attack all "liberals" and even include McCain as one sometimes. I hear them drawing a picture of McCain as a "lesser evil." The conservative talk radio I've sampled recently (Limbaugh, Savage) sounds demoralized to me, trying to talk the troops into trying to push McCain rightward to protect "conservative principles" while this horror of two liberals running is going on. (Hannity not so much, he usually goes the Fox/Murdoch line of supporting the party.)
Here's Michael Savage's plan for America, things he carps on in every show:
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/?pageId=404
Need I say that this is mostly not only stuff in McCain's platform but is not in the GOP platform either?
McCain still gives Anne Coulter conniptions. Right now she's busy praising Jesse Helms' legacy. On July 8 she posted on her blog
"What Election Night Looks Like When We Run a Right-Winger - You Tube: Nov 6 1984 The 84 Vote Part 1" and on July 3 she posted this:
On July 1 she posted this:
Want more? Every single night on CNN, Lou Dobbs blasts both parties on immigration, security and the economy and gets plenty of audience dittohead interaction.
Over at freerepublic.com, there are quite a few that are upset that McCain threw Phil Gramm under the bus or, alternately, would like to throw McCain under the bus for not attacking "Barry" enough instead of "his own people":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043584/posts
Ask most tried and true classic conservative GOP what they think of "No Child Left Behind," the Federal government getting involved in public education.
There's an art to pandering or not to the left wing and right wing special interests. Karl Rove perfected the art of getting the conservative fundamentalist Christians to shut up by promising them stuff, getting them out to vote on that stuff in important districts, and then Bush selling them out on those promises later, even dissing them in private phone calls later leaked. So much so that some of them are tired of it and looking at Obama this time.
But many other tried and true conservatives simply hate Obama much more than they hate McCain, they do hate both though.
That the GOP has a magical unity pony is a myth, they have had to juggle many very vocal special interests to get the squeaker presidential wins since Reagan and get just enough of those swings and independents in the right places to do the job.
Big tent is the reality in a two-party system, not unity pony--get as many special interests to tolerate you as possible. Remember, both George Bush's were sold as being kinder and gentler Republicans, and in 2000 Bush was the anti-nation building isolationist who only wanted to make deals with Mexico.
July 11, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ artappraiser
At Free Republic he's often described as "the cadaver". I don't think that's a term of endearment.
July 11, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I used to be a fan of Kinsley in the old days when he wrote for SLATE. Even before that when he appeared on the Bill Buckley Show Firing Line as the "liberal" voice.
I finally came to the conclusion that Mr. Kinsley strives to achieve a recherché effect in his writings rather than expressing any deep convictions of any sort. Sort of like George Will to some extent and David Brooks in a different way and I would throw in Maureen Dowd in that crowd. What motivates them is to be provocative rather than to express any firmly held views. That's why they can as easily shoot missives from the left and turn around and shoot missives from the right. Some have called it the Radical Middle and that might be. There might be a zone of uncertainty in which you can flip one way or the other, so I'm not totally dismissive of these writers, but I suspect rather than being uncertain, they have a need to be provocative.
July 13, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry you feel that way, Theda. Posts about party and message discipline always leave me cold. My message is, as always, my own and as far as party discipline goes -- should the party be disciplining me or should I be disciplining the party?
Rather than lament that some in the party complain about how Clinton was treated, the party should be doing something to make sure that it never happens again. So far, not a peep on that front.
Rather than complain that some of us in the party are angry about Obama's FISA vote, you should encourage the party to understand and respond to our quite legitimate anger.
If you want the fire to be directed outward then you have to get the party and the candidates that we chose to stop ticking off its base.
And why is it always the people arguing your side who claim the mantle of "practical realism?" What a laugh. The "practical realists" don't have any sort of stellar electoral record. They've brought us only losses with compromises.
July 12, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posts about party and message discipline always leave me cold. My message is, as always, my own and as far as party discipline goes -- should the party be disciplining me or should I be disciplining the party?
Because, destor, you always want the conversation to be about you.
In one sentence above you referenced yourself four times using three different pronouns.
July 12, 2008 1:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's true, I'm teh awesum!
July 12, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL...I was actually waiting for a "Nature Boy";
"WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"
:)
July 12, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor is the customer, Obama is the public servant. Why is this relationship always expressed backwards?
July 14, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My dear friend Douglas
Here is the news: IT IS ALWAYS about you in the end, isn't it? What you feel is right, what you think is true, what you feel ashamed of and what you feel proud about yourself. Yes my dear Douglas that it is all about ourselves in the end is a fact of life. ( the heart is a lonely hunter). That does not mean that we cannot reach out and form bonds with others , something you might want to give a try at. But note even when you reach out to form bonds with others it is YOU who finds a need to do so. How many times someone uses the personal pronoun is not indicative of narcissism but not listening to other voices; not interacting with them in a fruitful way, coming here day after day with your monotone predictable Obama boosting platitudes IS a sign of narcissism in my book. It is certainly not a sign of a willingness to interact with others and possibly have your mind changed.
July 14, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have the same question for all the libertine progressives. It is the same one I asked the Nader supporters. What about the Supreme Court and other federal judiciary appointments?
If you cannot figure out that we will probably have two more vacancies during the next presidential term and that McCain has vowed to appoint more like Alito, Roberts and Scalia, then you are not paying attention and don't understand the decades long implications of this.
There are a number of other issues like the environment and declaring wars, but that is all stamped and approved through the judiciary.
Okay Dems, let's see if we can shoot both feet with one bullet at once.
July 13, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only place McCain is going is to a retirement villa you fool.
July 13, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain to the retirement villa was droll. The "you fool" tag? Living up to a rep or something? So maybe the commenter made an obvious point about the Court, or maybe the Court's not as important as some think. But why call someone a fool who's just trying to get his two cents in? Seems unfriendly.
July 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was not intended as literal. I thought the context made it obvious. The whole long thread here has been a discussion between the handwringers who think that any critical appraisal of Obama will cost us the election and those of us who think that worry is unsubstantiated. It looks by all indications that Obama will win the election quite handily.
If "you fool" has been taken literally, I apologize.
July 14, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand. I've been puzzled by the anxiety myself.
July 14, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
NURSE THAT ANGER!! That's what matters most! You have been WRONGED!!
Is it too early for you to say whether you will back McCain's Veep as candicate in 2016?
July 14, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
perhaps your idiotic mccain supporter accusations ought to be reserved for someone, anyone, who has actually expressed support for mccain. but then i guess you'd have nothing to add to the conversation if you were constrained by logic and accuracy.
July 16, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
this is why you are my favorite poster here at tpm destor.
i think part of the acrimony here is that the party unity/discipline camp don't know or understand who it is they're talking to here. they leapfrog right over what makes independent voters independents and what makes disaffected voters disaffected. they only see the world through their own eyes as party loyalists.
they start from a point of imagining that 'we' (us and them) are all big D Democrats who understand (or ought to understand) that 'we' must save the country and the world from republicans.
but many of the voters (or possible non-voters) they are talking about (or down to) believe that the party needs to save itself before it can so arrogantly expect these voters (or possible non-voters) to work for the party.
if obama's FISA vote hurts his chances of beating mccain, the blame belongs squarely on obama, not on the people obama pissed off. (and i would add that anyone who isn't pissed off about obama's FISA vote doesn't share my core values* so i'm not sure why they would imagine i should belong to and work for the same party in the first place.)
this is about obama pushing folks like me out of the tent so i'd appreciate it if these folks would stop accusing folks like me of trying to burn the tent down from the inside.
*and to be clear, the FISA vote is about core values, not a 'single issue' or a 'single vote' as so many so inaccurately try to frame this. if the bill of rights, the rule of law, privacy, and executive over-reach can all be lumped together and dismissed as a single-issue, we should ALL be single-issue voters.
July 16, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only consolation for the incredible stupidity of many "progressive" Democrats I see in the responses to this post (other than the even more staggeringly asinine, bilious drivel constantly put up by pathetic losers like "offensivetoyou") is that the Republicans are so much worse as human beings.
That said, they seem to have grasped a basic truth that eludes many Democrats to this day: Winning gives us much more of a chance to effect some meaningful progress than "losing pure" ever will.
July 12, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, your friend appears to be a part of a small minority;
Greg Sargent quoting the new Newsweek poll:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/poll_race_tightens_majority_sa.php
And, judging from what you say about her, I can't see how her someone like her publicly supporting Obama would help him get the votes he needs that are reflected in that poll. If she's voting in a solid blue state, she's safe voting protest in the privacy of the voting booth. And heck, her bad mouthing Obama in public might even win him some swing votes, who knows. Do you think those swinging between the two candidates and the other undecideds really give a hoot what liberal bloggers and pundits on MSNBC are saying? What good would her vocal support be, electoral-college-wise? It's no longer a primary, former red states are the goal.
Really, the more I think on it, the more I think that party solidarity does not win presidential elections. Where party solidarity factors in more heavily is in mid-terms, where the voters are more likely to be party loyalists. Moderates and swings make presidents because that's where you have big turnout and see roughly 1/3 of the country overall liberal and 1/3 overall conservative and the rest vote according to "to hell with party affiliation, I like this guy" or "time for a swticheroo, the other side has had power too long."
July 12, 2008 2:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or, in the present instance, voters jumping in for the first time. Someone voting Democratic for the first time is hardly part of the "Party." The surge in Democratic registrations in Florida is very interesting and supports your point. If Obama wins Florida, it won't be because of Party unity. It will be because enough new voters threw their votes to Obama, not to the Democratic Party.
July 13, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
"the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government"
What a rather hideous and revealing statement. I find it quite laughable when people very far removed from the circumstances of others lives-a well to do professor heaping scorn on someone she hardly knows in this case-make such categorical statements.
Well, beyond the clear implication that Theda thinks that blacks are poorer parents than other groups, she ignores the entire body of literature on why illegitimacy or 'bad parenting,' as she might render it, is so pronounced.
Could it possibly the extremely small social safety net combined with intense, policy-driven concentrated poverty that afflicts black neighborhoods? Should we address that?
The hideous part about this is that illegitimacy and parental breakdowns exist throughout America-regardless of race. As we see across all cohorts, parenting woes, divorce, and illegitimacy increase with poverty.
Since blacks have borne the brunt of economic dislocation, neighborhood segregation, and government disinvestment far greater than any group, it is little surprise that illegitimacy is higher.
But somehow this is all lost of Theda and she insists that poor blacks just need to get along and be 'better' parents. Quit all the griping about resources and such, just do it already!
If this is the message we are supposed to rally around, which Bill Clinton did as President, we need to find better spokesmen--and Im not talking about Obama.
July 12, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's right to Jesse Jackson's point about Obama's moralizing, isn't it? But something interesting is going on. The right wing immediately jumped on Jackson as representing the politics of "victimization." It's been a long climb up a steep hill. I think the MSM and the culture the MSM represents, as well as the Progressive blogosphere, have decided to own Obama. It's obvious which culture Obama has decided to serve.
July 13, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
k-town,
What part of "as well as" don't you understand?
Obama has made the same sort of parental-responsibility admonishments to white audiences constantly. Call it irrelevant preaching if you wish; obviously it has little to do with government policy. But nowhere does Theda say that all is peachy-keen with respect to government policy or societal conditions. And nowhere does she or Obama say that only blacks need to be good parents, or that blacks are better or worse parents than whites. This sort of knee-jerk cry of "OMG RACIST!!!" every time race is so much as mentioned finds its mirror in right-wing claims that affirmative action is the equivalent of racial profiling.
July 14, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please. "the common-sense notion that black people might have to be good parents as well as expect help from government" clearly implies that black people expect help from government and are not good parents. "As well" simply means "in addition to." To me, the phrase suggests black people haven't been doing their part. They've been relying on government. But why argue about that? Isn't the real issue whether or not Obama's comments about black parents are pandering to a white audience? Jackson seems to think so.
July 14, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Leftists fall in love, conservatives fall in line and liberals think for ourselves.
July 12, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that another genius grant application in the making? Think for yourself, then? Gonna vote Nader again? Let McCain nominate the Supreme Court Justices and the outcome be damned? Genius grant time?
July 14, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me something, Johnny. Which Supreme Court decision affected you the most personally? I took a lot of them personally, but I'm not sure any in my lifetime have affected me directly or indirectly. That's not to say that they haven't affected me, just that I don't go around with the conscious thought that this decision or that decision had a profound impact on my life. You?
July 14, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, many of them affect many of us. Koramatsu would have been a big drag if I were an American of Japanese decent during the war. The 4th Amendment is pretty much out the window thanks to Scalia and co., so if I get arrested (hope not), I'll be up the creek and it sure won't have anything to do with FISA.
What directly affected me personally is this: years ago my girlfriend got pregnant by me even though she was using a diaphragm with spermicidal jelly. She was guaranteed able to have a legal abortion because of Roe v. Wade. Neither of us wanted an abortion, but we were poor, in school, and the idea of fathering a child was just ludicrous. So I was glad we had rights and that she did in particular, although to this day I regret the abortion as a painful personal chapter. So I am answering your question; please no moral preaching or take it to another site.
July 14, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Theda:
This comment, respectfully, strike that, with all due respect, is consistent with other comments I have made to you about your role in this campaign, at least in the Cafe neighborhood. FWIW, as I saw it as a Hillary Clinton supporter, you were as guilty as anyone in fostering divisiveness among progressives around here. Indeed, your concern about disunity reminds me of the proverbial child who is brought before the court, having murdered his parents, and now pleads with the judge to show mercy on an orphan.
Real Democrats, real progressives, we little folks, are now supporting Senator Obama regardless of what folks like you wrote. But give me a break Theda. You sowed division with all deliberate hate. I have deep respect for many of the commenters on this thread who compliment you, folks like Libertine with whom I have debates on an off, and I apologize to folks like him for writing this. But I have no apologies to you Theda. You were despicable during the primaries.
Maybe you were dissed by the Clintons in the 90s Theda, but do progressives a favor and keep it to yourself. If your cause is unity, my recommendation is keep your pen in its holster until the campaign is over.
Finally, you ask if progressives can be unified. Yes we can Theda, and I have no doubt we will. Next Saturday night, TPM folks around the country, former Hillary supporters and Obama supporters will join together at fundraisers for Senator Obama. I will be there with check in hand. We know what needs to be done and we will do it. But I don't think we do it with folks like you or with the folks on the other hatred exreme at PUMA. Peddle your wares elsewhere.
July 12, 2008 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. I do not mean to suggest that folks who cannot support a candidate because of principled positions on issues like FISA, abortion, or whatevr, are unable to support a candidate. I was an unapologetic and ardent supporter of Senator Clinton, but I also was consistent in stating that I could understand and respect any progressive who could not support Clinton because of her Iraq vote. If there are folks out there who cannot forgive Senator Obama for his flip on FISA or some other position change, I respectfully ask them to look beyond that to a broader picture, but it would be presumptuous of me to show disrespect for those who must stand on principle regardless of the consequences. I will only remind them that Senator Obama, for any number of reasons, will be more accountable to core progressive concerns than Senator McCain would ever be.
July 12, 2008 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
First sentence should read:
"I do not mean to suggest that folks who cannot support a candidate because of principled positions on issues like FISA, abortion, or whatever, should not be respected".
July 12, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great posts, Bruce.
And it's good of you to point out the irony of Theda asking for party unity now that she got her preferred nominee. During the primaries she kept posting that she wanted the superdelegates to step in and end the election. Seems like party unity isn't really as important to her as Theda Skocpol unity.
Back slowly away from the election, folks. So long as Theda gets exactly what she wants, nobody will get hurt.
July 12, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with Bob Schieffer's comment on Face The Nation this morning. Bob suggested both candidates and all surrogates STFU until after the conventions. Be too much to hope bloggers will also take the hint.
July 13, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats who voted for FISA;
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Pryor (D-AR)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
July 12, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pretty much the usual suspects now joined by Obama and his v.p. wannabes.
July 12, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that among you are mathematicians who could come up with complicated equations about the value of all these single issues, as well as their collective value when added to, or subtracted from, multiplied or divided by each other. And depending on your personal passions, your equation would look absolutely right or wrong to others. My own equation is simpler than that: McCain+Presidency=Supreme Court Sabotage of every single issue any one of us cares about.
Conclusion? We do not have a president to elect as much as we have a Supreme Court to appoint.
July 12, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only quasi mathematical equation dealing with words rather than numbers I can think of (and it dates me of course) is
"The love you take = The love you make"__ John Lennon?
Rhymes too
July 13, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was Paul's.
July 14, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Back to the thread topic about uniting progressives -- I've never really understood what a progressive is. I know what a liberal is. A liberal is Ted Kennedy, Tom Harkin, Paul Wellstone, etc. I could unite with any of those guys. But ever since these "progressives" showed up I'm never sure where I'm at. I know I cannot unite with the DLC because I figure the DLC has pretty much been out to do as much damage to liberals as it has to conservatives. To DLC types, "liberal" has become a 4 letter word.
Seems to me "progressive" is a catch all word that's supposed to cover Kennedy through Lieberman and it just doesn't do it for me. I don't trust the word. I don't know what I'm buying. That is certainly one reason I've so quickly become sceptical of Obama. I don't know what I'm getting.
July 12, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bluebell, I am also very disappointed in Obama, but I learned what I would be getting with him more than a year ago. I learned this by extensive reading of his position papers on his website, back when I was trying very hard to come up with good, brief, catchy things to put on pro-Obama leaflets to hand out.
What I learned back then was that he was not nearly as liberal as his ardent supporters around me believed him to be. And, I began to understand why so many of those ardent supporters were formerly Republcans. My enthusiasm for Obama began to wane as I studied his positions.
Eventually I withdrew from any campaign activities, because I lacked the enthusiasm for him to continue. This lack of enthusiasm was pushed along by what I perceived as his lukewarm attitude towards campaign finance rules.
I have never opposed him. In fact when I dropped out I gave all of the Obama campaign materials I had purchased to other supporters for their use. I still don't oppose him. I just lack enthusiasm for him.
It appears to me that those who lament his move to the center (where he always was) are just learning what I learned much later than I did.
Come November we will have to decide if our country can live through another 4 years of neocon administration, filled with criminality, without leadership, focused entirely on stealing the US treasury and acting like belligerent teenaged boys. If we think it can't survive that, as I do, we will all vote for Obama, as I will. There is no other choice. Sending messages didn't work in 2000 and it wouldn't work this year.
July 12, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you are a smarter guy than I am hoppy, but I had that hope thing going for awhile. I've just come to believe that we're not doing much more than enabling the "fascists" and that's not really too strong a word when you consider that they want a corporately controlled war for profit police state. I just don't see how voting for a guy who cast a signature vote for one of the favorite weapons of fascism, warrantless searches, is improving the situation. I haven't completely made up my mind. The vp choice may tell me something. But I'm definitely in the undecided column now.
July 12, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen. I also have a problem with the whole "progressive" label.
Either these are people who are too embarrassed to be liberals, or they are some weird subset group like libertarians.
In any case, as an old-time "bleeding heart liberal", I am not so sure that I want to even have much to do with these "progressives" let alone join them in unity...
July 12, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, guilty as charged. I also consider myself a liberal and have been plagued with this tendency to use progressive. I pledge to stop. Of course, the definition remains fungible, but I am a proud liberal IMO if Ted Kennedy is the benchmark. I think he votes the way I would think a liberal should vote, on both domestic and international issues (which is different than lots of left of center folks around here would vote by the way and that's why it becomes so hard to pinpoint). But if Ted Kennedy is a liberal, then so too am I.
July 12, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you are saying bluebell.
But I refer to myself as a progressive and will continue to do so. I call myself that because I feel I am politically to the left of what is considered liberal in today's day and age. I guess somewhere between 'liberal' and 'socialist' trending more towards socialism. Probably more like a 60's counterculture liberal. I have rejected 'liberal' as a descriptor because I have found that many so-called liberals have as much in common with me as they do with the conservatives (re: see the DLC). As far as I am concerned the last 2 'progressives' in the Senate were the late Paul Wellstone and the only current one, Bernie Sanders.
But if others feel a mistrust of me because I chose not to call myself a 'liberal' (in one of the many different flavors) so be it...nothing I can/will do about that. But I will continue to support democratic political candidates.
July 12, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, others have had a problem with the corruption of the liberal label, too.
"The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism."
http://www.cato.org/about.php
If you didn't know that came from the Cato Institute, you'd think it described the Republican Party before the neo-con takeover.
The Progressive label on the other hand has managed to mean pretty much the same thing for a hundred years or so.
July 14, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama did write a response to people concerned about FISA, explaining his decision on the final bill."
As in 'shut up, he explained'. He noted that the FISA bill he voted for was better than the last one, but that's irrelevant. That bill had a time limit and the result of voting this one down would have been the previous arrangement with the FISA court. He outright lied in claiming the court still has control of wiretapping. The present one allows warrentless wiretapping.
He has a very skimpy record of accomplishment. Support for him is necessarily based on trust and hope. He's made the calculation to screw over people who care about Constitution because he'll get donations and support from other sources. If this state looks close, I'll vote for him. But I doubt there's going to be any difference in the composition of the SC, the Iraq timetable or incomes distribution because of his election.
July 12, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bigod: "I doubt there's going to be any difference in the composition of the SC"
NOW THAT'S BOLD! So, you think then, and please tell me what I've got wrong, that Obama would nominate to the right wing Court the same people that McCain would? That is, as McCain has said, Scalia, Alito, Roberts types?
July 14, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
My last comment was in response to Bluebell's earlier comment. Man, this software is terrible!
July 12, 2008 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink